It’s no guarantee, but it is a good opportunity. I’m half-Persian, and certainly not as closely connected as others, but it’s hard to see this as a bad thing. There’s a possibility I can go visit my family in Iran as a result of this. I haven’t had a good chance for that in like 4 years
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
As another Iranian living the West, I wish he would have been captured alive and stood trial.
He should have answered for every single drop of blood on his hands.
My 21 year old cousin was captured during the Mahsa uprising, she was sent to Evin prison, tortured for months. After she was released, we brought her to Canada and she was hospitalized for over a year. She will never be able to live a normal life again.
Well he’s been slain like the dog that he was, alongside some family members - same as the families of those who were slain and tortured on his theocratic watch. Perhaps this is good evidence that Allah is just, even if Allah’s justice has to be delivered by the hands of the Israelis.
It is too early to know what "Venezuela-style cooperation" looks like. It hasn't even been 6 months since the US kidnapped Maduro; the base case is that Venezuela's leadership does more or less what they were going to do anyway under US diplomatic pressure.
The US actually did something fairly similar in Iran; Trump had Soleimani blown up back in 2020. As we can see from the present situation, it failed to influence Iran in ways that the US thought were acceptable. It is rare for assassinations to have positive geopolitical ramifications.
Adding Iranian oil back to the market will lower prices everywhere, including Russia. I'm not so sure the extra-heavy Venezuelan oil will be affected as much.
India used to use Venezuelan crude before the 2019 sanctions [0][1]
India only shifted to using Russian oil in 2022 [2] after Venezuelan [3] and Iranian [4] oil sanctions were enacted, which was when both began increasing engagement with China.
It's a similar story for South Korea [5] and Japan [6].
This helps reduce prices for ONG, as India is shifting back to Venezuelan crude which gives slack which South Korea and Japan can take advantage of, as India, Japan, and South Korea represent 3 of the 5 largest oil consumers globally.
Reminder: extra heavy oil means that there is more processing required to get useful materials out of it, which in turn becomes higher operational cost. So, if Iranian oil entered the market, prices would go down making Venezuelan oil non competitive (I believe the break even price for Venezuelan oil was close to 80$). At this moment the numbers don't add up to make companies go back into Venezuela given the price, uncertainty and past expiriences.
It's less a revolution and more a matter of catching the tide of shifting world powers — and seizing a rare shot at building something other than the last failed experiment.
New Iran, new experiment. You bet Iranians are euphoric right now. Some of the country's brightest intellectuals and political minds are sitting in Evin prison, and if all goes well, they're about to walk out and help shape what comes next.
My dad is worried about the power vacuum, and he's right to be. His biggest concern is the border states and the narrative that ISIS is being funneled into the country to destroy any chance of organized transition. I desperately hope he's wrong. And I don't think he'll ever fully heal — few who lived through the first revolution will.
> It's less a revolution and more a matter of catching the tide of shifting world powers — and seizing a rare shot at building something other than the last failed experiment
The Arab spring wasn't that long ago, was it? We all saw how that turned out, but I suppose hope springs eternal.
> You bet Iranians are euphoric right now
I'm guessing the 50+ dead elementary school kids may put a damper on celebrations a bit.
Yeah I'm not sure why people think that the Iranian government never considered any sort of continuity for what happens when their 86 year old ruler dies. It's not like they're ants that are all helpless without their sole supreme leader.
It's reported that Ayatollah Khamenei nominated multiple successors for his role and a number of other military roles, to guard against this policy.
"Last summer during the 12-day war with Israel, Khamenei had named three potential successors should he be killed. Reports earlier this month indicated that Khamenei had named four layers of succession for key government and military jobs, in an effort to ensure regime survival in the face of a US-Israeli attack."
it's quite common that autocratic states have periods of instability due to wars of succession. That's why many devolve into Monarchy like the Kim or Assad dynasties. That's why one of the possible successors was Khamenai's son
The fact a leader can be assassinated at any moment by the US probably changes the succession plan slightly... I imagine any potential successor is thinking hard about whether it's a job they actually want.
The problem is that you are not dealing with rational people here, you are dealing with extreme religous fanatics. They are either not afraid of dying and becoming martyrs, or they are afraid but dare not show it.
That's certainly how their own propaganda portrays them, however if you see the amount of corruption in that effective kleptostate, you'd understand they care much about life
It depends on how well the regime brainwashed its people over the last 50 years. The majority of Iranians haven't any experience of anything else - I think around 55% are under 40 years old.
There's a US born professor Marandi who said in an interview a few weeks ago that the regime had put in place succession plans, including for himself.
I'm hopeful but skeptical that they will change for the better.
Well, in any case, it is a guarantee that Iran will be less of a danger for other nations if the regime falls, and that people inside of the country will suffer - because either pro-Western or any other government is bound to be a lot weaker, and there will be a lot more violence and economic disruption, eventually economic degradation. It should avenge the emigrants, and provide sufficient punishment for those in Iran for enabling this regime in the first place.
Let's not have illusions about it. There is no way to build a sustainable democracy in a country that never had such leanings and is not culturally/religiously predisposed to it, and can't be physically coerced into it with boots on the ground. Achievable goals are punishment, and neutering.
Another Ayatollah is being ushered in. This is no news. Khameni is old and without the missile, he would be dead soon. This sttike is just bonus to galvanize support for Ayatollah. So in a way Trump prolong the regime. And consequence from this: every other middle east countries now starting their nuke program. Good luck.
There would likely be millions of Americans celebrating the murder of their current president, should that happen. It doesn't mean it's reasonable, right, just, or civilized, nor would it indicate that it was a unanimously supported action.
>Yes our president has only needlessly murdered two innocent US citizens so far
Over a million people in the US died of COVID. It's impossible to know exactly how many of them would've lived if the pandemic started under a president with a saner response than recommending injecting disinfectant, but I'm willing to bet it's more than two.
Parent is referring to the same president as the grandparent...
Trump has murdered 2 innocent U.S. citizens so far, and was president when COVID started. Trump's response to COVID was part of why he lost the 2020 election.
and murdered a bunch of Venezuelans, a bunch of non-citizens in the USA, collected from American companies and residents billions in tariffs...
How about those Epstein files?
The death toll for the Venezuela raid is between 80 and 100, out of them only 10 were civilians. I feel bad for those 10 civilians but, for the rest, I feel no sympathy, as they were oppressors.
Most dictators are elected democratically, once. What makes them a dictator is them not relinquishing power. It's too late to protest after a dictator is officially a dictator. They know what will come and are usually prepared with an armed force loyal only to them.
When the sitting president of the United states repeatedly states he would like to have an illegal third term, that elections are fraudulent and must be under his control, continually takes actions testing the limits of what he can get away with in terms of authoritarian behaviour, and only backs down temporarily when he faces massive backlash, you can forgive people for being alarmed.
He sure does act like a dictator, ruling by executive order. He sent the US military to operate on US soil, by executive order... so yes, he is very much a dictator right now.
In cases where it's feasible to do life in prison, I'm fine with that too. But for dictators, that's typically not realistic (Maduro notwithstanding). Better to kill them rather than let them continue killing others.
I actually oppose the death penalty as a punishment for crimes, but for practical rather than principled reasons: I don't want innocent people (and there's always a chance of innocence) to be killed, and it's more expensive than life in prison anyway.
Part of the reason I, like you, make an exception for world leaders is that it can be cathartic for the people who suffered under them. Of course, it depends on the circumstances. I'm not talking about giving Jimmy Carter the chair for failing to bring down inflation.
My personal view is that most dictators deserve to be stuffed into a suitcase, loaded into a canon, and fired into the side of a climbing wall. I guess that makes me immoral.
That said, for anything aside from a despotic world leader, I'm also against the death penalty.
I'm opposed to the death penalty as well, but this has nothing to do with why I'd prefer despots be left to live in obscurity rather than die a relatively quick, painless, and public death.
Sentence them to live alone and anonymously in an uncomfortable cell in an unremarkable prison without visitation, communication, or news of the outside world.
Well, there are other things you can look at. For one, Khamenei was dictator of a regime that abducts women and recently murdered 10s of thousands of protesters in the streets. I'd reckon most, including Iranians, would not judge the killing of such an individual immoral, unjust or uncivilized.
I don't know whether I'm "kidding" or not, but I might as well post what immediately came to mind as I read this:
Sandra Bland et al.
ICE detainments
The excess 20k (as far as absolute numbers go) road fatalities in the US versus Iran.
And the excess I-have-no-idea-how-many-k who died under Trump's bungled COVID response (and who are going to die from Biden's bungled rail strike response)(and who died under Obama's failed healthcare half-measure)(and who died under Bush's bungled Katrina response and because of his pre-9/11 mismanagement).
Yes, yes, per-capita and all that. I'm not really making a rational argument here, just appealing to the truthiness of noticing that America has its own way of killing its citizens.
They threw the justice and civility when they murdered people on the street. That ship has sailed and the party who's responsible for this escalation is the government.
Perhaps, but there would be tens/hundreds of millions of people like me who didn't vote for Trump and don't like him, but would be absolutely enraged beyond perhaps anything in this country's history if another country blew up the White House and he was killed.
There aren't millions. Maybe thousands which are completely insane considering Trump didn't kill any US citizen, unlike Haminayi killing 50k of his own people.
Exactly. This is just western media trying to project some morality to what was an internationally illegal act ... (and perhaps some in the media hoping against hope this publicity would please the dear, glorious leaders of Israel and the US to end the war).
Preventive war (attacking to neutralize a future, non-imminent threat) is considered illegal under modern international law. The UN Charter restricts the use of force to UN Security Council authorization or self-defense against an actual, imminent armed attack, making preventive actions, which target potential future dangers, unlawful.
It also allows any one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, including the US, to unilateraly veto any binding resolution that imposes sanctions for violating said law, with no established rules or even informal expectations that they recuse themselves when conflicts of interest arise.
Israel and Iran are involved in active hostilities for a long time now, direct or by proxies. Furthermore, US and Israel are making the case for a preemptive war with the advent of the Iranian nuclear program (whether you believe it or not, that’s beside the point), and those are legal.
There were allegedly 7 US personnel injured during the Maduro raid.
Decapitation airstrikes have been possible for decades. I suppose now we find out whether that was a good idea or not. Slightly surprised the Iran strike worked, if you remember the hunts for Saddam and Bin Laden.
> if you remember the hunts for Saddam and Bin Laden.
We didn't have Project Maven 25 years ago, and our leadership in the early 2000s were committed to boots-on-the-ground nation-building due to the afterglow of the NATO intervention in Yugoslavia.
If I were in their shoes, I would be celebrating, too. But this is complicated. If they and their loved ones are already outside the country, they are not directly imperiled by the power vacuum. So the upside is maybe their homeland becomes hospitable again, but the downside is basically that it remains inhospitable.
I'm not saying that the diaspora doesn't care about the risks or have empathy for those that remain in Iran. I'm sure there are also many people who are deeply concerned. Just that being an emigre changes things.
That's very moving! I can't say many international developments have filled me with optimism the past couple years. I want so badly for this to pan out for Iranians.
Nobody is happy about killing civilians. But Khamenei did more than that every day he was alive. Personally I feel there is some amount of immediate civilian casualty that is worth putting a stop to continuous suffering.
It's easy to excuse the collateral damage of people you will never meet, just remember that this reasoning has unleashed hell on Earth for countless innocent people, many kids, and it makes you sound like a ghoul.
Hope to hell that you or anyone you care about isn't on the receiving end of such sentiments.
I remember that the alternative has also unleashed hell on Earth for countless innocent people.
At some point, you have to take the path that offers at least some hope for the future. To turn into something that has lost all hope - there is no fixing that.
While this is a minor point; whether or not it was an Iranian misfire doesn't move the moral responsibility away from the invaders. Unless the IRGC took advantage of the chaos to purposefully hit the school (seems unlikely) then the entire situation was teed up by the external aggression and can still pretty reasonably be blamed on them.
It's not "easy" but it remains true. We can play the moral-decision game and I'll ask you whether killing one child is justified to save 5,000,000. If you answer "yes" then from that point it's just about agreeing on numbers.
What is the alternative you propose? Just to give a hypothetical-but-realistic example, let’s presume that khamenei’s continued existence results in 100 civilian deaths per day. Under that assumption, what one-time cost would you accept to end his life?
I'm not saying the Ayatollah wasn't a vile criminal, but it's always innocents on the ground who face the brunt of war.
I hope the citizens of Iran can have a peaceful transition and chart a better path for their country, but every single one of America's previous forced regime changes in the region (and across the world) has shown otherwise.
They're not going to have a normal country. The United States under Trump isn't interested in a democratic Iran. They want a dictator they can control.
I think you’re right that it would be a puppet state under trump. But in three years it will be a puppet state under somebody else! And maybe that somebody would relinquish the strings.
Not disagreeing with you, but US-controlled dictators have better track record of not killing thousands of protesters or just random people in own populations.
Not perfect option, but still is an improvement even from your positiom.
At some point you have to decide: if my country is held back by a brutal dictatorial regime where civilians can't hope to topple it, is there anything else to do other than get external help?
Libya is not a real country in a historical sense. It’s a bunch of tribes, Kadaffi was from one of the tribes that subjugated others. In Iraq it was a Sunni minority that rules over Shiite majority, and other minorities like the Kurds. In Syria one minority (alawiites) rules over others by force.
Also, these countries were not formed by themselves, but rather through deals with France and/or Britain.
Iran, while also diverse, has a thousands of years long history. Persians still see themselves as continuation of Persian peoples from the empire times, etc.
So, it is not very correct to compare it one to one.
Iraqis also see themselves as a continuation of Mesopotamian people, that was quite literally what Iraqi Baathist thought was centered around and used as the successful unification strategy. That's quite literally the justification the Baathists used to try 'reclaim' both Khuzestan and Kuwait. You quite literally couldn't be more wrong in how you categorize Baathist Iraq.
Iran has a much worse relationship with its minorities, where if you are of the wrong faith then you literally face state-sanctioned laws preventing you studying or working. In fact, things in Iraq became much worse for minorities after the overthrowal due to the adoption of Iranian cultural practices like Abrahamic elitism.
The cherry on top of all of this is that you probably don't realize that Persians in Iran only make up 60% of the country. You have Iranians who wholly reject Persian ancestry (Azeris, Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds...) but you don't even account for them, despite Iran having, what, three? entirely separate ethnic-based separatist insurgencies active across the country LOL
> That's quite literally the justification the Baathists used to try 'reclaim' both Khuzestan and Kuwait. You quite literally couldn't be more wrong in how you categorize Baathist Iraq.
Baathism is literally pan-arabism! Arabism as in Arab. Do you really think that making pan-arabism movement under the sauce of Babylonian legacy is going to work on Kurds and others? Of course not. Same applies to Syria that had their own flavor of pan-arabist party that kept Asad in power. Only recently, after the summer 2025 war with Israel Islamic Republic tried to connect itself to its Persian past, but of course it is too late for that.
> Iran has a much worse relationship with its minorities, where if you are of the wrong faith then you literally face state-sanctioned laws preventing you studying or working.
I am not sure how the practices of the Islamic Republic related to the current mood of the Iranians that oppose it.
> In fact, things in Iraq became much worse for minorities after the overthrowal due to the adoption of Iranian cultural practices like Abrahamic elitism.
You mean that Islamic Republic exported its own flawed ideology on the neighboring states through funding of various non-state actors? Wow.
> The cherry on top of all of this is that you probably don't realize that Persians in Iran only make up 60% of the country. You have Iranians who wholly reject Persian ancestry (Azeris, Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds...) but you don't even account for them, despite Iran having, what, three? entirely separate ethnic-based separatist insurgencies active across the country LOL
I think you conflate anti-regime insurgency vs. anti-persian one.
At no point in life I would wish for my fellow citizens to get killed by a foreign power. I’m already in my mid-40s, I’ve spent a day or two out in the streets, protesting (granted, not against governments that the West labels as dictatorial), but at no point has that option crossed my mind. More on point, I would regard the people thinking like that as traitors, because that’s what they are by definition, wishing for your fellow citizens to get killed by a foreign Power so that your political views can prevail is the very definition of treason to one’s people and nation.
> your fellow citizens to get killed by a foreign Power so that your political views can prevail
What does the assassination of DICTATORS have to do with all of this? Dictatorship is less about citizenship and more about a form of slavery. Resisting the killing of a dictator in any way, regardless of who is trying to kill him or why, is treason to a nation.
Iran is not an Arab country? Answering a more general question - all countries of former Yugoslavia are better after US intervention. Some Serbs would not agree, but it's on them
It's not a deflection, it's an example of an intervention having a positive effect. I see no reason for Iran following Arabic rather than Balkan scenario - it's a totally different culture - much more modernised and much more secular
What story? Iraq is ruled by ISIS and Syria is ruled by a dude who's goal was to institute Sharia or ISIS v2. Those were both countries in the region where US intervention toppled a dictator and now is how it is.
Any country can be compared to any country and Arab countries are the geographically nearest ones to compare. It's miles more strange to compare it to the Balkans.
Oh, please. If you think the majority of all Iranians are in favor of US-Israeli bombings of their home country, you're seriously smoking some potent propaganda.
Most Iranians outside Iran fled from the current regimes terror, they are happy with this. My country took in a lot of Iranians when the current regime took over in the 70s and those are very happy about this. They are out on the street celebrating the attacks on Iranian leaders, not protesting against them.
That's the implication of "At some point you have to decide: if my country ..." since "you" can't refer to anyone other than the Iranians. They have not "decided" to get bombed by Zionists.
I am old enough. Iraq is not perfect today but so much better than it was. Go talk to Iraqis and see for yourself.
It costs us some time, money and lives to get to this point. But Saddam (a tyrant who killed his own kind in masses with gas and started wars with neighbors) staying in power would have been way worse for the wider region.
I think the point being made is that there's wider fallout than just what's directly affected. If you go to Syria and ask Syrians how they feel about the affects on the wider region they might not so readily agree. Or even ask Iraqis in the border region who lived through ISIS rule.
Iranian regime-allied forces were a big part of why Iraq was such a quagmire.
The balance of power in the Middle East is shifting from the Sunni~Shia schism that it once was.
Most of the remaining powers are willing to actually engage in diplomacy with Israel & prefer secular groups to Islamist groups.
There's still personality conflicts, such as the one growing between the heads of Saudi Arabia & the UAE, but the general trend seems to be very promising.
> Removing Saddam in itself was good but what it did the wider region was not good.
I believe this is the legacy of leaders like Saddam. They build a very messy future for their countries. Whenever such a leader is gone, somebody has to take over power. Dictators tend to concentrate as much power in their hands as possible. Forced removal of such a leader might accelerate and / or destabilize power transition. Which might end up in a very messy scenario.
Absolute power transition worked well with monarchy in the past, cause everybody knew who would be the next guy, there were rules and procedures. With dictatorship often times there are no rules. So power transition might turn into a complete chaos even with a natural death of a dictator.
Iraq right now is in roughly the same position as it was when Saddam Hussein was there but in the meantime a few million people died and the country went through a pretty traumatic period.
During the years which followed after the invasion, lots did, yes. This is first hand account btw. Now? I'm not sure as the country has mostly stablised.
Estimates put the number of people killed due to the American invasion between half a million and a million. Saddam's brutality paled in comparison to the carnage the US invasion caused.
is the civilian population being gassed in Iraq now? how about a brutal repressive regime backed by a secret police that tortured and disappeared thousands? is Iraq really the same as it was under Saddam?!!?!?!?!?!??!?!
ISIS also broke out of countries like Syria, which nobody messed with until after their civil war and the ISIS takeover. Which is to say that the problem isn’t the Iraq war - but Islam. It’s literally called ISIS - and you blame the US for it?
Well, Iran is majority muslim. If somehow you've concluded that muslims are simply fundamentally violent and incapable of stable governance and that is the reason why the occupation of iraq failed then...
But I personally think that the reasons why you see violent insurgency after a regime change and foreign occupation is a little more universal to humans than specific to islam.
Parts of Iraq are much better off, like Kurdistan. Other parts were utterly devastated by our operations, insurgency, sectarian violence, ISIS, and so on. Some people had religious freedom and now live in areas under theocratic control.
That, combined with extreme short-termism and unbridled optimism. All three probably having a similar root cause.
And we see this across the board. A canonical one that remains prevalent: "If only people would've come out and voted for Kamala in 2024, we wouldn't be in this mess". But then if you follow the pattern, with the candidate she was and what she would've done, this would've secured an ultra-MAGA victory in 2028 (and likely already by 2026 midterms). One more extreme, more devious, more intelligent from the get-go than the current one. People like to cling to "but you don't know that for sure", which is true, but we do know that with about 90% certainty. Betting on 10% is an awful idea and is indeed what has gotten you to where you're at.
It's the single biggest reason for the huge power shift from the US to China. Almost anything that China does is based on long-term consequences. Pain today for gain over time. Of course there are counterexamples, but by and large this holds.
In this case, sure, many Iranians will be happy for a day - especially overseas. So that's what people focus on. People have entirely lost the ability to think realistically in years. Of course part of this is biological, we're monkeys. But there are many reasons to believe that this ability has greatly declined over the last 50 years, particularly in the West and especially in the US.
Taking out Saddam allowed the Taliban to get right back to the raping of the Opium farmers wives and children. Not saying I approved of Saddam but I did enjoy the way he had originally curtailed the risk to his Opium revenue.
I prefer assassinations of leaders in wars over deaths of soldiers and especially civilians.
Considering how Israel had to raze entire cities to beat 'Hamas' or the US dropping nukes in WW2 instead of bombing the Japanese Emperor. This is decent as far as wars go.
To the extent that they're actually effective, I agree.
Trouble is, higher-ups are easily replaceable, and the rank-and-file True Believers may be even more willing to follow orders in the name of a dead tyrant than a living one.
Or not. Sic semper tyrannis. Best wishes to the people of Iran.
> In an interview with Politico in 2023, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that "In the last 15 years, Israel did everything to downgrade the Palestinian Authority and to boost Hamas." He continued saying "Gaza was on the brink of collapse because they had no resources, they had no money, and the PA refused to give Hamas any money. Bibi saved them. Bibi made a deal with Qatar and they started to move millions and millions of dollars to Gaza."
That looks like Israel made every effort to promote the welfare of Gazan citizens. From your own link "Gaza was on the brink of collapse" and Israel saved them.
What are you talking about? Russia has effectively been blocked from the west while when the United States invaded Iraq nothing happened. Europe trades with the US like nothing ever happened while Russia will never return to what it was before without at minimum Putin being gone.
Europe even still trades with Israel when what they have done is Gaza has been declared a genocide by everyone. At the same time Russia can't even take part in the Olympics or the Eurovision song contest.
The west has no moral ground to stand on and hopefully people in the west will start to see that.
You can't see the french or Russians doing the same thing in Africa? Because I sure can. There's be some hand wringing and posturing but that's about it.
Not that it's ok for the US, or anyone else to do it.
Either this will end in a fractured state with different factions OR another Ayatollah will be in charge. Just my guess from seeing similar stories play out in other countries though....
Iran is not like other countries in the region. Despite its shortcomings, it's a cohesive society. I'm certain that there will be no fracturing and a central authority will emerge.
Maybe .. the revolutionary guard is fed up though with ineffective empire rule? Like to be rubbed in the dirt face first repeatetly as inheritor of the mighty persian empire sucks bad enough, to reconsider the way things are run?
Sorry, but whatever israel & the us are doing, seems to work way better than - whatever has happened the last decades in iran?
As I understand it, the IGRC doesn't particularly rub happily with the clerical council, and it's not entirely clear to me who will win that the power struggle.
But the ultimate loser of the power struggle is clear: the Iranian populace at large, as all of the viable factions are quite committed to consolidating their power by repressing the population. The most likely situation, I think, looks a lot like Libya.
Islamic societies seem to be unable to form stable institutions. The recipe seems to be unable to synthesize this, no matter how many ressources are available and how benign the conditions. As a result the biggest formable state-institution remains the family clan and the family clan just does not cut it in preventing civil war. At best you get a clan-coalition masquerading as a military government with some democratic pets - at worst you get libya.But i guess after 52 countries, the results are in and the fact that other - non western powers are colonizing islamic countries now (china, russia) and everyone is scrambling for nukes post trump - the displayed weaknesses could end the region.
I think maybe the reformists are able to hold on now that the IRGC is being hammered. There might be more internal bloodshed but chances are that Iran might be a bit more open and more modern. Of course I have zero knowledge about how Iran politics works, so that was just a guess, not even an intelligent one.
BTW I don't actually think even the reformists will "accept Western ideas".
What country in the Middle East has actually gotten better after removal of a bad status quo, in the last 26 years? I really can’t think of any. Is even Iraq considered a success?
yess, the experience so far makes it obvious. They will be democratic and their gdp will go up by 6900% now. There won't be devastation, people starving to death, meaningless hindsight or anything like that.
"There are reports of US/Israeli strikes on or near the homes of former Iranian pres, Ahmadinejad, former reformist presidential candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, and various leftist activists. If the US/Israel really wanted the 'people' to take back the country, they wouldn’t assassinate these folks"
Iranian here! Lived most of my life inside Iran. I don't view US's actions as a favor to common Iranians. That's naive. No one wants war and bombing of civilians. Our misery is caused by a mix of religious extremism, theocracy and foreign intervention (in the past, Mossadegh, etc.) among other things. First and foremost I hold the regime responsible. For most of my life, I witnessed firsthand how they pushed us step by step closer to confrontation with the US, yet there's no single bomb shelter in Tehran or any major city for people to run to after 47 years of this shit. How would you feel in this situation?
Their opposition to Israel is not from a humanitarian and moral standpoint, it's purely religious. They have no shame admitting this. You just have to listen to one of the 5 state TV channels in Farsi. I even think Palestinians would fare better if not for these extremists on either side!
All that said, the supreme leader is the one who commands the murder of innocents in the streets, so he had it coming. Good riddance and he died like the rat that he was. But as to what happens next? No one knows. Also I personally don't think US is doing this because they want Iran's oil. I believe they want to put pressure on China to not get Iran's cheap (under sanctions) oil. That seems more plausible to me.
Good, Trump can now claim victory and shout some words in his third-world-dictator style, and american sailors move out of the region. Stock market is opening tomorrow and it doesnt want to see ugly things
If the hard-liners IRGC generals went with him then it might be a good thing for its economy. I have heard some rumors that China was frustrated that IRGC pushed against the deals and were not willing to accept foreign investments in key oil/infra projects because they sit on them -- and that was why China never put down any real investments after signing the deals.
I think the biggest problem of IRGC is that they grabbed a large share of economy but spent a lot of that in geopolitical expansion for the last 1-2 decades. This in turn contributed to a more fragile Iranian economy and high inflation, which makes them extremely unpopular among the people.
Why would a regime that came to be, ultimately, precisely because of foreign meddling in resource extraction ever entertain more foreign meddling in resource extraction, especially when it's levered with "or else we'll kill you."?
In 1953, Iran was a secular and democratic country. They had elected a prime minister who decided to nationalize the oil industry. The US didn't like this and overthrew him. They imposed a brutal monarchical dictatorship. Popular discontent led to the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The ayatollahs, to a large extent, existed because of US interference.
The same is true for all the instability in the Middle East, entirely manufactured by the West.
Action-reaction, cause-effect: You never know how a story will end. And after the 1979 revolution, the CIA and British MI6 provided the ayatollahs with lists of communists to exterminate, which they did. Imperialism always prefers to deal with theocracies rather than communists.
https://www.declassifieduk.org/how-britain-helped-irans-isla...
> Imperialism always prefers to deal with theocracies rather than communists.
Communist regimes are also a form of theocracy (proof can be found in the writings of any communist leader). It's just that, unlike other theocratic regimes, other countries have to deal with millions of starving refugees (because the communist faith requires banning food production or something like that, I don't know much about their religion).
This may or may not lead to a weaker Iran. From FP:
“Iran is frequently portrayed as a political order bound tightly to individuals. Yet the architecture that emerged after 1979 was formed by a different logic, one founded in the revolutionary experience itself. Khomeini captured this hierarchy in a remark (https://abdimedia.net/en/ruhollah-khomeini/system-ahead-life...) often cited within Iran’s political elite: “Preserving the Islamic Republic is more important than preserving any individual, even if that individual were the Imam of the Age”—a reference to Shiism’s 12th Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi.
It is still unclear whether the system will always follow this principle. But one should expect a change in leadership in Tehran to be treated less as an ending and more as a chance for the country’s institutions to show they can survive.”
In isolation the death of this brutal dictator is great news, but we have seen how previous decapitation strikes have not had the intended effect. And I can only hope the Iranian people somehow end up better for this entirely illegal war that the Trump administration has initiated, instead of facing up to a fractured leadership and a potential civil war.
If the United States truly supported regime change there should be a clear next leader favored to succeed the Ayatollah, otherwise this feels more like a favor to oil companies, raising prices temporarily, and a sound bite for political gain, without a care of what happens to the country later. Simply toppling a government seems quite risky without further planning. Just expecting "good" people to fill the leadership vacuum is a gamble that could easily backfire and lead to greater crackdowns on freedoms and death to those Trump told to go get the power.
Obviously has nothing to do with oil companies or oil, this is a war on behalf of Israel. Netanyahu visited Trump 6 times in the past year. Prominent Zionists and Israelis inside the US have been agitating for the US to do this for years, especially since Trump took office last year.
Wars are almost always about commerce, history has shown that. Ideology is used to back the motive publicly, but the reason for involvement is almost always trade or commerce. This case could be different, but it is not obvious to me that this case is any different. A simple example is WW1 where the US was forced to back the UK because of their large debt to US banks, despite them still being a colonist power at the time.
It's remarkable to me how many seem to forget there is "morality" apart from "legality". Even if this does violate some treaty somewhere, we need not wring hands over the death of an objective dictator.
> Even if this does violate some treaty somewhere, we need not wring hands over the death of an objective dictator.
We absolutely should. It's a key principle of international law that brutal regimes should not be disturbed, until an opportunity for a regime change brokered by international lawyers presents itself in a century or two. Moral legitimacy comes from international law, and international law only.
His daughter, son-in-law, and the defense minister were also killed, as they were all in his residence at the time.
If he decided to stay for ideological reasons, they would not have been there.
My guess is that they might have misinterpreted the US's demands as starting positions while the US considered them to be final. Who would expect a country that can produce ballistic missiles to willingly give it up? It was a non-starter from the beginning.
It's definitely odd if he was just sitting in his compound. That's a very, well, known place for him. Surely Iran has plenty of secure underground bunkers for leadership to retreat to?
Fleeing is seen as dishonorable in many parts of the Arab world. Remember the Israeli lies about how Yahya Sinwar dressed in women's clothes and were trying to cross the border to Egypt? In reality he was out in the field with his men killing Israeli soldiers. He died a brave death and Khamenei will now have died one too.
How is it bad? Imagine a world where instead of sending hundreds of thousands young men to die, countries would just launch targeted attacks on the head of enemy's state.
It's the stated reason why the United States has an impeachment process. So that they have a process for removing undesirable heads of state without resorting to assassination.
All the angry people here coming out of the woodwork in this thread. Where were you just a month ago, when the Iranian regime murdered 30k of its own civilians within just a couple of days, during the recent wave of protests? This site is infested with woke moralists and islamists.
> Earlier, Trump addressed reports that Khamenei was killed in airstrikes today, saying, “We feel that that is a correct story.”
This doesn't sound like Trump's typical bluster, and it's even weirder that Trump didn't immediately go on TV to brag. I'm not saying this is fake news, but I'll wait for confirmation.
The killings of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi were so amazingly successful in stabilizing those countries that Americans keep repeating the pattern.
Trump is for rent. Shutting down a competitor is 25M, "full service" is apparently ~100M. I'm not privy to what invading an oil nation costs, but I reckon it's akin to a hand job, so a nice golden wristwatch should probably do it?
If true, and given how easy it seemed decapitate the regime I can't see another Ayatollah taking over, hopefully the people take over and institute a real secular democracy based on capitalism.
Without proper support and a huge nation building effort, the same fate as Lebanon, Syria, Lybia Iraq, Afghanistan is the more likely outcome after this evil dictator is gone.
Assassination doesn’t remove the system or rewrite the balance of power, nor does it reconstitute civil society.
Smart strategy by the administration - go after people who are universally hated (Maduro, Khamenei) so you can normalize breaking the law and no one will speak out against you or they're a supporter of said hated people.
There was a clip of one of Iran's missiles dodging 3 Patriot interceptors to hit the US base in Bahrain. I realized I just watched $12m wasted for nothing in less than 5 seconds.
And if a choice between 2 people that have been thoroughly vetted by elites is your definition of democracy, you have a sad sad view of what's possible.
These people are here to either sow dissent between American citizens and the American government, or have been influenced by those whose goal is to sow dissent between American citizens and the American government. Qatar can not take on the US with military power, so they use soft power and "influencers".
Time for the Iranians to overthrow the Islamic Regime and bring in Prince Reza Pahlavi as transitional leader, as so many Iranians died to make their wish of him being the leader clear, is fast approaching.
I didn't vote for him but you’ve got to give it to Trump. Where past US presidents’ foreign policy (wars: Afghanistan, Iraq; diplomacy: Iran under Obama, and so on) didn't go anywhere, Trump gets results.
Now, these results may lead to unintended consequences in the future. But today, a murderer is dead.
The murderers are the people committing murders. That the victim was himself a ruthless tyrant doesn't change the fact that this is intolerable. The US can't be the only one allowed to bend the rules.
Don't come crying around when the next 9/11 inevitably happens.
In hindsight, from the perspective of the Middle East and Arab world in general: Obama’s tenure was a geopolitical nightmare, while under Trump’s first presidency the Middle East made a big step forward with the Abraham Accords.
> President Trump announced the Iranian leader's death on social media, saying Khamenei could not avoid U.S. intelligence and surveillance. A source briefed on the U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran told NPR earlier Saturday that an Israeli airstrike killed Khamenei.
This does not seem to me like very strong evidence? Trump just says whatever, and "a source briefed on [the attacks]" just means at least one person in USG thinks Khamenei was in whatever house they blew up. Am I missing some other confirmation?
Pretty much by definition, dictators do not allow themselves to be removed by the people through peaceful means, which is why it's easy to draw a line there. If someone's a dictator, it's morally okay to kill them. Always.
Why isn't Trump bombarding the Kremlin? Isn't Putin a much larger threat to world peace than any leader of Iran?
Also, it's never "morally okay" to kill anyone, ever; the fact that the US still has the death penalty shows how little they understand about morals and logic.
In my opinion the real problem for Iran lies in the north, on the border with Azerbaijan.
The Israeli-supplied Azeri military has already demonstrated its effectiveness when it curb stomped the unprepared and internally betrayed Armenian military and militias. Baku will eventually decide to intervene in the northern territories. If I had to guess, a "special military operation" into northern Iran is the most likely follow-up scenario goaded into and supplied of course by Israel/US. The goal will be to foment a civil war and begin the dismemberment process of Iran.
A little personal conspiracy theory I have is that after the last Israel/US intervention (when they mysteriously liquidated the only high-ranking and influential internal opposition of the Khamenei clan left) is that some sort of deal was worked out behind the scenes with the clan to get rid of the wizard-in-chief kinda like how Maduro was sold out. It is much easier to go to war with a country when it responds with only symbolic attacks and secretly promises to fight with one hand behind its back - provided cash and security flows for those at the top of course.
The Iranian diaspora around the world is celebrating. Here's the scene in Berlin:
https://youtu.be/NSbx_0mtk80?si=MJ_Bfvx8gVd1P1mm
They've waited a very long time for this moment!
I have no doubt that they didn't like that the regime, which is why they left.
But this assassination is no guarantee of change for the better. Far from it.
It’s no guarantee, but it is a good opportunity. I’m half-Persian, and certainly not as closely connected as others, but it’s hard to see this as a bad thing. There’s a possibility I can go visit my family in Iran as a result of this. I haven’t had a good chance for that in like 4 years
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.
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.
> 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.
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
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
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.
And/or neighboring countries see their chance to start another front in the war.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
If you were part of regime - now is your chance to defect.
Certainly people within the Trump administration have thought a lot about this.
I would defer the celebration until you can.
I hope that it works out for you and your family.
As another Iranian living the West, I wish he would have been captured alive and stood trial.
He should have answered for every single drop of blood on his hands.
My 21 year old cousin was captured during the Mahsa uprising, she was sent to Evin prison, tortured for months. After she was released, we brought her to Canada and she was hospitalized for over a year. She will never be able to live a normal life again.
Death was too merciful for Khamenei.
Well he’s been slain like the dog that he was, alongside some family members - same as the families of those who were slain and tortured on his theocratic watch. Perhaps this is good evidence that Allah is just, even if Allah’s justice has to be delivered by the hands of the Israelis.
My condolences. Your cousin sounds very brave.
The most likely situation is continuity. They just pick a new supreme leader. The second most likely situation is a civil war.
There is also a possibility of a Venezuela-style cooperation.
It is too early to know what "Venezuela-style cooperation" looks like. It hasn't even been 6 months since the US kidnapped Maduro; the base case is that Venezuela's leadership does more or less what they were going to do anyway under US diplomatic pressure.
The US actually did something fairly similar in Iran; Trump had Soleimani blown up back in 2020. As we can see from the present situation, it failed to influence Iran in ways that the US thought were acceptable. It is rare for assassinations to have positive geopolitical ramifications.
Adding Iranian oil back to the market will lower prices everywhere, including Russia. I'm not so sure the extra-heavy Venezuelan oil will be affected as much.
Anyone know?
India used to use Venezuelan crude before the 2019 sanctions [0][1]
India only shifted to using Russian oil in 2022 [2] after Venezuelan [3] and Iranian [4] oil sanctions were enacted, which was when both began increasing engagement with China.
It's a similar story for South Korea [5] and Japan [6].
This helps reduce prices for ONG, as India is shifting back to Venezuelan crude which gives slack which South Korea and Japan can take advantage of, as India, Japan, and South Korea represent 3 of the 5 largest oil consumers globally.
[0] - https://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/ongc-awaits-instr...
[1] - https://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/reliance-venezuel...
[2] - https://www.bbc.com/news/business-65553920
[3] - https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/india-and-venezuela-gro...
[4] - https://www.brookings.edu/articles/trump-tightens-sanctions-...
[5] - https://eastasiaforum.org/2019/09/13/south-korean-oil-refine...
[6] - https://mei.edu/ar/publication/japan-and-middle-east-navigat...
Reminder: extra heavy oil means that there is more processing required to get useful materials out of it, which in turn becomes higher operational cost. So, if Iranian oil entered the market, prices would go down making Venezuelan oil non competitive (I believe the break even price for Venezuelan oil was close to 80$). At this moment the numbers don't add up to make companies go back into Venezuela given the price, uncertainty and past expiriences.
It's less a revolution and more a matter of catching the tide of shifting world powers — and seizing a rare shot at building something other than the last failed experiment. New Iran, new experiment. You bet Iranians are euphoric right now. Some of the country's brightest intellectuals and political minds are sitting in Evin prison, and if all goes well, they're about to walk out and help shape what comes next. My dad is worried about the power vacuum, and he's right to be. His biggest concern is the border states and the narrative that ISIS is being funneled into the country to destroy any chance of organized transition. I desperately hope he's wrong. And I don't think he'll ever fully heal — few who lived through the first revolution will.
The last thing they should do is to import the Shah's exiled family member and make him their figurehead again. Both him and the mullahs are bad news.
> It's less a revolution and more a matter of catching the tide of shifting world powers — and seizing a rare shot at building something other than the last failed experiment
The Arab spring wasn't that long ago, was it? We all saw how that turned out, but I suppose hope springs eternal.
> You bet Iranians are euphoric right now
I'm guessing the 50+ dead elementary school kids may put a damper on celebrations a bit.
Yeah I'm not sure why people think that the Iranian government never considered any sort of continuity for what happens when their 86 year old ruler dies. It's not like they're ants that are all helpless without their sole supreme leader.
It's reported that Ayatollah Khamenei nominated multiple successors for his role and a number of other military roles, to guard against this policy.
- https://www.timesofisrael.com/khamenei-said-to-pick-three-po...- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/28/strategic-opti...
it's quite common that autocratic states have periods of instability due to wars of succession. That's why many devolve into Monarchy like the Kim or Assad dynasties. That's why one of the possible successors was Khamenai's son
The fact a leader can be assassinated at any moment by the US probably changes the succession plan slightly... I imagine any potential successor is thinking hard about whether it's a job they actually want.
The problem is that you are not dealing with rational people here, you are dealing with extreme religous fanatics. They are either not afraid of dying and becoming martyrs, or they are afraid but dare not show it.
That's certainly how their own propaganda portrays them, however if you see the amount of corruption in that effective kleptostate, you'd understand they care much about life
They're not brain-damaged. They know that!
You so clever me love you longtime
It's not a given - e.g. AFAIK most turks in Germany support Erdogan
It depends on how well the regime brainwashed its people over the last 50 years. The majority of Iranians haven't any experience of anything else - I think around 55% are under 40 years old.
There's a US born professor Marandi who said in an interview a few weeks ago that the regime had put in place succession plans, including for himself.
I'm hopeful but skeptical that they will change for the better.
Well, in any case, it is a guarantee that Iran will be less of a danger for other nations if the regime falls, and that people inside of the country will suffer - because either pro-Western or any other government is bound to be a lot weaker, and there will be a lot more violence and economic disruption, eventually economic degradation. It should avenge the emigrants, and provide sufficient punishment for those in Iran for enabling this regime in the first place.
Let's not have illusions about it. There is no way to build a sustainable democracy in a country that never had such leanings and is not culturally/religiously predisposed to it, and can't be physically coerced into it with boots on the ground. Achievable goals are punishment, and neutering.
That why they are going beyond that and going after the IRGC
Another Ayatollah is being ushered in. This is no news. Khameni is old and without the missile, he would be dead soon. This sttike is just bonus to galvanize support for Ayatollah. So in a way Trump prolong the regime. And consequence from this: every other middle east countries now starting their nuke program. Good luck.
It’s a good start
There would likely be millions of Americans celebrating the murder of their current president, should that happen. It doesn't mean it's reasonable, right, just, or civilized, nor would it indicate that it was a unanimously supported action.
But in the case of an actual dictator who murdered thousands of protestors it is reasonable, right, just, and civilized.
Shed no tears for the deaths of tyrants. They would happily see you and any other threat to their illegitimate power put six feet under.
I can feel OK about Khamenei dying and still worry about what it means that the US can just murder anyone in the world just because.
Yes our president has only needlessly murdered two innocent US citizens so far. As he has told us countless times, he would like to be a dictator.
>Yes our president has only needlessly murdered two innocent US citizens so far
Over a million people in the US died of COVID. It's impossible to know exactly how many of them would've lived if the pandemic started under a president with a saner response than recommending injecting disinfectant, but I'm willing to bet it's more than two.
Look at the number of covid deaths in countries other than the US and consider updating your news diet.
You do realize that the US had _one of the highest_ per capita Covid deaths amongst developed nations?
The correlation between mortality and body mass index is striking.
US has one of the unhealthiest populations amongst developed countries too, so maybe it’s not that surprising.
Parent is referring to the same president as the grandparent...
Trump has murdered 2 innocent U.S. citizens so far, and was president when COVID started. Trump's response to COVID was part of why he lost the 2020 election.
and murdered a bunch of Venezuelans, a bunch of non-citizens in the USA, collected from American companies and residents billions in tariffs... How about those Epstein files?
The death toll for the Venezuela raid is between 80 and 100, out of them only 10 were civilians. I feel bad for those 10 civilians but, for the rest, I feel no sympathy, as they were oppressors.
Doesn't change the fact that it was a war crime. But hey, "rules based order," right?
There's quite a difference between saying you would like to be a dictator and actually being one.
When you're in a position of power and doing dictator like things, not very much.
Most dictators are elected democratically, once. What makes them a dictator is them not relinquishing power. It's too late to protest after a dictator is officially a dictator. They know what will come and are usually prepared with an armed force loyal only to them.
When the sitting president of the United states repeatedly states he would like to have an illegal third term, that elections are fraudulent and must be under his control, continually takes actions testing the limits of what he can get away with in terms of authoritarian behaviour, and only backs down temporarily when he faces massive backlash, you can forgive people for being alarmed.
Trump would very much like to be, no denying that, but he isn't there yet.
Regardless, dictators deserve to be put into the ground no matter where they are.
He sure does act like a dictator, ruling by executive order. He sent the US military to operate on US soil, by executive order... so yes, he is very much a dictator right now.
Where's the oppression tho?
Look around
No. The death penalty is inhumane and not worthy of modern civilization. Please think before splurging out flowery warmongering sound bites!
In cases where it's feasible to do life in prison, I'm fine with that too. But for dictators, that's typically not realistic (Maduro notwithstanding). Better to kill them rather than let them continue killing others.
I actually oppose the death penalty as a punishment for crimes, but for practical rather than principled reasons: I don't want innocent people (and there's always a chance of innocence) to be killed, and it's more expensive than life in prison anyway.
Part of the reason I, like you, make an exception for world leaders is that it can be cathartic for the people who suffered under them. Of course, it depends on the circumstances. I'm not talking about giving Jimmy Carter the chair for failing to bring down inflation.
My personal view is that most dictators deserve to be stuffed into a suitcase, loaded into a canon, and fired into the side of a climbing wall. I guess that makes me immoral.
That said, for anything aside from a despotic world leader, I'm also against the death penalty.
I'm opposed to the death penalty as well, but this has nothing to do with why I'd prefer despots be left to live in obscurity rather than die a relatively quick, painless, and public death.
Sentence them to live alone and anonymously in an uncomfortable cell in an unremarkable prison without visitation, communication, or news of the outside world.
Yes, and if he actually becomes a dictator, I'd shed no tears for him being removed by force.
You did the "our blessed homeland" meme: https://xcancel.com/tomgauld/status/571994690289061888 / https://archive.vn/gAkNA
If Trump became an actual tyrant instead of a wannabe one, I'd shed no tears for him being "removed" either.
Well, there are other things you can look at. For one, Khamenei was dictator of a regime that abducts women and recently murdered 10s of thousands of protesters in the streets. I'd reckon most, including Iranians, would not judge the killing of such an individual immoral, unjust or uncivilized.
I don't know whether I'm "kidding" or not, but I might as well post what immediately came to mind as I read this:
Sandra Bland et al.
ICE detainments
The excess 20k (as far as absolute numbers go) road fatalities in the US versus Iran.
And the excess I-have-no-idea-how-many-k who died under Trump's bungled COVID response (and who are going to die from Biden's bungled rail strike response)(and who died under Obama's failed healthcare half-measure)(and who died under Bush's bungled Katrina response and because of his pre-9/11 mismanagement).
Yes, yes, per-capita and all that. I'm not really making a rational argument here, just appealing to the truthiness of noticing that America has its own way of killing its citizens.
Rail strike response casualties? Can you flesh that out a bit?
They threw the justice and civility when they murdered people on the street. That ship has sailed and the party who's responsible for this escalation is the government.
The entire continent of europe would be celebrating.
Not just Americans.
Perhaps, but there would be tens/hundreds of millions of people like me who didn't vote for Trump and don't like him, but would be absolutely enraged beyond perhaps anything in this country's history if another country blew up the White House and he was killed.
Well, I imagine there are a lot of people like that in Iran right now.
There aren't millions. Maybe thousands which are completely insane considering Trump didn't kill any US citizen, unlike Haminayi killing 50k of his own people.
Wait, Trump didn't kill any US citizen? Have we been watching the same news?
Your worldview is not an appropriate substitute for objective reality :)
Exactly. This is just western media trying to project some morality to what was an internationally illegal act ... (and perhaps some in the media hoping against hope this publicity would please the dear, glorious leaders of Israel and the US to end the war).
International Law doesn't really exist.
International law being thrown around a lot. Seems like everyone is an int’l law expert, even though it’s quite an exotic speciality.
So please go ahead and tell me, where does International Law prohibit a state that’s at war with another to assassinate its head of state?
Preventive war (attacking to neutralize a future, non-imminent threat) is considered illegal under modern international law. The UN Charter restricts the use of force to UN Security Council authorization or self-defense against an actual, imminent armed attack, making preventive actions, which target potential future dangers, unlawful.
It also allows any one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, including the US, to unilateraly veto any binding resolution that imposes sanctions for violating said law, with no established rules or even informal expectations that they recuse themselves when conflicts of interest arise.
Israel and Iran are involved in active hostilities for a long time now, direct or by proxies. Furthermore, US and Israel are making the case for a preemptive war with the advent of the Iranian nuclear program (whether you believe it or not, that’s beside the point), and those are legal.
US is not at war with Iran. Only the Congress has the right to declare war.
Aside from a few members of the IRGC, everybody who has been paying attention for the past 40 years is celebrating.
Taking out both Maduro and Khomeini over the course of a few months without a single American or Israeli casualty is peak.
There were allegedly 7 US personnel injured during the Maduro raid.
Decapitation airstrikes have been possible for decades. I suppose now we find out whether that was a good idea or not. Slightly surprised the Iran strike worked, if you remember the hunts for Saddam and Bin Laden.
> if you remember the hunts for Saddam and Bin Laden.
We didn't have Project Maven 25 years ago, and our leadership in the early 2000s were committed to boots-on-the-ground nation-building due to the afterglow of the NATO intervention in Yugoslavia.
Three very different operations.
If I were in their shoes, I would be celebrating, too. But this is complicated. If they and their loved ones are already outside the country, they are not directly imperiled by the power vacuum. So the upside is maybe their homeland becomes hospitable again, but the downside is basically that it remains inhospitable.
I'm not saying that the diaspora doesn't care about the risks or have empathy for those that remain in Iran. I'm sure there are also many people who are deeply concerned. Just that being an emigre changes things.
People celebrating inside Iran too https://x.com/visegrad24/status/2027840034150178952
That's very moving! I can't say many international developments have filled me with optimism the past couple years. I want so badly for this to pan out for Iranians.
They're all paid actors! CIA agents! Orange revolution!
Oh you should see the videos coming out of Iran from people celebrating.
I also just saw state tv threatening people once more. They're so scared.
Not only outside the country, but also inside the country! Many many videos on social media showing how they celebrate.
I can hear them from my window. They're really happy. Lots of honking, revving engines and shouting near Zoo.
Hopefully from this the conditions will materialize where they could, if so inclined, help build Iran up in the future..
Also please see: https://old.reddit.com/r/newiran
Remember Kian.
Expatriates behaviors are often misleading and don't represent the general feeling inside the country.
I'm not saying that Iranian loved Khamenei, but maybe they are not that happy that he is dead because of other reasons. Instability for instance.
Are they cheering killing of dozens of school children as well?
No, obviously.
Actually, they will probably assume the IRGC killed them to blame the West. I don't believe that, but the Iranians can't stand the regime.
When numbers hit tens of thousands maybe they will.
They have already, were you asleep?
Nobody is happy about killing civilians. But Khamenei did more than that every day he was alive. Personally I feel there is some amount of immediate civilian casualty that is worth putting a stop to continuous suffering.
It's easy to excuse the collateral damage of people you will never meet, just remember that this reasoning has unleashed hell on Earth for countless innocent people, many kids, and it makes you sound like a ghoul.
Hope to hell that you or anyone you care about isn't on the receiving end of such sentiments.
I remember that the alternative has also unleashed hell on Earth for countless innocent people.
At some point, you have to take the path that offers at least some hope for the future. To turn into something that has lost all hope - there is no fixing that.
How does blowing up schools offer hope for the future?
Theres pictures online confirming that it was an Iranian misfire that killed the school.
Will you now redirect your outrage over innocent children to the incumbent Iranian government?
Will you continue entering threads to signal your outrage to the world?
Will you keep quiet, double down or practice the morals you claim to have?
While this is a minor point; whether or not it was an Iranian misfire doesn't move the moral responsibility away from the invaders. Unless the IRGC took advantage of the chaos to purposefully hit the school (seems unlikely) then the entire situation was teed up by the external aggression and can still pretty reasonably be blamed on them.
I've been hearing the school strike was an Iranian misfire, actually.
It's not "easy" but it remains true. We can play the moral-decision game and I'll ask you whether killing one child is justified to save 5,000,000. If you answer "yes" then from that point it's just about agreeing on numbers.
How many schools need to be blown up with children inside for you to say "Hey, maybe this didn't have to happen this way"
What is the alternative you propose? Just to give a hypothetical-but-realistic example, let’s presume that khamenei’s continued existence results in 100 civilian deaths per day. Under that assumption, what one-time cost would you accept to end his life?
Easy to celebrate from a few thousand miles away.
I'm not saying the Ayatollah wasn't a vile criminal, but it's always innocents on the ground who face the brunt of war.
I hope the citizens of Iran can have a peaceful transition and chart a better path for their country, but every single one of America's previous forced regime changes in the region (and across the world) has shown otherwise.
What moment would that be? Begging for the Americans to bomb their former country?
Yes.
10 million Iranians live outside Iran. They want a normal country again.
Later today, I'm sure footage from LA, Toronto, London, Stockholm will be up.
It’s great, they can go back home now and get on with building a new state.
They're not going to have a normal country. The United States under Trump isn't interested in a democratic Iran. They want a dictator they can control.
I think you’re right that it would be a puppet state under trump. But in three years it will be a puppet state under somebody else! And maybe that somebody would relinquish the strings.
Haha.
Not disagreeing with you, but US-controlled dictators have better track record of not killing thousands of protesters or just random people in own populations.
Not perfect option, but still is an improvement even from your positiom.
US supported Pinochet or the US supported military dictatorship in brasil would like to disagree
At some point you have to decide: if my country is held back by a brutal dictatorial regime where civilians can't hope to topple it, is there anything else to do other than get external help?
Maybe speak to some Libyans. Or Iraqis. Or Syrians?
Libya is not a real country in a historical sense. It’s a bunch of tribes, Kadaffi was from one of the tribes that subjugated others. In Iraq it was a Sunni minority that rules over Shiite majority, and other minorities like the Kurds. In Syria one minority (alawiites) rules over others by force.
Also, these countries were not formed by themselves, but rather through deals with France and/or Britain.
Iran, while also diverse, has a thousands of years long history. Persians still see themselves as continuation of Persian peoples from the empire times, etc.
So, it is not very correct to compare it one to one.
Iraqis also see themselves as a continuation of Mesopotamian people, that was quite literally what Iraqi Baathist thought was centered around and used as the successful unification strategy. That's quite literally the justification the Baathists used to try 'reclaim' both Khuzestan and Kuwait. You quite literally couldn't be more wrong in how you categorize Baathist Iraq.
Iran has a much worse relationship with its minorities, where if you are of the wrong faith then you literally face state-sanctioned laws preventing you studying or working. In fact, things in Iraq became much worse for minorities after the overthrowal due to the adoption of Iranian cultural practices like Abrahamic elitism.
The cherry on top of all of this is that you probably don't realize that Persians in Iran only make up 60% of the country. You have Iranians who wholly reject Persian ancestry (Azeris, Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds...) but you don't even account for them, despite Iran having, what, three? entirely separate ethnic-based separatist insurgencies active across the country LOL
> That's quite literally the justification the Baathists used to try 'reclaim' both Khuzestan and Kuwait. You quite literally couldn't be more wrong in how you categorize Baathist Iraq.
Baathism is literally pan-arabism! Arabism as in Arab. Do you really think that making pan-arabism movement under the sauce of Babylonian legacy is going to work on Kurds and others? Of course not. Same applies to Syria that had their own flavor of pan-arabist party that kept Asad in power. Only recently, after the summer 2025 war with Israel Islamic Republic tried to connect itself to its Persian past, but of course it is too late for that.
> Iran has a much worse relationship with its minorities, where if you are of the wrong faith then you literally face state-sanctioned laws preventing you studying or working.
I am not sure how the practices of the Islamic Republic related to the current mood of the Iranians that oppose it.
> In fact, things in Iraq became much worse for minorities after the overthrowal due to the adoption of Iranian cultural practices like Abrahamic elitism.
You mean that Islamic Republic exported its own flawed ideology on the neighboring states through funding of various non-state actors? Wow.
> The cherry on top of all of this is that you probably don't realize that Persians in Iran only make up 60% of the country. You have Iranians who wholly reject Persian ancestry (Azeris, Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds...) but you don't even account for them, despite Iran having, what, three? entirely separate ethnic-based separatist insurgencies active across the country LOL
I think you conflate anti-regime insurgency vs. anti-persian one.
Is this a way to avoid thinking about the conundrum?
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"
Short term pain for long term gain.
Short term pain for long term more pain.
This was never about Iranian people. This is all about war mongers, puppets and idiots who believe them.
Defend your thesis.
Venezuela.
Defend your thesis
Hmm I wonder what superpower got most of the oil from venezuela and iran. I think it starts with a C
Those may be the motivations, but the outcome (so far) is still something Iranians are optimistic about
As an American, I’m really starting to feel that way.
Really... In a thread about Iran... This is not comparable at all and so insulting for what they have endured since 1979.
Except midterm elections are literally this year. But other than that small detail, sure.
Trump isn't there to help. He wants the oil and he wants a puppet dictator. He doesn't care about the people.
At no point in life I would wish for my fellow citizens to get killed by a foreign power. I’m already in my mid-40s, I’ve spent a day or two out in the streets, protesting (granted, not against governments that the West labels as dictatorial), but at no point has that option crossed my mind. More on point, I would regard the people thinking like that as traitors, because that’s what they are by definition, wishing for your fellow citizens to get killed by a foreign Power so that your political views can prevail is the very definition of treason to one’s people and nation.
> your fellow citizens to get killed by a foreign Power so that your political views can prevail
What does the assassination of DICTATORS have to do with all of this? Dictatorship is less about citizenship and more about a form of slavery. Resisting the killing of a dictator in any way, regardless of who is trying to kill him or why, is treason to a nation.
Which Arab countries are better after US intervention? The last place that had a dictator is now ruled by ISIS.
Iran is not an Arab country? Answering a more general question - all countries of former Yugoslavia are better after US intervention. Some Serbs would not agree, but it's on them
In Iran the outcome is yet to be seen, but we have nearby Arab countries where we don't have to guess what happens. Great deflection.
It's not a deflection, it's an example of an intervention having a positive effect. I see no reason for Iran following Arabic rather than Balkan scenario - it's a totally different culture - much more modernised and much more secular
You want your story to be true so badly you ignore counter examples?
You should consider conformation bias.
What story? Iraq is ruled by ISIS and Syria is ruled by a dude who's goal was to institute Sharia or ISIS v2. Those were both countries in the region where US intervention toppled a dictator and now is how it is.
What Arab countries?
How can you compare Arab countries to Iran?
Any country can be compared to any country and Arab countries are the geographically nearest ones to compare. It's miles more strange to compare it to the Balkans.
Oh, please. If you think the majority of all Iranians are in favor of US-Israeli bombings of their home country, you're seriously smoking some potent propaganda.
Every Iranian friend of mine is celebrating this. They desperately wanted him gone.
Are you suggesting Iranians should have protested harder, maybe tried more to "bring change from within"?
I have ten times as many Iranian friends as you have. They are all against the bombings.
Most Iranians outside Iran fled from the current regimes terror, they are happy with this. My country took in a lot of Iranians when the current regime took over in the 70s and those are very happy about this. They are out on the street celebrating the attacks on Iranian leaders, not protesting against them.
How do you know how many friends they have, to confidently state you have 10x?
Did I say anything like that?
That's the implication of "At some point you have to decide: if my country ..." since "you" can't refer to anyone other than the Iranians. They have not "decided" to get bombed by Zionists.
That is not the implication. Learn some english and good manners
I wonder how old the rest of the commentators are. I watched the Shock and Awe campaign. I watched Saddam fall. I remember thinking this is great.
Years later, I understand it was a complete folly. Removing Saddam in itself was good but what it did the wider region was not good.
I am old enough. Iraq is not perfect today but so much better than it was. Go talk to Iraqis and see for yourself.
It costs us some time, money and lives to get to this point. But Saddam (a tyrant who killed his own kind in masses with gas and started wars with neighbors) staying in power would have been way worse for the wider region.
I think the point being made is that there's wider fallout than just what's directly affected. If you go to Syria and ask Syrians how they feel about the affects on the wider region they might not so readily agree. Or even ask Iraqis in the border region who lived through ISIS rule.
So what about libya, syria, yemen, afghanistan, even venezuela
plus you can't know how Iraq would be today without the invasions
Every new generation in America learns this same lesson the hard way.
You and your children will be paying the bill for this war for the rest of your life.
Oil and defense companies will get richer.
Nothing will change in the middle east.
That's oversimplifying.
Iranian regime-allied forces were a big part of why Iraq was such a quagmire.
The balance of power in the Middle East is shifting from the Sunni~Shia schism that it once was.
Most of the remaining powers are willing to actually engage in diplomacy with Israel & prefer secular groups to Islamist groups.
There's still personality conflicts, such as the one growing between the heads of Saudi Arabia & the UAE, but the general trend seems to be very promising.
> Removing Saddam in itself was good but what it did the wider region was not good.
I believe this is the legacy of leaders like Saddam. They build a very messy future for their countries. Whenever such a leader is gone, somebody has to take over power. Dictators tend to concentrate as much power in their hands as possible. Forced removal of such a leader might accelerate and / or destabilize power transition. Which might end up in a very messy scenario.
Absolute power transition worked well with monarchy in the past, cause everybody knew who would be the next guy, there were rules and procedures. With dictatorship often times there are no rules. So power transition might turn into a complete chaos even with a natural death of a dictator.
You seriously don’t think Iraq is in a better place today than it has ever been? You miss Saddam?
Iraq right now is in roughly the same position as it was when Saddam Hussein was there but in the meantime a few million people died and the country went through a pretty traumatic period.
Plenty of people died under Saddam, too. Do you think the average Iraqi would choose to go back and live under Saddam?
During the years which followed after the invasion, lots did, yes. This is first hand account btw. Now? I'm not sure as the country has mostly stablised.
Estimates put the number of people killed due to the American invasion between half a million and a million. Saddam's brutality paled in comparison to the carnage the US invasion caused.
This also includes indirect deaths?
But if you add up the Iraq-Iran war and all his domestic atrocities it’s not that far (and these are only direct casualties).
lol lmao
is the civilian population being gassed in Iraq now? how about a brutal repressive regime backed by a secret police that tortured and disappeared thousands? is Iraq really the same as it was under Saddam?!!?!?!?!?!??!?!
You seem to forget that Irak instability was a big part of the reason why we got to deal with ISIS in the first place.
I say that ISIS was worst than Saddam.
ISIS also broke out of countries like Syria, which nobody messed with until after their civil war and the ISIS takeover. Which is to say that the problem isn’t the Iraq war - but Islam. It’s literally called ISIS - and you blame the US for it?
It would be good to read the wiki and understand what ISIS really was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State
Well, Iran is majority muslim. If somehow you've concluded that muslims are simply fundamentally violent and incapable of stable governance and that is the reason why the occupation of iraq failed then...
But I personally think that the reasons why you see violent insurgency after a regime change and foreign occupation is a little more universal to humans than specific to islam.
No one misses Saddam.
Parts of Iraq are much better off, like Kurdistan. Other parts were utterly devastated by our operations, insurgency, sectarian violence, ISIS, and so on. Some people had religious freedom and now live in areas under theocratic control.
There are endless amounts of hasbara going around. Unit 8200 is sending their best elements out right now.
I'd be careful of what I read and choose to believe.
One thing I notice on here is very few people understand counter intuitive stuff.
As you said.. plenty of evidence where on the surface it seems good. But in reality it turns out to make the people in the region worse off.
That, combined with extreme short-termism and unbridled optimism. All three probably having a similar root cause.
And we see this across the board. A canonical one that remains prevalent: "If only people would've come out and voted for Kamala in 2024, we wouldn't be in this mess". But then if you follow the pattern, with the candidate she was and what she would've done, this would've secured an ultra-MAGA victory in 2028 (and likely already by 2026 midterms). One more extreme, more devious, more intelligent from the get-go than the current one. People like to cling to "but you don't know that for sure", which is true, but we do know that with about 90% certainty. Betting on 10% is an awful idea and is indeed what has gotten you to where you're at.
It's the single biggest reason for the huge power shift from the US to China. Almost anything that China does is based on long-term consequences. Pain today for gain over time. Of course there are counterexamples, but by and large this holds.
In this case, sure, many Iranians will be happy for a day - especially overseas. So that's what people focus on. People have entirely lost the ability to think realistically in years. Of course part of this is biological, we're monkeys. But there are many reasons to believe that this ability has greatly declined over the last 50 years, particularly in the West and especially in the US.
Taking out Saddam allowed the Taliban to get right back to the raping of the Opium farmers wives and children. Not saying I approved of Saddam but I did enjoy the way he had originally curtailed the risk to his Opium revenue.
This will be the start of something that never ends
Yes, whether these strikes are a good idea in general depends on whether they make life better for the regular people of Iran imo.
That said, fuck Khamenei.
I turned 18 about 6 months after 9-11.
Going to take a night off from worrying about forever wars and celebrate the end of the Ayatollah and Ali Khamenei.
America and Israel are lawless countries. Can you imagine other countries assassinating a foreign head of state and not getting immediate blowback?
I prefer assassinations of leaders in wars over deaths of soldiers and especially civilians.
Considering how Israel had to raze entire cities to beat 'Hamas' or the US dropping nukes in WW2 instead of bombing the Japanese Emperor. This is decent as far as wars go.
To the extent that they're actually effective, I agree.
Trouble is, higher-ups are easily replaceable, and the rank-and-file True Believers may be even more willing to follow orders in the name of a dead tyrant than a living one.
Or not. Sic semper tyrannis. Best wishes to the people of Iran.
> Considering how Israel had to raze entire cities to beat 'Hamas'
They didn't, they just had to stop funding them, as Hamas has been funded by Israel.
Israel stopped finding hamas decades ago
Lies.
> In an interview with Politico in 2023, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that "In the last 15 years, Israel did everything to downgrade the Palestinian Authority and to boost Hamas." He continued saying "Gaza was on the brink of collapse because they had no resources, they had no money, and the PA refused to give Hamas any money. Bibi saved them. Bibi made a deal with Qatar and they started to move millions and millions of dollars to Gaza."
That looks like Israel made every effort to promote the welfare of Gazan citizens. From your own link "Gaza was on the brink of collapse" and Israel saved them.
> America and Israel are lawless countries.
The truth of the world, as much as we may hate it, is that at least at the state level might makes right.
Well not right, but effective in the short term. In the longer term I assume this kind of policy is destabilizing and bad for everyone
International law is below its ability to bé enforced
There's no such thing as a legitimate dictator, and every one of them belongs six feet under.
Russia tried many times in Ukraine. No blowback.
What are you talking about? Russia has effectively been blocked from the west while when the United States invaded Iraq nothing happened. Europe trades with the US like nothing ever happened while Russia will never return to what it was before without at minimum Putin being gone.
Europe even still trades with Israel when what they have done is Gaza has been declared a genocide by everyone. At the same time Russia can't even take part in the Olympics or the Eurovision song contest.
The west has no moral ground to stand on and hopefully people in the west will start to see that.
My thinking is that, it's good when it works in your favor, but one day it night not, and if it doesn't well what recourse is available then?
Fine, you got me. We will expedite another billion in aid to Israel to make up for it.
You can't see the french or Russians doing the same thing in Africa? Because I sure can. There's be some hand wringing and posturing but that's about it.
Not that it's ok for the US, or anyone else to do it.
Either this will end in a fractured state with different factions OR another Ayatollah will be in charge. Just my guess from seeing similar stories play out in other countries though....
Iran is not like other countries in the region. Despite its shortcomings, it's a cohesive society. I'm certain that there will be no fracturing and a central authority will emerge.
Indeed, I'vve already read about an opposition government being organized.
From my reading I get the feeling it has more in common with Spain and Portugal before the fall of the dictatorships.
Even as we speak, Ayatollah Razmara and his cadre of fanatics are consolidating their power!
Even as we speak Israeli missiles are target at him.
Maybe .. the revolutionary guard is fed up though with ineffective empire rule? Like to be rubbed in the dirt face first repeatetly as inheritor of the mighty persian empire sucks bad enough, to reconsider the way things are run? Sorry, but whatever israel & the us are doing, seems to work way better than - whatever has happened the last decades in iran?
For those who don't get the joke:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpEF6QPSVJE
As I understand it, the IGRC doesn't particularly rub happily with the clerical council, and it's not entirely clear to me who will win that the power struggle.
But the ultimate loser of the power struggle is clear: the Iranian populace at large, as all of the viable factions are quite committed to consolidating their power by repressing the population. The most likely situation, I think, looks a lot like Libya.
Islamic societies seem to be unable to form stable institutions. The recipe seems to be unable to synthesize this, no matter how many ressources are available and how benign the conditions. As a result the biggest formable state-institution remains the family clan and the family clan just does not cut it in preventing civil war. At best you get a clan-coalition masquerading as a military government with some democratic pets - at worst you get libya.But i guess after 52 countries, the results are in and the fact that other - non western powers are colonizing islamic countries now (china, russia) and everyone is scrambling for nukes post trump - the displayed weaknesses could end the region.
How about Indonesia?
Replying authoritatively to a Simpsons quote betrays you.
It’s Ayatollah Rubio.
I think maybe the reformists are able to hold on now that the IRGC is being hammered. There might be more internal bloodshed but chances are that Iran might be a bit more open and more modern. Of course I have zero knowledge about how Iran politics works, so that was just a guess, not even an intelligent one.
BTW I don't actually think even the reformists will "accept Western ideas".
"Mission Accomplished"
We have such short memories don't we
What country in the Middle East has actually gotten better after removal of a bad status quo, in the last 26 years? I really can’t think of any. Is even Iraq considered a success?
> Is even Iraq considered a success?
For Israel, absolutely. Improving the victim countries is not the aim.
It was about time. I hope the opposition in Iran takes charge and gets into power before they find another religious leader.
yess, the experience so far makes it obvious. They will be democratic and their gdp will go up by 6900% now. There won't be devastation, people starving to death, meaningless hindsight or anything like that.
"There are reports of US/Israeli strikes on or near the homes of former Iranian pres, Ahmadinejad, former reformist presidential candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, and various leftist activists. If the US/Israel really wanted the 'people' to take back the country, they wouldn’t assassinate these folks"
https://bsky.app/profile/msjamshidi.bsky.social/post/3mfwmdx...
there is no opposition in Iran, they're mostly in DC and Tel Aviv...
there is no such opposition in Iran, they're mostly in DC and Tel Aviv...
To any Iranians of HN: how do you feel about the current situation, and what's the sentiment of Iranians abroad?
Iranian here! Lived most of my life inside Iran. I don't view US's actions as a favor to common Iranians. That's naive. No one wants war and bombing of civilians. Our misery is caused by a mix of religious extremism, theocracy and foreign intervention (in the past, Mossadegh, etc.) among other things. First and foremost I hold the regime responsible. For most of my life, I witnessed firsthand how they pushed us step by step closer to confrontation with the US, yet there's no single bomb shelter in Tehran or any major city for people to run to after 47 years of this shit. How would you feel in this situation?
Their opposition to Israel is not from a humanitarian and moral standpoint, it's purely religious. They have no shame admitting this. You just have to listen to one of the 5 state TV channels in Farsi. I even think Palestinians would fare better if not for these extremists on either side!
All that said, the supreme leader is the one who commands the murder of innocents in the streets, so he had it coming. Good riddance and he died like the rat that he was. But as to what happens next? No one knows. Also I personally don't think US is doing this because they want Iran's oil. I believe they want to put pressure on China to not get Iran's cheap (under sanctions) oil. That seems more plausible to me.
*typo edit
Good, Trump can now claim victory and shout some words in his third-world-dictator style, and american sailors move out of the region. Stock market is opening tomorrow and it doesnt want to see ugly things
If the hard-liners IRGC generals went with him then it might be a good thing for its economy. I have heard some rumors that China was frustrated that IRGC pushed against the deals and were not willing to accept foreign investments in key oil/infra projects because they sit on them -- and that was why China never put down any real investments after signing the deals.
IRGC or whatever succeed next should wise themselves and stop hedging about whatever next deal with US/EU.
I think the biggest problem of IRGC is that they grabbed a large share of economy but spent a lot of that in geopolitical expansion for the last 1-2 decades. This in turn contributed to a more fragile Iranian economy and high inflation, which makes them extremely unpopular among the people.
Why would a regime that came to be, ultimately, precisely because of foreign meddling in resource extraction ever entertain more foreign meddling in resource extraction, especially when it's levered with "or else we'll kill you."?
In 1953, Iran was a secular and democratic country. They had elected a prime minister who decided to nationalize the oil industry. The US didn't like this and overthrew him. They imposed a brutal monarchical dictatorship. Popular discontent led to the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The ayatollahs, to a large extent, existed because of US interference.
The same is true for all the instability in the Middle East, entirely manufactured by the West.
Action-reaction, cause-effect: You never know how a story will end. And after the 1979 revolution, the CIA and British MI6 provided the ayatollahs with lists of communists to exterminate, which they did. Imperialism always prefers to deal with theocracies rather than communists. https://www.declassifieduk.org/how-britain-helped-irans-isla...
This is skimming over the important details, "democratic" is really stretching it.
I also liked the idea that oh look Iran was this liberal country and whatnot but unfortunately it's just not true.
> In 1953, Iran was a secular and democratic
That glosses over a huge amount of details. Calling it democratic is a huge stretch.
> They had elected a prime minister
The election of 1952 were rigged (seemingly by both sides) and not free at all. The vote was even stopped early and almost half the seats left empty.
Mosaddegh was also already in power (being appointed by the Shah) before these “democratic” elections and his reforms were already underway.
> Imperialism always prefers to deal with theocracies rather than communists.
Communist regimes are also a form of theocracy (proof can be found in the writings of any communist leader). It's just that, unlike other theocratic regimes, other countries have to deal with millions of starving refugees (because the communist faith requires banning food production or something like that, I don't know much about their religion).
all for israel. an illegal colonial state with less population than new jersey and is a complete leech on USA
Nope the US has interests and stakes in this going back decades.
Saudi Arabia was also heavily lobbying the US to attack Iran as well (1).
1: https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/us-israel-attack-iran-iran-i...
I think some people get so absorbed in the news that they forget that their life is no better than it was yesterday.
Illegal according to whose laws?
This claim and the offer of immunity may be intended more to reduce Iranian resistance than to represent reality.
(I would not rely on immunity from a nation that left collaborators on the tarmac in afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam?)
Immunity from the USA maybe. I would hope the new Iranian government would prosecute people for crimes appropriately.
In a FIFA World Peace Cup year as well. Is nothing sacred?
This may or may not lead to a weaker Iran. From FP: “Iran is frequently portrayed as a political order bound tightly to individuals. Yet the architecture that emerged after 1979 was formed by a different logic, one founded in the revolutionary experience itself. Khomeini captured this hierarchy in a remark (https://abdimedia.net/en/ruhollah-khomeini/system-ahead-life...) often cited within Iran’s political elite: “Preserving the Islamic Republic is more important than preserving any individual, even if that individual were the Imam of the Age”—a reference to Shiism’s 12th Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi. It is still unclear whether the system will always follow this principle. But one should expect a change in leadership in Tehran to be treated less as an ending and more as a chance for the country’s institutions to show they can survive.”
https://foreignpolicy.com/2026/02/28/iran-khamenei-ayatollah...
Good
If you want to accurately predict the future, look no further than following prominent Israeli Americans and whatever it is they are after.
Looks like Russia's Shahad drone supply chain just got disrupted.
Russia has a license to make their own in Russian factories, but this will decrease Russia's overall supply.
In isolation the death of this brutal dictator is great news, but we have seen how previous decapitation strikes have not had the intended effect. And I can only hope the Iranian people somehow end up better for this entirely illegal war that the Trump administration has initiated, instead of facing up to a fractured leadership and a potential civil war.
Iran confirms: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/latest-israel-launches-a...
If the United States truly supported regime change there should be a clear next leader favored to succeed the Ayatollah, otherwise this feels more like a favor to oil companies, raising prices temporarily, and a sound bite for political gain, without a care of what happens to the country later. Simply toppling a government seems quite risky without further planning. Just expecting "good" people to fill the leadership vacuum is a gamble that could easily backfire and lead to greater crackdowns on freedoms and death to those Trump told to go get the power.
I'm not discounting that Trump is thinking he could back another Pahlavi and restore the Peacock Throne.
Obviously has nothing to do with oil companies or oil, this is a war on behalf of Israel. Netanyahu visited Trump 6 times in the past year. Prominent Zionists and Israelis inside the US have been agitating for the US to do this for years, especially since Trump took office last year.
Wars are almost always about commerce, history has shown that. Ideology is used to back the motive publicly, but the reason for involvement is almost always trade or commerce. This case could be different, but it is not obvious to me that this case is any different. A simple example is WW1 where the US was forced to back the UK because of their large debt to US banks, despite them still being a colonist power at the time.
You are implying that Trump is rational and/or the interests of his administration align with those of the country?
Why are the American democrats protesting?
Because it's not them who did it.
Cause people are sick of their tax money going to endless wars
Aren’t they the ones who wanted to go to war with Russia?
missing keyword is "starting"
It's remarkable to me how many seem to forget there is "morality" apart from "legality". Even if this does violate some treaty somewhere, we need not wring hands over the death of an objective dictator.
> Even if this does violate some treaty somewhere, we need not wring hands over the death of an objective dictator.
We absolutely should. It's a key principle of international law that brutal regimes should not be disturbed, until an opportunity for a regime change brokered by international lawyers presents itself in a century or two. Moral legitimacy comes from international law, and international law only.
Why didn't he flee? This was a long time coming
His daughter, son-in-law, and the defense minister were also killed, as they were all in his residence at the time.
If he decided to stay for ideological reasons, they would not have been there.
My guess is that they might have misinterpreted the US's demands as starting positions while the US considered them to be final. Who would expect a country that can produce ballistic missiles to willingly give it up? It was a non-starter from the beginning.
It's definitely odd if he was just sitting in his compound. That's a very, well, known place for him. Surely Iran has plenty of secure underground bunkers for leadership to retreat to?
Apparently they hit the compound with 30+ bunker busters. So perhaps he was in a bunker but the bombs still got him
That's how Nasrallah was eliminated as well.
Is there a source for this? I haven’t read any of the specifics on the strike.
Fleeing is seen as dishonorable in many parts of the Arab world. Remember the Israeli lies about how Yahya Sinwar dressed in women's clothes and were trying to cross the border to Egypt? In reality he was out in the field with his men killing Israeli soldiers. He died a brave death and Khamenei will now have died one too.
> Fleeing is seen as dishonorable
Tell that to the soldiers in the famously almost universally ineffective militaries of almost all the countries in the Arab world.
Iran isn’t an arab country.
Great, but that is nit-picking---I'm describing a cultural trait present in Iran which makes certain decisions seem irrational to Westerners.
I would like to hear more about the cultural traits that seem irrational to Westerners.
For what it's worth, I agree with you about Sinwar dying while fighting.
I’m suggesting by referring to Iran as an Arab country, you have demonstrated you know very little about the Middle East.
Perhaps you may want to address my argument instead of nit-picking on that I used "Arab world" instead of "Middle East"?
Lol what are you talking about, Arabs are great at guerilla warfare, and that involves a ton of fleeing.
Today is a good day.
I'd rather wait until it is confirmed.
Good riddance
You shouldn't celebrate the killings of heads of state, that would set a bad precedent.
If he didn't want to be assassinated maybe he shouldn't have killed all those people.
How is it bad? Imagine a world where instead of sending hundreds of thousands young men to die, countries would just launch targeted attacks on the head of enemy's state.
If more dictators fear for their lives: good.
We already have a bad president.
Quite the opposite - if they know they are risking their lives they would be more reasonable.
It's the stated reason why the United States has an impeachment process. So that they have a process for removing undesirable heads of state without resorting to assassination.
The US has a constitution as well? It seems pretty worthless these days since nobody is willing to enforce it..
True but other countries don't have an equivalent process.
All the angry people here coming out of the woodwork in this thread. Where were you just a month ago, when the Iranian regime murdered 30k of its own civilians within just a couple of days, during the recent wave of protests? This site is infested with woke moralists and islamists.
Trump hasn't provided any evidence of his death and is quoted as saying something very non-Trumpian here: https://www.nbcnews.com/world/iran/live-blog/israel-iran-liv...
> Earlier, Trump addressed reports that Khamenei was killed in airstrikes today, saying, “We feel that that is a correct story.”
This doesn't sound like Trump's typical bluster, and it's even weirder that Trump didn't immediately go on TV to brag. I'm not saying this is fake news, but I'll wait for confirmation.
Maybe you should contact Iranian state tv because their promoting what you claim is an incorrect story: https://x.com/marionawfal/status/2027940530982625471?s=46
Ding dong the witch is dead. Let's hope other witches follow his steps.
Best of luck to the people of Iran. Be safe! I'm praying for the best!
The killings of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi were so amazingly successful in stabilizing those countries that Americans keep repeating the pattern.
Not a killing, but capturing Noriega did in fact work out well. Panama of today is generally stable and rich (by Latam standards anyway).
It's almost like they are either stupid or the point was never about stability
Netanyahu is leading Trump around by the nose apparently. And here we all thought Putin owned Trump. How the wheel turns.
Nobody owns trump, you can't buy him.
Trump is for rent. Shutting down a competitor is 25M, "full service" is apparently ~100M. I'm not privy to what invading an oil nation costs, but I reckon it's akin to a hand job, so a nice golden wristwatch should probably do it?
Those are not mutually exclusive. He is still Putin's bitch as well as Netanyahu's.
Trump appears to be for lease.
Israel, Trump claims Khamenei killed, Iran denies - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2026/2/28/live-israe...
If true, and given how easy it seemed decapitate the regime I can't see another Ayatollah taking over, hopefully the people take over and institute a real secular democracy based on capitalism.
Without proper support and a huge nation building effort, the same fate as Lebanon, Syria, Lybia Iraq, Afghanistan is the more likely outcome after this evil dictator is gone.
Assassination doesn’t remove the system or rewrite the balance of power, nor does it reconstitute civil society.
You were so close
Why not? If there's one thing that's been proven over the last 20 years it's you can just outlast America.
Smart strategy by the administration - go after people who are universally hated (Maduro, Khamenei) so you can normalize breaking the law and no one will speak out against you or they're a supporter of said hated people.
Honeeeeeeeeey get in here, the board of peace officially declared its first war!
Bring the popcorn with you. No need for salt cause everyone got that in spades on both sides.
There might be something to read between the lines for Putin.
Putin has nuclear weapons. What does he have to fear?
"American heroes may be lost", Trump said. He argued this would be a necessary price to pay to inflict damage.
lol. "Some of you will lose your lives. But that's a price I'm willing to pay"
Thank god we're kicking 5 million people off of their health insurance in 2027, otherwise we would not be able to afford all of these bombs.
There was a clip of one of Iran's missiles dodging 3 Patriot interceptors to hit the US base in Bahrain. I realized I just watched $12m wasted for nothing in less than 5 seconds.
They are not supposed to intercept ballistic missiles anyway,it's THAAD's job
> There was a clip of one of Iran's missiles dodging 3 Patriot interceptors to hit the US base in Bahrain.
Link?
https://www.google.com/search?q=Al+Udeid+3+patriots+miss+ira...
It looks like the interceptors hit it, but missile was only damaged and not destroyed.
No one's a perfect shot: the misses aren't waste, because some misses should be expected.
That's your money that's being Squandered yet you have no say in the decision to wage this war, nor your representative.
There was an election in 2024.
Between those currently in power, and those whose current leader (as senator minority leader).. is a known cheerleader of wars with Iran.
Wait are you saying Schumer was going to make Harris invade Iran?
That's no excuse.
And if a choice between 2 people that have been thoroughly vetted by elites is your definition of democracy, you have a sad sad view of what's possible.
Sorry, how are free and fair elections not democracy?
These people are here to either sow dissent between American citizens and the American government, or have been influenced by those whose goal is to sow dissent between American citizens and the American government. Qatar can not take on the US with military power, so they use soft power and "influencers".
Don't worry, Chuck Schumer has asked Trump for an explanation for why he's conducting new wars.
Time for the Iranians to overthrow the Islamic Regime and bring in Prince Reza Pahlavi as transitional leader, as so many Iranians died to make their wish of him being the leader clear, is fast approaching.
Hopefully Cuba is next!
Long live the Yankee Empire. The world will learn to lick its boots.
This but unironically
Hope your favorite dictator is next, comrade.
I didn't vote for him but you’ve got to give it to Trump. Where past US presidents’ foreign policy (wars: Afghanistan, Iraq; diplomacy: Iran under Obama, and so on) didn't go anywhere, Trump gets results.
Now, these results may lead to unintended consequences in the future. But today, a murderer is dead.
So are 80 schoolchidren at a primary school
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/28/children-dead-...
The murderers are the people committing murders. That the victim was himself a ruthless tyrant doesn't change the fact that this is intolerable. The US can't be the only one allowed to bend the rules.
Don't come crying around when the next 9/11 inevitably happens.
Obama literally signed a deal with Iran to constrain their nuclear program, and Trump ripped it up in his first term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Ac...
Was the bottleneck in these situations really the US' willingness to kill or capture world leaders?
Obama thought it was a good idea to send pallets of cash to Iran’s government. That wasn’t a good deal.
In hindsight, from the perspective of the Middle East and Arab world in general: Obama’s tenure was a geopolitical nightmare, while under Trump’s first presidency the Middle East made a big step forward with the Abraham Accords.
RIP
You died fighting Imperialists and I will always respect that
> President Trump announced the Iranian leader's death on social media, saying Khamenei could not avoid U.S. intelligence and surveillance. A source briefed on the U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran told NPR earlier Saturday that an Israeli airstrike killed Khamenei.
This does not seem to me like very strong evidence? Trump just says whatever, and "a source briefed on [the attacks]" just means at least one person in USG thinks Khamenei was in whatever house they blew up. Am I missing some other confirmation?
If he is not dead - Iran will have to show him - and he will be double tapped.
He is dead, Iran state media confirmed a couple of hours ago.
I'm tired of Israelis killing innocent people
This was has killed a lot of innocent people. Khamenei was not one of the innocent.
Ah yes, the poor innocent dictator minding his own business while killing thousands of protestors.
If what matters is the number of people killed, the next two should be Putin and Netanyahu. Yet I have a feeling that will not happen.
Pretty much by definition, dictators do not allow themselves to be removed by the people through peaceful means, which is why it's easy to draw a line there. If someone's a dictator, it's morally okay to kill them. Always.
Why isn't Trump bombarding the Kremlin? Isn't Putin a much larger threat to world peace than any leader of Iran?
Also, it's never "morally okay" to kill anyone, ever; the fact that the US still has the death penalty shows how little they understand about morals and logic.
Falling for the same lies as "Saddam's WMDs" in 2026 is crazy. Keep that energy with Kim Jong Un, or Netanyahu. Oh wait, Israel is America's boss.
There's plenty of footage out there if you want to see the bodies.
In my opinion the real problem for Iran lies in the north, on the border with Azerbaijan.
The Israeli-supplied Azeri military has already demonstrated its effectiveness when it curb stomped the unprepared and internally betrayed Armenian military and militias. Baku will eventually decide to intervene in the northern territories. If I had to guess, a "special military operation" into northern Iran is the most likely follow-up scenario goaded into and supplied of course by Israel/US. The goal will be to foment a civil war and begin the dismemberment process of Iran.
A little personal conspiracy theory I have is that after the last Israel/US intervention (when they mysteriously liquidated the only high-ranking and influential internal opposition of the Khamenei clan left) is that some sort of deal was worked out behind the scenes with the clan to get rid of the wizard-in-chief kinda like how Maduro was sold out. It is much easier to go to war with a country when it responds with only symbolic attacks and secretly promises to fight with one hand behind its back - provided cash and security flows for those at the top of course.
RIP