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.
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.
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.
>...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?
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.