6 ms·

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 attemp

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.

tim333 7mo ago
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.
- Rapzid 7mo ago
  Certainly people within the Trump administration have thought a lot about this.
  - greedo 7mo ago
    The evidence shows that generally, nobody in the Trump administration gives a lot of serious thought to anything...
    - tim333 7mo ago
      Time seems to be proving you correct.
- nullocator 7mo ago
  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.
  - tim333 7mo ago
    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.
    - all_factz 7mo ago
      “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.
      - bluGill 7mo ago
        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.
      - tim333 7mo ago
        I'm not sure - I'm not that up on all that but there's the >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%2031%20July%202025%2C%20the,from%20notable%20Western%20political%20figures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_opposition#:~:text=On%... thing. Maybe if enough Iranian people back that?
  - dzhiurgis 7mo ago
    If you were part of regime - now is your chance to defect.
lamontcg 7mo ago
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? 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 7mo ago
  > 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.
  - mango7283 7mo ago
    The Americans had to occupy and place both Japan and West Germany under their military rule afterwards to make it stick, that's not a comparison
    - p2detar 7mo ago
      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. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito_surrender_broadcast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito_surrender_broadcast
      - mikkupikku 7mo ago
        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.
christkv 7mo ago
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.
jacquesm 7mo ago
And/or neighboring countries see their chance to start another front in the war.
- dredmorbius 7mo ago
  Few of Iran's neighbours are in a position to do this. Afghanistan? No. Lacks means, motive, or organisation. Iraq? Probably not, despite past history of conflict, too much internal strife. Turkmenistan? Very unlikely. Pakistan? Has the capability perhaps, but little motive AFAIU. Azerbaijan, Aremenia, Turkey? Again, unlikely. The most likely beligerents would be Israel (already involved, but not seeking occupation in all likelihood), and Saudi Arabia. But both those also seem unlikely. Both benefit by a weakened and submissive Iran, but occupation would be an extraordinary undertaking and highly problematic. Non-bordering countries might be considerations (India likely tops that list) but again the upsides seem slight given costs.
general_reveal 7mo ago
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.

tim333 7mo ago

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.

Rapzid 7mo ago
Certainly people within the Trump administration have thought a lot about this.
- greedo 7mo ago
  The evidence shows that generally, nobody in the Trump administration gives a lot of serious thought to anything...
  - tim333 7mo ago
    Time seems to be proving you correct.
nullocator 7mo ago
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.
- tim333 7mo ago
  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.
  - all_factz 7mo ago
    “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.
    - bluGill 7mo ago
      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.
    - tim333 7mo ago
      I'm not sure - I'm not that up on all that but there's the >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%2031%20July%202025%2C%20the,from%20notable%20Western%20political%20figures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_opposition#:~:text=On%... thing. Maybe if enough Iranian people back that?
- dzhiurgis 7mo ago
  If you were part of regime - now is your chance to defect.

lamontcg 7mo ago

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? 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 7mo ago
> 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.
- mango7283 7mo ago
  The Americans had to occupy and place both Japan and West Germany under their military rule afterwards to make it stick, that's not a comparison
  - p2detar 7mo ago
    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. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito_surrender_broadcast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito_surrender_broadcast
    - mikkupikku 7mo ago
      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.

christkv 7mo ago

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.

jacquesm 7mo ago

And/or neighboring countries see their chance to start another front in the war.

dredmorbius 7mo ago
Few of Iran's neighbours are in a position to do this. Afghanistan? No. Lacks means, motive, or organisation. Iraq? Probably not, despite past history of conflict, too much internal strife. Turkmenistan? Very unlikely. Pakistan? Has the capability perhaps, but little motive AFAIU. Azerbaijan, Aremenia, Turkey? Again, unlikely. The most likely beligerents would be Israel (already involved, but not seeking occupation in all likelihood), and Saudi Arabia. But both those also seem unlikely. Both benefit by a weakened and submissive Iran, but occupation would be an extraordinary undertaking and highly problematic. Non-bordering countries might be considerations (India likely tops that list) but again the upsides seem slight given costs.

general_reveal 7mo ago

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.