re: It might have been better to keep Khamenei alive.

quote:

---

You will learn that it will be better that none of them are kept alive. The citizens are going to need to step in at some point and wreck shite.

---

I think they tried that in 1979. It gave them, and us, what we've had since then.

Edit: Seriously, I knew some Iranians that were college aged and attending the a local college in 1979. They told the same stories about the Shah's regime that Iranians are saying about the current, or recent, regime. People said the wrong things and disappeared, people were executed for demonstrating, etc. The revolution was to stop the tyranny. So they replaced one Tyrant with one they like better. Different people suffered afterwards.

Tyranny may be the only form of Government that that region of the world understands. So if it has to be a Tyrant, make him our Tyrant, otherwise he is going to be China's, maybe Russia's.

People are now complaining that our military is too effective.

Does the whining ever end?

This is the regime change we have right now.

quote:

---

It’s only logical that IRGC hardliners push for a maximalist military stance, while the politicians typically seek compromise and common ground. One can argue that’s the way it should be, a tension always existing between the two sides so that one’s approach never blindly dominates the country’s trajectory.

On this account, WSJ’s new piece acknowledges that Trump’s war has made the situation worse for the US:



The U.S. and Israel launched the war with the hope that killing top Iranian officials—starting with Mojtaba’s father, Ali Khamenei—would create the conditions for regime change or at least the emergence of leaders more willing to bend to America and Israel’s interests. In an address to the nation one month into the war, President Trump called the new leadership “more reasonable.”

Instead, the void is being filled by radical new leaders who have shown little interest in political compromise at home or abroad.

“The war changed the regime—and not in a good way,” said Danny Citrinowicz, who formerly headed the Iran desk for Israeli military intelligence. “We created a reality that is worse than what Iranians were facing before the war.”

Most notably—beyond acknowledging that the US attained none of its objectives in regard to Iran’s political leadership—WSJ notes that the Iranian “regime” has emerged with its structure fully intact:

The new leadership has proved resilient and adaptable, emerging from the first five weeks of the war with its command and control intact. Their hard-line approach is evident in their appointments. They include Iran’s new national security chief, Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr, a former Revolutionary Guard commander with a violent background.

It is now led by hardliners so extreme, WSJ writes, that even Soleimani once had to temporarly “quit in protest”. But as I’ve said many times before: this is, of course, fully within Israel’s interests. Israel needs the most vicious and hardline Iran in order to trap US in a forever war that could lead to the total destruction of Iran.

“The more extreme group in the IRGC are taking charge,” said Saeid Golkar, an expert in Iran’s security services at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. “That makes the prolongation of the conflict more likely.

---

LINK

quote:

---

There are like three governments.

---

Regime change!

quote:

---

I hate to trigger you, but more of them need to be killed. Somebody more agreeable will pop up, wait & see.

---

How many Al Qaeda leaders were killed in the 20 years war in Afghanistan and they're still there. 20 years and trillions of wasted dollars fighting them only to give it back to them.

Same for Hezbollah, always seems like a leader gets killed and another just as bad takes his place.

lol no