7 ms·
Khamenei Dead
- Simulacra 7mo agoI'm not sure this is a sic semper tyranis but it's close.
- bell-cot 7mo agoMore relevant is who'll take his place, and whether they're better or worse. Note that regime collapse, in a major petrostate with a population of 92 million and in the middle of a critical yet volatile region, can be worse than "the devil you know".
- verdverm 7mo agoLawfare Daily from 3 days ago talked about this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfNGVWjglL4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfNGVWjglL4 Is there a succession, does the military take over, does it break down into factions? Many interesting questions and points raised.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- 0l 7mo agoBetter source: https://www.reuters.com/world/iran-crisis-live-explosions-tehran-israel-announces-strike-2026-02-28/ https://www.reuters.com/world/iran-crisis-live-explosions-te...
- DivingForGold 7mo agoAren't these Iranians the same folks that declare religious wars or Jihad's ? I would not be surprised if we see increased terrorism against Americans worldwide for the next 100 years . . .
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- spwa4 7mo agoDo you really want an answer to that? In islamic theology, religious war is a constant state that lasts until everyone is subjugated (muslims and non-muslims, everyone), at which point the islamic messiah will come, the dead will rise, a last war will break out, and the world ends. Until then, it's constant war (insofar that jihad means war. But that's not entirely true. Think of it more like "subjugating everyone by any means. Violence if necessary, but preferably just subjugation") So no, jihad is not started or stopped. Specific missions are declared (like killing British authors for pointing out obvious contradictions in the quran, like allah having 3 man- and child-killing daughters)
- tokyobreakfast 7mo agoWell that was quick.
- anigbrowl 7mo agoI consider any claims this fundamentally unreliable because there's too much propaganda value in lying, especially during the opening phases of a war. I also don't consider Khamenei that significant; he's an important theocratic figure obviously but doesn't have the same kind of weight or charisma that his predecessor had.
- bell-cot 7mo agoDisagree about the first part. Israeli intel agencies have very deep roots in Iran, and could very quickly be humiliated if Khamenei popped up with a jeering rebuttal to their claim.
- cogman10 7mo agoIsrael also doesn't tend to report on major kills that didn't happen. It's one thing that they are fairly reliable on. If they say someone is dead, they likely are.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- helaoban 7mo agoSo now heads of state are fair game for unilateral elimination without a declaration of war This should be fun.
- antonvs 7mo ago[flagged]
- Applejinx 7mo ago[flagged]
- SllX 7mo agoThere’s a reason every POTUS has a Secret Service detail. So yeah, it’s been imagined. Presidents have been shot and killed before, and Trump himself was shot during the lead up to the most recent election.
- lukan 7mo agoYes, by one lone shooter without support in the background. If there is a determined team of assassins .. all it takes is one well placed shot.
- SllX 7mo agoAgain, the Secret Service is there to protect against all threats and the US Military there for every single other threat above the Secret Service’s pay grade and scale. It’s the most dangerous and most protected job in America no matter what the POTUS is actively doing at any and every single moment.
- antonvs 7mo ago> Again, the Secret Service is there to protect against all threats They didn't do a great job in the Pennsylvania case - they screwed up in some obvious ways and got lucky, essentially.
- mrtksn 7mo agoSo, what does that mean? Is Iran one of those regimes that fall when the leader is killed or is it one of those regimes that they just choose/install someone else and keep going? If it falls, will the democracy kick in or a civil war?
- pinewurst 7mo agoExcellent question - my understanding is that previous decapitation attacks were avoided due to the probability that the IRGC would take over as a simple dictatorship. Unclear what's changed now though.
- Epa095 7mo agoGiven the outcome in Venezuela (and Trumps relationships with dictators in generally), it don't seem like that is something Trump necessarily sees as a bad outcome. As long as the dictatorship trades oil and let some American companies in, they can be as dictatorial as they want.
- verdverm 7mo agoThere is this new group this year that is into doing regime change, kind of
- cogman10 7mo agoMy understanding is that the Iranian government is very resilient. The has been a succession plan since the 70s with a broad board of individuals who can choose the next leader. Blowback is going to be the biggest issue here. Ali Khamenei wasn't just the leader of Iran, he was well respected for Shia muslims. While not perfectly analogous, it's close to killing the pope. Maybe this leads to open revolt which might fully topple to government, that said, I don't think there's a US/Israel endorsed leader or goal for succession here.
- pinewurst 7mo agoThat's actually not true: Khamenei was a political ayatollah, hardly respected for religious judgment by average Shia.
- hleszek 7mo agohttps://xcancel.com/BarakRavid/status/2027830773328302396 https://xcancel.com/BarakRavid/status/2027830773328302396
- rvz 7mo agoIranian media is very quiet today (due to the blackout), but until they confirms this, then this is complete speculation and unconfirmed. We just don't know. I'd take the Israeli media with a grain of salt and they can still fake this, just like the Iranian media can do as well given that AI exists, it's very easy to fake. One side is not telling the truth. Only time will tell.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- vixen99 7mo agoIf the 86-year old leader is still alive one would imagine that he would want to offer reassurance and & encouragement to his supporters by making some kind of appearance.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- paganel 7mo agoFunny how the Americans/Israelis are still so enamoured with the Big-Bad-Boss military view of the world, they've killed so many Taliban leaders in the past that they (the Americans) ended up giving control of Afghanistan to the same Taliban. The same goes for their (both the Americans' and the Israelis') obsession about Douhet and his Air Power thing, a long-running mistake on Americans' part. So much so that their (the Americans') bases in places like Manama (Bahrain) are now getting pounded by lousy Shaheed drones, with no AD to speak of, none at all. This is a huge fuck-up for the Americans/Israelis, I wonder when will their MSM start to write that reality down.
- technate4eva 7mo agoAnyone who still believes the zionist-american misinformation empire is gullible beyond sanity. big mistake
- JshWright 7mo agoThere is no benefit, and significant risk, in lying about that (it's an easily disproven claim if they're lying). I don't trust them because I like them. I trust them because being truthful is in their best interest (and I trust they will always act in their own interest).
- technate4eva 7mo agoIt is not in their best interest, since it's obvious that for at least a decade, blatantly lying and even being caught lying has no impact on their so-called credibility. Lying about this does improve morale among troops and citizens, and gives them some form of early justification. So no. They do benefit from lying about this.
- JshWright 7mo agoThey why haven't they done that in any previous round of attacks? The risk of loosing credibility and giving Iran the opportunity for a propaganda win significantly outweighs any benefit to lying about this.
- foxrider 7mo agoGoing to pour one out for all the Iranian refugees celebrating
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- arisudesu 7mo ago[flagged]
- lukan 7mo ago"interesting new phenomenon" I would argue, directly targeting the leaders of another state is a "interesting new phenomenon".
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- CrzyLngPwd 7mo agoIt's such an off timeline, where Israel can commit de facto genocide and there is no nato bombing like there was in Yugoslavia, and the USA, defenders of Ukraine's sovereignty, kidnap a state's leader and try to murder another state's leader, neither of which were a threat to the USA. The board of peace means nothing, the USA cannot be trusted since it is a lapdog of Israel (did Epstein have something on somebody), and the president of peace starts his own war, hoping to outdo previous presidents in unprovoked murder and destruction. All of the above gives Russia political ammunition to justify its SMO, and encourages China to step up its hopes to bring Taiwan back to the family. And we have been told that AI and climate change are the biggest threats to humanity, ffs.
- throwaway3060 7mo agoThe same state's leader that sold to Russia the drones being used to violate Ukraine's sovereignty?
- CrzyLngPwd 7mo agoDo you believe that allies shouldn't sell weapons to each other? Do you think people should try to kill the leaders of countries that sell weapons in such circumstances?
- tim333 7mo agoIt depends a bit on what they do with the weapons. The Ukraine invasion is a nasty business.
- CrzyLngPwd 7mo agoDo you think the USAs and Israel's unprovoked attack on Iran is a nasty business, or only that Russia's attack on Ukraine is a nasty business? How about NATO attacking Yugoslavia unprovoked? Was that a nasty business? NATO attacking Libya, unprovoked, was that a nasty business? The USA attacking Afghanistan unprovoked, was that a nasty business?
- pleonasticity 7mo ago“Israel says…”
- zaktoo2 7mo ago[flagged]