Khamenei Dead | Hacker News Reader

Khamenei Dead

twitter.com

79 pointsharscoat78 comments

Better source: https://www.reuters.com/world/iran-crisis-live-explosions-te...

Aren't these Iranians the same folks that declare religious wars or Jihad's ?

I would not be surprised if we see increased terrorism against Americans worldwide for the next 100 years . . .

Do you really want an answer to that? In islamic theology, religious war is a constant state that lasts until everyone is subjugated (muslims and non-muslims, everyone), at which point the islamic messiah will come, the dead will rise, a last war will break out, and the world ends.

Until then, it's constant war (insofar that jihad means war. But that's not entirely true. Think of it more like "subjugating everyone by any means. Violence if necessary, but preferably just subjugation")

So no, jihad is not started or stopped. Specific missions are declared (like killing British authors for pointing out obvious contradictions in the quran, like allah having 3 man- and child-killing daughters)

So, what does that mean? Is Iran one of those regimes that fall when the leader is killed or is it one of those regimes that they just choose/install someone else and keep going? If it falls, will the democracy kick in or a civil war?

Excellent question - my understanding is that previous decapitation attacks were avoided due to the probability that the IRGC would take over as a simple dictatorship. Unclear what's changed now though.

Given the outcome in Venezuela (and Trumps relationships with dictators in generally), it don't seem like that is something Trump necessarily sees as a bad outcome. As long as the dictatorship trades oil and let some American companies in, they can be as dictatorial as they want.

There is this new group this year that is into doing regime change, kind of

My understanding is that the Iranian government is very resilient. The has been a succession plan since the 70s with a broad board of individuals who can choose the next leader.

Blowback is going to be the biggest issue here. Ali Khamenei wasn't just the leader of Iran, he was well respected for Shia muslims. While not perfectly analogous, it's close to killing the pope.

Maybe this leads to open revolt which might fully topple to government, that said, I don't think there's a US/Israel endorsed leader or goal for succession here.

That's actually not true: Khamenei was a political ayatollah, hardly respected for religious judgment by average Shia.

It's my understanding that most ayatollahs get that title through political influence. And for Iran specifically, the supreme leader wouldn't have gotten his position without having that religious influence. It's a theocracy.

They assuredly have a succession plan. This won’t cause them to back down.

So, what does that mean?

Their government is structured to resist this. There are another 20K Mullah's that succeed in their place. I have no idea how much experience they have or how that works in detail. Most of them at the moment AFAIK are in underground bunkers. I'm waiting for news on those.

Where did democracy kicked in in the last two decades after their leaders were assassinated or captured by foreign aggressors though?

The closest is Iraq, and it's not a functioning democracy but a hybrid regime.

> one of those regimes that they just choose/install someone else and keep going

The council (50+ members) may elect another leader in his stead, provided the current council can hold on to their seats, which depends on a lot of factors.

> If it falls, will the democracy kick in or a civil war

If the previous Western policy for the region is any indicator, they'd prefer a monarch over democracy. Probably even civil war over democracy, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Iran is already a parliamentary democracy, the aspect that’s criticized is the fact that candidates must be approved by their religious council. The Ayatollah didn’t/doesn’t exercise direct executive control over the country, so his removal wouldn’t create an immediate leadership vacuum.

For as much as the far right in the US likes to criticize Iran, ultimately their only real complaint about their ‘theocracy with democratic characteristics’ is that it isn’t Christian.

I think you’re out to lunch on what the Iranian government has been doing. They’ve armed Islamic groups all over the Middle East, they armed the Houthis who have been shooting at civilian ships transiting through the straight of Hormuz, they’ve supplied Russia with the drones and arms for the Ukraine invasion, .. and the list goes on and on.

Yes, this is all true, but totally irrelevant to the question I was addressing.

Iran's system of government doesn't really directly relate to their geopolitical strategy. You can have the most awesome democratic system at home and commit absolutely evil atrocities abroad. Just ask Kissinger (or maybe Khamenei can ask him now?).

I was responding to your criticism of the American right wing only caring about religion. I’m not even American and i don’t follow the news and I’ve come across enough valid complaints about the regime that any one of any party would agree with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran

"is the de facto head of state and the highest political and religious authority of Iran (above the president). The armed forces, judiciary, state radio and television, and other key government organizations such as the Guardian Council and Expediency Discernment Council are subject to the supreme leader."

where did you get this bullshit from?

by every definition of democracy, Iran is very close to the worst end of the scale - just as an example https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/democracy...

Well that was quick.

Iranian media is very quiet today (due to the blackout), but until they confirms this, then this is complete speculation and unconfirmed. We just don't know.

I'd take the Israeli media with a grain of salt and they can still fake this, just like the Iranian media can do as well given that AI exists, it's very easy to fake.

One side is not telling the truth. Only time will tell.

If the 86-year old leader is still alive one would imagine that he would want to offer reassurance and & encouragement to his supporters by making some kind of appearance.

https://xcancel.com/BarakRavid/status/2027830773328302396

I consider any claims this fundamentally unreliable because there's too much propaganda value in lying, especially during the opening phases of a war. I also don't consider Khamenei that significant; he's an important theocratic figure obviously but doesn't have the same kind of weight or charisma that his predecessor had.

Disagree about the first part. Israeli intel agencies have very deep roots in Iran, and could very quickly be humiliated if Khamenei popped up with a jeering rebuttal to their claim.

Israel also doesn't tend to report on major kills that didn't happen. It's one thing that they are fairly reliable on. If they say someone is dead, they likely are.

Oddly enough, they also don't tend to report on minor deaths that do happen

Sadly enough, yes.

But not reporting "minor" deaths is SOP in the kill biz.

(I was leaning on the dual meaning of "minor" here...)

I'm not sure this is a sic semper tyranis but it's close.

More relevant is who'll take his place, and whether they're better or worse.

Note that regime collapse, in a major petrostate with a population of 92 million and in the middle of a critical yet volatile region, can be worse than "the devil you know".

Lawfare Daily from 3 days ago talked about this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfNGVWjglL4

Is there a succession, does the military take over, does it break down into factions? Many interesting questions and points raised.

So now heads of state are fair game for unilateral elimination without a declaration of war

This should be fun.

Israel does not need a declaration of war to kill heads of state. Their targeted killing policy has been upheld by their own Supreme Court. Whether international law agrees is another matter.

The US has also done this since 1945 (at least) although executive orders have, at times, placed some restraint on the practice.

Generally when you murder 30k of your own people the civilized world doesn't let you get away with it.

It actually does, or even supports this based on the narratives it sees fit and the interests at hand.

I just wish we'd apply this rule slightly more widely and didn't let countries get away with say - just as example - killing 20k children in Gaza. I guess you did say "generally".

Unless it’s our dictator like Pinochet

Generally it does, actually.

Neither the US nor Europe would have cared about Hitler's mass murder as long as he kept it in Germany and didn't disrupt business, his antisemitism was not unusual, and he was generally popular in the US. Stalin got away with it. Mao Zedong got away with it, and his authoritarian regime is a nascent superpower. Pol Pot more or less got away with it. He was deposed by his own people and died in his sleep. Israel has killed tens of thousands Palestinians and the world did nothing to stop it, America funded it. Idi Amin murdered hundreds of thousands of people and died in luxury. How many Russians and Ukrainians has Putin and his invasion of Ukraine sent to the slaughterhouse? Do you think anything is going to happen to him? How many North Koreans have the Kims starved to death or executed? Repercussions for the Armenian genocide? None. History is replete leaders whom the "civilized world" let "get away with it."

More than 30k dead palestinians.

How many children have dead from the wholesale and unlawful destruction of USAID? How many children in Gaza have died from the unlawful genocide?

The two countries bringing this attack have done as much or more evil than Iran, roughly as recently.

What's the time window of "now"?

For example in 2022 Russia tried to take out the Ukrainian president with a "3 day special military operation", that is still going on.

Do you think the estimated 6,221 men and women protesting against the regime who were killed on orders from that head of state should get a vote here?

Did you miss that time Russia sent multiple kill squads after Zelensky? Seems like it's been on the table for a few years now.

The U.S. hasn't declared war since WWII.

Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (I and II), Afghanistan, etc. were not technically wars in the sense that there was any form of formal declaration by congress. The U.S. constitution allocates the authority to declare war to congress but, in practice, it's been under the sole authority of the POTUS since long before Trump.

This reallocation of authority hasn't been a huge problem until now. Now you have a POTUS whose motives for starting a war are entirely suspect. It's true that negotiations between Iran and the U.S. would have had significant trust hurdles to overcome. The U.S. and Iran had a deal that granted Iran relief from economic sanctions in exchange for a halt to Iran's nuclear program. It was working, but Trump is the president who unilaterally broke that agreement in his previous term[1]. Trump has also repeatedly broken his own agreements in his current term. Even his own signature is now completely worthless. What would it have taken to assure Iran the U.S. could be trusted to honour its word with Trump in power?

Moreover, the timing of this war makes it hard to view as anything other than the bloodiest case of "Wag the Dog" of the modern era. Americans need to put this "president of peace" behind bars or he'll just keep starting wars. Once that's done, serious consideration should be given to restoring many of the powers the constitution allocates to congress, including the authority to declare war.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_...

> Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (I and II), Afghanistan, etc. were not technically wars in the sense that there was any form of formal declaration by congress.

(1) A declaration of war is not necessary for a war to legally exist, except in the context of specific US laws that might rely on a declared state of war,

(2) Congress constitutional power to declare war is not dependent on the use of special words; every (conditional or unconditional) “authorization for the use of military force” (including the broad but time limited authorization in the War Powers Act) and similar is an application of the Constitutional power to declare war.

Ursula is next? US doesn't like European leadership either...

Would be fun to see Ursula before judge in NY soon.

“Israel says…”

It's such an off timeline, where Israel can commit de facto genocide and there is no nato bombing like there was in Yugoslavia, and the USA, defenders of Ukraine's sovereignty, kidnap a state's leader and try to murder another state's leader, neither of which were a threat to the USA.

The board of peace means nothing, the USA cannot be trusted since it is a lapdog of Israel (did Epstein have something on somebody), and the president of peace starts his own war, hoping to outdo previous presidents in unprovoked murder and destruction.

All of the above gives Russia political ammunition to justify its SMO, and encourages China to step up its hopes to bring Taiwan back to the family.

And we have been told that AI and climate change are the biggest threats to humanity, ffs.

The same state's leader that sold to Russia the drones being used to violate Ukraine's sovereignty?

Do you believe that allies shouldn't sell weapons to each other?

Do you think people should try to kill the leaders of countries that sell weapons in such circumstances?

It depends a bit on what they do with the weapons. The Ukraine invasion is a nasty business.

Do you think the USAs and Israel's unprovoked attack on Iran is a nasty business, or only that Russia's attack on Ukraine is a nasty business?

How about NATO attacking Yugoslavia unprovoked? Was that a nasty business?

NATO attacking Libya, unprovoked, was that a nasty business?

The USA attacking Afghanistan unprovoked, was that a nasty business?

Going after the monsters that murdered thousands of Americans was entirely justified.

Russia's problem is that all their reasons for invading Ukraine, they made up. The very people Russia claims to have been 'saving', are the ones that they are disproportionately killing.

> USA attacking Afghanistan unprovoked

Unprovoked? This has to be one of the dumbest, most ahistorical bits of tankiespew I've ever read on this site.

So the only thing you're actually interested in is arguing "Trump bad."

Iran's religious leadership has been sponsoring terror throughout the world for the last 40 years. Jimmy Carter was duped by the British into causing the rise of Shia Islam there. Khamenei and his leadership had escape locations prepared in Venezuela. The U.S. rolled those up first, nabbing the leader of a criminal cartel (Maduro) in the process. Now Israel and the U.S. have taken out Iran's oppressive "supreme leader" at a moment in history when the Iranian people are struggling for their own freedom.

Khamenei was a bad guy. Maduro is a bad guy. They've put evil and harm out into the world and you're wringing your hands about it because it was Trump that stopped them?

"By G'Quan, I can't recall the last time I was in a fight like that. No moral ambiguity, no .. hopeless battle against ancient and overwhelming forces. They were the bad guys, as you say, we were the good guys. And they made a very satisfying thump when they hit the floor." -- G'Kar

Anyone who still believes the zionist-american misinformation empire is gullible beyond sanity. big mistake

There is no benefit, and significant risk, in lying about that (it's an easily disproven claim if they're lying).

I don't trust them because I like them. I trust them because being truthful is in their best interest (and I trust they will always act in their own interest).

It is not in their best interest, since it's obvious that for at least a decade, blatantly lying and even being caught lying has no impact on their so-called credibility. Lying about this does improve morale among troops and citizens, and gives them some form of early justification. So no. They do benefit from lying about this.

They why haven't they done that in any previous round of attacks? The risk of loosing credibility and giving Iran the opportunity for a propaganda win significantly outweighs any benefit to lying about this.

Going to pour one out for all the Iranian refugees celebrating

Funny how the Americans/Israelis are still so enamoured with the Big-Bad-Boss military view of the world, they've killed so many Taliban leaders in the past that they (the Americans) ended up giving control of Afghanistan to the same Taliban.

The same goes for their (both the Americans' and the Israelis') obsession about Douhet and his Air Power thing, a long-running mistake on Americans' part. So much so that their (the Americans') bases in places like Manama (Bahrain) are now getting pounded by lousy Shaheed drones, with no AD to speak of, none at all. This is a huge fuck-up for the Americans/Israelis, I wonder when will their MSM start to write that reality down.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com