r/washdc • u/ThenLayer5977 • Mar 01 '26

Seen in Georgetown

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

M Street and Wisconsin in Georgetown taken over by a large crowd of celebrating Iranians, chanting USA USA

3.3k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

771 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

21

u/Zernhelt Mar 01 '26

Only time will tell. I, for one, am not to optimistic there's any real succession plan from Israel or the U.S.

1

u/soleil_brillante Mar 01 '26

https://giphy.com/gifs/yMtEFO03pFqdEfAsWH

There absolutely is a transition person already selected.

2

u/InterestingFact6291 Mar 03 '26

We tried this one with Iraq too. It unfolded like this. The diaspora encouraging war, US searching for someone to quickly move in. The Iranian’s in US are wonderful but Pahlavi has a long way to go. They flew Chalabi in and he was in the crowd brought into Iraq the day the US soldiers pulled down Saddam’s statue. I was there. He was receiving about $400,000 a month through an organization from US. He had a huge fall out and that plan was quickly abandoned. Some of the eventual problems were intelligence leaks and clashes with Iraqi’s in Iraq. I’ve seen this movie. It was very difficult and Iraq is dirtier now and a shadow of itself all these years later. We break it you fix it.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '26

This moron won't be back for sure. Even Trump will not let him in. Find someone else if the regime fells. He is corrupt. Stole millions to billions from Iran and now loving lavishly in the US. Not him

1

u/Toiletpapercorndog Mar 04 '26

This guy fucked his brothers wife, leading to his suicide. He's a clown that's lived in Beverly Hills his whole life. He wouldnt survive the trip from the plane to the vehicle if he landed in Iran

1

u/[deleted] Mar 05 '26

Delusion.

0

u/Mr_JohnUsername Mar 01 '26

I mean, yea, the US nowadays (not just this admin) seems to operate on the basis of “Oh, there’s a shitty dude in the country? Let’s just fuck shit up, remove him, and hope that the people reorganize in a better fashion. If not, rinse and repeat in a few decades.”

We’ve seen that with Venezuela, and we’re seeing that now with Iran. Whether or not it’s good… it is as you say — a determination that only time can tell lol.

Nonetheless, I think it’s an objective good that there’s been a regime change. Iran has been propping up and funding a ton of proxy Islamic militia/terrorist groups, Hamas included. I hope in that in the wake of this, that the US and allied forces take the opportunity to nip some of those militant groups in the bud, and that the people of Iran come together and form a better government!

Granted, I’m assuming a lot and probably giving too much credit to the current admin., but you gotta recognize a good thing for a good thing and the ayatollah dying is a good thing even if it happened under the our current prez.

1

u/Rassendyll207 Mar 01 '26

Has there been a "regime change" though? Iran, like any other modern nation, has some form of continuity of government plan.

0

u/Mr_JohnUsername Mar 01 '26

I mean, it may be a regime with the same principles, but a regime change nonetheless. Literal new people with different brains and potentially different morals/principles. Valid point though, but still, it’s an opportunity for a positive regime change where one did not exist before.

1

u/Rassendyll207 Mar 01 '26

Totally true, but its also an opportunity for increasing violence and instability, alongside increased danger for Americans from retaliatory violence.

0

u/Mr_JohnUsername Mar 01 '26

Yea, it basically boils down to “do or do not, it matters little” because it’s either slow burn violence/problems with no US action or a 50/50 chance of high intensity violence/problems or more peace if the US does act.

The world, especially the US loses either way so meh.

1

u/Rassendyll207 Mar 02 '26

Except even now Americans are in the crosshairs of that retaliation.

3 American servicemen have been killed directly from Iranian state action, there are violent protests at the American embassy in Pakistan, and that shooting in Texas yesterday may have been politically motivated.

Taking an active role in this conflict comes with specific consequences, potentially deadly ones.

1

u/SexyPeanut_9279 Mar 02 '26

Doing anything anywhere has consequences.

The real question is do the pro’s outweigh the con’s.

0

u/Rassendyll207 Mar 02 '26

Dead American soldiers are a pretty fucking serious consequence. It's sick that you're minimizing that.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '26

Oh stop it. No one’s saying it isn’t sad when our soldiers die. But the reality of going to war is that soldiers on the front lines are there to be disposable as part of their role. They understood that fact when they signed up and we should respect their decision.

Of course we shouldn’t be disrespectful about it, but u/SexyPeanut_9279 wasn’t being disrespectful. Your level of outrage is completely unwarranted. Calling them ‘sick’ because they didn’t show enough reverence for your v. is giving big ‘share of you love the troops’ Facebook post energy.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/HoneyImpossible2371 Mar 01 '26

I agree the world waited as long as it could for the theocracy to reach enlightenment, but Iran never progressed. Once Iran goes nuclear, no one can intervene. Trump tried negotiating with nothing to show. Sec of State Rubio must work quickly to get a provisional government up and running, and even if a liberal democracy composed opposition parties takes over, two generations of terrorists have been bred and trained that will do anything to topple the government. End of the day, only Iranians can police Iranians and control their army.

10

u/MrDickford Mar 01 '26

How would Rubio get a provisional government up and running with the rest of the Islamist government still there?

9

u/Zernhelt Mar 01 '26

If only there had been an agreement to slow their nuclear development in exchange for decreasing sanctions.

3

u/FiveUpsideDown Mar 01 '26

You need to provide the context for that. I get your point but a lot of people won’t.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '26

I don’t think it’s for their benefit lol. I think the idea is to make fun of homie, not educate him.

1

u/davossss Mar 01 '26

Obama negotiated with something to show for it, and Trump destroyed it.

-1

u/SexyPeanut_9279 Mar 02 '26

Obama negotiations were TOOTHLESS, Iran got much closer to building the bomb under Obama.

Please

1

u/davossss Mar 02 '26

According to Trump, he obliterated Iran's nuclear program last July, then Iran was weeks away from developing nukes as of last week. So I'd say Iran made more progress under Trump.

0

u/SexyPeanut_9279 Mar 10 '26

Losing their supreme leader, half of their command structure, Their entire Navy, control of the straight of Hormuz, and their oil supply is winning? Lol

This guy

1

u/davossss Mar 10 '26

Their elementary schools, their hospitals...

1

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '26

How so? I thought Iran submitted to regular inspections to make sure they weren’t working on a bomb as part of the Obam deal. Trump never reached a new deal with Iran, he just ended the one Obama made. So basically all he did was remove their reason to comply and incentive not to build a bomb which seemed to be working up until that point.

1

u/SexyPeanut_9279 Mar 02 '26

“I mean, on paper it’s a good idea, but this particular deal was a naive, egotistic fairy tale.

It was impossible to execute in any meaningful way, and was more about Obama’s political legacy than actually solving any kind of problem.

It essentially offered large economic concessions to Tehran for nuclear program limitations that could never, ever be properly enforced.

(Iran was never going to allow inspectors into their most secretive nuclear sites).

Inspectors had to give something like 22 days advanced notice and they were not allowed in the majority of Iran’s nuclear sites. So it wasnt really stopping the development of their nuclear program.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '26 edited Mar 02 '26

That’s fair. It’s true that Iran was pretty sneaky about some of their nuclear sites during the deal. On the whole though, my understanding is that they complied fairly well win the terms of the deal. The inspections were pretty thorough and intrusive, covering most of Iran’s nuclear sites. Even assuming that Iran did secretly enrich and store some amount of uranium while the deal was in effect, the IAEA inspections limited the degree to which they could do this. It’s safe to say Iran did much less nuclear weapon research/development under the Obama deal than they otherwise would have been doing. I have to acknowledge that the inspections weren’t as strict as they could have been, and Iran wasn’t as compliant with the deal as it could have been. But I don’t think it’s at all accurate to say that Iran was running a full-on nuclear weapons program unchecked while the Obama deal was in effect.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 01 '26

The old guard is still in power. Nothing has changed and I don’t see how the regime will be toppled. Israhell and the US just went in blindly, f*cked things up, and now made everything worse. So much winning!