Decision time in Iran: what now?
There are a great many decisions to be made about Iran – by Trump, Netanyahu and his associates, Khamenei, and the Iranian people. In the case of Khamenei, it may be a Biden-esque situation in that the man is 86 years old and perhaps not quite all there:
Israeli source confirms the report from Iran International that has obtained information from a Western intelligence source, according to which Khamenei has been removed from making key decisions due to his poor mental state, and military commanders are hiding the reality of the war from him in order to manage his mental state.
Trump has to decide whether to intervene to damage the underground nuclear site Fordow, by using bunker busters or whatever method is deemed best. Netanyahu likewise, if Israel has an alternative way of destroying or disabling the facility. Both have to decide whether the goal is regime change and also if they will be assassinating Khamenei himself. They also have to consider who or what would replace the mullahtocracy and how to try to make sure something worse won’t take its place. And the Iranian people will need to decide how far they will go to make regime change happen and to install a better government.
Khamenei – or whoever is really in charge – does have the option of unconditional surrender. I can’t imagine that happening, though. It’s almost a cliche to say that theirs is a death cult, and that’s why I very much doubt that surrender will be happening unless the clerics in charge are all killed and someone more secular makes the decision.
In case you’re not aware of the belief system that motivates the mullahs to wish death to Israel and the US, please watch this (I’ve cued up a 2-minute segment that’s relevant):
See also here under the heading “The conquering of Israel.” See also this description of the mullahs’ belief system involving the return of the Mahdi:
Still alive, the 1,155 year-old Muhammad al-Mahdi is patiently biding his time to return and usher in the takeover of the Muslim — and eventually entire — world.
While such traditions may seem harmless enough, Mahdism poses a serious, though vastly overlooked, threat to international security, primarily because its current articulation in Iran requires its adherents to take “proactive” steps to help usher in the Mahdi — most notably by initiating an “apocalyptic” showdown with the “greater” and “lesser” satans, namely, America and Israel. …
In 2015, Mehdi Taeb, a leading cleric and brother of Hossein Taeb, the head of the IRGC’s Intelligence Organization, made clear how they are to “pave the way.” In a speech, he called on IRGC members to “remove the obstacles to the emergence of the Imam of the Age, the most important of which is the existence of the usurper regime of Israel.”
Meanwhile, is this a threat the Iranians can carry out, or is it mere bluster?:
Despite being absolutely routed so far in its war against Israel, what’s left of Iran’s top-level leadership is now threatening a “surprise tonight the world will remember for centuries.” Accompanying that state-run media announcement was a video …
The implication isn’t exactly subtle. Iran is now claiming it has a nuclear weapon to launch at Israel or U.S. positions in the Middle East.
Meanwhile, the Shah’s son has this to say:
… Reza Pahlavi, the exiled crown prince of Iran, says now is the “best opportunity” for the Iranian people to “finally overcome this regime and get rid of it.”
I think he’s right. But will they take the opportunity, and by what method?
On a personal note: I continue to be surprised at how many people thought that Trump would go “Obama lite” in Iran and negotiate an Iran deal that wasn’t much tougher than the previous one. I never thought that, and I think those who did think it underestimated Trump significantly.
“Regime change” is so easy to say, compared to how hard it is to actually do. Whose military is going to invade and occupy Iran, and how?
Of course the people of Iran can change their regime if they really want to, but they have the same power to do that as they ever had. When the thugs stop taking orders, the regime, or any regime, is over. That happens when the thugs lose confidence, and that’s up to the thugs fundamentally. When the thugs feel like other thugs can’t be relied on to guard their backs against the people, it will be over, and not before. That’s not easy to arrange from the outside.
The Crown Prince has a following and I believe is capable of western oriented non-apocalyptic government. They surrender, international “occupation” to dismantle remaining nuke program and removal of excessively enriched uranium. Other restrictions on technology to be removed over time. Make them the Japan of the 21st century.
Tucker Carlson has lost it.
Iranians are not Arabs; however a learned Arab friend of mine observed that the Muslim cultures are probably better suited to benevolent monarchies than to American-style representative democracies. The current Egyptian regime meets this model; al Sissi is not a king, but rules in a similar fashion. Perhaps the Shah and some kind of parliament might work in Iran.
If we could wave a magic wand and make Iran a constitutional monarchy without getting tens of thousands of people killed I’d be on board. Easier to talk about than to arrange from outside.
To my understanding the Ayatollah Khamenei has responded directly to Pres. Trump’s demand of “unconditional surrender”, saying (I gist here): *No. Never. Iran cannot and will not surrender but will fight to an end.*
Very well then. What is next?
Well, what is prior? 1) The US decision maker will not accept Iranian nuclear weapons possession, and 2) Iran will not acceed their aim toward nuclear weapons production.
Israel, in turn, aims to destroy in detail all elements of Iran’s nuclear weapons production. All. However, though Israel may be capable in this regard, yet it may prove not (with the buried Fordow facility most prominent here).
The US may have the answer to the Fordow complex. Perhaps, after allowing Israel to embark upon an attempt to destroy Fordow, and supposing Israel is dissatisfied with their efforts, I believe then (and only then) the US may strike that site in order to destroy it.
If the US does strike that site, Iran has declared it will attack US interests and allies in turn. That act, the US has declared, would be a terrible mistake on Iran’s part, bringing further destruction upon Iran from the US.
Regime change, I think, is simply a non sequitur as regards US policy. Israeli policy is another matter altogether.
I think we want to account for all the uranium. Hard to do after you blow the place up. The regime is the proper target now.
I’ll repeat what I said last week, which is that the Shah was pro-American, secular, and benevolent toward non-Muslims (Jews in particular) in Iran. Granted he was not so benevolent toward those who threatened his regime, but I think he was as good as one could hope to get in that part of the world. The crown prince in exile seems to have a similar bent, as well as a popular following. So I think the best possible outcome would be his triumphal return, with a major housecleaning of all the zealots, and a return to secular rule. If that’s “regime change,” so be it, but I would call it more of a restoration.
Two thoughts: It doesn’t make much sense to start what Israel has started without finishing it. Set the Iranian nuclear program back to zero. I hope that Israel can take out Fordow or, if they cannot, that we do.
Also – re: regime change – just make sure that whatever regime is in power after this lacks means to threaten its neighbors.
–Chases Eagles
Maybe so, but that isn’t really the issue.
Regime change is not automatically a failure, but it almost always does require occupation and substantial investment in ground forces. South Korea, West Germany and East Germany, Japan, etc. Success is possible but not guaranteed, because if you want your occupation to be temporary you have to install some kind of replacement regime. It doesn’t have to be a liberal Western democracy, but it does have to be functional.
Attempts at regime change without occupation almost invariably fail. Libya comes to mind. Gaddafi was removed but the only result was chaos and an armed power struggle to replace him.
Occupying Iran would be a huge challenge, even for Israel and America working together, and the leftists in both countries would reflexively side with the mullahs, as we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan and Russia during the Cold War.
(The only reason Western lefties support Ukraine is because it initiated under Biden and Trump has not gone all-in on it. If Trump did, they would find an excuse to side with Putin.)
So, I don’t see such an occupation as a particularly realistic option. But if we just knock the mullahs out and leave, there’s no guarantee they won’t rise again, or be replaced by something worse.
It’s probably impossible to 100% eliminate Iran’s nuclear program. But it can be beaten down and down and down.
Now, maybe if the mullahs make a pragmatic conclusion that it’s become more trouble than it’s worth, something might be worked out. But I’m not sure that’s a realistic possibility either.
It’s a messy situation that may simply not have a good solution.
One of America, and Iran’s, and the world’s great misfortunes was that the President of the United States in 1979 was Jimmy Carter. Carter had truckloads of sincere good intentions, and to his credit, he recognized several serious problems with how things were being done. To his discredit, he had utopian visions of solutions. He wanted American foreign policy to be based purely on moral considerations, with no pragmatic compromises, and he just couldn’t bring himself to accept that reality isn’t that way.
He backed the Shah enough to enrage anti-Western elements in Iran, but not enough to let him defeat the mullahs. He was so force-averse that by 1979 the world had dismissed him as being weak. (Even a President who genuinely wants to avoid war has to at least project the impression that he might be willing to kill his enemy.)
But to be fair to Carter, the U.S. military was in a sad state in the late 1970s, mostly because of political failure in Washington, D.C. So Carter’s reluctance to use force was not without foundation, too.
Although the tragedy of desert one regretably helped out carter he showed no better judgement in the future notably with arafat and co also elements in south africa along with others
Of course they learned all the wrong lessons when it came to libya effectively empowering al queda operatives like belhaj and bin qumu
This was the so called arab spring
People forget there are more examples of regime change than usually recalled, when great powers get involved. I couldn’t begin to list the S American cases we’ve done just that. Or worldwide, where the Brits did. (It’s too often forgotten that the Second Afghan War was a British success.)
The outcomes have been mixed, of course. But the 100% negative portrayal is just as inaccurate as the rosy optimism of Bush II.
Disraeli would not have been tossed out if the Afghan war had been such a success, ironically gladstone came in and invaded egypt and that had 70 years of impact till nasser
South america operations also hit and miss for every good result like chile there was forbes burnham who adopted marxism (and welcomed jim jones)
The soviets thought disposing of amin would solve their problem as they would do the same with dudayev nearly 20 years later
There is almost zero appetite on either side of the US political spectrum for Nation Building in Iran. Neither the Israelis or the Europeans have the military for it.
It’s a pipe dream.
Knock out that Nuke site and let the chips fall where they fall.
@Eeyore:I couldn’t begin to list the S American cases we’ve done just that. Or worldwide, where the Brits did.
Iran has 85 million people. More than France or the UK, about the same as Germany. It’s not a banana republic where you can fly El Caudillo Sleazo into Hawaiian exile and replace him with El Jefe Maximo whenever United Fruit feels like it.
Perhaps you should go through that list and look for any external regime changes done to nations of comparable size to Iran in the last 50 years.
Do not assume that since you do not see how Israel alone can take out the Fordow facility, that it lacks the ability to do so. Many military capabilities are unseen until exposed through use. Also, sabotage could render the facility uninhabitable. Not necessary to destroy a facility to render it useless.
No one is arguing for nation-building in Iran.
The Pottery Barn Rule — You break it, you bought it — has expired.
Like r all wars, this one has no certain outcome. However, there are a couple of things we do know:
1. Eventually Iran will run out of missiles. That will decrease the danger to Israel markedly.
2. Isarel has control of the sky over Tehran. They can bomb with impunity. They also have covert operators inside the country. The Fordow site has an enhance, and ventilators. Those can be destroyed from the air or by saboteurs. Close the entrance, cut off the ventilation, and render the site useless. As long as Israel has air superiority, they can keep the site out of c omission.
What happens when Iran can no longer attack Israel is the question. Will that bring a change in the Mullah’s attitude?
If Israela destroys their oil infrastructure, they will have no way to generate national income. Things could become very desperate for them.
At some point the Iranians will have to accept terms to stop the bombing. It may take a while before they reach that point. I think Trump and Bibi are willing to wait.
I have not heard of anyone anywhere including Israel calling for an expeditionary force to Iran to overthrow the mullahs and install a new regime. The hope obviously is that Israel’s attack will lead to the downfall of the current regime to be replaced by a better one.
Is that realistic? I have no idea and am not about to predict whether or how but will make a few observations.
– The Mideast likes strong horses. Right now Israel looks like Secretariat while the mullahs are candidates for the glue factory.
– If Khameini is really having health problems that is not trivial. He was not an empty figurehead like Biden but has been the driving force of the regime for 35 years. I have even heard that he was more responsible than Khomeini for the fanatic “wipe Israel off the map” policy.
– There have been “supreme leaders” who seemed unshakable one day and swinging from a rope the next – Mussolini, Ceaucescu, Assad (ok Assad avoided the rope but it was still a shocker when he was suddenly gone after decades in power).
– Regime change light? Consider Lebanon, still not a friend of Israel but Hezbollah influence has been greatly diminished. Is it possible that post-Khameini elements of the current regime would agree to abandon the nuclear weapons program and stop threatening Israel? Iran is not getting a lot of international support right now even though Israel initiated the current hostilities (of course completely justified but that usually doesn’t make a difference to the usual suspects).
of course Colin Powell, was very facile as his want Saddam had broken Iraq, by basically driving the Shia and Kurds into the hands of the Da’wa and the Communists Party, however dispossessing the Sunni tribesmen was not the answer, which was what debaathification entailed, in the parlance it became itijihad, the purging much like the expression applied to the Armenian business,
that it was not true, was immaterial
but the decision making favored three different exiled groups the kurdish and shia, the old baathists and the new generals
The Prince’s fisher daughter just recently married a Jewish guy. I thought that the best symbolic thing for the young couple to do would be to convert to Zoroastrianism. While the Parsees still don’t go for conversion, the Zoroastrians in exile from Iran do.
It’s not a banana republic where you can fly El Caudillo Sleazo into Hawaiian exile and replace him with El Jefe Maximo whenever United Fruit feels like it.
==
United Fruit dealt with operators on the ground. The Arevalo-Arbenz regime made a scapegoat of United Fruit for the country’s discontents. Removing Arbenz required the aid of clandestine services from the United States.
there was little resistance to Castillo Armas, there were a few planes flying over head, that came nearly a dozen years later with the rise of Cuban inspired insurgents, similar with the Shah, until he pushed the treaty rules with the US, and the tandem land reforms, which would fail in South Vietnam and ultimately El Salvador, when he misdiagnose cause and effect, we have problems,
can a civil society rise up again in Iran, thats the $64,000 question, are there enough civic minded people that could prevail over the Ayatollahs and the Revolutionary Guards,
it isn’t merely an academic question in Eastern Europe, with the exception of Yugoslavia for complicated reasons, the people prevailed to one degree or another, there are elements of Oligarchism, notably Babis in Czechoslovakia but that is rare,
just make sure that whatever regime is in power after this lacks means to threaten its neighbors.
==
They’ll have means to threaten their neighbors to some degree. It’s a populous middle-income country whose adult population is predominantly (> 85%) literate and wherein public health suffices to give the populace a life expectancy at birth north of 70.
==
You just hope that (1) they’re a roughly normal country going forward and their interest in threatening anyone is circumscribed and (2) that for an interim period you’ve given them a setback which will inhibit them from threatening anyone in case they’d like to do so.
@FOAF:“supreme leaders” who seemed unshakable one day and swinging from a rope the next – Mussolini
You might review that history. The Allies invaded and occupied Italy, and that’s how Mussolini lost power. He’d had to be broken out of prison camp and evacuated away by the Germans, the rest of Italy being occupied by the Allies. Mussolini was “supreme leader” of a rump, puppet government in a portion of German-occupied Italy, kept under house arrest by the SS. By the time he was murdered he was of no account.
Ceaucescu and Assad were overthrown by their own people, not by an outside force. In Ceaucescu’s case it was the fall of the Berlin Wall and the paralysis of the Soviet Union which made his thugs and the Romanian people realize that no one was coming to bail him out.
As for Assad I don’t have much clear notion of what was going on or what has replaced him, but his overthrow took many years, beginning in 2011. It wasn’t that one day he’s there and unshakeable and next day he’s out.
@Art Deco:United Fruit dealt with operators on the ground. The Arevalo-Arbenz regime made a scapegoat of United Fruit for the country’s discontents.
I regret the error. I have also subsequently learned that there have been no Latin American dictators who took the title “El Caudillo Sleazo” or “El Jefe Maximo”. I regret those errors as well.
Ceaucescu and Assad were overthrown by their own people, not by an outside force
In case it wasn’t clear, I wasn’t advocating restoration by outside force. Just that it could be a good outcome from the downfall of the current regime, whether by surrender or popular uprising. If the latter, the IRGC would have to be neutralized or pacified, perhaps by pardons or immunity.
yes it took 12 years, for Assad to fall, as the Hemingway line goes ‘slowly then all at once’ the lever was this Al Sharaa character who was a terrorist not that long ago, against coalition forces, along with the austere scholar Al Baghdadi can we say he has reformed, well the jury is still out on that score,
as noted earlier Syrias fall into despotism, happpened in sequence after a coup that arose with some American assistance, notably the young Miles Copeland, who would later play a part in Egypt some years later, a series of military governments followed leading to the rise of Assad, the Allawite air force officer,
who arose after the ’67 war,
Jimmy,
Given the iRGC’s likely reputation, any forgiveness, no matter how fake, coming their way would be hard to imagine.
Here’s a report from Mahyar Tousi, an Iranian YouTuber running a UK online news show.
According to Tousi the Iranian regime is already tottering. Many Iranians are emerging who wish to defect. They were given a Mossad web link to contact!
_________________________________
The army is defecting to the Crown Prince of Iran’s team, Razabahi — a lot of them. Other Iranians from the Iranian regime bases, part of the IRGC, have also contacted Israel.
Primarily, they’ve been trying to get in touch with the IDF spokesperson — specifically the Persian IDF spokesperson.
But the IDF has now responded, saying, “If you want any support, if you want to work together, then get in touch with Mossad.”
They’ve posted a link online, with the IDF saying to contact Mossad.
Of course, the Iranian regime completely freaked out, saying:
“We have a bunch of defectors leaving, and they’re going to get in touch with Mossad.”
So they have now completely shut down the internet.
–Tousi TV, “BREAKING: Israel Finally ATTACKS Khamenei’s Bunker – President’s Plane Leaves Tehran”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pBUbT3T3Bk
Nick was too clever by 1/4.
It is possible, not to say likely — less likely than not — that within Iran’s threat of “irreparable” harm it can cause is the spector of a “dirty” bomb, a nuclear though non-fission nuclear weapon which might be carried by medium range missile aiming to explode with conventional means to spread somewhat (60% ?) enriched uranium over a wide area, endangering the health of anyone directly exposed to its debris.
Just to mention one ghastly scenario.
Richard Aubrey, I had in mind the example of Spain after Franco, though maybe the comparison is inapt. But I think they declared some sort of “Year of Forgetting.” And from Huxley’s post above, it looks as if the regular army won’t be a problem.
niketas, in at least two of the cases I mentioned outside force was a considerable factor. You are strawmanning “regime change” as requiring a foreign invasion and occupation. The whole point of my post was that that may not be necessary to effect the kind of “regime change” in Iran that would be beneficial to almost everybody except the current regime. As well as the fact that regardless of any time frame the mullahs do not currently look invincible.
miguel “as the Hemingway line goes ‘slowly then all at once’”
Of course. No one really falls “overnight”. But using Assad for an example while he had been struggling with internal rebellions for years I don’t think anyone was expecting his imminent demise almost up to the day he left.
Huxley, thanks for the link. If Tousi’s take is accurate, I’ll be thrilled!
@FOAF:You are strawmanning “regime change” as requiring a foreign invasion and occupation.
Nonsense. The very first thing I posted, I allowed for that possibility:
Anyone who says that “regime change” is a “decision” that the US or Israel has available regarding Iran, and doesn’t explain how that “decision” can be implemented without invasion and occupation with their attendant loss of lives and enormous expense, is just “belling the cat”.
But using Assad for an example while he had been struggling with internal rebellions for years I don’t think anyone was expecting his imminent demise almost up to the day he left.
Not if you were getting your news from American sources you weren’t. Including right-wing media.
@Niketas Choniates
Perhaps you should go through that list and look for any external regime changes done to nations of comparable size to Iran in the last 50 years.
________
50 years is far to short a time limit. I was implicitly speaking about historically; eg, citing the 2nd Afghan War. IMO, post WWII we (and Britain, and France, and others) were much worse at this. And I don’t see how population is that much of a factor, unless you just mean hard to dominate. It was even possible for European countries to affect China and India.
But you’d need to have realistic goals; none of this Wilsonian “safe for democracy” BS. Just a better leader.
Neither the US nor Israel are pursuing strategies to force regime change. They are putting great pressure on Iran by degrading all its capabilities — military, nuclear and economic.
If that results in regime change or Iran’s surrender, fine.
But the ultimate goal is no nuclear weapons for Iran, whatever that takes.
Eyes on the prize.
From this category error everything else follows
https://x.com/tabletmag/status/1935065141608906968
Roosevelt and copelands spikjng the ball didnt help things
Looks like Israel is implementing regime change by killing the existing regime,
As is my wont, I’m sniffing around the web. I’m getting the impression that the Iran situation is moving fast, the Iranian regime is tottering, its military is running out of missiles and launchers, mass panic in Tehran, Russia and China aren’t coming to Iran’s aid, while Europe makes occasional noises about diplomacy and ceasefire.
Iran is in deep trouble. They are calling to Trump for negotiations, but Trump shrugs and says they should have done that a week ago.
–Jesse Watters, “Iran is up against the clock”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNyebZaXd6k
Trump is playing the bunker buster card close to his chest. There is also talk of Israelis going commando (as I suggested a few days ago) on Fordow, breaking in and using massive amounts of explosives.
This may be over soon.
Link from miguel cervantes links here: Peter Theroux@ Tablet:Remembering a CIA Coup in Iran That Never Was.
Which reminds me of three articles from Helian.net.: Helian.net: Mossadegh, Iran, and the CIA’s Electric Kool-Aid Acid Coup_Part I. Links for Part II and Part III are inside the Part I article.
huxley
Trump told Iran it had 60 days to get a nuclear deal done. Iran thumbed its nose: we will enrich as much as we want. On day 61, Israel commenced its hellfire. Which is apparently the only kind of negotiations the Mullahs respect.
Perversity, Inc.
https://instapundit.com/727105/
The discussion of Hemingway’s* ‘”Gradually and Then Suddenly” explanation of falling into bankruptcy as applied to international events reminded me of another trope** that I think the Israeli actions since 10/7/2023 may fit: The Left thinks violence is a rheostat that you can turn up and down; the Right knows it is an off-on switch.
Up until the Hamas atrocities, Israel was trying to adjust their reactions to attacks so as not to be “disproportionate” (as the International Community insisted), or to “trim the grass” IIRC. IOW, the leftist response.
After 10/7, the switch went to full ON.
It won’t, and shouldn’t, be turned OFF (within the bounds of continued national security) until the Iranian threat is eliminated.
*https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/08/06/bankrupt/
**Somewhat adjusted but similar to discussions like this random Google hit.
It’s a common observation on Sarah Hoyt’s blog posts.
http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=574197
Everything in the Israel-Iran war, going back to Oct 7, has happened more rapidly and more crushingly in Israel’s favor, than almost anyone imagined.
I like to bet the curve.
What is nation building? If you have to improve some infrastructure to support your military occupation and the locals can use the new roads….
Bact to 1952 with pix of young women students in Kabul in dresses of Fifties style, form fitting, knee length, heels, loose hair, big smiles. That might work in the cities, take some time to percolate into the countryside, but its existence might fuel a kind of restlessness… Personal freedom…what a concept. Take some culling of the likely new power structure.
Somebody finds a manual on parliamentary government and they elect people who don’t want to invade anybody.
Outside “advisers” who control department budgets. “Colonel Abdul in the northwest province is straight as a corkscrew. People getting riled up, Get him retired or next year’s budget is down twenty percent.”
In Iran, the Persian culture and religion and likely “had it” with Islam, or at least the fanatic variety. Wonder where that will end up. Just because they’re the good guys doesn’t mean they’ll take to Norman Rockwell’s New England town meeting democracy, no matter how we….wish.
Interesting times… for them.
Barry Meislin quotes an Iranian dissident commenting on “dissident” first world lefties:
First world lefties believe that, compared to their “right-wing” opponents, they are much more aware of the world outside. More travel, more passports, what have you.
The marchers to Gaza found out that, contrary to their expectations, Egyptians had no sympathy for them. Which suggests that, previous to their encounter with actual existing Egypt, they were much more aware of the approved lefty narratives de jour than they were of Egypt.
Recall Bernie Sanders, who for decades has been proclaiming that those who disagree with him on Latin America are “ignorant.” Yet it is not difficult to find some Bernie narrative on Latin America and Fisk it to death, as Bernie’s knowledge of Latin America is confined to political tourism or reading some articles in Monthly Review.
I didn’t know there was anyone with a claim to the Sun Throne at all these days. That, for me, was the most interesting part.
Lots going on according to the pundits.
https://redstate.com/joesquire/2025/06/18/trump-approves-iran-attack-plans-but-withholds-final-strike-order-n2190648
https://pjmedia.com/rick-moran/2025/06/18/signs-point-to-a-decisive-blow-to-irans-nuclear-program-delivered-by-the-us-n4940927
https://pjmedia.com/lincolnbrown/2025/06/18/the-presidents-doomsday-plane-has-been-on-the-move-n4940936
https://pjmedia.com/catherinesalgado/2025/06/18/iranians-chant-for-shahs-return-n4940913
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/jeff-charles/2025/06/18/hackers-wreak-havoc-on-irans-state-run-tv-networks-n2659052
More on the Mighty Mossad at work.
https://redstate.com/bonchie/2025/06/18/how-israel-lured-irans-top-generals-to-their-deaths-will-blow-your-mind-n2190651
The post does NOT tell how Israel set up the “back channels” that allowed the ruse to work.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-warns-residents-of-2-iranian-cities-to-evacuate/
I think the end is near for the Islamic Republic and I think it will be accomplished without us bombing their mountain fortress.
I got to go aboard a new E-4B National Emergency Airborne Command Post at Andrews when I was a pup more than 50 years ago. Pretty cool at the time. These are still the same four planes I believe.
When I was 15, I was sitting in the car on the flight line at Andrews when unexpectedly (to me) a F-15 and F-14 put on quite a show. They were new and not in service yet and I had not seen either one in the flesh before. I was really juiced by that. I found out the demo was for the Shah. He chose the F-14.
The bunker buster bomb that would be necessary is the GBU-57 MOP (Massive Ordnance Penetrator).
The only bomber capable of dropping them is the B-2.
So, if something like that is necessary, it would require US assets.
Or maybe we could Lend-Lease some to Israel. Is that law still in effect?
David Lange:
My understanding is that the B-2 / GBU-57 MOP combination is extremely advanced, complex, secret technology. It would take several months or more to train Israeli crews to use them — assuming the US didn’t mind sharing that information.
The US will have to fly that mission, if it is to be flown.
Meanwhile Khamenei says:
_______________________________
“The Americans should know that any U.S. military intervention will undoubtedly be accompanied by irreparable damage,” Khamenei said in a televised address. “The U.S. entering in this matter [war] is 100% to its own detriment. The damage it will suffer will be far greater than any harm that Iran may encounter.”
–“Iran’s Supreme Leader Calls Out Trump, Threatens ‘Irreparable Damage’ If U.S. Joins Israeli Conflict” (June 18, 2025)
https://time.com/7295471/iran-supreme-leader-khamenei-warning-trump-united-states/
_______________________________
Sounds like a bluff.
I’m sure Iran could hurt the US with sleeper cells or cyberattacks or whatever. But anything at all serious would be met with such a ferocious US response, as Trump has promised, that the Iranian leadership could scarcely survive.
Khamenei’s strategy is for the leadership to survive and its nuclear program be recoverable. Otherwise they are willing to absorb tremendous damage.
England and France had 6 years to stop Hitler before he engaged in his first military action; the invasion of Poland in Sept 1939.
From the time he became chancellor in 1933 Hitler methodically prepared Germany to embark on his quest for Lebensraum.
England and France did zero, nothing, as Hitler violated every accord of the Treaty of Versailles and allowed Hitler to build his war machine.
When England and France finally did act, it was too late and WWII commenced.
Well, now, Trump has the chance with, if I am correct, ONE or TWO bombs to destroy Iran’s nuclear capability once and for all. From a military perspective, that seems like a very inexpensive, low risk slam dunk option and my guess is that would produce very little if any loss of life.
I can’t imagine that any Iranian is still in Fordow.
Of course, if the existing govt.. in Iran maintains power, they can always find a way to “import” weapons (nukes ??) from Russia or China and Iran would not hesitate to launch these nukes on Israel and the USA.
Iran will always be a threat unless those ruling Iran are removed and there is a greater chance of that if Iran’s existing nuclear facilities are totally wiped out (or at least I hope so).
I posted this Sowell link here yesterday and left this comment at Ace this morning. Outlier, I know. At first, I was all on-board with the “rah rah” contingent following Israel’s attack on Iran. But after listening to Sowell and considering the last 5 years, I’m on the fence. But if Sowell is right, the dye is cast. We’ll see.
Trump was played in 2020 and we personally and nationally paid a horrendous cost–damage not recoverable here in Los Angeles–trust me. Our small business has suffered over $400,000 in net profit losses over the last 5 years due to the sweep of changes in the bureaucracy at the Building and Safety institutions alone. Working twice as hard to make 2/3 of our former income. Going to call it a day next June. Actions have consequences. Here in California we will hunker down because where oil is concerned matters are out of our hands. The comment:
https://youtu.be/QTOhFu7RfaU?si=OfsbTrx9XkwhycjC
JJ, how come no one is paying attention to what the brilliant economist Thomas Sowell has to say about the attack on Iran? Under 30 minutes. The take-away–the middle-class and poor will pay the price, the elites are never affected by these machinations.
Listening to this made me think–Trump couldn’t be stopped with all that was thrown his way, even survived assassination attempts, but in the same way fear drove the bus to the scamdemic disaster, maybe fear is driving this bus and hello problems. Take his eye off the ball of America first and protection of our economy. Tariffs will be blamed and he won”t be able to deal because the root problem will be oil driving up the cost of everything. Just a thought. Fear is a powerful motivator for good or ill. Definitely ill last time it was utilized.
David Lange –
The technology behind bunker busters is not rocket science. I’d be surprised if the Israelis haven’t done their own work, given the unwillingness of the Obama and Biden administrations to take Iran’s nuclear aspirations seriously. As to delivery, this is an interesting speculation; possible now that Israel has total air supremacy over Iran. https://www.twz.com/air/could-israeli-c-130s-drop-gbu-57-massive-ordnance-penetrator-bunker-busters
The whole “Congress alone can declare war” thing is a farce. If we required Congress to authorize the use of force, we would be dead ducks. They sit on their asses and pontificate, but lack even a smidgen of the discipline required to properly safeguard the country.
The only way in which Republicans are better than Democrats is that fewer of them are actual traitors.
well we saw how it was with the Authorization of Use of Force, with Iraq, those who voted for, argued they were tricked, see Gulf of Tonkin resolution*, however, they did not consider the impact on the troops they sent in Harms way
*one might debate the underlying circumstances of that resolution, the solution was the war powers resolution which has it’s own bad consequences,
Sharon W– is this a speech/paper by Sowell? There is no indication of when or where or in what context this was given as a speech or the text of a paper.
While there are uncertainties about the effects of the US providing direct action against Iran (using MOABs) we already are involved. It’s likely the US is refueling Israeli jets and providing AD against Iran missile strikes on Israel.
If Iran’s oil production facilities/shipping port were destroyed, OPEC could and likely would make up the difference. It’s been noted the Arabs are very quiet about this action against Iran, but support defeating/defanging Iran. There is historical precedent for this.
@Ray Van Dune:The whole “Congress alone can declare war” thing is a farce.
It’s black letter in the Constitution, so we’re stuck with it. I don’t disagree much with your characterizations of Congress but some cures are worse than the diseases.
but they aren’t going to commit, any more than they would balance a budget,
The last time the USA formally issued a Declaration of War was in 1941, very soon after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
And prior to that, it was in 1917, which put the USA into WW I.
USA “adventures” in Central America (in the 1920s and 30s), Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Granada, Iraq (twice), Afghanistan were all entered into without a formal declaration of war.
So does this mean that all those clamoring that Congress DECLARE WAR in the current case are itching for WWIII???
Brian E.–good question. Is it AI simulating Sowell’s voice? I hadn’t thought of that. Regardless, I would bet that in any negative fall-out from such incursions will be borne by the hoi polloi of which I am a part–not the Newsoms, Pelosis, Bidens, Netanyahus, Trumps or Musks of the world.
an oil shock is a down side risk, if they close the straits out right, or if enough tanker traffic is blocked by missiles flying between US and Iranian missiles,
Some good comments, esp from Niketas except for the claim the Iranians have the same ability to dump the mullahs as ever. They failed without Obama support, and with the mullah leaders healthy and experienced.
Now those mullahs are weaker in mind, and in bureaucracy leaders.
Plus, Trump favoring Unconditional Surrender, as he tweeted, has changed my priors to also support and expect regime change. Probably to a return of the ( son of the late) Shah. With Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia as a model of regime change when Vietnam liberated their neighbor from the Pol Pot Killing Fields.
There were 4 factions from the ‘79 Death to the Shah regime change: many wanted to keep the Shah and his SAVAK secret police killing dozens, many were Human Rights democracy supporters thinking they were a majority, many were USSR supported communists expecting to win power thru the non-college educated working folk (led by grads, tho), and many were supporters of Islam and the purity promised by the Ayatollahs.
As they fail the new factions, and their strengths, are unknown, as are their leaders … except for the Shah. Most factions will want to minimize internal civil war, and likely accept an Iranian Shah imposed by the US, less likely by Israel.
The failed Iraq regime change might well have gone better if the US installed Chalabi as temporary governor, with elections later. A functioning market economy, with buyers faced with lots of choices but a limited budget, seems a requirement for thoughtful democracy. Tho China shows it can work in their not-quite democratic, nor communist, system.
ah prince sihanouk, he caused no end of trouble, allowing the vietcong to seek sanctuary then, which eventually prompted the coup, and the military intervention,
then he fled to China, and provided an umbrella for the Khmer Rouge, William Shawcross as a young man, took his own spin with Side Show, which Roland Jaffe dramatized in the Killing Field,
Chalabi has his own issues, and the black legend that grew up around largely because many persons and institutions, profited from the Saddam regime, including Foggy Bottom White Hall and Vauxhall Cross
even among the Shia leadership there was jostling for leadership, and so they eventually ended up with Maliki, who had been vocally opposed to the war that deposited him in the prime ministership,
by hook or by crook he lasted the longest some 8 years,
I thought Chalabi turned out to be an Iranian plant.
What I’ve read was the failure was not allowing the military to continue controlling the country and the De-Ba’athification, which gave Shia Muslims control. Given the internal Shia/Sunni conflict that Saddam contained through that brutality, though the power sharing between factions is probably the best that could be hoped for.
Kind of like us– where our legislative body veers from paralysis to short power bursts. More and more the country is governed by executive fiat.
It’s unlikely you can have a functioning democracy in any majority Muslim country– given the power of the Imams. They will always need a “strongman” to tamp down violent rivalries.
Debaathification was probably needed to some degree but it was done too thoroughly against most of the political class that created a rather strong opposition base for the insurgency the army with Sunni officers but shia enlisted might not have held together but these directives made things worse
He was a little too cavalier in dismissing the flaws in the intelligence which angered the coalition forces so he chose the SCIRI forces to ally with
The Turks who are not Arabs were able to install a secular regime for a generation or three the pahlevis were organized under similar lines
Egypt under Asisi seems to be threading that needle fwiw
The Democrat judges are curiously silent.
Why have there been no Temporary Restraining Orders to prevent Trump from aiding Israel and threatening Iran?
Um, possibly because in THIS case what Trump might decide to do is a PURELY FOREIGN POLICY DECISION—with many precedents—such that any judge who attempts to hogtie POTUS on this issue KNOWS that on appeal (which will be made quickly) the attempt will be quickly and solidly shot down?
Another possible reason is that any judge who might wish to hogtie Trump in this matter is waiting to see if Congress will be able to hogtie him first (thus obviating the need for “judicial assistance”…).
“Dershowitz to Newsmax: War Powers Act Would Obstruct Trump”—
https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/alan-dershowitz-donald-trump-iran/2025/06/19/id/1215718/
Opening grafs:
Should Congress fail in this attempt, then an “activist” judge may decide to take a shot…
Back of the book section
https://pjmedia.com/robert-spencer/2025/06/19/will-this-blow-up-nato-n4940969
A little dark humor
https://x.com/DavidBCohen1/status/1935882050151891438
Who knew spinal tap would be so illuminating see the ruggles as well
Congress having the power to declare war is an issue designed given the Founding Fathers’ view of history and their current events.
As far as I can tell, it presumes the Westphalian Model, or Westphalian System were present and always would be.
That is, the idea that sovereign nations are not to be told what to do by other nations about their internal affairs. No more “free cities” or “imperial grants” or anything of that kind. Today, every spot of dry land except Antarctica and, arguably, Gaza, is part of a sovereign nation. Even uninhabited little specks in teh Southern Ocean belong to somebody. Nations are responsible for what they do internationally and for what comes out of them, no matter its form.
This did not presume non-state actors such as al Quaeda, or Hamas, or any other you could name. No matter their non-state status, they can only be within a sovereign nation. That’s geography. And that nation either favors them and supports them but….pretends it’s not them, or has not the power to do anything about it, given internal politics and divisions.
You may recall, shortly after 9-11 when Bush told Astan to give up al Q. No dice. So….we went after the latter. But you can’t invade a sovereign nation! They haven’t done anything to us! Speaking of Astan.
No matter how obvious Iran’s support for non-state actors and proxies, no matter how horrid the actions of the latter, Iran was protected by the Westphalian System. Until it wasn’t. But, then, to what extent is Iran responsible for the actions of its proxies to an extent that would resemble its regular forces going abroad to kill and destroy? In the latter case, one might consider declaring war. Because there would be an enemy. An evanescent bunch of non-uniformed guys with AKs who can’t be pinned down don’t constitute a regular army from a sovereign nation. How do you even declare war on them? What, more than shooting at an attacker from a static defensive position, is “war”, anyway? Can you chase a bunch of terrorists across a border?
Different times, but I submit that Iran’s proxies have reached the status of actually if not formally equal to their own regular military and thus Iran can be considered formally at war with at least Israel. And us, considering what they’ve done to us in the past.
I think we got around that by invoking article 5 of the NATO charter, also the authorization of use of force, the first one, there were practically no dissenters
so when we started picking up unlawful combatants in Afghanistan and across the border,
the law fare, courtesy of the Levick Group were there was as Devils Advocates, something Deborah Burlingame discovered,
it is said ‘by deception they do war’ is the motto of the institute, nee Mossad, but that is more often the mo of their adversaries see Black September
later Hezbollah, many of them came from Force 17 arafat’s security detail, then Hamas, who availed themselves of the charitable umbrella,
that Israel had extended,
on that except Brezhnevite Barbara Lee, I would say Stalinist, but potato potatoe,
there area few members that care about constitutional niceties, even in the GOP caucus, but they could meet in a phone booth, in practical terms, one could really consider elements of the Saudi state to have been the support system for the hijackers as it was in Pakistan, but it is the seat of Islam, so that wasn’t going to happen, of course the enemy gets a vote, through their proxies like the IIRO and
Brotherhood extensions like the MSA and other groups,
The failed Iraq regime change
==
What, the Tikriti cousins are back in charge?
Good point, AD. Regime change was easy, nation building not so much.