70
votes
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei killed in Israeli and American joint strikes
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Live updates: Israel launches 'pre-emptive' strike against Iran | CNN
- Authors
- Nadeen Ebrahim, Oren Liebermann
- Published
- Feb 28 2026
Developing story and all that but figured we'd want a topic (not sure if this is the right spot). No real details beyond the headline at this moment on what was hit or how much force was used.
Edit before I sleep:
Decapitation strike by US/Israel targeting leaders supposedly. Did not get khamenei. (Having just gotten around to the news this morning it looks like they might have? Rumors circulating and he missed a deadline to address Iran?)
NOT a minor attack at all though, still ongoing on the west.
Iran retaliating not just at Israel but at US bases in the region. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, etc
Edit since this is still at the top-
US(Trump and news outlets) and Israel (Netanyahu and News outlets) are claiming Khamenei is dead and they have proof (proof claim not in below link, but being claimed by Israel. Footage or recovered body?)
AP Link - https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-explosion-tehran-c2f11247d8a66e36929266f2c557a54c
Edit 2-
Iran has confirmed Khamenei is dead: https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-explosion-tehran-c2f11247d8a66e36929266f2c557a54c
Seems like all news sites I usually visit are filled with live feeds with no real context. So for others that have also been under a rock all day:
Summary of developments so far (from 5 hours ago)
Likely the most important update at this moment: Times of Israel now claims that Khamenei is confirmed dead. 1 2
The Iranian regime lost a lot of support after their recent crackdown on protesters, making this less of a disaster for America's image than if it had happened earlier IMO. But in either case, if there were an organic, materially credible movement to replace the Iranian regime we would have seen it by now. In the absence of such a movement, an operation to topple the regime would lead to a civil war and humanitarian disaster much worse than the Iraq war. The best we can hope for, I think, is that the US's ultimate objective is to only strike fear into the leadership and any future Ayatollah so that future political dynamics are skewed in the US's favor.
In the long term, however, the situation seems intractable so long as the Ayatollah retains the power to disqualify political candidates. Without that single power, waves of reform movements would have already achieved meaningful gains since the founding of the country.
Some media and osint are reporting his successor, Arafi, may have also been killed already.
I can't confirm this however but will update if there's some credible stuff.
If America fails, which it likely will, Iran's nuclearization is all but guaranteed. There are also two nuclear powers in the neighborhood, Russia and Pakistan, that have no interest in seeing chaos in Iran. Pakistan I could see being fine with a regime change if it were swift, clean, and organic, but they provided Iran with logistical support during the supposed 12-day war.
I don't think this will have much of an effect on nuclearization. The moment Trump rolled back the JCPA, there is zero incentive for Iran not to maximize their development of nuclear weapons. The only reason they don't have them yet is a combination of it being actually pretty hard and Israeli saboteurs being extremely effective.
If it happens, it'll happen.
Iran still had incentives not to develop nuclear weapons, I'd say, after the US withdrawal from JCPA. Namely, staying on decent terms with the Sunni states and maintaining goodwill with the EU for when the Trump era subsided.
I just don't see that.
Ignoring any morality, looking at North Korea and Ukraine paints a pretty straightforward picture of what will ACTUALLY stop a massive military from trying to invade your country. Staying on decent terms with the Sunni's and the EU doesn't stop whatever US/Russian/Chinese admin from deciding today's the day and rolling in troops.
For a nation in this day and age to know it's borders are actually going to exist in 50 years they basically must have nukes or be allied with a geographically adjacent nation that does and knows that if you fall they'll be nuking next (the EU basically). I think the only other exception to this is Taiwan which has basically played the globe for fools by hyper specializing in a tech monopoly that is critical to basically all major weapons of war and the major economies, and isn't something that can be easily replicated (nor will it likely last forever)
Hell given recent behaviors there's probably an argument Canada should be getting their own.
I do not endorse this war under any circumstances, but the precipitating strategic reason may be outlined in the article below.
Beijing’s Red Line: Can China Defend Iran Without Going to War With America?
Tl;dr
China has been quietly helping Iran replenish the armaments used or destroyed by Israel's attacks. Iran and China nearly had an agreement for delivery of advanced Chinese anti-ship missiles and drones in the immediate future, as well as Chinese support in developing missile capabilities. Iran receives aid in infrastructure development as part of China's Belt-and-Road program. Iran is a major consumer of Chinese goods and supplier of oil to China in violation of sanctions.
In a way, this is a generous assessment that assumes the Trump administration had conventional strategic reasons for attacking Iran, to eliminate a nuclear threat to the region and contain China's influence there. It could also be explained by extraordinary corruption.
The strait of Hormuz carries like 20% of the world's oil and most of it goes to China. There's a good geopolitical reason to safeguard those passages, canals, and straits.
I'm just unconvinced this is Trump's plan. Yeah he carried out the attack but this is something that was known for a long time and even what the republicans accused the likes of Obama of trying to accomplish.
The timing seems to be based on an attack of opportunity for a decapitation strike, using CIA and Israeli intelligence. Leaving aside that this war violates the U.S. Constitution and numerous international laws and treaties. It opens the door for further treatment of the U.S. as a rogue state, more civil and sectarian wars in the Gulf with massive civilian deaths, is incredibly destabilizing internationally... what could possibly go wrong?
US and Israel launch an attack on Iran with tensions high over nuclear talks (AP)
That last quote is funny. Confidential Houthi AP sources is not something I expected.
Welp. No need to restate the obvious vis-a-vis international law but what's the endgame for a decapitation strike here?
I have a terrible sinking feeling about all of this because if the end game is a new government, it would be stuck in a quagmire of a civil war with the IRGC; and sectarian civil wars tend to leave a vacuum for actors like Al-Qaeda who are already recovering from the war on terrorism under the Taliban's aegis.
I think the best that could be hoped for here is this goes the Venezuela route in which case a new Ayatollah is able to most levers of control but is more pragmatic about dealing with the US.
I suspect a long civil war may be exactly what Netanyahu and bin Salman hope for. If Iran is busy with internal conflicts for the next decade, it can't meaningfully support its allies in Gaza, Lebanon, and Yemen.
United States seeking an armed uprising inside Iran, with ground operation expected within days (ITV)
How depleted weapons stockpiles could affect the Iran conflict (BBC)
Here we go again....
Your last paragraph only makes me more fascinated and curious about your takes haha.
My friend, I'm at once flattered and, um, terrified? Hopefully it would never come to that, but if it did I would be the worst person to make war time decisions on behalf of others. Until quite recently (Crimea/Full scale invasion, 2019 HK) I had been a Pacifist with the belief that if we get taken out then oh well, I'd rather not live in a world where we can't destroy each other anyway. My personal views are probably still slightly leaning in that direction but now I am of a newer belief that for the sake of those who wish to defend themselves I have the duty to act in their defense. (Even then, the angsty teenaged EVA pilot portion of my soul might suddenly lean towards "wow my side also committed atrocities. Let it all end". )
I perfectly understand your not wanting to get into it on this topic, but would like to publicly acknowledge that it is a loss for our community. If you change your mind or tag your comment with "no replies please" let me know :)
🫡 Field Marshall Chocobean!
A pacifist would make the choices necessary to win with the least amount of suffering. You're aces.
I also vote chocolate legumes!
I appreciate the time you took to respond. I was being a little flippant/cheeky because it simply made me curious. I didn't want to put you on the spot. Nevertheless, thanks.
I do feel a little called out for religiously watching Perun ha! If I post any nonsense based on what I know I'd hope for someone with the appropriate credentials to correct me, but I know the type you're talking about. Plenty of those IT guys that are perpetually online due to their job and superficially keyed in on everything and then form an opinion that never wavers.
Your examples even frustrate me. They're just debating in bad faith beyond being stubborn.
For similar reasons (and also laziness), I prefer to share links and quote other people who say something that seems to make sense. You can blame me for sharing the wrong thing, but I didn't say it.
I can't thank you enough for this comment.
People on the lowest level of the competence hierarchy are infuriating to deal with when you're competent yourself. For people on the second lowest level, it's a different kind of pain. I'm an artist and can't claim to know my shit about war but it's been disconcerting to see so many 'kind of smart' people get so far into the weeds about whether a genocide should be called a genocide while it's taking place, etc.
There's so much pain, fear, guilt and other unsavoury feelings involved that I think laypeople are often simply emotionally too weak to face them, which leads to mindlessly parroting some propaganda-esque talking points that allow them to avoid those emotions. I would very much like to see comments from knowledgeable people (to the extent that you're able to disclose, obviously) - people who are actually involved and who've had to develop skill in facing those emotions and seeing this stuff as a real part of the actual world, not just a computer game of sorts, or course material for a history class.
I understand that it's a thankless effort though.
I had a platoon sergeant that thought of himself as a cold steely warrior, and I routinely had to tell him that he was actually one of the most emotional people I've ever worked with, like the emotional regulation skills of a 10 year old. Just much bigger and with a rifle and platoon of armed kids at his disposal.
Warfighters are the most emotional people in the world, but not usually during the most high stress parts. It's the beforehand and afterwards when the screaming, fights, crying, and complete breakdowns usually happen.
I think the most successful people at it are the ones who are able to have their emotional freakout but realize when they're being irrational and biased because of it.
It's really difficult to understand how many of these decisions get made based on almost pure vibes unless you've been in a TOC though. People sitting on the internet and analyzing and criticizing the rationality of it all with the benefit of foresight aren't really saying anything valuable.
Want to partner with someone who can gentle parent them and teach them how it's ok to care just a little bit about other people because it'll improve those people's productivity and make them more money?
It gives options
Oh I was thinking of being the velvet glove, but we can absolutely lean in. I am not the branding expert, just figured I gotta get in on the grift these days ( ´◡‿ゝ◡`)
It really doesn't matter what the subject is, if you have a reasonable level of expertise, you're guaranteed, eventually, to have a frustrating time talking about it on the internet. Well really even if you don't have expertise.
Let me rephrase: it doesn't matter who you are or what you're talking about, the internet can be frustrating :D
The main reason the frustrating conversations you refer to were with people in tech is only because they're over-represented online. It's a statistical thing. I promise you it's just humans on the internet, tech people don't have the monopoly.
There are two halves to the conversation though. One of the reasons internet conversations can be frustrating is that the rules are slightly different. People will (confidently) say things they wouldn't say offline. The stakes aren't the same.
I recommend trying to take online discourse less seriously.
Relevant, ancient: XKCD
The sun rises, everything eventually dies, and someone is always wrong on the internet. Nothing to be done about it!
Unfortunately, I think this is a appropriate description for a large amount of American businesses as well.
They really should raise the warmonger penalty in the next patch.
The past year, I have repeatedly found myself describing Trump's foreign policy as "someone playing "Risk" who definitely has a knack for the game, but has never played before".
Born too early to fight in the Middle East, born too late to fight in the Middle East...born at just the right time to fight in the Middle East.
Ongoing live coverage of the event. Fresh news appears in the chat in all-caps from moderators. Lots of current and ex-military, intel cams, radio coverage, vetted news, stern moderation. Best coverage out there imo for up to the minute news, this channel will never appear in yt recommendations. They talk about cooking a lot though, so you might wind up with an appetite if you hang out in the chat too long. :p
Edit: The Enforcer is also live now and so is Tousi TV. Better late than never!
Yeah nothing says legitimate news like all-caps titles, exclamation marks, and "#WW3"
As an initial caveat, I haven't looked at the link, and am avoiding that level of breaking news for my mental health. But criticising the content of a message because of its formatting isn't particularly useful. Maybe it's right, maybe it's wrong, maybe it's disinformation. But all caps, exclamation marks, and a live chat that includes inflammatory hashtags from the general public are not guarantors of accuracy, neither in their presence or absence.
Well since you don't want to click the link here's a screenshot of how it looks.
Just a few highlights like "EMERGENCY ALERT" and "🚨", a moving banner on video with patreon donation link, ads about their free app, video description with nothing but ads for random crap, and then a poll at the side where you can vote things like "AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH" and "RUNNNNNNNNNNNN"
yeah.. lol
Ok, that definitely seems... content free, let's say.
Only two bits of news in your screenshot, the rest is just the usual banter.
Look on the bright side, all the other channels are (finally) going live to cover it, so folks can catch up on old news there if NYPrepper's more entertaining environment offends your sensibilities. :)
The camera feed is usually informative but it's been cut at the moment, and the guy who usually deals with that is asleep since he did a marathon coverage from yesterday afternoon when it started until around 5am this morning. I think he's earned the nap. He'll be on in a couple of hours to do a recap, probably around 10/11pm.
Just ignore anything that isn't from moderators in all-caps, because that's just rando youtubers. Been watching them for months, all the news is there first - go ahead and link me better ones if you can find them.