6 ms·
Let’s hope that the destruction of facilities comes with the regime change in Iran. otherwise it may have just given a brief pause and further escalation. If t
by mrtksn 1y ago
Let’s hope that the destruction of facilities comes with the regime change in Iran. otherwise it may have just given a brief pause and further escalation.
If the regime survives, now Iranian people have a very good reasons to ignore its shortcomings and tyranny and Do a proper sacrifice. It’s a natural resources rich nation of 90 million people. If they want to get serious, they can get serious.
- WaxProlix 1y agoEven if the regime doesn't survive, what's our track record in Iranian regime change like? What are the chances people there swallow their pride and roll over? If anything, Khomeini is probably a moderate compared to a lot of what we could end up with after 'regime change' (lol)
- mrtksn 1y agoI guess it’s all about how it’s handled afterwards. Germany and Japan have become huge US allies after some proper bombings. Just recently Trump tried to troll the Germany’s leader for it and only got a “Thank you for defeating us”. The truth is that Iran’s regime is indeed a very shitty one and a lot of people have grievances with it but the problem is, this is about Israel and they are not any better and didn’t stand at a higher moral ground with their illegal occupation and actions that many consider genocidal.
- bigyabai 1y ago> The truth is that Iran’s regime is indeed a very shitty one Relative to their last, America-backed regime? I don't think you're looking at this from an Iranian perspective at all.
- mrtksn 1y agoYou can tell its a shitty one when a resource rich nation don’t prosper.
- catlifeonmars 1y agoThe number of resource rich nations that do prosper are few and far between. It’s more the exception than the rule.
- SauciestGNU 1y agoI would be very interested in hearing an Iranian perspective on how daily life changed for people when the Islamic Republic deposed Pahlavi.
- simonh 1y agoThe regime is spectacularly unpopular with the majority of Iranians.
- SllX 1y agoI get this a lot from a guy I do trust, and his old man is an Iranian immigrant, but I also recognize my sources are very biased against the regime. Is there any good reporting out there or sentiment analysis that can show this? Or is it all word of mouth on the Internet? It's okay if there is nothing, but I'd feel a lot better if there was something substantial to back this up too.
- birn559 1y agoLook up the demonstrations in Iran within the last ten years and/or since 2022.
- cholantesh 1y agoHow many of them are in favour of having their cities leveled by a rogue state?
- yongjik 1y ago> some proper bombings and a war that killed 400,000 Americans. You want to repeat that history?
- theonething 1y agoHere's some history I don't want to repeat: 1939, Nazi Germany starts fucking around and nobody does anything about it and then we have WWII on our hands. You've totally missed the point. It's precisely because we didn't "properly" bomb Germany to stop that first invasion of Poland, that WWII happened and we lost 400,000 Americans, 6 million Jews etc.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- stickfigure 1y agoThe only thing this parent got wrong is the dates. Historians seem to generally think that Hitler's regime would have collapsed if the West had stood up to: * The militarization of the Rhineland in 1936 * The Anschluss with Austria in March 1938 * The annexation of the Sudetenland (and the rest of Czechoslovakia) in October 1938 The German army was weak in the 1930s and his generals very hesitant. Hitler's "reckless" successes gave him credibility and power. Apparently Hitler was genuinely surprised when the west declared war after the invasion of Poland. He expected the cowardly West to roll over again. I recommend Childers' "World War II: A Military and Social History" if you're into this kind of thing.
- herewulf 1y agoHistorians seem to generally think that Hitler's regime never would have existed if the West had not bent Germany over a barrel in 1918 and immediately after. I mean, if we're going to ruminate over alternate timelines why fast forward to the 1930s..?
- stickfigure 1y ago
- 7952 1y agoI think the post war political movement in America that produced the Martial Plan was exceptional. The situation now in terms of institutions, leadership and doctrine is nothing like that. It is difficult to believe that America of today could help a country in that way. Accountability is too fractured. Profiteering has become a way of life. And fundamentalism is too strong.
- jvm___ 1y agoWhat are the chances that the peaceful, think it through, be reasonable crowd is ready to organize the next regime. Or maybe the hotheads with guns are ready to shoot first aim later. Perhaps forcing regime changes on other countries shouldn't be a quick decision.
- devcpp 1y agoSaying "Khomeini" on current day Iran casts a large doubt on how much you know on the topic.
- levanten 1y agoHe is asking a valid question. Experts on the issue also warn that there is no guarantee that what replaces the current regime would be any more amenable.
- senderista 1y agoSee also: Russia
- apparent 1y agoYes, but that name refers to a leader from decades ago. There is a similar-named leader today, but people who conflate the two tend not to be well-informed on the topic.
- WaxProlix 1y agoYeah sorry for the typo - I obviously didn't mean the dude from the 80s. I'm not a scholar but have been paying attention for at least the last few years, so mea culpa.
- llmthrow103 1y agoYou think America can occupy a country as big land-wise as Iran with a population approaching 100 million and an actual military? This is more likely to be the end of the American empire than an actual change in Iran.
- djfivyvusn 1y agoAt least 60% of the 90 million are closet Christians or atheists in a country where you get the death penalty for renouncing islam. You think we need to occupy them? This isn't Iraq.
- jordanb 1y agoWell in that case I'm sure they're totally cool with us bombing them and look forward to being greeted as liberators.
- adgjlsfhk1 1y agoI'm pretty sure that's what the bush crowd was saying about Iraq too
- serf 1y agoit wasn't the 'Bush crowd'; it was everyone but a few dissenting critical journalists.[0][1] war and conflict are almost always bipartisan to some degree. [0]: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-reporting-team-that-g_n_91981 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-reporting-team-that-g_n_9... [1]: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iraq/journalism-press-failed-iraq-walcott https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iraq/journalism-press-failed-...
- soganess 1y ago60%? Serious citation needed. The largest Christian population in Iran are Armenians. There are far fewer than 1 million Armenians in Iran. So unless you have evidence for the claim that there are 50+ million atheists in Iran, the number just defies belief. I would be shocked if there were 50 million atheists in America. Maybe if you included people who are spiritual but do not believe directly in a god. Maybe I could accept it then, but at that point, you are stretching the definition of 'atheist' to its breaking point.
- CommanderData 1y agoRegime change is what the US and Israel has been doing for the last 40 years in the middle east. That is literally the ultimate ambition of this war. There's a long list of middle eastern countries where we've installed our stooges.
- jordanb 1y agoI'm sure if we keep trying we'll get it right eventually.
- lazide 1y agoBombings will continue until morale improves?
- bravesoul2 1y agoThe plan is working as intended I think. They are not optimising for humanity.
- mahkeiro 1y agoThey don’t care about the regime, they only want it to be aligned with the US and Israel. The Saudi absolute monarchy regime (something that is way worst than the Iranian one) that is directly coming from middle ages, doesn’t get the same journalistic treatment in the US. Women rights in Iran are lightyears ahead of what is happening in Saudi Arabia. But who cares? Talking about Iran regime change only is pure hypocrisy when your best friend in the region can kill anyone by just deciding it.
- reissbaker 1y agoActually, Saudi Arabia doesn't beat woman to death for not wearing a hijab (although they're not great either). Saudi is ranked 56 on the Gender Inequality Index, whereas Iran is 113. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Inequality_Index https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Inequality_Index
- 1y ago
- johnfirus 1y ago[dead]
- petre 1y agoSure. It's nice to hope though. The Iranian establishment is even more rabid now.
- Tika2234 1y agoWhy there is regime change there? You are watching fake news projected by your own government for your bubble. The regime now is way stronger. Their economy now is also significantly bigger and stronger (hint: China). A fresh grad there can find job in less than 2 weeks. Try that in UK or NY...even 6mths would be atough endevour.
- ReptileMan 1y agoIran has smaller gdp than israel and 12 times it's population. They are a delusional dwarf, and they beat and blind women that refuse to wear headscarf. So I wouldn't mind some dead and crippled clergy and IRGC as long as there are no boots on the ground. Just kill the elites until the population sorts the thing themselves.
- koevet 1y agoLike in Lybia?
- ReptileMan 1y agoExactly. Libya is non threatening and doesn't sponsor terrorism as of late. That the Libyans decided to fuck things up internally doesn't change the fact that externally it was a success.
- disgruntledphd2 1y agoWell if you ignore all the refugees and the messing up of European politics for a decade then yeah it was ok. Good ol US was fine though, if that's what you mean.
- reissbaker 1y agoActually, Iran's GDP peaked in 2012 and is currently 30% lower than that peak. Nice try though.
- riffraff 1y agoCan you think of a regime that was bombed by foreigners and quickly fell? I cannot. Ground occupation, yes. But afaict bombing just reinforces the regime.
- YZF 1y agoI don't think we have a historical precedence to what is happening here. The closest would be Israel's attack on Hezbollah which literally collapsed and led to the collapse of the Syrian regime as well. The Iranian regime is very centralized and with Israel and the USA having air superiority and having penetrated it completely from an intelligence perspective (see Israel's perfect knowledge of the whereabouts of the previous chief of staff and the newly appointed chief of staff) it's going to be very hard for it to survive if a decision is made to remove it. There are a handful of key people that once gone there is not going to be any continuity. The current regime is allowed to continue because of fear of chaos if it is removed, not because there isn't a capability to remove it.
- birn559 1y agoSound like it's very realistic that Israel will target the regime itself soon. I don't think the US will actively support it, though.
- samrus 1y agopeople didnt think the US would support this bombing. the "nothing ever happens" bet isnt looking good right now
- arandomusername 1y agoIsrael can't execute regime change by themselves, so US will definitely get involved.
- jeromegv 1y agoSyria regime changed was made by troops on the ground. Again, no bombing campaigns led to a change of regime. This theory is proven again and again
- birn559 1y agoIranian people won't suddenly start to like the regime just because certain sites were destroyed.
- rich_sasha 1y agoMy conclusion from the last 30 years of regime changes in ME is, be careful what you wish for. Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt - they all had their regimes "improved" by well-meaning (?) external powers, and they all went pretty badly. That's not to endorse any of these regimes, including the current Iranian one, just saying the variance is enormous around these events.
- nevir 1y agoIf the regime survives, it is also going to target (and murder) a whole hell of a lot of innocent civilians that it suspects aided Israel (and many/most will almost certainly be innocent). Due process is not a thing with IRGC.
- herbst 1y agoNo matter what. America getting them self into this, so fast is going to lead to a lot of worldwide drama distracting from the disastrous financial situation of the US.
- Panoramix 1y agoAre they supposed to give up their country just because their nuclear enrichment facilities are damaged?
- smcl 1y agoWell the mass destruction and death in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya came with regime change but what followed was more death and chaos that none have fully recovered from. I'm sorry but that "we'll just bomb the country and hope that helps" attitude is utterly stupid and has been repeatedly proven to be deeply ineffective
- pms 1y agoHow do you imagine Iran giving up? If anything, it will radicalize. This would happen even if you did anything remotely similar to your kid (i.e., attacked the kid violently because of an accusation they did something wrong), not to mention to a state that revolted against US political manipulation 45 years ago. I'm wondering whether Trump knows that Iran won't give up and nevertheless pushes forward, or does he really believe that Iran can surrender? I think that's 99.99999% wrong belief. It feels like he is expressing it only to cover up his actions. He probably knows this will lead to a long-term escalation, but thinks that's the right thing to do for the interests of groups/countries he cares about.
- ignoramous 1y ago> hope that the destruction of facilities comes with the regime change in Iran If one were really concerned about the Iranians, the first thing they'd hope for is the containment of radiation not a revolution.
- BeFlatXIII 1y agoOr bomb the oil routes to ensure the rest of the region collapses alongside them.
- swat535 1y agoAs an Iranian, I want it clear: the Islamic Republic has destroyed Iran. For 46 years, they held our country hostage, suppressing us, dictating what we can wear, say, or believe, while chanting death to the West and chasing nuclear power. They’ve brutalized peaceful protesters, raped, imprisoned, and killed our people. Now, their so-called enemies have walked right in, understandably. A regime that has no mercy for us citizens can't be trusted with nuclear power. This is why we’re here: a paper lion with no real strength beyond the people it oppresses. More to it, I've had personal experience with this brutal regime, they arrested my old cousin during the Mahsa Protests(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahsa_Amini_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahsa_Amini_protests), she was taken to the Evin prison (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evin_Prison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evin_Prison) and was tortured for 6 months. We had no news from her. When she was finally released, she was so skinny that you could see her rib bones. We managed to bring her to Canada and it took her over a year of medical care until she began to recover. She was only 20. No one hates this regime more than Iranians. With all that out of the way, Iranians have no choice now but the defend their homes against hostile forces. They will not simply sit back and watch Israel and United States bomb their land to oblivion and then demand unconditional surrender. This attack will inflict more pain on Iranians and only serves to grow the regime stronger. We wanted a regime change, but not at the hands of Israel and US.
- meekaaku 1y agoThank you. Its refreshing to here perspective from an Iranian. Honest question, do Iranians want foreign help for regime change? If so, what would be the nature of this help?
- low_common 1y ago"We wanted a regime change, but not at the hands of Israel and US." You've had decades to change the regime and you didn't do it. If not now, when?
- darick 1y agoWhat a crazy take, I'm sure they love Kim Jong Un in North Korea too. In their shoes you'd manage to bring about regime change of course?