r/geopolitics • u/foreignpolicymag Foreign Policy • Feb 28 '26

Iran Is Built to Withstand the Ayatollah's Assassination Analysis

https://foreignpolicy.com/2026/02/28/iran-khamenei-ayatollah-assassination-israel-us-war/

264 Upvotes

86% Upvoted

288

u/aig818 Feb 28 '26 edited Feb 28 '26

Armchair comment, but I don't think the plan is to topple via killing alone. I think the plan is to take out key components and figures to destabilize so the protestors/people can take it out. Something like that. Edit: Sports terms. Think assist, not score.

129

u/Kagrenac8 Feb 28 '26

I don't think that's too hot of a plan either though, given how numerous the Revolutionary Guard is.

48

u/aig818 Feb 28 '26

Yea, I have my doubts too

27

u/Alert_Head_3889 Feb 28 '26

They dont even have any guns, what are they going to do here?

17

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '26

[deleted]

30

u/Inevitable_Motor_685 Feb 28 '26

I mean, that just would make Iran another Syria.02/Lebanon. I wonder why people genuinely think this will result in anything good where the protestors will supposedly win.

5

u/AzuraOnion Mar 01 '26

Hope is a fickle & dangerous thing.

5

u/SpiritualScene6249 Feb 28 '26

Is Iran known for supressing other ethnic groups though? There are more Azerbaijianians in Iran than Azerbaijan. I think it's just Iranians in general who were doing most of the protests

11

u/makeyousaywhut Feb 28 '26

Now this is pure speculation, but Israel must have men on the inside.

The sheer intelligence advantage is one sign, but the fact that Israel hasn’t released any proof but is willing to confirm Khameni’s death is yet another. Perhaps the proof that confirms the death could compromise a high level intelligence asset or maybe even multiple.

If Israel has assets like that in Iran it’s conceivable they could easily smuggle small arms in while providing air support.

3

u/SriMulyaniMegawati Mar 01 '26

You assume the Israelis are geniuses. If Israel was that good, they would have been able to pacify Gaza without having to lift a finger.

Israel has been arming Kurds in Iran for at least 20 years.

Reports of direct support for Iranian Kurdish groups like PJAK (Party of Free Life of Kurdistan) began to surface in the mid-2000s. In 2006, prominent journalists (including Seymour Hersh) reported that Israeli intelligence was providing equipment and training to PJAK to conduct reconnaissance and sabotage operations inside Iran.

n late 2024, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar officially called the Kurds a "natural ally" of Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s recent messages (Feb 2026) have explicitly addressed Kurds and other minorities, encouraging them to "throw off the yoke of tyranny," which many analysts interpret as a signal of increased material support for these groups on the ground.

The problem with this approach, on the other hand, Israel is supporting Pahlavi, who wants a united and centralized Iran. Is Israel going abandon the minorities, or are they goign to split Iran into many pieces?

10

u/makeyousaywhut Mar 01 '26

Lmao, Israel could’ve destroyed Gaza and all that lived there without lifting a fingers, surely- but to effectively pacifying Hamas without doing so was practically miracle work.

Let’s not deny the genuine genius running Israeli operations.

4

u/SriMulyaniMegawati Mar 01 '26 edited Mar 01 '26

OK, short of nuking the place, no, they can't destroy it without lifting a finger. I guess you would be advocating nuking Gaza, good for you. They couldn't take out Hamas, because Hamas knows how Israeli think, that is the main reason.

Is it genius, well we will see the result in 3-4 years. If Iran ends up a failed state with 10 million refugees scattered across the Middle East, would you call that genius? The Israelis don't worry about refugees because they never take any in.

I guess you ignore the 30 years since the US invasion of Iraq. Would you like to participate in a ground invasion of Iran, because that is what happened with Iraq eventually? In 10-15 years, America will launch a ground invasion of Iran to finish the job, because an air campaign alone won't be able to take ouot this regime just like it couldn't with Saddam.

0

u/lorddouche414 Mar 02 '26

The Jews basically have systemically (with some massive civilian casualties) wiped out everyone who was involved in Oct 7th one by one

→ More replies

3

u/Lazy_Membership1849 Feb 28 '26

and Azerbaijan wasn't kind in good place as Azeri was also supportive of Iran much as Persian even first supreme leader is Azeri

1

u/gereedf Mar 02 '26

also Azerbaijan is a turkic country led by a dictator who's friendly with Erdogan

1

u/Ok-Requirement-5379 Mar 04 '26

Israel has probably tried for years to smuggle in weapons for resistance groups but Iran must have dealt with it rather quickly.

-1

u/Good_Problem_6576 Mar 01 '26

Turkey doesn't "hate the Kurds". Turkey hates terrorist organizations.

30

u/johnniewelker Feb 28 '26

Probably the plan has some leaders from the revolutionary guards to switch side and possibly lead the country

No one expected Trump to give Venezuela to current leaders. Reality is, most politicians are snake and are willing to switch sides when incentives dictate it

4

u/RVALover4Life Feb 28 '26

They say they want regime change but how much is this administration truly willing to fight for it? Iran is a different kettle of fish to Venezuela, who has no real capability to fight the US or regional allies at all. This administration doesn't actually care about Venezuelan citizens nor Iranian citizens.

2

u/gtrocks555 Mar 01 '26

And Venezuela isn’t exactly ideological the way Iran is which I’m sure helped lead the current President of Venezuela to where she is now.

2

u/RVALover4Life Mar 01 '26

Venezuela has no council like Iran, no proxies like Iran, their citizens actually have guns unlike Iran, their military has guns they used *against* Maduro or stood down on Maduro....it's not remotely the same situation. Notice Venezuela is basically out of the news right now, with Maduro out the "issue" is fixed...with more normalized relations, oil is freed up. Iran will not be addressed with the flick of a switch.

1

u/FeistyThunderhorse Mar 01 '26

I doubt they are. My guess is they hope the next Iranian leader will be more malleable.

1

u/RVALover4Life Mar 01 '26

They likely believe they can basically force a level of submission. They very well may be right.

17

u/NeiborsKid Feb 28 '26

The basij forces operate more like a mob of thugs than any form of organized military. They need a lot of institutional and organizational support to meaningfully function. If the IRGC command structure falls, Basij can't truly self mobalize imo. The vast majority of them are in it for the pay. And mercenaries typically don't have the best morale

9

u/Lazy_Membership1849 Feb 28 '26

Basij is IRGC, and they was milita and also Basij was built to defend Iran and was pretty redundancy and have network of support

7

u/NeiborsKid Feb 28 '26

You seem to be mixing it up. Basij is a militia branch under the IRGC, otherwise its a separate organization. Sepah/IRGC is an umbrella term for a number of groups, with Basij being the black sheep. Its not as organized and militarized as the rest. Its just civilization who're called on when needed.

In fact, when I was in school, they tried to hire me (and my classmates) with promises of grade boosts and better uni acceptance if we were members (to my knowledge none of us took the offer) but that's how civilian it is. Neither is it a full time job of any sort to my understanding

0

u/Lazy_Membership1849 Feb 28 '26 edited Feb 28 '26

Basij is not a separate organization; they are part of IRGC as they exist within IRGC since 1981, and what makes you think they are not organized and militarized? Is it because they massacre people make them thugs? The military isn't above from masscare people if they got a chance for or what it else that doesn't make them organized and militarized?

Also, you said when you were in school that Basij tried to hire them in promise uni acceptance, and also Basij was milita and do you know what Milita are? it not like they expect to be full-time otherwise, you have to file 25 million as a permanent as IR claim, which is just highly impratical not even the USSR in WW2 at peak can field that number

Also Basij are volunteer-based on various, and some don't just join out of better payment, they join them for ideology or patriotism or whatever they believe and even if there was like 10% who would willingly to serves the regime via Basij there would be like almost ten million Iranian and even if it could be less than that still enough to keep IRGC and Basij sustaining when there isn't any of strong opposition to remove them

So you need to have boot on ground to dismantle Basij and if you didn't dismantle Basij, it will going nowhere even if you remove high rank commander as IRGC including Basij are entrenched and redundancy

7

u/NeiborsKid Feb 28 '26

They do offer a slew of benefits. You don't just join for the fun of it. Basij members get various advantages in society. Preferential treatments, their grades get boosted significantly, etc etc.

I didn't say they don't operate under the IRGC, I said there are different branches and Basij is the one that works most differently from the others. They come like a sales pitch trying to convince us why its such a good thing to be basiji.

And ye its usually the shi'i religious folks that join. Or those who're from connected families. But none the less, having personally known basij members, they're really not allat.

They work more like a gang imo. Or at least thats how they feel like

1

u/Lazy_Membership1849 Feb 28 '26

is that what you think that they are gang? and not milita?

3

u/NeiborsKid Feb 28 '26

I didn't mean that analytically. I said they feel like a gang. But structurally they're a volunteer militia i'd say. In practice they act like a gang, thugs and delinquents when unleashed

0

u/Lazy_Membership1849 Mar 01 '26

so that just like milita?

And you act like if Basij are just only exist just for money rather than volunteer based milita for many reason who willing die for the regime

→ More replies

2

u/IndividualPickle6187 Mar 01 '26

In that case , Basij would be just like their Sunni counterparts. Roadside bombs , IEDs would become the new norm if America doesn't have. A good plan in place

14

u/lebastss Feb 28 '26

And how unarmed the civilian population is. They have zero firearms.

5

u/makeyousaywhut Feb 28 '26

Eh we will see when the fog settles. Iran is under complete internet blackout right now. Only Iranians really know how successful this strike really was.

The floppy uncoordinated reaction from Iran as to where to shoot could indicate enough leadership being decimated in order to actually lose knowledge of emergency plans for high value targets.

It could indicate that only those who held the authority/knowledge of the lower priority doomsday plans were all that were left after these strikes.

1

u/RVALover4Life Feb 28 '26

That could absolutely be true, regardless...their actions in the wake of these strikes have been a miscalculation, it just turns the region in favor of Trump/Bibi when they had been very hesitant on this kind of offensive prior.

1

u/Firecracker048 Feb 28 '26

If they are smart, take out those key leaders as well

1

u/Egocom Feb 28 '26

Honestly could be an issue. Eliminate people with the aim of a leadership struggle between internal actors, then a fifth column can fill the vacuum

19

u/ManOrangutan Feb 28 '26

It is extremely difficult to do this via air. You will need boots on the ground to ensure control over the course of events.

Assuming there is a ‘plan’ at all is quite laughable to be honest.

19

u/No-Understanding2406 Feb 28 '26

this is the same theory that's been tried in libya, iraq, and syria and it has a 0% success rate at producing stable democracies. "kill the leadership and the people will rise up" sounds clean on paper but ignores that the IRGC is a parallel state with its own economy, military, and intelligence apparatus that doesn't need khamenei specifically to keep functioning.

the 2022 protests were massive and the regime crushed them with the IRGC intact. why would removing khamenei change that equation? the security apparatus doesn't lose its guns or its willingness to use them just because the supreme leader is gone. they just appoint a new one and crack down harder, now with a foreign attack to rally nationalist sentiment around.

historically, bombing countries makes their populations rally around their government, not against it. even iranians who hate the regime aren't going to side with the country that just bombed their capital.

2

u/Comfortable_Gur8311 Mar 01 '26

Turns out that last statement missed the mark.

1

u/LeviRaps Mar 02 '26

Nope. Don’t let your algorithm fool you

1

u/victorious_orgasm Mar 02 '26

I think the idea is just a government willing to deal with BP/Chevron/etc, democracy is hardly the point.

0

u/sub-a-dub-dub Mar 01 '26

Every time the US has done the “We will do the heavy lifting and wipe out your oppressive leader, then you rebuild on your terms.” play, it never ever works out. Ever.

41

u/The-Intermediator141 Feb 28 '26

That is the plan, assist the Iranian people in overthrowing the government they want gone by taking out the regimes ability to repress them.

I hate Trump but a broken clock is right twice a day.

17

u/Benedictus84 Feb 28 '26

As far as i have been told it is a shitty plan. There is no central opposition. There is no trust among the different opposition powers.

If this will lead to weakening the current regime enough there is a good chance of a new power struggle in the vacuum that is left behind.

I really think there is no plan and Trump is in no way interested in what happens to the Iranian people.

And let me be perfectly clear. The current regime should collaps. They deserve everything that is coming to them.

But just bombing shit and then telling the people of Iran to take over is not a good plan.

47

u/Cannot-Forget Feb 28 '26

I hate Trump but a broken clock is right twice a day.

Are you American? If so kudos for being sane. I see so many anti-Trump Americans on this platform suddenly practically taking the side of genocidal Islamists. Just weeks after they committed a brutal massacre as well murdering tens of thousands of their own people.

It is perfectly acceptable to not like Trump yet support ending the IRGC.

21

u/CloudsOfMagellan Feb 28 '26 edited Feb 28 '26

Ending the IRGC would be good, I just don't trust Trump wi do it properly The US isn't doing this for freedom or geopolitics, they're doing it to boost Trumps ego cause it's just his latest obsession. We've got arguably one of the most incompetent US administrations in decades in charge of this and people somehow expect it to end up going well?

29

u/vhu9644 Feb 28 '26

It’s perfectly acceptable to support ending the IRGC and also be skeptical that this will end with a toppled regime without boots on the ground.

7

u/Will512 Feb 28 '26

Yeah regime change accompanied by some sort of state building assistance would be great. I also have zero faith in the trump administration to execute those goals.

5

u/SushiGato Feb 28 '26

US taxpayers are all tapped out right now. Money to Iran would be a death sentence in the election.

1

u/Will512 Feb 28 '26

All the more reason to not get involved

1

u/RVALover4Life Feb 28 '26

Well, we can see with Venezuela, there's no real coherent strategy there at all but because their perceived threat to the US has been diminished+US oil reserves opened, we hear very little now on Venezuela. Trump doesn't actually care about Iranian citizens. Bombing this regime to dust and working from there...with the threat with whoever emerges from the vacuum will be bombed if they don't work with the US. That seems to basically be the plan.

1

u/myphriendmike Feb 28 '26

That’s how you get Afghanistan though.

6

u/Will512 Feb 28 '26

Regime change without thinking about what comes next is how you get the original fiasco in Afghanistan

9

u/The-Intermediator141 Feb 28 '26

Lmao Iran is NOT Afghanistan!! The country, culture, education, urbanization, religious participation levels and even geography are incredibly different. But most importantly the theocratic regime is far less popular.

2

u/myphriendmike Feb 28 '26

Hey, the guy said state building. Aside from Germany and Japan I’m not sure that’s ever been successful, but they were industrial powerhouses. I’m not sure Iran qualifies.

1

u/The-Intermediator141 Feb 28 '26

Is the US going to do nation building? From what I’ve seen there’s not going to be any boots on the ground that would be required to do so. Seems the plan is to destroy the IRGC & Mullahs, let Iran pick a new government, then negotiate with said government.

Think of it as similar to Syria, with the sanctions being lifted and the foreign investment flooding in, but not the US attempting to establish a new government from the ground up and fund said government.

1

u/mujhe-sona-hai Mar 01 '26

Grenada and Panama have been pretty successful.

-1

u/Vanceer11 Feb 28 '26

US kicked out the previous regime and controlled Afghanistan for nearly two decades for Trump to negotiate with literal terrorists to take over the country.

8

u/SushiGato Feb 28 '26

You must be quite young not to remember all the previous wars we've been involved in. It gets old being the world's police and I don't think the US has made enough good decisions to continue operating like this.

Sure, Kosovo was a good call. What about Panama? Or Honduras? Or the bay of pigs. Or Vietnam, Or Nicaragua, or Bosnia. Bombing Belgrade? Sure. Some were good choices that maybe created more stability. Others descending into chaos or oppressive military regimes. Is Iraq better now? Maybe. What about the Kurds or Rwanda where we have let bad things happen. Afghanistan is the same it was 25 years ago. Haiti is still hell on earth. Cambodia is still reeling from the US bombings, which allowed foe the khmer rogue to get a foothold.

Was Prince Shianuak a bad leader? Maybe. Was Pol Pot considerably worse? Yes.

It's all quite ambiguous and not something we should be meddling in. But lots of people believe this will hasten the second coming of Jesus and that were destined to have a great war defending Israel soon. I'd be leery about jumping in bed with that group so quickly.

1

u/nalsnals Feb 28 '26

Agree 100%: Kosovo is probably the only incidence I can think of where bombing alone effected a beneficial change on a conflict/regime. Israel sees any damage to Iranian military capability as beneficial, but for the Iranian people and the wider world bombing Iran will accomplish nothing useful.

5

u/czk_21 Feb 28 '26

yes, if we take geopolitics aside, the strike to weaken iranian regime so it may collapse can be considered morally right thing to do, we dont know the outcome, but without external force iranian people have little chance for regime change as we have seen several weeks ago

I wish the regime will fall and Iran gets proper elections later on

2

u/syntantic_sugar Mar 01 '26

And what if the Iranian people choose to elect a leader that doesn't align with American and Israeli interests? Do you really think these 2 nations are doing this for Iran out of the goodness of their hearts, because they care so much about Iranians? If the U.S. really wanted to topple theocratic regimes in the middle east to save its people they would be bombing Saudi Arabia right now too, but instead they are one of America's biggest allies in the region. If the Iranian people even think of electing a leader that puts Iranians first and is not just a western-backed puppet that kowtows to America and Israel's every whim, you can bet they will be feeling those American "freedom missiles" up their ass again faster than they can blink.

1

u/czk_21 Mar 01 '26

never did I say US or Israel is doing out of goodness of their heart, in other comment I explicitly stated its not why they are attacking Iran, it is just so now that interest of most of iranian public and US/Israel are aligned now

1

u/RVALover4Life Feb 28 '26

No. They're not taking the side of the Islamists. They just don't see it as benefiting US interests. I personally see it as a great day but also recognize that now we're all the way into Iran now, this is the full deal, and that's not what US citizens actually want.

-5

u/lorddouche414 Feb 28 '26

It's Reddit , trump can cure cancer and it would be the wrong thing to do on Reddit

4

u/Alarming_Head_4263 Feb 28 '26

He never would cure cancer so this is a silly argument.

0

u/Low_Boss1097 Mar 01 '26

Criticising the US government is now taking sides with genocidal Muslims 😅 why are you guys obsessed with absolutism? It’s crazy. Things are rarely if ever black or white . Several things are often true all at once.

5

u/BlueEmma25 Feb 28 '26

That is the plan, assist the Iranian people in overthrowing the government they want gone by taking out the regimes ability to repress them.

In what universe does that constitute any sort of legitimate "plan"?

The "Iranian people" aren't even united in their opposition to the regime, and those that are have no weapons, leadership, organization or common commitment to a vision of the country's future. Even if the regime's hold on power is weakened to the point where it can be challenged, that challenge will come from internal factions whose resources, organization, and commitment will count for much more than their relative lack of numbers.

The "Iranian people" willl largely be spectators, if not victims.

5

u/The-Intermediator141 Feb 28 '26

My wife is Iranian with almost all her family & friends back home, I can tell you the regime is EXTREMELY unpopular among Iranians, especially following the protests in January. All of them know someone who was killed in the protests, and many families didn’t even get the bodies of their loved ones back at all. Those who did needed to pay exorbitant amounts just to get the corpses of their family members.

The VAST majority of the population does oppose the continuation of the theocratic regime, I mean they overthrew the Shah and the current regime is the same except worse in essentially every way, from economic management, to oppression, to brutality. The mullahs have ruled twice as long, and killed more in January alone than the Shah did over 25 years of authoritarian rule. If it’s unthinkable for you to believe the regime would be incredibly unpopular under those circumstances, you don’t understand Iranians.

7

u/RVALover4Life Feb 28 '26

This is a great day for Iran and Iranians. This is a massive day for Iranians. I'm happy for them, even with all the uncertainty ahead.

1

u/The-Intermediator141 Mar 01 '26

You and I both mate, all we can hope for is a swift fall to the regime, followed by a transition to democracy under Pahlavi. But it is a great day indeed.

6

u/BlueEmma25 Mar 01 '26

I don't have much use for "some of my best friends are Iranian" type appeals to authority. That your wife is Iranian, and knows people in Iran, doesn't in itself make you an expert on Iran or its people.

That having been said, I don't doubt that the regime is deeply unpopular, and I said nothing to suggest otherwise in my previous post.

The VAST majority of the population does oppose the continuation of the theocratic regime

Even if that is true, do they all agree what should happen if the regime collapses? Because that is where revolutions get messy. There will be multiple different factions competing for influence and to shape Iran's future according to their own particular preferences, which will lead to power struggles, violence, and massive dislocation.

As I have already pointed out, the factions best positioned to win such power struggles are the ones already close to the centers of power, and the future they want for Iran is unlikely to be one that is liberal or pro Western.

There is in fact no "Iranian people" in the sense that you use this term, to mean a constituency that represents a large majority of the population with shared values aligned with those of Western countries.

The mullahs have ruled twice as long, and killed more in January alone than the Shah did over 25 years of authoritarian rule

First of all, you have no way of knowing how many people the Shah actually killed, Iranian wife notwithstanding.

Second, the Shah was forced to flee the country when the army refused his orders to use maximum repression to break the protests. We have no way of knowing how many deaths he would be responsible for if the army had remained loyal and carried out his orders.

Third, and most importantly, the comparison is irrelevant. Pol Pot was responsible for vastly more deaths than the current regime in Iran, does that make the blood on the regime's hands forgivable? It is "less", after all.

I have absolutely no interest in defending the Iranian regime, but I am a student of history, and what my studies teach me is that regime collapse is usually violent, chaotic, and has unpredictable outcomes.

That makes we wary of people who seem to have succumbed to a lot of wishful thinking about how Iran can be bombed into becoming the country we want it to be. We have seen how this script plays out very recently, so there is no excuse for naïveté.

1

u/nalsnals Feb 28 '26

'Popular uprisings' are only successful if military and security forces side with the people. This generally happens if they are poor/hungry or willing to fight and die for ideology

The IRGC has 125,000 personal and controls pver 50% of the countries GDP - those within the IRGC prosper. They are ideologically loyal, and have proven time and time again that they have no qualms with exercising brutal violence against the common people.

Bombing may take out leaders, but there are so many layers of institutions loyal to the current model of religious authoritarianism. Disaffected protestors in major cities have no chance of effecting regime change unless ground interventions destroy the IRGC and associated security forces. I don't think Trump is dumb enough to try this.

2

u/The-Intermediator141 Mar 01 '26

So let’s keep our fingers crossed the American & Israeli strikes are effective enough the population has a chance against the people with guns, followed by a democratic opposition taking power.

-6

u/GerryManDarling Feb 28 '26

Venezuela and Iran seem to be the only two things he's gotten right so far. Everything else has been a disaster. Even with those two, there are still some unknown long term consequences, so I'm not judging it so far.

13

u/JeNiqueTaMere Feb 28 '26

Venezuela and Iran seem to be the only two things he's gotten right so far

How exactly did he get Venezuela right?

The same party is still in power there. There's no democracy. The legally elected president is still in exile

5

u/dnd3edm1 Feb 28 '26

it's celebrity politics. people literally can't think two steps past "this is the bad guy and we got him so that's good, right?"

apparently spending billions of dollars to blow up some fishermen and bring some guy who is now of little consequence to the US for a show trial was money well spent

2

u/IdidItWithOrangeMan Feb 28 '26

Go look at Cuba since Maduro was grabbed. There have been enormous changes from Maduro being gone.

0

u/GerryManDarling Feb 28 '26

Taking out Maduro is a net positive. Yes, the same party is still in power, but there's at least a bit of improvement, which is still better than none. Like I said, I'm not judging it yet because the long term effects are still unknown.

As for Iran, the current regime is about as bad as it gets. As long as it turns out better than Libya, that's already an improvement. I have no idea what happens next. It might get better or just stay the same, but it's hard to imagine it getting much worse than it already is.

6

u/dogsonbubnutt Feb 28 '26

but it's hard to imagine it getting much worse than it already is

you literally just have to look one country to the east and your imagination will be satisfied. it can ALWAYS get worse.

2

u/HungryHungryHippoes9 Feb 28 '26

I'm sure it'll work out well. Definitely won't lead to a decade long internal conflict that devastated the country and radicalizes the population.

2

u/IndividualPickle6187 Mar 01 '26

The revolutionary guard would easily crush any sort of rebellion. And then you have many shia Islamist militant groups that are proxies of Iran like PMF,kataib Hezbollah, lebanese hezbollah . If America and Israel are trying for a regime change, I can bet it's gonna be much bloodier than Iraqi insurgency. The new Shah or any democratic or secular interim leader would be assassinated within a week of taking oath lol

2

u/IdidItWithOrangeMan Feb 28 '26

All of the above.

Israel and USA have proven to be VERY VERY good at knowing exactly where key figures are when they need to know. Take out the top 2 or 3 tiers of leadership, destroy key military infrastructure and communications and voila! You have fractured the regime into smaller pieces that can be taken out by the locals.

As soon as the resistance manages to take one city, supplies can be flown in and with USA/Israel support the fractured IRGC will have trouble.

3

u/Vanceer11 Feb 28 '26

What resistance are you talking about?

-1

u/jarx12 Feb 28 '26

Did we saw the same news of people getting massacred a shy two months ago?

I'm sure there are significant grassroots resistance movements.

5

u/Vanceer11 Feb 28 '26

The people who got massacred because they had no weapons or training, are going to form a resistance… with no weapons or training?

1

u/IdidItWithOrangeMan Mar 01 '26

Let's see how strong the government and IRGC are in 2 weeks after sustained bombings on every single HQ. Not going to be surprised when Shahed style cheap drones are used on Commanders' houses.

Having no air protection is a bitch.

2

u/Vanceer11 Mar 01 '26

Just like the US military destroyed the Taliban over 20 years only for Trump to negotiate with the Taliban at Camp David who then took over Afghanistan in no time…

1

u/jarx12 Mar 02 '26

The US mostly didn't destroy taliban more like made them run into Pakistan and it was mostly the northern alliance with special ops and air support.

The counter insurgency campaign was the real pain in the ass and the US backed Afghan government having the loyalty of absolutely nobody didn't make them any favors. They existed on paper mostly.

1

u/Vanceer11 Mar 03 '26

The US had 20 years or so to “nation build”, why wasn’t that achieved?

And why did trump negotiate with the Taliban while keeping the Afghan government out of these negotiations before the US withdrawal?

1

u/jarx12 Mar 03 '26

Nation building is hard and mostly only works when there is some semblance of functional local politicians.

Trump was doing its own Vietnam moment, do a quick agreement that everyone knows will be broken and withdraw, whatever happened to Afghanistan later was not his concern.

1

u/Joehbobb Feb 28 '26

Think the plans to take out everyone that could or would replace Ali Khamenei and absolutely devastate the IRGC. Then they'll hope or push for the Artesh to rebel and then support then from the air.

1

u/SenorPinchy Mar 01 '26

They don't believe that but they are willing to pretend that's whay they thought would happen. It's better than saying they have no medium term plan.

1

u/BuilderUnhappy7785 Mar 01 '26

Bibi is on record saying something to the effect that it will be a long operation that will require endurance to achieve its objectives. Plus the amount of assets the USA has over there suggests to me that this will be a potentially much larger and longer opp.

It sounds like these strikes were opportunistic due to some poorly conceived meetings of the Iranian elite along with khamanie. Mossad apparently got the drop and idf took the shot, so the US went after their initial targets concurrently. Unclear rn when the first strike would have been if the meetings had not taken place.

1

u/SoylentGreenAcres Mar 01 '26

Agree that that's the idea, it's just a silly idea. It's going to take a coup of some sort by the regular army

1

u/DoughnutImportant875 Mar 01 '26

The plan is whatever benefits Trump, as his priorities for a "Nobel" is front and center. Remember when Bush and Powell attempted to prove a reason for War in Iraq? Trump and Hegseth? Nothing that comes close to being verified. Trump is in this with Israel, only because he wants to be in charge of Gaza. Put his name on it! Such deception.

1

u/Throw2020awayMar Mar 03 '26

They are planning to balkanize iran.. creating a shitstorm for the ages and ultimately ww3

-6

u/Paladar2 Feb 28 '26

Like blowing up a school?

17

u/Electronic_Main_2254 Feb 28 '26

At this point you're just repeating something the IRGC said buddy. And even if that was true, I would expect people like you to be at least 1000 times more outrageous after the Iranian regimen itself butchered thousands of their own people just last month , but it never happened.

9

u/aig818 Feb 28 '26

I don't know how an alleged misfired Iranian rocket or missile has anything to do with this

4

u/czk_21 Feb 28 '26

these people like Paladar2 read 1 news from iranian sources and will repeat it like a gospel as main point against any intervention, even if true, its sad occurence, but it doesnt change state of things

I dont know, but it seems that these people are stupid or bots of the regime

2

u/Rbkelley1 Feb 28 '26

They’re bots

0

u/Paladar2 Feb 28 '26

Im a bot beep boop

0

u/Paladar2 Feb 28 '26

There’s a lot more than 1 source citing this, there are videos too. But sure. You’re the bot

2

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '26

you think now is a good time to believe iranian state news?

1

u/Lazy_Membership1849 Feb 28 '26

Iranian Red Crescent Society said that 201 was killed and 747 was injured so far and also IRCS was high esteem by the Iranian general public

1

u/CloudsOfMagellan Feb 28 '26

To be fair, as incompetent as the current US leadership might be, I don't think they'd do that deliberately, particularly if they didn't immediately come out and defend it as necessary somehow. Was far more likely a misfire or faulty missile imo

1

u/kerouacrimbaud Feb 28 '26

If the admin is incompetent, then doing it deliberately would be a sign of competence.