4 ms·

This war has been one of the best things to happen to the IRGC. Oil prices went up, sanctions got lifted, citizens are now united with the goals of the governm

This war has been one of the best things to happen to the IRGC. Oil prices went up, sanctions got lifted, citizens are now united with the goals of the government, dissidents are silenced, the world hates that the US and Israel did this and blames them directly. Really, there's almost no goal of the IRGC that Trump didn't just speed run by starting a war. And this was all for what? The US has yet to articulate an actual reason they did any of this other than "Israel was going to do it, so we went along with them". All the politicians in support of this war flounder and have to rely on "Well, they hate us" as justification for why we are killing school girls and attacking Iran's power grids and desalination plants. I'm not a fan of the IRGC, but this really was the absolute worst way to address them.

JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
> war has been one of the best things to happen to the IRGC This is hyperbole. If Iran could veto the war at the start, they would have. They're coming out of it, right now, relatively better off than the U.S. was when we started inasmuch as we have achieved zero strategic priorities and they've survived while adding a revenue source. But they've also lost massive amounts of military and industrial investment, to say nothing of decades of leadership.
- cogman10 7mo ago
  > If Iran could veto the war at the start, they would have. Sure, because nobody likes the unknown prospect of dying or knowing exactly how far this war will ultimately go. However, this has all made the IRGC a lot stronger and has given them a lot more power. > But they've also lost massive amounts of military and industrial investment Investment made for exactly the purpose it's being used. They are also massively depleting the US and Israel's munitions. The math is really bad. The missiles and drones are pretty cheap and quick for Iran to manufacture and they've spent decades setting that up because of this very scenario. Meanwhile, the US hasn't had to exercise it's supplies and we already see they are running low as more and more explosives appear to be making their way through the Iron Dome. But also, the massive amount of damage that's been to US bases throughout the region. > to say nothing of decades of leadership. Iran's leadership doesn't work like a lot of other nations. The big mistake Trump made was assuming taking out the supreme leader was all it'd take for them to crumble. The government is a lot more complex and not fully invested in one powerful man. And it's this way exactly because of the threat of attack by the US. This is why after both the US and Israel got to the point where they couldn't figure out who was running Iran, Iran was still continuing attacks on US bases and Israel. Much like the US government and military, there's not a single politician or general you could take out that would cause a collapse in command. Unlike the US government, they have a very large government body that can pick and choose new leaders pretty quickly. It took them, what, 2 weeks to pick the next supreme leader? I'm sure Iran didn't want this war, but I'm also sure the IRGC has reaped massive amounts of benefits because of it. These are all very predictable results and the reason no president has been dumb enough to directly attack Iran. It's been reported that generals were advising against this attack. But even people without US intelligence could have predicted these outcomes.
  - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
    > this has all made the IRGC a lot stronger and has given them a lot more power It's consolidated their rule over a weaker state. Whether that counts as "stronger" and "more power" depends on scoping. > Investment made for exactly the purpose it's being used I strongly doubt Iran built a navy so it could be potted in harbor. Same for their launchers, many of which got off a handful of shots at most. > They are also massively depleting the US and Israel's munitions Sort of. On the other side, we're seeing a defense-industrial renaissance in the U.S. and Israel, including around cheaper anti-drone defenses [1]. > the massive amount of damage that's been to US bases throughout the region Massive is hyperbole. Expensive, difficult-to-make equipment has been destroyed. (In large part because we refuse to pay for base hardening.) The worst hit, however, remains more operational than the least-hit Iranian facilities. > government is a lot more complex and not fully invested in one powerful man Correct. But the people at the top weren't numpties. Losing talent is losing talent. It doesn't capitulate a well-built system. But it does degrade it. (These are, however, long-term costs.) > I'm also sure the IRGC has reaped massive amounts of benefits because of it Perhaps. We won't be able to say definitively until after the dust settles. We've been targeting IRGC heavy equipment and industry, specifically, which means their wealth may have plummeted precipitously, even if they've consolidated power. [1] https://www.wsj.com/world/america-downs-cheap-drones-with-million-dollar-missiles-a-fix-is-in-the-works-2afff48a?mod=WSJ_home_mediumtopper_pos_3 https://www.wsj.com/world/america-downs-cheap-drones-with-mi...
    - cogman10 7mo ago
      > Perhaps. We won't be able to say definitively until after the dust settles. We've been targeting IRGC heavy equipment and industry, specifically, which means their wealth may have plummeted precipitously, even if they've consolidated power. Well, I do agree. But I also think that to get to the point where the IRGC doesn't ultimately benefit will mean a very large amount of bloodshed and investment. And by that, I mean the equivalent of dropping nukes on Tehran worth of damage. Ultimately anything short of that will give them a lot of opportunity to rebuild. I don't think the US can topple them simply be continually bombing. They'd need a pretty massive amount of ground troops deployed or inhumane destruction. I guess I still hold out hope that Trump pulls out before we get to either point. If it does go to either point, the world will be royally screwed in terms of oil. Iran isn't going to go down without a massive amount of destruction of oil production throughout the region which is going to wreck the world.
- orwin 7mo ago
  On the other hand, they managed their regime change from a theocracy by the Mollah to a weird monarchy by the IRGC and the Khomenei clan with no Shi'a backlash. The MEK is weaker than ever despite a resurgence in the last few years, the Baloch/Sistani rebellion is petering out (let's say the Iranian Eastern clans are _very_ wary of the US after being abandoned 3 time, and the general population have a very heavy dislike of the US after the Afghanistan war). The only remaining dangerous uprising left are the Kurds that the IRGC managed to strike down while saying "this is a strike against the US interest", and they will probably get help from the Iraki Shi'a paramilitaries to put some pressure. Honestly, i know it isn't the case, but if you told me an exceptionally competent cabal organized that war to prevent Iran from collapsing: thee regime killed 7-15k in january (or rather, 6-14, around ~1k was regime forces getting killed), but the real information was the number of arrest: 40k, and more than 10k jailed They can now kill their jailed political opponent in secret, because you know, war time. US fuckers couldn't just wait Khomenei's death. he was in phase 4, and his cancer seemed pretty quick ffs.
  - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
    > the Khomenei clan with no Shi'a backlash. The MEK is weaker than ever despite a resurgence in the last few years Could you expand on these? Why would there be Shi'a backlash against the Khomeneis? Who are the MEK?
    - orwin 7mo ago
      All of it is history from the initial revolution. Khomenei, the original (not the one killed a month ago), was a high-ranking Shi'a priest. He drafted a theocratic constitution, that was mostly agreed upon, except a few caveats that gave the Mollah (high-rank priests) their own police forces and basically supremacy of the religious over the civil government (this was to make coups harder). Their police forces, the IRGC, slowly gained more and more power and tied themselves to the Khomenei. The original Khomenei died, but someone from his clan was also a Mollah, and was designed next leader. That created a tension: was he the leader because he was part of the clan, it because he was a Mollah? In any case, the clan and the IRGC gained more and more power, and the last transition was a soft coup. The new leader doesn't have the rank of a Mollah, and even though he was a priest, there's now way he was selected without pressure on the others. See it at the pope not being a bishop first. The MEK were Marxists revolutionary in 79 who were shafted by the new constitution and oppose the Mollahs since then (and probably the reason why Khomenei and Shi'a priests who were exiles in Irak were 'convinced' by Saddam Hussein, a US puppet at the time, to go to Iran take control of the revolution).
thelastgallon 7mo ago
> The US has yet to articulate an actual reason Distract from Epstein?
- free_bip 7mo ago
  Of course that's the main reason, but they would never admit it.
- ahsillyme 7mo ago
  [dead]
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]

JumpCrisscross 7mo ago

> war has been one of the best things to happen to the IRGC This is hyperbole. If Iran could veto the war at the start, they would have. They're coming out of it, right now, relatively better off than the U.S. was when we started inasmuch as we have achieved zero strategic priorities and they've survived while adding a revenue source. But they've also lost massive amounts of military and industrial investment, to say nothing of decades of leadership.

cogman10 7mo ago
> If Iran could veto the war at the start, they would have. Sure, because nobody likes the unknown prospect of dying or knowing exactly how far this war will ultimately go. However, this has all made the IRGC a lot stronger and has given them a lot more power. > But they've also lost massive amounts of military and industrial investment Investment made for exactly the purpose it's being used. They are also massively depleting the US and Israel's munitions. The math is really bad. The missiles and drones are pretty cheap and quick for Iran to manufacture and they've spent decades setting that up because of this very scenario. Meanwhile, the US hasn't had to exercise it's supplies and we already see they are running low as more and more explosives appear to be making their way through the Iron Dome. But also, the massive amount of damage that's been to US bases throughout the region. > to say nothing of decades of leadership. Iran's leadership doesn't work like a lot of other nations. The big mistake Trump made was assuming taking out the supreme leader was all it'd take for them to crumble. The government is a lot more complex and not fully invested in one powerful man. And it's this way exactly because of the threat of attack by the US. This is why after both the US and Israel got to the point where they couldn't figure out who was running Iran, Iran was still continuing attacks on US bases and Israel. Much like the US government and military, there's not a single politician or general you could take out that would cause a collapse in command. Unlike the US government, they have a very large government body that can pick and choose new leaders pretty quickly. It took them, what, 2 weeks to pick the next supreme leader? I'm sure Iran didn't want this war, but I'm also sure the IRGC has reaped massive amounts of benefits because of it. These are all very predictable results and the reason no president has been dumb enough to directly attack Iran. It's been reported that generals were advising against this attack. But even people without US intelligence could have predicted these outcomes.
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  > this has all made the IRGC a lot stronger and has given them a lot more power It's consolidated their rule over a weaker state. Whether that counts as "stronger" and "more power" depends on scoping. > Investment made for exactly the purpose it's being used I strongly doubt Iran built a navy so it could be potted in harbor. Same for their launchers, many of which got off a handful of shots at most. > They are also massively depleting the US and Israel's munitions Sort of. On the other side, we're seeing a defense-industrial renaissance in the U.S. and Israel, including around cheaper anti-drone defenses [1]. > the massive amount of damage that's been to US bases throughout the region Massive is hyperbole. Expensive, difficult-to-make equipment has been destroyed. (In large part because we refuse to pay for base hardening.) The worst hit, however, remains more operational than the least-hit Iranian facilities. > government is a lot more complex and not fully invested in one powerful man Correct. But the people at the top weren't numpties. Losing talent is losing talent. It doesn't capitulate a well-built system. But it does degrade it. (These are, however, long-term costs.) > I'm also sure the IRGC has reaped massive amounts of benefits because of it Perhaps. We won't be able to say definitively until after the dust settles. We've been targeting IRGC heavy equipment and industry, specifically, which means their wealth may have plummeted precipitously, even if they've consolidated power. [1] https://www.wsj.com/world/america-downs-cheap-drones-with-million-dollar-missiles-a-fix-is-in-the-works-2afff48a?mod=WSJ_home_mediumtopper_pos_3 https://www.wsj.com/world/america-downs-cheap-drones-with-mi...
  - cogman10 7mo ago
    > Perhaps. We won't be able to say definitively until after the dust settles. We've been targeting IRGC heavy equipment and industry, specifically, which means their wealth may have plummeted precipitously, even if they've consolidated power. Well, I do agree. But I also think that to get to the point where the IRGC doesn't ultimately benefit will mean a very large amount of bloodshed and investment. And by that, I mean the equivalent of dropping nukes on Tehran worth of damage. Ultimately anything short of that will give them a lot of opportunity to rebuild. I don't think the US can topple them simply be continually bombing. They'd need a pretty massive amount of ground troops deployed or inhumane destruction. I guess I still hold out hope that Trump pulls out before we get to either point. If it does go to either point, the world will be royally screwed in terms of oil. Iran isn't going to go down without a massive amount of destruction of oil production throughout the region which is going to wreck the world.
orwin 7mo ago
On the other hand, they managed their regime change from a theocracy by the Mollah to a weird monarchy by the IRGC and the Khomenei clan with no Shi'a backlash. The MEK is weaker than ever despite a resurgence in the last few years, the Baloch/Sistani rebellion is petering out (let's say the Iranian Eastern clans are _very_ wary of the US after being abandoned 3 time, and the general population have a very heavy dislike of the US after the Afghanistan war). The only remaining dangerous uprising left are the Kurds that the IRGC managed to strike down while saying "this is a strike against the US interest", and they will probably get help from the Iraki Shi'a paramilitaries to put some pressure. Honestly, i know it isn't the case, but if you told me an exceptionally competent cabal organized that war to prevent Iran from collapsing: thee regime killed 7-15k in january (or rather, 6-14, around ~1k was regime forces getting killed), but the real information was the number of arrest: 40k, and more than 10k jailed They can now kill their jailed political opponent in secret, because you know, war time. US fuckers couldn't just wait Khomenei's death. he was in phase 4, and his cancer seemed pretty quick ffs.
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  > the Khomenei clan with no Shi'a backlash. The MEK is weaker than ever despite a resurgence in the last few years Could you expand on these? Why would there be Shi'a backlash against the Khomeneis? Who are the MEK?
  - orwin 7mo ago
    All of it is history from the initial revolution. Khomenei, the original (not the one killed a month ago), was a high-ranking Shi'a priest. He drafted a theocratic constitution, that was mostly agreed upon, except a few caveats that gave the Mollah (high-rank priests) their own police forces and basically supremacy of the religious over the civil government (this was to make coups harder). Their police forces, the IRGC, slowly gained more and more power and tied themselves to the Khomenei. The original Khomenei died, but someone from his clan was also a Mollah, and was designed next leader. That created a tension: was he the leader because he was part of the clan, it because he was a Mollah? In any case, the clan and the IRGC gained more and more power, and the last transition was a soft coup. The new leader doesn't have the rank of a Mollah, and even though he was a priest, there's now way he was selected without pressure on the others. See it at the pope not being a bishop first. The MEK were Marxists revolutionary in 79 who were shafted by the new constitution and oppose the Mollahs since then (and probably the reason why Khomenei and Shi'a priests who were exiles in Irak were 'convinced' by Saddam Hussein, a US puppet at the time, to go to Iran take control of the revolution).

thelastgallon 7mo ago

> The US has yet to articulate an actual reason Distract from Epstein?

free_bip 7mo ago
Of course that's the main reason, but they would never admit it.
ahsillyme 7mo ago
[dead]

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]