Iran Launches "Large Scale Attack" on Israel (3 Viewers)

[LawFitz]

Iranian new Majid air defense system downs Israeli IAI Heron

bulgarianmilitary.com

The last two you articles you posted had me fearing these were new escalations... Thankfully, they are reports of pre-ceasefire incidents!

 

[Chadstroma]

Iranian new Majid air defense system downs Israeli IAI Heron

bulgarianmilitary.com

The last two you articles you posted had me fearing these were new escalations... Thankfully, they are reports of pre-ceasefire incidents!

Yea... no more info on the tactics/equipment and how things faired. Iran got mostly walked over. These small wins with non-stealth UAV's seem to be the small bit of good news for Iranian air defense.

 

[Dezbelief]

Israel-Iran live updates: Israel did not destroy all uranium, tried to kill Khamenei

Hegseth said the bombing of Iran is the most "complex and secretive military operation in history."

abcnews.go.com

Jun 26, 4:41 PM EDT
Israel says it did not destroy all enriched uranium in Iran, tried to assassinate Khamenei
Israel did not destroy all of Iran's highly enriched uranium and tried to kill Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei during its operation, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said in an interview to Channel 13 on Thursday evening.

When asked about the 408 kilograms of highly enriched uranium the Iranians had before the war and if it was moved inside Iran or taken out of the country, Katz said, "It was clear from the outset of our attack that we would not eliminate all of the material. The shared U.S.-Israeli position is that the Iranians will be asked to hand over that material."

Israel tried during the war with Iran to assassinate Khamanei, but there was "no operational opportunity to do so," Katz said.

He laughed off the suggestion Israel would need "permission" from the U.S. He denied it was "forbidden" by the U.S.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Ouch

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Defiant Khamenei says Iran will ‘never surrender’ to the US

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said Iran will “never surrender” to the United States, striking a defiant tone in his first remarks since a ceasefire with Israel took hold. "The American president indicated in one of his statements that Iran must surrender. Surrender! It is no longer a question of enrichment, nor of the nuclear industry, but of the surrender of Iran,” said Khamenei in a statement and televised speech carried by state media on Thursday. “Such an event (surrender) will never happen. It will never happen.”

The speech also comes amid conflicting accounts in the US over the extent of the damage inflicted by US strikes on key Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan during the conflict. US President Donald Trump said the strikes “obliterated” the nuclear facilities. But Khamenei said Trump had “exaggerated” the impact of the attacks and said the US “gained nothing from this war,” claiming the US strikes “did nothing significant” to Iran’s nuclear facilities.

While Iranians who fled Tehran during the war have been gradually returning to the city, “there is a common anxiety among the Iranian people here as well because they believe this was only the first wave of the war,” said Serdar. “Many are questioning the efficiency of Iran’s air defence systems” and feel that Iran could be more vulnerable to a potential future attack from the US and Israel, added Serdar.

Hopefully people read this and believe them when they say this. The only people who hold any meaningful cards in all this are the Iranian people. Lasting change comes if they rise up. Otherwise it's just a waiting game and Iran has all the time in the world.

Well, the USA would likely not exist if it wasn't for the French and Native Americans helping us out. And other nations occupying the Birts time in other parts of the world. Or at least it would have taken us a lot longer. It doesn't matter what the colonists wanted. Sometimes a culture/people need a little boost to help them out. Imagine if the French had just dropped a couple of cannonballs on British ships and gone back home. It would be a nice battle, but the war might have gone very different. That's what we just did. Dropped some cannonballs. Trump f*ed this up, and I'm a supporter. He made the right first move, then called off the dogs. He should have let Israel finish the job

There's a difference between "helping" and "leading". In our example, those countries/tribes were there in support of us to help. Not to do it for us. Afghanistan is the perfect example of what I am talking about. The people there and the "new government" wanted the US to DO it for them. They didn't want us there in a support role. It was clear that once the US left, things would revert because a majority of those who wanted to affect change, didn't want to change. For anything meaningful and lasting to happen in Iran, the people there need to talk the talk and walk the walk. As long as they do, I have no problem supporting them. We do NOT need to be part of Afghanistan part 2.

We can't know for sure, but I get the impression this crave for a regime change is heavily exaggerated and propogandized in western media.

We all see the memes of Iranian women dressed in regular clothes and skirts and talking about how great it used to be, but that really wasn't popular in Iran even when it was happening. That was forced on them and overthrowing that puppet government was popular.

I don't think there is any scenario where the Iranian people rise up to overthrow their government on their own. I don't think it's really even remotely in the cards. The type of people in Iran that tend to be more western and progressive tend to end up immigrating to western places, which colors our perceptions of Iranian feelings in a biased light.

Inside the country, it seems to be a lot more similar to most other countries. Yes there are a lot of people that don't "support" the current government, but not to the extent of wanting a military coup, especially with foreign involvement. Sort of the way in the US that generally there are huge percentages of the population that don't "support" current leadership, but that doesn't mean they want Canada to blow up the white house so we can install a new government. That would only rally us around that leadership, which is probably what is happening in Iran.

We can either continue to make sure they don't get nukes, or forcibly install a new government again (the former seems to be the way to go and they way we're sticking with). I don't think hoping the Iranian people rise up on their own and overthrow the government is even remotely a possibility.

 

[Dezbelief]

https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/israel-iran-conflict-us-trump-06-26-25-intl-hnk

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi says the US strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites left “extensive and serious” damage.

Araghchi made the remarks as the country moves closer to approving a bill that would suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog, according to state media.

“I must say the damage is extensive and serious, but whether IAEA inspectors should come and be fully informed is a decision that must be made in accordance with the parliament’s law,” Araghchi told Iran’s state news channel IRINN in a televised interview on Thursday.

“In my opinion, the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) should make this decision,” Araghchi added.

The bill suspending cooperation with the watchdog is now on its final step before becoming law, having been sent to the country’s president for his signature. However, Iran’s supreme leader and the SNSC have decisive authority over how such policies are executed and whether cooperation is effectively suspended.

The US military released new details Thursday morning about its bombing mission against three Iranian nuclear sites, but left key questions unanswered about the degree to which the strikes set back Tehran’s nuclear program.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Defiant Khamenei says Iran will ‘never surrender’ to the US

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said Iran will “never surrender” to the United States, striking a defiant tone in his first remarks since a ceasefire with Israel took hold. "The American president indicated in one of his statements that Iran must surrender. Surrender! It is no longer a question of enrichment, nor of the nuclear industry, but of the surrender of Iran,” said Khamenei in a statement and televised speech carried by state media on Thursday. “Such an event (surrender) will never happen. It will never happen.”

The speech also comes amid conflicting accounts in the US over the extent of the damage inflicted by US strikes on key Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan during the conflict. US President Donald Trump said the strikes “obliterated” the nuclear facilities. But Khamenei said Trump had “exaggerated” the impact of the attacks and said the US “gained nothing from this war,” claiming the US strikes “did nothing significant” to Iran’s nuclear facilities.

While Iranians who fled Tehran during the war have been gradually returning to the city, “there is a common anxiety among the Iranian people here as well because they believe this was only the first wave of the war,” said Serdar. “Many are questioning the efficiency of Iran’s air defence systems” and feel that Iran could be more vulnerable to a potential future attack from the US and Israel, added Serdar.

Hopefully people read this and believe them when they say this. The only people who hold any meaningful cards in all this are the Iranian people. Lasting change comes if they rise up. Otherwise it's just a waiting game and Iran has all the time in the world.

Well, the USA would likely not exist if it wasn't for the French and Native Americans helping us out. And other nations occupying the Birts time in other parts of the world. Or at least it would have taken us a lot longer. It doesn't matter what the colonists wanted. Sometimes a culture/people need a little boost to help them out. Imagine if the French had just dropped a couple of cannonballs on British ships and gone back home. It would be a nice battle, but the war might have gone very different. That's what we just did. Dropped some cannonballs. Trump f*ed this up, and I'm a supporter. He made the right first move, then called off the dogs. He should have let Israel finish the job

There's a difference between "helping" and "leading". In our example, those countries/tribes were there in support of us to help. Not to do it for us. Afghanistan is the perfect example of what I am talking about. The people there and the "new government" wanted the US to DO it for them. They didn't want us there in a support role. It was clear that once the US left, things would revert because a majority of those who wanted to affect change, didn't want to change. For anything meaningful and lasting to happen in Iran, the people there need to talk the talk and walk the walk. As long as they do, I have no problem supporting them. We do NOT need to be part of Afghanistan part 2.

We can't know for sure, but I get the impression this crave for a regime change is heavily exaggerated and propogandized in western media.

We all see the memes of Iranian women dressed in regular clothes and skirts and talking about how great it used to be, but that really wasn't popular in Iran even when it was happening. That was forced on them and overthrowing that puppet government was popular.

I don't think there is any scenario where the Iranian people rise up to overthrow their government on their own. I don't think it's really even remotely in the cards. The type of people in Iran that tend to be more western and progressive tend to end up immigrating to western places, which colors our perceptions of Iranian feelings in a biased light.

Inside the country, it seems to be a lot more similar to most other countries. Yes there are a lot of people that don't "support" the current government, but not to the extent of wanting a military coup, especially with foreign involvement. Sort of the way in the US that generally there are huge percentages of the population that don't "support" current leadership, but that doesn't mean they want Canada to blow up the white house so we can install a new government. That would only rally us around that leadership, which is probably what is happening in Iran.

We can either continue to make sure they don't get nukes, or forcibly install a new government again (the former seems to be the way to go and they way we're sticking with). I don't think hoping the Iranian people rise up on their own and overthrow the government is even remotely a possibility.

I tend to agree. I don't buy the 80% want change stuff. I don't think the majority feels oppressed either. At least the men don't.

 

[fatness]

Negotiating with Iran is likely going to be a long slow process again.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/20/us/politics/trump-israel-iran-deal.html

Ask diplomats who have negotiated with Iran, and they usually describe it with some variant of: Brace yourself, it takes a long time. It took the better part of two years to put together the Obama-era agreement that all but halted Iran’s nuclear program. After President Trump scrapped that deal in his first term, it took 15 months for the Biden administration to negotiate a way to piece it back together — at which point Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, vetoed the near-final agreement. So what could Mr. Trump, dangling the possibility that last-minute diplomacy could provide an alternative to bombing Iran’s main uranium enrichment facility, hope to accomplish in the two-week window he has given himself to make a decision? Not much, the veterans of such negotiations warn. But then again, the environment is very different this time. Ayatollah Khamenei is the final word in all foreign policy issues — but he is also most likely in hiding, American intelligence officials say. Iran’s foreign minister and lead negotiator, Abbas Araghchi, says he is open to placing limitations on Iran’s nuclear output similar to what he and his colleagues negotiated with the United States a decade ago.

Article archived if you hit a paywall: https://archive.ph/PBbt0

 

[BassNBrew]

Israel’s Elbit Hermes 900 can stay aloft for up to 36 hours, depending on its payload, and has a maximum altitude of 30,000 feet. Its payload capacity is between 660 to 990 pounds.

Great, if I want to fly not only do I have to worry about my Boeing falling out of the sky or choppers flying into my plane, Now I need to look out the windows at cruising altitude for 1000 pound objects floating around.

 

[the moops]

Iranian new Majid air defense system downs Israeli IAI Heron

bulgarianmilitary.com

Appreciate the updates and the links here, but do we know anything about "bulgarianmilitary.com"?

 

[Chadstroma]

Iranian new Majid air defense system downs Israeli IAI Heron

bulgarianmilitary.com

Appreciate the updates and the links here, but do we know anything about "bulgarianmilitary.com"?

I have read some articles off there before... mostly on the war in Ukraine. Very similar type articles like this or about military equipment purchases around mostly Europe.

 

[fatness]

Senator Graham, speaking after the classified briefing, said, “I don’t know where the 900 pounds of highly enriched uranium exists, but it wasn’t part of the target set.” Senator Cotton also acknowledged that eliminating Iran’s uranium stockpile was not the mission’s focus. “It was not part of the mission to destroy all their enriched uranium or to cease it or anything else,” he said.

https://time.com/7298188/iran-strikes-classified-briefing-senators/

 

[The Z Machine]

Sounds like Iran will try to eliminate all external monitoring (regular and clandestine) of their uranium stock. I bet they move deeper underground and try to push for a bomb. Maybe Russia or China will help them in this process...

What is the link for that? Do you mean https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...pproves-bill-to-suspend-cooperation-with-iaea

If so, please add the link you're referring to in posts like these. As well as the Russia / China involvement.

Yes, I was referring to Iran stopping all work with IAEA and also the roundup of possible collaborators within Iran: https://www.newsweek.com/iran-spy-crisis-israel-mossad-arrests-executions-2089236

The other statements that use words like "I bet" and "maybe" were conjecture. That I hope is pretty clear.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Sounds like Iran will try to eliminate all external monitoring (regular and clandestine) of their uranium stock. I bet they move deeper underground and try to push for a bomb. Maybe Russia or China will help them in this process...

What is the link for that? Do you mean https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...pproves-bill-to-suspend-cooperation-with-iaea

If so, please add the link you're referring to in posts like these. As well as the Russia / China involvement.

Yes, I was referring to Iran stopping all work with IAEA and also the roundup of possible collaborators within Iran: https://www.newsweek.com/iran-spy-crisis-israel-mossad-arrests-executions-2089236

The other statements that use words like "I bet" and "maybe" were conjecture. That I hope is pretty clear.

Thanks. Everyone please keep it to news and links and less conjecture.

 

[fatness]

Looks like the US's opening offer in negotiations may be $20 to $30 billion.

US President Donald Trump's administration is considering helping Iran access USD 30 billion to build a civilian-energy-producing nuclear programme, thereby easing sanctions and releasing billions of dollars in restricted Iranian funds, CNN reported. The discussions mark a massive twist in the diplomatic landscape between the two nations, in what appears to be an attempt by America to bring Tehran on the table for peace talks.

For the US, one element has remained non-negotiable - Iran won't enrich uranium. A preliminary draft proposal, according to the CNN report, is an estimated USD 20-30 billion investment for a non-enrichment nuclear programme that would be used for civilian energy purposes. Washington's non-negotiable deal is in contradiction to Tehran's constant stance that it needs enrichment for energy requirements.

MSN

 

[beer 30]

Looks like the US's opening offer in negotiations may be $20 to $30 billion.

US President Donald Trump's administration is considering helping Iran access USD 30 billion to build a civilian-energy-producing nuclear programme, thereby easing sanctions and releasing billions of dollars in restricted Iranian funds, CNN reported. The discussions mark a massive twist in the diplomatic landscape between the two nations, in what appears to be an attempt by America to bring Tehran on the table for peace talks.

For the US, one element has remained non-negotiable - Iran won't enrich uranium. A preliminary draft proposal, according to the CNN report, is an estimated USD 20-30 billion investment for a non-enrichment nuclear programme that would be used for civilian energy purposes. Washington's non-negotiable deal is in contradiction to Tehran's constant stance that it needs enrichment for energy requirements.

MSN

Not trying to derail and I'm happy that we are at least attempting a diplomatic solution. I think this is the right move, help them achieve the nuclear power goal they are looking for but nothing more than that. What it should have been all along.

You know what, just not going to say anything more. Good for Iran, hope we help

 

[Sand]

Looks like the US's opening offer in negotiations may be $20 to $30 billion.

US President Donald Trump's administration is considering helping Iran access USD 30 billion to build a civilian-energy-producing nuclear programme, thereby easing sanctions and releasing billions of dollars in restricted Iranian funds, CNN reported. The discussions mark a massive twist in the diplomatic landscape between the two nations, in what appears to be an attempt by America to bring Tehran on the table for peace talks.

For the US, one element has remained non-negotiable - Iran won't enrich uranium. A preliminary draft proposal, according to the CNN report, is an estimated USD 20-30 billion investment for a non-enrichment nuclear programme that would be used for civilian energy purposes. Washington's non-negotiable deal is in contradiction to Tehran's constant stance that it needs enrichment for energy requirements.

MSN

There is something to be said for using both the carrot and the stick. At first blush this seems to be a pretty shrewd move.

 

[LawFitz]

Senator Graham, speaking after the classified briefing, said, “I don’t know where the 900 pounds of highly enriched uranium exists, but it wasn’t part of the target set.” Senator Cotton also acknowledged that eliminating Iran’s uranium stockpile was not the mission’s focus. “It was not part of the mission to destroy all their enriched uranium or to cease it or anything else,” he said.

https://time.com/7298188/iran-strikes-classified-briefing-senators/

#MoarWar chatter

There is something to be said for using both the carrot and the stick.

... Strength comes in many forms.

 

[Dezbelief]

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/27/world/europe/israel-iran-enforcement-policy.html

Israel’s defense minister said he would pursue a “policy of enforcement” against Iran despite a cease-fire, aiming to prevent Tehran from rebuilding its air power, advancing nuclear projects or developing “threatening long-range missiles.”

The comments by Defense Minister Israel Katz to local news channels on Thursday evening suggested that Israel was contemplating more strikes on Iran even after President Trump announced a truce between the two countries on Tuesday

 

[Gr00vus]

Iran has a wealth disparity problem. The percentage of the population living at or below the poverty line has been hovering at around 30% for several years now (that number is around 10% for the U.S.). Most of the wealth in the county is controlled by a small percentage of the population, most of them closely affiliated with the governing/military regime.

Women have it pretty hard there. Though the legal age of marriage for girls/women is 13, marriage is allowed as early as 10 years old for girls with their father's approval. Men are legally allowed to have 4 wives (though it seems this doesn't happen that often). The oppression of women in Iran takes many forms, lots of links out there if you're interested in learning more about that. For instance women are not allowed to sing in public, and can't post video/audio of themselves singing on social media, they get sent to jail for it.

These are just a few things that lend me to think there probably is pretty widespread dissatisfaction with the regime. I don't know if the exact number is really 80%, but I wouldn't be shocked if it was. That 80% (or whatever it is) is basically powerless to do anything about it as all the wealth and weapons are in the hands of those close to the regime. If regime change is going to happen, it will require significant input from external sources.

 

[Joe Schmo]

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/27/world/europe/israel-iran-enforcement-policy.html

Israel’s defense minister said he would pursue a “policy of enforcement” against Iran despite a cease-fire, aiming to prevent Tehran from rebuilding its air power, advancing nuclear projects or developing “threatening long-range missiles.”

The comments by Defense Minister Israel Katz to local news channels on Thursday evening suggested that Israel was contemplating more strikes on Iran even after President Trump announced a truce between the two countries on Tuesday

This escalates the current incursion much beyond preventing a nuclear holocaust and is the mission creep some have been concerned about, myself included. Hopefully someone can negotiate peace soon.

 

[beer 30]

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/27/world/europe/israel-iran-enforcement-policy.html

Israel’s defense minister said he would pursue a “policy of enforcement” against Iran despite a cease-fire, aiming to prevent Tehran from rebuilding its air power, advancing nuclear projects or developing “threatening long-range missiles.”

The comments by Defense Minister Israel Katz to local news channels on Thursday evening suggested that Israel was contemplating more strikes on Iran even after President Trump announced a truce between the two countries on Tuesday

This escalates the current incursion much beyond preventing a nuclear holocaust and is the mission creep some have been concerned about, myself included. Hopefully someone can negotiate peace soon.

This is were I would draw a line. If Israel wants to continue to pursue this war, they are on their own going forward and big brother is going to sit it out.

They are going from a war of containment to a war of aggression.

 

[TLEF316]

Iran has a wealth disparity problem. The percentage of the population living at or below the poverty line has been hovering at around 30% for several years now (that number is around 10% for the U.S.). Most of the wealth in the county is controlled by a small percentage of the population, most of them closely affiliated with the governing/military regime.

Women have it pretty hard there. Though the legal age of marriage for girls/women is 13, marriage is allowed as early as 10 years old for girls with their father's approval. Men are legally allowed to have 4 wives (though it seems this doesn't happen that often). The oppression of women in Iran takes many forms, lots of links out there if you're interested in learning more about that. For instance women are not allowed to sing in public, and can't post video/audio of themselves singing on social media, they get sent to jail for it.

These are just a few things that lend me to think there probably is pretty widespread dissatisfaction with the regime. I don't know if the exact number is really 80%, but I wouldn't be shocked if it was. That 80% (or whatever it is) is basically powerless to do anything about it as all the wealth and weapons are in the hands of those close to the regime. If regime change is going to happen, it will require significant input from external sources.

After what happened in Afghanistan, I just dont see any reason for the US to try and do something like this ever again. The conditions that these people (especially the women) are forced to live under are tragic......but its not our fight and if we make our fight, it will just be decades of flushing money (and American lives) down the toilet to end up right back where we started.

We were in Afghanistan for for 20 years, spent trillions and the second we left, the government/military that we built crumbled like a house of cards and the Taliban slid right back in. Their weak leaders folded and the Taliban used targeted attacks and intimidation tactics to neutralize key government/military personnel that could have stopped them.

The will of the "bad people" (for lack of a better term) GREATLY exceeds that of the "good people" in that part of the world. Do most of them want to live free? Almost certainly. But not enough of them want it enough to fight and die for it. They'd rather live under an oppressive regime than die (and have their families potentially die) to try and change it.

 

[Joe Bryant]

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/27/world/europe/israel-iran-enforcement-policy.html

Israel’s defense minister said he would pursue a “policy of enforcement” against Iran despite a cease-fire, aiming to prevent Tehran from rebuilding its air power, advancing nuclear projects or developing “threatening long-range missiles.”

The comments by Defense Minister Israel Katz to local news channels on Thursday evening suggested that Israel was contemplating more strikes on Iran even after President Trump announced a truce between the two countries on Tuesday

In the podcast I shared earlier from Free Press, the panelists talked about this being a point of contention. That the US position is "No nuclear weapon". While Israel would like, "No nuclear weapon and no missiles".

As a country being hit with missiles, it's easy to see why they'd want that. But the panelists seemed like it was very much in question if the US would see it that way.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Iran has a wealth disparity problem. The percentage of the population living at or below the poverty line has been hovering at around 30% for several years now (that number is around 10% for the U.S.). Most of the wealth in the county is controlled by a small percentage of the population, most of them closely affiliated with the governing/military regime.

Women have it pretty hard there. Though the legal age of marriage for girls/women is 13, marriage is allowed as early as 10 years old for girls with their father's approval. Men are legally allowed to have 4 wives (though it seems this doesn't happen that often). The oppression of women in Iran takes many forms, lots of links out there if you're interested in learning more about that. For instance women are not allowed to sing in public, and can't post video/audio of themselves singing on social media, they get sent to jail for it.

These are just a few things that lend me to think there probably is pretty widespread dissatisfaction with the regime. I don't know if the exact number is really 80%, but I wouldn't be shocked if it was. That 80% (or whatever it is) is basically powerless to do anything about it as all the wealth and weapons are in the hands of those close to the regime. If regime change is going to happen, it will require significant input from external sources.

I get all that, but my question is what are the odds that someone who cares about those 80% takes over if the current ruler goes away?

 

[Sparky Polastri]

This "deal" feels like groundhog day all over again.

 

[FarFromHome]

Iran has a wealth disparity problem. The percentage of the population living at or below the poverty line has been hovering at around 30% for several years now (that number is around 10% for the U.S.). Most of the wealth in the county is controlled by a small percentage of the population, most of them closely affiliated with the governing/military regime.

Women have it pretty hard there. Though the legal age of marriage for girls/women is 13, marriage is allowed as early as 10 years old for girls with their father's approval. Men are legally allowed to have 4 wives (though it seems this doesn't happen that often). The oppression of women in Iran takes many forms, lots of links out there if you're interested in learning more about that. For instance women are not allowed to sing in public, and can't post video/audio of themselves singing on social media, they get sent to jail for it.

These are just a few things that lend me to think there probably is pretty widespread dissatisfaction with the regime. I don't know if the exact number is really 80%, but I wouldn't be shocked if it was. That 80% (or whatever it is) is basically powerless to do anything about it as all the wealth and weapons are in the hands of those close to the regime. If regime change is going to happen, it will require significant input from external sources.

I get all that, but my question is what are the odds that someone who cares about those 80% takes over if the current ruler goes away?

Just under 1%. Ha ha. If this current ruler goes away it won't be someone leading the people. It will be someone with military support. What changes? Unfortunately we would prolly just reboot the same thing. Been going on for centuries. Imo

 

[KarmaPolice]

This "deal" feels like groundhog day all over again.

Exactly. Unless I have it wrong, we went from negotiations that included a civilian program, to any program is a red line, to they are close to weaponizing/drop bombs, and now we are offering to GIVE them money to build a civilian program?? (and as far as I know, still don't know where the nuclear material is? )

 

[KarmaPolice]

Iran has a wealth disparity problem. The percentage of the population living at or below the poverty line has been hovering at around 30% for several years now (that number is around 10% for the U.S.). Most of the wealth in the county is controlled by a small percentage of the population, most of them closely affiliated with the governing/military regime.

Women have it pretty hard there. Though the legal age of marriage for girls/women is 13, marriage is allowed as early as 10 years old for girls with their father's approval. Men are legally allowed to have 4 wives (though it seems this doesn't happen that often). The oppression of women in Iran takes many forms, lots of links out there if you're interested in learning more about that. For instance women are not allowed to sing in public, and can't post video/audio of themselves singing on social media, they get sent to jail for it.

These are just a few things that lend me to think there probably is pretty widespread dissatisfaction with the regime. I don't know if the exact number is really 80%, but I wouldn't be shocked if it was. That 80% (or whatever it is) is basically powerless to do anything about it as all the wealth and weapons are in the hands of those close to the regime. If regime change is going to happen, it will require significant input from external sources.

I get all that, but my question is what are the odds that someone who cares about those 80% takes over if the current ruler goes away?

Just under 1%. Ha ha. If this current ruler goes away it won't be someone leading the people. It will be someone with military support. What changes? Unfortunately we would prolly just reboot the same thing. Been going on for centuries. Imo

And I am guessing someone who doesn't like us any more? I agree, we probably just repeat history yet again.

 

[Joe Schmo]

1

This "deal" feels like groundhog day all over again.

Exactly. Unless I have it wrong, we went from negotiations that included a civilian program, to any program is a red line, to they are close to weaponizing/drop bombs, and now we are offering to GIVE them money to build a civilian program?? (and as far as I know, still don't know where the nuclear material is? )

Give them money again after we gave them money to commit to negotiations a few years ago: https://www.fdd.org/analysis/op_eds...iran-that-gives-mullahs-everything-they-want/

 

[FarFromHome]

Iran has a wealth disparity problem. The percentage of the population living at or below the poverty line has been hovering at around 30% for several years now (that number is around 10% for the U.S.). Most of the wealth in the county is controlled by a small percentage of the population, most of them closely affiliated with the governing/military regime.

Women have it pretty hard there. Though the legal age of marriage for girls/women is 13, marriage is allowed as early as 10 years old for girls with their father's approval. Men are legally allowed to have 4 wives (though it seems this doesn't happen that often). The oppression of women in Iran takes many forms, lots of links out there if you're interested in learning more about that. For instance women are not allowed to sing in public, and can't post video/audio of themselves singing on social media, they get sent to jail for it.

These are just a few things that lend me to think there probably is pretty widespread dissatisfaction with the regime. I don't know if the exact number is really 80%, but I wouldn't be shocked if it was. That 80% (or whatever it is) is basically powerless to do anything about it as all the wealth and weapons are in the hands of those close to the regime. If regime change is going to happen, it will require significant input from external sources.

I get all that, but my question is what are the odds that someone who cares about those 80% takes over if the current ruler goes away?

Just under 1%. Ha ha. If this current ruler goes away it won't be someone leading the people. It will be someone with military support. What changes? Unfortunately we would prolly just reboot the same thing. Been going on for centuries. Imo

And I am guessing someone who doesn't like us any more? I agree, we probably just repeat history yet again.

Sad huh. What's crazy is we have history books of examples of this happening so we shouldn't be surprised. We just never learn.

 

[Brunell4MVP]

I believe Khamemi is trying to get himself killed so he can claim martyrdom. He's 86 years old. He has nothing left in the tank. His life in the long run will be considered mostly meaningless to the Iranian people. Maybe not immediately, but over the years they will see him as someone that did little for them. He was hoping the world stage of aiding terrorists and fighting powers far greater than his country would get him recognized. While caring very little for anything but keeping an iron hold over Iran at home. It's backfired. His only option left is to be killed. And I am sure he fully believes all 92 million Iranians will memorialize him for years. It's too bad he won't be able to look back from hell and see how much he regressed his own people.

 

[tommyGunZ]

This "deal" feels like groundhog day all over again.

Exactly. Unless I have it wrong, we went from negotiations that included a civilian program, to any program is a red line, to they are close to weaponizing/drop bombs, and now we are offering to GIVE them money to build a civilian program?? (and as far as I know, still don't know where the nuclear material is? )

I have an idea. Take the old JCPOA, put it in chatgpt, have it renamed and tailored to a few new nuances, have Iran, China, Russia, the US, France, Germany, and the EU sign it, and agree to only extremely low levels of uranium enrichment, monitored by an international agency.

Declare victory and everyone walk away.

 

[fatness]

Take the old JCPOA, put it in chatgpt, have it renamed and tailored to a few new nuances, have Iran, China, Russia, the US, France, Germany, and the EU sign it, and agree to only extremely low levels of uranium enrichment, monitored by an international agency. Declare victory and everyone walk away.

This seems like the best outcome possible, or as my one son said when he was very young, the "most least worst" outcome possible.

 

[Joe Bryant]

We gave it a good try but this one is done.

Wasted way too much time deleting PSF style posts after asking people not to over and over. We tried.

Massive thanks to @Don't Toews Me for all the work done here. Thank you.