Killing the Ayatollah would be a truly psychotic and globally destabilizing move. Khamenei is not just any other autocrat, he's a religious leader. It would be such an egregious and haunting...
Killing the Ayatollah would be a truly psychotic and globally destabilizing move. Khamenei is not just any other autocrat, he's a religious leader. It would be such an egregious and haunting exercise of power that it would permanently isolate a large portion of the Muslim world—Sunni and Shia, secular and conservative, critical of the regime and sympathetic—from the US-aligned West and likely towards Russia and China. That's not to say anything of how many people it would outright radicalize. Combine this with the current war in Ukraine, tensions in Israel-Palestine, and we are literally risking WW3 (and I'm not someone who throws that word around much).
It's comforting, amid the endless stream of evil and insane decisions, to know that Trump isn't quite as crazy as he could be. Things can always get worse!
It's comforting, amid the endless stream of evil and insane decisions, to know that Trump isn't quite as crazy as he could be. Things can always get worse!
Or there's someone left near him to tell him 'no, if you order this you will be removed from the presidency' for the very good reasons u/thearctic just outlined.
Or there's someone left near him to tell him 'no, if you order this you will be removed from the presidency' for the very good reasons u/thearctic just outlined.
Was watching normally reasonable chats devolve into full blown conspiracy thinking about this. The big question being "What could set Trump off?" because that is how you allocate government...
Was watching normally reasonable chats devolve into full blown conspiracy thinking about this. The big question being "What could set Trump off?" because that is how you allocate government resources these days.
Any sort of attack or false flag would be seen as a Trump failure but the mounting domestic tensions might tip him over the edge. He needs to secure any sort of deal as a matter of pride now but being called weak is bound to get under his skin. There's also the many "favors" Trump owes a lot of people and leaves him in the middle of many conflicting interests.
Its a profound no-win scenario decades in the making and it all comes down to the whims of a man ruled by unresolvable daddy issues and the last psychopath that could pull his strings. If we ever sort ourselves out, we as a society really should work on how we allow upward failure and for people to enjoy consequence free lives. We won't, but its nice to imagine.
The Ayatollah serves more purpose as a live boogeyman than an vanquished adversary to Trump. Netanyahu is on a war crime spree so he would do so in a heartbeat if the US would back him on it....
The Ayatollah serves more purpose as a live boogeyman than an vanquished adversary to Trump. Netanyahu is on a war crime spree so he would do so in a heartbeat if the US would back him on it. However, this does not negate the very crucial consequences you point out.
I see two possible explanations for the claim that Trump vetoed the plan to kill the ayatollah: Trump was the adult in the room and stabilized the world for a change. Trump, being the narcissist...
Netanyahu spokesperson Omer Dostri later called reports about the Israeli plan to kill Khamenei “fake.”
I see two possible explanations for the claim that Trump vetoed the plan to kill the ayatollah:
Trump was the adult in the room and stabilized the world for a change.
Trump, being the narcissist with the mental maturity of a twelve-year-old, did what he always does - made something up to get attention, consequences be damned.
3. Trump’s narcissistic interests and/or what he remembered of the most recent conversation with someone trying to play him towards their interests was, by complete coincidence, aligned with the...
3. Trump’s narcissistic interests and/or what he remembered of the most recent conversation with someone trying to play him towards their interests was, by complete coincidence, aligned with the slightly more stable option.
The Israelis informed the Trump administration in recent days that they had developed a credible plan to kill Khamenei.
After being briefed on the plan, the White House made clear to Israeli officials that Trump was opposed to the Israelis making the move, according to the official, who was not authorized to comment on the sensitive matter and spoke on the condition of anonymity.
"We know exactly where the so-called “Supreme Leader” is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there - We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now," Trump said in a post on Truth Social.
We really don't protect military intel anymore, huh?
"We know exactly where the so-called “Supreme Leader” is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there - We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now," Trump said in a post on Truth Social.
We really don't protect military intel anymore, huh?
Not if trump knows it. I remember talk about there having been certain things he was never briefed on during his first term - if I am remembering correctly.
Not if trump knows it. I remember talk about there having been certain things he was never briefed on during his first term - if I am remembering correctly.
What would you guys predict as the most optimistic realistic outcome from this war? And how long do you reckon it will go on for before reaching a conclusion? I’m not knowledgeable enough about...
What would you guys predict as the most optimistic realistic outcome from this war? And how long do you reckon it will go on for before reaching a conclusion? I’m not knowledgeable enough about this to know what we could even hope for.
Although I often like to give my thoughts about what may come next on Tildes, and also sometimes elsewhere, I don't think anyone can give a reasonable guess because a) this war is already...
Although I often like to give my thoughts about what may come next on Tildes, and also sometimes elsewhere, I don't think anyone can give a reasonable guess because a) this war is already unreasonable, b) the Israel-Palestine conflict is by far the most complicated conflict currently ongoing and arguably the most complicated conflict to have ever occurred and c) the people involved are either very shrewd or really, truly dumb and thus unpredictable.
On point c) - I could see Trump just making this up. That will have a major impact of course but he just lets his mouth run depending on what scratches his ego in the moment. And Netanyahu well. He does everything to stay in power. He'd have the world burn down before giving up power. His actions are genuinely geared towards that.
The conflict is also intertwined with so many other things: Iranian production being hit means less weapons for Russia but the oil price is a boon for their economy. On the Iranian-Pakistan border there have been(and are) separatist insurgencies. Which may or may not cause spillovers. The world economy being more unpredictable can have all sorts of secondary effects. International order becoming more and more disrespected can have consequences for stuff like China-Taiwan.
I know that this answer isn't very reassuring. If anything it probably induces anxiety. So I also want to say this: The situation in Syria also unexpectedly improved at the end of last year. And don't forget the protests that have happend in America, but also in Israel itself. The later may not have caused Netanyahu to be removed but still. It's not like the bad outcomes are the only outcomes this world has to offer.
Thank you, that’s very interesting. I understand it’s very complicated and difficult to predict, but what my issue is, I don’t think i could recognise a “optimal” outcome here. If they declare...
Thank you, that’s very interesting. I understand it’s very complicated and difficult to predict, but what my issue is, I don’t think i could recognise a “optimal” outcome here. If they declare peace, is it really peace or just a pause to lick wounds before doubling down? Is the downfall of the regime in Iran a good outcome or a bad outcome? Is there any event where you would feel more confident than not to call it a good outcome?
I suppose I should first state that while I'm interested in geopolitics, I don't have any formal training in history or diplomacy. And while I try my best to educate myself on the context of which...
I suppose I should first state that while I'm interested in geopolitics, I don't have any formal training in history or diplomacy. And while I try my best to educate myself on the context of which everything happens, the region has a complicated history - still if my opinion differs from an actual expert, go with the expert. In the end I am a random Internet stranger.
Iran's geography is also worth to keep in mind: it is a very mountainous country in a good position with lots of resources. While the potential is largely untapped due to sanctions and dictators not always having an interest in development, there is a reason the Persian Empire used to be the largest empire at one point in history.
If they declare peace, is it really peace or just a pause to lick wounds before doubling down?
I suppose that'd depend on what the context of the peace is. Is it because of regime change in one or both of the countries? That might work, though I don't dare to guess how likely that'd be. It may seem like one hell of a coincidence to have that happen but with a situation this unpredictable, who knows?
Is the downfall of the regime in Iran a good outcome or a bad outcome?
Depends so much on how. Like, in Syria there's actually hope for a better future. And in, say, Germany it has been a good change since the last regime but that context is sooo different. But look at say, Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a brutal, horrible dictator. But the invasion that removed him also helped the rise of ISIS, killed so many people, just to name a few things.
Is there any event where you would feel more confident than not to call it a good outcome?
With things like this, it often takes a long time before we really can tell. Not just because of how quickly things can change, but also because people become very emotionally invested in it. It's easy to look back at history and see how things went, but I still remember talking with my mother once about the fall of the Berlin wall. They were basically waiting for the guards to shoot people. If, like me, you did not live through that you may not have even considered that but suppose something similar would happen to North Korea. You would also expect a slaughter to occur.
Another thing to, perhaps, keep in mind: Iran and Israel used to be friends before Iran turned into a theocratic regime. That may also have an effect on the people, even if that doesn't affect the leaders currently in power.
Is that before or after the Shah? Before the Shah was a democratically elected, progressive government. That strain was also strong (but never dominant) in Israel, I don’t know if there was...
Iran and Israel used to be friends
Is that before or after the Shah? Before the Shah was a democratically elected, progressive government. That strain was also strong (but never dominant) in Israel, I don’t know if there was overlap. The Shah was a cold war US MIC plant that Netenyahu would probably have loved.
Yes and yup. Honestly, sometimes it's kind of amazing how much they hate each other because from an ideological perspective they have a lot in common. Geopolitics and history being the bigger...
Yes and yup. Honestly, sometimes it's kind of amazing how much they hate each other because from an ideological perspective they have a lot in common. Geopolitics and history being the bigger divider here.
I think Iran’s history of internal pressure could, maybe, perhaps, if we’re very lucky, push things in that direction. We’ve already seen the Shah’s son coming out of the woodwork to push the idea...
It may seem like one hell of a coincidence to have that happen but with a situation this unpredictable, who knows?
I think Iran’s history of internal pressure could, maybe, perhaps, if we’re very lucky, push things in that direction.
We’ve already seen the Shah’s son coming out of the woodwork to push the idea that now is the time for Iranian democracy. Him being the one to say it isn’t the historical baggage I’d wish for here, and I absolutely don’t know enough about the fine details to know how serious he is about wanting a true democratic regime, but it definitely is a moment of actual and perceived weakness in the current theocracy for those with influence in Iranian society to capitalise on.
Yeah, the only reason I don't want to say anything about the likelihood about things is because the situation is, to put it in highly technical terms, batshit insane. You're right that there has...
Yeah, the only reason I don't want to say anything about the likelihood about things is because the situation is, to put it in highly technical terms, batshit insane.
You're right that there has been a lot of pressure inside Iran to change, both at grassroots level(the women protesting for rights) and in some unexpected places such as Shah's son.
I certainly hope it does. It can be a bit difficult to hold on to hopes like that when so much is burning down, but that also makes it more important - because giving up from the get go can make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Agreed on all counts. I’m very much not an expert, but I happen to know a couple of people who are and all you’ll get from asking them for predictions right now is a very tired, very stressed...
Agreed on all counts. I’m very much not an expert, but I happen to know a couple of people who are and all you’ll get from asking them for predictions right now is a very tired, very stressed glare.
Iran is one where I can at least envisage a plausible series of steps for positive internal change, which can’t be said so easily for most of the other major players right now. Actual probability of those steps happening? May as well learn to read tea leaves for all the good trying to predict a situation like this will do anyone - at least that way you get to stop for a nice calming drink along the way.
I'm mostly focusing on the Ukraine-Russia war, so whatever causes Iran's support to Russia stop would be a positive outcome. Iran's Shahed drones (or drones derived from them) constantly attack...
I guess in a happy optimistic dream one could hope that their currently quite regressive government[0] would be replaced with a more liberal one. War can make that happen sometimes (losing WW2 countries as an example), but the west hasn't had a great track record recently in causing such things to happen in the Middle East.
That is my initially thought of a positive outcome, especially as I understand the population of Iran has quite different values than the leadership, which could lead to a more liberal government....
That is my initially thought of a positive outcome, especially as I understand the population of Iran has quite different values than the leadership, which could lead to a more liberal government. I would imagine this would be stabilising for the region and as you said good for Ukraine.
But, if successful, does that encourage other countries to copy Israel and take military action to achieve goals? Does it help justify Israel’s actions more, and make them or others more warmongering in future? Those are my concerns if there is a ‘positive’ outcome.
Optimal and realistic outcome? Iran agrees to come back to the negotiating table and capitulates on the nuclear issue, dismantling their program and agreeing to ten years of on-the-ground...
Optimal and realistic outcome?
Iran agrees to come back to the negotiating table and capitulates on the nuclear issue, dismantling their program and agreeing to ten years of on-the-ground monitoring by third parties with no limits. The US and EU gradually reduce sanctions over this timeframe. There is no regime change.
Iranian rhetoric continues, but slightly toned down. The new Syrian government continues to view Iran as an adversary, disallowing any smuggling of Iranian arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah retains some arms, but is a shell of itself, and the Lebanese army begins to assert more and more power over Lebanon.
Within 10 years, talks to normalize relationships Israel and neighboring countries have progressed much further.
I'm sprinkling some of my hopes in there, but they're reasonably realistic. This is a critical moment though: will Iran get a nuclear weapon? If not, will Iran try again after this current fighting ends? If so, we're bound to repeat this thread in a few years.
Killing the Ayatollah would be a truly psychotic and globally destabilizing move. Khamenei is not just any other autocrat, he's a religious leader. It would be such an egregious and haunting exercise of power that it would permanently isolate a large portion of the Muslim world—Sunni and Shia, secular and conservative, critical of the regime and sympathetic—from the US-aligned West and likely towards Russia and China. That's not to say anything of how many people it would outright radicalize. Combine this with the current war in Ukraine, tensions in Israel-Palestine, and we are literally risking WW3 (and I'm not someone who throws that word around much).
It's comforting, amid the endless stream of evil and insane decisions, to know that Trump isn't quite as crazy as he could be. Things can always get worse!
Or there's someone left near him to tell him 'no, if you order this you will be removed from the presidency' for the very good reasons u/thearctic just outlined.
Was watching normally reasonable chats devolve into full blown conspiracy thinking about this. The big question being "What could set Trump off?" because that is how you allocate government resources these days.
Any sort of attack or false flag would be seen as a Trump failure but the mounting domestic tensions might tip him over the edge. He needs to secure any sort of deal as a matter of pride now but being called weak is bound to get under his skin. There's also the many "favors" Trump owes a lot of people and leaves him in the middle of many conflicting interests.
Its a profound no-win scenario decades in the making and it all comes down to the whims of a man ruled by unresolvable daddy issues and the last psychopath that could pull his strings. If we ever sort ourselves out, we as a society really should work on how we allow upward failure and for people to enjoy consequence free lives. We won't, but its nice to imagine.
The Ayatollah serves more purpose as a live boogeyman than an vanquished adversary to Trump. Netanyahu is on a war crime spree so he would do so in a heartbeat if the US would back him on it. However, this does not negate the very crucial consequences you point out.
I see two possible explanations for the claim that Trump vetoed the plan to kill the ayatollah:
Trump was the adult in the room and stabilized the world for a change.
Trump, being the narcissist with the mental maturity of a twelve-year-old, did what he always does - made something up to get attention, consequences be damned.
I am heavily leaning towards #2.
3. Trump’s narcissistic interests and/or what he remembered of the most recent conversation with someone trying to play him towards their interests was, by complete coincidence, aligned with the slightly more stable option.
Also relevant.
We really don't protect military intel anymore, huh?
The fact that he felt the need to make sure that everyone knew he meant killing him by saying take him out…my god, it’s straight from The Interview.
For some reason that’s the part that really got me in all of this. It just so neatly encapsulates the utter, mind bending stupidity in play here.
Not if trump knows it. I remember talk about there having been certain things he was never briefed on during his first term - if I am remembering correctly.
You know a country has gone off the rails when the Trump administration is the adult in the room.
What would you guys predict as the most optimistic realistic outcome from this war? And how long do you reckon it will go on for before reaching a conclusion? I’m not knowledgeable enough about this to know what we could even hope for.
Although I often like to give my thoughts about what may come next on Tildes, and also sometimes elsewhere, I don't think anyone can give a reasonable guess because a) this war is already unreasonable, b) the Israel-Palestine conflict is by far the most complicated conflict currently ongoing and arguably the most complicated conflict to have ever occurred and c) the people involved are either very shrewd or really, truly dumb and thus unpredictable.
On point c) - I could see Trump just making this up. That will have a major impact of course but he just lets his mouth run depending on what scratches his ego in the moment. And Netanyahu well. He does everything to stay in power. He'd have the world burn down before giving up power. His actions are genuinely geared towards that.
The conflict is also intertwined with so many other things: Iranian production being hit means less weapons for Russia but the oil price is a boon for their economy. On the Iranian-Pakistan border there have been(and are) separatist insurgencies. Which may or may not cause spillovers. The world economy being more unpredictable can have all sorts of secondary effects. International order becoming more and more disrespected can have consequences for stuff like China-Taiwan.
I know that this answer isn't very reassuring. If anything it probably induces anxiety. So I also want to say this: The situation in Syria also unexpectedly improved at the end of last year. And don't forget the protests that have happend in America, but also in Israel itself. The later may not have caused Netanyahu to be removed but still. It's not like the bad outcomes are the only outcomes this world has to offer.
Thank you, that’s very interesting. I understand it’s very complicated and difficult to predict, but what my issue is, I don’t think i could recognise a “optimal” outcome here. If they declare peace, is it really peace or just a pause to lick wounds before doubling down? Is the downfall of the regime in Iran a good outcome or a bad outcome? Is there any event where you would feel more confident than not to call it a good outcome?
I suppose I should first state that while I'm interested in geopolitics, I don't have any formal training in history or diplomacy. And while I try my best to educate myself on the context of which everything happens, the region has a complicated history - still if my opinion differs from an actual expert, go with the expert. In the end I am a random Internet stranger.
Iran's geography is also worth to keep in mind: it is a very mountainous country in a good position with lots of resources. While the potential is largely untapped due to sanctions and dictators not always having an interest in development, there is a reason the Persian Empire used to be the largest empire at one point in history.
I suppose that'd depend on what the context of the peace is. Is it because of regime change in one or both of the countries? That might work, though I don't dare to guess how likely that'd be. It may seem like one hell of a coincidence to have that happen but with a situation this unpredictable, who knows?
Depends so much on how. Like, in Syria there's actually hope for a better future. And in, say, Germany it has been a good change since the last regime but that context is sooo different. But look at say, Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a brutal, horrible dictator. But the invasion that removed him also helped the rise of ISIS, killed so many people, just to name a few things.
With things like this, it often takes a long time before we really can tell. Not just because of how quickly things can change, but also because people become very emotionally invested in it. It's easy to look back at history and see how things went, but I still remember talking with my mother once about the fall of the Berlin wall. They were basically waiting for the guards to shoot people. If, like me, you did not live through that you may not have even considered that but suppose something similar would happen to North Korea. You would also expect a slaughter to occur.
Another thing to, perhaps, keep in mind: Iran and Israel used to be friends before Iran turned into a theocratic regime. That may also have an effect on the people, even if that doesn't affect the leaders currently in power.
Is that before or after the Shah? Before the Shah was a democratically elected, progressive government. That strain was also strong (but never dominant) in Israel, I don’t know if there was overlap. The Shah was a cold war US MIC plant that Netenyahu would probably have loved.
Yes and yup. Honestly, sometimes it's kind of amazing how much they hate each other because from an ideological perspective they have a lot in common. Geopolitics and history being the bigger divider here.
I think Iran’s history of internal pressure could, maybe, perhaps, if we’re very lucky, push things in that direction.
We’ve already seen the Shah’s son coming out of the woodwork to push the idea that now is the time for Iranian democracy. Him being the one to say it isn’t the historical baggage I’d wish for here, and I absolutely don’t know enough about the fine details to know how serious he is about wanting a true democratic regime, but it definitely is a moment of actual and perceived weakness in the current theocracy for those with influence in Iranian society to capitalise on.
Yeah, the only reason I don't want to say anything about the likelihood about things is because the situation is, to put it in highly technical terms, batshit insane.
You're right that there has been a lot of pressure inside Iran to change, both at grassroots level(the women protesting for rights) and in some unexpected places such as Shah's son.
I certainly hope it does. It can be a bit difficult to hold on to hopes like that when so much is burning down, but that also makes it more important - because giving up from the get go can make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Agreed on all counts. I’m very much not an expert, but I happen to know a couple of people who are and all you’ll get from asking them for predictions right now is a very tired, very stressed glare.
Iran is one where I can at least envisage a plausible series of steps for positive internal change, which can’t be said so easily for most of the other major players right now. Actual probability of those steps happening? May as well learn to read tea leaves for all the good trying to predict a situation like this will do anyone - at least that way you get to stop for a nice calming drink along the way.
Interesting, thank you. I guess we will just have to see how things turn out and retrospectively analyse.
I'm mostly focusing on the Ukraine-Russia war, so whatever causes Iran's support to Russia stop would be a positive outcome. Iran's Shahed drones (or drones derived from them) constantly attack civilians in Ukraine, previously just yesterday: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-is-churning-out-attack-drones-ukraine-is-feeling-the-impact/ar-AA1GPibD
I guess in a happy optimistic dream one could hope that their currently quite regressive government[0] would be replaced with a more liberal one. War can make that happen sometimes (losing WW2 countries as an example), but the west hasn't had a great track record recently in causing such things to happen in the Middle East.
[0] e.g. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/12/iran-security-forces-used-rape-and-other-sexual-violence-to-crush-woman-life-freedom-uprising-with-impunity/
That is my initially thought of a positive outcome, especially as I understand the population of Iran has quite different values than the leadership, which could lead to a more liberal government. I would imagine this would be stabilising for the region and as you said good for Ukraine.
But, if successful, does that encourage other countries to copy Israel and take military action to achieve goals? Does it help justify Israel’s actions more, and make them or others more warmongering in future? Those are my concerns if there is a ‘positive’ outcome.
Optimal and realistic outcome?
Iran agrees to come back to the negotiating table and capitulates on the nuclear issue, dismantling their program and agreeing to ten years of on-the-ground monitoring by third parties with no limits. The US and EU gradually reduce sanctions over this timeframe. There is no regime change.
Iranian rhetoric continues, but slightly toned down. The new Syrian government continues to view Iran as an adversary, disallowing any smuggling of Iranian arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah retains some arms, but is a shell of itself, and the Lebanese army begins to assert more and more power over Lebanon.
Within 10 years, talks to normalize relationships Israel and neighboring countries have progressed much further.
I'm sprinkling some of my hopes in there, but they're reasonably realistic. This is a critical moment though: will Iran get a nuclear weapon? If not, will Iran try again after this current fighting ends? If so, we're bound to repeat this thread in a few years.