5 ms·

Can 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 ago
I 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 ago
  Sound 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 ago
    people didnt think the US would support this bombing. the "nothing ever happens" bet isnt looking good right now
  - arandomusername 1y ago
    Israel can't execute regime change by themselves, so US will definitely get involved.
- jeromegv 1y ago
  Syria 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
  - YZF 1y ago
    The troops on the ground were only able to act because the regime has been weakened. But yes, someone in Iran would need to somehow actively do something.
necklesspen 1y ago
It didn't literally cause a regime change but the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia was essentially the last nail in the coffin for the Milosevic regime. The key element is where the will of the people points - Milosevic was already unpopular and the bombing further united the people against him. The few Iranians I know are against the regime, but I don't know how the wider picture looks.
- fakedang 1y ago
  According to my Iranian friends (even the most hardline Ayatollah haters), most Iranians hate the regime, but they'll rally behind them if boots land on the ground. Many of them still look at the Iran-Iraq war with a shade of Iranian patriotism (not sure there's a word to capture that actual feeling of sad memories of losing family members, coupled with a patriotic sense of duty). The younger generation, not so much, since they didn't have to live through that hell.
- verzali 1y ago
  I find it hard to believe foreign intervention can do anything other than rally support. A lot of Americans deeply oppose Trump, but how many of them would support a Chinese invasion with the express objective of overthrowing him and installing a new regime? I suspect very few, and instead you'd probably get a backlash of support for Trump.
- cultofmetatron 1y ago
  > The few Iranians I know are against the regime, but I don't know how the wider picture looks. my experience with Iranians I know are the same. the regime is not partitularly liked by the Iranians but they are no doubt united behind him now because (and for good reason) they likely believe whoever the israelis would appoint as the leader of Iran would be categorically worse.
coffeebeqn 1y ago
Not necessarily but this is also not the end of the campaign. If Israel and US take out their ultimate bargaining chip and have air supremacy then the room to maneuver for the ayatollah is quite small. What happens next inside Iran is anyone’s guess. There have been multiple waves of very large protests in the past five years. What’s stopping mossad from delivering rifles to them from Syria or an airdrop at this point of escalation
400thecat 1y ago
Argentinian Junta fell after they lost the Falkland war in 1982
- herewulf 1y ago
  That was an external war initiated through a grave miscalculation by the junta. Apples and oranges.
  - mupuff1234 1y ago
    > through a grave miscalculation by the junta. Sounds pretty similar to the current situation to me.
aksss 1y ago
Japan
- adastra22 1y ago
  Okinawa and all those pacific island, not to mention China and south east Asia.
- herewulf 1y ago
  Japan was on the verge of being invaded by both the United States and the Soviet Union. The writing was on the wall and the choice to surrender very likely turned out better for Japan, both territorially and in the key priority of persevering the Imperial Dynasty.
mrtksn 1y ago
First footage from the area doesn't appear to show any extended damage, so maybe it was all a show. Regardless, a sovereign country was bombed tonight just because they can. This, IMHO, can have very bad outcomes for the peace worldwide since it means that anybody who can bomb someone can just go ahead and do it. No more international order. What's next then? Bomb Brussels because EU doesn't buy chicken from USA? This stuff isn't OK. The regime change in Iran can be a silver lining if it changes with something more cooperative. But yes, I agree that this is unlikely.
- motorest 1y ago
  > Regardless, a sovereign country was bombed tonight just because they can. The dictatorial nature of Trump's order to attack a nation is far more concerning. Supposedly the US requires an act of Congress to authorize this sort of operation. Sidestepping congress underlines US's descent into totalitarianism and one of the very first acts crystalizing a dictatorship.
  - adastra22 1y ago
    An act of Congress is not required for the first 60 days.
    - gehwartzen 1y ago
      The way the world works these days m 60 Days is enough for the president to unilaterally get us into war with literally every country on the planet. This president has clearly exposed the unarticulated parts of out laws which is supposed to make them work; The hope that the president will essentially act and interpret them in “good faith”
      - 8note 1y ago
        Congress and the US in general has had plenty of time to adjust the powers of the president as US naval, air, and communications capabilities have increased. not doing so is approval of the change in the president's power to initiate and wage war unilaterally without congressional involvement
scq 1y ago
Yugoslavia.
reaperducer 1y ago
Can you think of a regime that was bombed by foreigners and quickly fell? Japan.
yibg 1y ago
Ground occupation also don't typically leads to a healthy regime change. Yes the regime can be changed quickly, but not always in the way we want.

YZF 1y ago

I 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 ago
Sound 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 ago
  people didnt think the US would support this bombing. the "nothing ever happens" bet isnt looking good right now
- arandomusername 1y ago
  Israel can't execute regime change by themselves, so US will definitely get involved.
jeromegv 1y ago
Syria 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
- YZF 1y ago
  The troops on the ground were only able to act because the regime has been weakened. But yes, someone in Iran would need to somehow actively do something.

necklesspen 1y ago

It didn't literally cause a regime change but the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia was essentially the last nail in the coffin for the Milosevic regime. The key element is where the will of the people points - Milosevic was already unpopular and the bombing further united the people against him. The few Iranians I know are against the regime, but I don't know how the wider picture looks.

fakedang 1y ago
According to my Iranian friends (even the most hardline Ayatollah haters), most Iranians hate the regime, but they'll rally behind them if boots land on the ground. Many of them still look at the Iran-Iraq war with a shade of Iranian patriotism (not sure there's a word to capture that actual feeling of sad memories of losing family members, coupled with a patriotic sense of duty). The younger generation, not so much, since they didn't have to live through that hell.
verzali 1y ago
I find it hard to believe foreign intervention can do anything other than rally support. A lot of Americans deeply oppose Trump, but how many of them would support a Chinese invasion with the express objective of overthrowing him and installing a new regime? I suspect very few, and instead you'd probably get a backlash of support for Trump.
cultofmetatron 1y ago
> The few Iranians I know are against the regime, but I don't know how the wider picture looks. my experience with Iranians I know are the same. the regime is not partitularly liked by the Iranians but they are no doubt united behind him now because (and for good reason) they likely believe whoever the israelis would appoint as the leader of Iran would be categorically worse.

coffeebeqn 1y ago

Not necessarily but this is also not the end of the campaign. If Israel and US take out their ultimate bargaining chip and have air supremacy then the room to maneuver for the ayatollah is quite small. What happens next inside Iran is anyone’s guess. There have been multiple waves of very large protests in the past five years. What’s stopping mossad from delivering rifles to them from Syria or an airdrop at this point of escalation

400thecat 1y ago

Argentinian Junta fell after they lost the Falkland war in 1982

herewulf 1y ago
That was an external war initiated through a grave miscalculation by the junta. Apples and oranges.
- mupuff1234 1y ago
  > through a grave miscalculation by the junta. Sounds pretty similar to the current situation to me.

aksss 1y ago

Japan

adastra22 1y ago
Okinawa and all those pacific island, not to mention China and south east Asia.
herewulf 1y ago
Japan was on the verge of being invaded by both the United States and the Soviet Union. The writing was on the wall and the choice to surrender very likely turned out better for Japan, both territorially and in the key priority of persevering the Imperial Dynasty.

mrtksn 1y ago

First footage from the area doesn't appear to show any extended damage, so maybe it was all a show. Regardless, a sovereign country was bombed tonight just because they can. This, IMHO, can have very bad outcomes for the peace worldwide since it means that anybody who can bomb someone can just go ahead and do it. No more international order. What's next then? Bomb Brussels because EU doesn't buy chicken from USA? This stuff isn't OK. The regime change in Iran can be a silver lining if it changes with something more cooperative. But yes, I agree that this is unlikely.

motorest 1y ago
> Regardless, a sovereign country was bombed tonight just because they can. The dictatorial nature of Trump's order to attack a nation is far more concerning. Supposedly the US requires an act of Congress to authorize this sort of operation. Sidestepping congress underlines US's descent into totalitarianism and one of the very first acts crystalizing a dictatorship.
- adastra22 1y ago
  An act of Congress is not required for the first 60 days.
  - gehwartzen 1y ago
    The way the world works these days m 60 Days is enough for the president to unilaterally get us into war with literally every country on the planet. This president has clearly exposed the unarticulated parts of out laws which is supposed to make them work; The hope that the president will essentially act and interpret them in “good faith”
    - 8note 1y ago
      Congress and the US in general has had plenty of time to adjust the powers of the president as US naval, air, and communications capabilities have increased. not doing so is approval of the change in the president's power to initiate and wage war unilaterally without congressional involvement

scq 1y ago

Yugoslavia.

reaperducer 1y ago

Can you think of a regime that was bombed by foreigners and quickly fell? Japan.

yibg 1y ago

Ground occupation also don't typically leads to a healthy regime change. Yes the regime can be changed quickly, but not always in the way we want.