Either this will end in a fractured state with different factions OR another Ayatollah will be in charge. Just my guess from seeing similar stories play out in other countries though....
Maybe .. the revolutionary guard is fed up though with ineffective empire rule? Like to be rubbed in the dirt face first repeatetly as inheritor of the mighty persian empire sucks bad enough, to reconsider the way things are run?
Sorry, but whatever israel & the us are doing, seems to work way better than - whatever has happened the last decades in iran?
As I understand it, the IGRC doesn't particularly rub happily with the clerical council, and it's not entirely clear to me who will win that the power struggle.
But the ultimate loser of the power struggle is clear: the Iranian populace at large, as all of the viable factions are quite committed to consolidating their power by repressing the population. The most likely situation, I think, looks a lot like Libya.
Islamic societies seem to be unable to form stable institutions. The recipe seems to be unable to synthesize this, no matter how many ressources are available and how benign the conditions. As a result the biggest formable state-institution remains the family clan and the family clan just does not cut it in preventing civil war. At best you get a clan-coalition masquerading as a military government with some democratic pets - at worst you get libya.But i guess after 52 countries, the results are in and the fact that other - non western powers are colonizing islamic countries now (china, russia) and everyone is scrambling for nukes post trump - the displayed weaknesses could end the region.
“ the biggest formable state-institution remains the family clan”
This is not at all how Irani society is structured.
The rest of your comments generalizations are weak and ill-supported as well, at best they only apply to a subset of Arab countries in the Middle East.
The Ottoman Empire lasted 600 years with only one major civil war, a feat not matched by any major Christian European country. England faced 3½ civil wars (counting the Hundred Years War as a ½ civil war here, because while it is essentially a dynastic dispute, it's not a dynastic dispute over England itself but rather English holdings in France) in the same timeframe. And this despite the Ottoman successor law being essentially "battle royale among eligible candidates" whereas standard European succession by this time is the seemingly clear "eldest son" yet somehow creating endless succession disputes.
I think maybe the reformists are able to hold on now that the IRGC is being hammered. There might be more internal bloodshed but chances are that Iran might be a bit more open and more modern. Of course I have zero knowledge about how Iran politics works, so that was just a guess, not even an intelligent one.
BTW I don't actually think even the reformists will "accept Western ideas".
Iran is not like other countries in the region. Despite its shortcomings, it's a cohesive society. I'm certain that there will be no fracturing and a central authority will emerge.
> I would also describe Jordan, Oman, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia as cohesive societies.
I don’t know much about the region; is it incorrect to say that the nations you listed (excepting Jordan) are collections of fiefdoms with a relatively weak central power? To OP’s point, that is not how I view Iran
They can not sadly. As the monsters of america and israel have free license to kill anyone, they will kill anyone they want to make their god happy. In the case of iran, they already killed 100+ girls in a school even though they have perfect intelligence and precision attack tech.
It's the stated reason why the United States has an impeachment process. So that they have a process for removing undesirable heads of state without resorting to assassination.
Sorry I phrased that poorly. I meant countries have no means to impeach a foreign head of state so impeachment only serves as a power check if the citizenry disapproves.
Not that I think heads of state fearing for their lives from airstrikes is necessarily good, being able to act with impunity is certainly bad.
How is it bad? Imagine a world where instead of sending hundreds of thousands young men to die, countries would just launch targeted attacks on the head of enemy's state.
Trump is for rent. Shutting down a competitor is 25M, "full service" is apparently ~100M. I'm not privy to what invading an oil nation costs, but I reckon it's akin to a hand job, so a nice golden wristwatch should probably do it?
Good to know! That's a relatively hefty sum, I wonder what's included? Do you get a free invasion with that, or is it just access to membership discounts? I guess time will tell!
At some point you have to decide: if my country is held back by a brutal dictatorial regime where civilians can't hope to topple it, is there anything else to do other than get external help?
Libya is not a real country in a historical sense. It’s a bunch of tribes, Kadaffi was from one of the tribes that subjugated others. In Iraq it was a Sunni minority that rules over Shiite majority, and other minorities like the Kurds. In Syria one minority (alawiites) rules over others by force.
Also, these countries were not formed by themselves, but rather through deals with France and/or Britain.
Iran, while also diverse, has a thousands of years long history. Persians still see themselves as continuation of Persian peoples from the empire times, etc.
So, it is not very correct to compare it one to one.
Iraqis also see themselves as a continuation of Mesopotamian people, that was quite literally what Iraqi Baathist thought was centered around and used as the successful unification strategy. That's quite literally the justification the Baathists used to try 'reclaim' both Khuzestan and Kuwait. You quite literally couldn't be more wrong in how you categorize Baathist Iraq.
Iran has a much worse relationship with its minorities, where if you are of the wrong faith then you literally face state-sanctioned laws preventing you studying or working. In fact, things in Iraq became much worse for minorities after the overthrowal due to the adoption of Iranian cultural practices like Abrahamic elitism.
The cherry on top of all of this is that you probably don't realize that Persians in Iran only make up 60% of the country. You have Iranians who wholly reject Persian ancestry (Azeris, Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds...) but you don't even account for them, despite Iran having, what, three? entirely separate ethnic-based separatist insurgencies active across the country LOL
> That's quite literally the justification the Baathists used to try 'reclaim' both Khuzestan and Kuwait. You quite literally couldn't be more wrong in how you categorize Baathist Iraq.
Baathism is literally pan-arabism! Arabism as in Arab. Do you really think that making pan-arabism movement under the sauce of Babylonian legacy is going to work on Kurds and others? Of course not. Same applies to Syria that had their own flavor of pan-arabist party that kept Asad in power. Only recently, after the summer 2025 war with Israel Islamic Republic tried to connect itself to its Persian past, but of course it is too late for that.
> Iran has a much worse relationship with its minorities, where if you are of the wrong faith then you literally face state-sanctioned laws preventing you studying or working.
I am not sure how the practices of the Islamic Republic related to the current mood of the Iranians that oppose it.
> In fact, things in Iraq became much worse for minorities after the overthrowal due to the adoption of Iranian cultural practices like Abrahamic elitism.
You mean that Islamic Republic exported its own flawed ideology on the neighboring states through funding of various non-state actors? Wow.
> The cherry on top of all of this is that you probably don't realize that Persians in Iran only make up 60% of the country. You have Iranians who wholly reject Persian ancestry (Azeris, Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds...) but you don't even account for them, despite Iran having, what, three? entirely separate ethnic-based separatist insurgencies active across the country LOL
I think you conflate anti-regime insurgency vs. anti-persian one.
Iran is not an Arab country? Answering a more general question - all countries of former Yugoslavia are better after US intervention. Some Serbs would not agree, but it's on them
It's not a deflection, it's an example of an intervention having a positive effect. I see no reason for Iran following Arabic rather than Balkan scenario - it's a totally different culture - much more modernised and much more secular
What story? Iraq is ruled by ISIS and Syria is ruled by a dude who's goal was to institute Sharia or ISIS v2. Those were both countries in the region where US intervention toppled a dictator and now is how it is.
Any country can be compared to any country and Arab countries are the geographically nearest ones to compare. It's miles more strange to compare it to the Balkans.
The absolute state of American public education...
No, Iran is not an Arab country! Arabic is a minority language in Iran, and Arabs are an ethnic minority there. Linguistically, culturally and even genetically, they aren't Arabs! Would you call Quebec an Anglo province?
Oh, please. If you think the majority of all Iranians are in favor of US-Israeli bombings of their home country, you're seriously smoking some potent propaganda.
Most Iranians outside Iran fled from the current regimes terror, they are happy with this. My country took in a lot of Iranians when the current regime took over in the 70s and those are very happy about this. They are out on the street celebrating the attacks on Iranian leaders, not protesting against them.
That's the implication of "At some point you have to decide: if my country ..." since "you" can't refer to anyone other than the Iranians. They have not "decided" to get bombed by Zionists.
At no point in life I would wish for my fellow citizens to get killed by a foreign power. I’m already in my mid-40s, I’ve spent a day or two out in the streets, protesting (granted, not against governments that the West labels as dictatorial), but at no point has that option crossed my mind. More on point, I would regard the people thinking like that as traitors, because that’s what they are by definition, wishing for your fellow citizens to get killed by a foreign Power so that your political views can prevail is the very definition of treason to one’s people and nation.
> your fellow citizens to get killed by a foreign Power so that your political views can prevail
What does the assassination of DICTATORS have to do with all of this? Dictatorship is less about citizenship and more about a form of slavery. Resisting the killing of a dictator in any way, regardless of who is trying to kill him or why, is treason to a nation.
They're not going to have a normal country. The United States under Trump isn't interested in a democratic Iran. They want a dictator they can control.
I think you’re right that it would be a puppet state under trump. But in three years it will be a puppet state under somebody else! And maybe that somebody would relinquish the strings.
Not disagreeing with you, but US-controlled dictators have better track record of not killing thousands of protesters or just random people in own populations.
Not perfect option, but still is an improvement even from your positiom.
Agree. See also military dictatorships in South Korea and Taiwan. Many terrible years and brutal killings by the gov't. Both gov'ts were strongly supported by the US.
Wow, I did not expect this type of reply. I reject it. In South Korea, there was incredible civil violence between protesters and police. I'm talking about stolen automatic weapons by protesters, then used against the police after decades of unchecked violence by the police against protesters. In hindsight, it looks like a low grade civil war. It was brutally hard and violent for South Korean to gain their democracy. (When you listen to South Korean boomers talk about how much their treasure and defend their new-found democracy, it will bring tears to your eyes. They really lived the violence and found democracy.) Taiwan needed the last dictator to die. Once his son took over, he quickly devised a plan to transition to an authentic democracy. (They had rigged election for years.) Still, they had 40 years of the "White Terror" where secret police kidnapped and murdered thousands of protesters.
Related: Indonesia also had a very violent transition into democracy, but the old dictators didn't kill as many innocent people as Taiwan or South Korea.
As I understand, the US had very little influence during the democracy transition of these three nations. Regarding Taiwan, the US provided security gurantees against mainland China, but did not interfere with the gov't. South Korea, similar security guarantee against the "Kimdom". Again, did not interfere with the gov't. Indonesia: Provided no security guarantee and did not interfere with the gov't.
I can only see the US insistence on many bad foreign decisions in the name of democracy done in the Middle East by multiple administrations, that without much knowledge of the situation in East Asia, I venture to guess it is not a coincidence that US allies turned into democracies
I also am not sure about Indonesia as an example of a US ally, I don't think it is similar to the other two
Effectively both SK and Taiwan were completely dependent on US for defense, I doubt this had no bearing
Nobody is happy about killing civilians. But Khamenei did more than that every day he was alive. Personally I feel there is some amount of immediate civilian casualty that is worth putting a stop to continuous suffering.
It's easy to excuse the collateral damage of people you will never meet, just remember that this reasoning has unleashed hell on Earth for countless innocent people, many kids, and it makes you sound like a ghoul.
Hope to hell that you or anyone you care about isn't on the receiving end of such sentiments.
It's not "easy" but it remains true. We can play the moral-decision game and I'll ask you whether killing one child is justified to save 5,000,000. If you answer "yes" then from that point it's just about agreeing on numbers.
What is the alternative you propose? Just to give a hypothetical-but-realistic example, let’s presume that khamenei’s continued existence results in 100 civilian deaths per day. Under that assumption, what one-time cost would you accept to end his life?
Whether or not one would accept deaths of civilians to get rid of Khamenei, I don't think anyone should accept a school full of children being blown up for no obvious reason. If there was somehow a reason why Khameni could not have killed without attacking that school, then those reasons should be plainly spelled out and evidence presented. As things stand with the limited information we have now, it just looks like a war crime with no strategic upside.
I remember that the alternative has also unleashed hell on Earth for countless innocent people.
At some point, you have to take the path that offers at least some hope for the future. To turn into something that has lost all hope - there is no fixing that.
While this is a minor point; whether or not it was an Iranian misfire doesn't move the moral responsibility away from the invaders. Unless the IRGC took advantage of the chaos to purposefully hit the school (seems unlikely) then the entire situation was teed up by the external aggression and can still pretty reasonably be blamed on them.
If you try to shield your armed forces using children, and then accidentally kill them because you used them as a shield, you can't blame someone else.
... I'm just going of Wikipedia here but it seems to have been a standard small city [0]. Attempting to educate Iranians in Iranian cities isn't really trying to shield armed forces. Is the expectation here that Iran should send their students out into the wilderness to make it more politically convenient for US/Israeli to launch unannounced strikes on them?
Apart from the fact that Iran is a bad place to be right now it actually looks like a pleasant city to visit. Sounds like they have lots of fruit, warm weather and have some interesting history vis a vis the Mongols. Very middle eastern.
Instead of looking at the entire city, just look at the google maps data for proximity of their armed forces to their school.
Look, maybe it was a school specifically for the children of army personnel, but that's a long shot. From the geolocation data, the school was right at their missile launch site.
They had choices.
Locate the school or the launch site elsewhere, for one.
Evacuate the school before they tried to launch munitions, for another.
Why does that seem unlikely? It makes people argue that the price is not worth it. After killing thousands of protesters you think they would shy away from killing some dozens of kids?
Weird that you're so delighted to shift the blame for the tragedy of children being blown up in school, even more so that you're relying on unsubstantiated claims to do it.
Since you know more than the rest of the world about this, please update Wikipedia with a reliable source for your claim as has already been requested by admins here[1].
> Weird that you're so delighted to shift the blame for the tragedy of children being blown up in school, even more so that you're relying on unsubstantiated claims to do it.
Where in my message does it seem that I am delighted?
No doubt the truth will eventually come out, what I have seen is that the school was sited unusually close to an Iran launch site.
You can judge me all you want for "being delighted", whatever the hell that means, but I'm not advocating that schools be used as shields for rocket launchers, am I?
Okay, I get it - for you this is a laughing matter; your goal is something other than discussion.
But I gotta know - you are talking about a regime that had no problem gunning down thousands of innocent citizens in the streets just a month ago, why are you so sure that they won't use other innocents as shields for their soldiers?
It’s no guarantee, but it is a good opportunity. I’m half-Persian, and certainly not as closely connected as others, but it’s hard to see this as a bad thing. There’s a possibility I can go visit my family in Iran as a result of this. I haven’t had a good chance for that in like 4 years
Adding Iranian oil back to the market will lower prices everywhere, including Russia. I'm not so sure the extra-heavy Venezuelan oil will be affected as much.
India used to use Venezuelan crude before the 2019 sanctions [0][1]
India only shifted to using Russian oil in 2022 [2] after Venezuelan [3] and Iranian [4] oil sanctions were enacted, which was when both began increasing engagement with China.
It's a similar story for South Korea [5] and Japan [6].
This helps reduce prices for ONG, as India is shifting back to Venezuelan crude which gives slack which South Korea and Japan can take advantage of, as India, Japan, and South Korea represent 3 of the 5 largest oil consumers globally.
Reminder: extra heavy oil means that there is more processing required to get useful materials out of it, which in turn becomes higher operational cost. So, if Iranian oil entered the market, prices would go down making Venezuelan oil non competitive (I believe the break even price for Venezuelan oil was close to 80$). At this moment the numbers don't add up to make companies go back into Venezuela given the price, uncertainty and past expiriences.
It is too early to know what "Venezuela-style cooperation" looks like. It hasn't even been 6 months since the US kidnapped Maduro; the base case is that Venezuela's leadership does more or less what they were going to do anyway under US diplomatic pressure.
The US actually did something fairly similar in Iran; Trump had Soleimani blown up back in 2020. As we can see from the present situation, it failed to influence Iran in ways that the US thought were acceptable. It is rare for assassinations to have positive geopolitical ramifications.
In Romania it took some 10 years to reach some degree of functional democracy after the fall of communism and the execution on Ceaușescu, who coincidentally, just returned from the crowning of Khamenei, while learning, dictator-to-dictator, how to suppress a revolution: 1006 killed, though most of them not by the initial "Revolutionary Guards" reprisal but in the semi-civil war that followed.
And that in a country/region without Islamic radicals trying to take over. So far, apart from Israel, no Middle East country has managed to function as a democracy. Turkey, the only Muslim majority who has the faintest chance of joining the European Union, only keeps stuff under control due to the army enforcing a secular state, which the liberal patsies in the West can't take, because authoritarianism is bad and diversity in accepting radical Islam creeping into our homeland is our strength.
Removal of the head of state is often a turning point. Either a regime becomes more extreme or the government collapses due to in-fighting as individuals attempt to gain control.
I would hold back on any hopes until we see how the current government handles things. Intervention from other countries does not always lead to positive outcomes.
Trump seems to have thought it through a bit. Recent post:
>...This is the single greatest chance for the Iranian people to take back their Country. We are hearing that many of their IRGC, Military, and other Security and Police Forces, no longer want to fight, and are looking for Immunity from us. As I said last night, “Now they can have Immunity, later they only get Death!” Hopefully, the IRGC and Police will peacefully merge with the Iranian Patriots, and work together as a unit to bring back the Country to the Greatness it deserves...
The merge peacefully or die thing may motivate them.
Uh huh, and if you are an Iranian Policeman are you more concerned that the funny orange man yelling on the tv/phone is going to get you, or the mob forming outside your window? They might see it in their personal self interest to stay lock step with the former regime as a better form of self preservation than just surrendering to the population they've been abusing. It's not like the U.S. can offer them any actual immunity lmao.
I'd probably think about which side is going to end up in power and try to get along with whoever that is. The US's demonstrated willingness to kill the leader will probably have an influence there.
“Which side”? What other side is there in Iran? You think there’s some shadow government that can realistically topple the mullahs from within? The only way the Shah comes back is with US boots on the ground, which would be a disaster for other reasons. Until that happens this is just reckless action that makes the regime even more radical than it already is.
There are a lot of well educated people in iran who were unhappy. Iran killed more than 30,000 protesters last month, and there are who knows how many more left.
only time will tell. I give iran much better than average odds this is for the better. Though the average is really bad: bad results would not surprise me.
> I can't think of any time when bombing the shit out of a country and killing their leader has actually worked.
Japan? Although their leader wasn't killed, but same logic. The more civilized a country is the easier it is to reform them into a good state, and Iran is a pretty civilized and structured nation, the dictatorship is the main issue.
Most people in Iran want a democracy and are capable of running it, you just have to let them. That isn't the case in most of these dictatorships that lacks such structure, but it is there in Iran.
I disagree. After the bombing, the Emperor himself broadcasted a surrender message [0] to the people of Japan. The occupation was also for more lighter than in Germany. Japan had full control of its administration and its government continued to operate. In that context whether we like or not, it very much worked.
Japanese army officers stormed the emperor's palace and placed him under house arrest in an attempt to prevent him from broadcasting that surrender message. This was after the second bomb, a whole lot of them still had fight left in them.
The American occupation of Japan may have been less punitive than Germany’s, but it was arguably more invasive: Japan’s postwar Constitution was largely drafted by Americans, with minimal Japanese input. By contrast, West Germany’s Basic Law was written by Germans themselves under Allied constraints.
From my understanding, it wasn't the bombing that motivated Japan to surrender even though this is commonly taught, it was the recent Soviet declaration of war and fear of invasion/occupation.
The party was forbidden, the symbols were forbidden. They hung the main leaders, quite publicly. It became a huge taboo, the ideology effectively died (for decades). A strong democracy was established, older democratic parties took over.
Yes a bunch of previous nazis made it back into power and politics, but they didn't call themselves nazis or acted like nazis. But also, the country as a whole took a very different path after wwii.
>I can't think of any time when bombing the shit out of a country and killing their leader has actually worked.
This happened just weeks ago in Venezuela, though in that case the removal was by abduction and foreign trial. (The U.S. struck Venezuela and abducted its President at the time, bringing him to trial in the United States. I've just now asked ChatGPT for a research report on his current status, you can read it here[1].)
This led to immediate and definitive regime change, the U.S. now has an excellent relationship with the new President of Venezuela.
> Has there been a regime which has collapsed due to an external strike like this where it hasn't resulted in some decades long civil war nightmare?
People have already mentioned the post WW2 occupation of Germany and Japan.
There’s also the Roman occupation of Greece (and other Hellenistic territories), and even perhaps the Norman occupation of England. Not that either of these didn’t cause some strife and rebellion in both cases, but still there was a concerted effort to build up both territories.
It's likely the regime will be denied use of heavy weaponry by the US and Israel. This means any actual popular revolt in some sense could be supported by massive air power.
Naval blockade and the military capacity to simply siege you from afar. Tactically , why America didn’t do more of that is … well who knows. I mean, what if we literally parked our carrier group off of Iraq and sieged them until
A) Put in a government we like
B) Population behave or quality of life will be bad, you see, the simple life is difficult with cruise missiles coming at you
If that’s as effective as sending 250k ground troops (which … actually wasn’t effective), one could make the observation that Trump is a military genius.
Someone please talk sense to me because I cannot believe what I am saying.
As another Iranian living the West, I wish he would have been captured alive and stood trial.
He should have answered for every single drop of blood on his hands.
My 21 year old cousin was captured during the Mahsa uprising, she was sent to Evin prison, tortured for months. After she was released, we brought her to Canada and she was hospitalized for over a year. She will never be able to live a normal life again.
Well he’s been slain like the dog that he was, alongside some family members - same as the families of those who were slain and tortured on his theocratic watch. Perhaps this is good evidence that Allah is just, even if Allah’s justice has to be delivered by the hands of the Israelis.
Without doxxing yourself, why were you unable to visit? I have known Persian expats a few times in my life, and they were always able to visit without issue.
If they have said anything against the regime on social media, they would be wise not to visit. I personally know many Persian expats who meet family in Turkey and have been anxious about going back.
Honestly I’m not sure I should say, sorry. Recent years have been worse than normal though, with lots of human rights violations, protests, protestors being tortured/killed, foreign nationals being held in prison/killed, etc.
A friend of mine, EU member, hasn't been able to visit USA because he was cricizing us gov (under BIdden), still not allowed. Ban and censorship isn't specific to Iran, many western nations love it too.
A lot of the Persian diaspora is actually descendents of people who left in the 80s. There are certainly people who left 20 years ago or less but they're mostly secular as well.
If somebody tells you that they are Persian (I have met a few), you know their opinion right away: they prefer to associate with millennia of Persian history, not the modern (religious) state of Iran.
Can you help me to understand your meaning of "secular" here? My counterpoint that will explain: Many Persian Jews left during/after the revolution and moved to Los Angeles. Many of those families are practicing Jews. I would not describe people like this as "secular"; I would call them "religious". Do I misunderstand your point?
Note that the quote referred to people who left more recently and thus lived most if not all of their lives after the Islamic revolution. Quite often they'll drink beer or have their pizzas with ham just fine, women would not wear a hijab, and so on.
In both countries, the educated population likes the religious leader less than the uneducated population. In Germany, most Turkish immigrants are from rather basic backgrounds and most Iranian immigrants are from intellectual backgrounds. It makes a huge difference. In both countries of origin, the population is split much more evenly than what you see abroad. AFAIK, about 50% support the religious strongman in both countries.
I don't live in Germany (nor am I a German national), but I have special cultural interest in the history of Turks immigrating to Germany. I agree: On the whole, overwhelming Turks that immigrate/d to Germany are not highly educated. They come to work in manual labor jobs, not as engineers or medical doctors.
It's less a revolution and more a matter of catching the tide of shifting world powers — and seizing a rare shot at building something other than the last failed experiment.
New Iran, new experiment. You bet Iranians are euphoric right now. Some of the country's brightest intellectuals and political minds are sitting in Evin prison, and if all goes well, they're about to walk out and help shape what comes next.
My dad is worried about the power vacuum, and he's right to be. His biggest concern is the border states and the narrative that ISIS is being funneled into the country to destroy any chance of organized transition. I desperately hope he's wrong. And I don't think he'll ever fully heal — few who lived through the first revolution will.
> It's less a revolution and more a matter of catching the tide of shifting world powers — and seizing a rare shot at building something other than the last failed experiment
The Arab spring wasn't that long ago, was it? We all saw how that turned out, but I suppose hope springs eternal.
> You bet Iranians are euphoric right now
I'm guessing the 50+ dead elementary school kids may put a damper on celebrations a bit.
I think you are speaking about the last Shah's first son: Reza Pahlavi. You can read about his planned policy for Iran here: https://rezapahlavi.org/en
To quote:
> For the transition from the Islamic Republic to a national, secular, and democratic government
One idea is to transition to a secular democracy with a figurehead Shah like a northern European (or Japanese) monarchy. Also, my personal opinion: I think it is fine if they want to incorporate aspects of Islamic religious culture into their government. After all, it is their country. Example: The national parliament and political parties might be required to secular (at least in name), but they may wish to continue to support religious institutions using tax payer money, including masjids (places of prayer) and Islamic monasteries.
An interesting point of comparison: (1) Malaysia isn't really secular (but they may claim it); (2) Singapore is fully secular; (3) Indonesia is secular (or "pan-religious"), but is still largely guided by Islamic relgious culture in their democractic systems.
What he says he's planning and what he will do are not necessarily the same thing. The former Shah's regime was really bad and paved the way for everything that happened afterwards. Between the SAVAK (which tortured and executed quite a few of those in opposition to the Shah regime) and excesses like Persepolis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2,500-year_celebration_of_the_... ) there was created an atmosphere in which the mullahs seemed like a viable alternative.
To return to a scion of the man who put that all in place would - in my opinion, of course - be a massive mistake.
Keep in mind that the Shah was a client of the United States and the United Kingdom and that his son isn't doing this out of the goodness of his heart but because he wants what he thinks is his birthright back (he's been pretty vocal about that since his late teens), and that he has been living off wealth stolen from the Iranian people and squirreled out of the country by his father.
Of course he would present this as a transition but just wait until his ass hits that pluche and see if it isn't going to take another revolution to dislodge him.
Yeah I'm not sure why people think that the Iranian government never considered any sort of continuity for what happens when their 86 year old ruler dies. It's not like they're ants that are all helpless without their sole supreme leader.
The fact a leader can be assassinated at any moment by the US probably changes the succession plan slightly... I imagine any potential successor is thinking hard about whether it's a job they actually want.
The problem is that you are not dealing with rational people here, you are dealing with extreme religous fanatics. They are either not afraid of dying and becoming martyrs, or they are afraid but dare not show it.
That's certainly how their own propaganda portrays them, however if you see the amount of corruption in that effective kleptostate, you'd understand they care much about life
This is "Our blessed homeland" type of mischaracterisation [1]. Their wanting to continue their state against and oversized enemy is irrational and religious fanaticism, our wanting to continue our state against an oversized for is noble and martyrsome.
I'm not saying either view is right, but reducing the Iranian government to irrational religious fanatics is intellectually uncurious and unempathetic.
You are possibly misunderstanding me. Firstly, I am not saying anything against the Iranian people in general. As far as I understand things, the majority of Iranians are moderate and tolerant, and have a strong desire to have a more liberal approach to the world. The current Iranian government, however, is under the rule of insane fundamentalists (with the emphasis on mental) who think nothing of machine gunning down protesters in the street. Even the majority of Iranian people don't want to be ruled by them. This is fact, not "blessed homeland" mischaracterisation.
I'm British, and whilst I don't think my government is perfect (their stance on digital privacy is insane) they are not murdering people, and we can vote them out at the next election if we want to.
It's reported that Ayatollah Khamenei nominated multiple successors for his role and a number of other military roles, to guard against this policy.
"Last summer during the 12-day war with Israel, Khamenei had named three potential successors should he be killed. Reports earlier this month indicated that Khamenei had named four layers of succession for key government and military jobs, in an effort to ensure regime survival in the face of a US-Israeli attack."
That makes sense because the US/Israel goal is currently likely to murder every person nominated as a successor immediately, too, and it's a completely predictable strategy.
it's quite common that autocratic states have periods of instability due to wars of succession. That's why many devolve into Monarchy like the Kim or Assad dynasties. That's why one of the possible successors was Khamenai's son
Another Ayatollah is being ushered in. This is no news. Khameni is old and without the missile, he would be dead soon. This sttike is just bonus to galvanize support for Ayatollah. So in a way Trump prolong the regime. And consequence from this: every other middle east countries now starting their nuke program. Good luck.
Well, in any case, it is a guarantee that Iran will be less of a danger for other nations if the regime falls, and that people inside of the country will suffer - because either pro-Western or any other government is bound to be a lot weaker, and there will be a lot more violence and economic disruption, eventually economic degradation. It should avenge the emigrants, and provide sufficient punishment for those in Iran for enabling this regime in the first place.
Let's not have illusions about it. There is no way to build a sustainable democracy in a country that never had such leanings and is not culturally/religiously predisposed to it, and can't be physically coerced into it with boots on the ground. Achievable goals are punishment, and neutering.
It depends on how well the regime brainwashed its people over the last 50 years. The majority of Iranians haven't any experience of anything else - I think around 55% are under 40 years old.
There's a US born professor Marandi who said in an interview a few weeks ago that the regime had put in place succession plans, including for himself.
I'm hopeful but skeptical that they will change for the better.
There would likely be millions of Americans celebrating the murder of their current president, should that happen. It doesn't mean it's reasonable, right, just, or civilized, nor would it indicate that it was a unanimously supported action.
Most dictators are elected democratically, once. What makes them a dictator is them not relinquishing power. It's too late to protest after a dictator is officially a dictator. They know what will come and are usually prepared with an armed force loyal only to them.
When the sitting president of the United states repeatedly states he would like to have an illegal third term, that elections are fraudulent and must be under his control, continually takes actions testing the limits of what he can get away with in terms of authoritarian behaviour, and only backs down temporarily when he faces massive backlash, you can forgive people for being alarmed.
My personal view is that most dictators deserve to be stuffed into a suitcase, loaded into a canon, and fired into the side of a climbing wall. I guess that makes me immoral.
That said, for anything aside from a despotic world leader, I'm also against the death penalty.
I'm opposed to the death penalty as well, but this has nothing to do with why I'd prefer despots be left to live in obscurity rather than die a relatively quick, painless, and public death.
Sentence them to live alone and anonymously in an uncomfortable cell in an unremarkable prison without visitation, communication, or news of the outside world.
In cases where it's feasible to do life in prison, I'm fine with that too. But for dictators, that's typically not realistic (Maduro notwithstanding). Better to kill them rather than let them continue killing others.
I actually oppose the death penalty as a punishment for crimes, but for practical rather than principled reasons: I don't want innocent people (and there's always a chance of innocence) to be killed, and it's more expensive than life in prison anyway.
Part of the reason I, like you, make an exception for world leaders is that it can be cathartic for the people who suffered under them. Of course, it depends on the circumstances. I'm not talking about giving Jimmy Carter the chair for failing to bring down inflation.
He sure does act like a dictator, ruling by executive order. He sent the US military to operate on US soil, by executive order... so yes, he is very much a dictator right now.
and murdered a bunch of Venezuelans, a bunch of non-citizens in the USA, collected from American companies and residents billions in tariffs...
How about those Epstein files?
The death toll for the Venezuela raid is between 80 and 100, out of them only 10 were civilians. I feel bad for those 10 civilians but, for the rest, I feel no sympathy, as they were oppressors.
They killed nearly 100 Venezuelans at sea, accusing them of transporting drugs. To date, this regime has provided no evidence to corroborate those claims, in addition to the fact those were extra-judicial executions. We already knew that parts of their justificantions were false, especially the accusations against Venezuela of producing fentanyl. We also know that the US military committed war crimes at least once, when they blew up survivors of an initial bombing. Despite all these, Trump and his goon squad were seemingly quite pleased and joking about it. It's splendidly evident that they assign zero value to lives outside of their goon circle. That extends to every non-whites, political opponents and even women/girls who suffered sexual crimes.
There are zero reasons to assume this regime's victims, except for known tyrants like Maduro and Khameini, to be guilty at all. The regime has zero credibility when it comes to human rights. So those fishermen were most likely innocent victims and not drug smugglers.
In addition to all this, don't assume that this US attacks on Iran were because of his love and benevolence for the Iranian civilians. If it were so, he wouldn't have provoked the Iranian regime to crackdown on the protestors and kill around 30K of them. That farce was unnecessary for the liberation of Iran. Instead, he used them to create an excuse to carry out an attack that they had already planned.
So, as much as I understand the Iranians' joy in seeing the end of Khameini, I strongly suspect that this is just the beginning of another authoritarian regime over there, controlled remotely by the US regime this time, just as we see in Venezuela. Expect everything from human rights violations to mass scale plunder of their natural resources. All that we see now are just ploys to establish a worldwide neocolonial order under a very racist and xenophobic regime operating from the US. Let me remind you of the meme that this orange dictator posted that shows Canada, Venezuela and Greenland as part of the US territory. I don't see this end well for any civilians on this planet, including US citizens.
When is that? When he declares himself the supreme dictator of the US? Or when he nukes another nation because of his racism?
Look around and compare with the Nazis. There is already the demonization and dehumanization of a large demographic group. There are concentration camps and extralegal police forces around already. Just like in Nazi extermination camps, the people who disappear into these ICE facilities are near impossible to trace again. There are already fatalities in there from inhumane living conditions, very bad food, lack of medical care and occasional premeditated murders. Even among the civilians, they see differently abled people as a burden, just as the Nazis did. Just as in Nazi Germany, there is an expansion of military power at the expense of the civilians and flouting of international laws. And just as in Nazi Germany, smart people who can see the writing on the wall are already on a mass exodus.
If you still believe that you're in a democracy, you forgot what happened on Jan 6, 2021. Their ego is too fragile to accept anything except their victory. There is zero chance that the despots will risk getting impeached, trialed and punished by the Congress and face the severe consequences of absolutely horrendous stuff they've committed so far. Even if the public opinion is overwhelmingly hostile towards them, they'll just claim election fraud. They have started efforts for that on multiple fronts with truly bizzare incidents being reported.
And let's talk about the BIG massive elephant in the oval office (besides the obvious one). Trump is NOT the main character, even though I'm sure that he doesn't know that. Look at what their mouthpieces are saying, their dubious billionaire friends are doing and their unelected psycho-minions are pulling off. This isn't just a dictatorship. This is a multi-generational authoritarian regime with clear succession plans. You're all distracted by just the beginning of a long chain of misery. And the beginning isn't even the worst. This is one thing where this regime is unlike the Nazis or the Fascists. Those regimes were controlled by the figure head who formed it - making them vulnerable to decapitation. This one is acting more like a secret society that puts someone in the front to act as their symbolic figure head. Removing the figure head isn't going to end the regime.
You're waiting for an imaginary signal when every alarm around you is screaming at you. The time for 'if' is long gone. That ship sailed a while ago.
>Yes our president has only needlessly murdered two innocent US citizens so far
Over a million people in the US died of COVID. It's impossible to know exactly how many of them would've lived if the pandemic started under a president with a saner response than recommending injecting disinfectant, but I'm willing to bet it's more than two.
Maybe the President should have taken that into account when lying publicly about the impacts that he admitted in private conversation, or mocking and undermining expert advice?
Maybe experts like Fauci should have come clean about "pandemic theater" like standing 6 feet apart being useless? Instead this was used as justification to inject an incredible amount of cash into the economy.
Excess death from Covid is a non-trivial topic. Sweden had a very different approach to covid response, and yet had a very average number of excess death. The post-covid investigation provider some clear insight of what was primary causes to excess deaths, and yet very little of those conclusions has became common knowledge.
The primary group that had excess death caused from covid was to people living in homes for elderly care, and the primary cause was a lack of initial process and gear by people who worked at those locations. They were not given enough time to keep up a higher standard of sanitation (often given less than 15 minutes between patients), and protective gear was lacking. They also heavily depended on mass transportation which was a primary location for the virus to spread. A better early response in that sector, including shutdown/restriction of mass transportation would had saved many elderly people from early death.
To note, this had nothing to do with masks, vaccines, or shutdown of schools, which is the main points usually brought up in popular discourse. Sweden would have had one of the lowest number of deaths, with the exact same use of masks/vaccines/shutdowns as it did, as long as the response in elderly care had been done better.
Parent is referring to the same president as the grandparent...
Trump has murdered 2 innocent U.S. citizens so far, and was president when COVID started. Trump's response to COVID was part of why he lost the 2020 election.
By your logic, Khamenei probably hasn't murdered anyone either, right? What a pitiful "argument".
While other Presidents would go as far as putting signs saying "the buck stops here" on the Resolute Desk, the current President's sign would say "the buck stops anywhere but here".
Let's also see what happens with New Mexico's investigation of the Zorro Ranch...
Self defense, my ass. Neither situation posed ANY credible threat to those agents, despite what ICE Barbie got up and said in front of a podium twenty minutes after the event.
The amount of ahistorical histrionics on here is deeply worrying for such an educated population. Your political news needs to change. Shouldn't have to say this but to people like you it's a necessity: not a Trump voter or supporter, just correcting misinformation.
solid and well written response except no one who is even slightly to the right would ever admit that we actually lived under Trump's rule during the COVID. entire right is now anti-vaccines, anti-all but it was the right that locked up our children and kept them out of schools and forced the vaccines on the population (could not go to the fucking gym without the proof of vaccination). so politically we have short-term memory in this country, especially the right politically. this is why the right is celebrating now America bombing the shit out of everyone while in October of 2023 were pitching that we need to vote right "to stop the endless wars."
"Just because they're a brutal dictator who murdered thousands of people."
Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of other reasons to be skeptical of American military adventurism, but killing this one guy in particular really isn't one of them.
Exactly. This is just western media trying to project some morality to what was an internationally illegal act ... (and perhaps some in the media hoping against hope this publicity would please the dear, glorious leaders of Israel and the US to end the war).
Preventive war (attacking to neutralize a future, non-imminent threat) is considered illegal under modern international law. The UN Charter restricts the use of force to UN Security Council authorization or self-defense against an actual, imminent armed attack, making preventive actions, which target potential future dangers, unlawful.
Israel and Iran are involved in active hostilities for a long time now, direct or by proxies. Furthermore, US and Israel are making the case for a preemptive war with the advent of the Iranian nuclear program (whether you believe it or not, that’s beside the point), and those are legal.
It also allows any one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, including the US, to unilateraly veto any binding resolution that imposes sanctions for violating said law, with no established rules or even informal expectations that they recuse themselves when conflicts of interest arise.
Ok, call it a "special military operation" if you want. A war by any other name would smell just as bad.
And what is Congress - or any other part of the US government - going to do about the pedophile not following rules? Stop him? How? Every potential check and balance has either been defanged or is controlled by his supporters.
Probably nothing. Also it’s not like the Democrats have much moral high ground to stand on here either (considering that Obama did more or less the same thing several times).
But congress can of course stop Trump from doing this and a whole bunch of other stuff. The problem is that it just chose not to and to give up much of its powers to the executive over the years (in practice if not legally) due to partisan reasons..
Why can't you be at war without officially declaring it? We have had lots of wars not declared by congress. Korean War, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq. This seems like a weird way to think.
Being required legally doesn't change the actual fact of war. Sure it is breaking the law. I don't see how Libya is the one in the long list to set this precedent of illegally non-declared war.
Honestly, I am disappointed that your comment was downvoted. You raise a good, if uncomfortable, point. I too tire of the well-worn phrase: "XYZ is illegal under international law". To me, interntional law is only useful for medium-sized (population-wise) states and smaller. Once you are a nation with a large population, then you can afford a large military and do whatever you want. Sure, people won't always like what you do, but there is very little they can do to stop it. Look at all the crazy shit that US, China, and Russia has been up to in the last 10 years -- plenty of violations, but few teeth to stop it. Even Israel, which is a very small state, but backed by a global superpower, has done many terrible things in Gaza.
There aren't millions. Maybe thousands which are completely insane considering Trump didn't kill any US citizen, unlike Haminayi killing 50k of his own people.
Perhaps, but there would be tens/hundreds of millions of people like me who didn't vote for Trump and don't like him, but would be absolutely enraged beyond perhaps anything in this country's history if another country blew up the White House and he was killed.
There are. There are also a lot who are celebrating in iran. In the us people who voted against trump accept he won and still believe his term will end as scheduled.
They threw the justice and civility when they murdered people on the street. That ship has sailed and the party who's responsible for this escalation is the government.
It’s sad that I can’t be sure which government you are talking about right now, Iran or the USA.
I’m aware the scale of “murdered people on the street” is stark and so you are almost certainly talking about Iran but what ICE is doing (and the clear extrapolation) fits your comment IMHO.
Well, there are other things you can look at. For one, Khamenei was dictator of a regime that abducts women and recently murdered 10s of thousands of protesters in the streets. I'd reckon most, including Iranians, would not judge the killing of such an individual immoral, unjust or uncivilized.
I don't know whether I'm "kidding" or not, but I might as well post what immediately came to mind as I read this:
Sandra Bland et al.
ICE detainments
The excess 20k (as far as absolute numbers go) road fatalities in the US versus Iran.
And the excess I-have-no-idea-how-many-k who died under Trump's bungled COVID response (and who are going to die from Biden's bungled rail strike response)(and who died under Obama's failed healthcare half-measure)(and who died under Bush's bungled Katrina response and because of his pre-9/11 mismanagement).
Yes, yes, per-capita and all that. I'm not really making a rational argument here, just appealing to the truthiness of noticing that America has its own way of killing its citizens.
Everything that has and will happen due to poor working conditions after he broke the rail strike in 2022. The cause celebre was the East Palestine derailment, but conditions are still unconscionable, and it's hard to conceive of a situation where rail laborers are overworked and under-supported doesn't result in more, and worse, incidents like that one. And then, of course, there are the knock-on environmental and economic effects.
It's not the only objectionable thing Biden's administration is solely responsible for, just the one that came to mind.
I'm not here to defend GW Bush. He did many stupid things. But I don't recall a lot of criticism around his "pre-9/11 mismanagement". Can you offer some specifics? The hunt for Osama Bin Laden started (at least) with Clinton and continued with GW Bush. Unfortunately, neither was able to stop him before the 9/11 attacks.
There was a cottage industry in elaborating the theory that Bush and his administration were unnecessarily caught flat-footed or even knew the attacks were imminent.
He seemed more interested in publicity and exaggerating his own bureaucratic importance than being objective—tendencies the political opposition and media were in no mood to criticize.
I'm not saying the Ayatollah wasn't a vile criminal, but it's always innocents on the ground who face the brunt of war.
I hope the citizens of Iran can have a peaceful transition and chart a better path for their country, but every single one of America's previous forced regime changes in the region (and across the world) has shown otherwise.
If I were in their shoes, I would be celebrating, too. But this is complicated. If they and their loved ones are already outside the country, they are not directly imperiled by the power vacuum. So the upside is maybe their homeland becomes hospitable again, but the downside is basically that it remains inhospitable.
I'm not saying that the diaspora doesn't care about the risks or have empathy for those that remain in Iran. I'm sure there are also many people who are deeply concerned. Just that being an emigre changes things.
There were allegedly 7 US personnel injured during the Maduro raid.
Decapitation airstrikes have been possible for decades. I suppose now we find out whether that was a good idea or not. Slightly surprised the Iran strike worked, if you remember the hunts for Saddam and Bin Laden.
> if you remember the hunts for Saddam and Bin Laden.
We didn't have Project Maven 25 years ago, and our leadership in the early 2000s were committed to boots-on-the-ground nation-building due to the afterglow of the NATO intervention in Yugoslavia.
That's very moving! I can't say many international developments have filled me with optimism the past couple years. I want so badly for this to pan out for Iranians.
Badly? You seem a little obsessed. The few anti-regime Iranians (who live in Iran) I know do not want to get bombed into freedom & democracy. The Western hubris despite Iraq and Afghanistan is back in full force, I see.
All I see is cameras panning around buildings, no humans in sight, and audio of cheering people. Not saying it's fake, but in the age of AI faking such a video is child's play.
Too low signal-to-noise ratio for me to acknowledge any of this. We'll see how it will pan out for the Iranian people in due time.
Do enjoy the moment while it lasts. Because the next ruler will be an American stooge. This isn't going anywhere, like the other "revolutions" in the middle east.
What's wrong about it? This is the goal - like in Syria: neuter the country by bringing in a pro-American government that will ensure country will stay weak and irrelevant, in exchange for letting it terrorise locals as they please.
Syria was an interesting one for me... Not in the typical american modus-operandi of destroying countries that are not american banana republics, but in actually supporting Al-Qaeda there...
US is full of people who've lost family members, friends, their own limbs, have PTSD and worse from when they fought Al-Qaeda... and now their own politicians are shaking hands and taking photos with them.
Then another shooting spree will happen and the media will be asking "what radicalized him?"..
> Because the next ruler will be an American stooge.
And if that's the case, do you think that American stooge shall do worse than Khamenei who ordered his islamist guards to slaughter 30 000+ unarmed iranian protesters in a matter of days?
What can be worse than religious extremist sending their fanatics into hospitals to finish the wounded?
I'm in the EU and I see cars with iranian flags honking. Someone posted a video or iranians celebrating: not bearded men and veiled women (which is a sign of religious extremism: there are many muslims that do not have the islamist beard and many muslim women who aren't veiled) but regular people, celebrating.
I don't doubt that many bearded men and veiled women are very sad today.
But I side with the free iranians in exile who are celebrating what may be the end of four decades of sharia law ruling their country.
> And if that's the case, do you think that American stooge shall do worse than Khamenei who ordered his islamist guards to slaughter 30 000+ unarmed iranian protesters in a matter of days?
American seemed to have been fine with 30k people disappearing in Argentina:
> What kind of all sorts of bad did they do in the past while they ruled a country? Have they ever usurped throne for 36 years?
To take the second quest first, and focus on Iran since it's the topic du jour: you mean like how the shah usurped power from the legislature with US/UK help and ruled for 38 years?
This has nothing comparable with "other revolutions" in the middle east, it's quite the opposite in fact: a non-islamist population held under the tyranny of islamist leaders.
The son of a Shah that was deposed by mass protests by well-educated students and intellectuals during the Islamic Revolution, who are now in their 60s.
It's moot anyways since the fundamentalist side of the coalition purged the leftwing intellectuals shortly after the latter had served the purpose of toppling the Shah.
The dispora means little though, the people in the country count as they live 365 days there without the convenient ability to comment from a distance and they are ones who would have to die for a turnover.
There are similar scenes in all Iranian cities. Literally the first morning video we could see Saturday morning before the internet shutdown, were ladies on their balcony jumping of joy that they had struck Khamenei's neighbourhood.
People should never treat the diaspora as representative of any population other than the diaspora.
This issue comes up with Cuba a lot. A lot of Cuban-Americans hate Castro. Why? Because they were the upper-middle class to wealthy under Batista.
This history becomes almost comically distorted. Senator Ted Cruz said that he hates communists because his father was tortured by... Batista [1].
So let me give you an example of the Iranian/Persian diaspora. In 2024 in particular we had a lot of protests against Israel's genocide in Gaza and American support for it. Many were on college campuses. One was on UCLA.
In April 2024, masked counterprotesters attacked the protesters and the police stood idly by and let it happen. The police later then used this violence as a reason to crack down on the protesters. So who were these counter-protesters? Persian diaspora [2].
Anyone celebrating this knows nothing about history and honestly nothing about Iran.
First, Khamenei isn't a singular autocrat like Basheer al-Asaad or Saddam Hussein. No decapitation strike is going to result in regime change. Did you notice the Iranian response change after Khamenei's death? No. Because there isn't one. The religious governmental institutions still exist. A temporary successor was appointed. The IRGC continues as is. Iran is a functioning state that will continue without its Supreme Leader.
Second, let's just say that the Iranian government does fall apart. That's going to be incredibly bad for Iranians as you'll either get a fail-state like Libya, Syria or Somalia (which is what Israel wants) or you'll simply get an American puppet.
Do you know who the American puppet in Syria is? Ahmed al-Sharaa, formerly an al-Qaeda leader. Do you think that's going to end well? Saddam Hussein was an American puppet. Until he wasn't. The former Shah. Augusto Pinochet. That's who you get when the US installs a puppet regime.
Maybe you think Iran will get a functioning democracy. They had one until the US overthrew it in 1953.
Do you really think the US cares about Iranians? Like at all? What exactly is being celebrated here?
"That's going to be incredibly bad for Iranians as you'll either get a fail-state like Libya, Syria or Somalia (which is what Israel wants) or you'll simply get an American puppet."
Iran is one of the oldest continuing political units in the world, clocking over 2500 years as an organized state.
I think you seriously underestimate the capabilities and know-how of the Iranians by expecting them to behave the same way as pre-state tribal polities like Somalia.
Why do you make comparisons to Libya or Somalia then, if you don't believe that this is going to happen. The defining characteristic of failed states is that central control crumbles and various local warlords step into the void.
Actually I do this a lot, I cite specific examples a, b to indicate a much more general category C that I have in mind. It's the 21st century and plausible that new types of failure-states unlike those seen historically will happen. So it's not necessarily a contradiction the other commenter had.
This may or may not lead to a weaker Iran. From FP:
“Iran is frequently portrayed as a political order bound tightly to individuals. Yet the architecture that emerged after 1979 was formed by a different logic, one founded in the revolutionary experience itself. Khomeini captured this hierarchy in a remark (https://abdimedia.net/en/ruhollah-khomeini/system-ahead-life...) often cited within Iran’s political elite: “Preserving the Islamic Republic is more important than preserving any individual, even if that individual were the Imam of the Age”—a reference to Shiism’s 12th Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi.
It is still unclear whether the system will always follow this principle. But one should expect a change in leadership in Tehran to be treated less as an ending and more as a chance for the country’s institutions to show they can survive.”
yess, the experience so far makes it obvious. They will be democratic and their gdp will go up by 6900% now. There won't be devastation, people starving to death, meaningless hindsight or anything like that.
"There are reports of US/Israeli strikes on or near the homes of former Iranian pres, Ahmadinejad, former reformist presidential candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, and various leftist activists. If the US/Israel really wanted the 'people' to take back the country, they wouldn’t assassinate these folks"
In isolation the death of this brutal dictator is great news, but we have seen how previous decapitation strikes have not had the intended effect. And I can only hope the Iranian people somehow end up better for this entirely illegal war that the Trump administration has initiated, instead of facing up to a fractured leadership and a potential civil war.
> President Trump announced the Iranian leader's death on social media, saying Khamenei could not avoid U.S. intelligence and surveillance. A source briefed on the U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran told NPR earlier Saturday that an Israeli airstrike killed Khamenei.
This does not seem to me like very strong evidence? Trump just says whatever, and "a source briefed on [the attacks]" just means at least one person in USG thinks Khamenei was in whatever house they blew up. Am I missing some other confirmation?
The killings of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi were so amazingly successful in stabilizing those countries that Americans keep repeating the pattern.
Also Panama's population and land area are an order of magnitude smaller than these Middle East states, and they were already an American client state in the past.
This is prime cherry-picked propaganda bullshit. What about Augusto Pinochet, to name drop a counterexample? How did that work out for the Chilean people?
Pretty much by definition, dictators do not allow themselves to be removed by the people through peaceful means, which is why it's easy to draw a line there. If someone's a dictator, it's morally okay to kill them. Always.
Why isn't Trump bombarding the Kremlin? Isn't Putin a much larger threat to world peace than any leader of Iran?
Also, it's never "morally okay" to kill anyone, ever; the fact that the US still has the death penalty shows how little they understand about morals and logic.
> Why isn't Trump bombarding the Kremlin? Isn't Putin a much larger threat to world peace than any leader of Iran?
Russia is not a threat to the US per MAD doctrine. If Iran had nukes, you might believe that they could actually be mad enough to use them and because Russia has nukes, no one would try this with Putin.
> Also, it's never "morally okay" to kill anyone, ever; the fact that the US still has the death penalty shows how little they understand about morals and logic.
Never, ever? Even self-defence? Or what would you do if you were living in a hunter-gatherer society that did not have the capability to imprison someone for life and you had a murdering psycho in your tribe? Expel him so he can come back and kill more people? Logic?
Iranian here! Lived most of my life inside Iran. I don't view US's actions as a favor to common Iranians. That's naive. No one wants war and bombing of civilians. Our misery is caused by a mix of religious extremism, theocracy and foreign intervention (in the past, Mossadegh, etc.) among other things. First and foremost I hold the regime responsible. For most of my life, I witnessed firsthand how they pushed us step by step closer to confrontation with the US, yet there's no single bomb shelter in Tehran or any major city for people to run to after 47 years of this shit. How would you feel in this situation?
Their opposition to Israel is not from a humanitarian and moral standpoint, it's purely religious. They have no shame admitting this. You just have to listen to one of the 5 state TV channels in Farsi. I even think Palestinians would fare better if not for these extremists on either side!
All that said, the supreme leader is the one who commands the murder of innocents in the streets, so he had it coming. Good riddance and he died like the rat that he was. But as to what happens next? No one knows. Also I personally don't think US is doing this because they want Iran's oil. I believe they want to put pressure on China to not get Iran's cheap (under sanctions) oil. That seems more plausible to me.
The US is doing this because Netanyahu visited Trump in the White House 7 times last year. It’s not about oil, protestors, or nuclear weapons: it’s about Israeli hegemony in the region.
Kinda sorta... The reality of the situation is much more complicated. The narrative and actions of the Islamic regime don’t quite corroborate "Israeli hegemony in the region" as the sole purpose of this conflict. Their narrative has not been one of defense in the past; it's always been offense. When they talk about Israel, they talk about Quds (Arabic name for Jerusalem), Quds' freedom, and annihilation of Israel. Even the foreign arm of the IRGC forces are named Quds! They operate in Syria and Lebanon, right next to Israel's border. That's why I said that their enmity with Israel is not from a moral standpoint or, evidently, even defending Iran. It takes two to tango!
Obviously, all this is not to say that Israel doesn't have a hegemonic stance. Probably even Arab nations have those dreams too!
You're seeing this vast field of geopolitical shit show through a tiny crack of news and social media from the last year.
Any time we drop bombs we set ourselves up for more pearl harbors or 9/11s. Just stupidly foolish decision most people involved won’t have to see the consequences. Especially since we’ve destroyed our soft power. What is the next step? More stupidity. We are Americans we all cheer for spectacle regardless of reason. My fellow citizens are stupid and I don’t support the troops anymore or any military that has let all this happen.
I've asked this question to an Iranian colleague and his response was that it was extremely welcome and even though they know there will be collateral damage, it's better than suffering under a regime which have killed and will continue to kill many more people than what these strikes will do.
If the hard-liners IRGC generals went with him then it might be a good thing for its economy. I have heard some rumors that China was frustrated that IRGC pushed against the deals and were not willing to accept foreign investments in key oil/infra projects because they sit on them -- and that was why China never put down any real investments after signing the deals.
I think the biggest problem of IRGC is that they grabbed a large share of economy but spent a lot of that in geopolitical expansion for the last 1-2 decades. This in turn contributed to a more fragile Iranian economy and high inflation, which makes them extremely unpopular among the people.
Why would a regime that came to be, ultimately, precisely because of foreign meddling in resource extraction ever entertain more foreign meddling in resource extraction, especially when it's levered with "or else we'll kill you."?
If the United States truly supported regime change there should be a clear next leader favored to succeed the Ayatollah, otherwise this feels more like a favor to oil companies, raising prices temporarily, and a sound bite for political gain, without a care of what happens to the country later. Simply toppling a government seems quite risky without further planning. Just expecting "good" people to fill the leadership vacuum is a gamble that could easily backfire and lead to greater crackdowns on freedoms and death to those Trump told to go get the power.
Obviously has nothing to do with oil companies or oil, this is a war on behalf of Israel. Netanyahu visited Trump 6 times in the past year. Prominent Zionists and Israelis inside the US have been agitating for the US to do this for years, especially since Trump took office last year.
Wars are almost always about commerce, history has shown that. Ideology is used to back the motive publicly, but the reason for involvement is almost always trade or commerce. This case could be different, but it is not obvious to me that this case is any different. A simple example is WW1 where the US was forced to back the UK because of their large debt to US banks, despite them still being a colonist power at the time.
I am making no implications of Trump, very on purpose to keep this in point (it's hard), but explicitly stating that the policies of the United States are based on capitalism and always have been, while the narrative given and received is that of humanitarianism, which in my opinion is a side effect only. In this case hopefully a positive one, hence my concern for the reckless nature of the war (let's just call it what it is, not just an attack or military action).
There is no evidence this strike has anything to do with oil, our leadership is not even saying that we will be involved with the changes on the ground. Oil prices are extremely low and have been so for a while now, domestic production is huge and we just claimed Venezuela's for ourselves as well. We have plenty of oil and again, there is just no evidence that this is motivated in any way by oil.
It is purely because Iran is a rival and check on Israel. Most of the US oligarchy has strong ties to Israel and they have made huge donations to Trump so that he would do this for them. Take a look at Miriam Adelson, Sheldon Adelson, Larry Elison, Ronald Lauder. These are mega donors who have been agitating for regime change in Iran from the very beginning. Go watch the speeches that Trump has given IN Israel, this has been their aim the entire time.
This conflict is extremely religious in nature, a huge contingent of Christians in the US believe that Israel ruling the middle east out of Jerusalem means that the end times will arrive sooner. Similarly a large contingent of Jews believe that their Messiah will return when they control the middle east.
Watch the Tucker interviews with Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee, many of these people are true believers.
>A 2017 LifeWay poll conducted in United States found that 80% of evangelical Christians believed that the creation of Israel in 1948 was a fulfillment of biblical prophecy that would bring about Christ's return and more than 50% of Evangelical Christians believed that they support Israel because it is important for fulfilling the prophecy.
> Earlier, Trump addressed reports that Khamenei was killed in airstrikes today, saying, “We feel that that is a correct story.”
This doesn't sound like Trump's typical bluster, and it's even weirder that Trump didn't immediately go on TV to brag. I'm not saying this is fake news, but I'll wait for confirmation.
If true, and given how easy it seemed decapitate the regime I can't see another Ayatollah taking over, hopefully the people take over and institute a real secular democracy based on capitalism.
Without proper support and a huge nation building effort, the same fate as Lebanon, Syria, Lybia Iraq, Afghanistan is the more likely outcome after this evil dictator is gone.
Assassination doesn’t remove the system or rewrite the balance of power, nor does it reconstitute civil society.
It's definitely odd if he was just sitting in his compound. That's a very, well, known place for him. Surely Iran has plenty of secure underground bunkers for leadership to retreat to?
Fleeing is seen as dishonorable in many parts of the Arab world. Remember the Israeli lies about how Yahya Sinwar dressed in women's clothes and were trying to cross the border to Egypt? In reality he was out in the field with his men killing Israeli soldiers. He died a brave death and Khamenei will now have died one too.
No. The other poster already did a fine job about pointing out that Islamic terror groups typically use guerilla warfare which frequently involves fleeing, not wearing a uniform, hiding among civilians, etc.
His daughter, son-in-law, and the defense minister were also killed, as they were all in his residence at the time.
If he decided to stay for ideological reasons, they would not have been there.
My guess is that they might have misinterpreted the US's demands as starting positions while the US considered them to be final. Who would expect a country that can produce ballistic missiles to willingly give it up? It was a non-starter from the beginning.
You can't see the french or Russians doing the same thing in Africa? Because I sure can. There's be some hand wringing and posturing but that's about it.
Not that it's ok for the US, or anyone else to do it.
I prefer assassinations of leaders in wars over deaths of soldiers and especially civilians.
Considering how Israel had to raze entire cities to beat 'Hamas' or the US dropping nukes in WW2 instead of bombing the Japanese Emperor. This is decent as far as wars go.
> In an interview with Politico in 2023, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that "In the last 15 years, Israel did everything to downgrade the Palestinian Authority and to boost Hamas." He continued saying "Gaza was on the brink of collapse because they had no resources, they had no money, and the PA refused to give Hamas any money. Bibi saved them. Bibi made a deal with Qatar and they started to move millions and millions of dollars to Gaza."
That looks like Israel made every effort to promote the welfare of Gazan citizens. From your own link "Gaza was on the brink of collapse" and Israel saved them.
Nonsense. They wanted to stabilize Hamas rule so that the Palestinian Authority would not be able to govern there. A unified Palestinian government in the West Bank and Gaza is what they were opposed to. They feared diplomatic success on the part of the Palestinian Authority more so than any violence from Hamas. A major oops, but ideologically consistent with the Zionist goal of keeping a foot on the neck of Palestinians. There's not much else to Israel aside from that.
That's like saying the EU fundeh Hamas because they gave aid money to Gaza. If you squint at it the right way then maybe, but fundamentally it's disingenuous to call something like that funding.
But "the Jews .. uhm, I mean Israel .. had it coming and they did it to themselves" is always a favorite, isn't it?
If that was true, it would be like that. But it isn't, so it's not. EU is wide, and does not always speak with one voice, but it has a clear history of doing their best to avoid funding the proto-democratic forces in the region. Any support of religious extremists is considered a failure and acted upon.
No, Hamas was never funded by Israel. In this instance, Hamas was funded by Qatar, and the Israelis were complicit by allowing it. But it's also important to remember that Hamas is the elected sovereign in Gaza, and this money was used in part to run Gaza's infrastructure. In the same way Taliban runs Afghanistan, Hamas runs Gaza.
The assumption in Israel was that it was beneficial to have Hamas retain something to lose, and not starve them dry outright. Of course that didn't pan out well, given what Hamas did in October 7th.
But saying Hamas was funded by Israel is an outright lie, and the irony it comes from the same people who blame Israel for not letting supplies into Gaza during war. So no matter if Israel does or does not, it's always to blame simply by being.
> the irony it comes from the same people who blame Israel for not letting supplies into Gaza during war.
Israel did in fact do that. In fact there were several months of Israel not allowing any food or supplies whatsoever into Gaza. That was about a year ago. (It's possible Israel may have been supplying rival groups unfriendly to Hamas with food/supplies/weapons in secret, but all regular humanitarian aid was shut off.)
To the extent that they're actually effective, I agree.
Trouble is, higher-ups are easily replaceable, and the rank-and-file True Believers may be even more willing to follow orders in the name of a dead tyrant than a living one.
Or not. Sic semper tyrannis. Best wishes to the people of Iran.
> I prefer assassinations of leaders in wars over deaths of soldiers and especially civilians.
To me, this argument doesn't hold water. Think about some counterexamples: (1) Netanyahu and Gaza. Surely, 100K+ civilians died as a result of that war. (2) Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Vietnam. A staggering number of civilians died in that war. (3) GW Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq/2.
My guess: All of those leaders are responsible for more innocent civilian deaths in each conflict than Khamenei's entire reign.
To me, I am very conflicted about the assassination of Khamenei. Yeah, he did a bunch of bad stuff and was very destabilising in the region, but I need to draw the line at assassination. It was unnecessary. It is a slippery slope.
It was a criticism of the three wars you mentioned. I think a quick victory would have limited civilian deaths in all those situations.
Except the first one, because the goal of that war was killing the civilians. They could have assassinated Hamas leaders just as easily, but then there would be no reason to bomb all those hospitals and children.
What are you talking about? Russia has effectively been blocked from the west while when the United States invaded Iraq nothing happened. Europe trades with the US like nothing ever happened while Russia will never return to what it was before without at minimum Putin being gone.
Europe even still trades with Israel when what they have done is Gaza has been declared a genocide by everyone. At the same time Russia can't even take part in the Olympics or the Eurovision song contest.
The west has no moral ground to stand on and hopefully people in the west will start to see that.
You raise a lot of good points here. Another unconfortable truth: Russia is withstanding the sanctions way better than anyone expected. I don't think that they can sustain it forever, but I do think they can make it (at least) another 2-3 years.
America is run by ideologues and the EU idealists. either way we are heading in separate directions. I don’t think the US can be described as a western country anymore tbh.
America is as much a victim of israel as iran is. You act like we have a choice in this matter. We are forced to cut funding for food programs, education, healthcare, etc because of soaring debt. Yet, we'll take on any amount of debt for israel's wars. It's amazing how we've become a slave of such a small nation.
> Can you imagine other countries assassinating a foreign head of state and not getting immediate blowback?
It's simply a matter of power. Who is powerful enough to do the enforcing of laws or punishing of bad actors? Might makes right.
In my opinion the real problem for Iran lies in the north, on the border with Azerbaijan.
The Israeli-supplied Azeri military has already demonstrated its effectiveness when it curb stomped the unprepared and internally betrayed Armenian military and militias. Baku will eventually decide to intervene in the northern territories. If I had to guess, a "special military operation" into northern Iran is the most likely follow-up scenario goaded into and supplied of course by Israel/US. The goal will be to foment a civil war and begin the dismemberment process of Iran.
A little personal conspiracy theory I have is that after the last Israel/US intervention (when they mysteriously liquidated the only high-ranking and influential internal opposition of the Khamenei clan left) is that some sort of deal was worked out behind the scenes with the clan to get rid of the wizard-in-chief kinda like how Maduro was sold out. It is much easier to go to war with a country when it responds with only symbolic attacks and secretly promises to fight with one hand behind its back - provided cash and security flows for those at the top of course.
Iranian regime-allied forces were a big part of why Iraq was such a quagmire.
The balance of power in the Middle East is shifting from the Sunni~Shia schism that it once was.
Most of the remaining powers are willing to actually engage in diplomacy with Israel & prefer secular groups to Islamist groups.
There's still personality conflicts, such as the one growing between the heads of Saudi Arabia & the UAE, but the general trend seems to be very promising.
Nah, if anything the Islamist groups are biding their time, waiting for the internationally-supported governments to lose the will to carry on before striking.
The governments, yes, but not the general population necessarily. And the governments can't survive without oil revenue and/or external support, so they'll be losing in the long run.
Iraq was a quagmire because the US attacked them for no reason at all other than to further Israel's interests. We have no business in the Middle East. Period.
We went into Iraq because we had to station troops in Saudi Arabia in order to defend them against Iraq, and having US troops in 'the holy land' led to Osama Bin Laden leading to 9-11. People say the two aren't connected but if you learn the context at the time they were, just not in the basic way people want to understand situations.
A part, but not the only part. Factions like AQI and later ISIL/ISIS/IS were ideological enemies to both the US and Iran and its Shia militas. The invasion, regime change, and occupation in Iraq would have caused a mess even with a US-aligned regime in Iran.
Iraq right now is in roughly the same position as it was when Saddam Hussein was there but in the meantime a few million people died and the country went through a pretty traumatic period.
During the years which followed after the invasion, lots did, yes. This is first hand account btw. Now? I'm not sure as the country has mostly stablised.
Estimates put the number of people killed due to the American invasion between half a million and a million. Saddam's brutality paled in comparison to the carnage the US invasion caused.
is the civilian population being gassed in Iraq now? how about a brutal repressive regime backed by a secret police that tortured and disappeared thousands? is Iraq really the same as it was under Saddam?!!?!?!?!?!??!?!
ISIS also broke out of countries like Syria, which nobody messed with until after their civil war and the ISIS takeover. Which is to say that the problem isn’t the Iraq war - but Islam. It’s literally called ISIS - and you blame the US for it?
Well, Iran is majority muslim. If somehow you've concluded that muslims are simply fundamentally violent and incapable of stable governance and that is the reason why the occupation of iraq failed then...
But I personally think that the reasons why you see violent insurgency after a regime change and foreign occupation is a little more universal to humans than specific to islam.
Parts of Iraq are much better off, like Kurdistan. Other parts were utterly devastated by our operations, insurgency, sectarian violence, ISIS, and so on. Some people had religious freedom and now live in areas under theocratic control.
When Saddam Hussein was removed, the result was that basically all Iraqi Christians who hadn't fled were murdered. There are probably as many Iraqi Christians in the EU as there are in Iraq now.
That, combined with extreme short-termism and unbridled optimism. All three probably having a similar root cause.
And we see this across the board. A canonical one that remains prevalent: "If only people would've come out and voted for Kamala in 2024, we wouldn't be in this mess". But then if you follow the pattern, with the candidate she was and what she would've done, this would've secured an ultra-MAGA victory in 2028 (and likely already by 2026 midterms). One more extreme, more devious, more intelligent from the get-go than the current one. People like to cling to "but you don't know that for sure", which is true, but we do know that with about 90% certainty. Betting on 10% is an awful idea and is indeed what has gotten you to where you're at.
It's the single biggest reason for the huge power shift from the US to China. Almost anything that China does is based on long-term consequences. Pain today for gain over time. Of course there are counterexamples, but by and large this holds.
In this case, sure, many Iranians will be happy for a day - especially overseas. So that's what people focus on. People have entirely lost the ability to think realistically in years. Of course part of this is biological, we're monkeys. But there are many reasons to believe that this ability has greatly declined over the last 50 years, particularly in the West and especially in the US.
One would think on HN there would be sophisticated grasp of complex systems than Reddit or what have you, so either there are just as many politically dogmatic/biased people in tech, or political threads are dominated by non-tech users, or what?
> Removing Saddam in itself was good but what it did the wider region was not good.
I believe this is the legacy of leaders like Saddam. They build a very messy future for their countries. Whenever such a leader is gone, somebody has to take over power. Dictators tend to concentrate as much power in their hands as possible. Forced removal of such a leader might accelerate and / or destabilize power transition. Which might end up in a very messy scenario.
Absolute power transition worked well with monarchy in the past, cause everybody knew who would be the next guy, there were rules and procedures. With dictatorship often times there are no rules. So power transition might turn into a complete chaos even with a natural death of a dictator.
Taking out Saddam allowed the Taliban to get right back to the raping of the Opium farmers wives and children. Not saying I approved of Saddam but I did enjoy the way he had originally curtailed the risk to his Opium revenue.
I am old enough. Iraq is not perfect today but so much better than it was. Go talk to Iraqis and see for yourself.
It costs us some time, money and lives to get to this point. But Saddam (a tyrant who killed his own kind in masses with gas and started wars with neighbors) staying in power would have been way worse for the wider region.
I think the point being made is that there's wider fallout than just what's directly affected. If you go to Syria and ask Syrians how they feel about the affects on the wider region they might not so readily agree. Or even ask Iraqis in the border region who lived through ISIS rule.
Iraq was ruled by a sociopath that used chemical weapons against his own citizens. I didn’t agree with the invasion, but there is no doubt Iraq is better off today than it would have been without U.S. involvement.
That's an absurd statement. No doubt? Saddam would be pushing 90 now, odds are he would be dead anyway and who knows how that chain of events would have gone.
In the first gulf war, Bush Sr. refused to occupy the country. He viewed it as too difficult and too expensive. In the second gulf war, Bush Jr. declared victory from the deck of an aircraft carrier, occupied the country, hunted and executed its leader, and then opened the U.S. treasury to deal with the aftermath. Thousands of Americans died. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's died. The occupation was long and difficult, but its end was still premature and left a power vacuum that ISIS raged into, causing even more destruction. Perhaps Iraqi's can say they're better off today than under Hussein, but a terrible cost was paid. Most of the blood was Iraqi, but most of the treasure was American.
The financial drain on the U.S. was extreme enough to expose the world's preeminent superpower as being unable to bring the occupation of a somewhat backwards and minor dictatorship to a successful conclusion. Iraq is not a big country, in either population or area, but it was still too much for the U.S. to control, even with willing allies. This failure made the world realize there were severe limits to what the U.S. can do. Sure, it might defeat the military of a middle or even major power, but occupy and control it? Fat chance!
In the days ahead, the U.S. military is going to bomb anything that moves and looks like it might shoot back, as well as a lot of infrastructure and probably a decent number of civilian targets by mistake (or design). Trump has framed this invasion as being directed towards eliminating Iran's nuclear program, so expect a lot of facilities in close proximity to civilians (and many of those civilians) to be vaporized.
If Trump is listening to his generals even slightly, he will not try to occupy the country. He'll declare victory and move on to whatever outrage is next to maintain his "Flood the zone" strategy and keep the Epstein heat from finally catching up with him. If that's all he does, this will be another war like Bush Sr.'s. Expensive, but not ruinously so. U.S. deaths will be in the hundreds and not the thousands. Iran will most likely fall into the hands of another mullah or descend into chaos, becoming a long-term security quagmire that will probably continue to bleed the U.S. for decades to come. Even if democracy does take root in Iran, it likely won't be a democracy that's friendly to the U.S..
If Trump isn't listening to his generals (who reportedly advised against the invasion to begin with), he might try to occupy Iran. Iran has double the population and four times the land area as Iraq. Unlike Bush Jr., Trump has not even tried to stitch together a coalition to share the costs. It's unlikely that many countries would be dumb enough to sign on now. There's no NATO article 5 pretext to drag in other NATO countries. There isn't even a falsified pretext like WMD's to quiet the howling in the UN. Israel isn't the kind of help the U.S. needs because the U.S. pays most of Israel's military bills to begin with. In short, if Iraq strained the U.S.'s finances close to the breaking point, Iran will ruin them completely. There's absolutely no way the U.S. can afford to occupy Iran.
Even if Trump cuts and runs, this war will ensure American's can't afford socialized medicine for another generation.
Not a long time ago, the previous time when USA had bombed Iran, Trump claimed to have destroyed completely anything that Iran could use to make nuclear weapons.
It would be weird (or not?) to contradict himself now by claiming that they were able to make nuclear weapons.
I avoid listening to the current POTUS as it’s hard to make sense of his illogic, but his video said, “ they attempted to rebuild their nuclear program and to continue developing long-range missiles that can now threaten our very good friends and allies in Europe, our troops stationed overseas and could soon reach the American homeland.”
Iraqi path to democracy isn't really that different from everyone else's.
People tend to forget that various extant democracies, including European ones,
mostly didn't precipitate out of thin air by everyone deciding to just be nice to one another. Many now-democratic countries had to fight a war of independence or a civil war, often with involvement of third parties, to get there.
France took about 80 years of violent upheavals from 1789 to 1871 to actually become a democratic republic for good. Germany was even worse. Unification of Italy was a long bloody mess. Poland barely survived the 20th century. Even Swiss direct democracy is an aftermath of a civil war, though in their case, it was a small one.
Democracy isn't an application that people just install and it starts working. It usually takes decades for it to take roots, as people have to slowly abandon the idea that it is just easier to massacre their opponents.
Even the US came to be after a war of independence with a major external factor on their side (the French) and only ended slavery through a nasty civil war.
Iraq isn't really an outlier in that context and Iran wouldn't probably be either.
Always convenient to drop bombs and say “it would have been worse”. With absolutely no proof of that. It’s the stupidest American talking point and I despise other Americans who use that propaganda.
And you frequently fly over to Iraq and explain that to the people there right? They nod in agreement with you. “We had to bomb and occupy your country and kill your citizens just like Saddam did remember? Now you’re better off after our failed occupation left your country. We’ll bomb you anytime; sure it costs us money is and the reason neither of our countries have healthcare but who needs healthcare when you have bombs and propaganda. You’re welcome.”
> a tyrant who killed his own kind in masses with gas and started wars with neighbors
The US sent Saddam the Bell helicopters to gas the Kurds. US military aid increased after that happened.
The war with a neighbor was with Iran - the country the US just attacked, and which the US encouraged Iraq to fight. That's why Rumsfwld was over there shaking Saddam's hand.
We created Saddam Hussein. He was our foil against Iran. We propped up a war that killed over a million Iraqis and Iranians in the 1980s for no net strategic result.
And why did we want to punish Iran? Because the fundamentalist regime overthrew our puppet (the Shah).
And how did the Shah come to be a dictator, essentially? Because we overthrew the liberal democracy Iran had in 1953 at the behest of the british because Iran had wanted to control their own oil and BP wasn't happy.
Even the fundamentalist regime in Iran is kind of America's fault. Saddam Hussein expelled Khomenei from Iraq in 1978 (IIRC) because when it became clear that Iran was lost, we wanted the fundamentalists to take over instead of the communists because we didn't want Iran to fall into the Soviet sphere of influence.
It's also a pretty similar story with Osama bin Laden.
As payback for Soviet support for North Vietnam, we supplied arms to the rebels in Afghanistan after the USSR invaded. Supplying Stinger SAMs to the mujahadeen was particularly devastating and these included Osama bin Laden.
Isn't it weird that all this foreign interference always go badly and all these former puppets somehow end up becoming huge problems for us later? When will we learn, exactly?
It's also worth noting that there was a strong desire in American policy circles to overthrow Saddam well before 9/11. 9/11 and the fake WMD story just became the excuse. For example, in 1998 a bunch of people sent a letter to then President Bill Clinton urging him to invade Iraq and topple Saddam [1]. Just look at the signatories on that letter and what part they played in the War on Terror.
It's because we do these things not for American interests, but for the interests of a small country that has captured our political establishment through campaign finance and blackmail.
There was a clip of one of Iran's missiles dodging 3 Patriot interceptors to hit the US base in Bahrain. I realized I just watched $12m wasted for nothing in less than 5 seconds.
And if a choice between 2 people that have been thoroughly vetted by elites is your definition of democracy, you have a sad sad view of what's possible.
These people are here to either sow dissent between American citizens and the American government, or have been influenced by those whose goal is to sow dissent between American citizens and the American government. Qatar can not take on the US with military power, so they use soft power and "influencers".
This is the kind of brainrot that lets people like Trump get into power in the first place. Removing all agency from the American people by pretending that "both sides are the same". It's just pathetic.
You have built yourself a safe little cocoon, protected from the messy imperfect reality of the world, where sometimes you have to make compromises and you don't always get what you want.
> Approximately 370,000 Hmong Americans live in the U.S. largely due to their alliance with the CIA during the Vietnam war.
Correct, but how does this invalidate OP’s assertion? Are you saying that there are no collaborators who were left behind in Vietnam after supporting the US?
If I recall correctly, even getting the Hmong here was a political lift that some opposed
All the angry people here coming out of the woodwork in this thread. Where were you just a month ago, when the Iranian regime murdered 30k of its own civilians within just a couple of days, during the recent wave of protests? This site is infested with woke moralists and islamists.
It's remarkable to me how many seem to forget there is "morality" apart from "legality". Even if this does violate some treaty somewhere, we need not wring hands over the death of an objective dictator.
> Even if this does violate some treaty somewhere, we need not wring hands over the death of an objective dictator.
We absolutely should. It's a key principle of international law that brutal regimes should not be disturbed, until an opportunity for a regime change brokered by international lawyers presents itself in a century or two. Moral legitimacy comes from international law, and international law only.
What country in the Middle East has actually gotten better after removal of a bad status quo, in the last 26 years? I really can’t think of any. Is even Iraq considered a success?
"As of late spring 2025 Russia has been producing around 170 Geran-2 drones per day, with indication that a total of around 26,000 Gerans were produced by Yelabuga drone factory"
Smart strategy by the administration - go after people who are universally hated (Maduro, Khamenei) so you can normalize breaking the law and no one will speak out against you or they're a supporter of said hated people.
In 1953, Iran was a secular and democratic country. They had elected a prime minister who decided to nationalize the oil industry. The US didn't like this and overthrew him. They imposed a brutal monarchical dictatorship. Popular discontent led to the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The ayatollahs, to a large extent, existed because of US interference.
The same is true for all the instability in the Middle East, entirely manufactured by the West.
Action-reaction, cause-effect: You never know how a story will end. And after the 1979 revolution, the CIA and British MI6 provided the ayatollahs with lists of communists to exterminate, which they did. Imperialism always prefers to deal with theocracies rather than communists.
https://www.declassifieduk.org/how-britain-helped-irans-isla...
> Imperialism always prefers to deal with theocracies rather than communists.
Communist regimes are also a form of theocracy (proof can be found in the writings of any communist leader). It's just that, unlike other theocratic regimes, other countries have to deal with millions of starving refugees (because the communist faith requires banning food production or something like that, I don't know much about their religion).
Good, Trump can now claim victory and shout some words in his third-world-dictator style, and american sailors move out of the region. Stock market is opening tomorrow and it doesnt want to see ugly things
I don't think anyone should shed a tear for Khamenei's death, but I'm not convinced the current trend of regime decapitation is setting the world in a desirable direction.
I'm convinced that with current technology (namely, drones) any half competent state actor can easily assassinate any world leader, and I wonder if the recent US actions aren't going to make the practice commonplace, with dramatic destabilization risks. (For instance think about Air Force One being shot down during landing by an FPV drone controlled over LTE from somewhere in South America by a Cuban intelligence officer).
It's pretty obvious that these dictators etc. are legally civilians and that this kind of thing is against the laws of war.
Traditionally even people like the US president, who is technically commander in chief, kings etc. with formal military ranks but who are not real battlefield decision makers etc., have been regarded as civilians.
I work with and know a lot of Shia (non-Iranian) Muslims and listening to them talk about this assassination I'm convinced that the likelihood of attempted terror attacks against the US has increased significantly.
The non-Iranian part is key. Millions of muslims around the world viewed the Iranian theocracy as the only power in the world fighting for Islam. They are devastated.
It's an English language book aimed for Westerner readers. It purports to argue that the core strategy for spreading Islam - terror - is not compatible with Western values. It also states that other features of Islam are incompatible with Western values, such as repression of women. The book argues that since these ideologies are incompatible with Western values, they must be abandoned.
However, the abandonment argument is only valid if one already accepts Western values as an axiom - which being an English-language book most of the readers would agree with. These readers will perceive the book to promote the reform of Islam into a religion that resembles a modern Christian denomination, just with different idols and prayers and holidays.
However those who do not come from the perspective of modern Christian values and as axiomic, will reject the argument outright. This is the Muslim population who might read it.
You seem to be mixing up "Western values" and "Christian values" whereas Christian values are very much against the accumulation of wealth, whereas "Western values" seem to be all about worshipping wealth to the exclusion of all other considerations and even worshipping those who deliberately exploit others to amass an ungodly amount of wealth.
If you think that small difference means that Western values are not Christian values, then you have no idea how large the gulf between your values and Islamic values are.
Do you value separation of state and religious authority? Women's rights? Minority rights? Human dignity? Equality before the law? Sanctity of life? Individual moral responsibility? Monogamous marriage? The objective study of history? Fair trial? Witnesses at trial? Tolerance of alternative viewpoints?
Those values seem to be exactly the ones being discarded by the Christo-fascists of the USA.
My point is that the so-called Christian values are nothing to do with the reported teachings of Jesus and instead are used to justify the exact opposite.
I did not realize that the point of discussion had changed to specifically Christo-fascists of the USA. My point still stands in regard to the vast majority of Christians you will meet.
One thing that I can not stand about some modern fanatics is the representation of 1% of a population as if they represent the whole. Don't bring up Christo-fascists of the USA as representative of Christian values. That's highjacking the subject to your pet cause.
> Do you value separation of state and religious authority? Women's rights? Minority rights? Human dignity? Equality before the law? Sanctity of life? Individual moral responsibility? Monogamous marriage? The objective study of history? Fair trial? Witnesses at trial? Tolerance of alternative viewpoints?
Sorry, I thought you were pointing out the many issues with the current US administration and you were showing the difference between Christo-fascists and Christians who value the teachings of Jesus.
The ACTUAL teachings by Supreme Leader Khamenei (remember, the HIGHEST Shia authority according to some) include that school girls who are to be killed for not wearing hats should be raped, because the Muslim God judges children based on if they have been raped. With teachings like this, I'm OK with muslims not following the teachings.
Most of these arguments on the effect of different religions tend to be a bit silly. Islam is much more related to Christianity and Judaism than either of those two are to each other.
Language, cultural history, and geography tend to play a bigger role on society than the monotheistic religions do.
I don't think doctrinal reformation is possible with Islam.
The Qur'an is totally prescriptive. It contains direct legal commands, judicial rules and explicit government principles which are all binding and considered as direct divine speech.
I think Westernisation and an increase in the number of "casual" muslims is and will continue to be the moderating effect.
Think of what is happening in Europe (as the clearest example) with the influx of Muslim immigrants who raise increasingly more assimilated children as the blueprint.
The cultural gulf between left and right in the US is expanding rather than being assimilated or adapting. There is nothing stopping the same thing from happening between immigrants and natives in the EU. Both cases involve fundamentaly irecconcilable values, and it just depends on which values prove more viral.
I'm not sure the left/right cultural gulf will last beyond Trump. I'm not even sure it's still alive now, with Trump's approval ratings in the toilet. The US political system takes time to cycle and isn't on the same schedule as the political pendulum.
I was just saying this to someone this morning. Iran’s theocracy was the only one that has withstood the Middle East political wars in Jordan, Syria, Afghanistan, etc.
To rephrase it… if The Middle East was the UK, Iran would be British. If the Middle East was the US. Iran would be California.
Scotland is almost certainly innocent, though the Scottish people may not be.
Anyhow, the worst crimes of colonialism/genocide were mainly conducted by the English (including invading/killing plenty of Scottish, Welsh and Irish people).
Jordan political system is much older than Iran, as well as the Saudis and others. Iran theocracy is a new phenomena in the Middle East, ushering the implementation era of political Islam, later continued by ISIS, Hamas and the milder Qatar and current Turkey
Modern Western Christians are centuries removed from experiencing religion-as-politics. Islam is as much a political ideology as it is a religion - just like Christianity was before Locke and the American and French revolutions. Today's modern Western Christians (and Western atheists, who share Christian values) do not understand that the essence of political religion is to spread in both people and in geography. Muslims who move to Christian-majority lands do not assimilate or convert.
For what it's worth, I come from the perspective of being neither Christian nor Muslim, but having lived years among Christians and then years having lived along Muslims.
The Catholic Church exerted strong influence in Quebec until the 1950s. Of course since then Quebec has become the most secular region in North America.
> Modern Western Christians are centuries removed from experiencing religion-as-politics.
That's news for those of us that are living through the decades-long effort by christian dominionists to take over the US.
> Western atheists, who share Christian values
It's the other way around: Christians share basic morality with people operating on morality from first principles. Plenty of western christian values are orthogonal to morality.
> Muslims who move to Christian-majority lands do not assimilate or convert.
This is false and flat-out defamatory. It's also the type of statement that gets used before bad people do a bunch of bad things.
Not debating who came first. I’m also not debating that Saudi’s are equivalent to the French to the Iranians (if they were England in my UK analogy, or Texas for the US one).
I also don’t think that, in general, there’s any animosity there just talking size and influence over the region. Iran and Saudi are/were it. It’s a really interesting dynamic of faith, tradition, authoritarianism, and manipulation.
Another good analogy would be, said theocracy is (was?) like a very bad piece of legacy code, impossible to refactor, until the entire feature gets thrown in the trash.
Oh boy flying the flag of the Islamic Republic in the US would get so much blowback. Everyone knows how incredibly evil it is. It recently killed at least 20,000 protestors to stay in power.
Having said that, I also condemn Iranian regime killing (reportedly) 30000 protesters. So he probably had it coming.
I'm more concerned about what happens to US now, because I think the attack indicates a complete failure and collapse of the legislative branch of the US government.
Oh, there is no effective US Government beyond Trump's demands. he's decimated anyone that could challenge, and the general public was manufactured without the critical analysis to understand. The USA is over and gone, the US is a headless zombie nation operated by 7th graders, pedos, and drug addicts. All they need is a social following and loyalty, and they are part of the government.
> I'm more concerned about what happens to US now, because I think the attack indicates a complete failure and collapse of the legislative branch of the US government.
Why now? Why not when they took out Soleimani in 2020? Or when they invaded and took out Gaddafi in 2011? Can keep going all the back to Truman invading Vietnam.
The collapse happened when we elected a power drunk fool with a Project 2025 playbook to completely strip the separation of powers in favor of the Executive branch.
Now the war fool is trying to start as many conflicts as possible inside and outside the US to distract from his disturbingly heavy Epstein involvement to give him an excuse to take over polling sites in the US. No more wars my rear.
We have a chance to recover in the November elections by voting out his puppets and tools in congress. The question is whether or not we will take it.
While the comment you replied to was "extreme", it is impossible for any muslim to not know the difference when the difference defines everything about how they practice their religion.
Are you muslim? In the real world most muslims are not that religious and hardly follow what is taught to perfect precision. They would not be able to answer the difference except in vague terms at best.
Every single muslim, whether devout, practicing, lapsed or whatever, knows whether they are/were Sunni or Shia. They are literally born into it. It determines who is seen as the authority in matters of their faith, the way they pray, the sites they consider holy, the religious days they observe. Even Ramadan starts and ends on different days depending on which you are.
It's such a fundamental thing that I question whether you have any idea about what you're saying here.
I don't know much about Islam, but what's being described isn't uncommon for lapsed Christians. I know plenty of people in my orbit (including me) who went to mass on Christmas Eve and Easter as children, but literally wouldn't be able to answer if the curch they went to was Catholic or Protestant.
Well if you take religious interpretations to do the extreme they hate all 'non believers'. I am assuming that even the Sunni Muslim countries' average population might not be that happy with the bullying (their perception)
The "good" part is that Sunni Muslims probably won't have the same feeling, or do they?
But I agree with the assessment. I'd definitely avoid large public events. Darn the world is becoming more and more chaotic and we are just waiting for China to put up the last piece to make it into 19th Europe.
Sunni Muslims generally oppose Shias in Muslim-internal matters, and vice versa. But they both generally support the other in matters against non-Muslims.
I saw on X a video of some Taliban commander saying nobody should cry for Khamenei, because "Israel and Iran are two sides of the same unbeliever coin"
No I'm trying to say, when China decides to copy the behavior of US, especially when her economy turns downwards again, will be the last piece of the puzzle (that shows up the end of the old world).
Exactly. Oddly enough most countries have politics split down the middle. A left and right. Up and down. Rarely even a 2/3 majority.
If you wanted to find people celebrating, you'd find people celebrating.
But my opinion is more often than not, you have two bad guys fighting each other for the top spot. They don't support Option B because they're dumb, they support B because Option A would sell his mom for power, while Option C would just become a puppet to A.
9/11 was the first major attack on the continental US in living memory. It was literally a world-altering event for most of the population, and it radically changed the geopolitical calculus of the average citizen.
Lots of american citizens demanded retaliation. Our counterattacks weren't sanctioned by congress, but they were by the people.
Meanwhile, the current president just started a war based on a temper tantrum and an attempt to distract the population.
I agree with you that the Iran strike is an effort to distract the public from Trump’s failure to bring down grocery prices like he promised: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wag_the_Dog
I was addressing the hypothetical of how Americans would react if Trump was killed by a foreign country in airstrikes similar to how the Ayatollah was killed. I think Americans would react like they did after 9/11, instead of celebrating like many are in Iran.
I agree. Half the country would be happy if an entity composed of Americans killed Trump, but most of those would be unhappy with a non-American entity doing it. Or at least I hope they would.
if starting a war in the middle east gets you high approval ratings after campaigning as “presdent of peace” and crying like a little bitch trying to get nobel “peace” prize, the downfall of America is coming a lot sooner than most are ballparking (we are well on the way)
Bush’s approval rating benefited from the US being attacked, and then responding. Trump has the order wrong; preemptively attacking countries (even bad ones) doesn’t poll very well with Americans.
(This is ahead of Trump’s base being isolationist; it’s not even clear who wants this besides conventional hawks.)
Combined with the fact that the media will be confused about how to respond. You’ll have Iranian diaspora celebrating, like Venezuelans did after the capture of Maduro, making it impossible for the media to frame this simply in terms of “Trump is racist.” As a result, the whole thing will get memory holed, just like the Venezuela attack.
I didn’t say the attack on Iran was like 9/11. I was responding to OP’s hypothetical about what would happen if the situation was reversed and Trump was killed.
Now imagine if Bush & his family were assassinated by AQ on 9/11, and you’ll understand why the majority of Iranians inside Iran will not be celebrating.
You may be right, but a lot has changed in the last quarter century. The 9/11 attacks came at a time when the Cold War had just ended and the dotcom boom had just given us a strong economy. There was a lot of resentment over the 2000 election but it didn't seem like the end of the world.
Since then public discourse has almost completely broken down. The President spends his days thinking of insults, and has deployed masked armed forces against civilians. As bitter as 2000 was, it's nothing compared to January 6 2021.
I imagine the details would depend on the circumstances. Say, a targeted assassination versus killing thousands of civilians. But I'm not so sure that things would look anything like 9/11.
This is done by diaspora lead by US, they started destroying public resources first and created public unrest on top of falling Rial due to sanctions, this lead the govt take matters in to their hands. Cunning US indeed, always playing cheap tricks.
I mean Pakistan is a nation founded on the idea that Muslims cannot live with non Muslims. /R/Pakistan is currently talking about this. What do you expect?
The most interesting thing to me is that he was apparently assassinated while working at his office. It's not like the US/Israeli actions were a secret, yet he seemingly made no effort to secure himself. It's hard not to see this as an intentional martyrdom. So it will be interesting to see whether his calculations were correct, or whether the US' were.
The one thing I think must be true is that I can't imagine an 86 year old cleric was an especially effective leader. So assassinating him is quite the gamble. I'd love to know what the military's chatbots thought about this idea.
"You're thinking about this just like a professional warfighter would"
I'd say the main contemporary dynamic of the times is hallucination. Not necessary by LLMs per se, but rather by the humans wielding them to mainline their own bullshit.
In a way Grump himself is just society's own embodied hallucination from decades of Republican marketing hopium. Some scraps of dignity are surely about to trickle down any day now, once those mean libuhruls are out of the way.
(the "warfighter" terminology-coddling obviously coming from the user prompt)
This Prophet believed/taught that school girls should be raped before they are executed for not wearing hats so that they can't get into heaven (believing God would judge a child for being raped).
Should a believer/teacher of such things even be called a prophet? Old boy was straight trash with a horrific morality.
I'd love to see a link to them. My cursory googles aren't finding it.
Look, not trying to defend the guy, but I don't like this sort of hyperbole. People have the wrong view on what Iran is like. It's ran by religious fundamentalists, which is bad, but it's also probably one of the more progressive muslim theocracies in the region. People tend to mix up shit that Saudi Arabia does with Iran.
In particular, Iran has a very progressive view on education. They have one of the best educated populations in the middle east (men and women).
The only one attributing a similar quote to khamenei is an x user. The rest appear to document that an exiranian official saying that counter revolutionary women sentenced to death are raped.
I hope you can see how these are pretty different things.
"Based on our findings, some of the various forms of sexual torture, such as the rape of virgin girls prior to their execution, were conducted in a systematic way and were based on the interpretation of an order by Ayatollah Khomeini (1979-1989), the Islamic Republic Supreme Leader at the time."
> women who were captured in battle with the kuffar (infidels) were akin to property and slaves of the army of Islam (a practice of the Middle Ages which had subsequently been accepted, at least theologically, as a part of Islamic war practices)
Look, bad and disagreeable, but not the claimed quote. This is a much better attack that doesn't use hyperbole.
But as one whom the Ayatollah has sworn to eliminate, I can still state that man was sharp and brilliant and extremely well spoken. His worldview was internally consistent. He had vision and experience and knew how to motivate people. He was a one in ten million leader.
I give him that praise and more, even recognising that his stated mission was to exterminate myself and my children.
I love this basically pointing out that racists call it "Hasbara" and regular people call it "lying".
Don't agree it applies in this situation, but it's nice to see someone break down regular people don't give a special jewish name to something that already has a common name/definition, and that the common name better communicates the intended concept so the purpose of using the word is to convey something different than basic understanding.
In every field where competence can be objectively measured, experience does not endlessly correlate with competence. There's always a growth phase but then there's a bell curve of age vs competence, that reaches a peak and then there's a constant decline from there. So for instance chess is primarily a mental game, yet the decline comes as early as one's mid thirties for world class players.
I'm fully willing to accept that for a field where scenarios are fuzzier and intuition more important, it may well be that peak on the bell curve comes somewhat later. But I think it's essentially inconceivable that one is near, or even remotely near, their peak, in their 80s, in anything.
That’s true, but it’s not always good—Americans have stark examples of the risks of octogenarian leaders whose experience leads them astray by discounting how much the world has changed since they were young.
I think of mental faculties and experience as two separate overlapping curves where there’s a sweet spot in the middle where both are high but either one being low can become a big problem.
They also just don’t have the same energy they used to so even if they have a good idea they’ll be less effective at motivating people to embrace it, and the younger people behind them are going to be acting with more thought to succession politics.
Biden's surely a poster child for the value of experience and connections in the Presidency. Whatever you think of him (and I would certainly agree that he should never have considered a second term), he was quite successful in furthering his agenda while in office.
I have seen major celebrations here in a major Dutch city. If anything, my bet is that overall balance of Muslim opinion on the West has probably shifted to be more favorable.
This is likely what the USA fascists want - some Islamic terrorist attacks (possibly false flag operations) will provide a justification for removing non-whites from the USA.
> The non-Iranian part is key. Millions of muslims around the world viewed the Iranian theocracy as the only power in the world fighting for Islam
Yup. My Bangladeshi relatives who have no stake in Iran are upset. I suspect the lady who cuts my daughter’s hair—who was an accountant back in Iran and celebrated when Jimmy Carter died—is over the moon.
I’m quite sympathetic to the general assertion that the U.S. launches unprovoked attacks on random countries that didn’t attack the U.S. Iraq being the most egregious example.
Tehran is a thousand miles away from Tel Aviv. Iran has no rational self-interest in whatever is going on between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Iran got itself involved in that conflict because it inexplicably chose to involve itself in that conflict.
> Iran has been attacking the U.S. and its proxies for no reason for decades
Iran did not attack the US and Lebanese Shia did not attack the US. Israel invaded Lebanon and the US went in in August 1982. This allowed for the Istaeli allies to perform the Sabra and Shatila massacre. About six months later the US embassy was bombed. Then the barracks was bombed.
The US eas not attacked, the US sent troops into Lebanon, which helped allow for the massacres which took place, and Lebanese attacked the US barracks that came into their country a year earlier.
First, the Islamic Republic was not “the only power fighting for Islam.” It was fighting to expand Iranian state power under a religious banner. There’s a difference. The regime’s foreign policy has consistently followed geopolitical logic: expanding influence through proxies in Lebanon (Hezbollah), Gaza (Hamas and PIJ), Iraq (Shi’a militias), Syria (Assad), and Yemen (Houthis). That’s empire-building through asymmetric warfare, not some abstract defense of the global ummah.
Second, Islam itself is not a single centralized political bloc. The idea that “millions of Muslims” saw Tehran as their champion ignores deep sectarian and national divides. Sunni-majority states like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, and Turkey have spent decades actively countering Iranian influence. Many Arabs view Persian expansionism with suspicion for historical reasons that predate modern geopolitics by centuries. Even within Shi’a communities outside Iran, loyalty to Tehran is far from universal.
Third, the Islamic Republic’s model is explicitly totalitarian: clerical rule, suppression of dissent, morality police, imprisonment of reformers, execution of protesters. Calling that “fighting for Islam” collapses a complex global religion into one revolutionary state ideology. Many Muslims—Sunni and Shi’a—despise the regime precisely because it fuses religion with authoritarian control.
As for retaliation risk: yes, whenever a regime that funds proxy groups is hit, the risk of attempted attacks rises. That’s true by definition. But that risk has existed for decades already because of the regime’s own strategy of exporting violence. The question isn’t whether risk increases from zero. It’s whether removing a state sponsor that systematically arms, trains, and finances militant networks reduces long-term capacity for global destabilization.
Iran was not some neutral spiritual defender of the faith. It was a regional power using religion as a mobilizing ideology while building a cross-border militia network.
Well that's an awfully Islamophobic take. Never has a condition been so aptly named.
This morning's terror attack in Austin was perpetuated by one wearing a "property of Allah" shirt.
The world need not continue to live with and accept Islamic barbarism, and the people of the US will not bend to the sword of the Mullahs or your Shia coworkers.
and millions of Orthodox Jews view Israel as defending Judaism. So what? Maybe all the people who are willing to shoot and kill for their holy book should be put into an area and bomb each other to death
Would make a good reality tv show and an excellent warning on the danger of religious fundamentalism.
It does feel like we're on a slippery slope though. Normalizing and supporting the violation of international norms because 'they were bad guys and deserved it' is like turning a blind eye to corruption when its people you agree with. It doesn't lead anywhere good in the end.
I don't think killing democratic representatives has as big of an effect as killing authoritarians. You can't have cult of the leader without the leader, but in parliamentary systems you'd have to off quite a few people.
Yeah, because killing murderous dictators is helpful, and it doesn't matter that much who does it. In Europe, states aren't sacred – it is the freedom of people, and when people are freed, Europeans are happy even if it includes breaking the sovereignty of some terror state. I'm not saying I like Trump, but when he kills evil dictators, I can't complain. (There was 10k+ protesters killed in Iran recently)
There is huge potential hidden in Iran; it has always had a huge influence over the region and possibly the whole world.
That's not how I am reading this. Here, the reaction seems mostly that Europe doesn't want to touch this mess. Which is weird, as Iran was clearly on our list of bad countries and Israel can do nothing wrong.
Local news publishes articles of Iranians in our countries being happy, political commenters indicating it can go both ways, and not much comments from politicians.
Also weirdly they only came out in support once they saw that the operation was largely successful. It's almost like they prefer to ride on the coattails the same as they always have.
Iran is not a sovereign state, the legitimate powers of government derive from the consent of the governed, without consent it’s not a sovereign state.
The power of sovereignty rests with the people who have given their consent in free and fair elections to have their leaders removed.
Not even Russia really wants Iran to have nuclear weapons and a rocket technology that can hit targets 3000 km+ distant, though they obviously wouldn't attack Iran over that problem. The Middle East is notoriously hard to predict and governments change, while the nuclear capability endures.
Of all the countries that currently make any steps towards nuclear armament, Iran has by far the widest coalition of opponents.
Surely they will be sanctioning Israel like they sanctioned russia for attacking ukraine? After all aren't Canada and europe self proclaimed beacons of light?
Do you think that he was killed because of human right violations? I do not think so. The current US administration does not seem very concerned with those.
You realize that international law exists, right? Or are we now OK with devolving into a world where assassinating heads of state and cabinet members is applauded?
What is happening to this world. There is so many intense events happening in a such short time. I feel like we are truly living in weird times. Trumpet is out here deciding the fate of countries future for his own good. Now, it so happens to be something that benefited the Iranians. But I do not think he did it for the people directly, rather a side effect.
I feel like I've lost the touch of which direction our future is going now, the worlds geopolitics is fluctuation too much. Maybe I should remind myself that feelings also gets amplified by constant stream of news and social media. I am certain 1990s, 2000s and early 2010s was worse times.
Exactly just because the dictator was horrible doesn’t give the US the right to attack other countries. I see no difference between Russia, Israel, America. They’re all hostile countries which should be sanctioned for human rights violations and violating international law.
I've begun to think of Trump as a forest fire. The consequences may be horrible, at least for the status quo, but it does provide an opportunity for new beginnings.
It’s so funny reading most comments here, knowing that they’d be celebrating and saying this is good if it was Netanyahu. But when it’s a maniacal islamist declaring his goal to be the destruction of US and Israel, it’s suddenly very nuanced.
Don't worry, if you say maniac and islamist enough times everyone will understand your view point and change their minds about what it means to blow up middle eastern countries.
If you call him what he is (a Jewish supremacist), you will be labeled and "antisemite". Even those of us in the West are under the thumb of Zionism. You can call Muslims whatever you want (including calling for their death), and be met with only cheers from Western institutions.
An almost bigger irony is that most of those complaining would almost certainly have lamented in the past about leaders sending their nations poor to fight instead of going after each other directly. But now "that's illegal" (not just the war, but specifically the decapitation strikes)
If you do care the number of people will die bc of the sudden death of their leadership, then the reaction makes sense. Israel society will still function if its far right leadership was taken out suddenly, Iran society will collapse and become unpredictable and miserable if rev guard were suddenly removed without quick replacement or resolution.
They’re still bombing Tehran right now.[0] It’s not over. What is there to celebrate? I hope Netanyahu and Trump both die today but I’d prefer they were prosecuted not blown up with missiles. Do you think I should celebrate their deaths when the day comes? They’re both maniacal men who have beliefs and have gotten people killed for no reason.
No one liked the ayatollah, but if you think the president can go to war without congressional approval then you are unamerican. On top of that, the younger generation of the IRGC is more extreme than the current one, and there has never been a successful regime change by only using an air campaign. Dummies might point to Kosovo or Libya, but the opposition in those cases were armed. In Iran, the opposition is about to get slaughtered and oppressed further, unless we get boots on the ground.
It's funny how being partisan makes one "know" all these unknowable, evidence-free hypotheticals about the other side.
Must be nice, to replace the difficult art of getting things done in politics with merely spectating at a soccer match. Team Green or Team Blue? Get your bumper stickers and profile emojis.
Israel is at fault for spreading those false rumors, yes. Just like Iraq having "weapons of mass destruction". Same people lying to drag the US into unjust wars.
These comments are insane to me. Have any of you ever spoken with Iranians? Lived with them? Trust me, they were wishing for Khamenei to be removed for decades.
The fall of the Iranian regime would be a strategic turning point not just for the Middle East, but globally.
For more than four decades, the Islamic Republic has been one of the primary state sponsors of terror. Hezbollah is not an organic Lebanese movement — it is an Iranian creation. Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are sustained by Iranian money and weapons. The Houthis’ missile and drone capabilities exist because Tehran supplied and trained them. Shi’a militias in Iraq killed hundreds of Americans with Iranian-provided EFPs. Today, Iranian Shahed drones are striking Ukrainian apartment buildings.
This is not passive instability. It is deliberate, systematic export of violence as state policy.
At the same time, the regime has consistently pursued a nuclear capability while publicly calling for the destruction of Israel and “death to America.” Even if one assumes deterrence logic would hold, a nuclear umbrella for Iran would dramatically increase its freedom to escalate proxy warfare across the region.
The downstream geopolitical effects are not hypothetical. Without Iranian drone and missile transfers, Russia’s ability to sustain certain strike campaigns in Ukraine would be materially degraded. Without heavily discounted Iranian oil shipments, China’s energy calculus shifts, particularly under sanctions pressure. Without Tehran’s funding pipelines, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis become far more constrained actors rather than semi-state militaries.
There is also precedent for preventive action against nuclear programs. Israel’s 1981 strike on Iraq’s Osirak reactor (Operation Opera) was widely condemned at the time; decades later, most analysts agree it delayed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear ambitions. Likewise, Israel’s 2007 strike on Syria’s Al-Kibar reactor (Operation Orchard) prevented the Assad regime from developing a covert nuclear capability. Both operations were controversial in the moment and regarded as stabilizing in retrospect.
Preventing a hostile regime from acquiring nuclear capability has historically proven wiser than managing it after the fact.
Yes, regime change carries risk. So does allowing the world’s most aggressive revolutionary theocracy to entrench itself indefinitely while arming proxies from Beirut to Sana’a to Moscow. The status quo is not stable. It is violent by design.
If a regime that funds terrorism on three continents, arms Russia during a European war, and openly seeks nuclear weapons is dismantled, history is unlikely to judge that harshly.
Israel's enemies aren't "terror", they're legitimate resistance to an actual terrorist entity. Israel and the US are the terrorists, not the people defending against them. This latest round of unprovoked attacks only opens the world's eyes even more to this reality.
programmertote | 23 hours ago
adamiscool8 | 23 hours ago
bombcar | 23 hours ago
indubioprorubik | 23 hours ago
jcranmer | 23 hours ago
But the ultimate loser of the power struggle is clear: the Iranian populace at large, as all of the viable factions are quite committed to consolidating their power by repressing the population. The most likely situation, I think, looks a lot like Libya.
indubioprorubik | 12 hours ago
lucketone | 11 hours ago
oa335 | 10 hours ago
This is not at all how Irani society is structured.
The rest of your comments generalizations are weak and ill-supported as well, at best they only apply to a subset of Arab countries in the Middle East.
jcranmer | 5 hours ago
Drunk_Engineer | 23 hours ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpEF6QPSVJE
quitspamming | 23 hours ago
ReptileMan | 23 hours ago
XorNot | 23 hours ago
mkoubaa | 23 hours ago
hnthrowaway0315 | 23 hours ago
BTW I don't actually think even the reformists will "accept Western ideas".
suoloordi | 23 hours ago
elcritch | 12 hours ago
christkv | 11 hours ago
throwaway2037 | 9 hours ago
bonsai_spool | 9 hours ago
I don’t know much about the region; is it incorrect to say that the nations you listed (excepting Jordan) are collections of fiefdoms with a relatively weak central power? To OP’s point, that is not how I view Iran
2OEH8eoCRo0 | 23 hours ago
hattimaTim | 5 hours ago
brap | 23 hours ago
vkou | 23 hours ago
ReptileMan | 23 hours ago
dotancohen | 23 hours ago
cosmicgadget | 21 hours ago
gus_massa | 10 hours ago
cosmicgadget | 5 hours ago
Not that I think heads of state fearing for their lives from airstrikes is necessarily good, being able to act with impunity is certainly bad.
wqaatwt | 13 hours ago
TulliusCicero | 23 hours ago
oytis | 23 hours ago
jiggawatts | 10 hours ago
Powerless people? Into the meat grinder!
impossiblefork | 9 hours ago
oytis | 9 hours ago
impossiblefork | 9 hours ago
hattimaTim | 5 hours ago
oytis | 3 hours ago
kingofmen | 20 hours ago
jatari | 11 hours ago
4ndrewl | 23 hours ago
le-mark | 23 hours ago
abraxas | 23 hours ago
mingus88 | 23 hours ago
amarant | 23 hours ago
Trump is for rent. Shutting down a competitor is 25M, "full service" is apparently ~100M. I'm not privy to what invading an oil nation costs, but I reckon it's akin to a hand job, so a nice golden wristwatch should probably do it?
gpderetta | 9 hours ago
amarant | 4 hours ago
thomassmith65 | 23 hours ago
https://youtu.be/NSbx_0mtk80?si=MJ_Bfvx8gVd1P1mm
They've waited a very long time for this moment!
paganel | 23 hours ago
Almondsetat | 23 hours ago
jachee | 23 hours ago
eclipseo76 | 23 hours ago
quitspamming | 23 hours ago
aaa_aaa | 23 hours ago
smt88 | 23 hours ago
blowsand | 23 hours ago
anonymous908213 | 23 hours ago
avoutos | 23 hours ago
JimmyBiscuit | 12 hours ago
tdeck | 10 hours ago
throwaway2037 | 9 hours ago
4ndrewl | 23 hours ago
UltraSane | 23 hours ago
bambax | 23 hours ago
Almondsetat | 23 hours ago
4ndrewl | 22 hours ago
reliabilityguy | 22 hours ago
Also, these countries were not formed by themselves, but rather through deals with France and/or Britain.
Iran, while also diverse, has a thousands of years long history. Persians still see themselves as continuation of Persian peoples from the empire times, etc.
So, it is not very correct to compare it one to one.
someotherperson | 22 hours ago
Iran has a much worse relationship with its minorities, where if you are of the wrong faith then you literally face state-sanctioned laws preventing you studying or working. In fact, things in Iraq became much worse for minorities after the overthrowal due to the adoption of Iranian cultural practices like Abrahamic elitism.
The cherry on top of all of this is that you probably don't realize that Persians in Iran only make up 60% of the country. You have Iranians who wholly reject Persian ancestry (Azeris, Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds...) but you don't even account for them, despite Iran having, what, three? entirely separate ethnic-based separatist insurgencies active across the country LOL
reliabilityguy | 21 hours ago
Baathism is literally pan-arabism! Arabism as in Arab. Do you really think that making pan-arabism movement under the sauce of Babylonian legacy is going to work on Kurds and others? Of course not. Same applies to Syria that had their own flavor of pan-arabist party that kept Asad in power. Only recently, after the summer 2025 war with Israel Islamic Republic tried to connect itself to its Persian past, but of course it is too late for that.
> Iran has a much worse relationship with its minorities, where if you are of the wrong faith then you literally face state-sanctioned laws preventing you studying or working.
I am not sure how the practices of the Islamic Republic related to the current mood of the Iranians that oppose it.
> In fact, things in Iraq became much worse for minorities after the overthrowal due to the adoption of Iranian cultural practices like Abrahamic elitism.
You mean that Islamic Republic exported its own flawed ideology on the neighboring states through funding of various non-state actors? Wow.
> The cherry on top of all of this is that you probably don't realize that Persians in Iran only make up 60% of the country. You have Iranians who wholly reject Persian ancestry (Azeris, Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds...) but you don't even account for them, despite Iran having, what, three? entirely separate ethnic-based separatist insurgencies active across the country LOL
I think you conflate anti-regime insurgency vs. anti-persian one.
breakyerself | 23 hours ago
vasco | 23 hours ago
oytis | 23 hours ago
vasco | 23 hours ago
oytis | 23 hours ago
baxtr | 23 hours ago
You should consider conformation bias.
vasco | 13 hours ago
reliabilityguy | 22 hours ago
How can you compare Arab countries to Iran?
vasco | 14 hours ago
mikkupikku | 11 hours ago
No, Iran is not an Arab country! Arabic is a minority language in Iran, and Arabs are an ethnic minority there. Linguistically, culturally and even genetically, they aren't Arabs! Would you call Quebec an Anglo province?
bjourne | 23 hours ago
khazhoux | 23 hours ago
Are you suggesting Iranians should have protested harder, maybe tried more to "bring change from within"?
bjourne | 22 hours ago
Jensson | 19 hours ago
AlexeyBelov | 12 hours ago
bjourne | 7 hours ago
Almondsetat | 21 hours ago
bjourne | 17 hours ago
Almondsetat | 13 hours ago
bjourne | 7 hours ago
paganel | 13 hours ago
Ray20 | 12 hours ago
What does the assassination of DICTATORS have to do with all of this? Dictatorship is less about citizenship and more about a form of slavery. Resisting the killing of a dictator in any way, regardless of who is trying to kill him or why, is treason to a nation.
calf | 3 hours ago
thomassmith65 | 23 hours ago
10 million Iranians live outside Iran. They want a normal country again.
Later today, I'm sure footage from LA, Toronto, London, Stockholm will be up.
breakyerself | 23 hours ago
pinkmuffinere | 23 hours ago
Thlom | 23 hours ago
SXX | 23 hours ago
Not perfect option, but still is an improvement even from your positiom.
amarcheschi | 12 hours ago
throwaway2037 | 9 hours ago
breppp | 9 hours ago
throwaway2037 | 8 hours ago
Related: Indonesia also had a very violent transition into democracy, but the old dictators didn't kill as many innocent people as Taiwan or South Korea.
As I understand, the US had very little influence during the democracy transition of these three nations. Regarding Taiwan, the US provided security gurantees against mainland China, but did not interfere with the gov't. South Korea, similar security guarantee against the "Kimdom". Again, did not interfere with the gov't. Indonesia: Provided no security guarantee and did not interfere with the gov't.
breppp | 7 hours ago
I also am not sure about Indonesia as an example of a US ally, I don't think it is similar to the other two
Effectively both SK and Taiwan were completely dependent on US for defense, I doubt this had no bearing
gizajob | 12 hours ago
aaa_aaa | 23 hours ago
thomassmith65 | 23 hours ago
Actually, they will probably assume the IRGC killed them to blame the West. I don't believe that, but the Iranians can't stand the regime.
aaa_aaa | 23 hours ago
throwawayheui57 | 23 hours ago
pinkmuffinere | 23 hours ago
heavyset_go | 23 hours ago
Hope to hell that you or anyone you care about isn't on the receiving end of such sentiments.
khazhoux | 23 hours ago
heavyset_go | 22 hours ago
pinkmuffinere | 22 hours ago
elihu | 9 hours ago
throwaway3060 | 22 hours ago
At some point, you have to take the path that offers at least some hope for the future. To turn into something that has lost all hope - there is no fixing that.
heavyset_go | 22 hours ago
throwaway3060 | 21 hours ago
lelanthran | 12 hours ago
Will you now redirect your outrage over innocent children to the incumbent Iranian government?
Will you continue entering threads to signal your outrage to the world?
Will you keep quiet, double down or practice the morals you claim to have?
roenxi | 11 hours ago
lelanthran | 11 hours ago
If you try to shield your armed forces using children, and then accidentally kill them because you used them as a shield, you can't blame someone else.
roenxi | 10 hours ago
Apart from the fact that Iran is a bad place to be right now it actually looks like a pleasant city to visit. Sounds like they have lots of fruit, warm weather and have some interesting history vis a vis the Mongols. Very middle eastern.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minab
lelanthran | 10 hours ago
Look, maybe it was a school specifically for the children of army personnel, but that's a long shot. From the geolocation data, the school was right at their missile launch site.
They had choices.
Locate the school or the launch site elsewhere, for one.
Evacuate the school before they tried to launch munitions, for another.
This is on them.
__m | 8 hours ago
heavyset_go | 7 hours ago
Since you know more than the rest of the world about this, please update Wikipedia with a reliable source for your claim as has already been requested by admins here[1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2026_Minab_school_airstri...
lelanthran | 6 hours ago
Where in my message does it seem that I am delighted?
No doubt the truth will eventually come out, what I have seen is that the school was sited unusually close to an Iran launch site.
You can judge me all you want for "being delighted", whatever the hell that means, but I'm not advocating that schools be used as shields for rocket launchers, am I?
I'm advocating the exact opposite.
heavyset_go | 6 hours ago
lelanthran | 4 hours ago
> you're so delighted
Then you said
> lol
Okay, I get it - for you this is a laughing matter; your goal is something other than discussion.
But I gotta know - you are talking about a regime that had no problem gunning down thousands of innocent citizens in the streets just a month ago, why are you so sure that they won't use other innocents as shields for their soldiers?
Where is this confidence coming from?
kubb | 23 hours ago
But this assassination is no guarantee of change for the better. Far from it.
pinkmuffinere | 23 hours ago
kubb | 23 hours ago
empath75 | 23 hours ago
reliabilityguy | 23 hours ago
readthenotes1 | 22 hours ago
Anyone know?
alephnerd | 22 hours ago
India only shifted to using Russian oil in 2022 [2] after Venezuelan [3] and Iranian [4] oil sanctions were enacted, which was when both began increasing engagement with China.
It's a similar story for South Korea [5] and Japan [6].
This helps reduce prices for ONG, as India is shifting back to Venezuelan crude which gives slack which South Korea and Japan can take advantage of, as India, Japan, and South Korea represent 3 of the 5 largest oil consumers globally.
[0] - https://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/ongc-awaits-instr...
[1] - https://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/reliance-venezuel...
[2] - https://www.bbc.com/news/business-65553920
[3] - https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/india-and-venezuela-gro...
[4] - https://www.brookings.edu/articles/trump-tightens-sanctions-...
[5] - https://eastasiaforum.org/2019/09/13/south-korean-oil-refine...
[6] - https://mei.edu/ar/publication/japan-and-middle-east-navigat...
bsjaux628 | 22 hours ago
roenxi | 12 hours ago
The US actually did something fairly similar in Iran; Trump had Soleimani blown up back in 2020. As we can see from the present situation, it failed to influence Iran in ways that the US thought were acceptable. It is rare for assassinations to have positive geopolitical ramifications.
mda | 10 hours ago
MichaelRo | 3 hours ago
And that in a country/region without Islamic radicals trying to take over. So far, apart from Israel, no Middle East country has managed to function as a democracy. Turkey, the only Muslim majority who has the faintest chance of joining the European Union, only keeps stuff under control due to the army enforcing a secular state, which the liberal patsies in the West can't take, because authoritarianism is bad and diversity in accepting radical Islam creeping into our homeland is our strength.
orthogonal_cube | 23 hours ago
I would hold back on any hopes until we see how the current government handles things. Intervention from other countries does not always lead to positive outcomes.
tim333 | 22 hours ago
>...This is the single greatest chance for the Iranian people to take back their Country. We are hearing that many of their IRGC, Military, and other Security and Police Forces, no longer want to fight, and are looking for Immunity from us. As I said last night, “Now they can have Immunity, later they only get Death!” Hopefully, the IRGC and Police will peacefully merge with the Iranian Patriots, and work together as a unit to bring back the Country to the Greatness it deserves...
The merge peacefully or die thing may motivate them.
Rapzid | 22 hours ago
greedo | 5 hours ago
nullocator | 22 hours ago
tim333 | 21 hours ago
all_factz | 12 hours ago
bluGill | 10 hours ago
only time will tell. I give iran much better than average odds this is for the better. Though the average is really bad: bad results would not surprise me.
tim333 | 8 hours ago
>coalition of liberal and nationalist political parties selected Reza Pahlavi to lead a transitional government until the realisation of democratic elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_opposition#:~:text=On%...
thing. Maybe if enough Iranian people back that?
dzhiurgis | 12 hours ago
lamontcg | 19 hours ago
I can't think of any time when bombing the shit out of a country and killing their leader has actually worked.
All I can think of is examples of blowback.
Jensson | 18 hours ago
Japan? Although their leader wasn't killed, but same logic. The more civilized a country is the easier it is to reform them into a good state, and Iran is a pretty civilized and structured nation, the dictatorship is the main issue.
Most people in Iran want a democracy and are capable of running it, you just have to let them. That isn't the case in most of these dictatorships that lacks such structure, but it is there in Iran.
mango7283 | 15 hours ago
p2detar | 11 hours ago
0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito_surrender_broadcast
mikkupikku | 11 hours ago
cplanas | 11 hours ago
bigthymer | 10 hours ago
ant6n | 10 hours ago
exe34 | 10 hours ago
UncleMeat | 7 hours ago
hackandthink | 2 hours ago
(1945 - 1949 it was split in 4 occupation zones)
greedo | 5 hours ago
ant6n | 58 minutes ago
Yes a bunch of previous nazis made it back into power and politics, but they didn't call themselves nazis or acted like nazis. But also, the country as a whole took a very different path after wwii.
logicallee | 10 hours ago
This happened just weeks ago in Venezuela, though in that case the removal was by abduction and foreign trial. (The U.S. struck Venezuela and abducted its President at the time, bringing him to trial in the United States. I've just now asked ChatGPT for a research report on his current status, you can read it here[1].)
This led to immediate and definitive regime change, the U.S. now has an excellent relationship with the new President of Venezuela.
[1] https://chatgpt.com/share/69a424b4-de38-800c-8699-cb95d25090...
mr_toad | 10 hours ago
People have already mentioned the post WW2 occupation of Germany and Japan.
There’s also the Roman occupation of Greece (and other Hellenistic territories), and even perhaps the Norman occupation of England. Not that either of these didn’t cause some strife and rebellion in both cases, but still there was a concerted effort to build up both territories.
christkv | 11 hours ago
jacquesm | 11 hours ago
general_reveal | an hour ago
A) Put in a government we like
B) Population behave or quality of life will be bad, you see, the simple life is difficult with cruise missiles coming at you
If that’s as effective as sending 250k ground troops (which … actually wasn’t effective), one could make the observation that Trump is a military genius.
Someone please talk sense to me because I cannot believe what I am saying.
acjohnson55 | 23 hours ago
swat535 | 21 hours ago
He should have answered for every single drop of blood on his hands.
My 21 year old cousin was captured during the Mahsa uprising, she was sent to Evin prison, tortured for months. After she was released, we brought her to Canada and she was hospitalized for over a year. She will never be able to live a normal life again.
Death was too merciful for Khamenei.
anonnon | 19 hours ago
gizajob | 12 hours ago
throwaway2037 | 10 hours ago
kj4211cash | 8 hours ago
phreeza | 8 hours ago
throwaway2037 | 8 hours ago
pinkmuffinere | 4 hours ago
cnd78A | 2 hours ago
thomassmith65 | 23 hours ago
oytis | 23 hours ago
bonzini | 10 hours ago
ahartmetz | 10 hours ago
throwaway2037 | 10 hours ago
bonzini | 9 hours ago
ahartmetz | 10 hours ago
throwaway2037 | 10 hours ago
faramarz | 23 hours ago
overfeed | 12 hours ago
The Arab spring wasn't that long ago, was it? We all saw how that turned out, but I suppose hope springs eternal.
> You bet Iranians are euphoric right now
I'm guessing the 50+ dead elementary school kids may put a damper on celebrations a bit.
jacquesm | 11 hours ago
throwaway2037 | 10 hours ago
To quote:
One idea is to transition to a secular democracy with a figurehead Shah like a northern European (or Japanese) monarchy. Also, my personal opinion: I think it is fine if they want to incorporate aspects of Islamic religious culture into their government. After all, it is their country. Example: The national parliament and political parties might be required to secular (at least in name), but they may wish to continue to support religious institutions using tax payer money, including masjids (places of prayer) and Islamic monasteries.An interesting point of comparison: (1) Malaysia isn't really secular (but they may claim it); (2) Singapore is fully secular; (3) Indonesia is secular (or "pan-religious"), but is still largely guided by Islamic relgious culture in their democractic systems.
jacquesm | 8 hours ago
To return to a scion of the man who put that all in place would - in my opinion, of course - be a massive mistake.
Keep in mind that the Shah was a client of the United States and the United Kingdom and that his son isn't doing this out of the goodness of his heart but because he wants what he thinks is his birthright back (he's been pretty vocal about that since his late teens), and that he has been living off wealth stolen from the Iranian people and squirreled out of the country by his father.
Of course he would present this as a transition but just wait until his ass hits that pluche and see if it isn't going to take another revolution to dislodge him.
regnull | 23 hours ago
timtim51251 | 21 hours ago
ndiddy | 19 hours ago
dismalaf | 17 hours ago
Digit-Al | 12 hours ago
breppp | 11 hours ago
mbgerring | 9 hours ago
maest | 9 hours ago
I'm not saying either view is right, but reducing the Iranian government to irrational religious fanatics is intellectually uncurious and unempathetic.
[1] - https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/002/355/607/670
Digit-Al | 8 hours ago
I'm British, and whilst I don't think my government is perfect (their stance on digital privacy is insane) they are not murdering people, and we can vote them out at the next election if we want to.
manarth | 12 hours ago
- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/28/strategic-opti...
jonathanstrange | 9 hours ago
breppp | 12 hours ago
Haven880 | 15 hours ago
anovikov | 12 hours ago
Let's not have illusions about it. There is no way to build a sustainable democracy in a country that never had such leanings and is not culturally/religiously predisposed to it, and can't be physically coerced into it with boots on the ground. Achievable goals are punishment, and neutering.
SanjayMehta | 12 hours ago
There's a US born professor Marandi who said in an interview a few weeks ago that the regime had put in place succession plans, including for himself.
I'm hopeful but skeptical that they will change for the better.
baxtr | 23 hours ago
tejohnso | 23 hours ago
TulliusCicero | 23 hours ago
Shed no tears for the deaths of tyrants. They would happily see you and any other threat to their illegitimate power put six feet under.
LastTrain | 23 hours ago
IshKebab | 23 hours ago
pixl97 | 23 hours ago
arunabha | 14 hours ago
When the sitting president of the United states repeatedly states he would like to have an illegal third term, that elections are fraudulent and must be under his control, continually takes actions testing the limits of what he can get away with in terms of authoritarian behaviour, and only backs down temporarily when he faces massive backlash, you can forgive people for being alarmed.
TulliusCicero | 23 hours ago
Regardless, dictators deserve to be put into the ground no matter where they are.
bjourne | 23 hours ago
thomassmith65 | 22 hours ago
That said, for anything aside from a despotic world leader, I'm also against the death penalty.
jasomill | 18 hours ago
Sentence them to live alone and anonymously in an uncomfortable cell in an unremarkable prison without visitation, communication, or news of the outside world.
TulliusCicero | 22 hours ago
I actually oppose the death penalty as a punishment for crimes, but for practical rather than principled reasons: I don't want innocent people (and there's always a chance of innocence) to be killed, and it's more expensive than life in prison anyway.
thomassmith65 | 22 hours ago
leptons | 23 hours ago
drjasonharrison | 23 hours ago
bsjaux628 | 22 hours ago
SanjayMehta | 12 hours ago
goku12 | 10 hours ago
There are zero reasons to assume this regime's victims, except for known tyrants like Maduro and Khameini, to be guilty at all. The regime has zero credibility when it comes to human rights. So those fishermen were most likely innocent victims and not drug smugglers.
In addition to all this, don't assume that this US attacks on Iran were because of his love and benevolence for the Iranian civilians. If it were so, he wouldn't have provoked the Iranian regime to crackdown on the protestors and kill around 30K of them. That farce was unnecessary for the liberation of Iran. Instead, he used them to create an excuse to carry out an attack that they had already planned.
So, as much as I understand the Iranians' joy in seeing the end of Khameini, I strongly suspect that this is just the beginning of another authoritarian regime over there, controlled remotely by the US regime this time, just as we see in Venezuela. Expect everything from human rights violations to mass scale plunder of their natural resources. All that we see now are just ploys to establish a worldwide neocolonial order under a very racist and xenophobic regime operating from the US. Let me remind you of the meme that this orange dictator posted that shows Canada, Venezuela and Greenland as part of the US territory. I don't see this end well for any civilians on this planet, including US citizens.
TulliusCicero | 22 hours ago
goku12 | 10 hours ago
When is that? When he declares himself the supreme dictator of the US? Or when he nukes another nation because of his racism?
Look around and compare with the Nazis. There is already the demonization and dehumanization of a large demographic group. There are concentration camps and extralegal police forces around already. Just like in Nazi extermination camps, the people who disappear into these ICE facilities are near impossible to trace again. There are already fatalities in there from inhumane living conditions, very bad food, lack of medical care and occasional premeditated murders. Even among the civilians, they see differently abled people as a burden, just as the Nazis did. Just as in Nazi Germany, there is an expansion of military power at the expense of the civilians and flouting of international laws. And just as in Nazi Germany, smart people who can see the writing on the wall are already on a mass exodus.
If you still believe that you're in a democracy, you forgot what happened on Jan 6, 2021. Their ego is too fragile to accept anything except their victory. There is zero chance that the despots will risk getting impeached, trialed and punished by the Congress and face the severe consequences of absolutely horrendous stuff they've committed so far. Even if the public opinion is overwhelmingly hostile towards them, they'll just claim election fraud. They have started efforts for that on multiple fronts with truly bizzare incidents being reported.
And let's talk about the BIG massive elephant in the oval office (besides the obvious one). Trump is NOT the main character, even though I'm sure that he doesn't know that. Look at what their mouthpieces are saying, their dubious billionaire friends are doing and their unelected psycho-minions are pulling off. This isn't just a dictatorship. This is a multi-generational authoritarian regime with clear succession plans. You're all distracted by just the beginning of a long chain of misery. And the beginning isn't even the worst. This is one thing where this regime is unlike the Nazis or the Fascists. Those regimes were controlled by the figure head who formed it - making them vulnerable to decapitation. This one is acting more like a secret society that puts someone in the front to act as their symbolic figure head. Removing the figure head isn't going to end the regime.
You're waiting for an imaginary signal when every alarm around you is screaming at you. The time for 'if' is long gone. That ship sailed a while ago.
TulliusCicero | 2 hours ago
He did sorta try to do this...but didn't go all the way through.
bakies | 7 hours ago
thfuran | 21 hours ago
Over a million people in the US died of COVID. It's impossible to know exactly how many of them would've lived if the pandemic started under a president with a saner response than recommending injecting disinfectant, but I'm willing to bet it's more than two.
Uhhrrr | 17 hours ago
arunabha | 14 hours ago
wqaatwt | 13 hours ago
Ray20 | 12 hours ago
ZeroGravitas | 10 hours ago
temp8830 | 5 hours ago
ZeroGravitas | 3 hours ago
belorn | an hour ago
The primary group that had excess death caused from covid was to people living in homes for elderly care, and the primary cause was a lack of initial process and gear by people who worked at those locations. They were not given enough time to keep up a higher standard of sanitation (often given less than 15 minutes between patients), and protective gear was lacking. They also heavily depended on mass transportation which was a primary location for the virus to spread. A better early response in that sector, including shutdown/restriction of mass transportation would had saved many elderly people from early death.
To note, this had nothing to do with masks, vaccines, or shutdown of schools, which is the main points usually brought up in popular discourse. Sweden would have had one of the lowest number of deaths, with the exact same use of masks/vaccines/shutdowns as it did, as long as the response in elderly care had been done better.
gamblor956 | 12 hours ago
Trump has murdered 2 innocent U.S. citizens so far, and was president when COVID started. Trump's response to COVID was part of why he lost the 2020 election.
simianparrot | 4 hours ago
FireBeyond | 2 hours ago
While other Presidents would go as far as putting signs saying "the buck stops here" on the Resolute Desk, the current President's sign would say "the buck stops anywhere but here".
Let's also see what happens with New Mexico's investigation of the Zorro Ranch...
Self defense, my ass. Neither situation posed ANY credible threat to those agents, despite what ICE Barbie got up and said in front of a podium twenty minutes after the event.
thejazzman | an hour ago
mancerayder | 4 hours ago
The amount of ahistorical histrionics on here is deeply worrying for such an educated population. Your political news needs to change. Shouldn't have to say this but to people like you it's a necessity: not a Trump voter or supporter, just correcting misinformation.
bdangubic | 4 hours ago
ignoramous | 23 hours ago
TulliusCicero | 22 hours ago
stavros | 11 hours ago
TulliusCicero | 2 hours ago
Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of other reasons to be skeptical of American military adventurism, but killing this one guy in particular really isn't one of them.
thisislife2 | 23 hours ago
flyinglizard | 23 hours ago
So please go ahead and tell me, where does International Law prohibit a state that’s at war with another to assassinate its head of state?
sssilver | 23 hours ago
flyinglizard | 23 hours ago
jasomill | 18 hours ago
wqaatwt | 13 hours ago
pferde | 10 hours ago
And what is Congress - or any other part of the US government - going to do about the pedophile not following rules? Stop him? How? Every potential check and balance has either been defanged or is controlled by his supporters.
wqaatwt | 8 hours ago
But congress can of course stop Trump from doing this and a whole bunch of other stuff. The problem is that it just chose not to and to give up much of its powers to the executive over the years (in practice if not legally) due to partisan reasons..
koolala | 9 hours ago
wqaatwt | 8 hours ago
The caveat being that the president only needs to get the approval of congress after 60 days.
And of course Obama established a precedent with his intervention in Libya which weakened this even more…
koolala | 3 hours ago
anon291 | 40 minutes ago
UltraSane | 23 hours ago
khazhoux | 23 hours ago
throwaway2037 | 9 hours ago
bambax | 23 hours ago
worldsavior | 23 hours ago
ashivkum | 23 hours ago
stavros | 11 hours ago
Natfan | 5 hours ago
cameldrv | 23 hours ago
tastyface | 15 hours ago
bluGill | 10 hours ago
anon291 | 41 minutes ago
throwawayheui57 | 23 hours ago
joshstrange | 9 hours ago
I’m aware the scale of “murdered people on the street” is stark and so you are almost certainly talking about Iran but what ICE is doing (and the clear extrapolation) fits your comment IMHO.
avoutos | 23 hours ago
underlipton | 18 hours ago
Sandra Bland et al.
ICE detainments
The excess 20k (as far as absolute numbers go) road fatalities in the US versus Iran.
And the excess I-have-no-idea-how-many-k who died under Trump's bungled COVID response (and who are going to die from Biden's bungled rail strike response)(and who died under Obama's failed healthcare half-measure)(and who died under Bush's bungled Katrina response and because of his pre-9/11 mismanagement).
Yes, yes, per-capita and all that. I'm not really making a rational argument here, just appealing to the truthiness of noticing that America has its own way of killing its citizens.
twoodfin | 18 hours ago
underlipton | 2 hours ago
It's not the only objectionable thing Biden's administration is solely responsible for, just the one that came to mind.
throwaway2037 | 9 hours ago
twoodfin | 4 hours ago
Richard Clarke is a good place to start:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke
He seemed more interested in publicity and exaggerating his own bureaucratic importance than being objective—tendencies the political opposition and media were in no mood to criticize.
But YMMV.
jatari | 12 hours ago
nicbou | 23 hours ago
paxys | 23 hours ago
I'm not saying the Ayatollah wasn't a vile criminal, but it's always innocents on the ground who face the brunt of war.
I hope the citizens of Iran can have a peaceful transition and chart a better path for their country, but every single one of America's previous forced regime changes in the region (and across the world) has shown otherwise.
throwawayheui57 | 23 hours ago
I also just saw state tv threatening people once more. They're so scared.
acjohnson55 | 23 hours ago
I'm not saying that the diaspora doesn't care about the risks or have empathy for those that remain in Iran. I'm sure there are also many people who are deeply concerned. Just that being an emigre changes things.
aucisson_masque | 23 hours ago
I'm not saying that Iranian loved Khamenei, but maybe they are not that happy that he is dead because of other reasons. Instability for instance.
_3u10 | 9 hours ago
avazhi | 23 hours ago
Taking out both Maduro and Khomeini over the course of a few months without a single American or Israeli casualty is peak.
pjc50 | 22 hours ago
Decapitation airstrikes have been possible for decades. I suppose now we find out whether that was a good idea or not. Slightly surprised the Iran strike worked, if you remember the hunts for Saddam and Bin Laden.
alephnerd | 22 hours ago
We didn't have Project Maven 25 years ago, and our leadership in the early 2000s were committed to boots-on-the-ground nation-building due to the afterglow of the NATO intervention in Yugoslavia.
DANmode | 17 hours ago
alchemism | 7 hours ago
tim333 | 22 hours ago
thomassmith65 | 22 hours ago
ignoramous | 11 hours ago
Badly? You seem a little obsessed. The few anti-regime Iranians (who live in Iran) I know do not want to get bombed into freedom & democracy. The Western hubris despite Iraq and Afghanistan is back in full force, I see.
tim333 | 9 hours ago
ignoramous | 8 hours ago
thomassmith65 | 6 hours ago
sph | 7 hours ago
Too low signal-to-noise ratio for me to acknowledge any of this. We'll see how it will pan out for the Iranian people in due time.
Rapzid | 22 hours ago
consumer451 | 21 hours ago
Remember Kian.
wiseowise | 12 hours ago
penguin_booze | 10 hours ago
UltraSane | 10 hours ago
Matl | 10 hours ago
bonzini | 10 hours ago
mr_toad | 10 hours ago
The US (and before them the UK) meddling in middle eastern politics has always seemed like kicking a wasp nest.
sph | 10 hours ago
wiseowise | 8 hours ago
He's dea... oooh.
anovikov | 9 hours ago
ajsnigrutin | 9 hours ago
US is full of people who've lost family members, friends, their own limbs, have PTSD and worse from when they fought Al-Qaeda... and now their own politicians are shaking hands and taking photos with them.
Then another shooting spree will happen and the media will be asking "what radicalized him?"..
TacticalCoder | 9 hours ago
And if that's the case, do you think that American stooge shall do worse than Khamenei who ordered his islamist guards to slaughter 30 000+ unarmed iranian protesters in a matter of days?
What can be worse than religious extremist sending their fanatics into hospitals to finish the wounded?
I'm in the EU and I see cars with iranian flags honking. Someone posted a video or iranians celebrating: not bearded men and veiled women (which is a sign of religious extremism: there are many muslims that do not have the islamist beard and many muslim women who aren't veiled) but regular people, celebrating.
I don't doubt that many bearded men and veiled women are very sad today.
But I side with the free iranians in exile who are celebrating what may be the end of four decades of sharia law ruling their country.
throw0101c | 9 hours ago
American seemed to have been fine with 30k people disappearing in Argentina:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War
While a smaller number, US seemed to have been fine with their then-friend Saddam Hussein gassing a whole bunch of Kurds:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_massacre
The US stooges and friends have done all sorts of bad (maybe even worse) things in the past.
wiseowise | 8 hours ago
What kind of all sorts of bad did they do in the past while they ruled a country? Have they ever usurped throne for 36 years?
throw0101c | 7 hours ago
To take the second quest first, and focus on Iran since it's the topic du jour: you mean like how the shah usurped power from the legislature with US/UK help and ruled for 38 years?
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi
And circling back to the first:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Imperial_S...
Why do you think the 1979 Revolution happened in the first place? The people were tired of being repressed by an imperialist puppet:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution
(Hello irony.)
nerdyadventurer | 7 hours ago
lucasRW | 9 hours ago
jojobas | 8 hours ago
tdeck | 10 hours ago
sph | 10 hours ago
Time is a circle.
breppp | 9 hours ago
thomassmith65 | 6 hours ago
jhoechtl | 10 hours ago
y-curious | 9 hours ago
kjfarm | 9 hours ago
lucasRW | 9 hours ago
jmyeet | 9 hours ago
This issue comes up with Cuba a lot. A lot of Cuban-Americans hate Castro. Why? Because they were the upper-middle class to wealthy under Batista.
This history becomes almost comically distorted. Senator Ted Cruz said that he hates communists because his father was tortured by... Batista [1].
So let me give you an example of the Iranian/Persian diaspora. In 2024 in particular we had a lot of protests against Israel's genocide in Gaza and American support for it. Many were on college campuses. One was on UCLA.
In April 2024, masked counterprotesters attacked the protesters and the police stood idly by and let it happen. The police later then used this violence as a reason to crack down on the protesters. So who were these counter-protesters? Persian diaspora [2].
Anyone celebrating this knows nothing about history and honestly nothing about Iran.
First, Khamenei isn't a singular autocrat like Basheer al-Asaad or Saddam Hussein. No decapitation strike is going to result in regime change. Did you notice the Iranian response change after Khamenei's death? No. Because there isn't one. The religious governmental institutions still exist. A temporary successor was appointed. The IRGC continues as is. Iran is a functioning state that will continue without its Supreme Leader.
Second, let's just say that the Iranian government does fall apart. That's going to be incredibly bad for Iranians as you'll either get a fail-state like Libya, Syria or Somalia (which is what Israel wants) or you'll simply get an American puppet.
Do you know who the American puppet in Syria is? Ahmed al-Sharaa, formerly an al-Qaeda leader. Do you think that's going to end well? Saddam Hussein was an American puppet. Until he wasn't. The former Shah. Augusto Pinochet. That's who you get when the US installs a puppet regime.
Maybe you think Iran will get a functioning democracy. They had one until the US overthrew it in 1953.
Do you really think the US cares about Iranians? Like at all? What exactly is being celebrated here?
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/I2AdbLDVb0Q
[2]: https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/16/us/ucla-student-protests-coun...
inglor_cz | 9 hours ago
Iran is one of the oldest continuing political units in the world, clocking over 2500 years as an organized state.
I think you seriously underestimate the capabilities and know-how of the Iranians by expecting them to behave the same way as pre-state tribal polities like Somalia.
jmyeet | 8 hours ago
inglor_cz | 8 hours ago
calf | 3 hours ago
slim | 5 hours ago
wesammikhail | 23 hours ago
Bring the popcorn with you. No need for salt cause everyone got that in spades on both sides.
ludicrousdispla | 8 hours ago
cess11 | 23 hours ago
hirpslop | 23 hours ago
https://foreignpolicy.com/2026/02/28/iran-khamenei-ayatollah...
joshkojoras | 23 hours ago
FilosofumRex | 23 hours ago
ozgrakkurt | 22 hours ago
FilosofumRex | 21 hours ago
tastyface | 14 hours ago
https://bsky.app/profile/msjamshidi.bsky.social/post/3mfwmdx...
zdragnar | 10 hours ago
Unless the military and other armed groups back the civilians, whoever they end up backing will rule.
omnee | 23 hours ago
hit8run | 23 hours ago
kingofmen | 23 hours ago
This does not seem to me like very strong evidence? Trump just says whatever, and "a source briefed on [the attacks]" just means at least one person in USG thinks Khamenei was in whatever house they blew up. Am I missing some other confirmation?
ReptileMan | 23 hours ago
Jensson | 18 hours ago
pavlov | 23 hours ago
mkoubaa | 23 hours ago
TulliusCicero | 23 hours ago
jacquesm | 11 hours ago
pavlov | 9 hours ago
sph | 7 hours ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet#U.S._backing_...
TulliusCicero | 2 hours ago
It's almost like whether "regime change" works or not depends on the specifics. It's not something that can be universally generalized.
xannabxlle | 23 hours ago
pjc50 | 23 hours ago
TulliusCicero | 23 hours ago
bambax | 23 hours ago
TulliusCicero | 22 hours ago
bambax | 11 hours ago
Also, it's never "morally okay" to kill anyone, ever; the fact that the US still has the death penalty shows how little they understand about morals and logic.
Psychoshy_bc1q | 11 hours ago
bambax | 10 hours ago
It's cool we have all those new users on HN who are helping us understand the world.
devld | 10 hours ago
Russia is not a threat to the US per MAD doctrine. If Iran had nukes, you might believe that they could actually be mad enough to use them and because Russia has nukes, no one would try this with Putin.
> Also, it's never "morally okay" to kill anyone, ever; the fact that the US still has the death penalty shows how little they understand about morals and logic.
Never, ever? Even self-defence? Or what would you do if you were living in a hunter-gatherer society that did not have the capability to imprison someone for life and you had a murdering psycho in your tribe? Expel him so he can come back and kill more people? Logic?
TulliusCicero | 2 hours ago
xannabxlle | 18 hours ago
dismalaf | 16 hours ago
garbawarb | 23 hours ago
throwawayheui57 | 22 hours ago
Their opposition to Israel is not from a humanitarian and moral standpoint, it's purely religious. They have no shame admitting this. You just have to listen to one of the 5 state TV channels in Farsi. I even think Palestinians would fare better if not for these extremists on either side!
All that said, the supreme leader is the one who commands the murder of innocents in the streets, so he had it coming. Good riddance and he died like the rat that he was. But as to what happens next? No one knows. Also I personally don't think US is doing this because they want Iran's oil. I believe they want to put pressure on China to not get Iran's cheap (under sanctions) oil. That seems more plausible to me.
*typo edit
swingboy | 11 hours ago
throwawayheui57 | 2 hours ago
Obviously, all this is not to say that Israel doesn't have a hegemonic stance. Probably even Arab nations have those dreams too!
You're seeing this vast field of geopolitical shit show through a tiny crack of news and social media from the last year.
righthand | 8 hours ago
mvdtnz | 29 minutes ago
leke | 8 hours ago
hnthrowaway0315 | 23 hours ago
eunos | 23 hours ago
hnthrowaway0315 | 23 hours ago
estearum | 3 hours ago
1. Permanent subjugation to western countries, to be unilaterally abused whenever they felt like it, or
2. Race to the nuke as fast and as secretly as possible
underlipton | 18 hours ago
SethMurphy | 23 hours ago
eunos | 23 hours ago
Dig1t | 23 hours ago
SethMurphy | 16 hours ago
wqaatwt | 13 hours ago
SethMurphy | 11 hours ago
Dig1t | 2 hours ago
It is purely because Iran is a rival and check on Israel. Most of the US oligarchy has strong ties to Israel and they have made huge donations to Trump so that he would do this for them. Take a look at Miriam Adelson, Sheldon Adelson, Larry Elison, Ronald Lauder. These are mega donors who have been agitating for regime change in Iran from the very beginning. Go watch the speeches that Trump has given IN Israel, this has been their aim the entire time.
This conflict is extremely religious in nature, a huge contingent of Christians in the US believe that Israel ruling the middle east out of Jerusalem means that the end times will arrive sooner. Similarly a large contingent of Jews believe that their Messiah will return when they control the middle east.
Watch the Tucker interviews with Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee, many of these people are true believers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism
>A 2017 LifeWay poll conducted in United States found that 80% of evangelical Christians believed that the creation of Israel in 1948 was a fulfillment of biblical prophecy that would bring about Christ's return and more than 50% of Evangelical Christians believed that they support Israel because it is important for fulfilling the prophecy.
swingboy | 11 hours ago
dispersed | 23 hours ago
> Earlier, Trump addressed reports that Khamenei was killed in airstrikes today, saying, “We feel that that is a correct story.”
This doesn't sound like Trump's typical bluster, and it's even weirder that Trump didn't immediately go on TV to brag. I'm not saying this is fake news, but I'll wait for confirmation.
casefields | 16 hours ago
small_model | 23 hours ago
grey-area | 23 hours ago
Assassination doesn’t remove the system or rewrite the balance of power, nor does it reconstitute civil society.
XorNot | 23 hours ago
ReptileMan | 23 hours ago
bossyTeacher | 23 hours ago
TulliusCicero | 23 hours ago
fourseventy | 23 hours ago
jihadjihad | 22 hours ago
dotancohen | 17 hours ago
TulliusCicero | 2 hours ago
bjourne | 22 hours ago
TulliusCicero | 22 hours ago
nailer | 22 hours ago
bjourne | 21 hours ago
nailer | 21 hours ago
bjourne | 20 hours ago
nailer | 3 hours ago
dotancohen | 17 hours ago
For what it's worth, I agree with you about Sinwar dying while fighting.
wqaatwt | 13 hours ago
Tell that to the soldiers in the famously almost universally ineffective militaries of almost all the countries in the Arab world.
gryzzly | 10 hours ago
pygar | 19 hours ago
If he decided to stay for ideological reasons, they would not have been there.
My guess is that they might have misinterpreted the US's demands as starting positions while the US considered them to be final. Who would expect a country that can produce ballistic missiles to willingly give it up? It was a non-starter from the beginning.
g8oz | 23 hours ago
bamboozled | 23 hours ago
powerpcmac | 23 hours ago
TulliusCicero | 23 hours ago
SkyeCA | 23 hours ago
The truth of the world, as much as we may hate it, is that at least at the state level might makes right.
danny_codes | 21 hours ago
hackable_sand | 8 hours ago
cucumber3732842 | 23 hours ago
Not that it's ok for the US, or anyone else to do it.
davidguetta | 22 hours ago
muzani | 21 hours ago
Considering how Israel had to raze entire cities to beat 'Hamas' or the US dropping nukes in WW2 instead of bombing the Japanese Emperor. This is decent as far as wars go.
deaux | 19 hours ago
They didn't, they just had to stop funding them, as Hamas has been funded by Israel.
HDThoreaun | 18 hours ago
deaux | 18 hours ago
> In an interview with Politico in 2023, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that "In the last 15 years, Israel did everything to downgrade the Palestinian Authority and to boost Hamas." He continued saying "Gaza was on the brink of collapse because they had no resources, they had no money, and the PA refused to give Hamas any money. Bibi saved them. Bibi made a deal with Qatar and they started to move millions and millions of dollars to Gaza."
dotancohen | 17 hours ago
g8oz | 7 hours ago
whacko_quacko | 11 hours ago
But "the Jews .. uhm, I mean Israel .. had it coming and they did it to themselves" is always a favorite, isn't it?
xorcist | 9 hours ago
flyinglizard | 10 hours ago
The assumption in Israel was that it was beneficial to have Hamas retain something to lose, and not starve them dry outright. Of course that didn't pan out well, given what Hamas did in October 7th.
But saying Hamas was funded by Israel is an outright lie, and the irony it comes from the same people who blame Israel for not letting supplies into Gaza during war. So no matter if Israel does or does not, it's always to blame simply by being.
elihu | 9 hours ago
Israel did in fact do that. In fact there were several months of Israel not allowing any food or supplies whatsoever into Gaza. That was about a year ago. (It's possible Israel may have been supplying rival groups unfriendly to Hamas with food/supplies/weapons in secret, but all regular humanitarian aid was shut off.)
jasomill | 17 hours ago
Trouble is, higher-ups are easily replaceable, and the rank-and-file True Believers may be even more willing to follow orders in the name of a dead tyrant than a living one.
Or not. Sic semper tyrannis. Best wishes to the people of Iran.
ekjhgkejhgk | 9 hours ago
1) Israel didn't "have" to raze anything, they chose to.
2) "Beat Hamas" is an excuse for Israel to do what it wants, which is to raze entire cities.
throwaway2037 | 9 hours ago
My guess: All of those leaders are responsible for more innocent civilian deaths in each conflict than Khamenei's entire reign.
To me, I am very conflicted about the assassination of Khamenei. Yeah, he did a bunch of bad stuff and was very destabilising in the region, but I need to draw the line at assassination. It was unnecessary. It is a slippery slope.
muzani | 7 hours ago
Except the first one, because the goal of that war was killing the civilians. They could have assassinated Hamas leaders just as easily, but then there would be no reason to bomb all those hospitals and children.
TiredOfLife | 14 hours ago
sschueller | 12 hours ago
Europe even still trades with Israel when what they have done is Gaza has been declared a genocide by everyone. At the same time Russia can't even take part in the Olympics or the Eurovision song contest.
The west has no moral ground to stand on and hopefully people in the west will start to see that.
throwaway2037 | 9 hours ago
shell0x | 9 hours ago
y-curious | 9 hours ago
shell0x | 9 hours ago
jjtwixman | 4 hours ago
hearsathought | 5 hours ago
America is as much a victim of israel as iran is. You act like we have a choice in this matter. We are forced to cut funding for food programs, education, healthcare, etc because of soaring debt. Yet, we'll take on any amount of debt for israel's wars. It's amazing how we've become a slave of such a small nation.
> Can you imagine other countries assassinating a foreign head of state and not getting immediate blowback?
It's simply a matter of power. Who is powerful enough to do the enforcing of laws or punishing of bad actors? Might makes right.
msuniverse2026 | 23 hours ago
The Israeli-supplied Azeri military has already demonstrated its effectiveness when it curb stomped the unprepared and internally betrayed Armenian military and militias. Baku will eventually decide to intervene in the northern territories. If I had to guess, a "special military operation" into northern Iran is the most likely follow-up scenario goaded into and supplied of course by Israel/US. The goal will be to foment a civil war and begin the dismemberment process of Iran.
A little personal conspiracy theory I have is that after the last Israel/US intervention (when they mysteriously liquidated the only high-ranking and influential internal opposition of the Khamenei clan left) is that some sort of deal was worked out behind the scenes with the clan to get rid of the wizard-in-chief kinda like how Maduro was sold out. It is much easier to go to war with a country when it responds with only symbolic attacks and secretly promises to fight with one hand behind its back - provided cash and security flows for those at the top of course.
1a527dd5 | 23 hours ago
Years later, I understand it was a complete folly. Removing Saddam in itself was good but what it did the wider region was not good.
heavyset_go | 23 hours ago
TulliusCicero | 23 hours ago
That said, fuck Khamenei.
paxys | 23 hours ago
You and your children will be paying the bill for this war for the rest of your life.
Oil and defense companies will get richer.
Nothing will change in the middle east.
judahmeek | 19 hours ago
Iranian regime-allied forces were a big part of why Iraq was such a quagmire.
The balance of power in the Middle East is shifting from the Sunni~Shia schism that it once was.
Most of the remaining powers are willing to actually engage in diplomacy with Israel & prefer secular groups to Islamist groups.
There's still personality conflicts, such as the one growing between the heads of Saudi Arabia & the UAE, but the general trend seems to be very promising.
Paianni | 9 hours ago
judahmeek | 8 hours ago
Paianni | 3 hours ago
sosomoxie | 5 hours ago
_DeadFred_ | an hour ago
sosomoxie | an hour ago
tomjakubowski | an hour ago
csmpltn | 23 hours ago
dfadsadsf | 23 hours ago
csmpltn | 22 hours ago
greazy | 20 hours ago
bjourne | 17 hours ago
wqaatwt | 13 hours ago
But if you add up the Iraq-Iran war and all his domestic atrocities it’s not that far (and these are only direct casualties).
GeoAtreides | 21 hours ago
is the civilian population being gassed in Iraq now? how about a brutal repressive regime backed by a secret police that tortured and disappeared thousands? is Iraq really the same as it was under Saddam?!!?!?!?!?!??!?!
tdeck | 10 hours ago
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/10/iraq-people-h...
https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/08/19/iraq-chilling-accounts-t...
There was a This American Life story about it which unfortunately I can't find.
aucisson_masque | 23 hours ago
I say that ISIS was worst than Saddam.
csmpltn | 22 hours ago
muzani | 22 hours ago
UncleMeat | 21 hours ago
But I personally think that the reasons why you see violent insurgency after a regime change and foreign occupation is a little more universal to humans than specific to islam.
acjohnson55 | 22 hours ago
Parts of Iraq are much better off, like Kurdistan. Other parts were utterly devastated by our operations, insurgency, sectarian violence, ISIS, and so on. Some people had religious freedom and now live in areas under theocratic control.
impossiblefork | 10 hours ago
wfdsf2 | 22 hours ago
As you said.. plenty of evidence where on the surface it seems good. But in reality it turns out to make the people in the region worse off.
deaux | 19 hours ago
And we see this across the board. A canonical one that remains prevalent: "If only people would've come out and voted for Kamala in 2024, we wouldn't be in this mess". But then if you follow the pattern, with the candidate she was and what she would've done, this would've secured an ultra-MAGA victory in 2028 (and likely already by 2026 midterms). One more extreme, more devious, more intelligent from the get-go than the current one. People like to cling to "but you don't know that for sure", which is true, but we do know that with about 90% certainty. Betting on 10% is an awful idea and is indeed what has gotten you to where you're at.
It's the single biggest reason for the huge power shift from the US to China. Almost anything that China does is based on long-term consequences. Pain today for gain over time. Of course there are counterexamples, but by and large this holds.
In this case, sure, many Iranians will be happy for a day - especially overseas. So that's what people focus on. People have entirely lost the ability to think realistically in years. Of course part of this is biological, we're monkeys. But there are many reasons to believe that this ability has greatly declined over the last 50 years, particularly in the West and especially in the US.
calf | 3 hours ago
avaika | 22 hours ago
I believe this is the legacy of leaders like Saddam. They build a very messy future for their countries. Whenever such a leader is gone, somebody has to take over power. Dictators tend to concentrate as much power in their hands as possible. Forced removal of such a leader might accelerate and / or destabilize power transition. Which might end up in a very messy scenario.
Absolute power transition worked well with monarchy in the past, cause everybody knew who would be the next guy, there were rules and procedures. With dictatorship often times there are no rules. So power transition might turn into a complete chaos even with a natural death of a dictator.
Bender | 22 hours ago
Rapzid | 22 hours ago
Going to take a night off from worrying about forever wars and celebrate the end of the Ayatollah and Ali Khamenei.
erxam | 21 hours ago
I'd be careful of what I read and choose to believe.
baxtr | 15 hours ago
It costs us some time, money and lives to get to this point. But Saddam (a tyrant who killed his own kind in masses with gas and started wars with neighbors) staying in power would have been way worse for the wider region.
AlecSchueler | 13 hours ago
baxtr | 10 hours ago
I’m challenging the causal chain. I don’t think anyone would agree that the crusades in the Middle Ages caused the current state of the Middle East.
There is no way you can prove one or the other side. We can’t do controlled experiments with other worlds.
So it’s all guesswork. That’s why I’m challenging. I think that things are much less causally connected as people want to believe.
bonsai_spool | 9 hours ago
I think the Crusades have not yet ended…
And it is not clear that fewer people died following the US interventions than would have had Iraq been left to its own.
padjo | 5 hours ago
627467 | 5 hours ago
baxtr | 4 hours ago
If you can go back 20 years, you can do that 5 times and end up at 100.
seydor | 12 hours ago
plus you can't know how Iraq would be today without the invasions
tylerflick | 6 hours ago
padjo | 5 hours ago
beloch | 10 hours ago
In the first gulf war, Bush Sr. refused to occupy the country. He viewed it as too difficult and too expensive. In the second gulf war, Bush Jr. declared victory from the deck of an aircraft carrier, occupied the country, hunted and executed its leader, and then opened the U.S. treasury to deal with the aftermath. Thousands of Americans died. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's died. The occupation was long and difficult, but its end was still premature and left a power vacuum that ISIS raged into, causing even more destruction. Perhaps Iraqi's can say they're better off today than under Hussein, but a terrible cost was paid. Most of the blood was Iraqi, but most of the treasure was American.
The financial drain on the U.S. was extreme enough to expose the world's preeminent superpower as being unable to bring the occupation of a somewhat backwards and minor dictatorship to a successful conclusion. Iraq is not a big country, in either population or area, but it was still too much for the U.S. to control, even with willing allies. This failure made the world realize there were severe limits to what the U.S. can do. Sure, it might defeat the military of a middle or even major power, but occupy and control it? Fat chance!
In the days ahead, the U.S. military is going to bomb anything that moves and looks like it might shoot back, as well as a lot of infrastructure and probably a decent number of civilian targets by mistake (or design). Trump has framed this invasion as being directed towards eliminating Iran's nuclear program, so expect a lot of facilities in close proximity to civilians (and many of those civilians) to be vaporized.
If Trump is listening to his generals even slightly, he will not try to occupy the country. He'll declare victory and move on to whatever outrage is next to maintain his "Flood the zone" strategy and keep the Epstein heat from finally catching up with him. If that's all he does, this will be another war like Bush Sr.'s. Expensive, but not ruinously so. U.S. deaths will be in the hundreds and not the thousands. Iran will most likely fall into the hands of another mullah or descend into chaos, becoming a long-term security quagmire that will probably continue to bleed the U.S. for decades to come. Even if democracy does take root in Iran, it likely won't be a democracy that's friendly to the U.S..
If Trump isn't listening to his generals (who reportedly advised against the invasion to begin with), he might try to occupy Iran. Iran has double the population and four times the land area as Iraq. Unlike Bush Jr., Trump has not even tried to stitch together a coalition to share the costs. It's unlikely that many countries would be dumb enough to sign on now. There's no NATO article 5 pretext to drag in other NATO countries. There isn't even a falsified pretext like WMD's to quiet the howling in the UN. Israel isn't the kind of help the U.S. needs because the U.S. pays most of Israel's military bills to begin with. In short, if Iraq strained the U.S.'s finances close to the breaking point, Iran will ruin them completely. There's absolutely no way the U.S. can afford to occupy Iran.
Even if Trump cuts and runs, this war will ensure American's can't afford socialized medicine for another generation.
bonsai_spool | 9 hours ago
I don’t think anyone believes it, but I’ve heard media reports that ‘unnamed officials’ thought the regime was weeks away from a nuclear weapon.
I think an Article 5 invocation would be a cynical way to destroy NATO with some deniability
nerdyadventurer | 7 hours ago
adrian_b | 3 hours ago
It would be weird (or not?) to contradict himself now by claiming that they were able to make nuclear weapons.
bonsai_spool | 3 hours ago
But this is supposedly false per reports.
pydry | 6 hours ago
30,000 dead protestors.
The source for both was "the state department bribed a guy in the Iraqi/Iranian government and you'll NEVER guess what he told us...."
inglor_cz | 9 hours ago
People tend to forget that various extant democracies, including European ones, mostly didn't precipitate out of thin air by everyone deciding to just be nice to one another. Many now-democratic countries had to fight a war of independence or a civil war, often with involvement of third parties, to get there.
France took about 80 years of violent upheavals from 1789 to 1871 to actually become a democratic republic for good. Germany was even worse. Unification of Italy was a long bloody mess. Poland barely survived the 20th century. Even Swiss direct democracy is an aftermath of a civil war, though in their case, it was a small one.
Democracy isn't an application that people just install and it starts working. It usually takes decades for it to take roots, as people have to slowly abandon the idea that it is just easier to massacre their opponents.
Even the US came to be after a war of independence with a major external factor on their side (the French) and only ended slavery through a nasty civil war.
Iraq isn't really an outlier in that context and Iran wouldn't probably be either.
baxtr | 7 hours ago
But then people look at it after 5 years and say: but it didn’t work!!!
Not acknowledging that all things ever achieved in life by humans were achieved over time by constant trial and error and not giving up.
righthand | 8 hours ago
righthand | 8 hours ago
pydry | 6 hours ago
They were also complaining bitterly about things that got worse thanks to there being a war like corruption and a lack of jobs.
I have no idea who OP talked to nor why they thought the war was so great but it matched nothing of what I saw.
golden-face | 6 hours ago
regularization | 4 hours ago
The US sent Saddam the Bell helicopters to gas the Kurds. US military aid increased after that happened.
The war with a neighbor was with Iran - the country the US just attacked, and which the US encouraged Iraq to fight. That's why Rumsfwld was over there shaking Saddam's hand.
softwaredoug | 9 hours ago
Thats the hope at least. Seems like a completely different situation though. It could just as easily end up an unstable mess like Libya
jmyeet | 8 hours ago
And why did we want to punish Iran? Because the fundamentalist regime overthrew our puppet (the Shah).
And how did the Shah come to be a dictator, essentially? Because we overthrew the liberal democracy Iran had in 1953 at the behest of the british because Iran had wanted to control their own oil and BP wasn't happy.
Even the fundamentalist regime in Iran is kind of America's fault. Saddam Hussein expelled Khomenei from Iraq in 1978 (IIRC) because when it became clear that Iran was lost, we wanted the fundamentalists to take over instead of the communists because we didn't want Iran to fall into the Soviet sphere of influence.
It's also a pretty similar story with Osama bin Laden.
As payback for Soviet support for North Vietnam, we supplied arms to the rebels in Afghanistan after the USSR invaded. Supplying Stinger SAMs to the mujahadeen was particularly devastating and these included Osama bin Laden.
Isn't it weird that all this foreign interference always go badly and all these former puppets somehow end up becoming huge problems for us later? When will we learn, exactly?
It's also worth noting that there was a strong desire in American policy circles to overthrow Saddam well before 9/11. 9/11 and the fake WMD story just became the excuse. For example, in 1998 a bunch of people sent a letter to then President Bill Clinton urging him to invade Iraq and topple Saddam [1]. Just look at the signatories on that letter and what part they played in the War on Terror.
[1]: https://zfacts.com/zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/98-Rumsfeld-Iraq....
PolygonSheep | 3 hours ago
heavyset_go | 23 hours ago
culi | 23 hours ago
aucisson_masque | 22 hours ago
UncleMeat | 21 hours ago
cosmicgadget | 21 hours ago
culi | 20 hours ago
And if a choice between 2 people that have been thoroughly vetted by elites is your definition of democracy, you have a sad sad view of what's possible.
cosmicgadget | 19 hours ago
dotancohen | 18 hours ago
deaux | 19 hours ago
cosmicgadget | 19 hours ago
jatari | 10 hours ago
You have built yourself a safe little cocoon, protected from the messy imperfect reality of the world, where sometimes you have to make compromises and you don't always get what you want.
palmotea | 12 hours ago
Link?
culi | 12 hours ago
palmotea | 12 hours ago
No one's a perfect shot: the misses aren't waste, because some misses should be expected.
nixon_why69 | 7 hours ago
poilcn | 12 hours ago
w10-1 | 23 hours ago
(I would not rely on immunity from a nation that left collaborators on the tarmac in afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam?)
Rapzid | 21 hours ago
UltraSane | 10 hours ago
bonsai_spool | 8 hours ago
Correct, but how does this invalidate OP’s assertion? Are you saying that there are no collaborators who were left behind in Vietnam after supporting the US?
If I recall correctly, even getting the Hmong here was a political lift that some opposed
UltraSane | 3 hours ago
thecarbonista | 23 hours ago
jryan49 | 23 hours ago
k33n | 12 hours ago
ares623 | 12 hours ago
mirekrusin | 11 hours ago
UltraSane | 10 hours ago
thisislife2 | 23 hours ago
csmpltn | 23 hours ago
avoutos | 22 hours ago
palmotea | 12 hours ago
We absolutely should. It's a key principle of international law that brutal regimes should not be disturbed, until an opportunity for a regime change brokered by international lawyers presents itself in a century or two. Moral legitimacy comes from international law, and international law only.
seanmcdirmid | 21 hours ago
C6JEsQeQa5fCjE | 19 hours ago
For Israel, absolutely. Improving the victim countries is not the aim.
swingboy | 11 hours ago
PolygonSheep | 2 hours ago
It was for Netanyahu, and that's the important thing here.
AnimalMuppet | 19 hours ago
anonnon | 19 hours ago
mna_ | 13 hours ago
konart | 3 hours ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yelabuga_drone_factory
"As of late spring 2025 Russia has been producing around 170 Geran-2 drones per day, with indication that a total of around 26,000 Gerans were produced by Yelabuga drone factory"
clot27 | 19 hours ago
You died fighting Imperialists and I will always respect that
gryzzly | 9 hours ago
lostmsu | 19 hours ago
Ray20 | 12 hours ago
lostmsu | 10 hours ago
IAmGraydon | 18 hours ago
icar | 14 hours ago
The same is true for all the instability in the Middle East, entirely manufactured by the West.
Action-reaction, cause-effect: You never know how a story will end. And after the 1979 revolution, the CIA and British MI6 provided the ayatollahs with lists of communists to exterminate, which they did. Imperialism always prefers to deal with theocracies rather than communists. https://www.declassifieduk.org/how-britain-helped-irans-isla...
wqaatwt | 13 hours ago
That glosses over a huge amount of details. Calling it democratic is a huge stretch.
> They had elected a prime minister
The election of 1952 were rigged (seemingly by both sides) and not free at all. The vote was even stopped early and almost half the seats left empty.
Mosaddegh was also already in power (being appointed by the Shah) before these “democratic” elections and his reforms were already underway.
Ray20 | 12 hours ago
Communist regimes are also a form of theocracy (proof can be found in the writings of any communist leader). It's just that, unlike other theocratic regimes, other countries have to deal with millions of starving refugees (because the communist faith requires banning food production or something like that, I don't know much about their religion).
CodinM | 11 hours ago
I also liked the idea that oh look Iran was this liberal country and whatnot but unfortunately it's just not true.
jacknews | 12 hours ago
lol. "Some of you will lose your lives. But that's a price I'm willing to pay"
mixxit | 12 hours ago
throwaway742 | 12 hours ago
seydor | 11 hours ago
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm | 11 hours ago
Mikhail_Edoshin | 11 hours ago
littlestymaar | 11 hours ago
I'm convinced that with current technology (namely, drones) any half competent state actor can easily assassinate any world leader, and I wonder if the recent US actions aren't going to make the practice commonplace, with dramatic destabilization risks. (For instance think about Air Force One being shot down during landing by an FPV drone controlled over LTE from somewhere in South America by a Cuban intelligence officer).
impossiblefork | 10 hours ago
Traditionally even people like the US president, who is technically commander in chief, kings etc. with formal military ranks but who are not real battlefield decision makers etc., have been regarded as civilians.
Cipater | 10 hours ago
The non-Iranian part is key. Millions of muslims around the world viewed the Iranian theocracy as the only power in the world fighting for Islam. They are devastated.
echelon_musk | 10 hours ago
CoastalCoder | 8 hours ago
dotancohen | 8 hours ago
However, the abandonment argument is only valid if one already accepts Western values as an axiom - which being an English-language book most of the readers would agree with. These readers will perceive the book to promote the reform of Islam into a religion that resembles a modern Christian denomination, just with different idols and prayers and holidays.
However those who do not come from the perspective of modern Christian values and as axiomic, will reject the argument outright. This is the Muslim population who might read it.
ndsipa_pomu | 7 hours ago
dotancohen | 7 hours ago
Do you value separation of state and religious authority? Women's rights? Minority rights? Human dignity? Equality before the law? Sanctity of life? Individual moral responsibility? Monogamous marriage? The objective study of history? Fair trial? Witnesses at trial? Tolerance of alternative viewpoints?
ndsipa_pomu | 6 hours ago
My point is that the so-called Christian values are nothing to do with the reported teachings of Jesus and instead are used to justify the exact opposite.
dotancohen | 6 hours ago
One thing that I can not stand about some modern fanatics is the representation of 1% of a population as if they represent the whole. Don't bring up Christo-fascists of the USA as representative of Christian values. That's highjacking the subject to your pet cause.
CoastalCoder | 6 hours ago
It's showing that we need to make some finer distinctions to meaningfully engage with each other on the topic.
It beats the heck out of each side assuming bad-faith.
ndsipa_pomu | 3 hours ago
Sorry, I thought you were pointing out the many issues with the current US administration and you were showing the difference between Christo-fascists and Christians who value the teachings of Jesus.
_DeadFred_ | 5 hours ago
master_crab | 5 hours ago
Language, cultural history, and geography tend to play a bigger role on society than the monotheistic religions do.
Cipater | 8 hours ago
The Qur'an is totally prescriptive. It contains direct legal commands, judicial rules and explicit government principles which are all binding and considered as direct divine speech.
I think Westernisation and an increase in the number of "casual" muslims is and will continue to be the moderating effect.
Think of what is happening in Europe (as the clearest example) with the influx of Muslim immigrants who raise increasingly more assimilated children as the blueprint.
delichon | 7 hours ago
stickfigure | 3 hours ago
reactordev | 9 hours ago
To rephrase it… if The Middle East was the UK, Iran would be British. If the Middle East was the US. Iran would be California.
quotz | 9 hours ago
Did you mean England perhaps, not "British"?
krapht | 8 hours ago
ndsipa_pomu | 7 hours ago
Anyhow, the worst crimes of colonialism/genocide were mainly conducted by the English (including invading/killing plenty of Scottish, Welsh and Irish people).
breppp | 9 hours ago
dotancohen | 8 hours ago
Modern Western Christians are centuries removed from experiencing religion-as-politics. Islam is as much a political ideology as it is a religion - just like Christianity was before Locke and the American and French revolutions. Today's modern Western Christians (and Western atheists, who share Christian values) do not understand that the essence of political religion is to spread in both people and in geography. Muslims who move to Christian-majority lands do not assimilate or convert.
For what it's worth, I come from the perspective of being neither Christian nor Muslim, but having lived years among Christians and then years having lived along Muslims.
dj_rock | 6 hours ago
tomjakubowski | 3 hours ago
this is a ridiculous and false generalization, disproved by my own experience living in the United States and being friends with Muslim immigrants.
mullingitover | an hour ago
That's news for those of us that are living through the decades-long effort by christian dominionists to take over the US.
> Western atheists, who share Christian values
It's the other way around: Christians share basic morality with people operating on morality from first principles. Plenty of western christian values are orthogonal to morality.
> Muslims who move to Christian-majority lands do not assimilate or convert.
This is false and flat-out defamatory. It's also the type of statement that gets used before bad people do a bunch of bad things.
reactordev | 7 hours ago
I also don’t think that, in general, there’s any animosity there just talking size and influence over the region. Iran and Saudi are/were it. It’s a really interesting dynamic of faith, tradition, authoritarianism, and manipulation.
dfc | 8 hours ago
reactordev | 7 hours ago
animuchan | 8 hours ago
reactordev | 7 hours ago
everdrive | 9 hours ago
UltraSane | 9 hours ago
inglor_cz | 9 hours ago
You can bet that every anti-war demonstration in the West now will have as many Palestinian flags as flags of the Iranian Islamic Republic.
Stranger coalitions have been put together by politics...
UltraSane | 3 hours ago
chasd00 | 27 minutes ago
Cipater | 9 hours ago
There are many Sunnis who view their leadership as "traitors to the cause" and respected Iranian defiance especially against Israel.
It's far from black and white.
esalman | 8 hours ago
Having said that, I also condemn Iranian regime killing (reportedly) 30000 protesters. So he probably had it coming.
I'm more concerned about what happens to US now, because I think the attack indicates a complete failure and collapse of the legislative branch of the US government.
bsenftner | 8 hours ago
nerdyadventurer | 8 hours ago
koolba | 8 hours ago
Why now? Why not when they took out Soleimani in 2020? Or when they invaded and took out Gaddafi in 2011? Can keep going all the back to Truman invading Vietnam.
daveguy | 7 hours ago
Now the war fool is trying to start as many conflicts as possible inside and outside the US to distract from his disturbingly heavy Epstein involvement to give him an excuse to take over polling sites in the US. No more wars my rear.
We have a chance to recover in the November elections by voting out his puppets and tools in congress. The question is whether or not we will take it.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm | 8 hours ago
Cipater | 7 hours ago
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm | 7 hours ago
Cipater | 5 hours ago
Every single muslim, whether devout, practicing, lapsed or whatever, knows whether they are/were Sunni or Shia. They are literally born into it. It determines who is seen as the authority in matters of their faith, the way they pray, the sites they consider holy, the religious days they observe. Even Ramadan starts and ends on different days depending on which you are.
It's such a fundamental thing that I question whether you have any idea about what you're saying here.
Marsymars | 2 hours ago
UltraSane | 3 hours ago
newyankee | 8 hours ago
markus_zhang | 9 hours ago
But I agree with the assessment. I'd definitely avoid large public events. Darn the world is becoming more and more chaotic and we are just waiting for China to put up the last piece to make it into 19th Europe.
CoastalCoder | 8 hours ago
Could you elaborate for us non-historians?
bluedevil2k | 8 hours ago
dotancohen | 8 hours ago
armenarmen | 6 hours ago
rayiner | 6 hours ago
markus_zhang | 5 hours ago
rayiner | 4 hours ago
skissane | 21 minutes ago
I saw on X a video of some Taliban commander saying nobody should cry for Khamenei, because "Israel and Iran are two sides of the same unbeliever coin"
Many hardline Sunnis view Shi'a as non-Muslims.
lm28469 | 4 hours ago
markus_zhang | 2 hours ago
kjfarm | 9 hours ago
But inside Tehran (and in my neighborhood of D.C.) there have been celebrations https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/28/world/middleeast/iran-kha...
Cipater | 8 hours ago
Wouldn't there be celebrations in the US if Trump died? What conclusions would you draw from that?
muzani | 8 hours ago
If you wanted to find people celebrating, you'd find people celebrating.
But my opinion is more often than not, you have two bad guys fighting each other for the top spot. They don't support Option B because they're dumb, they support B because Option A would sell his mom for power, while Option C would just become a puppet to A.
estearum | 4 hours ago
rayiner | 6 hours ago
estimator7292 | 5 hours ago
Lots of american citizens demanded retaliation. Our counterattacks weren't sanctioned by congress, but they were by the people.
Meanwhile, the current president just started a war based on a temper tantrum and an attempt to distract the population.
These aren't really the same thing.
rayiner | 4 hours ago
I was addressing the hypothetical of how Americans would react if Trump was killed by a foreign country in airstrikes similar to how the Ayatollah was killed. I think Americans would react like they did after 9/11, instead of celebrating like many are in Iran.
hollerith | 4 hours ago
bdangubic | 5 hours ago
woodruffw | 4 hours ago
(This is ahead of Trump’s base being isolationist; it’s not even clear who wants this besides conventional hawks.)
rayiner | 3 hours ago
Combined with the fact that the media will be confused about how to respond. You’ll have Iranian diaspora celebrating, like Venezuelans did after the capture of Maduro, making it impossible for the media to frame this simply in terms of “Trump is racist.” As a result, the whole thing will get memory holed, just like the Venezuela attack.
woodruffw | an hour ago
rayiner | an hour ago
Cyph0n | 4 hours ago
jfengel | 3 hours ago
Since then public discourse has almost completely broken down. The President spends his days thinking of insults, and has deployed masked armed forces against civilians. As bitter as 2000 was, it's nothing compared to January 6 2021.
I imagine the details would depend on the circumstances. Say, a targeted assassination versus killing thousands of civilians. But I'm not so sure that things would look anything like 9/11.
bsaul | 5 hours ago
Whereas french did celebrate US planes bombing nazis on their soil.
arbitrary_name | 4 hours ago
kbelder | 3 hours ago
konart | 8 hours ago
where both celebrations and sorrow
nerdyadventurer | 8 hours ago
This is done by diaspora lead by US, they started destroying public resources first and created public unrest on top of falling Rial due to sanctions, this lead the govt take matters in to their hands. Cunning US indeed, always playing cheap tricks.
RaftPeople | 4 hours ago
He told me years ago that the majority in Iran were not aligned with the new regime, it was a minority of the population that were.
anon291 | 21 minutes ago
somenameforme | 8 hours ago
The one thing I think must be true is that I can't imagine an 86 year old cleric was an especially effective leader. So assassinating him is quite the gamble. I'd love to know what the military's chatbots thought about this idea.
Cipater | 8 hours ago
What a mad world we're hurtling ourselves into.
mindslight | 5 hours ago
I'd say the main contemporary dynamic of the times is hallucination. Not necessary by LLMs per se, but rather by the humans wielding them to mainline their own bullshit.
In a way Grump himself is just society's own embodied hallucination from decades of Republican marketing hopium. Some scraps of dignity are surely about to trickle down any day now, once those mean libuhruls are out of the way.
(the "warfighter" terminology-coddling obviously coming from the user prompt)
wiseowise | 8 hours ago
_DeadFred_ | 5 hours ago
Should a believer/teacher of such things even be called a prophet? Old boy was straight trash with a horrific morality.
estearum | 4 hours ago
Doesn't stop people from killing or dying in their name though.
arunabha | 3 hours ago
Sadly, that has been a fairly common attribute for a fairly large majority of people anointed as 'prophets' and 'saints'.
cogman10 | an hour ago
You don't need to lie about someone you don't like.
hu3 | an hour ago
cogman10 | an hour ago
Look, not trying to defend the guy, but I don't like this sort of hyperbole. People have the wrong view on what Iran is like. It's ran by religious fundamentalists, which is bad, but it's also probably one of the more progressive muslim theocracies in the region. People tend to mix up shit that Saudi Arabia does with Iran.
In particular, Iran has a very progressive view on education. They have one of the best educated populations in the middle east (men and women).
hu3 | an hour ago
~redacted google serarch~
And I understand your point. There's a ton of bias. We must be careful with the "facts" on the internet.
Admitedly, these link results don't inspire me much confidence.
cogman10 | 53 minutes ago
I hope you can see how these are pretty different things.
hu3 | 47 minutes ago
"Based on our findings, some of the various forms of sexual torture, such as the rape of virgin girls prior to their execution, were conducted in a systematic way and were based on the interpretation of an order by Ayatollah Khomeini (1979-1989), the Islamic Republic Supreme Leader at the time."
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmin...
cogman10 | 24 minutes ago
Look, bad and disagreeable, but not the claimed quote. This is a much better attack that doesn't use hyperbole.
dotancohen | 8 hours ago
throwaway173738 | 7 hours ago
sethev | 7 hours ago
simmerup | 7 hours ago
dotancohen | 7 hours ago
But as one whom the Ayatollah has sworn to eliminate, I can still state that man was sharp and brilliant and extremely well spoken. His worldview was internally consistent. He had vision and experience and knew how to motivate people. He was a one in ten million leader.
I give him that praise and more, even recognising that his stated mission was to exterminate myself and my children.
maybelsyrup | 6 hours ago
What does this mean — did you stick him with the bill at all restaurant or something?
justsomehnguy | 5 hours ago
EtienneDeLyon | 4 hours ago
_DeadFred_ | 3 hours ago
Don't agree it applies in this situation, but it's nice to see someone break down regular people don't give a special jewish name to something that already has a common name/definition, and that the common name better communicates the intended concept so the purpose of using the word is to convey something different than basic understanding.
somenameforme | 7 hours ago
I'm fully willing to accept that for a field where scenarios are fuzzier and intuition more important, it may well be that peak on the bell curve comes somewhat later. But I think it's essentially inconceivable that one is near, or even remotely near, their peak, in their 80s, in anything.
sethev | 5 hours ago
A bell curve tracks the distribution of a single random variable. You're mixing statistical metaphors.
acdha | 6 hours ago
I think of mental faculties and experience as two separate overlapping curves where there’s a sweet spot in the middle where both are high but either one being low can become a big problem.
They also just don’t have the same energy they used to so even if they have a good idea they’ll be less effective at motivating people to embrace it, and the younger people behind them are going to be acting with more thought to succession politics.
foldr | 4 hours ago
leonvoss | 6 hours ago
cookiengineer | 4 hours ago
polishdude20 | 3 hours ago
wvlia5 | 7 hours ago
simon666 | 7 hours ago
FireBeyond | 2 hours ago
urikaduri | 7 hours ago
ifwinterco | 5 hours ago
So the real problem for Iran is that mossad seem to know exactly when he was vulnerable i.e. there are spies within the inner circles of the IRGC
Edit: Or some very effective high tech surveillance, but that's also not good news to put it mildly
vovavili | 8 hours ago
jojobas | 8 hours ago
dotancohen | 8 hours ago
Cipater | 8 hours ago
nerdyadventurer | 8 hours ago
Kinrany | 3 hours ago
lm28469 | 4 hours ago
If you can't differentiate muslims from islamists you can probably keep your comments for yourself...
jimmydoe | 8 hours ago
ndsipa_pomu | 7 hours ago
rayiner | 6 hours ago
Yup. My Bangladeshi relatives who have no stake in Iran are upset. I suspect the lady who cuts my daughter’s hair—who was an accountant back in Iran and celebrated when Jimmy Carter died—is over the moon.
anon291 | 16 minutes ago
jpster | 5 hours ago
And one wonders if a terror attack on US soil would be the justification POTUS uses to cancel elections
spaghetdefects | 5 hours ago
ChoGGi | 5 hours ago
Someone start playing fortunate son.
rayiner | 4 hours ago
But Iran is perhaps the least sympathetic actor on that front. Iran has been attacking the U.S. and its proxies for no reason for decades: https://www.britannica.com/event/1983-Beirut-barracks-bombin....
Tehran is a thousand miles away from Tel Aviv. Iran has no rational self-interest in whatever is going on between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Iran got itself involved in that conflict because it inexplicably chose to involve itself in that conflict.
regularization | 4 hours ago
Iran did not attack the US and Lebanese Shia did not attack the US. Israel invaded Lebanon and the US went in in August 1982. This allowed for the Istaeli allies to perform the Sabra and Shatila massacre. About six months later the US embassy was bombed. Then the barracks was bombed.
The US eas not attacked, the US sent troops into Lebanon, which helped allow for the massacres which took place, and Lebanese attacked the US barracks that came into their country a year earlier.
rayiner | 4 hours ago
By whom? Passive voice doing a lot of work.
estearum | 4 hours ago
Regional security and holy book brainmush?
rayiner | 4 hours ago
spaghetdefects | 4 hours ago
weregiraffe | 4 hours ago
SegfaultSeagull | 3 hours ago
Second, Islam itself is not a single centralized political bloc. The idea that “millions of Muslims” saw Tehran as their champion ignores deep sectarian and national divides. Sunni-majority states like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, and Turkey have spent decades actively countering Iranian influence. Many Arabs view Persian expansionism with suspicion for historical reasons that predate modern geopolitics by centuries. Even within Shi’a communities outside Iran, loyalty to Tehran is far from universal.
Third, the Islamic Republic’s model is explicitly totalitarian: clerical rule, suppression of dissent, morality police, imprisonment of reformers, execution of protesters. Calling that “fighting for Islam” collapses a complex global religion into one revolutionary state ideology. Many Muslims—Sunni and Shi’a—despise the regime precisely because it fuses religion with authoritarian control.
As for retaliation risk: yes, whenever a regime that funds proxy groups is hit, the risk of attempted attacks rises. That’s true by definition. But that risk has existed for decades already because of the regime’s own strategy of exporting violence. The question isn’t whether risk increases from zero. It’s whether removing a state sponsor that systematically arms, trains, and finances militant networks reduces long-term capacity for global destabilization.
Iran was not some neutral spiritual defender of the faith. It was a regional power using religion as a mobilizing ideology while building a cross-border militia network.
That distinction matters.
jo6gwb | 3 hours ago
This morning's terror attack in Austin was perpetuated by one wearing a "property of Allah" shirt.
The world need not continue to live with and accept Islamic barbarism, and the people of the US will not bend to the sword of the Mullahs or your Shia coworkers.
anon291 | 28 minutes ago
Would make a good reality tv show and an excellent warning on the danger of religious fundamentalism.
izietto | 10 hours ago
sega_sai | 10 hours ago
Alifatisk | 9 hours ago
jonathanstrange | 9 hours ago
(I'm not saying it's plausible, just want to explain the rationale.)
morkalork | 6 hours ago
gib444 | 3 hours ago
Technically correct but slightly loaded phrasing. It implies the USA is in the right. Denmark is /defending/ itself and its territories.
IsTom | 9 hours ago
petcat | 9 hours ago
jordanb | 9 hours ago
Hendrikto | 9 hours ago
tsimionescu | 9 hours ago
Hendrikto | 8 hours ago
TiredOfLife | 6 hours ago
nerdyadventurer | 7 hours ago
skywalqer | 9 hours ago
There is huge potential hidden in Iran; it has always had a huge influence over the region and possibly the whole world.
hyperman1 | 9 hours ago
Local news publishes articles of Iranians in our countries being happy, political commenters indicating it can go both ways, and not much comments from politicians.
petcat | 9 hours ago
They don't want to risk their politics.
bonsai_spool | 9 hours ago
This is revisionist.
First, when has a bombing run been ‘unsuccessful’ in the modern era? The assassination wasn’t confirmed until after these statements had come out.
Second, these statements were released essentially as soon as these folks woke up.
The rest of the world should be forgiven for taking POTUS at his word when he said he was going to continue negotiations.
_3u10 | 9 hours ago
It’s also self admittedly a genocidal state which has failed to bring anyone to justice for the genocide it committed.
The Canadian people need US help in bringing those responsible for genocide and terrorist financing to stand trial for their crimes.
cess11 | 9 hours ago
The swedish government was more like 'eh, they had it coming', which does not bode well for us in the long run.
_3u10 | 9 hours ago
The power of sovereignty rests with the people who have given their consent in free and fair elections to have their leaders removed.
inglor_cz | 9 hours ago
Of all the countries that currently make any steps towards nuclear armament, Iran has by far the widest coalition of opponents.
hearsathought | 5 hours ago
booleandilemma | 9 hours ago
Read the list of human rights violations in Iran here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Re... and tell us something the prime minister of Denmark has done to deserve assassination.
I swear half the people on the internet are crazy. You all would be defending Hitler if he was killed today.
"Just because he was bad doesn't give us the right to kill him". You people should hear yourselves.
sega_sai | 9 hours ago
Cyph0n | 8 hours ago
KnuthIsGod | 9 hours ago
Next Greenland and then Canada.
Alifatisk | 9 hours ago
I feel like I've lost the touch of which direction our future is going now, the worlds geopolitics is fluctuation too much. Maybe I should remind myself that feelings also gets amplified by constant stream of news and social media. I am certain 1990s, 2000s and early 2010s was worse times.
shell0x | 9 hours ago
olelele | 2 hours ago
Hnrobert42 | 8 hours ago
At least, that is the only way I maintain hope.
Ylpertnodi | 6 hours ago
Alex_L_Wood | 9 hours ago
wiseowise | 8 hours ago
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm | 8 hours ago
pydry | 8 hours ago
It's not actually very funny how many people go very far out of their way to try and downplay that.
muzani | 8 hours ago
elif | 8 hours ago
I am also in favor of the US Constitution's separation of powers.
I would be equally pissed if Netanyahu died at the expense of rule of law.
konart | 8 hours ago
vs
>maniacal 'whatever you call him' actually committed to methodically wipe out his neighbor
esalman | 8 hours ago
sheikhnbake | 8 hours ago
sosomoxie | 4 hours ago
If you call him what he is (a Jewish supremacist), you will be labeled and "antisemite". Even those of us in the West are under the thumb of Zionism. You can call Muslims whatever you want (including calling for their death), and be met with only cheers from Western institutions.
dralley | 8 hours ago
jimmydoe | 8 hours ago
righthand | 8 hours ago
[0] “U.S.-Israeli strikes in Iran continue into 2nd day, as the region faces turmoil” https://www.npr.org/2026/03/01/nx-s1-5731365/us-israeli-stri...
agb123 | 8 hours ago
nielsbot | 7 hours ago
hnuser847 | 7 hours ago
The last time congress declared war was 1942. That ship long ago my friend.
xenospn | 7 hours ago
troad | 6 hours ago
Must be nice, to replace the difficult art of getting things done in politics with merely spectating at a soccer match. Team Green or Team Blue? Get your bumper stickers and profile emojis.
sosomoxie | 4 hours ago
Alex_L_Wood | 3 hours ago
sosomoxie | 2 hours ago
whyage | 2 hours ago
sosomoxie | an hour ago
pythonic_hell | 8 hours ago
righthand | 8 hours ago
moi2388 | 7 hours ago
rKarpinski | 7 hours ago
There are now 3 active hot conflicts in Eurasia involving different Nuclear armed powers. This is a scary and unstable time.
SegfaultSeagull | 5 hours ago
For more than four decades, the Islamic Republic has been one of the primary state sponsors of terror. Hezbollah is not an organic Lebanese movement — it is an Iranian creation. Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are sustained by Iranian money and weapons. The Houthis’ missile and drone capabilities exist because Tehran supplied and trained them. Shi’a militias in Iraq killed hundreds of Americans with Iranian-provided EFPs. Today, Iranian Shahed drones are striking Ukrainian apartment buildings.
This is not passive instability. It is deliberate, systematic export of violence as state policy.
At the same time, the regime has consistently pursued a nuclear capability while publicly calling for the destruction of Israel and “death to America.” Even if one assumes deterrence logic would hold, a nuclear umbrella for Iran would dramatically increase its freedom to escalate proxy warfare across the region.
The downstream geopolitical effects are not hypothetical. Without Iranian drone and missile transfers, Russia’s ability to sustain certain strike campaigns in Ukraine would be materially degraded. Without heavily discounted Iranian oil shipments, China’s energy calculus shifts, particularly under sanctions pressure. Without Tehran’s funding pipelines, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis become far more constrained actors rather than semi-state militaries.
There is also precedent for preventive action against nuclear programs. Israel’s 1981 strike on Iraq’s Osirak reactor (Operation Opera) was widely condemned at the time; decades later, most analysts agree it delayed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear ambitions. Likewise, Israel’s 2007 strike on Syria’s Al-Kibar reactor (Operation Orchard) prevented the Assad regime from developing a covert nuclear capability. Both operations were controversial in the moment and regarded as stabilizing in retrospect.
Preventing a hostile regime from acquiring nuclear capability has historically proven wiser than managing it after the fact.
Yes, regime change carries risk. So does allowing the world’s most aggressive revolutionary theocracy to entrench itself indefinitely while arming proxies from Beirut to Sana’a to Moscow. The status quo is not stable. It is violent by design.
If a regime that funds terrorism on three continents, arms Russia during a European war, and openly seeks nuclear weapons is dismantled, history is unlikely to judge that harshly.
It will likely judge it as overdue.
sosomoxie | 4 hours ago
yanko | 3 hours ago
hu3 | an hour ago
Another view can be: ending a 36 years long autoritarian, human rights infriging, regime with very few casualities.
eudamoniac | an hour ago