I have no doubt that they didn't like that the regime, which is why they left.
But this assassination is no guarantee of change for the better. Far from it.
But this assassination is no guarantee of change for the better. Far from it.
Anyone know?
India only shifted to using Russian oil in 2022 [2] after Venezuelan [3] and Iranian [4] oil sanctions were enacted, which was when both began increasing engagement with China.
It's a similar story for South Korea [5] and Japan [6].
This helps reduce prices for ONG, as India is shifting back to Venezuelan crude which gives slack which South Korea and Japan can take advantage of, as India, Japan, and South Korea represent 3 of the 5 largest oil consumers globally.
[0] - https://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/ongc-awaits-instr...
[1] - https://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/reliance-venezuel...
[2] - https://www.bbc.com/news/business-65553920
[3] - https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/india-and-venezuela-gro...
[4] - https://www.brookings.edu/articles/trump-tightens-sanctions-...
[5] - https://eastasiaforum.org/2019/09/13/south-korean-oil-refine...
[6] - https://mei.edu/ar/publication/japan-and-middle-east-navigat...
The US actually did something fairly similar in Iran; Trump had Soleimani blown up back in 2020. As we can see from the present situation, it failed to influence Iran in ways that the US thought were acceptable. It is rare for assassinations to have positive geopolitical ramifications.
And that in a country/region without Islamic radicals trying to take over. So far, apart from Israel, no Middle East country has managed to function as a democracy. Turkey, the only Muslim majority who has the faintest chance of joining the European Union, only keeps stuff under control due to the army enforcing a secular state, which the liberal patsies in the West can't take, because authoritarianism is bad and diversity in accepting radical Islam creeping into our homeland is our strength.
At that time (1990), when everything seemed possible and a quick path to democracy and all that it brings (in the imaginary of the poor, oppressed people that we were) along with it, this guy came along: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_Ra%C8%9Biu
He ran for president in the first free elections and made some 0.5% or something. I remember him for his words which go along the "it will take 20 years at least, for democracy to settle in Romania". He was right on. Now, 30 years after, we have a strong, frile democracy. Everyone can run for president but not everyone can win, even if they could: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn4x2epppego
All things considered, I live a much, much better life now than 30 years ago during the communist dictatorship. Perfect? Far from it and perfection is a moving target. But we're definitely a solid democracy, and also definitely, it's a miracle the first 5-10 years didn't erupt in a full scale civil war. And the despised "revolutionary guards" had some involvement in making sure it didn't happen, so as much as you hate them, you need them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_clashes_of_T%C3%A2rgu_M...
I would hold back on any hopes until we see how the current government handles things. Intervention from other countries does not always lead to positive outcomes.
>...This is the single greatest chance for the Iranian people to take back their Country. We are hearing that many of their IRGC, Military, and other Security and Police Forces, no longer want to fight, and are looking for Immunity from us. As I said last night, “Now they can have Immunity, later they only get Death!” Hopefully, the IRGC and Police will peacefully merge with the Iranian Patriots, and work together as a unit to bring back the Country to the Greatness it deserves...
The merge peacefully or die thing may motivate them.
only time will tell. I give iran much better than average odds this is for the better. Though the average is really bad: bad results would not surprise me.
>coalition of liberal and nationalist political parties selected Reza Pahlavi to lead a transitional government until the realisation of democratic elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_opposition#:~:text=On%...
thing. Maybe if enough Iranian people back that?
I can't think of any time when bombing the shit out of a country and killing their leader has actually worked.
All I can think of is examples of blowback.
Japan? Although their leader wasn't killed, but same logic. The more civilized a country is the easier it is to reform them into a good state, and Iran is a pretty civilized and structured nation, the dictatorship is the main issue.
Most people in Iran want a democracy and are capable of running it, you just have to let them. That isn't the case in most of these dictatorships that lacks such structure, but it is there in Iran.
0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito_surrender_broadcast
We aren't going to occupy Iran.
Comparing this to defeated nations in WWII is also a massive stretch, I almost can't believe people seriously think that is a parallel situation.
There's a lot of propaganda out there to dissuade people from thinking that this looks a lot like Libya at best--and that is assuming that decapitation airstrikes can even make the regime fall (which I doubt).
If you look at the US' history of interventions, the common thread is that nations with established pro-democracy movements tend to become stable democracies, and nations where democracy lacks popular support tend to turn into flimsy Republics that easily fall apart when American support is removed.
Occupation is so expensive that it's virtually unthinkable for even a medium-size country to be occupied. There are just too many civilians and too few soldiers.
(1945 - 1949 it was split in 4 occupation zones)
Yes a bunch of previous nazis made it back into power and politics, but they didn't call themselves nazis or acted like nazis. But also, the country as a whole took a very different path after wwii.
Justice was never served for what the Nazis did. Both the US and the USSR scooped up Nazi scientists (Operation Paperclip), and with the advent of the Cold War, the West quickly decided that it cared more about contesting Europe with the Soviets than seeking justice.
This happened just weeks ago in Venezuela, though in that case the removal was by abduction and foreign trial. (The U.S. struck Venezuela and abducted its President at the time, bringing him to trial in the United States. I've just now asked ChatGPT for a research report on his current status, you can read it here[1].)
This led to immediate and definitive regime change, the U.S. now has an excellent relationship with the new President of Venezuela.
[1] https://chatgpt.com/share/69a424b4-de38-800c-8699-cb95d25090...
People have already mentioned the post WW2 occupation of Germany and Japan.
There’s also the Roman occupation of Greece (and other Hellenistic territories), and even perhaps the Norman occupation of England. Not that either of these didn’t cause some strife and rebellion in both cases, but still there was a concerted effort to build up both territories.
The US operation to depose the dictator of Panama in 1989 is one example.
Afghanistan? No. Lacks means, motive, or organisation.
Iraq? Probably not, despite past history of conflict, too much internal strife.
Turkmenistan? Very unlikely.
Pakistan? Has the capability perhaps, but little motive AFAIU.
Azerbaijan, Aremenia, Turkey? Again, unlikely.
The most likely beligerents would be Israel (already involved, but not seeking occupation in all likelihood), and Saudi Arabia. But both those also seem unlikely. Both benefit by a weakened and submissive Iran, but occupation would be an extraordinary undertaking and highly problematic.
Non-bordering countries might be considerations (India likely tops that list) but again the upsides seem slight given costs.
A) Put in a government we like
B) Population behave or quality of life will be bad, you see, the simple life is difficult with cruise missiles coming at you
If that’s as effective as sending 250k ground troops (which … actually wasn’t effective), one could make the observation that Trump is a military genius.
Someone please talk sense to me because I cannot believe what I am saying.
He should have answered for every single drop of blood on his hands.
My 21 year old cousin was captured during the Mahsa uprising, she was sent to Evin prison, tortured for months. After she was released, we brought her to Canada and she was hospitalized for over a year. She will never be able to live a normal life again.
Death was too merciful for Khamenei.
The Arab spring wasn't that long ago, was it? We all saw how that turned out, but I suppose hope springs eternal.
> You bet Iranians are euphoric right now
I'm guessing the 50+ dead elementary school kids may put a damper on celebrations a bit.
To quote:
> For the transition from the Islamic Republic to a national, secular, and democratic government
An interesting point of comparison: (1) Malaysia isn't really secular (but they may claim it); (2) Singapore is fully secular; (3) Indonesia is secular (or "pan-religious"), but is still largely guided by Islamic relgious culture in their democractic systems.
To return to a scion of the man who put that all in place would - in my opinion, of course - be a massive mistake.
Keep in mind that the Shah was a client of the United States and the United Kingdom and that his son isn't doing this out of the goodness of his heart but because he wants what he thinks is his birthright back (he's been pretty vocal about that since his late teens), and that he has been living off wealth stolen from the Iranian people and squirreled out of the country by his father.
Of course he would present this as a transition but just wait until his ass hits that pluche and see if it isn't going to take another revolution to dislodge him.
> What he says he's planning and what he will do are not necessarily the same thing.
I'm not saying either view is right, but reducing the Iranian government to irrational religious fanatics is intellectually uncurious and unempathetic.
[1] - https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/002/355/607/670
I'm British, and whilst I don't think my government is perfect (their stance on digital privacy is insane) they are not murdering people, and we can vote them out at the next election if we want to.
"Last summer during the 12-day war with Israel, Khamenei had named three potential successors should he be killed. Reports earlier this month indicated that Khamenei had named four layers of succession for key government and military jobs, in an effort to ensure regime survival in the face of a US-Israeli attack."
- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/28/strategic-opti...
> they're mostly secular as well
Do you have any credible source for this?
*typo edit
update: Here’s some relatively independent polling from inside Iran which does not corroborate the 50/50 divide. And remember this was taken before the 2026 massacre: https://gamaan.org/2025/08/20/analytical-report-on-iranians-...
There's a US born professor Marandi who said in an interview a few weeks ago that the regime had put in place succession plans, including for himself.
I'm hopeful but skeptical that they will change for the better.
Let's not have illusions about it. There is no way to build a sustainable democracy in a country that never had such leanings and is not culturally/religiously predisposed to it, and can't be physically coerced into it with boots on the ground. Achievable goals are punishment, and neutering.