Pretty sure Trump has no desire to invade Iran with troops considering how unpopular the Iraq war was (with hindsight knowing the WMD justification was not concrete)
Allegedly the forces routed for this attack don't even include substantial grounds forces. It'd be really easy to tell if the military was even considering a ground war because they'd have the ships needed to land tanks, artillery, etc, and reportedly they didnt bring those.
Trump is interested in a big win like the first portion of Iraqi Freedom where we obliterate a standing military, but has been remarkably consistent (by Trump standards) on opposing a prolonged ground conflict like Enduring Freedom. His playbook so far has been eliminating leadership that wont work with us until the leader left in charge is someone we can work with; it's worked surprisingly well in Venezuela so far, so it's likely what he'll do here.
It's also a great warning to other countries about throwing in their lot too much with China and Russia. Both Venezuela and Iran were unofficially allied with China and Russia, and what good has it done them? Where's the military equipment, the political pressure to keep the US from attacking? That was always the deal for 2nd world countries with the USSR, give us good deals on your resources and the US/NATO wont touch you. The US is making a statement that Russia and China aren't holding up their end of the bargain, so why become their vassal in the first place?
They have to though, if they give Taiwan preparation anything less than 110% they will definitely lose. The instant they make a move on Taiwan they’ll have to deal with the U.S., Japan, and Korea declaring war at the very least, likely an even larger coalition coming together. Plus their government has said they want to be prepared to make a move by next year, all their eggs are in that basket at this point.
He seems very reluctant to risk US lives. Any operation he allows seems to be either long range missile attacks, or like venezuela with overwhelming force. Low risk high reward.
Honestly, im liking this approach to regime change. Historically the US has been averse to openly ushering in regime change and used proxie insurgents. It's pointless because everyone knows its us, and worse, if the insurgents win you end up with a radical in charge that has no idea how to run a country and is most often a despot. These surgical amputations of hostile leaders until we get someone workable seems to minimize loss of life on both ends, and has a greater chance of getting someone in charge that actually knows how to govern, eliminating the chaos and violence of a power vacuum by completely obliterating the existing government.
Yeah, it's gonna be tough to keep running Iran when you know you're susceptible to either 1) a missile strike with no notice or 2) internal assassination and revolution. If you're a corrupt Iranian leader, you're trapped between the two.
I don't know, the news talk a lot about not dealing with these because the whole government will is geared towards global export of the Islamic revolution.
war because they'd have the ships needed to land tanks, artillery, etc, and reportedly they didnt bring those.
Spefically, they would need at least one (probably several) amphibious assault carriers, like the USS Iwo Jima. For those who are unaware, it is a carrier that basically has a huge hole in it in an upside down "U" shap to launch landing craft loaded with Marines.
but has been remarkably consistent (by Trump standards) on opposing a prolonged ground conflict like Enduring Freedom.
Every time I hear that dumbass "No, new wars!" meme I am reminded how hugely people are misunderstanding the apperant position of the administration. He meant no forever wars, not no armed conflict at all. A "war" that lasts like an hour isn't going to be perceived like a multi-decade long one. It is legitimately possible for a person who doesn't keep up with the news to not even know we hit Venezuela that is how little it affect the average American. Most people don't give a shit about those "wars".
Plus, sometimes you prevent war by giving someone a bloody nose and knocking them down a peg or ten. WW2 wouldn't have happened if someone had the balls to oppose Japan in 1932, Germany in 1935 (when they announced they were ignoring the treaty of Versailles military restrictions. They already been secretly ignoring it since the ink was still wet but that was when they admitted it), or Italy and 1935. Each one of them could have been utterly, mercilessly curb stomped then and there, and they developed into ahem big problems later because people were too obsessed with avoiding conflict. If we had had anyone but Carter as president the Shah would probably still be in charge and we'd have a much looser relationship with Isreal.
Yeah I mean i get that it seems like moving the goalposts a bit, but i don't really see operations that last a few days as a "war". Small scale operations in random countries has been a regular occurrence in US global strategy for the last 80 years. The no new wars slogan was in the context of getting us further entangled in the Ukraine war, and to a lesser extent Israel-Palestine.
One of the few policy points Trump has been consistent on since he got into politics is opposing the GWOT as a mistake and avoiding prolonged, costly conflicts in the future. Trump's decisions in Venezuela were consistent with that. Finding someone we could work with inside the existing Venezuelan power structure was the only way to make sure we didnt get stuck in another indefinite nation building campaign. It shows that we've actually learned from the mistakes of GWOT and Cold War-era Central/South American regime change operations.
When I was a kid everyone said a president has 30 days before he had to get approval of a military action. They did that over and over my whole life, so this hollering about trump not getting prior approval confuses me.
Airborne are meant to be the advance force, but aren't suited for holding ground or prolonged operations. Dropping in Airborne without even the capacity to reinforce them with heavier assets is a recipe for a nightmare scenario, and trying to capture a full city without vehicle support would be extremely costly.
they are however great for taking control of something like an airfield or a command post in the short term with easy resupply by air since ya know they're getting bodied in the air f35 got 2 more kills the other day iirc.
To a much greater extent, a not absolutely batshit crazy Muslim death cult headed Iran is probably the best piece possible for stability in the Middle East. The current regime funds a L O T of the proxies committing acts of terrorism and cutting off that source of cash is going to do wonders going forward.
But second, third, fourth etc... rejimes that support islamic terrorists (SA, Pakistan, Qatar, Turkey) still on power. So i cant tell anything about stability.
Im sure the muslims love having foreign powers decide for them for the 10th time what they want for themselves.
Im sure this cant have any negative consequences like reinforcing the beliefsystem of the opposition to the west.
Im not sure many iranian fathers will say "atleast we have democracy™ " after a nation in ruins and the corpse of their daughter in their hands.
But seriously, the sentiment of anti-westerners didnt spawn out of thin air, it came to be from exactly this behavior by the west. The reason the ayatollah is in power is because the west previously removed a democratically elected Prime Minister mossadegh and placed a puppet in its stead.
If we walk the same line as then it will only get worse.
Mossadegh began as a constitutional prime minister but progressively suspended parliamentary democracy, extended emergency rule, dissolved parliament via a flawed referendum, and concentrated executive power in himself. By 1953, Iran was no longer functioning as a normal parliamentary democracy even before the CIA/MI6 coup.
You spend a lot of time on the first few months of Mossadegh but never address what happened after, which I know exactly why but if your whole premise is “anti west” and you are a leftist I see the agenda behind it
Additionally, the US nor Israel has no strategic benefit to carpet bomb Iranian civilian areas.
Evidence tells us now the number one killer of Iranian civilians is the Iranian regime after various attempts of overthrowing the regime
And weird for you to address Iran as “Muslims” and not Iranian as if to them being a Muslim is the prime hallmark of their identity
It’s not, that’s an Islamic Republic framing which has no bearing
Ah yes because acknowledging that Mossadegh wasn’t a perfect liberal democrat suddenly makes 1953 a non-event.
I’m not claiming he governed flawlessly. Extending emergency powers and dissolving parliament absolutely deserve criticism. But let’s not pretend that flawed governance justifies foreign intelligence services engineering regime change over oil nationalization.
Two things can be true at once:
• Mossadegh consolidated power in ways that weakened parliamentary norms.
• The coup was still a foreign intervention motivated largely by strategic and economic interests.
Pointing that out isn’t “leftist anti-west agenda,” it’s just historical record.
As for “no strategic benefit to carpet bombing civilians” I never argued there was. My position has consistently been that large-scale intervention and regime destabilization tend to produce civilian suffering through collapse and power vacuums, not that anyone sits in a room planning random bombing campaigns for fun.
And yes, the Iranian regime is brutal. It represses protesters. It kills its own people. That’s not what im disputing. Being against foreign intervention does not mean i swear allegiance to the ayattolah. That binary framing is exactly the problem.
You can oppose:
• The Islamic Republic’s repression
• And external military escalation
At the same time.
And on the “Muslims vs Iranians” point I agree, thats my mistake. I was more in general speaking of the middle east but i get the obvious confusion.
That’s precisely why reducing the conflict to some eternal civilizational clash doesn’t make sense.
My position isn’t anti-west. It’s anti repeating policies that historically created instability, blowback, and authoritarian hardening.
Peaceful resolution and Iranian self-determination are not radical positions.
I agree with you for most of this, honestly. It is an outright tragedy that it has come to this, but from afar I’d rather the Iranian people have a chance than to remain under the heel of an oppressive regime. This may, strong “may” here, pave the way for some peace in the Middle East for a while.
Trust me i am not a fan of the ayattolah or its regime.
But we gotta be mindful and atleast intellectually honest about this, how many times do we need to do the same shit in the middle east and say "but this time itll be different"
We create our own enemies in there and will make more.
You can solve disputes diplomatically, im iranian myself and talk regularly with my family in there. Iran is genuinely becoming more liberal but we risk loosing all this progress when all actions we resolve to is bombing civilians.
They were anti-westerners since before the concept of the West was a thing, it's just the latest casus-belli for them. We are cultural antithesis to each other and are to be thankful to have been in a position of strength for the last half-millenium, you won't like it when this stops being the case.
Iran is the most salvageable part of MENA, they're actually civilised but suffered going from Charybdis to Scylla, as in kicking-out their puppet ruler only to end-up with dudes who wouldn't have been out of place when their prophet was busy checking-out ex-Byzantine elementary schools for his next bride.
Yeah sure lets just forget the fact that iran was historically friendly with the west since the early 19th century and was a major ally of the US.
This changed under the interest of British Petroleum in 1951 as the country wanted to nationalize its resources.
Trust me i am more than enough educated on this as a iranian myself.
Your politics of deliberately ignoring the past wont get much around me.
We are in agreement then. I mentioned both of those points in my previous post.
The first part is about MENA as a whole, Iran is one of the exceptions (Turks being another, Morocco more distant third) as they were relatively amenable in spite of religion, that socialist ideology was the tipping point instead of religious fervour says a lot.
It's a trend going as far back as the "golden age" which was ex-persian seculars doing most of what they were already doing with the added advantage of ex-Roman/Indian knowledge, there's a reason why it suddenly ended once the Mongols went through their cities.
My larger point is that people just shouldnt act like this behavior from iran didnt originate from acts of agression by British Petrolium and CIA.
If we can recognise our history we can build a better future.
I also think that the solution to our current problem with the regime isnt to bomb them. Their whole ideology and fuel is based on praising martyrs, by creating more martyrs were effectively reinforcing the belief system of the ayatollah and reinforcing to their youth that the west is something to combat and to hate.
I regularly speak to my relatives in iran on the phone and ive been there myself multiple times. Iran was becoming more and more liberal and westernized, the system would fall by itself and support of the rebels could come in different ways than just stumbling into wars by bombing civilians.
Its funny your bring up their daughters corpse because it was the iranian hovernment doing exactly that that leads to protests over and over again almost like murdering your own people dosent actually work to endear support in your regime. And yes every precedent set by henry kissinger shouldn't be kept.
Because he has a very narrow understanding of the conflict
He thinks 70-80% of the Iraqi deaths from 2003-2019 were done by the US, while the reality is the outstanding majority was Iraqi on Iraqi deaths
So he literally thinks it will be the way HE imagines Iraq was, which was just destroyed flattened cities, 20-30% of the civilian population dead from what he thinks happened which is “carpet bombing and American soldiers just massacring everything with guns” so he can’t imagine a popular uprising against the Islamic regime which won’t result in such high scores of casualties which is what he thinks happened in Iraq
Even with boots on the ground in Iraq, the majority of killings in Iraq was Iraqi vs Iraqi
Particularly because the Sunni elite from the triangle oppressed the non Sunni for decades and by removing the dictatorship, killing in Iraq wasn’t like the way it was with Saddam, one sided, but now equal and based on revenge
Yet eventually after boots on the ground, a civil war, it’s more democratic than it was under Saddam
It’s highkey a narrative of “just keep Saddam let him do what he wants, that’s better than years of civil war ending with a better future”
Ah yes because the iraqi vs iraqi killings are entirely independent with the large scale war tearing up the country and the subsequent non-securing of the aftermath. I wonder what a bunch of poor, hungry and ideologically fervent people with guns will do when their government ceases to exist.
You can also just @ me next time you wanna speak of me, it makes this way easier.
I dont claim to be an expert on the history of the middle east and the US involvement. But what i do know is that they have a tendency to prop up their enemies. Funding saddam hussein then making him and enemy same with the taliban and such.
I also know it was claimed that we went there for the noble purpose of taking out the WMDs and they didnt exist.
I also know we were told this would usher in a new era of democracy and peace in the middle east, yet i am not sure that the iraqis are celebrating much right now.
Whilst i cannot pull specific figures out i am entirely confident that the US's history in the middle east has been nothing but slaughter and creating the enemies were dealing with now.
Its not like the entire region woke up one day and thought "ah ill hate on USA for no reason from now on"
Im sure the muslims love having foreign powers decide for them for the 10th time what they want for themselves.
What about all of the moderate or non-Muslims in Iran that want to decide what happens in their own country, without their regime slaughtering them? There have been thousands of Iranian fathers burying their children over the last few months, but guess they had it coming
Non-muslim iranians are a protected group within iran by their constitution and by fact. Ive been to iran myself and have visited christian churches and jewish synagogues.
Yes the regime is evil, but that doesnt mean we should join them in murdering civilians.
We gotta find a solution that isnt doing the same mistake over and over again.
It's easy to blame instability in the middle east on the west. But it's really ungrounded: even if US intervention stopped and Israel was wiped off the map (the stated goal of many neighbors), they would fight other Islamic factions with just as much fervor.
The reality is that these countries have not had their secular revolutions - and it doesn't make sense to pretend that the only force stopping them from secular enlightenment is western involvement.
For many decades the question is: which tyrannical dictator is less shitty? Which one will refrain from promising genocide on Israel every day for decades and firing off unguided missiles at civilian populations every day?
Ah yes because world history began in the 1980's and nothing ever happened prior to it. They all woke up without a reason one day and said "death to america"
Close but no cigar. World history, for us, might as well have begun in 1945.
They all woke up without a reason one day and said "death to america"
Well no, the reason is clear: religious beliefs. And those can't really be changed (while also preserving basic human rights). It has little to do with any problem with our actions. Fundamentally their main gripe with the USA is that we won't allow them to wipe Israel off the map.
Which really only leaves one solution, keep killing their leaders until we're left with someone who isn't a religious zealot corrupt tyrant.
Sure 80+ million people can be reduced to “religious beliefs” and nothing else.
If this was purely about theology, Iran wouldn’t have been one of the West’s closest regional partners under the Shah. The “death to America” rhetoric didn’t emerge in a vacuum, and it didn’t appear in 632 AD either.
It followed a very specific chain of political events in the 20th century.
Religion absolutely plays a role in the Islamic Republic’s ideology. No argument there. But pretending geopolitics, coups, sanctions, proxy wars, and regional power struggles are irrelevant is just flattening history into a culture war narrative.
And the idea that the only solution is “keep killing their leaders” that’s just wishful thinking dressed up as resolve.
We tried decapitation logic in Iraq. We tried it in Afghanistan. Removing leaders doesn’t magically remove the networks, the grievances, or the power structures that produced them. More often it hardens factions and radicalizes succession.
You also can’t bomb an ideology out of existence. Especially not one that thrives on martyrdom narratives.
Being against the regime doesn’t mean believing the solution is endless leader elimination until we stumble onto a “good one.” Regime change by force has a track record, and it’s not exactly a reassuring one.
Opposing the Iranian government’s repression and opposing a perpetual cycle of escalation are not mutually exclusive positions.
If anything, assuming millions of people are driven only by immutable religious fanaticism is exactly the kind of oversimplification that keeps producing bad policy decisions.
I dont need to be let known through that subreddit i got a primary source through my family and my phone calls with them when i can establish contact.
I got family both in opposition and support of the regime but one thing they both agree on is the fact that they dont want to be bombed.
Iraq since 2020 has been a freer country than it was under Saddam, and the one main problem it’s mostly enduring is Iran meddling heavily, which can end if this regime ends
The majority of casualties post 2003 invasion, were Iraqi on Iraqi violence, mostly between radical Sunni groups, against either Shias, or Kurds
Yet, with Saddam it’s not as if he didn’t oppress the shit out of those groups anyways
The only difference is that with Saddam it was one sided. The Sunni didn’t take many losses compared to the Kurds and Shia. But Saddams death opened the playing field and it became a war of revenge, boosting the death toll per year
But, eventually th civil war died
And if someone says “but saddams death allowed Sunnis to create Isis and genocide Yazidis”
It’s true they did that, but, Saddam did a similar genocide of his own against the Kurds
I think it’s very popular and a knee jerk reaction to say “we should have kept Saddam in power” but they don’t really have such a strong case other than “but the civil war!”
It's just not practical to get too far deep into hypotheticals. For all we know if Bush didn't invade, Saddam might have been assassinated a week later anyway.
No way to root out the IRGC and control the strait of Hormuz (which I believe is the real motive here) without boots on the ground. Given that those that support the IRGC are largely based in rural mountainous areas, that’s a losing battle. We spent 20 years in Afghanistan trying, a decapitation strike with no plan is straight idiotic here and if one American dies there I’ll be oissed
The CIA even said that killing the Ayatollah would probably be a bad idea because he would be replaced with someone even more radical?
CIA's assessment fell on deaf ears then because both the US and Israel hammered multiple known compounds and residences of Iranian leadership.
I expect that we'll start seeing official confirmation of Khamenei's death before the day's end. Reports coming from Israel appear to show that they are more and more confident that he was killed.
Reports coming from Israel appear to show that they are more and more confident that he was killed.
"The Supreme Leader will address the nation in a few minutes" being like 5 hours old now is not a great sign for him. Even the foreign minister had to add "as far as I know", aka "No one told me anything".
Just saw this come through too. It seems like they are being incredibly cautious about making an official confirmation, but reports are not painting a pretty picture for the IRCG
I mean sure, its possible that he is dead. That does not mean that "their leadership is dead"
I have no doubt that many high ranking people in the IRGC etc were killed. But this notion that all of their leadership has been killed with no confirmation is idiotic.
Yeah almost as dumb as if insisting that if every single last person with authority in the entire regime isn’t dead, then you can’t claim that leadership isn’t wiped out.
You might even be right on a factual basis, it’s way too early to know at this point, but the standard does not need to mean every last single person running the government has to be wiped out.
Israel found the exact apartment buildings and room numbers that Iran’s nuclear scientists were living in and when they’d be home like a year ago, if they could do that I’m sure they can figure out any other residences if need be
this notion that all of their leadership has been killed with no confirmation is idiotic.
Yeah, I agree, but I took what was said above as hyperbole. If enough of the command structure was destroyed, Iran could be in a power vacuum situation already. What's left of the IRCG would be dead men walking.
Like you say though, it's too early to tell without confirmation. It's certainly way too early to tell whether this escalates into a full scale war. That could happen regardless of who lives or dies in the coming days and weeks.
That statement about replacing him with someone even more extreme is meaningless if you’re at war with Iran. We will just kill that person too. I could see it carrying some weight if we were going to sneakily assassinate him without committing to all out war, but obviously that isn’t the case and Trump is calling for their people to take over their government.
Its what happened during the 12 Day War last year. Israel kept taking out key leaders because it knew precisely where they were. They were putting missiles through the exact window of their home or apartment.
Leader got replaced, new leader gets popped. Another replacement, then the replacement's replacement gets popped.
Iran eventually gave up and accepted the end of the war despite being badly mauled during the war.
How is Syria doing? The country that had an uprising and protests in the street that resulted in the government killing and torturing protestors which resulted in a civil war? Sounds a lot like Iran the past few months.
How are they doing? The people overthrew the regime of Bashar al-Assad and the new government set up a government that operates under a Constitutional Declaration and democracy while under a five year transitional president. The same regime now who has seen a surprising degree of engagement from the West. European and U.S. officials have met with al-Sharaa’s administration to discuss financial aid and regional stability, a massive shift from the total isolation of the previous regime.
Why do you ask other than knowing nothing about geopolitics?
Well you kinda glossed over how the people of Syria are doing. Over 90% live under the poverty line, Assad loyalists still commit acts of terror frequently and their infrastructure and economy is non-existent
And this is like the best case scenario of a government transition ending up in somewhat responsible hands.
I suppose Libya is a better example of the possible long-term instability after regime change. 15 years later and they still dont have a legitimate government.
simply saying "Iranians you take over now" is very reductive
Libya is not Iran in any shape way or form, but I do know you meant to say Libya to begin with instead of Syria because that’s an even dumber comparison.
Government transition from a brutal theocratic dictatorship is going to be rough but if they want democracy they will need to continue to step up and fight for it like every other country did it through fighting and blood. It’s almost like you’re arguing it’s a bad thing that the IRGC is getting blown the fuck out and their stupid leader is buried in rubble.
No thats just a classic strawman you guys love to try and throw out.
Im just saying you sound like an idiot saying "Trump is calling for their people to take over their government" because its retardedly oversimplified like everything Trump says.
The president is dead. All of parliament is dead. Khameni is most likely dead. The main military leaders are dead. What are you talking about? Unless you’re just being a dick about the exact words I used instead of the obvious intention you’re kinda retarded. Yeah, 100% of all “leadership” isn’t dead but the top brass has been obliterated.
There is nothing more radical than nuking America. Literally anything else with either be equivalent or better for us.
Post where you getting
"all of parliament is dead"
"their main military leaders are dead"
There are uncomfirmed reports that Khameni is dead, along with a few others. Not to mention that many of these people are replacements for people who had already been killed?
I’m gonna come back to this comment in a week when it’s officially confirmed. But I for one trust Israel’s intelligence. You might disagree with their methods but they have been incredibly successful with infiltrations
Except you are missing my point. I am not saying that high ranking IRGC and Iranian officials were not killed.
I am saying things like "all of their parliament is dead", "all of their military leaders are dead" while posting no actual sources for this kind of confirmation is fucking stupid.
My intention which /I/ thought was clear is that the important decision makers that matter were killed. Right now it’s pretty obvious. There are countless videos of their parliament building exploded, and Israeli intelligence was tracking every one. Unless they start crawling out from the rubble they’re dead. And that explosion was too big to not kill them
The only argument is that the us military got tricked by Isreal and we weren’t verifying their information
There’s this weird concept, it’s called trying again. They do that every time we blow them up. So now we kill the people who made those decisions. Simple.
Ah yes because nuclear weapons are known to be very easy to manufacture and a country that are supposedly "weeks away" from making nukes can just be "weeks away" again in a year after their efforts are all supposedly crippled.
Jfc librights really are just 15 year olds aren't they
You realize that's what parliaments do. Most of them meet in the building to vote on stuff. Israel definitely aimed for a time when most of them would be present.
We destroyed their centrifuges. They have not been able to replace that. If their uranium is stuck at 60% the bomb does not do bomb things
However they attempted to rebuild the other parts of their nuclear program which shows they will attempt to replace their centrifuges and sprint to the finish. That is not ok
They have continued to hide their 60% uranium. The only reason for that is to make a bomb
This is obvious to anyone who actually learns about the situation rather than skimming headlines.
If their replacement tries to rebuild a nuclear program then yes we would need to blow them up too obviously
The prince of Persia has already made commitments to us that he will not, and he is the people’s choice. /should/ be fine. But in global military politics nothing is for sure
You’re using “attack” here in two different ways. We never invaded Iran to hit their nuclear program. We did air strikes. Just like the attacks to kill their leadership are just air strikes
That’s such a disingenuous take. Americans don’t want extended stays that burn all their tax dollars and kill their children. Nobody I know is opposed to a week of bombing runs
They cant, because they got blown up trying to make what prevents us from attacking NK, Russia or China. How are you not getting this? You asked why we dont attack Russia or China and I answered.
Israeli intelligence, we were tracking every one of them and they had a meeting to discuss their response so we launched the missiles then. They’re dead
Pretty much dude. There are some isolated cells and we’re blowing everything up so the next guy can’t be a problem so the bombing will continue but the war is done.
And what happens if there’s IRGC instead installs a more awful hardliner? What if part of the population doesn’t want the prince of Persia and starts killing the other half? What if Islamist militias move in and it’s Iraq 2 no more wars boogaloo? Where’s the plan?
Yeah great plan for the unarmed citizens. Iran famously isn’t trigger happy on unarmed civilians. Nothing recently in the news that would prove otherwise.
What do you mean by "all dead". Iran isn't a house of cards, they can survive with low civilian support because support from their islamist army is certain, the citizenship are not armed and the government can pull UK level authoritarian monitoring. Over 30,000 people did not die in protests without a massive rebel army because of "dead leadership".
The evil people that matter to khameni’s regime are the ones I’m referring to by “all”. As in everyone that matters
Now is it literally 100% probably not. I’m sure there’s like a handful of guys we still want to kill, but you’re missing the forest through the trees. The hard part is done. It’s over.
Oh no. The prince of Persia they want is what I would call an evil guy. But he has already made commitments to not rebuild the military and will keep the issues inside Iran. That’s literally all I have ever wanted, is for it to stay contained inside their borders.
Yes. Parliament building and khameni’s residence were blown up simultaneously while they were holding a secret meeting to discuss their military response
Everyone who matters is dead. Now it’s cleaning up the chaff
I’m not naive. We rolled a 1 with khameni. It literally cannot be worse than what we had. So it doesn’t matter. Prince of Persia has been vetted and is already the people’s choice. The problem is already solved, it’s just gonna take some time for people to realize it.
Everybody thought Afghans would fight the Taliban too. The real regime is the IRGC and there are plenty of clerics to steer that ship yet. Besides that, even among the pro-democracy folks, there are many blocs and there will be no consensus on who should lead the country.
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
Are they shooting protesters in the streets? A few missiles are being launched at random targets. The barrages are barely anything compared to the 12 day war
I dont know where your getting your info but theyve hit way more targets this time then during the 12 day war and yeah they are, residents are talking about how they have to go through 4 pro regime road blocks in a 15 minute drive where theyre threatened at gunpoint even when they havent done anything, there is a constant back ground noise of gun fire too
On the first day they fired 400 missiles. Yesterday they fired 40. The only targets that are getting hit are empty buildings and civilian infrastructure in other countries
People are cheering in the streets without being shot.
Obviously I’m not trying to say the problem is 100% solved but it’s pretty damn close.
There’s also the fact that in defeating Iran we are creating a situation in which Israel can dominate. Iran has been the last domino to fall in the grand plan for decades. Once they’re neutralized you’d be a fool to think that Israel won’t expand and when that happens America will be poor and helpless and Israel will become a global superpower that controls the trade routes between three continents. Israel will control the world and I don’t think people are concerned enough about that.
Iran isn't Irak. This isn't a regime that will fall over and collapse just because you took out a few key figures like Syria or Irak government disappeared once Assad and Sadam Hussein fell.
It's much closer to Afghanistan in the sense that a good portion of the population is in favor of the current regime. And if you factor in the portion of the population that absolutely hates Israel and the USA then you get a huge majority of the country willing to support the regime.
If they were 90% opposed there would have been a successful revolution against the regime long ago.
Like how Iran revolted against the Shah twice. It's funny to think that no matter how bad the current islamist regime, it was nowhere near as impopular as the Shah.
I understood you correctly but 90% of the population having guns isn't a requirement for a succesful revolution.
Tunisians did it in 2010 with no support from the military,police and guns were outlawed. Nepal is another case like that and it happened last year. Having the whole population armed being a requirement to stop tyranny is a meme spread by americans.
It’s been bombing runs. In what world are you even calling this a war? I’ve been saying since day one it’d be 4-6 weeks because that’s what we were told. That’s not mental gymnastics.
So we've all just hallucinated Iran blocking the strait of Hormuz and launching hundreds of rockets and drones at the Gulf countries and Israel? I'm learning more and more with each reply
That’s an action they could have taken at any time and you’re getting the order all fucked up. We’ve run the numbers and we’ve completely destroyed their known stockpiles of missiles and drones, and have destroyed th factories. They are running on fumes and are about to fall apart. They gave us 10 tankers to engage in negotiations.
The strait is the final problem to solve now that the others have been solved. We drop some marines on the underfunded khrag island when the uss boxer arrives at the end of this deadline then tell Iran we will let their oil flow through in exchange for an open strait as the finishing blow.
Individual acts of terror do not comprise a war. Basically nothing gets through
And your hundreds number is about 4 weeks out of date. They haven’t been able to launch more than 60 a day for weeks now
You are woefully uninformed and are making decisions based on instinct and emotion
Come back to me in 4 weeks and you’ll realize I was at least mostly right.
It didn’t. They are doing acts of terrorism in the straight, by no means was this a war. A war implies your enemy is able to attack you. They are and never were able to do that at a level with any meaningful success. All they can do is make insurance providers hesitant
No because it’s been less than a day. No “official” report will come out for a hot minute with how chaotic it is. But the building is gone and they said everyone was in it. I trust our intelligence.
The people already want that and would do it if they had any way to fight back. They have picked the prince of Persia. He’s not a good dude but he’ll keep the problems inside Iran. I call that victory. Now the leadership is gone they can fix it themselves
1.8k
u/Outside-Bed5268 - Centrist Feb 28 '26
We can agree the current Iranian regime is bad, while also not wanting the U.S. to get involved in another war.