Khamenei, the Islamic Republic's second supreme leader, has been killed. He had held power since 1989, guiding Iran through difficult times — and overseeing the violent suppression of dissent.
In this 2017 photo, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, sits in a session to deliver his message for the Iranian New Year. A portrait of the late revolutionary founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, is next to him.
Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/APIran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed in Israeli attacks, with U.S. support, on Saturday. He was 86 years old.
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.
During his 36-year rule, Khamenei was unwavering in his steadfast antipathy to the U.S. and Israel and to any efforts to reform and bring Iran into the 21st century.
Khamenei was born in July 1939 into a religious family in the Shia Muslim holy city of Mashhad in northeastern Iran and attended theological school. An outspoken opponent of the U.S.-backed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Khamenei was arrested several times.
He was surrounded by other Iranian activists, including Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who became Iran's first supreme leader following the country's Islamic Revolution in the late 1970s.
Khamenei survived an assassination attempt in 1981 that cost him the use of his right arm. He served as Iran's president before succeeding Khomeini as supreme leader in 1989.
Alex Vatanka, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington, D.C., says Khamenei was an unlikely candidate. Then a midlevel cleric, Khamenei lacked religious credentials, which left him feeling vulnerable, Vatanka says.
"He knew himself. He didn't have the prestige, the gravitas to be … the successor to the founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Khomeini," he says.
In 2005, Ali Khamenei (center), newly elected President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (right), outgoing President Mohammad Khatami and former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani attend Ahmadinejad's inaugural ceremony in Tehran.
Atta Kenare/AFP via Getty Images"He spent the first few years in power being very nervous," says Vatanka. "He really literally felt that somebody is going to, you know, take him down from the position of power."
But Khamenei was cunning and able to outwit other senior political figures in the Islamic Republic, according to Ali Vaez, director of the Iran Project at the International Crisis Group. He says that with the help of the formidable Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Khamenei built up his power base to become the longest-serving leader in the Middle East.
"Ayatollah Khamenei was a man with strategic patience and was able to calculate a few steps ahead," he says. "That's why I think he managed — on the back of the Revolutionary Guards — to increasingly appropriate all the levers of power in his hands and sideline everyone else."
Khamenei's close ties to the Revolutionary Guards allowed Iran's military to develop a vast commercial empire in control of many parts of the economy, while ordinary Iranians struggled to get by.
Ali Khamenei (right) speaks to members of the armed forces of the Islamic Republic during the Iran-Iraq War on Oct. 4, 1981.
AFP/Getty ImagesVaez says Khamenei also began to build up Iran's defensive policies, such as developing proxies like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip to deter a direct attack on Iranian soil.
"And then also becoming self-reliant in developing a viable conventional deterrence, which took the form of Iran's ballistic missile program," Vaez says.
As supreme leader, Khamenei also had the final word on anything to do with Iran's nuclear program.
Over time, Khamenei increasingly injected himself into politics. Such was the case in 2009, when he intervened in the presidential election to ensure that his favored candidate, the controversial conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, won office.
Iranians took to the streets to protest what was widely seen as a fraudulent election. Khamenei brutally crushed those demonstrations, triggering both a backlash and more protest movements over the years.
Iran killed thousands of its citizens under Khamenei's rule, including more than 7,000 people killed during weeks of mass protests that started in late December 2025, according to the Human Rights Activists News Agency, a U.S.-based organization that closely tracks rights abuses in Iran.
Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (center), prays with the Iranian president and other government officials in Tehran in 2014.
Anadolu Agency/Getty Images"Khamenei had always supported and endorsed repressive government crackdown, recognizing that these protests were damaging to the stability and legitimacy of the state," says Sanam Vakil, an Iran expert at Chatham House, a London-based think tank.
But Khamenei was unconcerned about getting to the root of the protests, says the Middle East Institute's Vatanka, and remained stuck in an Islamic revolutionary mindset against the West.
"He on so many occasions refused point-blank to accept the basic reality that where he was in terms of his worldview was not where the rest of his people were," Vatanka says.
He adds that 75% of Iran's 90 million people were born after the revolution and have watched other countries in the region modernize and integrate with the international community.
"The 75% he should have catered to, listened to and address[ed] policies to satisfy their aspirations," he says. "He failed in that miserably."
Ali Khamenei wears a mask due to the COVID-19 pandemic as he arrives to cast his ballot during Iran's presidential election on June 18, 2021.
Atta Kenare/AFP via Getty ImagesThe International Crisis Group's Vaez says after the Arab Spring uprisings in 2011, Khamenei did start worrying about the survival of his regime. Iran's economy was crumbling, due in large part to stringent Western sanctions, fueling more unrest.
In 2013, Khamenei agreed to secret negotiations with the U.S. about Iran's nuclear program, which eventually led to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear agreement. Vaez says Khamenei deeply distrusted the U.S. and was skeptical about the deal.
"His argument has always been that the U.S. is always looking for pretexts, for putting pressure on Iran," he says. "And if Iran concedes on the nuclear issue, then the U.S. would put pressure on Iran because of its missiles program or because of human rights violations or because of its regional policies."
President Trump's withdrawal from the nuclear deal during his first term in office gave some credence to Khamenei's cynicism. Analysts say Iran increased its nuclear enrichment after that to a point where it was close to being able to build a bomb.
In early 2025, when Trump reached out to Iran about a new deal, Khamenei dragged out negotiations until they began in mid-April.
But time ran out. In June, Israel made good on its threat to neutralize Iran's nuclear program, launching strikes on key facilities and killing scientists and generals. Iran retaliated, and the two sides exchanged several days of missile strikes.
On June 21, 2025, the U.S. launched major airstrikes on three of Iran's nuclear enrichment sites. Trump said the facilities had been "completely and totally obliterated," although there was debate among the White House and nuclear experts as to how serious Iran's nuclear program had been set back.
Vakil, of Chatham House, says Khamenei underestimated what Israel and the U.S. would do.
"I think that Khamenei always assumed that he could play for time, and what he really didn't understand is that the world around Iran had very much changed," she says. "The world had tired of Khamenei and Iranian foot-dragging and antics … and so that was a miscalculation."
But it was Iran's use of proxy militias across the region that eventually led to Khamenei's downfall.
When Hamas — the Palestinian Islamist group backed by Iran — attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, killing nearly 1,200 people and kidnapping 251 others, it triggered a cascade of events that ultimately led to Israel's attack on Iran.
The day after the 2023 Hamas-led attack, Iran-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon started firing rockets into Israel, triggering a conflict that led to the Shia militia's top brass being decimated — including top leader Hassan Nasrallah.
Israel and Iran traded direct airstrikes for the first time in 2024 as part of that conflict.
Israel's bombing of Iranian weapons shipments in Syria also helped weaken the regime of Syria's then-dictator, Bashar al-Assad, an important ally of Iran. Assad fell in December 2024 and fled to Russia in early January 2025.
By the time Khamenei died, his legacy was in tatters. Israel had hobbled two key proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, and had wiped out Iran's air defenses. With U.S. help, it left Iran's nuclear program in shambles.
What remains is a robust ballistic missile program, the brainchild of Khamenei. It's unclear who will replace him to lead a now weakened and vulnerable Iran.
Read the original article
Comments
By thomassmith65 2026-02-2822:3324 reply 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.
By pinkmuffinere 2026-02-2822:418 reply 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
By orthogonal_cube 2026-02-2823:005 reply 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
By cplanas 2026-03-0111:01 The American occupation of Japan may have been less punitive than Germany’s, but it was arguably more invasive: Japan’s postwar Constitution was largely drafted by Americans, with minimal Japanese input. By contrast, West Germany’s Basic Law was written by Germans themselves under Allied constraints.
By mikkupikku 2026-03-0110:56 Japanese army officers stormed the emperor's palace and placed him under house arrest in an attempt to prevent him from broadcasting that surrender message. This was after the second bomb, a whole lot of them still had fight left in them.
By twocommits 2026-03-0111:47 [flagged]
By SR2Z 2026-03-0223:37 The US did not have to occupy Japan and deal with rebels - the emperor surrendered unconditionally and the US fed the existing pro-democracy movement while rebuilding the country.
If you look at the US' history of interventions, the common thread is that nations with established pro-democracy movements tend to become stable democracies, and nations where democracy lacks popular support tend to turn into flimsy Republics that easily fall apart when American support is removed.
Occupation is so expensive that it's virtually unthinkable for even a medium-size country to be occupied. There are just too many civilians and too few soldiers.
By lamontcg 2026-03-0223:01 Yeah, apparently I should have been explicit that I was talking about air strikes and not occupation.
We aren't going to occupy Iran.
Comparing this to defeated nations in WWII is also a massive stretch, I almost can't believe people seriously think that is a parallel situation.
There's a lot of propaganda out there to dissuade people from thinking that this looks a lot like Libya at best--and that is assuming that decapitation airstrikes can even make the regime fall (which I doubt).
Yes, this is an underrated point and why I’m holding out hope for a positive outcome. I’m convinced that, before the revolution, Iran was on the same trajectory as European monarchies that had become democracies. At that point, countries like Denmark had been democracies for less than 75 years.
By IOT_Apprentice 2026-03-028:20 And then France sent Khomeini back to Iran on a chartered Air France 747 & stifled that. France also built Dimona nuclear plant in Israel in 1963 and then tested multiple times nuclear weapons in Algeria from 1960-1966 in the Algerian Sahara & mountains & allowed Israel to observe these explosions.
By bigthymer 2026-03-0111:19 From my understanding, it wasn't the bombing that motivated Japan to surrender even though this is commonly taught, it was the recent Soviet declaration of war and fear of invasion/occupation.
By mr_toad 2026-03-0111:56 > 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?
People have already mentioned the post WW2 occupation of Germany and Japan.
There’s also the Roman occupation of Greece (and other Hellenistic territories), and even perhaps the Norman occupation of England. Not that either of these didn’t cause some strife and rebellion in both cases, but still there was a concerted effort to build up both territories.
The canonical example is WWii Germany. Denazification actually sort of worked. But it required a lot of effort, resources and special circumstances.
West Germany wasn't denazified. The process was started after the surrender, but quickly and quietly stopped.
The party was forbidden, the symbols were forbidden. They hung the main leaders, quite publicly. It became a huge taboo, the ideology effectively died (for decades). A strong democracy was established, older democratic parties took over.
Yes a bunch of previous nazis made it back into power and politics, but they didn't call themselves nazis or acted like nazis. But also, the country as a whole took a very different path after wwii.
By greedo 2026-03-0214:58 A lot of symbolic actions were taken, but the majority (not "a bunch") of Nazis continued to hold positions of power in both the GDR and FRG.
Justice was never served for what the Nazis did. Both the US and the USSR scooped up Nazi scientists (Operation Paperclip), and with the advent of the Cold War, the West quickly decided that it cared more about contesting Europe with the Soviets than seeking justice.
By hackandthink 2026-03-0119:401 reply fourty
(1945 - 1949 it was split in 4 occupation zones)
If you ignore Berlin (which, I think, kept its four occupation zones) it were first four, three from January 1, 1947, and two from from August 1, 1948 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizone)
By hackandthink 2026-03-0216:34 thanks
By exe34 2026-03-0111:41 they brought the Nazis to the US and now hydra has taken over.
By oceanplexian 2026-03-025:50 > 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?
The US operation to depose the dictator of Panama in 1989 is one example.
By logicallee 2026-03-0111:37 >I can't think of any time when bombing the shit out of a country and killing their leader has actually worked.
This happened just weeks ago in Venezuela, though in that case the removal was by abduction and foreign trial. (The U.S. struck Venezuela and abducted its President at the time, bringing him to trial in the United States. I've just now asked ChatGPT for a research report on his current status, you can read it here[1].)
This led to immediate and definitive regime change, the U.S. now has an excellent relationship with the new President of Venezuela.
[1] https://chatgpt.com/share/69a424b4-de38-800c-8699-cb95d25090...
By christkv 2026-03-0110:30 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.
By general_reveal 2026-03-0121:00 Naval blockade and the military capacity to simply siege you from afar. Tactically , why America didn’t do more of that is … well who knows. I mean, what if we literally parked our carrier group off of Iraq and sieged them until
A) Put in a government we like
B) Population behave or quality of life will be bad, you see, the simple life is difficult with cruise missiles coming at you
If that’s as effective as sending 250k ground troops (which … actually wasn’t effective), one could make the observation that Trump is a military genius.
Someone please talk sense to me because I cannot believe what I am saying.
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.
By nullocator 2026-03-010:072 reply 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.
By tim333 2026-03-0113:16 I'm not sure - I'm not that up on all that but there's the
>coalition of liberal and nationalist political parties selected Reza Pahlavi to lead a transitional government until the realisation of democratic elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_opposition#:~:text=On%...
thing. Maybe if enough Iranian people back that?
By bluGill 2026-03-0111:55 There are a lot of well educated people in iran who were unhappy. Iran killed more than 30,000 protesters last month, and there are who knows how many more left.
only time will tell. I give iran much better than average odds this is for the better. Though the average is really bad: bad results would not surprise me.
By dzhiurgis 2026-03-019:48 If you were part of regime - now is your chance to defect.
Certainly people within the Trump administration have thought a lot about this.
And/or neighboring countries see their chance to start another front in the war.
By dredmorbius 2026-03-0122:58 Few of Iran's neighbours are in a position to do this.
Afghanistan? No. Lacks means, motive, or organisation.
Iraq? Probably not, despite past history of conflict, too much internal strife.
Turkmenistan? Very unlikely.
Pakistan? Has the capability perhaps, but little motive AFAIU.
Azerbaijan, Aremenia, Turkey? Again, unlikely.
The most likely beligerents would be Israel (already involved, but not seeking occupation in all likelihood), and Saudi Arabia. But both those also seem unlikely. Both benefit by a weakened and submissive Iran, but occupation would be an extraordinary undertaking and highly problematic.
Non-bordering countries might be considerations (India likely tops that list) but again the upsides seem slight given costs.
The most likely situation is continuity. They just pick a new supreme leader. The second most likely situation is a civil war.
By reliabilityguy 2026-02-2823:072 reply There is also a possibility of a Venezuela-style cooperation.
By readthenotes1 2026-02-2823:192 reply 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?
By alephnerd 2026-02-2823:36 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...
By bsjaux628 2026-03-010:05 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.
By roenxi 2026-03-0110:07 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.
By mda 2026-03-0111:16 Unlikely, large proportion of population is brainwashed for 40 years. They will elect a "moderate" supreme leader, then business as usual.
In Romania it took some 10 years to reach some degree of functional democracy after the fall of communism and the execution on Ceaușescu, who coincidentally, just returned from the crowning of Khamenei, while learning, dictator-to-dictator, how to suppress a revolution: 1006 killed, though most of them not by the initial "Revolutionary Guards" reprisal but in the semi-civil war that followed.
And that in a country/region without Islamic radicals trying to take over. So far, apart from Israel, no Middle East country has managed to function as a democracy. Turkey, the only Muslim majority who has the faintest chance of joining the European Union, only keeps stuff under control due to the army enforcing a secular state, which the liberal patsies in the West can't take, because authoritarianism is bad and diversity in accepting radical Islam creeping into our homeland is our strength.
By selimthegrim 2026-03-021:012 reply Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania and Kosovo won’t get into the EU?
By MichaelRo 2026-03-024:43 Forgot they aren't already in EU.
By MichaelRo 2026-03-0220:49 Also I'm getting downvoted and don't really understand unless I fall back to experience from 30 years ago, after the Romanian revolution and fall of =~ 50 years of dictatorial regime (not that before that was much better, with small interruptions).
At that time (1990), when everything seemed possible and a quick path to democracy and all that it brings (in the imaginary of the poor, oppressed people that we were) along with it, this guy came along: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_Ra%C8%9Biu
He ran for president in the first free elections and made some 0.5% or something. I remember him for his words which go along the "it will take 20 years at least, for democracy to settle in Romania". He was right on. Now, 30 years after, we have a strong, frile democracy. Everyone can run for president but not everyone can win, even if they could: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn4x2epppego
All things considered, I live a much, much better life now than 30 years ago during the communist dictatorship. Perfect? Far from it and perfection is a moving target. But we're definitely a solid democracy, and also definitely, it's a miracle the first 5-10 years didn't erupt in a full scale civil war. And the despised "revolutionary guards" had some involvement in making sure it didn't happen, so as much as you hate them, you need them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_clashes_of_T%C3%A2rgu_M...
By throwaway2037 2026-03-0111:523 reply Without doxxing yourself, why were you unable to visit? I have known Persian expats a few times in my life, and they were always able to visit without issue.
By kj4211cash 2026-03-0113:311 reply If they have said anything against the regime on social media, they would be wise not to visit. I personally know many Persian expats who meet family in Turkey and have been anxious about going back.
By bewildered01 2026-03-0823:04 [dead]
Not OP but most common reason I've heard is military age males with unresolved mandatory military service status.
By throwaway2037 2026-03-0114:02 Oh good point! I knew some young Turkish men a while back that could not visit Turkey for similar reasons.
By pinkmuffinere 2026-03-0117:29 Honestly I’m not sure I should say, sorry. Recent years have been worse than normal though, with lots of human rights violations, protests, protestors being tortured/killed, foreign nationals being held in prison/killed, etc.
By kubb 2026-02-2822:43 I would defer the celebration until you can.
A friend of mine, EU member, hasn't been able to visit USA because he was cricizing us gov (under BIdden), still not allowed. Ban and censorship isn't specific to Iran, many western nations love it too.
By throwawayheui57 2026-03-0123:20 There’s a difference between the ban where they don’t give you visa vs. censorship where they disappear you if you publicize your dissent. One must not conflate.
By acjohnson55 2026-02-2823:081 reply 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.
By thomassmith65 2026-03-0118:07 This comment likely confuses Khomeini and Khamenei, and is inaccurate either way.
By anonnon 2026-03-012:35 My condolences. Your cousin sounds very brave.
By stefantalpalaru 2026-02-2823:06 [dead]
By IOT_Apprentice 2026-03-028:051 reply If Israel & the US prevail, Israel will treat Iran as the do their other neighbors, bombing them whenever they feel like it and murdering your relatives there. Take a look at Syria where they installed the head of Al-Qaeda/HTS. The IDF has carried out 600 attacks there since 2024 till present. They have attacked the following areas since 2023: Gaza, Lebanon, Iran, Syria & Yemen.
By rmm78 2026-03-0212:34 Nope, every action protects Israeli citizens from the Iran terrorist regime. Thanks to Trump Iran will soon be Israel's ally again. Jews & Persians have centuries of mutual respect, the islamists were just a temporary curse
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.
By overfeed 2026-03-019:41 > 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.
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.
By throwaway2037 2026-03-0112:061 reply I think you are speaking about the last Shah's first son: Reza Pahlavi. You can read about his planned policy for Iran here: https://rezapahlavi.org/en
To quote:
One idea is to transition to a secular democracy with a figurehead Shah like a northern European (or Japanese) monarchy. Also, my personal opinion: I think it is fine if they want to incorporate aspects of Islamic religious culture into their government. After all, it is their country. Example: The national parliament and political parties might be required to secular (at least in name), but they may wish to continue to support religious institutions using tax payer money, including masjids (places of prayer) and Islamic monasteries.> For the transition from the Islamic Republic to a national, secular, and democratic governmentAn interesting point of comparison: (1) Malaysia isn't really secular (but they may claim it); (2) Singapore is fully secular; (3) Indonesia is secular (or "pan-religious"), but is still largely guided by Islamic relgious culture in their democractic systems.
What he says he's planning and what he will do are not necessarily the same thing. The former Shah's regime was really bad and paved the way for everything that happened afterwards. Between the SAVAK (which tortured and executed quite a few of those in opposition to the Shah regime) and excesses like Persepolis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2,500-year_celebration_of_the_... ) there was created an atmosphere in which the mullahs seemed like a viable alternative.
To return to a scion of the man who put that all in place would - in my opinion, of course - be a massive mistake.
Keep in mind that the Shah was a client of the United States and the United Kingdom and that his son isn't doing this out of the goodness of his heart but because he wants what he thinks is his birthright back (he's been pretty vocal about that since his late teens), and that he has been living off wealth stolen from the Iranian people and squirreled out of the country by his father.
Of course he would present this as a transition but just wait until his ass hits that pluche and see if it isn't going to take another revolution to dislodge him.
By throwaway2037 2026-03-033:43 This comment is weird. The Shah's son != the Shah. Reza Pahlavi left Iran when he was 17. The Shah fell the following year. All of the issues that you raise are perpetrated by his father. His son was not responsible.
Not much being said here. This is true for anybody anywhere anytime. You might as well write: true == true.> What he says he's planning and what he will do are not necessarily the same thing.
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..."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."- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/28/strategic-opti...
By jonathanstrange 2026-03-0112:26 That makes sense because the US/Israel goal is currently likely to murder every person nominated as a successor immediately, too, and it's a completely predictable strategy.
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.
By breppp 2026-03-0110:23 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
This is "Our blessed homeland" type of mischaracterisation [1]. Their wanting to continue their state against and oversized enemy is irrational and religious fanaticism, our wanting to continue our state against an oversized for is noble and martyrsome.
I'm not saying either view is right, but reducing the Iranian government to irrational religious fanatics is intellectually uncurious and unempathetic.
[1] - https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/002/355/607/670
By Digit-Al 2026-03-0113:55 You are possibly misunderstanding me. Firstly, I am not saying anything against the Iranian people in general. As far as I understand things, the majority of Iranians are moderate and tolerant, and have a strong desire to have a more liberal approach to the world. The current Iranian government, however, is under the rule of insane fundamentalists (with the emphasis on mental) who think nothing of machine gunning down protesters in the street. Even the majority of Iranian people don't want to be ruled by them. This is fact, not "blessed homeland" mischaracterisation.
I'm British, and whilst I don't think my government is perfect (their stance on digital privacy is insane) they are not murdering people, and we can vote them out at the next election if we want to.
By mbgerring 2026-03-0112:43 You talking about the Iranians or the Americans here?
By breppp 2026-03-0110:10 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
In both countries, the educated population likes the religious leader less than the uneducated population. In Germany, most Turkish immigrants are from rather basic backgrounds and most Iranian immigrants are from intellectual backgrounds. It makes a huge difference. In both countries of origin, the population is split much more evenly than what you see abroad. AFAIK, about 50% support the religious strongman in both countries.
By throwaway2037 2026-03-0112:09 I don't live in Germany (nor am I a German national), but I have special cultural interest in the history of Turks immigrating to Germany. I agree: On the whole, overwhelming Turks that immigrate/d to Germany are not highly educated. They come to work in manual labor jobs, not as engineers or medical doctors.
By throwawayheui57 2026-03-0123:221 reply > AFAIK, about 50% support the religious strongman in both countries.
Do you have any credible source for this?
For Turkey, election results. For Iran, no hard numbers, just fuzzy memory about articles I've read. What is clear is that the regime has supporters and not just those who benefit directly / materially.
By throwawayheui57 2026-03-0312:56 Of course. It has actually staunched supporters. One cannot kill innocents in the streets by just the promise of money. So there’s religious ideology involved. However the percentage matters a lot here and even 10% of 90 million is a large number.
*typo edit
update: Here’s some relatively independent polling from inside Iran which does not corroborate the 50/50 divide. And remember this was taken before the 2026 massacre: https://gamaan.org/2025/08/20/analytical-report-on-iranians-...
A lot of the Persian diaspora is actually descendents of people who left in the 80s. There are certainly people who left 20 years ago or less but they're mostly secular as well.
By ahartmetz 2026-03-0111:54 If somebody tells you that they are Persian (I have met a few), you know their opinion right away: they prefer to associate with millennia of Persian history, not the modern (religious) state of Iran.
By throwaway2037 2026-03-0112:111 reply
Can you help me to understand your meaning of "secular" here? My counterpoint that will explain: Many Persian Jews left during/after the revolution and moved to Los Angeles. Many of those families are practicing Jews. I would not describe people like this as "secular"; I would call them "religious". Do I misunderstand your point?> they're mostly secular as wellBy bonzini 2026-03-0112:21 Note that the quote referred to people who left more recently and thus lived most if not all of their lives after the Islamic revolution. Quite often they'll drink beer or have their pizzas with ham just fine, women would not wear a hijab, and so on.
By thomassmith65 2026-02-2822:41 They're not brain-damaged. They know that!
By SanjayMehta 2026-03-019:39 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.
By anovikov 2026-03-019:39 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.
By regnull 2026-02-2823:01 It’s a good start
By timtim51251 2026-03-010:31 That why they are going beyond that and going after the IRGC
By Haven880 2026-03-016:44 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.
By twocommits 2026-03-0110:08 [flagged]
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.
By TulliusCicero 2026-02-2822:463 reply 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.
By TulliusCicero 2026-03-0119:551 reply "Just because they're a brutal dictator who murdered thousands of people."
Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of other reasons to be skeptical of American military adventurism, but killing this one guy in particular really isn't one of them.
By LastTrain 2026-03-033:06 Of the several reasons Trump has given for doing this so far, which one do you believe?
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?
By ZeroGravitas 2026-03-0111:311 reply Maybe the President should have taken that into account when lying publicly about the impacts that he admitted in private conversation, or mocking and undermining expert advice?
By ZeroGravitas 2026-03-0118:18 Fauci injected money into the economy? Who was the President at the time?
By wqaatwt 2026-03-018:22 US has one of the unhealthiest populations amongst developed countries too, so maybe it’s not that surprising.
By belorn 2026-03-0120:48 Excess death from Covid is a non-trivial topic. Sweden had a very different approach to covid response, and yet had a very average number of excess death. The post-covid investigation provider some clear insight of what was primary causes to excess deaths, and yet very little of those conclusions has became common knowledge.
The primary group that had excess death caused from covid was to people living in homes for elderly care, and the primary cause was a lack of initial process and gear by people who worked at those locations. They were not given enough time to keep up a higher standard of sanitation (often given less than 15 minutes between patients), and protective gear was lacking. They also heavily depended on mass transportation which was a primary location for the virus to spread. A better early response in that sector, including shutdown/restriction of mass transportation would had saved many elderly people from early death.
To note, this had nothing to do with masks, vaccines, or shutdown of schools, which is the main points usually brought up in popular discourse. Sweden would have had one of the lowest number of deaths, with the exact same use of masks/vaccines/shutdowns as it did, as long as the response in elderly care had been done better.
By gamblor956 2026-03-019:412 reply 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.
> Trump has murdered 2 innocent U.S. citizens so far
Are you referring to documented murders from the Epstein files, or to Melissa and Mark Hoffman?
By gamblor956 2026-03-0220:331 reply Alex Pretti and Renee Good, both murdered on Trump's orders to shoot ICE protestors.
By simianparrot 2026-03-0117:331 reply [flagged]
By FireBeyond 2026-03-0119:171 reply By your logic, Khamenei probably hasn't murdered anyone either, right? What a pitiful "argument".
While other Presidents would go as far as putting signs saying "the buck stops here" on the Resolute Desk, the current President's sign would say "the buck stops anywhere but here".
Let's also see what happens with New Mexico's investigation of the Zorro Ranch...
Self defense, my ass. Neither situation posed ANY credible threat to those agents, despite what ICE Barbie got up and said in front of a podium twenty minutes after the event.
By thejazzman 2026-03-0121:051 reply to be fair, the prior respondent did seem to agree with the word 'murder' so perhaps we're all ultimately in agreement about what happened :|
if it's self-defence then more or less by definition it isn't murder.
By FireBeyond 2026-03-022:321 reply Who said it was self defense? ICE, within minutes? Trump, within minutes?
Despite blatantly contradictory video?
By rcxdude 2026-03-029:54 I'm just pointing out that you are probably not in agreement with simianparrot. I don't think it does count as self-defense.
By mancerayder 2026-03-0117:371 reply He also pushed the first vaccine, and fast-tracked it : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Warp_Speed
The amount of ahistorical histrionics on here is deeply worrying for such an educated population. Your political news needs to change. Shouldn't have to say this but to people like you it's a necessity: not a Trump voter or supporter, just correcting misinformation.
By bdangubic 2026-03-0117:42 solid and well written response except no one who is even slightly to the right would ever admit that we actually lived under Trump's rule during the COVID. entire right is now anti-vaccines, anti-all but it was the right that locked up our children and kept them out of schools and forced the vaccines on the population (could not go to the fucking gym without the proof of vaccination). so politically we have short-term memory in this country, especially the right politically. this is why the right is celebrating now America bombing the shit out of everyone while in October of 2023 were pitching that we need to vote right "to stop the endless wars."
By drjasonharrison 2026-02-2823:081 reply 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.
By goku12 2026-03-0111:32 They killed nearly 100 Venezuelans at sea, accusing them of transporting drugs. To date, this regime has provided no evidence to corroborate those claims, in addition to the fact those were extra-judicial executions. We already knew that parts of their justificantions were false, especially the accusations against Venezuela of producing fentanyl. We also know that the US military committed war crimes at least once, when they blew up survivors of an initial bombing. Despite all these, Trump and his goon squad were seemingly quite pleased and joking about it. It's splendidly evident that they assign zero value to lives outside of their goon circle. That extends to every non-whites, political opponents and even women/girls who suffered sexual crimes.
There are zero reasons to assume this regime's victims, except for known tyrants like Maduro and Khameini, to be guilty at all. The regime has zero credibility when it comes to human rights. So those fishermen were most likely innocent victims and not drug smugglers.
In addition to all this, don't assume that this US attacks on Iran were because of his love and benevolence for the Iranian civilians. If it were so, he wouldn't have provoked the Iranian regime to crackdown on the protestors and kill around 30K of them. That farce was unnecessary for the liberation of Iran. Instead, he used them to create an excuse to carry out an attack that they had already planned.
So, as much as I understand the Iranians' joy in seeing the end of Khameini, I strongly suspect that this is just the beginning of another authoritarian regime over there, controlled remotely by the US regime this time, just as we see in Venezuela. Expect everything from human rights violations to mass scale plunder of their natural resources. All that we see now are just ploys to establish a worldwide neocolonial order under a very racist and xenophobic regime operating from the US. Let me remind you of the meme that this orange dictator posted that shows Canada, Venezuela and Greenland as part of the US territory. I don't see this end well for any civilians on this planet, including US citizens.
By SanjayMehta 2026-03-019:43 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.
By arunabha 2026-03-017:43 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.
By pixl97 2026-02-2823:00 When you're in a position of power and doing dictator like things, not very much.
By pvaldes 2026-03-0123:28 Add to this list the two children and an adult unnecessary killed by measles in Texas and New Mexico in 2025 after the disinformation campaign aiming to save the government a few dollars.
By TulliusCicero 2026-02-2822:542 reply 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.
By jonathanstrange 2026-03-0112:341 reply As an outside observer, I'd say it's by far not as bad as in Russia yet but they're heading towards a similar model. Due process has already been eroded, prosecution is more selective than ever, there are attempts to criminalize harmless minorities, a large government-controlled police force arrests anyone they want to (including journalists), government-critical press is bought, sued, and intimidated, Congress is held in contempt, court orders are ignored, and the FBI works directly on behalf of the president. That being said, they've still got a long way to go.
So they are not even comparable.
> there are attempts to criminalize harmless minorities
like what?
By jonathanstrange 2026-03-0210:561 reply > So they are not even comparable.
What a bizarre comment when I just compared them.
>> there are attempts to criminalize harmless minorities
> like what?
Among other minorities, they're going very strongly against transgender people and support groups and try to criminalize them. They're obsessed with transgender people for some reason. For example, Executive Order 14168, Executive Order 14183, Executive Order 14187, Executive Order 14190, Executive Order 14201, and by offering cash bounties to the FBI for "...information leading to the identification and arrest of transgender activists promoting 'radical gender ideology'."[Wikipedia] Pam Bondi described such activists as "domestic terrorist groups."[ibid] There is also a large initiative by the Heritage Foundation to make the FBI classify transgender people in general as domestic terrorists and introduce a new classification they call "Transgender Ideology-Inspired Violence and Extremism" (TIVE).
Why they are so particularly violent against transgender people and so obsessed with that topic is a complex matter. I suppose their hatred for this tiny group is based on a mix of religious fanaticism, Elon Musk's direct influence on the US government, extremely insecure masculinity, the need of Fascism for inventing inner enemies (because it doesn't have any stringent ideology), and the fact that this group is so small and insignificant that they cannot possibly defend themselves - unlike the US gay community, who have a large lobby by now and include people like Peter Thiel.
By dzhiurgis 2026-03-0221:22 > identification and arrest of transgender _activists_
This isn't chasing trans, it's looking for people who promote 'radical gender ideology'. It's not activists who support trans either. Emphasis on _radical_ and _ideology_.
By FireBeyond 2026-03-0119:221 reply "Turn over your state's voter information to the Federal Government for ... reasons, or we'll keep up the ICE raids in your cities that have already led to death and injuries" would be one simple example. Oppression... or extortion... or both.
By FireBeyond 2026-03-0123:521 reply "We want to suppress voters under some false boogeyman of 'illegal voters'. You are refusing to give us data which we need to do this, so instead, we'll keep ICE in your cities who have been shown to have no issues with escalating violence, until you do."
I struggle to believe you cannot connect those dots.
In addition, why would ICE enforcement in a city go away because voter rolls are turned over? Is illegal immigration in Minnesota a problem worthy of active enforcement or not?
In other words, oppression of citizenry to advance the efforts of a government to suppress voting that it dislikes.
Is this about requiring ID to vote? Like in literally every country. In a country where reliance on cars is like 99.9%?
You can't be serious.
By FireBeyond 2026-03-021:17 The current administration's "we need your voter rolls" has fuck-all to do with "requiring ID to vote".
> Like in literally every country
As a citizen of Great Britain, Australia and now the US, I'm well aware of this.
And it doesn't change the "you can vote without ID in blue states!" from being the absolute bullshit that it is, and again, has nothing to do with why DHS is demanding voter rolls from blue states.
By LadyCailin 2026-03-0112:20 Ask any minority. Lest you think it will be limited to minorities though, ask Alex Pretti, or even ask the NRA what they think about Trump saying that if he didn’t want to get shot, he shouldn’t have been carrying a gun.
By bogdan 2026-03-0110:12 Look around
By TulliusCicero 2026-02-2823:451 reply 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.
By thomassmith65 2026-03-010:00 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.
By thomassmith65 2026-02-2823:411 reply 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.
By jasomill 2026-03-013:28 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.
By ETH_start 2026-03-0112:49 [flagged]
By TulliusCicero 2026-02-2823:472 reply Yes, and if he actually becomes a dictator, I'd shed no tears for him being removed by force.
By bakies 2026-03-0114:34 Doesn't have to go that far he can be removed by force now for all the illegal shit he's done
"if" he actually becomes a dictator?
When is that? When he declares himself the supreme dictator of the US? Or when he nukes another nation because of his racism?
Look around and compare with the Nazis. There is already the demonization and dehumanization of a large demographic group. There are concentration camps and extralegal police forces around already. Just like in Nazi extermination camps, the people who disappear into these ICE facilities are near impossible to trace again. There are already fatalities in there from inhumane living conditions, very bad food, lack of medical care and occasional premeditated murders. Even among the civilians, they see differently abled people as a burden, just as the Nazis did. Just as in Nazi Germany, there is an expansion of military power at the expense of the civilians and flouting of international laws. And just as in Nazi Germany, smart people who can see the writing on the wall are already on a mass exodus.
If you still believe that you're in a democracy, you forgot what happened on Jan 6, 2021. Their ego is too fragile to accept anything except their victory. There is zero chance that the despots will risk getting impeached, trialed and punished by the Congress and face the severe consequences of absolutely horrendous stuff they've committed so far. Even if the public opinion is overwhelmingly hostile towards them, they'll just claim election fraud. They have started efforts for that on multiple fronts with truly bizzare incidents being reported.
And let's talk about the BIG massive elephant in the oval office (besides the obvious one). Trump is NOT the main character, even though I'm sure that he doesn't know that. Look at what their mouthpieces are saying, their dubious billionaire friends are doing and their unelected psycho-minions are pulling off. This isn't just a dictatorship. This is a multi-generational authoritarian regime with clear succession plans. You're all distracted by just the beginning of a long chain of misery. And the beginning isn't even the worst. This is one thing where this regime is unlike the Nazis or the Fascists. Those regimes were controlled by the figure head who formed it - making them vulnerable to decapitation. This one is acting more like a secret society that puts someone in the front to act as their symbolic figure head. Removing the figure head isn't going to end the regime.
You're waiting for an imaginary signal when every alarm around you is screaming at you. The time for 'if' is long gone. That ship sailed a while ago.
By TulliusCicero 2026-03-0119:541 reply When he stays in power after losing an election or similar.
He did sorta try to do this...but didn't go all the way through.
By goku12 2026-03-043:30 That's too low a bar. It hasn't happened yet, but he has already done enormous damage on multiple fronts, some irreversible like the disruption of global economy, trauma of ICE terror victims and the enormous loss of human lives everywhere. You're saying that all those aren't serious enough for you. But for the rest of the world including the entire Americas (NA and SA besides the US), the Caribbean, the middle east, Africa and even the EU, consider the US as a serious threat now.
By ignoramous 2026-02-2823:061 reply You did the "our blessed homeland" meme: https://xcancel.com/tomgauld/status/571994690289061888 / https://archive.vn/gAkNA
By TulliusCicero 2026-02-2823:43 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.
By underlipton 2026-03-013:492 reply 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.
By throwaway2037 2026-03-0112:172 reply
I'm not here to defend GW Bush. He did many stupid things. But I don't recall a lot of criticism around his "pre-9/11 mismanagement". Can you offer some specifics? The hunt for Osama Bin Laden started (at least) with Clinton and continued with GW Bush. Unfortunately, neither was able to stop him before the 9/11 attacks.> because of his pre-9/11 mismanagementBy underlipton 2026-03-0417:20 It's well-known that the FBI and CIA had information that, if they'd been more amenable to collaboration, probably would have led them to the conclusion that an attack was imminent. The entire reason why the DHS was created was because the jealous compartmentalization of each agency's intelligence is why we didn't catch it.
Some quick temperature-check reading from around the time of the 9/11 Commission: https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/weekinreview/the-world-an...
By twoodfin 2026-03-0117:50 There was a cottage industry in elaborating the theory that Bush and his administration were unnecessarily caught flat-footed or even knew the attacks were imminent.
Richard Clarke is a good place to start:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke
He seemed more interested in publicity and exaggerating his own bureaucratic importance than being objective—tendencies the political opposition and media were in no mood to criticize.
But YMMV.
By underlipton 2026-03-0119:52 Everything that has and will happen due to poor working conditions after he broke the rail strike in 2022. The cause celebre was the East Palestine derailment, but conditions are still unconscionable, and it's hard to conceive of a situation where rail laborers are overworked and under-supported doesn't result in more, and worse, incidents like that one. And then, of course, there are the knock-on environmental and economic effects.
It's not the only objectionable thing Biden's administration is solely responsible for, just the one that came to mind.
By throwawayheui57 2026-02-2823:051 reply 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.
By joshstrange 2026-03-0112:461 reply It’s sad that I can’t be sure which government you are talking about right now, Iran or the USA.
I’m aware the scale of “murdered people on the street” is stark and so you are almost certainly talking about Iran but what ICE is doing (and the clear extrapolation) fits your comment IMHO.
By sieabahlpark 2026-03-0120:51 [dead]
By bambax 2026-02-2822:52 Not just Americans.
By swiftcoder 2026-03-0111:33 You do know muslims arrived in Spain when they occupied it in the 8th century, right? It's not like they just arrived here recently. Most people in Spain today have muslim ancestry.
By mda 2026-03-0111:22 Overrun by muslims? Complete BS. I checked what he said, I don't see anything absurd, what are you talking about?
By pferde 2026-03-0111:25 Wow, this comment is so bigoted and xenophobic, I don't even know where to begin. First of all, we're far from being "overrun by muslims".
And equating following Islamic faith with being supportive of Khomenei's regime is like saying all Christians support Trump's dictatorship.
Be better than this.
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 are. There are also a lot who are celebrating in iran. In the us people who voted against trump accept he won and still believe his term will end as scheduled.
By sieabahlpark 2026-03-0120:52 [dead]
By anon291 2026-03-0121:34 Most Americans would. No fan of Trump but he is the duly elected president of the United States and has not done anything particularly egregious.
By worldsavior 2026-02-2822:533 reply [flagged]
By thisislife2 2026-02-2822:502 reply 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).
By khazhoux 2026-02-2823:05 This planet uses international law. [Accept all international laws] [Accept only necessary international laws] [Customize settings]By throwaway2037 2026-03-0112:24 Honestly, I am disappointed that your comment was downvoted. You raise a good, if uncomfortable, point. I too tire of the well-worn phrase: "XYZ is illegal under international law". To me, interntional law is only useful for medium-sized (population-wise) states and smaller. Once you are a nation with a large population, then you can afford a large military and do whatever you want. Sure, people won't always like what you do, but there is very little they can do to stop it. Look at all the crazy shit that US, China, and Russia has been up to in the last 10 years -- plenty of violations, but few teeth to stop it. Even Israel, which is a very small state, but backed by a global superpower, has done many terrible things in Gaza.
By flyinglizard 2026-02-2822:543 reply 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.
By jasomill 2026-03-013:44 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.
By flyinglizard 2026-02-2823:03 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.
Ok, call it a "special military operation" if you want. A war by any other name would smell just as bad.
And what is Congress - or any other part of the US government - going to do about the pedophile not following rules? Stop him? How? Every potential check and balance has either been defanged or is controlled by his supporters.
By wqaatwt 2026-03-0114:12 Probably nothing. Also it’s not like the Democrats have much moral high ground to stand on here either (considering that Obama did more or less the same thing several times).
But congress can of course stop Trump from doing this and a whole bunch of other stuff. The problem is that it just chose not to and to give up much of its powers to the executive over the years (in practice if not legally) due to partisan reasons..
Why can't you be at war without officially declaring it? We have had lots of wars not declared by congress. Korean War, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq. This seems like a weird way to think.
Explicit authorization is still required even if there there is no explicit declaration of war.
The caveat being that the president only needs to get the approval of congress after 60 days.
And of course Obama established a precedent with his intervention in Libya which weakened this even more…
By koolala 2026-03-0119:14 Being required legally doesn't change the actual fact of war. Sure it is breaking the law. I don't see how Libya is the one in the long list to set this precedent of illegally non-declared war.
By anon291 2026-03-0121:35 International law == who has biggest guns
People celebrating inside Iran too https://x.com/visegrad24/status/2027840034150178952
By thomassmith65 2026-02-2823:481 reply 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.
By ignoramous 2026-03-0110:592 reply > want so badly for this to pan out for Iranians
Badly? You seem a little obsessed. The few anti-regime Iranians (who live in Iran) I know do not want to get bombed into freedom & democracy. The Western hubris despite Iraq and Afghanistan is back in full force, I see.
By thomassmith65 2026-03-0115:181 reply I appreciate the time you took to reply to my comment, but life is too short to engage in this style of argument.
By ignoramous 2026-03-0210:29 If you personally know Iranians (Persian, Azeri, Armenian, Kurds, Assyrian, Arab, Baloch, Tajik, Afghan etc) living in Iran or if you have connection with the land, that's fine. Otherwise, I find this kind of "obsession" a bit disturbing to the point of justifying actions of unhinged leaders in a very avoidable, unpopular, & potentially devastating war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_savior
> life is too short
Imagine surviving in war zones.
By ignoramous 2026-03-0113:331 reply Hell of a way to wish them well by jeopardising their financial, political, social, and religious well-being.
Neither of us were cheerleading the bombing. Just saying we hope things work out.
By ignoramous 2026-03-0211:41 tim333, I do believe you when you say you weren't. May be I am projecting and was out of sorts. Apologies.
By sph 2026-03-0114:32 All I see is cameras panning around buildings, no humans in sight, and audio of cheering people. Not saying it's fake, but in the age of AI faking such a video is child's play.
Too low signal-to-noise ratio for me to acknowledge any of this. We'll see how it will pan out for the Iranian people in due time.
By acjohnson55 2026-02-2823:07 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.
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.
By alephnerd 2026-02-2823:27 > 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.
By DANmode 2026-03-014:50 Three very different operations.
Murdering heads of state and their families is cool as Judge, Jury, and Executioner if no soldiers are hurt in the process, is that where we are now?
By avazhi 2026-03-0216:30 That’s the privilege you get when you’re the hyperpower. And I say that as somebody who neither lives in the US nor voted for Trump.
By alephnerd 2026-02-2823:20 [flagged]
The dispora means little though, the people in the country count as they live 365 days there without the convenient ability to comment from a distance and they are ones who would have to die for a turnover.
By y-curious 2026-03-0112:40 You mean the ones who cannot comment because their authoritarian theocratic regime blocked protest and the internet? I hope that changes for them
By kjfarm 2026-03-0112:44 I think this is a good point, there is evidence (even with strict censorship controls in place) that people inside the country are celebrating https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/28/world/middleeast/iran-kha...
By lucasRW 2026-03-0112:54 There are similar scenes in all Iranian cities. Literally the first morning video we could see Saturday morning before the internet shutdown, were ladies on their balcony jumping of joy that they had struck Khamenei's neighbourhood.
By penguin_booze 2026-03-0111:226 reply Do enjoy the moment while it lasts. Because the next ruler will be an American stooge. This isn't going anywhere, like the other "revolutions" in the middle east.
By TacticalCoder 2026-03-0112:482 reply > Because the next ruler will be an American stooge.
And if that's the case, do you think that American stooge shall do worse than Khamenei who ordered his islamist guards to slaughter 30 000+ unarmed iranian protesters in a matter of days?
What can be worse than religious extremist sending their fanatics into hospitals to finish the wounded?
I'm in the EU and I see cars with iranian flags honking. Someone posted a video or iranians celebrating: not bearded men and veiled women (which is a sign of religious extremism: there are many muslims that do not have the islamist beard and many muslim women who aren't veiled) but regular people, celebrating.
I don't doubt that many bearded men and veiled women are very sad today.
But I side with the free iranians in exile who are celebrating what may be the end of four decades of sharia law ruling their country.
By throw0101c 2026-03-0112:541 reply > And if that's the case, do you think that American stooge shall do worse than Khamenei who ordered his islamist guards to slaughter 30 000+ unarmed iranian protesters in a matter of days?
American seemed to have been fine with 30k people disappearing in Argentina:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War
While a smaller number, US seemed to have been fine with their then-friend Saddam Hussein gassing a whole bunch of Kurds:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_massacre
The US stooges and friends have done all sorts of bad (maybe even worse) things in the past.
> The US stooges and friends have done all sorts of bad (maybe even worse) things in the past.
What kind of all sorts of bad did they do in the past while they ruled a country? Have they ever usurped throne for 36 years?
By throw0101c 2026-03-0114:47 > What kind of all sorts of bad did they do in the past while they ruled a country? Have they ever usurped throne for 36 years?
To take the second quest first, and focus on Iran since it's the topic du jour: you mean like how the shah usurped power from the legislature with US/UK help and ruled for 38 years?
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi
And circling back to the first:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Imperial_S...
Why do you think the 1979 Revolution happened in the first place? The people were tired of being repressed by an imperialist puppet:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution
(Hello irony.)
By nerdyadventurer 2026-03-0114:21 What about close to one million deaths in Iraq not to mention other countries?
By wiseowise 2026-03-0113:26 > Henry Kissinger is looking up and smiling.
He's dea... oooh.
By jojobas 2026-03-0114:02 So what, you'd take living under an American stooge's rule over a religious fanatic's any day.
By lucasRW 2026-03-0112:55 This has nothing comparable with "other revolutions" in the middle east, it's quite the opposite in fact: a non-islamist population held under the tyranny of islamist leaders.
What's wrong about it? This is the goal - like in Syria: neuter the country by bringing in a pro-American government that will ensure country will stay weak and irrelevant, in exchange for letting it terrorise locals as they please.
By ajsnigrutin 2026-03-0112:23 Syria was an interesting one for me... Not in the typical american modus-operandi of destroying countries that are not american banana republics, but in actually supporting Al-Qaeda there...
US is full of people who've lost family members, friends, their own limbs, have PTSD and worse from when they fought Al-Qaeda... and now their own politicians are shaking hands and taking photos with them.
Then another shooting spree will happen and the media will be asking "what radicalized him?"..
By baxtr 2026-02-2822:39 Not only outside the country, but also inside the country! Many many videos on social media showing how they celebrate.
By throwawayheui57 2026-02-2823:01 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.
The son of a Shah that was deposed by mass protests by well-educated students and intellectuals during the Islamic Revolution, who are now in their 60s.
Time is a circle.
sometimes you just have to try Islamism before you decide you don't like it
By thomassmith65 2026-03-0115:23 It's moot anyways since the fundamentalist side of the coalition purged the leftwing intellectuals shortly after the latter had served the purpose of toppling the Shah.
I can hear them from my window. They're really happy. Lots of honking, revving engines and shouting near Zoo.
By Rapzid 2026-02-2823:52 Hopefully from this the conditions will materialize where they could, if so inclined, help build Iran up in the future..
By aucisson_masque 2026-02-2823:121 reply 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.
By _3u10 2026-03-0113:04 Not really, expats help shape the narrative and bring external help to make their views the reality.
What moment would that be? Begging for the Americans to bomb their former country?
By thomassmith65 2026-02-2822:362 reply 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.
By gizajob 2026-03-019:35 It’s great, they can go back home now and get on with building a new state.
By breakyerself 2026-02-2822:472 reply 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.
By pinkmuffinere 2026-02-2822:501 reply 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.
By Thlom 2026-02-2822:56 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.
By amarcheschi 2026-03-0110:091 reply US supported Pinochet or the US supported military dictatorship in brasil would like to disagree
By throwaway2037 2026-03-0112:281 reply Agree. See also military dictatorships in South Korea and Taiwan. Many terrible years and brutal killings by the gov't. Both gov'ts were strongly supported by the US.
Two great examples of countries where US pressure had effectively transformed from dictatorships to democracies
By throwaway2037 2026-03-0113:511 reply Wow, I did not expect this type of reply. I reject it. In South Korea, there was incredible civil violence between protesters and police. I'm talking about stolen automatic weapons by protesters, then used against the police after decades of unchecked violence by the police against protesters. In hindsight, it looks like a low grade civil war. It was brutally hard and violent for South Korean to gain their democracy. (When you listen to South Korean boomers talk about how much their treasure and defend their new-found democracy, it will bring tears to your eyes. They really lived the violence and found democracy.) Taiwan needed the last dictator to die. Once his son took over, he quickly devised a plan to transition to an authentic democracy. (They had rigged election for years.) Still, they had 40 years of the "White Terror" where secret police kidnapped and murdered thousands of protesters.
Related: Indonesia also had a very violent transition into democracy, but the old dictators didn't kill as many innocent people as Taiwan or South Korea.
As I understand, the US had very little influence during the democracy transition of these three nations. Regarding Taiwan, the US provided security gurantees against mainland China, but did not interfere with the gov't. South Korea, similar security guarantee against the "Kimdom". Again, did not interfere with the gov't. Indonesia: Provided no security guarantee and did not interfere with the gov't.
By breppp 2026-03-0115:07 I can only see the US insistence on many bad foreign decisions in the name of democracy done in the Middle East by multiple administrations, that without much knowledge of the situation in East Asia, I venture to guess it is not a coincidence that US allies turned into democracies
I also am not sure about Indonesia as an example of a US ally, I don't think it is similar to the other two
Effectively both SK and Taiwan were completely dependent on US for defense, I doubt this had no bearing
By Almondsetat 2026-02-2822:357 reply 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?
This was never about Iranian people. This is all about war mongers, puppets and idiots who believe them.
By anonymous908213 2026-02-2822:461 reply Venezuela.
By JimmyBiscuit 2026-03-019:48 Hmm I wonder what superpower got most of the oil from venezuela and iran. I think it starts with a C
By throwaway2037 2026-03-0112:29 Wild, right? He said it out loud. It reminds me of Chappelle's Show - Black Bush.
By smt88 2026-02-2822:42 Those may be the motivations, but the outcome (so far) is still something Iranians are optimistic about
By 982307932084 2026-02-2822:47 [flagged]
By reliabilityguy 2026-02-2823:161 reply 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.
By someotherperson 2026-03-010:011 reply 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
By reliabilityguy 2026-03-010:49 > 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.
By Almondsetat 2026-02-2823:051 reply Is this a way to avoid thinking about the conundrum?
By 4ndrewl 2026-02-2823:18 "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"
By bambax 2026-02-2823:03 Short term pain for long term more pain.
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.
By calf 2026-03-0118:31 People don't agree on what a dictator looks like.
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
By mikkupikku 2026-03-0111:02 The absolute state of American public education...
No, Iran is not an Arab country! Arabic is a minority language in Iran, and Arabs are an ethnic minority there. Linguistically, culturally and even genetically, they aren't Arabs! Would you call Quebec an Anglo province?
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.
By oytis 2026-02-2823:04 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.
By reliabilityguy 2026-02-2823:211 reply What Arab countries?
How can you compare Arab countries to Iran?
By vasco 2026-03-017:17 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.
By breakyerself 2026-02-2822:49 Trump isn't there to help. He wants the oil and he wants a puppet dictator. He doesn't care about the people.
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.
By Jensson 2026-03-012:51 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.
By AlexeyBelov 2026-03-019:281 reply How do you know how many friends they have, to confidently state you have 10x?
By bjourne 2026-03-0114:41 I'm satirizing the dumb "all my friends think X"-argument. Honest intellectual debate requires that your claims are verifiable.
By Almondsetat 2026-03-010:201 reply 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.
By Almondsetat 2026-03-018:581 reply That is not the implication. Learn some english and good manners
By bjourne 2026-03-0114:39 Well then, explain yourself. Who the fuck are the ones making the decision to get their home country bombed?
By eclipseo76 2026-02-2822:41 Really... In a thread about Iran... This is not comparable at all and so insulting for what they have endured since 1979.
By quitspamming 2026-02-2822:441 reply Except midterm elections are literally this year. But other than that small detail, sure.
The ones where they’re going to send brownshirts to intimidate voters in blue states? The ones they’re going to try to disrupt like Dallas County last night? The ones they’ve trying desperately to Gerrymander to lock down their dictatorial power? Those elections?
It really feels like they’re trying hard to change the rules so that they’re the only ones who can win, to be just like their idol/puppeteer in Russia.
And it feels like an external intervention is one of the only things that may help.
By jachee 2026-03-057:39 Oh, and I forgot to mention the ironically-named (so much of their stuff is ironically-named…) “SAVE” Act, that’s set to disrupt the process even further by having “AI” purge voter registration rolls.
By quitspamming 2026-03-0918:53 > The ones where they’re going to send brownshirts to intimidate voters in blue states?
Any actual evidence this is happening or is going to happen? I've seen some ACLU talking points, always conveniently placed above a donate button, but not any facts.
> The ones they’re going to try to disrupt like Dallas County last night?
Not from Dallas but looking at the news it looks like a state issue involving the Texas Supreme Court? No mention of Trump, GOP, ICE, or brownshirts.
> The ones they’ve trying desperately to Gerrymander to lock down their dictatorial power? Those elections?
Gerrymandering just started under Trump?
I know there is no way to verify this, but I am not a Trump supporter or Republican. I am just someone who thinks the rhetoric is completely overblown, not supported by reality, and especially comparing it to Iran they're not even in the same phylum let alone class.
By paxys 2026-02-2822:58 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.
By wiseowise 2026-03-019:57 They're all paid actors! CIA agents! Orange revolution!
By consumer451 2026-03-011:101 reply Also please see: https://old.reddit.com/r/newiran
Remember Kian.
By thomassmith65 2026-02-2822:381 reply 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.
By throwawayheui57 2026-02-2823:07 They have already, were you asleep?
By pinkmuffinere 2026-02-2822:531 reply 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.
By heavyset_go 2026-02-2823:042 reply 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.
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.
By heavyset_go 2026-02-2823:501 reply 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"
By pinkmuffinere 2026-02-2823:571 reply 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?
By elihu 2026-03-0112:20 Whether or not one would accept deaths of civilians to get rid of Khamenei, I don't think anyone should accept a school full of children being blown up for no obvious reason. If there was somehow a reason why Khameni could not have killed without attacking that school, then those reasons should be plainly spelled out and evidence presented. As things stand with the limited information we have now, it just looks like a war crime with no strategic upside.
By throwaway3060 2026-02-2823:231 reply 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.
By heavyset_go 2026-02-2823:482 reply How does blowing up schools offer hope for the future?
By lelanthran 2026-03-019:522 reply 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.
By lelanthran 2026-03-0111:141 reply Of course it does.
If you try to shield your armed forces using children, and then accidentally kill them because you used them as a shield, you can't blame someone else.
... I'm just going of Wikipedia here but it seems to have been a standard small city [0]. Attempting to educate Iranians in Iranian cities isn't really trying to shield armed forces. Is the expectation here that Iran should send their students out into the wilderness to make it more politically convenient for US/Israeli to launch unannounced strikes on them?
Apart from the fact that Iran is a bad place to be right now it actually looks like a pleasant city to visit. Sounds like they have lots of fruit, warm weather and have some interesting history vis a vis the Mongols. Very middle eastern.
By lelanthran 2026-03-0111:58 Instead of looking at the entire city, just look at the google maps data for proximity of their armed forces to their school.
Look, maybe it was a school specifically for the children of army personnel, but that's a long shot. From the geolocation data, the school was right at their missile launch site.
They had choices.
Locate the school or the launch site elsewhere, for one.
Evacuate the school before they tried to launch munitions, for another.
This is on them.
By __m 2026-03-0113:34 Why does that seem unlikely? It makes people argue that the price is not worth it. After killing thousands of protesters you think they would shy away from killing some dozens of kids?
By heavyset_go 2026-03-0114:511 reply Weird that you're so delighted to shift the blame for the tragedy of children being blown up in school, even more so that you're relying on unsubstantiated claims to do it.
Since you know more than the rest of the world about this, please update Wikipedia with a reliable source for your claim as has already been requested by admins here[1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2026_Minab_school_airstri...
By lelanthran 2026-03-0115:591 reply > Weird that you're so delighted to shift the blame for the tragedy of children being blown up in school, even more so that you're relying on unsubstantiated claims to do it.
Where in my message does it seem that I am delighted?
No doubt the truth will eventually come out, what I have seen is that the school was sited unusually close to an Iran launch site.
You can judge me all you want for "being delighted", whatever the hell that means, but I'm not advocating that schools be used as shields for rocket launchers, am I?
I'm advocating the exact opposite.
By heavyset_go 2026-03-0116:061 reply Damn you really got up on your high horse because you read some spicy tweets lol
By lelanthran 2026-03-0117:53 You said
> you're so delighted
Then you said
> lol
Okay, I get it - for you this is a laughing matter; your goal is something other than discussion.
But I gotta know - you are talking about a regime that had no problem gunning down thousands of innocent citizens in the streets just a month ago, why are you so sure that they won't use other innocents as shields for their soldiers?
Where is this confidence coming from?
By throwaway3060 2026-03-010:19 I've been hearing the school strike was an Iranian misfire, actually.
By idiotsecant 2026-02-2822:42 [flagged]
By snthpy 2026-03-029:58 In March 2020 l was glad about the oil price dropping to below $20, but very concerned about the state of the world.
By somenameforme 2026-03-025:33 I'm not sure that Iranians in Berlin holding signs written in English are necessarily widely representative, nor entirely organic. Here's a comparable scene of what's going on in Iran for mourners of Ali Khamenei: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/QQMGijEMJfc
I'm not saying this to be argumentative. I do not know what the "real" internal state of is in Iran in terms of support/opposition for their leadership, and I don't think there is anyway to find out this information. Our media will lie, and so will theirs. And people themselves will also lie, and not even necessarily intentionally. Imagine polling Americans (let alone expats long since removed from America) on what percent of Americans they think support Trump without knowledge of polls/votes to inform them.
As a result I think most of all media along these lines is much more likely to mislead rather than inform.
By slim 2026-03-0117:05 berlin is spooktown. everything you see is staged
People should never treat the diaspora as representative of any population other than the diaspora.
This issue comes up with Cuba a lot. A lot of Cuban-Americans hate Castro. Why? Because they were the upper-middle class to wealthy under Batista.
This history becomes almost comically distorted. Senator Ted Cruz said that he hates communists because his father was tortured by... Batista [1].
So let me give you an example of the Iranian/Persian diaspora. In 2024 in particular we had a lot of protests against Israel's genocide in Gaza and American support for it. Many were on college campuses. One was on UCLA.
In April 2024, masked counterprotesters attacked the protesters and the police stood idly by and let it happen. The police later then used this violence as a reason to crack down on the protesters. So who were these counter-protesters? Persian diaspora [2].
Anyone celebrating this knows nothing about history and honestly nothing about Iran.
First, Khamenei isn't a singular autocrat like Basheer al-Asaad or Saddam Hussein. No decapitation strike is going to result in regime change. Did you notice the Iranian response change after Khamenei's death? No. Because there isn't one. The religious governmental institutions still exist. A temporary successor was appointed. The IRGC continues as is. Iran is a functioning state that will continue without its Supreme Leader.
Second, let's just say that the Iranian government does fall apart. That's going to be incredibly bad for Iranians as you'll either get a fail-state like Libya, Syria or Somalia (which is what Israel wants) or you'll simply get an American puppet.
Do you know who the American puppet in Syria is? Ahmed al-Sharaa, formerly an al-Qaeda leader. Do you think that's going to end well? Saddam Hussein was an American puppet. Until he wasn't. The former Shah. Augusto Pinochet. That's who you get when the US installs a puppet regime.
Maybe you think Iran will get a functioning democracy. They had one until the US overthrew it in 1953.
Do you really think the US cares about Iranians? Like at all? What exactly is being celebrated here?
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/I2AdbLDVb0Q
[2]: https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/16/us/ucla-student-protests-coun...
"That's going to be incredibly bad for Iranians as you'll either get a fail-state like Libya, Syria or Somalia (which is what Israel wants) or you'll simply get an American puppet."
Iran is one of the oldest continuing political units in the world, clocking over 2500 years as an organized state.
I think you seriously underestimate the capabilities and know-how of the Iranians by expecting them to behave the same way as pre-state tribal polities like Somalia.
Did you miss the part where I said that Iran is not going to fall apart like some seem to think?
Why do you make comparisons to Libya or Somalia then, if you don't believe that this is going to happen. The defining characteristic of failed states is that central control crumbles and various local warlords step into the void.
By calf 2026-03-0118:37 Actually I do this a lot, I cite specific examples a, b to indicate a much more general category C that I have in mind. It's the 21st century and plausible that new types of failure-states unlike those seen historically will happen. So it's not necessarily a contradiction the other commenter had.
By mibibyesthedust 2026-02-2822:54 [dead]
By xannabxlle 2026-02-2822:422 reply [flagged]
By flir 2026-02-2823:02 Would create a market for aged accounts (or give a shot in the arm to the existing market). I think the problem is reach - if a site has reach, it's going to attract gamification. The more trustworthy the site is considered (for example, by having a many-hoops sign-up process), the bigger a target for gamification it will be.
(And this is why we can't have nice thighs.)
Agreed, it's a propaganda bot. But with Khamenei dead and Iran terrorist gov down we might have less of those paid actors here and everywhere on internet because their source of income will be gone
By xannabxlle 2026-02-2823:31 "Iran terrorist gov" so unserious. Yesterday's terrorist is today's US appointed leader. See: Syria. From US bounty to US approved. You can just as easily see Israel as the terrorist government attacking Iran unprovoked. They have been claiming Iran has been 2 weeks away from a nuke for decades.
By Bender 2026-02-2823:35 I'm not picking a side, just saying people often create throw-away accounts for political discussions. But yeah an account can be anything. One never knows the underlying agenda people truly have.
My evil agenda is to encourage people to watch every season of Futurama.
By xannabxlle 2026-02-2823:28 [flagged]
By thomassmith65 2026-03-012:08 You're welcome. I found the link on Youtube. It looked legitimate to me.
Wikipedia:
No, I'm not a part of 'Unit 8200', though I'm flattered to be mistaken for one."Unit 8200 is probably the foremost technical intelligence agency in the world and stands on a par with the NSA in everything except scale."
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.
By AlecSchueler 2026-03-018:481 reply 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.
I got the point.
I’m challenging the causal chain. I don’t think anyone would agree that the crusades in the Middle Ages caused the current state of the Middle East.
There is no way you can prove one or the other side. We can’t do controlled experiments with other worlds.
So it’s all guesswork. That’s why I’m challenging. I think that things are much less causally connected as people want to believe.
By bonsai_spool 2026-03-0113:071 reply > I don’t think anyone would agree that the crusades in the Middle Ages caused the current state of the Middle East.
I think the Crusades have not yet ended…
And it is not clear that fewer people died following the US interventions than would have had Iraq been left to its own.
By padjo 2026-03-0116:31 Hegseth certainly doesn't given his book title
Why go back 100s of years for explanations when 2003 is just over 20 years ago?
By baxtr 2026-03-0117:35 You see that’s exactly my point.
If you can go back 20 years, you can do that 5 times and end up at 100.
Iraqi path to democracy isn't really that different from everyone else's.
People tend to forget that various extant democracies, including European ones, mostly didn't precipitate out of thin air by everyone deciding to just be nice to one another. Many now-democratic countries had to fight a war of independence or a civil war, often with involvement of third parties, to get there.
France took about 80 years of violent upheavals from 1789 to 1871 to actually become a democratic republic for good. Germany was even worse. Unification of Italy was a long bloody mess. Poland barely survived the 20th century. Even Swiss direct democracy is an aftermath of a civil war, though in their case, it was a small one.
Democracy isn't an application that people just install and it starts working. It usually takes decades for it to take roots, as people have to slowly abandon the idea that it is just easier to massacre their opponents.
Even the US came to be after a war of independence with a major external factor on their side (the French) and only ended slavery through a nasty civil war.
Iraq isn't really an outlier in that context and Iran wouldn't probably be either.
By baxtr 2026-03-0114:41 Exactly this.
But then people look at it after 5 years and say: but it didn’t work!!!
Not acknowledging that all things ever achieved in life by humans were achieved over time by constant trial and error and not giving up.
By regularization 2026-03-0117:43 > a tyrant who killed his own kind in masses with gas and started wars with neighbors
The US sent Saddam the Bell helicopters to gas the Kurds. US military aid increased after that happened.
The war with a neighbor was with Iran - the country the US just attacked, and which the US encouraged Iraq to fight. That's why Rumsfwld was over there shaking Saddam's hand.
So what about libya, syria, yemen, afghanistan, even venezuela
plus you can't know how Iraq would be today without the invasions
By tylerflick 2026-03-0116:091 reply Iraq was ruled by a sociopath that used chemical weapons against his own citizens. I didn’t agree with the invasion, but there is no doubt Iraq is better off today than it would have been without U.S. involvement.
By padjo 2026-03-0116:34 That's an absurd statement. No doubt? Saddam would be pushing 90 now, odds are he would be dead anyway and who knows how that chain of events would have gone.
And you frequently fly over to Iraq and explain that to the people there right? They nod in agreement with you. “We had to bomb and occupy your country and kill your citizens just like Saddam did remember? Now you’re better off after our failed occupation left your country. We’ll bomb you anytime; sure it costs us money is and the reason neither of our countries have healthcare but who needs healthcare when you have bombs and propaganda. You’re welcome.”
I went there and asked people about it. It was pretty clear they felt theyd gone through hell.
They were also complaining bitterly about things that got worse thanks to there being a war like corruption and a lack of jobs.
I have no idea who OP talked to nor why they thought the war was so great but it matched nothing of what I saw.
Isn’t it a bit wild you had to confirm with Iraqis that war was bad for their country?
By pydry 2026-03-0222:15 shrug i developed a hobby of visiting countries that are in the news a lot and meeting the locals and talking about their day to day lives. Iraq, Israel/Palestine, North Korea, Venezuela, Saudi, Russia, etc.
I didnt exactly ask Iraqis that question directly and war certainly wasnt the only bad thing in their lives. e.g. a lot of guys would moan that they want to get married but "cant afford it".
but anyways OP's comment set my bullshit-o-meter spinning so fast i got vertigo.
By FeloniousHam 2026-03-0215:57 I agree. The military component was a resounding success. The "de-Baathification" was a disaster and gets lumped into the decapitation of Sadaam's regime.
We'll never know the counterfactual, but it seems likely that the banning from public life everyone with ties to the current government was a large contributor to the collapse of the country and rise of the terrorist groups.
By righthand 2026-03-0113:24 Always convenient to drop bombs and say “it would have been worse”. With absolutely no proof of that. It’s the stupidest American talking point and I despise other Americans who use that propaganda.
By golden-face 2026-03-0115:19 It's not guaranteed to be the same outcome in Iran, we're just rolling the dice again and hoping it is.
Iraq is a fantastic lesson to heed today.
In the first gulf war, Bush Sr. refused to occupy the country. He viewed it as too difficult and too expensive. In the second gulf war, Bush Jr. declared victory from the deck of an aircraft carrier, occupied the country, hunted and executed its leader, and then opened the U.S. treasury to deal with the aftermath. Thousands of Americans died. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's died. The occupation was long and difficult, but its end was still premature and left a power vacuum that ISIS raged into, causing even more destruction. Perhaps Iraqi's can say they're better off today than under Hussein, but a terrible cost was paid. Most of the blood was Iraqi, but most of the treasure was American.
The financial drain on the U.S. was extreme enough to expose the world's preeminent superpower as being unable to bring the occupation of a somewhat backwards and minor dictatorship to a successful conclusion. Iraq is not a big country, in either population or area, but it was still too much for the U.S. to control, even with willing allies. This failure made the world realize there were severe limits to what the U.S. can do. Sure, it might defeat the military of a middle or even major power, but occupy and control it? Fat chance!
In the days ahead, the U.S. military is going to bomb anything that moves and looks like it might shoot back, as well as a lot of infrastructure and probably a decent number of civilian targets by mistake (or design). Trump has framed this invasion as being directed towards eliminating Iran's nuclear program, so expect a lot of facilities in close proximity to civilians (and many of those civilians) to be vaporized.
If Trump is listening to his generals even slightly, he will not try to occupy the country. He'll declare victory and move on to whatever outrage is next to maintain his "Flood the zone" strategy and keep the Epstein heat from finally catching up with him. If that's all he does, this will be another war like Bush Sr.'s. Expensive, but not ruinously so. U.S. deaths will be in the hundreds and not the thousands. Iran will most likely fall into the hands of another mullah or descend into chaos, becoming a long-term security quagmire that will probably continue to bleed the U.S. for decades to come. Even if democracy does take root in Iran, it likely won't be a democracy that's friendly to the U.S..
If Trump isn't listening to his generals (who reportedly advised against the invasion to begin with), he might try to occupy Iran. Iran has double the population and four times the land area as Iraq. Unlike Bush Jr., Trump has not even tried to stitch together a coalition to share the costs. It's unlikely that many countries would be dumb enough to sign on now. There's no NATO article 5 pretext to drag in other NATO countries. There isn't even a falsified pretext like WMD's to quiet the howling in the UN. Israel isn't the kind of help the U.S. needs because the U.S. pays most of Israel's military bills to begin with. In short, if Iraq strained the U.S.'s finances close to the breaking point, Iran will ruin them completely. There's absolutely no way the U.S. can afford to occupy Iran.
Even if Trump cuts and runs, this war will ensure American's can't afford socialized medicine for another generation.
By pydry 2026-03-0115:32 >There isn't even a falsified pretext like WMD's to quiet the howling in the UN.
30,000 dead protestors.
The source for both was "the state department bribed a guy in the Iraqi/Iranian government and you'll NEVER guess what he told us...."
By steve-atx-7600 2026-03-0122:15 W didn’t remember Vietnam because he didn’t go and probably never studied history
By bonsai_spool 2026-03-0113:102 reply > There isn't even a falsified pretext like WMD's
I don’t think anyone believes it, but I’ve heard media reports that ‘unnamed officials’ thought the regime was weeks away from a nuclear weapon.
I think an Article 5 invocation would be a cynical way to destroy NATO with some deniability
By nerdyadventurer 2026-03-0114:31 So only US selected few countries can have nukes, what about France, UK, India etc?
Not a long time ago, the previous time when USA had bombed Iran, Trump claimed to have destroyed completely anything that Iran could use to make nuclear weapons.
It would be weird (or not?) to contradict himself now by claiming that they were able to make nuclear weapons.
By bonsai_spool 2026-03-0118:57 I avoid listening to the current POTUS as it’s hard to make sense of his illogic, but his video said, “ they attempted to rebuild their nuclear program and to continue developing long-range missiles that can now threaten our very good friends and allies in Europe, our troops stationed overseas and could soon reach the American homeland.”
But this is supposedly false per reports.
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.
Iraq was a quagmire because the US attacked them for no reason at all other than to further Israel's interests. We have no business in the Middle East. Period.
By _DeadFred_ 2026-03-0120:391 reply We went into Iraq because we had to station troops in Saudi Arabia in order to defend them against Iraq, and having US troops in 'the holy land' led to Osama Bin Laden leading to 9-11. People say the two aren't connected but if you learn the context at the time they were, just not in the basic way people want to understand situations.
By sosomoxie 2026-03-0120:53 That would help make my argument that we don't belong in the Middle East. I think people should learn more about Paul Wolfowitz: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz
By tomjakubowski 2026-03-0120:25 A part, but not the only part. Factions like AQI and later ISIL/ISIS/IS were ideological enemies to both the US and Iran and its Shia militas. The invasion, regime change, and occupation in Iraq would have caused a mess even with a US-aligned regime in Iran.
Nah, if anything the Islamist groups are biding their time, waiting for the internationally-supported governments to lose the will to carry on before striking.
No, I mean that even the Saudi's & the UAE are funding secular groups that are fighting Islamist groups because Saudi & UAE both believe that Islamist groups are too dangerous: https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/the-growing-rift-betw...
By Paianni 2026-03-0118:39 The governments, yes, but not the general population necessarily. And the governments can't survive without oil revenue and/or external support, so they'll be losing in the long run.
By avaika 2026-02-2823:32 > 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.
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.
> Almost anything that China does is based on long-term consequences.
I'm not sure that's the case with Xi. Well, I wouldn't be surprised if he tries, but as far as I can tell from a distance, his value system produces unwise decisions long-term. 10+ years of Xi have slowed economic growth, produced antagonism diplomatically, I'm not sure that the Belt and Road is currently seen favorably. He hasn't figured out a way for local governments to be solvent without selling property, nor has he resolved the shadow debt. I think his policy of shutting down Shanghai and other zero-Covid polices destroyed the people's confidence in the CCP as steward of economic growth, as it became obvious that the government can just arbitrarily kill your business and imprison you in your own home or Covid center. I think that removing your top military leaders--who are the only ones with any actual combat experience--is helpful for a successful occupation of Taiwan. Certainly what Xi did with Hong Kong made peaceful re-unification with Taiwan very unlikely.
By deaux 2026-03-055:36 Since you quoted the long-term part:
The policies you're naming are still enacted for their expected long-term consequences. That doesn't mean all of them are successful in achieving their goals, sometimes their expectations turn out to be wrong. This can happen with any policy, regardless of whether the goal was short-term of long-term.
If you're talking about the power shift part: Many if not most (including me) believe that slowing of economic growth was inevitable, it simply wasn't a level that could be sustained in the long run. There are plenty of issues in China and plenty of policies that may turn out to have failed - much of it remains to be seen, as again, the goals are long term and we may consider them successful a decade or two from now. But the scientific gap with the rest of the world is widening every day, China is crushing it in that area and the fruits will be reaped. Robotics, every kind of energy, every kind of engineering.
> Certainly what Xi did with Hong Kong made peaceful re-unification with Taiwan very unlikely.
It didn't have an impact. By 2019 the chance was already zero barring black swan events. The chance is still zero barring black swan events.
By calf 2026-03-0118:46 One would think on HN there would be sophisticated grasp of complex systems than Reddit or what have you, so either there are just as many politically dogmatic/biased people in tech, or political threads are dominated by non-tech users, or what?
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?
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.
By wqaatwt 2026-03-018:33 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).
By greazy 2026-03-012:11 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.
By GeoAtreides 2026-03-011:071 reply 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?!!?!?!?!?!??!?!
By tdeck 2026-03-0111:45 Unfortunately the current Iraqi government has a record of torturing people too. You just don't hear about it ever because they're a US client state.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/10/iraq-people-h...
https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/08/19/iraq-chilling-accounts-t...
There was a This American Life story about it which unfortunately I can't find.
By aucisson_masque 2026-02-2823:151 reply 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?
By muzani 2026-03-010:16 It would be good to read the wiki and understand what ISIS really was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State
By aucisson_masque 2026-03-028:221 reply Everything is linked, Syrian civil War didn't happen out of nowhere.
There was an environment of instability in middle east, some is inherent to these countries, but a big part is because another cointry came in 2003 and decided to make of Irak a failed country by bombing all their infrastructures.
By csmpltn 2026-03-0211:04 Iraq is not the victim here, my friend. Iraq has willingly implicated itself in multiple wars. Unfortunately for Iraq, it was one war too many. Iraq didn't back down, despite having alternatives. Iraq could've negotiated its way out of a war throughout the entire time, but chose violence instead.
I'm tired of people dunking on the west.
Iraq today is likely a better place to live in than Iraq under Saddam. That's thanks to a painful and costly intervention. Muslims continue messing it up for everybody everywhere, the way they always did, regardless of geography or circumstances, under any pretence and excuse under the sun. West gets blamed for it no matter what. Rinse and repeat. It's getting old.
By UncleMeat 2026-03-010:20 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.
By impossiblefork 2026-03-0111:40 When Saddam Hussein was removed, the result was that basically all Iraqi Christians who hadn't fled were murdered. There are probably as many Iraqi Christians in the EU as there are in Iraq now.
By acjohnson55 2026-02-2823:25 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.
By jmyeet 2026-03-0113:16 We created Saddam Hussein. He was our foil against Iran. We propped up a war that killed over a million Iraqis and Iranians in the 1980s for no net strategic result.
And why did we want to punish Iran? Because the fundamentalist regime overthrew our puppet (the Shah).
And how did the Shah come to be a dictator, essentially? Because we overthrew the liberal democracy Iran had in 1953 at the behest of the british because Iran had wanted to control their own oil and BP wasn't happy.
Even the fundamentalist regime in Iran is kind of America's fault. Saddam Hussein expelled Khomenei from Iraq in 1978 (IIRC) because when it became clear that Iran was lost, we wanted the fundamentalists to take over instead of the communists because we didn't want Iran to fall into the Soviet sphere of influence.
It's also a pretty similar story with Osama bin Laden.
As payback for Soviet support for North Vietnam, we supplied arms to the rebels in Afghanistan after the USSR invaded. Supplying Stinger SAMs to the mujahadeen was particularly devastating and these included Osama bin Laden.
Isn't it weird that all this foreign interference always go badly and all these former puppets somehow end up becoming huge problems for us later? When will we learn, exactly?
It's also worth noting that there was a strong desire in American policy circles to overthrow Saddam well before 9/11. 9/11 and the fake WMD story just became the excuse. For example, in 1998 a bunch of people sent a letter to then President Bill Clinton urging him to invade Iraq and topple Saddam [1]. Just look at the signatories on that letter and what part they played in the War on Terror.
[1]: https://zfacts.com/zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/98-Rumsfeld-Iraq....
By PolygonSheep 2026-03-0119:08 It's because we do these things not for American interests, but for the interests of a small country that has captured our political establishment through campaign finance and blackmail.
By softwaredoug 2026-03-0112:46 In this case I bet they rotate Khamenis until they find someone who will capitulate like in Venezuela.
Thats the hope at least. Seems like a completely different situation though. It could just as easily end up an unstable mess like Libya
By heavyset_go 2026-02-2822:55 This will be the start of something that never ends
By Bender 2026-02-2823:36 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.
By TulliusCicero 2026-02-2822:56 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.
By sieabahlpark 2026-03-021:37 [dead]
By erxam 2026-03-010:40 [flagged]
By Rapzid 2026-03-010:07 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.
I work with and know a lot of Shia (non-Iranian) Muslims and listening to them talk about this assassination I'm convinced that the likelihood of attempted terror attacks against the US has increased significantly.
The non-Iranian part is key. Millions of muslims around the world viewed the Iranian theocracy as the only power in the world fighting for Islam. They are devastated.
By somenameforme 2026-03-0113:176 reply The most interesting thing to me is that he was apparently assassinated while working at his office. It's not like the US/Israeli actions were a secret, yet he seemingly made no effort to secure himself. It's hard not to see this as an intentional martyrdom. So it will be interesting to see whether his calculations were correct, or whether the US' were.
The one thing I think must be true is that I can't imagine an 86 year old cleric was an especially effective leader. So assassinating him is quite the gamble. I'd love to know what the military's chatbots thought about this idea.
Prophets are more dangerous when they're dead. At 86 he would either die from old age or fighting "imperialistic, evil" Israel/US.
By _DeadFred_ 2026-03-0117:073 reply This Prophet believed/taught that school girls should be raped before they are executed for not wearing hats so that they can't get into heaven (believing God would judge a child for being raped).
Should a believer/teacher of such things even be called a prophet? Old boy was straight trash with a horrific morality.
By arunabha 2026-03-0118:48 > Should a believer/teacher of such things even be called a prophet? Old boy was straight trash with a horrific morality.
Sadly, that has been a fairly common attribute for a fairly large majority of people anointed as 'prophets' and 'saints'.
He's not a prophet and he didn't teach that.
You don't need to lie about someone you don't like.
I have no horse in this race but I did find some daunting google results about that.
I'd love to see a link to them. My cursory googles aren't finding it.
Look, not trying to defend the guy, but I don't like this sort of hyperbole. People have the wrong view on what Iran is like. It's ran by religious fundamentalists, which is bad, but it's also probably one of the more progressive muslim theocracies in the region. People tend to mix up shit that Saudi Arabia does with Iran.
In particular, Iran has a very progressive view on education. They have one of the best educated populations in the middle east (men and women).
I really don't want this on my comment history but here you go:
~redacted google serarch~
And I understand your point. There's a ton of bias. We must be careful with the "facts" on the internet.
Admitedly, these link results don't inspire me much confidence.
The only one attributing a similar quote to khamenei is an x user. The rest appear to document that an exiranian official saying that counter revolutionary women sentenced to death are raped.
I hope you can see how these are pretty different things.
First link:
"Based on our findings, some of the various forms of sexual torture, such as the rape of virgin girls prior to their execution, were conducted in a systematic way and were based on the interpretation of an order by Ayatollah Khomeini (1979-1989), the Islamic Republic Supreme Leader at the time."
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmin...
By cogman10 2026-03-0121:51 > women who were captured in battle with the kuffar (infidels) were akin to property and slaves of the army of Islam (a practice of the Middle Ages which had subsequently been accepted, at least theologically, as a part of Islamic war practices)
Look, bad and disagreeable, but not the claimed quote. This is a much better attack that doesn't use hyperbole.
By _DeadFred_ 2026-03-0123:311 reply I don't have it bookmarked but he did teach that and had his friend Lajevardi whom he supported and praised carry it out. And his Islamic enforcement police regularly engaged in it. And he has defended his Islamic enforcement police the Basij, whose job is to enforce his teachings, when they have conducted systemic rapes.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmin...
Here he is defending the practice https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/aug/27/iran-ayatollah...
Amnesty talking about his Basij Islamic enforcement police conducting the practice: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/12/iran-security...
Challenges to his systemic use of rape and if it disqualifies his legitimacy back in 2009 https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/15/world/middleeast/15iran.h...
2011 Frontline coverage of the practice https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2011/0...
More coverage of the practice https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1890900/iran-rape-tortu...
In addition to the routine/sactioned religious police rapes how many executions have there been under this moderate? How many women arrested for religious reasons? Under his leadership the death decree against Salman Rushdie was never lifted. How many died of torture in detention after he called for people to be punished? If this is moderation then what does fundamentalism look like?
Hmmm, this may have been a 'mis-interpretation' but it seems odd that it wouldn't, you know, be corrected with a public 'correct' interpretation in all these years and with so much rape being done by religious police serving directly under him. Instead of easily issuing a public statement he defended the rapists indicating that in fact, it was a correct interpretation. https://wncri.org/2015/11/13/female-prisoners-virgins-raped/
> I don't have it bookmarked but he did teach that and had his friend Lajevardi whom he supported and praised carry it out.
Look, I'm simply not going to believe this claim without evidence.
You are presenting terrible practices in Iran that I disagree with, but that wasn't your original claim.
From the links you've given, rape was because political prisoners were believed to be slaves. That's a despicable and gross practice. It is not, however "school girls should be raped before they are executed for not wearing hats so that they can't get into heaven". The reason for the rape of prisoners was because the prisoners were viewed as slaves, not to keep them from heaven (from what I've read).
> If this is moderation then what does fundamentalism look like?
Relative to the region. Iran has been brutal to it's dissidents and enemies of the state.
However, if you compare the rights of women under Iran vs Saudi Arabia, you'll end up finding that women in Iran have more rights and freedoms. That's what relative means.
I'm not here to defend Khamenei. The reason I pushed back was because, as I said, you don't need to lie about someone you don't like. These are the facts you should present and represent. Talk about how Iran rapes political enemies. That is a horrible practice. But the extreme "He said to rape girls without hijabs and then kill them to keep them from heaven" is just a lie. Hell, you can pretty accurately say "He taught that political prisoners are slaves, which his government used to justify raping female prisoners". That's a true statement that makes him look horrible.
By _DeadFred_ 2026-03-021:02 It looks like it was the previous Ayatollah who was Khamenei's religious teacher, but this one could easily have corrected things but instead chose to defend the practice/practitioners and never on the occasion of abuse over decades chose to correct the interpretation.
"such as the rape of virgin girls prior to their execution, were conducted in a systematic way and were based on the interpretation of an order by Ayatollah Khomeini (1979-1989)"
So his spiritual teacher ordered it with the vague cop-out by someone else that 'maybe it was misinterpreted' yet even though his Islamic police were raping for decades he never corrected what his teacher/spiritual leader said/meant.
Undisputed facts: it happened and the people doing it thought that it was sanctioned by the Ayatollah. Even though it happened for decades, this Ayatollah never corrected people that they had misunderstood. Did defend his Islamic police and did on occasions when they inflicted the violence after him basically saying “Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?”.
Decades and decades of rape, and of government officials thinking this is the official Islamic position, and he NEVER chose to say otherwise even though his Islamic police were acting on it.
I'm throttled after this but I believe it was his official policy, and nothing indicates otherwise. There was systemic rape and he defended/protected those doing it and never corrected the believed edict from his predecessor. Also it is extremely rare to get these edicts externally. We only have what I pointed out because an insider (Ayatollah Montazeri) was trying to defend his reputation after word got out of the justification for rape by Khomeini.
By selimthegrim 2026-03-021:09 I know someone who was in prison with Lajevardi in the 70s and the latter was an asshole even then according to him so I believe this
AFAICT nearly everyone who is called a "prophet" by anyone is horrible, no?
Doesn't stop people from killing or dying in their name though.
By somenameforme 2026-03-028:45 I can't think of anybody, who has significant power, who isn't seen as horrible by somebody else, and often by quite a lot of somebody elses. With power people always end up trying to make the world a better place. The problem is one man's better place is another's dystopia.
>I'd love to know what the military's chatbots thought about this idea.
What a mad world we're hurtling ourselves into.
By mindslight 2026-03-0116:59 "You're thinking about this just like a professional warfighter would"
I'd say the main contemporary dynamic of the times is hallucination. Not necessary by LLMs per se, but rather by the humans wielding them to mainline their own bullshit.
In a way Grump himself is just society's own embodied hallucination from decades of Republican marketing hopium. Some scraps of dignity are surely about to trickle down any day now, once those mean libuhruls are out of the way.
(the "warfighter" terminology-coddling obviously coming from the user prompt)
By ifwinterco 2026-03-0116:59 Supposedly he had a very deep bunker under his house but he came up for meetings.
So the real problem for Iran is that mossad seem to know exactly when he was vulnerable i.e. there are spies within the inner circles of the IRGC
Edit: Or some very effective high tech surveillance, but that's also not good news to put it mildly
By urikaduri 2026-03-0115:04 He was assasinated during a meeting with many other high ranking members of the regime. I doubt they decided on collective suicide.
By throwawayheui57 2026-03-0122:36 > intentional martyrdom
He didn’t play 4D chess. I’d bet on pure hubris.
By dotancohen 2026-03-0113:382 reply Why would you assume that someone with decades of experience could not be an effective leader?
By throwaway173738 2026-03-0114:272 reply People lose cognition as they age.
By somenameforme 2026-03-0115:071 reply In every field where competence can be objectively measured, experience does not endlessly correlate with competence. There's always a growth phase but then there's a bell curve of age vs competence, that reaches a peak and then there's a constant decline from there. So for instance chess is primarily a mental game, yet the decline comes as early as one's mid thirties for world class players.
I'm fully willing to accept that for a field where scenarios are fuzzier and intuition more important, it may well be that peak on the bell curve comes somewhat later. But I think it's essentially inconceivable that one is near, or even remotely near, their peak, in their 80s, in anything.
By sethev 2026-03-0116:22 >There's always a growth phase but then there's a bell curve of age vs competence
A bell curve tracks the distribution of a single random variable. You're mixing statistical metaphors.
That’s true, but it’s not always good—Americans have stark examples of the risks of octogenarian leaders whose experience leads them astray by discounting how much the world has changed since they were young.
I think of mental faculties and experience as two separate overlapping curves where there’s a sweet spot in the middle where both are high but either one being low can become a big problem.
They also just don’t have the same energy they used to so even if they have a good idea they’ll be less effective at motivating people to embrace it, and the younger people behind them are going to be acting with more thought to succession politics.
Biden's surely a poster child for the value of experience and connections in the Presidency. Whatever you think of him (and I would certainly agree that he should never have considered a second term), he was quite successful in furthering his agenda while in office.
By acdha 2026-03-031:51 Yes, I agree that he used his experience well for many things (and had competent staff he could trust to get things done) but I will say he made a huge mistake continuing to back Israel's actions in Gaza to an extent which I don't think someone too young to remember the Six Days War would have done. I think you could also make a solid argument that earlier in his career he probably would have had more energy to put into getting a few of the close votes in Congress over the line.
But dude was 86, how many people in nursing homes would you trust to run a country?
By dotancohen 2026-03-0115:141 reply Probably one in a thousand.
But as one whom the Ayatollah has sworn to eliminate, I can still state that man was sharp and brilliant and extremely well spoken. His worldview was internally consistent. He had vision and experience and knew how to motivate people. He was a one in ten million leader.
I give him that praise and more, even recognising that his stated mission was to exterminate myself and my children.
By maybelsyrup 2026-03-0115:552 reply > But as one whom the Ayatollah has sworn to eliminate
What does this mean — did you stick him with the bill at all restaurant or something?
By justsomehnguy 2026-03-0116:21 Even If you don't recognize the last name you can just click on the user info and make 2 + 2.
By EtienneDeLyon 2026-03-0117:532 reply He's doing what's called "Hasbara". Regular people call it "lying".
By _DeadFred_ 2026-03-0118:371 reply I love this basically pointing out that racists call it "Hasbara" and regular people call it "lying".
Don't agree it applies in this situation, but it's nice to see someone break down regular people don't give a special jewish name to something that already has a common name/definition, and that the common name better communicates the intended concept so the purpose of using the word is to convey something different than basic understanding.
By dotancohen 2026-03-023:291 reply Please quote which part of my comment you feel is a lie.
By justsomehnguy 2026-03-0321:39 It's.. an amusing exchange, especially as a response to the actual aknowledgement of the other party - the thing which people there nor have nor want.
By leonvoss 2026-03-0115:58 And as we can see with Biden and Trump, 86 is past the the optimal compromise between experience and cognition.
By cookiengineer 2026-03-0117:591 reply Tell that to the US regime, too?
By polishdude20 2026-03-0118:47 Many do!
Being of an advanced age does not necessitate becoming senile. Do you have evidence that the Ayatollah was senile or trending in that direction?
By FireBeyond 2026-03-0119:28 I'd say, too, that judging by the current President's speeches, there's probably good evidence towards him being or becoming senile/demented.
I think the responses are very diverse throughout the region. Got example, in Karachi protestors gathered outside a consulate https://apnews.com/article/pakistan-protesters-attacked-us-c...
But inside Tehran (and in my neighborhood of D.C.) there have been celebrations https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/28/world/middleeast/iran-kha...
By RaftPeople 2026-03-0117:57 I have a friend that left Iran just before the Shah was overthrown. Over the years he has gone back multiple times to visit family and friends etc.
He told me years ago that the majority in Iran were not aligned with the new regime, it was a minority of the population that were.
By throwawayheui57 2026-03-0122:40 of course. How do you think they systematically massacred so many people in so many cities during the protests. All those personnel are now devastated.
Any celebrations are an indicator but are far from the entire picture.
Wouldn't there be celebrations in the US if Trump died? What conclusions would you draw from that?
Exactly. Oddly enough most countries have politics split down the middle. A left and right. Up and down. Rarely even a 2/3 majority.
If you wanted to find people celebrating, you'd find people celebrating.
But my opinion is more often than not, you have two bad guys fighting each other for the top spot. They don't support Option B because they're dumb, they support B because Option A would sell his mom for power, while Option C would just become a puppet to A.
By estearum 2026-03-0118:03 It's a lot easier to agree Current Guy Bad than it is to agree on who Next Guy should be
Judging by George W. Bush’s approval rating right after 9/11, it probably wouldn’t be very many.
By estimator7292 2026-03-0117:001 reply 9/11 was the first major attack on the continental US in living memory. It was literally a world-altering event for most of the population, and it radically changed the geopolitical calculus of the average citizen.
Lots of american citizens demanded retaliation. Our counterattacks weren't sanctioned by congress, but they were by the people.
Meanwhile, the current president just started a war based on a temper tantrum and an attempt to distract the population.
These aren't really the same thing.
I agree with you that the Iran strike is an effort to distract the public from Trump’s failure to bring down grocery prices like he promised: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wag_the_Dog
I was addressing the hypothetical of how Americans would react if Trump was killed by a foreign country in airstrikes similar to how the Ayatollah was killed. I think Americans would react like they did after 9/11, instead of celebrating like many are in Iran.
By hollerith 2026-03-0117:58 I agree. Half the country would be happy if an entity composed of Americans killed Trump, but most of those would be unhappy with a non-American entity doing it. Or at least I hope they would.
By bdangubic 2026-03-0117:07 if starting a war in the middle east gets you high approval ratings after campaigning as “presdent of peace” and crying like a little bitch trying to get nobel “peace” prize, the downfall of America is coming a lot sooner than most are ballparking (we are well on the way)
By jfengel 2026-03-0119:08 You may be right, but a lot has changed in the last quarter century. The 9/11 attacks came at a time when the Cold War had just ended and the dotcom boom had just given us a strong economy. There was a lot of resentment over the 2000 election but it didn't seem like the end of the world.
Since then public discourse has almost completely broken down. The President spends his days thinking of insults, and has deployed masked armed forces against civilians. As bitter as 2000 was, it's nothing compared to January 6 2021.
I imagine the details would depend on the circumstances. Say, a targeted assassination versus killing thousands of civilians. But I'm not so sure that things would look anything like 9/11.
Bush’s approval rating benefited from the US being attacked, and then responding. Trump has the order wrong; preemptively attacking countries (even bad ones) doesn’t poll very well with Americans.
(This is ahead of Trump’s base being isolationist; it’s not even clear who wants this besides conventional hawks.)
I think it’s just wagging the dog: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wag_the_Dog.
Combined with the fact that the media will be confused about how to respond. You’ll have Iranian diaspora celebrating, like Venezuelans did after the capture of Maduro, making it impossible for the media to frame this simply in terms of “Trump is racist.” As a result, the whole thing will get memory holed, just like the Venezuela attack.
By Cyph0n 2026-03-0117:39 Now imagine if Bush & his family were assassinated by AQ on 9/11, and you’ll understand why the majority of Iranians inside Iran will not be celebrating.
i don't think any american would celebrate if trump was killed by a foreign army bombing the country.
Whereas french did celebrate US planes bombing nazis on their soil.
By kbelder 2026-03-0118:34 Some would; you see some in this thread. But only a fringe, thankfully.
By arbitrary_name 2026-03-0117:42 speak for yourself.
By anon291 2026-03-0121:54 I mean Pakistan is a nation founded on the idea that Muslims cannot live with non Muslims. /R/Pakistan is currently talking about this. What do you expect?
By nerdyadventurer 2026-03-0113:45 > But inside Tehran
This is done by diaspora lead by US, they started destroying public resources first and created public unrest on top of falling Rial due to sanctions, this lead the govt take matters in to their hands. Cunning US indeed, always playing cheap tricks.
> The non-Iranian part is key. Millions of muslims around the world viewed the Iranian theocracy as the only power in the world fighting for Islam
Yup. My Bangladeshi relatives who have no stake in Iran are upset. I suspect the lady who cuts my daughter’s hair—who was an accountant back in Iran and celebrated when Jimmy Carter died—is over the moon.
By anon291 2026-03-0121:59 We cannot continue like this where one religion gets to get mad whenever they do not achieve utter dominance.
I have seen major celebrations here in a major Dutch city. If anything, my bet is that overall balance of Muslim opinion on the West has probably shifted to be more favorable.
By jojobas 2026-03-0114:00 Both can be true at the same time.
By dotancohen 2026-03-0113:365 reply Are you suggesting that the US should appease Muslim ideology, under threat of terror?
By Cipater 2026-03-0113:49 No, I am telling you about people's sentiments. You are not required to do anything with the information.
By nerdyadventurer 2026-03-0113:501 reply This is not about Muslim idealogy at all, it is US want to play god on who to have nukes or not. Similar to Libiya WMD.
By Kinrany 2026-03-0119:16 Men have been trying to decide who's allowed to own big sticks forever, there's no "playing god" involved
> Muslim idealogy
If you can't differentiate muslims from islamists you can probably keep your comments for yourself...
By dotancohen 2026-03-026:27 If you can not recognise that Muslims overwhelmingly support Islamist extremists, then maybe you should not tell others who have quite the experience in the matter, to keep their comments to themselves.
By spaghetdefects 2026-03-0117:12 [flagged]
By spaghetdefects 2026-03-0117:102 reply Terror attacks? I think you mean self-defense, as the US/Israel just bombed Iran with no justification at all. That is a terror attack.
I’m quite sympathetic to the general assertion that the U.S. launches unprovoked attacks on random countries that didn’t attack the U.S. Iraq being the most egregious example.
But Iran is perhaps the least sympathetic actor on that front. Iran has been attacking the U.S. and its proxies for no reason for decades: https://www.britannica.com/event/1983-Beirut-barracks-bombin....
Tehran is a thousand miles away from Tel Aviv. Iran has no rational self-interest in whatever is going on between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Iran got itself involved in that conflict because it inexplicably chose to involve itself in that conflict.
By regularization 2026-03-0117:371 reply > Iran has been attacking the U.S. and its proxies for no reason for decades
Iran did not attack the US and Lebanese Shia did not attack the US. Israel invaded Lebanon and the US went in in August 1982. This allowed for the Istaeli allies to perform the Sabra and Shatila massacre. About six months later the US embassy was bombed. Then the barracks was bombed.
The US eas not attacked, the US sent troops into Lebanon, which helped allow for the massacres which took place, and Lebanese attacked the US barracks that came into their country a year earlier.
By rayiner 2026-03-0118:07 > About six months later the US embassy was bombed. Then the barracks was bombed.
By whom? Passive voice doing a lot of work.
Aren't Iran's interests in Israel pretty analogous to the US's?
Regional security and holy book brainmush?
By rayiner 2026-03-0118:13 That’s my point. The U.S. certainly can’t complain it’s catching strays either. It chooses to involve itself in that conflict.
By spaghetdefects 2026-03-0118:09 Iran has not attacked the US. Israel has though, just look at the Epstein files.
Well, no they were trying to get Epstein out of his bunker... I mean free the oil from the people, err no, the people from the regime.
Someone start playing fortunate son.
By spaghetdefects 2026-03-0118:121 reply Israel murdered the indigenous population of Palestine, Iran possibly (zero proof has been produced) killed some Zionist spies. These are not the same, Israel is our enemy, not Iran.
By throwawayheui57 2026-03-0123:12 > killed some Zionist spies. These are not the same.
Be careful, you still need some moral credibility left, to defend the Palestinians with.
Well that's an awfully Islamophobic take. Never has a condition been so aptly named.
This morning's terror attack in Austin was perpetuated by one wearing a "property of Allah" shirt.
The world need not continue to live with and accept Islamic barbarism, and the people of the US will not bend to the sword of the Mullahs or your Shia coworkers.
By Cipater 2026-03-026:29 People are what they are.
You can take the information I have provided into consideration when you build your internal worldview or you can ignore it.
There is no call to action here. It's just data.
By markus_zhang 2026-03-0112:494 reply The "good" part is that Sunni Muslims probably won't have the same feeling, or do they?
But I agree with the assessment. I'd definitely avoid large public events. Darn the world is becoming more and more chaotic and we are just waiting for China to put up the last piece to make it into 19th Europe.
By dotancohen 2026-03-0113:411 reply Sunni Muslims generally oppose Shias in Muslim-internal matters, and vice versa. But they both generally support the other in matters against non-Muslims.
By armenarmen 2026-03-0115:21 Arab Bedouin proverb "I against my brother; I and my brother against my cousin; I and my brother and my cousin against the world”
By CoastalCoder 2026-03-0113:181 reply > China to put up the last piece to make it into 19th Europe.
Could you elaborate for us non-historians?
By bluedevil2k 2026-03-0113:33 Taking over Taiwan.
By skissane 2026-03-0121:54 > Sunni Muslims will be upset too, because Israel was involved.
Some will be.
I saw on X a video of some Taliban commander saying nobody should cry for Khamenei, because "Israel and Iran are two sides of the same unbeliever coin"
Many hardline Sunnis view Shi'a as non-Muslims.
By markus_zhang 2026-03-0116:371 reply Upset enough to get into terrorism?
By rayiner 2026-03-0118:07 Probably not.
Why do you bring up China here? Trump has done more harm to the west in 10 years than China in the last century
By markus_zhang 2026-03-0119:24 No I'm trying to say, when China decides to copy the behavior of US, especially when her economy turns downwards again, will be the last piece of the puzzle (that shows up the end of the old world).
By jpster 2026-03-0116:29 > the likelihood of attempted terror attacks against the US has increased significantly.
And one wonders if a terror attack on US soil would be the justification POTUS uses to cancel elections
By nailer 2026-03-0210:22 The fact that millions of muslims worshipped a terrorist is not sufficient justification to submit to terrorism.
Sunni Muslims hate the Iranian regime and consider Shia to be heretics
I am Sunni and I condemn the attack.
Having said that, I also condemn Iranian regime killing (reportedly) 30000 protesters. So he probably had it coming.
I'm more concerned about what happens to US now, because I think the attack indicates a complete failure and collapse of the legislative branch of the US government.
> I'm more concerned about what happens to US now, because I think the attack indicates a complete failure and collapse of the legislative branch of the US government.
Why now? Why not when they took out Soleimani in 2020? Or when they invaded and took out Gaddafi in 2011? Can keep going all the back to Truman invading Vietnam.
I don't know. Have Congress and Senate always been this ineffective? I don't remember Obama, Biden or even Trump 45 act with this much impunity. I obviously can't go further back because I have been here since Obama's second term.
By amalcon 2026-03-0220:13 The Iran-Contra scandal from the Reagan administration comes to mind. Congress explicitly de-authorized the executive from funding the Contras in Nicaragua. The executive kept doing it anyway. Nobody faced any consequences, though Congress at least made a lot of noise about it.
That's kind of ineffective, but not to this level where Congress is just fine with blatant illegality.
Oh, there is no effective US Government beyond Trump's demands. he's decimated anyone that could challenge, and the general public was manufactured without the critical analysis to understand. The USA is over and gone, the US is a headless zombie nation operated by 7th graders, pedos, and drug addicts. All they need is a social following and loyalty, and they are part of the government.
By nerdyadventurer 2026-03-0114:14 Cannot believe so called great country, elected a convicted felon.
By daveguy 2026-03-0114:24 The collapse happened when we elected a power drunk fool with a Project 2025 playbook to completely strip the separation of powers in favor of the Executive branch.
Now the war fool is trying to start as many conflicts as possible inside and outside the US to distract from his disturbingly heavy Epstein involvement to give him an excuse to take over polling sites in the US. No more wars my rear.
We have a chance to recover in the November elections by voting out his puppets and tools in congress. The question is whether or not we will take it.
This is not completely true. The Iranian regime gained some credibility in the Sunni world by strongly supporting the Palestinian cause.
You can bet that every anti-war demonstration in the West now will have as many Palestinian flags as flags of the Iranian Islamic Republic.
Stranger coalitions have been put together by politics...
Oh boy flying the flag of the Islamic Republic in the US would get so much blowback. Everyone knows how incredibly evil it is. It recently killed at least 20,000 protestors to stay in power.
I hope the people doing the blowback also blowback against flying US flags, a country that is famously responsible for so, so many deaths.
By UltraSane 2026-03-0217:32 You think flying the US flag INSIDE the US will have blowback?
By chasd00 2026-03-0121:48 There were Hamas flags in the streets of NYC on Oct 8th 2023. Some people will gladly support anything.
By hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 2026-03-0113:292 reply Only people who live on social media believe these extreme views to be true. Most muslims hardly even know the difference or care.
While the comment you replied to was "extreme", it is impossible for any muslim to not know the difference when the difference defines everything about how they practice their religion.
By hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 2026-03-0114:482 reply Are you muslim? In the real world most muslims are not that religious and hardly follow what is taught to perfect precision. They would not be able to answer the difference except in vague terms at best.
No, I am not muslim.
Every single muslim, whether devout, practicing, lapsed or whatever, knows whether they are/were Sunni or Shia. They are literally born into it. It determines who is seen as the authority in matters of their faith, the way they pray, the sites they consider holy, the religious days they observe. Even Ramadan starts and ends on different days depending on which you are.
It's such a fundamental thing that I question whether you have any idea about what you're saying here.
I don't know much about Islam, but what's being described isn't uncommon for lapsed Christians. I know plenty of people in my orbit (including me) who went to mass on Christmas Eve and Easter as children, but literally wouldn't be able to answer if the curch they went to was Catholic or Protestant.
By Cipater 2026-03-026:27 The difference between Islam and Christianity on this is so stark that I am trying so hard to not respond in a rude manner and tell people to read a book or something.
It's like if you didn't know a single thing about Mandarin but insisted on making claims about its grammatical rules because you know English grammar.
By cindyllm 2026-03-0114:52 [dead]
By UltraSane 2026-03-0119:10 I can assure you all Shia and Sunni are very much aware of their religious differences.
By newyankee 2026-03-0113:36 Well if you take religious interpretations to do the extreme they hate all 'non believers'. I am assuming that even the Sunni Muslim countries' average population might not be that happy with the bullying (their perception)
Every single one of them?
There are many Sunnis who view their leadership as "traitors to the cause" and respected Iranian defiance especially against Israel.
It's far from black and white.
By UltraSane 2026-03-0221:17 Promising to destroy Israel is a lot more than just "defiance". Israel's existence has no significant effect on Iran but Iran is strangely obsessed with destroying it to Iran's own detriment.
By SegfaultSeagull 2026-03-0118:24 First, the Islamic Republic was not “the only power fighting for Islam.” It was fighting to expand Iranian state power under a religious banner. There’s a difference. The regime’s foreign policy has consistently followed geopolitical logic: expanding influence through proxies in Lebanon (Hezbollah), Gaza (Hamas and PIJ), Iraq (Shi’a militias), Syria (Assad), and Yemen (Houthis). That’s empire-building through asymmetric warfare, not some abstract defense of the global ummah.
Second, Islam itself is not a single centralized political bloc. The idea that “millions of Muslims” saw Tehran as their champion ignores deep sectarian and national divides. Sunni-majority states like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, and Turkey have spent decades actively countering Iranian influence. Many Arabs view Persian expansionism with suspicion for historical reasons that predate modern geopolitics by centuries. Even within Shi’a communities outside Iran, loyalty to Tehran is far from universal.
Third, the Islamic Republic’s model is explicitly totalitarian: clerical rule, suppression of dissent, morality police, imprisonment of reformers, execution of protesters. Calling that “fighting for Islam” collapses a complex global religion into one revolutionary state ideology. Many Muslims—Sunni and Shi’a—despise the regime precisely because it fuses religion with authoritarian control.
As for retaliation risk: yes, whenever a regime that funds proxy groups is hit, the risk of attempted attacks rises. That’s true by definition. But that risk has existed for decades already because of the regime’s own strategy of exporting violence. The question isn’t whether risk increases from zero. It’s whether removing a state sponsor that systematically arms, trains, and finances militant networks reduces long-term capacity for global destabilization.
Iran was not some neutral spiritual defender of the faith. It was a regional power using religion as a mobilizing ideology while building a cross-border militia network.
That distinction matters.
By steve-atx-7600 2026-03-0122:111 reply Sounds like you should report them to the fbi then
By Cipater 2026-03-026:21 You seem to have misread my comment.
None of the people I know and have spoken to are capable of or even thinking of violent retaliation.
I am extrapolating from their sentiments that someone out there will be moved to violence.
By ndsipa_pomu 2026-03-0114:24 This is likely what the USA fascists want - some Islamic terrorist attacks (possibly false flag operations) will provide a justification for removing non-whites from the USA.
By reactordev 2026-03-0112:184 reply I was just saying this to someone this morning. Iran’s theocracy was the only one that has withstood the Middle East political wars in Jordan, Syria, Afghanistan, etc.
To rephrase it… if The Middle East was the UK, Iran would be British. If the Middle East was the US. Iran would be California.
> The Middle East was the UK, Iran would be British.
Did you mean England perhaps, not "British"?
By ndsipa_pomu 2026-03-0114:26 Scotland is almost certainly innocent, though the Scottish people may not be.
Anyhow, the worst crimes of colonialism/genocide were mainly conducted by the English (including invading/killing plenty of Scottish, Welsh and Irish people).
Jordan political system is much older than Iran, as well as the Saudis and others. Iran theocracy is a new phenomena in the Middle East, ushering the implementation era of political Islam, later continued by ISIS, Hamas and the milder Qatar and current Turkey
By reactordev 2026-03-0114:59 Not debating who came first. I’m also not debating that Saudi’s are equivalent to the French to the Iranians (if they were England in my UK analogy, or Texas for the US one).
I also don’t think that, in general, there’s any animosity there just talking size and influence over the region. Iran and Saudi are/were it. It’s a really interesting dynamic of faith, tradition, authoritarianism, and manipulation.
By dotancohen 2026-03-0113:543 reply [flagged]
By tomjakubowski 2026-03-0118:541 reply > Muslims who move to Christian-majority lands do not assimilate
this is a ridiculous and false generalization, disproved by my own experience living in the United States and being friends with Muslim immigrants.
By dotancohen 2026-03-023:27 That's what the French and the a Swedes thought when they had a Muslim population under 10 or 20 percent. Look at any area - any, your choice - where Muslims represent 50 or more or the population and tell me how tolerant they are.
Don't let your values and your tolerance blind you to believe that your values and tolerance are universal or axiomic.
By mullingitover 2026-03-0120:35 > Modern Western Christians are centuries removed from experiencing religion-as-politics.
That's news for those of us that are living through the decades-long effort by christian dominionists to take over the US.
> Western atheists, who share Christian values
It's the other way around: Christians share basic morality with people operating on morality from first principles. Plenty of western christian values are orthogonal to morality.
> Muslims who move to Christian-majority lands do not assimilate or convert.
This is false and flat-out defamatory. It's also the type of statement that gets used before bad people do a bunch of bad things.
By dj_rock 2026-03-0115:46 The Catholic Church exerted strong influence in Quebec until the 1950s. Of course since then Quebec has become the most secular region in North America.
Another good analogy would be, said theocracy is (was?) like a very bad piece of legacy code, impossible to refactor, until the entire feature gets thrown in the trash.
By reactordev 2026-03-0114:25 That’s a greater analogy
I was with you until you said California. You think that Californians are understand Southern or Midwestern culture?
By reactordev 2026-03-0114:26 Not about culture. Size and GDP.
By everdrive 2026-03-0112:22 Well except for all those Shia in Iraq who more closely followed Ali al-Sistani. I still imagine they're not very happy all the same though.
By anon291 2026-03-0121:48 and millions of Orthodox Jews view Israel as defending Judaism. So what? Maybe all the people who are willing to shoot and kill for their holy book should be put into an area and bomb each other to death
Would make a good reality tv show and an excellent warning on the danger of religious fundamentalism.
By weregiraffe 2026-03-0117:44 Oh, so they ARE in fact death cultists! Thanks for confirming that, I guess there's a lot more work for bombs.
By TacticalCoder 2026-03-0112:414 reply [flagged]
By throw0101c 2026-03-0112:482 reply >> Millions of muslims around the world viewed the Iranian theocracy as the only power in the world fighting for Islam. They are devastated.
> They are devastated but they are were totally quiet on the unarmed thirty thousands+ protesters the islamist iranian regime killed in a matter of days a few weeks ago.
One person's protestor is another's insurrectionist.
See also the folks on January 6: (now-pardoned) patriots trying to 'stop the steal', or crazies trying to overthrow the government?
By HDThoreaun 2026-03-0114:401 reply The US didn’t mass kill Jan 6ers.
By throw0101c 2026-03-0115:012 reply > The US didn’t mass kill Jan 6ers.
Were the Jan6ers good guys or bad guys? Did they deserve to get punished? (Trump didn't/doesn't think so, which is why he pardoned them; Pence may have a different opinion.)
The fact that different countries have different punishments for the same crime is a cultural artefact. The fact that you find it unacceptable is personal opinion. In Singapore drug use (not even distribution) is punishable by up to 10 years in prison:
* https://www.cnb.gov.sg/singapore-drug-situation/misuse-of-dr...
Too much? Too little?
One can say that a person did bad things, but the punishment was inappropriate in a particular case, but some kind of punishment was needed.
Were the Iranian protestors/insurrectionists guilty of crimes? Did they deserve some kind of punishment?
By HDThoreaun 2026-03-0116:281 reply Moral relativism can be real and I can be against another cultures moral ideology. They’re allowed to have their beliefs and I’m allowed to think they are wrong and they deserve to be killed for having them. Protestors do not deserve to be killed for protesting. People who kill protestors for protesting do deserve to be killed. Is that all personal opinion? Yes of course, so what?
By urikaduri 2026-03-0115:55 I didn't know there were still fans around for this version of moral relativisim.
The IRGC mass killing of protesters was evil. Objectively so. Anyone thinking otherwise is part of the problem.
By throw0101c 2026-03-0115:09 > You should read up on “false equivalence”…
You should read up on "Terrorists or Freedom Fighters":
* https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/terroris...
* https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/no-volume/on-terrorists-a...
By I-M-S 2026-03-0113:29 I believe the OP's point was precisely that there's no objective true and false equivalence - there's just forces trying to impose a narrative which one is which.
By nerdyadventurer 2026-03-0113:572 reply > If people keep their mouth shut when a regime murders 30 000+
This is done by diaspora lead by US, they started destroying public resources first and created public unrest on top of falling Rial due to sanctions, this lead the govt take matters in to their hands. Cunning US indeed, always playing cheap tricks.
US is a regime too, world largest one, with minions everywhere. They murdered around 1 million just in Iraq. This war is not only about nukes but also oil and trade routes. Iran did not try to spread Islamic in the west, they do not want to either.
My point is US should not try to interfere with other countries internal matters. International threats should be dealt with treaties.
By winterbloom 2026-03-0114:431 reply Yeah but a good majority don't want Islam in Iran, Iran used to have a culture
By m000 2026-03-0117:13 > Yeah but a good majority don't want Islam in Iran, Iran used to have a culture
Yeah but a better majority doesn't want Evangelicalism in USA, USA used to have a culture /s
By _DeadFred_ 2026-03-0116:551 reply The theocratic regime that rapes then kills school girls for not wearing hats was forced to gun down 30,000 of their own citizens, including many more school children.
The Supreme Leader before Khamenei preached that virgins need to be raped before execution so that they can't go to heaven. Sick people following a sick religion where their made up version of god would judge children based on if they were raped.
By nerdyadventurer 2026-03-021:40 What about children and mothers in Gaza, I think that is okay with you!
Let's see what happen when they start bombing Greenland.
I hate violence, but US have too much power, they are in this war for their benefit. Looting others resources as usual.
Yes they were silent about the Iranian regime's tyranny. Yes they are hypocrites.
So what?
It doesn't matter whether it suits you nor I. You calling them out has zero effect other than making you feel righteous. They don't hear you and even if they did they do not care a whit what you think.
They believe, with utter conviction, that martyrdom in service of Islam will be rewarded in the "hereafter". Their holy book tells them this explicitly. And there are millions of them.
Hence my comment.
By _DeadFred_ 2026-03-0117:02 They also believe that before they kill a schoolgirl because she won't wear hats, they should rape her so that she doesn't go to heaven. They believe that because Khamenei and his predecessor taught it to them (Google it if you don't believe me, they were literally taught the religious guidelines for how to murder girls and it included rape). In their made up religion they made up a God would judge children for being raped. What pieces of total shit.
>If people keep their mouth shut when a regime murders 30 000+ unarmed people
That 30k number came from the same source the WMDs did - paid informants who knew exactly what they were being paid to deliver.
Same sales pitch, different war.
The standards of evidence some people will accept when America is hell bent on starting a war is so low it blows my mind.
Ive noticed that these people who try to guilt trip meek liberals over the alleged deaths of 30,000 people in Iran used to sell a war of aggression will almost always downplay or try to sow doubt about the genocide in gaza which america supported.
It's very remarkably similar to the way some of the most extreme racists on the planet used to try and guilt trip liberals by accusing them of being anti semitic.
> That 30k number came from the same source the WMDs did - paid informants who knew exactly what they were being paid to deliver.
The Iran official number was still 3,117.
It’s not that crazy to think the number is closer to 30k than to this.
Many of whom were cops.
Trump and Israel are not backing nonviolent protestors in Iran. Theyre hell bent on provoking a civil war and are quite open about it.
Plenty of video of evidence of protestor violence if you care to look.
Meanwhile team genocide are trying to run a guilt trip on the rest of us
Because we care less about a crackdown on protestors by another government than we do a fully fledged genocide aided and abetted by our own.
Why would you feel guilty for the actions of Iran’s government? That doesn’t seem like the appropriate reaction, even if you’re directionally “pro” Iran because they’re directionally opposed to Israel.
(Ultranationalist/reactionary states like Iran and Israel love this kind of absolute framing, because it allows the state to ratchet, rather than de-escalate, cycles of violence.)
The guilt trip is aimed by people who support the genocide at meek liberals who might be worried that they're not demonstrating "equal" concern about Iran.
It was the same shit back when they used to accuse meek liberals of being antisemitic for criticizing some of the most extreme racists on planet earth.
It doesnt matter how Iran frames things. This isnt a "both sides" issue. Youll only get iran's opinion if you read presstv, they dont flood english speaking forums.
By woodruffw 2026-03-0314:34 I don't know what equal concern means, per se. It seems normal for people to express more or less concern about individual tragedies based on their background, etc. This is distinct from being unable to acknowledge that any given action is bad, which would be the territory of an ideologue.
(I get Iran's opinion because I have Iranian friends.)
By echelon_musk 2026-03-0111:582 reply I can't recommend Heretic by Ayaan Hirsi Ali enough.
I don't think doctrinal reformation is possible with Islam.
The Qur'an is totally prescriptive. It contains direct legal commands, judicial rules and explicit government principles which are all binding and considered as direct divine speech.
I think Westernisation and an increase in the number of "casual" muslims is and will continue to be the moderating effect.
Think of what is happening in Europe (as the clearest example) with the influx of Muslim immigrants who raise increasingly more assimilated children as the blueprint.
The cultural gulf between left and right in the US is expanding rather than being assimilated or adapting. There is nothing stopping the same thing from happening between immigrants and natives in the EU. Both cases involve fundamentaly irecconcilable values, and it just depends on which values prove more viral.
By stickfigure 2026-03-0118:411 reply I'm not sure the left/right cultural gulf will last beyond Trump. I'm not even sure it's still alive now, with Trump's approval ratings in the toilet. The US political system takes time to cycle and isn't on the same schedule as the political pendulum.
By CoastalCoder 2026-03-0113:221 reply For those of us who haven't read it, could you explain why it's salient on this topic?
By dotancohen 2026-03-0114:052 reply It's an English language book aimed for Westerner readers. It purports to argue that the core strategy for spreading Islam - terror - is not compatible with Western values. It also states that other features of Islam are incompatible with Western values, such as repression of women. The book argues that since these ideologies are incompatible with Western values, they must be abandoned.
However, the abandonment argument is only valid if one already accepts Western values as an axiom - which being an English-language book most of the readers would agree with. These readers will perceive the book to promote the reform of Islam into a religion that resembles a modern Christian denomination, just with different idols and prayers and holidays.
However those who do not come from the perspective of modern Christian values and as axiomic, will reject the argument outright. This is the Muslim population who might read it.
By anon291 2026-03-0217:20 To be totally frank, Islam is the odd one out.
You can call it 'Western' values or 'Christian' values or whatever in order to make it seem chauvinistic all you want, but the simple truth is that these values are often shared by many other religions and places. As an example, look at the success of the Indian Hindus and the Chinese / East Asian Buddhists in the United States and across the globe. For a reverse example, contrary to popular belief, Christians, Sikhs, and Jains in Hindu-majority India are actually richer and more educated on average.
Time and time again, if you go look at the data, you'll find that Islam is almost always the odd one out.
The Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Taoists, etc can all be made to get along with Christians or 'the West'. There is really only one pretty much universally problematic religion, and that's Islam. You can argue this point all you want, but the entirety of Islamic history shows it to be true. You can again (correctly, in some cases) point out various bad actions from Christians (or Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, etc), but the simple truth is this: it's pretty easy today, in 2025, to imagine how to get along with these people. In places with diverse populations and migrants from these places, there is barely any violent religious conflict. At most you get some fundies in a tizzy over someone else doing their thing.
The only one that consistently performs violence is Islam. And that's something Muslims need to figure out. They don't need to abandon their religion. And they certainly do not need to be harmed for their beliefs. But, they do need to figure out how to integrate with the rest of the world in 2025 in a pluralistic global society.
By ndsipa_pomu 2026-03-0114:311 reply You seem to be mixing up "Western values" and "Christian values" whereas Christian values are very much against the accumulation of wealth, whereas "Western values" seem to be all about worshipping wealth to the exclusion of all other considerations and even worshipping those who deliberately exploit others to amass an ungodly amount of wealth.
By dotancohen 2026-03-0115:092 reply If you think that small difference means that Western values are not Christian values, then you have no idea how large the gulf between your values and Islamic values are.
Do you value separation of state and religious authority? Women's rights? Minority rights? Human dignity? Equality before the law? Sanctity of life? Individual moral responsibility? Monogamous marriage? The objective study of history? Fair trial? Witnesses at trial? Tolerance of alternative viewpoints?
By master_crab 2026-03-0116:471 reply Most of these arguments on the effect of different religions tend to be a bit silly. Islam is much more related to Christianity and Judaism than either of those two are to each other.
Language, cultural history, and geography tend to play a bigger role on society than the monotheistic religions do.
By dotancohen 2026-03-0122:281 reply As neither a Muslim nor a Christian, but have lived among both, the dismissive argument "A is more similar to B than C" should not mean "I don't need to be concerned about A or B or C".
By master_crab 2026-03-0122:591 reply Nowhere in the passage is it saying that. Merely that A, B, and C are the same and their difference play less of role in society than we think.
Radical Christians are no different from radical Muslims who are no different than radical Jews.
By dotancohen 2026-03-0319:311 reply
Be that as it may, by examining the frequency of terror attacks the percentage of what you call "radical Muslims" is high enough that they do not need to be termed "extremist Muslims". Whereas Jewish and Christian terrorist attacks are attested to such a small percentage of the population that the terms "radical Christian" and "extremist Christian" are effectively synonyms.> Radical Christians are no different from radical Muslims who are no different than radical Jews.By master_crab 2026-03-041:001 reply Pretty sure Palestinians would take issue with your opinion on that. And that’s not even considering historical records and precedent of any of those religions.
Bashing one monotheistic religion while trying to contort logic around supporting the others is a fruitless endeavor.
By dotancohen 2026-03-0414:191 reply So you choose a group who has been murdering our people for over a century, and hold them as an example of a group that would take issue with Jewish radicals?
Let's take your argument at face value - let's assume that Jewish radicals are as common among the Jews as Muslim radicals are among the Muslims. We disagree about the cause and the effect in the holy land, so let's disregard it. Please list for me all terror attacks that are plausibly attributed to Jews - worldwide. Then tell me how much larger the Muslim population is than the Jewish population. I'll use your own numbers to respond with an appropriate number of terror attacks plausibly attributed to Muslims.
If I can't beat the target number I'll rescind my stance.
By master_crab 2026-03-0611:18 No. I would choose a group that has been suffering from genocide in one area, and ethnic cleansing in many others. Not a hundred years ago. Not 75 years ago. Today, in the here and now.
We can go back and forth on this however many times you want. The issue I am raising is that all three religions are dangerous when used to justify murderous goals. You unfortunately are hung up on the idea that a religion is less bad or more bad than the others.
That is an irrational foundation for me to spend any more time debating against.
By ndsipa_pomu 2026-03-0115:192 reply Those values seem to be exactly the ones being discarded by the Christo-fascists of the USA.
My point is that the so-called Christian values are nothing to do with the reported teachings of Jesus and instead are used to justify the exact opposite.
By _DeadFred_ 2026-03-0117:13 The ACTUAL teachings by Supreme Leader Khamenei (remember, the HIGHEST Shia authority according to some) include that school girls who are to be killed for not wearing hats should be raped, because the Muslim God judges children based on if they have been raped. With teachings like this, I'm OK with muslims not following the teachings.
By dotancohen 2026-03-0115:272 reply I did not realize that the point of discussion had changed to specifically Christo-fascists of the USA. My point still stands in regard to the vast majority of Christians you will meet.
One thing that I can not stand about some modern fanatics is the representation of 1% of a population as if they represent the whole. Don't bring up Christo-fascists of the USA as representative of Christian values. That's highjacking the subject to your pet cause.
By CoastalCoder 2026-03-0115:41 This is an awesome discussion.
It's showing that we need to make some finer distinctions to meaningfully engage with each other on the topic.
It beats the heck out of each side assuming bad-faith.
By ndsipa_pomu 2026-03-0118:33 > Do you value separation of state and religious authority? Women's rights? Minority rights? Human dignity? Equality before the law? Sanctity of life? Individual moral responsibility? Monogamous marriage? The objective study of history? Fair trial? Witnesses at trial? Tolerance of alternative viewpoints?
Sorry, I thought you were pointing out the many issues with the current US administration and you were showing the difference between Christo-fascists and Christians who value the teachings of Jesus.
By jimmydoe 2026-03-0113:55 Anyone live in a metro in a major western country should feel legitimately feared, the chance of lone wolf just 100x-ed.
