Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is killed in Israeli strike, ending 36-year rule
330 points
14 hours ago
| 52 comments
| npr.org
| HN
Cipater
1 hour ago
[-]
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.

reply
kjfarm
6 minutes ago
[-]
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...

reply
markus_zhang
15 minutes ago
[-]
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.

reply
UltraSane
39 minutes ago
[-]
Sunni Muslims hate the Iranian regime and consider Shia to be heretics
reply
inglor_cz
10 minutes ago
[-]
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...

reply
TacticalCoder
22 minutes ago
[-]
> 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.

If people keep their mouth shut when a regime murders 30 000+ unarmed people and sends its guards into hospitals to finish the wounded and if those same people think that it's then normal to launch terror attack in the west, then maybe it's time for the west to wonder if there isn't a much bigger problem than just the iranian regime.

Personally the "won't hear, won't see, won't talk" about islamists going into hospitals to slaughter people by the thousands don't suit me.

And I'll call out the hypocrisy of those who said nothing about the evil doing of the islamist iranian regime and who now want to legitimize islamist terror attacks in the west.

reply
throw0101c
16 minutes ago
[-]
>> 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?

reply
Recurecur
2 minutes ago
[-]
You should read up on “false equivalence”…
reply
Cipater
1 minute ago
[-]
Yes they were silent about the Iranian regime's tyranny. Yes they are hypocrites.

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.

reply
reactordev
46 minutes ago
[-]
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.

reply
quotz
23 minutes ago
[-]
> The Middle East was the UK, Iran would be British.

Did you mean England perhaps, not "British"?

reply
everdrive
42 minutes ago
[-]
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.
reply
echelon_musk
1 hour ago
[-]
I can't recommend Heretic by Ayaan Hirsi Ali enough.
reply
thomassmith65
14 hours ago
[-]
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!

reply
jhoechtl
53 minutes ago
[-]
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.
reply
kjfarm
20 minutes ago
[-]
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...
reply
y-curious
24 minutes ago
[-]
You mean the ones who cannot comment because their authoritarian theocratic regime blocked protest and the internet? I hope that changes for them
reply
lucasRW
10 minutes ago
[-]
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.
reply
penguin_booze
1 hour ago
[-]
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.
reply
sph
1 hour ago
[-]
Henry Kissinger is looking up and smiling.
reply
lucasRW
9 minutes ago
[-]
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.
reply
TacticalCoder
16 minutes ago
[-]
> 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.

reply
throw0101c
10 minutes ago
[-]
> 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.

reply
anovikov
47 minutes ago
[-]
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.
reply
ajsnigrutin
41 minutes ago
[-]
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 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?"..

reply
UltraSane
1 hour ago
[-]
At least a sane stooge.
reply
mr_toad
1 hour ago
[-]
Was Saddam a sane stooge?

The US (and before them the UK) meddling in middle eastern politics has always seemed like kicking a wasp nest.

reply
Matl
1 hour ago
[-]
Yes, like the last one was, right?
reply
bonzini
1 hour ago
[-]
Like Saddam Hussein?
reply
kubb
14 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
pinkmuffinere
14 hours ago
[-]
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
reply
orthogonal_cube
14 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
lamontcg
10 hours ago
[-]
Has there been a regime which has collapsed due to an external strike like this where it hasn't resulted in some decades long civil war nightmare?

I can't think of any time when bombing the shit out of a country and killing their leader has actually worked.

All I can think of is examples of blowback.

reply
mr_toad
1 hour ago
[-]
> Has there been a regime which has collapsed due to an external strike like this where it hasn't resulted in some decades long civil war nightmare?

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.

reply
Jensson
9 hours ago
[-]
> I can't think of any time when bombing the shit out of a country and killing their leader has actually worked.

Japan? Although their leader wasn't killed, but same logic. The more civilized a country is the easier it is to reform them into a good state, and Iran is a pretty civilized and structured nation, the dictatorship is the main issue.

Most people in Iran want a democracy and are capable of running it, you just have to let them. That isn't the case in most of these dictatorships that lacks such structure, but it is there in Iran.

reply
mango7283
6 hours ago
[-]
The Americans had to occupy and place both Japan and West Germany under their military rule afterwards to make it stick, that's not a comparison
reply
p2detar
2 hours ago
[-]
I disagree. After the bombing, the Emperor himself broadcasted a surrender message [0] to the people of Japan. The occupation was also for more lighter than in Germany. Japan had full control of its administration and its government continued to operate. In that context whether we like or not, it very much worked.

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito_surrender_broadcast

reply
cplanas
2 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
mikkupikku
2 hours ago
[-]
Japanese army officers stormed the emperor's palace and placed him under house arrest in an attempt to prevent him from broadcasting that surrender message. This was after the second bomb, a whole lot of them still had fight left in them.
reply
bigthymer
1 hour ago
[-]
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.
reply
ant6n
1 hour ago
[-]
The canonical example is WWii Germany. Denazification actually sort of worked. But it required a lot of effort, resources and special circumstances.
reply
exe34
1 hour ago
[-]
they brought the Nazis to the US and now hydra has taken over.
reply
logicallee
1 hour ago
[-]
>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...

reply
jacquesm
2 hours ago
[-]
And/or neighboring countries see their chance to start another front in the war.
reply
christkv
2 hours ago
[-]
It's likely the regime will be denied use of heavy weaponry by the US and Israel. This means any actual popular revolt in some sense could be supported by massive air power.
reply
tim333
13 hours ago
[-]
Trump seems to have thought it through a bit. Recent post:

>...This is the single greatest chance for the Iranian people to take back their Country. We are hearing that many of their IRGC, Military, and other Security and Police Forces, no longer want to fight, and are looking for Immunity from us. As I said last night, “Now they can have Immunity, later they only get Death!” Hopefully, the IRGC and Police will peacefully merge with the Iranian Patriots, and work together as a unit to bring back the Country to the Greatness it deserves...

The merge peacefully or die thing may motivate them.

reply
nullocator
12 hours ago
[-]
Uh huh, and if you are an Iranian Policeman are you more concerned that the funny orange man yelling on the tv/phone is going to get you, or the mob forming outside your window? They might see it in their personal self interest to stay lock step with the former regime as a better form of self preservation than just surrendering to the population they've been abusing. It's not like the U.S. can offer them any actual immunity lmao.
reply
tim333
12 hours ago
[-]
I'd probably think about which side is going to end up in power and try to get along with whoever that is. The US's demonstrated willingness to kill the leader will probably have an influence there.
reply
all_factz
3 hours ago
[-]
“Which side”? What other side is there in Iran? You think there’s some shadow government that can realistically topple the mullahs from within? The only way the Shah comes back is with US boots on the ground, which would be a disaster for other reasons. Until that happens this is just reckless action that makes the regime even more radical than it already is.
reply
bluGill
1 hour ago
[-]
There are a lot of well educated people in iran who were unhappy. Iran killed more than 30,000 protesters last month, and there are who knows how many more left.

only time will tell. I give iran much better than average odds this is for the better. Though the average is really bad: bad results would not surprise me.

reply
dzhiurgis
3 hours ago
[-]
If you were part of regime - now is your chance to defect.
reply
Rapzid
13 hours ago
[-]
Certainly people within the Trump administration have thought a lot about this.
reply
throwaway2037
1 hour ago
[-]
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.
reply
kubb
14 hours ago
[-]
I would defer the celebration until you can.
reply
acjohnson55
13 hours ago
[-]
I hope that it works out for you and your family.
reply
swat535
12 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
gizajob
3 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
anonnon
10 hours ago
[-]
My condolences. Your cousin sounds very brave.
reply
empath75
14 hours ago
[-]
The most likely situation is continuity. They just pick a new supreme leader. The second most likely situation is a civil war.
reply
mda
1 hour ago
[-]
Unlikely, large proportion of population is brainwashed for 40 years. They will elect a "moderate" supreme leader, then business as usual.
reply
reliabilityguy
13 hours ago
[-]
There is also a possibility of a Venezuela-style cooperation.
reply
roenxi
2 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
readthenotes1
13 hours ago
[-]
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?

reply
alephnerd
13 hours ago
[-]
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...

reply
bsjaux628
12 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
ndiddy
10 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
manarth
3 hours ago
[-]
It's reported that Ayatollah Khamenei nominated multiple successors for his role and a number of other military roles, to guard against this policy.

    "Last summer during the 12-day war with Israel, Khamenei had named three potential successors should he be killed. Reports earlier this month indicated that Khamenei had named four layers of succession for key government and military jobs, in an effort to ensure regime survival in the face of a US-Israeli attack."
- https://www.timesofisrael.com/khamenei-said-to-pick-three-po...

- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/28/strategic-opti...

reply
jonathanstrange
38 minutes ago
[-]
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.
reply
breppp
2 hours ago
[-]
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
reply
dismalaf
8 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
Digit-Al
2 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
breppp
2 hours ago
[-]
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
reply
mbgerring
21 minutes ago
[-]
You talking about the Iranians or the Americans here?
reply
faramarz
14 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
overfeed
3 hours ago
[-]
> 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.

reply
jacquesm
2 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
throwaway2037
57 minutes ago
[-]
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:

    > For the transition from the Islamic Republic to a national, secular, and democratic government
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.

An 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.

reply
thomassmith65
14 hours ago
[-]
They're not brain-damaged. They know that!
reply
oytis
14 hours ago
[-]
It's not a given - e.g. AFAIK most turks in Germany support Erdogan
reply
ahartmetz
1 hour ago
[-]
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.
reply
throwaway2037
55 minutes ago
[-]
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.
reply
bonzini
1 hour ago
[-]
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.
reply
ahartmetz
1 hour ago
[-]
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.
reply
throwaway2037
53 minutes ago
[-]

    > they're mostly secular as well
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?
reply
bonzini
43 minutes ago
[-]
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.
reply
SanjayMehta
3 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
anovikov
3 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
timtim51251
12 hours ago
[-]
That why they are going beyond that and going after the IRGC
reply
regnull
14 hours ago
[-]
It’s a good start
reply
Haven880
6 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
tejohnso
14 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
TulliusCicero
14 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
stavros
2 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
LastTrain
14 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
thfuran
11 hours ago
[-]
>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.

reply
Uhhrrr
8 hours ago
[-]
Look at the number of covid deaths in countries other than the US and consider updating your news diet.
reply
arunabha
5 hours ago
[-]
You do realize that the US had _one of the highest_ per capita Covid deaths amongst developed nations?
reply
Ray20
3 hours ago
[-]
The correlation between mortality and body mass index is striking.
reply
ZeroGravitas
1 hour ago
[-]
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?
reply
wqaatwt
4 hours ago
[-]
US has one of the unhealthiest populations amongst developed countries too, so maybe it’s not that surprising.
reply
gamblor956
3 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
ETH_start
15 minutes ago
[-]
This is gross over-simplification.

Good drove into a law enforcement officer. That's what led to her being shot and killed. Her group was radicalized, following the vehicles of ICE agents around, in order to try to sabotage their law enforcement operations.

With Pretti, what appears to have happened is that the officer that disarmed him accidentally discharged the gun and the other officer assumed that the anti-ICE activist was the one firing the gun.

This was a tragic mistake, and the possibility of these kinds of mistakes is why everyone, even the anti-deportation group who is organizing these sabotage campaigns, says do not bring weapons when you're confronting the agents. That's what the instruction manual that these saboteurs were using explicitly stated: don't bring weapons, not even a switchblade, yet Pretti bought a weapon, and then committed a crime that led to a high-risk arrest where fatal mistakes could, and did, happen.

Pretti put himself in an extraordinarily dangerous situation, through the decisions he made.

Again, while armed, he joined a group that was literally stalking immigration enforcement officers to try to sabotage their law enforcement operations. In the midst of an altercation, and also while armed, he placed his hands on an officer, and then resisted arrest.

reply
drjasonharrison
13 hours ago
[-]
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?
reply
bsjaux628
12 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
goku12
1 hour ago
[-]
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.

reply
SanjayMehta
3 hours ago
[-]
Doesn't change the fact that it was a war crime. But hey, "rules based order," right?
reply
TulliusCicero
14 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
leptons
14 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
dzhiurgis
3 hours ago
[-]
Where's the oppression tho?
reply
jonathanstrange
30 minutes ago
[-]
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.
reply
LadyCailin
44 minutes ago
[-]
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.
reply
bogdan
2 hours ago
[-]
Look around
reply
bjourne
14 hours ago
[-]
No. The death penalty is inhumane and not worthy of modern civilization. Please think before splurging out flowery warmongering sound bites!
reply
TulliusCicero
13 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
thomassmith65
13 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
thomassmith65
13 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
jasomill
9 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
IshKebab
14 hours ago
[-]
There's quite a difference between saying you would like to be a dictator and actually being one.
reply
pixl97
14 hours ago
[-]
When you're in a position of power and doing dictator like things, not very much.
reply
arunabha
5 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
TulliusCicero
13 hours ago
[-]
Yes, and if he actually becomes a dictator, I'd shed no tears for him being removed by force.
reply
goku12
51 minutes ago
[-]
"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.

reply
ignoramous
13 hours ago
[-]
reply
TulliusCicero
13 hours ago
[-]
If Trump became an actual tyrant instead of a wannabe one, I'd shed no tears for him being "removed" either.
reply
avoutos
13 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
underlipton
9 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
throwaway2037
47 minutes ago
[-]

    > because of his pre-9/11 mismanagement
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.
reply
twoodfin
8 hours ago
[-]
Rail strike response casualties? Can you flesh that out a bit?
reply
throwawayheui57
13 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
joshstrange
18 minutes ago
[-]
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.

reply
jatari
2 hours ago
[-]
The entire continent of europe would be celebrating.
reply
danielxt
2 hours ago
[-]
Except they are overrun by muslims - eg. see the words of the Spanish PM this morning retardation to the max
reply
mda
1 hour ago
[-]
Overrun by muslims? Complete BS. I checked what he said, I don't see anything absurd, what are you talking about?
reply
swiftcoder
1 hour ago
[-]
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.
reply
pferde
1 hour ago
[-]
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.

reply
bambax
14 hours ago
[-]
Not just Americans.
reply
cameldrv
14 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
tastyface
5 hours ago
[-]
Well, I imagine there are a lot of people like that in Iran right now.
reply
bluGill
1 hour ago
[-]
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.
reply
worldsavior
14 hours ago
[-]
There aren't millions. Maybe thousands which are completely insane considering Trump didn't kill any US citizen, unlike Haminayi killing 50k of his own people.
reply
ashivkum
14 hours ago
[-]
Your worldview is not an appropriate substitute for objective reality :)
reply
stavros
2 hours ago
[-]
Wait, Trump didn't kill any US citizen? Have we been watching the same news?
reply
thisislife2
14 hours ago
[-]
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).
reply
UltraSane
14 hours ago
[-]
International Law doesn't really exist.
reply
throwaway2037
40 minutes ago
[-]
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.
reply
khazhoux
13 hours ago
[-]

    This planet uses international law.

        [Accept all international laws]

        [Accept only necessary international laws]

        [Customize settings]
reply
flyinglizard
14 hours ago
[-]
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?

reply
sssilver
14 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
jasomill
9 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
flyinglizard
14 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
wqaatwt
4 hours ago
[-]
US is not at war with Iran. Only the Congress has the right to declare war.
reply
pferde
1 hour ago
[-]
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.

reply
koolala
38 minutes ago
[-]
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.
reply
tdeck
1 hour ago
[-]
It's interesting that they're all flying the flag of the Shah.
reply
sph
1 hour ago
[-]
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.

reply
breppp
30 minutes ago
[-]
sometimes you just have to try Islamism before you decide you don't like it
reply
tim333
13 hours ago
[-]
People celebrating inside Iran too https://x.com/visegrad24/status/2027840034150178952
reply
thomassmith65
13 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
ignoramous
2 hours ago
[-]
> 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.

reply
acjohnson55
13 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
avazhi
13 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
pjc50
13 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
DANmode
8 hours ago
[-]
Three very different operations.
reply
alephnerd
13 hours ago
[-]
> 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.

reply
throwawayheui57
14 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
baxtr
14 hours ago
[-]
Not only outside the country, but also inside the country! Many many videos on social media showing how they celebrate.
reply
nicbou
14 hours ago
[-]
I can hear them from my window. They're really happy. Lots of honking, revving engines and shouting near Zoo.
reply
wiseowise
3 hours ago
[-]
They're all paid actors! CIA agents! Orange revolution!
reply
Rapzid
13 hours ago
[-]
Hopefully from this the conditions will materialize where they could, if so inclined, help build Iran up in the future..
reply
consumer451
11 hours ago
[-]
Also please see: https://old.reddit.com/r/newiran

Remember Kian.

reply
paxys
14 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
aucisson_masque
13 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
aaa_aaa
14 hours ago
[-]
Are they cheering killing of dozens of school children as well?
reply
thomassmith65
14 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
aaa_aaa
14 hours ago
[-]
When numbers hit tens of thousands maybe they will.
reply
throwawayheui57
13 hours ago
[-]
They have already, were you asleep?
reply
pinkmuffinere
14 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
heavyset_go
14 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
throwaway3060
13 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
heavyset_go
13 hours ago
[-]
How does blowing up schools offer hope for the future?
reply
lelanthran
3 hours ago
[-]
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?

reply
roenxi
2 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
lelanthran
1 hour ago
[-]
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.

reply
roenxi
1 hour ago
[-]
... 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.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minab

reply
lelanthran
1 hour ago
[-]
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.

reply
throwaway3060
12 hours ago
[-]
I've been hearing the school strike was an Iranian misfire, actually.
reply
khazhoux
13 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
heavyset_go
13 hours ago
[-]
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"
reply
pinkmuffinere
13 hours ago
[-]
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?
reply
elihu
44 minutes ago
[-]
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.
reply
jmyeet
6 minutes ago
[-]
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...

reply
inglor_cz
1 minute ago
[-]
"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.

reply
paganel
14 hours ago
[-]
What moment would that be? Begging for the Americans to bomb their former country?
reply
thomassmith65
14 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
gizajob
3 hours ago
[-]
It’s great, they can go back home now and get on with building a new state.
reply
breakyerself
14 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
pinkmuffinere
14 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
Thlom
14 hours ago
[-]
Haha.
reply
SXX
14 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
amarcheschi
2 hours ago
[-]
US supported Pinochet or the US supported military dictatorship in brasil would like to disagree
reply
throwaway2037
36 minutes ago
[-]
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.
reply
Almondsetat
14 hours ago
[-]
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?
reply
aaa_aaa
14 hours ago
[-]
This was never about Iranian people. This is all about war mongers, puppets and idiots who believe them.
reply
blowsand
14 hours ago
[-]
Defend your thesis.
reply
anonymous908213
14 hours ago
[-]
Venezuela.
reply
avoutos
13 hours ago
[-]
Defend your thesis
reply
JimmyBiscuit
3 hours ago
[-]
Hmm I wonder what superpower got most of the oil from venezuela and iran. I think it starts with a C
reply
tdeck
1 hour ago
[-]
Trump literally said it was about the oil on television?
reply
throwaway2037
35 minutes ago
[-]
Wild, right? He said it out loud. It reminds me of Chappelle's Show - Black Bush.
reply
smt88
14 hours ago
[-]
Those may be the motivations, but the outcome (so far) is still something Iranians are optimistic about
reply
4ndrewl
14 hours ago
[-]
Maybe speak to some Libyans. Or Iraqis. Or Syrians?
reply
reliabilityguy
13 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
someotherperson
13 hours ago
[-]
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

reply
reliabilityguy
12 hours ago
[-]
> 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.

reply
Almondsetat
13 hours ago
[-]
Is this a way to avoid thinking about the conundrum?
reply
4ndrewl
13 hours ago
[-]
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"
reply
UltraSane
14 hours ago
[-]
Short term pain for long term gain.
reply
bambax
14 hours ago
[-]
Short term pain for long term more pain.
reply
jachee
14 hours ago
[-]
As an American, I’m really starting to feel that way.
reply
eclipseo76
14 hours ago
[-]
Really... In a thread about Iran... This is not comparable at all and so insulting for what they have endured since 1979.
reply
quitspamming
14 hours ago
[-]
Except midterm elections are literally this year. But other than that small detail, sure.
reply
breakyerself
14 hours ago
[-]
Trump isn't there to help. He wants the oil and he wants a puppet dictator. He doesn't care about the people.
reply
paganel
4 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
Ray20
3 hours ago
[-]
> 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.

reply
vasco
14 hours ago
[-]
Which Arab countries are better after US intervention? The last place that had a dictator is now ruled by ISIS.
reply
oytis
14 hours ago
[-]
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
reply
mikkupikku
2 hours ago
[-]
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?

reply
vasco
14 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
oytis
14 hours ago
[-]
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
reply
baxtr
13 hours ago
[-]
You want your story to be true so badly you ignore counter examples?

You should consider conformation bias.

reply
vasco
4 hours ago
[-]
What story? Iraq is ruled by ISIS and Syria is ruled by a dude who's goal was to institute Sharia or ISIS v2. Those were both countries in the region where US intervention toppled a dictator and now is how it is.
reply
reliabilityguy
13 hours ago
[-]
What Arab countries?

How can you compare Arab countries to Iran?

reply
vasco
5 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
bjourne
14 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
Almondsetat
12 hours ago
[-]
Did I say anything like that?
reply
bjourne
8 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
Almondsetat
4 hours ago
[-]
That is not the implication. Learn some english and good manners
reply
khazhoux
13 hours ago
[-]
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"?

reply
bjourne
13 hours ago
[-]
I have ten times as many Iranian friends as you have. They are all against the bombings.
reply
Jensson
10 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
AlexeyBelov
3 hours ago
[-]
How do you know how many friends they have, to confidently state you have 10x?
reply
sega_sai
49 minutes ago
[-]
I have no sympathy for Khamenei, but, if that is allowed we should not be surprised if Denmark prime minister is next?
reply
jordanb
34 minutes ago
[-]
Weirdly Europe and even Canada seem to be completely onboard with all this..
reply
hyperman1
23 minutes ago
[-]
That's not how I am reading this. Here, the reaction seems mostly that Europe doesn't want to touch this mess. Which is weird, as Iran was clearly on our list of bad countries and Israel can do nothing wrong.

Local news publishes articles of Iranians in our countries being happy, political commenters indicating it can go both ways, and not much comments from politicians.

reply
Hendrikto
25 minutes ago
[-]
Having a brutal dictatorial regime that finances international terrorists on your doorstep does that to you.
reply
petcat
23 minutes ago
[-]
Also weirdly they only came out in support once they saw that the operation was largely successful. It's almost like they prefer to ride on the coattails the same as they always have.

They don't want to risk their politics.

reply
bonsai_spool
27 seconds ago
[-]
> Also weirdly they only came out in support once they saw that the operation was largely successful

This is revisionist.

First, when has a bombing run been ‘unsuccessful’ in the modern era? The assassination wasn’t confirmed until after these statements had come out.

Second, these statements were released essentially as soon as these folks woke up.

The rest of the world should be forgiven for taking POTUS at his word when he said he was going to continue negotiations.

reply
inglor_cz
6 minutes ago
[-]
Not even Russia really wants Iran to have nuclear weapons and a rocket technology that can hit targets 3000 km+ distant, though they obviously wouldn't attack Iran over that problem. The Middle East is notoriously hard to predict and governments change, while the nuclear capability endures.

Of all the countries that currently make any steps towards nuclear armament, Iran has by far the widest coalition of opponents.

reply
skywalqer
24 minutes ago
[-]
Yeah, because killing murderous dictators is helpful, and it doesn't matter that much who does it. In Europe, states aren't sacred – it is the freedom of people, and when people are freed, Europeans are happy even if it includes breaking the sovereignty of some terror state. I'm not saying I like Trump, but when he kills evil dictators, I can't complain. (There was 10k+ protesters killed in Iran recently)

There is huge potential hidden in Iran; it has always had a huge influence over the region and possibly the whole world.

reply
cess11
16 minutes ago
[-]
Norway, Finland and Spain protested the attack on the basis of international law.

The swedish government was more like 'eh, they had it coming', which does not bode well for us in the long run.

reply
_3u10
18 minutes ago
[-]
Agreed. Canada fired the attorney general rather than prosecute those who financed momar ghaddfi. If Trump takes carney to stand trial I support it.

It’s also self admittedly a genocidal state which has failed to bring anyone to justice for the genocide it committed.

The Canadian people need US help in bringing those responsible for genocide and terrorist financing to stand trial for their crimes.

reply
_3u10
12 minutes ago
[-]
Iran is not a sovereign state, the legitimate powers of government derive from the consent of the governed, without consent it’s not a sovereign state.

The power of sovereignty rests with the people who have given their consent in free and fair elections to have their leaders removed.

reply
Alifatisk
43 minutes ago
[-]
Of all options, why would Denmarks prime minister be next?
reply
jonathanstrange
42 minutes ago
[-]
Refusal to hand over Greenland.

(I'm not saying it's plausible, just want to explain the rationale.)

reply
IsTom
38 minutes ago
[-]
I don't think killing democratic representatives has as big of an effect as killing authoritarians. You can't have cult of the leader without the leader, but in parliamentary systems you'd have to off quite a few people.
reply
petcat
35 minutes ago
[-]
It's an easier decision to make if Denmark's PM decides to spray bullets at 20,000 student protestors.
reply
booleandilemma
9 minutes ago
[-]
You realize what a bad guy he was, right?

Read the list of human rights violations in Iran here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Re... and tell us something the prime minister of Denmark has done to deserve assassination.

I swear half the people on the internet are crazy. You all would be defending Hitler if he was killed today.

"Just because he was bad doesn't give us the right to kill him". You people should hear yourselves.

reply
9864247888754
36 minutes ago
[-]
Won't somebody think of the jihadist regime :(
reply
cess11
6 minutes ago
[-]
Typically jihadist denotes a militant sunni-salafist tendency, who are even more hateful against shia than non-believers.

This is reflected in e.g. Aaron Y. Zelin separating his surveilling of islamic militancy respectively into a jihadology and a muqawamology web site.

It is common for people in the occident to project the ideas they have about sunni-salafists onto the islamic republic, even though it is absurd. Same goes for the view that Khamenei supposedly were the one trying to achieve nuclear weapons, while his office has been the main blocker for this and secular nuclear researchers and political analysts in Iran has been the main proponents.

A year ago Ali Larijani said that if Iran was attacked they'd have no choice but to build deterrence through nuclear weapons, a proposal the US and Israel apparently thought was jolly good and since have crashed diplomatic alternatives to by the crime of aggression, not once but twice. The second time they also removed Khamenei, to really rub it in that they'd prefer for their allies in the region to have yet another nuclear armed neighbour.

reply
1a527dd5
14 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
baxtr
6 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
AlecSchueler
4 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
baxtr
50 minutes ago
[-]
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.

reply
seydor
2 hours ago
[-]
So what about libya, syria, yemen, afghanistan, even venezuela

plus you can't know how Iraq would be today without the invasions

reply
beloch
1 hour ago
[-]
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.

reply
softwaredoug
18 minutes ago
[-]
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

reply
paxys
14 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
judahmeek
10 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
Paianni
9 minutes ago
[-]
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.
reply
avaika
13 hours ago
[-]
> 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.

reply
erxam
12 hours ago
[-]
There are endless amounts of hasbara going around. Unit 8200 is sending their best elements out right now.

I'd be careful of what I read and choose to believe.

reply
csmpltn
14 hours ago
[-]
You seriously don’t think Iraq is in a better place today than it has ever been? You miss Saddam?
reply
dfadsadsf
13 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
csmpltn
13 hours ago
[-]
Plenty of people died under Saddam, too. Do you think the average Iraqi would choose to go back and live under Saddam?
reply
greazy
10 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
bjourne
8 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
wqaatwt
4 hours ago
[-]
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).

reply
GeoAtreides
11 hours ago
[-]
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?!!?!?!?!?!??!?!

reply
tdeck
1 hour ago
[-]
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.

reply
impossiblefork
1 hour ago
[-]
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.
reply
aucisson_masque
13 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
csmpltn
13 hours ago
[-]
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?
reply
muzani
12 hours ago
[-]
It would be good to read the wiki and understand what ISIS really was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State
reply
UncleMeat
12 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
acjohnson55
13 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
wfdsf2
13 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
deaux
10 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
Bender
13 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
heavyset_go
14 hours ago
[-]
This will be the start of something that never ends
reply
Rapzid
12 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
TulliusCicero
14 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
g8oz
14 hours ago
[-]
America and Israel are lawless countries. Can you imagine other countries assassinating a foreign head of state and not getting immediate blowback?
reply
shell0x
26 minutes ago
[-]
The EU should do more to move away from being dependent on america . America is a hostile nation and should be treated like Russia and China.
reply
y-curious
19 minutes ago
[-]
EU needs the US so much and every time I see this comment, I remember why. Too many idealists running the EU
reply
shell0x
12 minutes ago
[-]
We need China more.
reply
muzani
12 hours ago
[-]
I prefer assassinations of leaders in wars over deaths of soldiers and especially civilians.

Considering how Israel had to raze entire cities to beat 'Hamas' or the US dropping nukes in WW2 instead of bombing the Japanese Emperor. This is decent as far as wars go.

reply
ekjhgkejhgk
36 minutes ago
[-]
> Considering how Israel had to raze entire cities to beat 'Hamas'

1) Israel didn't "have" to raze anything, they chose to.

2) "Beat Hamas" is an excuse for Israel to do what it wants, which is to raze entire cities.

reply
throwaway2037
21 minutes ago
[-]

    > I prefer assassinations of leaders in wars over deaths of soldiers and especially civilians.
To me, this argument doesn't hold water. Think about some counterexamples: (1) Netanyahu and Gaza. Surely, 100K+ civilians died as a result of that war. (2) Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Vietnam. A staggering number of civilians died in that war. (3) GW Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq/2.

My guess: All of those leaders are responsible for more innocent civilian deaths in each conflict than Khamenei's entire reign.

To me, I am very conflicted about the assassination of Khamenei. Yeah, he did a bunch of bad stuff and was very destabilising in the region, but I need to draw the line at assassination. It was unnecessary. It is a slippery slope.

reply
jasomill
8 hours ago
[-]
To the extent that they're actually effective, I agree.

Trouble is, higher-ups are easily replaceable, and the rank-and-file True Believers may be even more willing to follow orders in the name of a dead tyrant than a living one.

Or not. Sic semper tyrannis. Best wishes to the people of Iran.

reply
deaux
10 hours ago
[-]
> Considering how Israel had to raze entire cities to beat 'Hamas'

They didn't, they just had to stop funding them, as Hamas has been funded by Israel.

reply
whacko_quacko
1 hour ago
[-]
That's like saying the EU fundeh Hamas because they gave aid money to Gaza. If you squint at it the right way then maybe, but fundamentally it's disingenuous to call something like that funding.

But "the Jews .. uhm, I mean Israel .. had it coming and they did it to themselves" is always a favorite, isn't it?

reply
xorcist
21 minutes ago
[-]
If that was true, it would be like that. But it isn't, so it's not. EU is wide, and does not always speak with one voice, but it has a clear history of doing their best to avoid funding the proto-democratic forces in the region. Any support of religious extremists is considered a failure and acted upon.
reply
flyinglizard
1 hour ago
[-]
No, Hamas was never funded by Israel. In this instance, Hamas was funded by Qatar, and the Israelis were complicit by allowing it. But it's also important to remember that Hamas is the elected sovereign in Gaza, and this money was used in part to run Gaza's infrastructure. In the same way Taliban runs Afghanistan, Hamas runs Gaza.

The assumption in Israel was that it was beneficial to have Hamas retain something to lose, and not starve them dry outright. Of course that didn't pan out well, given what Hamas did in October 7th.

But saying Hamas was funded by Israel is an outright lie, and the irony it comes from the same people who blame Israel for not letting supplies into Gaza during war. So no matter if Israel does or does not, it's always to blame simply by being.

reply
elihu
36 minutes ago
[-]
> the irony it comes from the same people who blame Israel for not letting supplies into Gaza during war.

Israel did in fact do that. In fact there were several months of Israel not allowing any food or supplies whatsoever into Gaza. That was about a year ago. (It's possible Israel may have been supplying rival groups unfriendly to Hamas with food/supplies/weapons in secret, but all regular humanitarian aid was shut off.)

reply
HDThoreaun
9 hours ago
[-]
Israel stopped finding hamas decades ago
reply
deaux
9 hours ago
[-]
Lies.

> In an interview with Politico in 2023, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that "In the last 15 years, Israel did everything to downgrade the Palestinian Authority and to boost Hamas." He continued saying "Gaza was on the brink of collapse because they had no resources, they had no money, and the PA refused to give Hamas any money. Bibi saved them. Bibi made a deal with Qatar and they started to move millions and millions of dollars to Gaza."

reply
dotancohen
8 hours ago
[-]
That looks like Israel made every effort to promote the welfare of Gazan citizens. From your own link "Gaza was on the brink of collapse" and Israel saved them.
reply
SkyeCA
14 hours ago
[-]
> America and Israel are lawless countries.

The truth of the world, as much as we may hate it, is that at least at the state level might makes right.

reply
danny_codes
12 hours ago
[-]
Well not right, but effective in the short term. In the longer term I assume this kind of policy is destabilizing and bad for everyone
reply
TulliusCicero
14 hours ago
[-]
There's no such thing as a legitimate dictator, and every one of them belongs six feet under.
reply
davidguetta
13 hours ago
[-]
International law is below its ability to bé enforced
reply
TiredOfLife
5 hours ago
[-]
Russia tried many times in Ukraine. No blowback.
reply
sschueller
3 hours ago
[-]
What are you talking about? Russia has effectively been blocked from the west while when the United States invaded Iraq nothing happened. Europe trades with the US like nothing ever happened while Russia will never return to what it was before without at minimum Putin being gone.

Europe even still trades with Israel when what they have done is Gaza has been declared a genocide by everyone. At the same time Russia can't even take part in the Olympics or the Eurovision song contest.

The west has no moral ground to stand on and hopefully people in the west will start to see that.

reply
throwaway2037
18 minutes ago
[-]
You raise a lot of good points here. Another unconfortable truth: Russia is withstanding the sanctions way better than anyone expected. I don't think that they can sustain it forever, but I do think they can make it (at least) another 2-3 years.
reply
bamboozled
14 hours ago
[-]
My thinking is that, it's good when it works in your favor, but one day it night not, and if it doesn't well what recourse is available then?
reply
powerpcmac
14 hours ago
[-]
Fine, you got me. We will expedite another billion in aid to Israel to make up for it.
reply
cucumber3732842
14 hours ago
[-]
You can't see the french or Russians doing the same thing in Africa? Because I sure can. There's be some hand wringing and posturing but that's about it.

Not that it's ok for the US, or anyone else to do it.

reply
programmertote
14 hours ago
[-]
Either this will end in a fractured state with different factions OR another Ayatollah will be in charge. Just my guess from seeing similar stories play out in other countries though....
reply
suoloordi
13 hours ago
[-]
Iran is not like other countries in the region. Despite its shortcomings, it's a cohesive society. I'm certain that there will be no fracturing and a central authority will emerge.
reply
throwaway2037
15 minutes ago
[-]

    > Iran is not like other countries in the region. Despite its shortcomings, it's a cohesive society.
This is a weird comment. I would also describe Jordan, Oman, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia as cohesive societies.
reply
elcritch
2 hours ago
[-]
Indeed, I'vve already read about an opposition government being organized.
reply
christkv
2 hours ago
[-]
From my reading I get the feeling it has more in common with Spain and Portugal before the fall of the dictatorships.
reply
adamiscool8
14 hours ago
[-]
Even as we speak, Ayatollah Razmara and his cadre of fanatics are consolidating their power!
reply
indubioprorubik
14 hours ago
[-]
Maybe .. the revolutionary guard is fed up though with ineffective empire rule? Like to be rubbed in the dirt face first repeatetly as inheritor of the mighty persian empire sucks bad enough, to reconsider the way things are run? Sorry, but whatever israel & the us are doing, seems to work way better than - whatever has happened the last decades in iran?
reply
Drunk_Engineer
14 hours ago
[-]
For those who don't get the joke:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpEF6QPSVJE

reply
jcranmer
14 hours ago
[-]
As I understand it, the IGRC doesn't particularly rub happily with the clerical council, and it's not entirely clear to me who will win that the power struggle.

But the ultimate loser of the power struggle is clear: the Iranian populace at large, as all of the viable factions are quite committed to consolidating their power by repressing the population. The most likely situation, I think, looks a lot like Libya.

reply
indubioprorubik
3 hours ago
[-]
Islamic societies seem to be unable to form stable institutions. The recipe seems to be unable to synthesize this, no matter how many ressources are available and how benign the conditions. As a result the biggest formable state-institution remains the family clan and the family clan just does not cut it in preventing civil war. At best you get a clan-coalition masquerading as a military government with some democratic pets - at worst you get libya.But i guess after 52 countries, the results are in and the fact that other - non western powers are colonizing islamic countries now (china, russia) and everyone is scrambling for nukes post trump - the displayed weaknesses could end the region.
reply
oa335
1 hour ago
[-]
“ the biggest formable state-institution remains the family clan”

This is not at all how Irani society is structured.

The rest of your comments generalizations are weak and ill-supported as well, at best they only apply to a subset of Arab countries in the Middle East.

reply
lucketone
2 hours ago
[-]
How about Indonesia?
reply
quitspamming
14 hours ago
[-]
Replying authoritatively to a Simpsons quote betrays you.
reply
bombcar
14 hours ago
[-]
It’s Ayatollah Rubio.
reply
ReptileMan
14 hours ago
[-]
Even as we speak Israeli missiles are target at him.
reply
hnthrowaway0315
14 hours ago
[-]
I think maybe the reformists are able to hold on now that the IRGC is being hammered. There might be more internal bloodshed but chances are that Iran might be a bit more open and more modern. Of course I have zero knowledge about how Iran politics works, so that was just a guess, not even an intelligent one.

BTW I don't actually think even the reformists will "accept Western ideas".

reply
XorNot
14 hours ago
[-]
"Mission Accomplished"
reply
mkoubaa
14 hours ago
[-]
We have such short memories don't we
reply
seanmcdirmid
12 hours ago
[-]
What country in the Middle East has actually gotten better after removal of a bad status quo, in the last 26 years? I really can’t think of any. Is even Iraq considered a success?
reply
C6JEsQeQa5fCjE
10 hours ago
[-]
> Is even Iraq considered a success?

For Israel, absolutely. Improving the victim countries is not the aim.

reply
swingboy
1 hour ago
[-]
Each one has worked out pretty well for Israel.
reply
Alifatisk
17 minutes ago
[-]
What is happening to this world. There is so many intense events happening in a such short time. I feel like we are truly living in weird times. Trumpet is out here deciding the fate of countries future for his own good. Now, it so happens to be something that benefited the Iranians. But I do not think he did it for the people directly, rather a side effect.

I feel like I've lost the touch of which direction our future is going now, the worlds geopolitics is fluctuation too much. Maybe I should remind myself that feelings also gets amplified by constant stream of news and social media. I am certain 1990s, 2000s and early 2010s was worse times.

reply
shell0x
13 minutes ago
[-]
Exactly just because the dictator was horrible doesn’t give the US the right to attack other countries. I see no difference between Russia, Israel, America. They’re all hostile countries which should be sanctioned for human rights violations and violating international law.
reply
KnuthIsGod
17 minutes ago
[-]
Good way to boost the midterm vote.

Next Greenland and then Canada.

reply
garbawarb
14 hours ago
[-]
To any Iranians of HN: how do you feel about the current situation, and what's the sentiment of Iranians abroad?
reply
throwawayheui57
13 hours ago
[-]
Iranian here! Lived most of my life inside Iran. I don't view US's actions as a favor to common Iranians. That's naive. No one wants war and bombing of civilians. Our misery is caused by a mix of religious extremism, theocracy and foreign intervention (in the past, Mossadegh, etc.) among other things. First and foremost I hold the regime responsible. For most of my life, I witnessed firsthand how they pushed us step by step closer to confrontation with the US, yet there's no single bomb shelter in Tehran or any major city for people to run to after 47 years of this shit. How would you feel in this situation?

Their opposition to Israel is not from a humanitarian and moral standpoint, it's purely religious. They have no shame admitting this. You just have to listen to one of the 5 state TV channels in Farsi. I even think Palestinians would fare better if not for these extremists on either side!

All that said, the supreme leader is the one who commands the murder of innocents in the streets, so he had it coming. Good riddance and he died like the rat that he was. But as to what happens next? No one knows. Also I personally don't think US is doing this because they want Iran's oil. I believe they want to put pressure on China to not get Iran's cheap (under sanctions) oil. That seems more plausible to me.

*typo edit

reply
swingboy
1 hour ago
[-]
The US is doing this because Netanyahu visited Trump in the White House 7 times last year. It’s not about oil, protestors, or nuclear weapons: it’s about Israeli hegemony in the region.
reply
hnthrowaway0315
14 hours ago
[-]
If the hard-liners IRGC generals went with him then it might be a good thing for its economy. I have heard some rumors that China was frustrated that IRGC pushed against the deals and were not willing to accept foreign investments in key oil/infra projects because they sit on them -- and that was why China never put down any real investments after signing the deals.
reply
eunos
14 hours ago
[-]
IRGC or whatever succeed next should wise themselves and stop hedging about whatever next deal with US/EU.
reply
hnthrowaway0315
14 hours ago
[-]
I think the biggest problem of IRGC is that they grabbed a large share of economy but spent a lot of that in geopolitical expansion for the last 1-2 decades. This in turn contributed to a more fragile Iranian economy and high inflation, which makes them extremely unpopular among the people.
reply
underlipton
8 hours ago
[-]
Why would a regime that came to be, ultimately, precisely because of foreign meddling in resource extraction ever entertain more foreign meddling in resource extraction, especially when it's levered with "or else we'll kill you."?
reply
joshkojoras
14 hours ago
[-]
It was about time. I hope the opposition in Iran takes charge and gets into power before they find another religious leader.
reply
zdragnar
1 hour ago
[-]
One of the foundational principles of a stable government (though not the only one) is a monopoly on the use of force.

Unless the military and other armed groups back the civilians, whoever they end up backing will rule.

reply
ozgrakkurt
13 hours ago
[-]
yess, the experience so far makes it obvious. They will be democratic and their gdp will go up by 6900% now. There won't be devastation, people starving to death, meaningless hindsight or anything like that.
reply
tastyface
5 hours ago
[-]
"There are reports of US/Israeli strikes on or near the homes of former Iranian pres, Ahmadinejad, former reformist presidential candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, and various leftist activists. If the US/Israel really wanted the 'people' to take back the country, they wouldn’t assassinate these folks"

https://bsky.app/profile/msjamshidi.bsky.social/post/3mfwmdx...

reply
FilosofumRex
14 hours ago
[-]
there is no opposition in Iran, they're mostly in DC and Tel Aviv...
reply
FilosofumRex
12 hours ago
[-]
there is no such opposition in Iran, they're mostly in DC and Tel Aviv...
reply
4ndrewl
14 hours ago
[-]
In a FIFA World Peace Cup year as well. Is nothing sacred?
reply
littlestymaar
2 hours ago
[-]
I don't think anyone should shed a tear for Khamenei's death, but I'm not convinced the current trend of regime decapitation is setting the world in a desirable direction.

I'm convinced that with current technology (namely, drones) any half competent state actor can easily assassinate any world leader, and I wonder if the recent US actions aren't going to make the practice commonplace, with dramatic destabilization risks. (For instance think about Air Force One being shot down during landing by an FPV drone controlled over LTE from somewhere in South America by a Cuban intelligence officer).

reply
impossiblefork
53 minutes ago
[-]
It's pretty obvious that these dictators etc. are legally civilians and that this kind of thing is against the laws of war.

Traditionally even people like the US president, who is technically commander in chief, kings etc. with formal military ranks but who are not real battlefield decision makers etc., have been regarded as civilians.

reply
w10-1
14 hours ago
[-]
This claim and the offer of immunity may be intended more to reduce Iranian resistance than to represent reality.

(I would not rely on immunity from a nation that left collaborators on the tarmac in afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam?)

reply
UltraSane
1 hour ago
[-]
Approximately 370,000 Hmong Americans live in the U.S. largely due to their alliance with the CIA during the Vietnam war.
reply
Rapzid
12 hours ago
[-]
Immunity from the USA maybe. I would hope the new Iranian government would prosecute people for crimes appropriately.
reply
izietto
57 minutes ago
[-]
Hi Iran, enjoy your civil war
reply
Mikhail_Edoshin
2 hours ago
[-]
To celebrate deaths this way is satanic.
reply
seydor
2 hours ago
[-]
Good, Trump can now claim victory and shout some words in his third-world-dictator style, and american sailors move out of the region. Stock market is opening tomorrow and it doesnt want to see ugly things
reply
omnee
14 hours ago
[-]
In isolation the death of this brutal dictator is great news, but we have seen how previous decapitation strikes have not had the intended effect. And I can only hope the Iranian people somehow end up better for this entirely illegal war that the Trump administration has initiated, instead of facing up to a fractured leadership and a potential civil war.
reply
icar
5 hours ago
[-]
In 1953, Iran was a secular and democratic country. They had elected a prime minister who decided to nationalize the oil industry. The US didn't like this and overthrew him. They imposed a brutal monarchical dictatorship. Popular discontent led to the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The ayatollahs, to a large extent, existed because of US interference.

The same is true for all the instability in the Middle East, entirely manufactured by the West.

Action-reaction, cause-effect: You never know how a story will end. And after the 1979 revolution, the CIA and British MI6 provided the ayatollahs with lists of communists to exterminate, which they did. Imperialism always prefers to deal with theocracies rather than communists. https://www.declassifieduk.org/how-britain-helped-irans-isla...

reply
wqaatwt
4 hours ago
[-]
> In 1953, Iran was a secular and democratic

That glosses over a huge amount of details. Calling it democratic is a huge stretch.

> They had elected a prime minister

The election of 1952 were rigged (seemingly by both sides) and not free at all. The vote was even stopped early and almost half the seats left empty.

Mosaddegh was also already in power (being appointed by the Shah) before these “democratic” elections and his reforms were already underway.

reply
CodinM
2 hours ago
[-]
This is skimming over the important details, "democratic" is really stretching it.

I also liked the idea that oh look Iran was this liberal country and whatnot but unfortunately it's just not true.

reply
Ray20
3 hours ago
[-]
> Imperialism always prefers to deal with theocracies rather than communists.

Communist regimes are also a form of theocracy (proof can be found in the writings of any communist leader). It's just that, unlike other theocratic regimes, other countries have to deal with millions of starving refugees (because the communist faith requires banning food production or something like that, I don't know much about their religion).

reply
hirpslop
14 hours ago
[-]
This may or may not lead to a weaker Iran. From FP: “Iran is frequently portrayed as a political order bound tightly to individuals. Yet the architecture that emerged after 1979 was formed by a different logic, one founded in the revolutionary experience itself. Khomeini captured this hierarchy in a remark (https://abdimedia.net/en/ruhollah-khomeini/system-ahead-life...) often cited within Iran’s political elite: “Preserving the Islamic Republic is more important than preserving any individual, even if that individual were the Imam of the Age”—a reference to Shiism’s 12th Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi. It is still unclear whether the system will always follow this principle. But one should expect a change in leadership in Tehran to be treated less as an ending and more as a chance for the country’s institutions to show they can survive.”

https://foreignpolicy.com/2026/02/28/iran-khamenei-ayatollah...

reply
thecarbonista
14 hours ago
[-]
Why are the American democrats protesting?
reply
mirekrusin
2 hours ago
[-]
Because it's not them who did it.
reply
jryan49
14 hours ago
[-]
Cause people are sick of their tax money going to endless wars
reply
k33n
3 hours ago
[-]
Aren’t they the ones who wanted to go to war with Russia?
reply
ares623
2 hours ago
[-]
missing keyword is "starting"
reply
UltraSane
1 hour ago
[-]
Trump didn't get congressional approval
reply
anonnon
10 hours ago
[-]
Looks like Russia's Shahad drone supply chain just got disrupted.
reply
mna_
4 hours ago
[-]
Russia has a license to make their own in Russian factories, but this will decrease Russia's overall supply.
reply
AnimalMuppet
10 hours ago
[-]
reply
SethMurphy
14 hours ago
[-]
If the United States truly supported regime change there should be a clear next leader favored to succeed the Ayatollah, otherwise this feels more like a favor to oil companies, raising prices temporarily, and a sound bite for political gain, without a care of what happens to the country later. Simply toppling a government seems quite risky without further planning. Just expecting "good" people to fill the leadership vacuum is a gamble that could easily backfire and lead to greater crackdowns on freedoms and death to those Trump told to go get the power.
reply
Dig1t
14 hours ago
[-]
Obviously has nothing to do with oil companies or oil, this is a war on behalf of Israel. Netanyahu visited Trump 6 times in the past year. Prominent Zionists and Israelis inside the US have been agitating for the US to do this for years, especially since Trump took office last year.
reply
swingboy
1 hour ago
[-]
I believe Netanyahu has visited 7 times now at this point. In a single year.
reply
SethMurphy
7 hours ago
[-]
Wars are almost always about commerce, history has shown that. Ideology is used to back the motive publicly, but the reason for involvement is almost always trade or commerce. This case could be different, but it is not obvious to me that this case is any different. A simple example is WW1 where the US was forced to back the UK because of their large debt to US banks, despite them still being a colonist power at the time.
reply
wqaatwt
4 hours ago
[-]
You are implying that Trump is rational and/or the interests of his administration align with those of the country?
reply
SethMurphy
1 hour ago
[-]
I am making no implications of Trump, very on purpose to keep this in point (it's hard), but explicitly stating that the policies of the United States are based on capitalism and always have been, while the narrative given and received is that of humanitarianism, which in my opinion is a side effect only. In this case hopefully a positive one, hence my concern for the reckless nature of the war (let's just call it what it is, not just an attack or military action).
reply
eunos
14 hours ago
[-]
I'm not discounting that Trump is thinking he could back another Pahlavi and restore the Peacock Throne.
reply
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
2 hours ago
[-]
If you want to accurately predict the future, look no further than following prominent Israeli Americans and whatever it is they are after.
reply
small_model
14 hours ago
[-]
If true, and given how easy it seemed decapitate the regime I can't see another Ayatollah taking over, hopefully the people take over and institute a real secular democracy based on capitalism.
reply
grey-area
14 hours ago
[-]
Without proper support and a huge nation building effort, the same fate as Lebanon, Syria, Lybia Iraq, Afghanistan is the more likely outcome after this evil dictator is gone.

Assassination doesn’t remove the system or rewrite the balance of power, nor does it reconstitute civil society.

reply
squibonpig
14 hours ago
[-]
You were so close
reply
XorNot
14 hours ago
[-]
Why not? If there's one thing that's been proven over the last 20 years it's you can just outlast America.
reply
bossyTeacher
14 hours ago
[-]
Why didn't he flee? This was a long time coming
reply
pygar
10 hours ago
[-]
His daughter, son-in-law, and the defense minister were also killed, as they were all in his residence at the time.

If he decided to stay for ideological reasons, they would not have been there.

My guess is that they might have misinterpreted the US's demands as starting positions while the US considered them to be final. Who would expect a country that can produce ballistic missiles to willingly give it up? It was a non-starter from the beginning.

reply
TulliusCicero
14 hours ago
[-]
It's definitely odd if he was just sitting in his compound. That's a very, well, known place for him. Surely Iran has plenty of secure underground bunkers for leadership to retreat to?
reply
fourseventy
14 hours ago
[-]
Apparently they hit the compound with 30+ bunker busters. So perhaps he was in a bunker but the bombs still got him
reply
dotancohen
8 hours ago
[-]
That's how Nasrallah was eliminated as well.
reply
jihadjihad
13 hours ago
[-]
Is there a source for this? I haven’t read any of the specifics on the strike.
reply
bjourne
13 hours ago
[-]
Fleeing is seen as dishonorable in many parts of the Arab world. Remember the Israeli lies about how Yahya Sinwar dressed in women's clothes and were trying to cross the border to Egypt? In reality he was out in the field with his men killing Israeli soldiers. He died a brave death and Khamenei will now have died one too.
reply
wqaatwt
4 hours ago
[-]
> Fleeing is seen as dishonorable

Tell that to the soldiers in the famously almost universally ineffective militaries of almost all the countries in the Arab world.

reply
nailer
13 hours ago
[-]
Iran isn’t an arab country.
reply
bjourne
12 hours ago
[-]
Great, but that is nit-picking---I'm describing a cultural trait present in Iran which makes certain decisions seem irrational to Westerners.
reply
dotancohen
8 hours ago
[-]
I would like to hear more about the cultural traits that seem irrational to Westerners.

For what it's worth, I agree with you about Sinwar dying while fighting.

reply
nailer
12 hours ago
[-]
I’m suggesting by referring to Iran as an Arab country, you have demonstrated you know very little about the Middle East.
reply
bjourne
11 hours ago
[-]
Perhaps you may want to address my argument instead of nit-picking on that I used "Arab world" instead of "Middle East"?
reply
gryzzly
1 hour ago
[-]
glorifying a murderer and a rapist, no problem. not even downvoted, nice moderation here!
reply
TulliusCicero
13 hours ago
[-]
Lol what are you talking about, Arabs are great at guerilla warfare, and that involves a ton of fleeing.
reply
throwaway742
2 hours ago
[-]
RIP
reply
cess11
14 hours ago
[-]
I'd rather wait until it is confirmed.
reply
pavlov
14 hours ago
[-]
The killings of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi were so amazingly successful in stabilizing those countries that Americans keep repeating the pattern.
reply
TulliusCicero
14 hours ago
[-]
Not a killing, but capturing Noriega did in fact work out well. Panama of today is generally stable and rich (by Latam standards anyway).
reply
jacquesm
2 hours ago
[-]
Panama's main asset can't be removed from Panama.
reply
mkoubaa
14 hours ago
[-]
It's almost like they are either stupid or the point was never about stability
reply
le-mark
14 hours ago
[-]
Netanyahu is leading Trump around by the nose apparently. And here we all thought Putin owned Trump. How the wheel turns.
reply
amarant
14 hours ago
[-]
Nobody owns trump, you can't buy him.

Trump is for rent. Shutting down a competitor is 25M, "full service" is apparently ~100M. I'm not privy to what invading an oil nation costs, but I reckon it's akin to a hand job, so a nice golden wristwatch should probably do it?

reply
gpderetta
37 minutes ago
[-]
The Board of Peace admission price is $1B apparently.
reply
abraxas
14 hours ago
[-]
Those are not mutually exclusive. He is still Putin's bitch as well as Netanyahu's.
reply
mingus88
14 hours ago
[-]
Trump appears to be for lease.
reply
mixxit
3 hours ago
[-]
Good
reply
IAmGraydon
9 hours ago
[-]
Smart strategy by the administration - go after people who are universally hated (Maduro, Khamenei) so you can normalize breaking the law and no one will speak out against you or they're a supporter of said hated people.
reply
dispersed
14 hours ago
[-]
Trump hasn't provided any evidence of his death and is quoted as saying something very non-Trumpian here: https://www.nbcnews.com/world/iran/live-blog/israel-iran-liv...

> Earlier, Trump addressed reports that Khamenei was killed in airstrikes today, saying, “We feel that that is a correct story.”

This doesn't sound like Trump's typical bluster, and it's even weirder that Trump didn't immediately go on TV to brag. I'm not saying this is fake news, but I'll wait for confirmation.

reply
casefields
7 hours ago
[-]
Maybe you should contact Iranian state tv because their promoting what you claim is an incorrect story: https://x.com/marionawfal/status/2027940530982625471?s=46
reply
xannabxlle
14 hours ago
[-]
I'm tired of Israelis killing innocent people
reply
pjc50
14 hours ago
[-]
This was has killed a lot of innocent people. Khamenei was not one of the innocent.
reply
TulliusCicero
14 hours ago
[-]
Ah yes, the poor innocent dictator minding his own business while killing thousands of protestors.
reply
bambax
14 hours ago
[-]
If what matters is the number of people killed, the next two should be Putin and Netanyahu. Yet I have a feeling that will not happen.
reply
TulliusCicero
13 hours ago
[-]
Pretty much by definition, dictators do not allow themselves to be removed by the people through peaceful means, which is why it's easy to draw a line there. If someone's a dictator, it's morally okay to kill them. Always.
reply
bambax
2 hours ago
[-]
Why isn't Trump bombarding the Kremlin? Isn't Putin a much larger threat to world peace than any leader of Iran?

Also, it's never "morally okay" to kill anyone, ever; the fact that the US still has the death penalty shows how little they understand about morals and logic.

reply
devld
1 hour ago
[-]
> Why isn't Trump bombarding the Kremlin? Isn't Putin a much larger threat to world peace than any leader of Iran?

Russia is not a threat to the US per MAD doctrine. If Iran had nukes, you might believe that they could actually be mad enough to use them and because Russia has nukes, no one would try this with Putin.

> Also, it's never "morally okay" to kill anyone, ever; the fact that the US still has the death penalty shows how little they understand about morals and logic.

Never, ever? Even self-defence? Or what would you do if you were living in a hunter-gatherer society that did not have the capability to imprison someone for life and you had a murdering psycho in your tribe? Expel him so he can come back and kill more people? Logic?

reply
Psychoshy_bc1q
1 hour ago
[-]
Because Russia has Nuclear Weapons dummy
reply
bambax
1 hour ago
[-]
Aaaah thanks, I didn't know that and my question wasn't rhetorical.

It's cool we have all those new users on HN who are helping us understand the world.

reply
xannabxlle
9 hours ago
[-]
Falling for the same lies as "Saddam's WMDs" in 2026 is crazy. Keep that energy with Kim Jong Un, or Netanyahu. Oh wait, Israel is America's boss.
reply
dismalaf
7 hours ago
[-]
There's plenty of footage out there if you want to see the bodies.
reply
ReptileMan
14 hours ago
[-]
Ding dong the witch is dead. Let's hope other witches follow his steps.
reply
2OEH8eoCRo0
14 hours ago
[-]
Best of luck to the people of Iran. Be safe! I'm praying for the best!
reply
thisislife2
14 hours ago
[-]
Israel, Trump claims Khamenei killed, Iran denies - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2026/2/28/live-israe...
reply
csmpltn
14 hours ago
[-]
All the angry people here coming out of the woodwork in this thread. Where were you just a month ago, when the Iranian regime murdered 30k of its own civilians within just a couple of days, during the recent wave of protests? This site is infested with woke moralists and islamists.
reply
brap
14 hours ago
[-]
Good riddance
reply
vkou
14 hours ago
[-]
You shouldn't celebrate the killings of heads of state, that would set a bad precedent.
reply
oytis
14 hours ago
[-]
How is it bad? Imagine a world where instead of sending hundreds of thousands young men to die, countries would just launch targeted attacks on the head of enemy's state.
reply
impossiblefork
47 minutes ago
[-]
They're civilians, for one.
reply
oytis
45 minutes ago
[-]
Are they? In most countries the head of the state is also army's commander-in-chief.
reply
impossiblefork
30 minutes ago
[-]
Yes, but these are traditionally not treated as actual soldiers, but civilians commanders-in-chief-in-name-only.
reply
jiggawatts
1 hour ago
[-]
The powerful people that set the rules have made it unacceptable to kill powerful people.

Powerless people? Into the meat grinder!

reply
TulliusCicero
14 hours ago
[-]
If more dictators fear for their lives: good.
reply
jatari
2 hours ago
[-]
If he didn't want to be assassinated maybe he shouldn't have killed all those people.
reply
kingofmen
11 hours ago
[-]
We already have a bad president.
reply
ReptileMan
14 hours ago
[-]
Quite the opposite - if they know they are risking their lives they would be more reasonable.
reply
dotancohen
14 hours ago
[-]
It's the stated reason why the United States has an impeachment process. So that they have a process for removing undesirable heads of state without resorting to assassination.
reply
wqaatwt
4 hours ago
[-]
The US has a constitution as well? It seems pretty worthless these days since nobody is willing to enforce it..
reply
cosmicgadget
11 hours ago
[-]
True but other countries don't have an equivalent process.
reply
gus_massa
1 hour ago
[-]
Most have, but the decition is made by the local politicians instead of foreing nuclear powers. It's actually very similar to the impeachment.
reply
avoutos
13 hours ago
[-]
It's remarkable to me how many seem to forget there is "morality" apart from "legality". Even if this does violate some treaty somewhere, we need not wring hands over the death of an objective dictator.
reply
palmotea
3 hours ago
[-]
> Even if this does violate some treaty somewhere, we need not wring hands over the death of an objective dictator.

We absolutely should. It's a key principle of international law that brutal regimes should not be disturbed, until an opportunity for a regime change brokered by international lawyers presents itself in a century or two. Moral legitimacy comes from international law, and international law only.

reply
hit8run
14 hours ago
[-]
Today is a good day.
reply
lostmsu
10 hours ago
[-]
There might be something to read between the lines for Putin.
reply
Ray20
2 hours ago
[-]
Putin has nuclear weapons. What does he have to fear?
reply
lostmsu
1 hour ago
[-]
An assassination.
reply
jacknews
3 hours ago
[-]
"American heroes may be lost", Trump said. He argued this would be a necessary price to pay to inflict damage.

lol. "Some of you will lose your lives. But that's a price I'm willing to pay"

reply
heavyset_go
14 hours ago
[-]
Thank god we're kicking 5 million people off of their health insurance in 2027, otherwise we would not be able to afford all of these bombs.
reply
culi
14 hours ago
[-]
There was a clip of one of Iran's missiles dodging 3 Patriot interceptors to hit the US base in Bahrain. I realized I just watched $12m wasted for nothing in less than 5 seconds.
reply
poilcn
2 hours ago
[-]
They are not supposed to intercept ballistic missiles anyway,it's THAAD's job
reply
palmotea
3 hours ago
[-]
> There was a clip of one of Iran's missiles dodging 3 Patriot interceptors to hit the US base in Bahrain.

Link?

reply
culi
3 hours ago
[-]
reply
palmotea
3 hours ago
[-]
It looks like the interceptors hit it, but missile was only damaged and not destroyed.

No one's a perfect shot: the misses aren't waste, because some misses should be expected.

reply
aucisson_masque
13 hours ago
[-]
That's your money that's being Squandered yet you have no say in the decision to wage this war, nor your representative.
reply
cosmicgadget
11 hours ago
[-]
There was an election in 2024.
reply
deaux
10 hours ago
[-]
Between those currently in power, and those whose current leader (as senator minority leader).. is a known cheerleader of wars with Iran.
reply
cosmicgadget
10 hours ago
[-]
Wait are you saying Schumer was going to make Harris invade Iran?
reply
jatari
1 hour ago
[-]
This is the kind of brainrot that lets people like Trump get into power in the first place. Removing all agency from the American people by pretending that "both sides are the same". It's just pathetic.

You have built yourself a safe little cocoon, protected from the messy imperfect reality of the world, where sometimes you have to make compromises and you don't always get what you want.

reply
culi
11 hours ago
[-]
That's no excuse.

And if a choice between 2 people that have been thoroughly vetted by elites is your definition of democracy, you have a sad sad view of what's possible.

reply
cosmicgadget
10 hours ago
[-]
Sorry, how are free and fair elections not democracy?
reply
dotancohen
8 hours ago
[-]
These people are here to either sow dissent between American citizens and the American government, or have been influenced by those whose goal is to sow dissent between American citizens and the American government. Qatar can not take on the US with military power, so they use soft power and "influencers".
reply
UncleMeat
12 hours ago
[-]
Don't worry, Chuck Schumer has asked Trump for an explanation for why he's conducting new wars.
reply
wesammikhail
14 hours ago
[-]
Honeeeeeeeeey get in here, the board of peace officially declared its first war!

Bring the popcorn with you. No need for salt cause everyone got that in spades on both sides.

reply
clot27
10 hours ago
[-]
RIP

You died fighting Imperialists and I will always respect that

reply
gryzzly
21 minutes ago
[-]
do you mean ordinary iranians, women without covered hair and teenagers from high schools?
reply
kingofmen
14 hours ago
[-]
> President Trump announced the Iranian leader's death on social media, saying Khamenei could not avoid U.S. intelligence and surveillance. A source briefed on the U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran told NPR earlier Saturday that an Israeli airstrike killed Khamenei.

This does not seem to me like very strong evidence? Trump just says whatever, and "a source briefed on [the attacks]" just means at least one person in USG thinks Khamenei was in whatever house they blew up. Am I missing some other confirmation?

reply
ReptileMan
14 hours ago
[-]
If he is not dead - Iran will have to show him - and he will be double tapped.
reply
Jensson
9 hours ago
[-]
He is dead, Iran state media confirmed a couple of hours ago.
reply
msuniverse2026
14 hours ago
[-]
In my opinion the real problem for Iran lies in the north, on the border with Azerbaijan.

The Israeli-supplied Azeri military has already demonstrated its effectiveness when it curb stomped the unprepared and internally betrayed Armenian military and militias. Baku will eventually decide to intervene in the northern territories. If I had to guess, a "special military operation" into northern Iran is the most likely follow-up scenario goaded into and supplied of course by Israel/US. The goal will be to foment a civil war and begin the dismemberment process of Iran.

A little personal conspiracy theory I have is that after the last Israel/US intervention (when they mysteriously liquidated the only high-ranking and influential internal opposition of the Khamenei clan left) is that some sort of deal was worked out behind the scenes with the clan to get rid of the wizard-in-chief kinda like how Maduro was sold out. It is much easier to go to war with a country when it responds with only symbolic attacks and secretly promises to fight with one hand behind its back - provided cash and security flows for those at the top of course.

reply
uyzstvqs
2 hours ago
[-]
The guy killed tens of thousands of civilians, and planned on nuking millions of Jews once he got the chance. He was as evil as Hitler.

Anyone who argues that this minion of Satan should've been legally protected is either evil or directly manipulated by evil.

reply
hakavlad
25 minutes ago
[-]
Long live the IDF! Free Iran!
reply
shell0x
19 minutes ago
[-]
Israel is a horrible human rights abusing country. Why would you support that?
reply