Israel - Iran and regional players | Please post respectfully and stay on topic

[berbatrick]

It makes full sense. Does Iran in its current state actually compete economically with any of its rivals? It's in Israel's interest to keep Iran as an international bogey man in order to get the vast levels of investment from the USA. Israel benefitted almost immediately from the 1979 revolution in the delivery of F-16s that were on their way to Tehran, but diverted. It's also in Iran's interest to having a belicose Israel. The trick of both regimes is to push each other enough without ever going into full scale war that would be disastrous for both countries.

The expat community is absolutely massive and operate on a very wide political scale, ranging from the monarchists in Los Angeles (who are incredibly pro-Israel) to the Mojaheden (MEK) to communists to all sorts.

The rise of the gulf states is purely down the vacuum that was left by the Iranian revolution in 1979 - a country that was growing at 8% per year. Iran should have an economy similar to South Korea, fully integrated with the West, which it is culturally aligned with, and be the leading power in the region. However, instead, it is led by a ruling elite that has managed to enrich itself beyond comprehension and all foreign investment that was heading Iran's way prior to 1979 has instead gone to Israel, the UAE and Saudi Arabia. So why would they want Iran to open up and take away billions of dollars headed their way?

The current status quo is exactly what hardliners in both Israel and Iran want. Netanyahu has been saying since 1993 that Iran is going to nuke Israel, which is laughable because everyone knows Israel already has nuclear weapons and would absolutely wipe out Iran if it actually wanted to.

The quicker the Iranian regime falls and is replaced with a democratically elected, demilitarised, open government, the better for the rest of the world - just not Israel.

Israel did get vast levels of investment from the US long before the Islamic Republic. I also don't think "investment" is the correct way to sum up the US-Israel relationship. It is direct transfer of money, weapons, and diplomatic support.
A pro-western Iran would obviously be good for Israel, and for the gulf, and the west. It's genuinely absurd to suggest otherwise - and in your last line, you admit it! The crux of this argument!

The biggest loser of a pro-western Iran would be Palestine, and of course there's a good argument that it would just be losing in a different way (totally alone, or backed insufficiently by a cynical Iran).

 

[VorZakone]

This aged like milk by the way.

 

[Raoul]

Does Hezbollah come into existence without Israel's invasion of Lebanon though? Point being that yes, the Iranian regime desires influence in the region and uses proxies for that but they're also reacting to events around them, no?

No they don't but we don't have the luxury of playing chicken or egg by creating arbitrary starting points in history in order to suit our preferred narrative. The present context has Hezbollah and Hamas both at odds with Israel, where both are being significantly funded by Iran. This is why people in the west have been beating the drum of regime change in Iran in recent years, because it is viewed as the head of the snake which foments trouble all over the region.

 

[Raoul]

This aged like milk by the way.

No doubt this will get thrown in his face during Senate confirmation hearings if Harris wins and nominates him for SecState.

 

[maniak]

we don't have the luxury of playing chicken or egg by creating arbitrary starting points in history in order to suit our preferred narrative.

And just like that, irony died...

 

[TheGame]

 

[RedDevil@84]

but we don't have the luxury of playing chicken or egg by creating arbitrary starting points in history in order to suit our preferred narrative

Wow. That's convenient.

 

[Raoul]

Rumours circulating alongside Persian X that a key IRGC figure has been targeted by Israel in Damascus. Some even claiming it's the Qud's commander Qa'ani (who has led the group since Soleimani becoming a meatball).

Fingers crossed it's true. What a beautiful day it's turning out to be !

Presumably it was this guy



Edit. What @TheGame said.

 

[Spark]

Israel did get vast levels of investment from the US long before the Islamic Republic. I also don't think "investment" is the correct way to sum up the US-Israel relationship. It is direct transfer of money, weapons, and diplomatic support.
A pro-western Iran would obviously be good for Israel, and for the gulf, and the west. It's genuinely absurd to suggest otherwise - and in your last line, you admit it! The crux of this argument!

The biggest loser of a pro-western Iran would be Palestine, and of course there's a good argument that it would just be losing in a different way (totally alone, or backed insufficiently by a cynical Iran).

Investment isn’t just money, it’s time and resources. Hardliners on both sides of the argument do not want a change in the status quo, as they both profit from it.

A western aligned Iran takes away the “existential” threat to Israel. That threat is the primary driver from the Israeli far right to justify significant land grabs within Palestine, with tacit US backing because Israel is seen (correctly) as the vanguard against a bellicose Iran.

Is Iran an actual existential threat? I highly doubt anyone in Israel is actually fearful of them, considering they can assassinate almost anyone at will with Iran’s borders.

Iran is completely closed off economically. Opening that up will see unprecedented levels of foreign investment - private as well as governmental - flow into the country, which will come at the expense of Israel and the gulf states. And the Iranian people are not pro-Israel overall - the vast majority consider their actions genocide, meaning there’s all the chance that a pro-Western Iran actually makes Israel’s aims of annexing the entire West Bank and resettling Gaza more difficult.

My last line is true, a pro-western Iran will be a significant geopolitical shake up that’ll be gutting to hardliners in all countries. Liberals in Israel will be happy, of course.

 

[VorZakone]

 

[VorZakone]

 

[Cloud7]

No they don't but we don't have the luxury of playing chicken or egg by creating arbitrary starting points in history in order to suit our preferred narrative.

You have done exactly this in the Israel Palestine thread from day one, creating an arbitrary starting point in history to suit your preferred narrative.

This is so on the nose that I can’t believe it’s not a parody unless you have absolutely no sense of self awareness whatsoever.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Oh shit, you can take quite a lot of info from this image if true.

1) This wasn't a GPS guided missile, as this missile struck the specific part of the building that the target was in, rather than flattening it entirely.

2) This wasn't a stand off cruise missile, like a JASSM or RAMPAGE, as the 1000lb warheads would have ripped the building to pieces.

3) This wasn't a JDAM either as again, the building would have been flattened.

4) The targeting precision means that this was laser guided or with active-guidance, which means that there was an aerial asset in direct non-BVR of the building.

5) This means that there was an active Israeli plane directly over Tehran without any detection by Iranian air defences (which is so incompetent).

6) Given the size of the impact, the two most likely culprits are AGM-114 (or R-9X variant), with a 100lb warhead that limits the damage to just the localized part of the building

OR

7) This was a Delilah missile that is native to Israel which can loiter and also has a smaller warhead. Both of these require an active, non passive, targeting solution.


It's fair to say with a degree of certainty that if the above image is true, Israel was operating fighter jets armed with small warhead Air to ground missiles with active laser/radar guidance without any detection from Iranian defences, and it's also fair to say this particular asset didn't just do a hit and run, but was circling the area for a non-insignificant amount of time.

Of course, the alternative is that this wasn't an airstrike at all and some agent managed to blow up the building from the ground.

EDIT, upon second inspection if it was an airstrike, given the lack of scorch-marks around the main impact epicentre, the most likely culprit is an AGM-114R-9X

 

[Raoul]

Oh shit, you can take quite a lot of info from this image if true.

1) This wasn't a GPS guided missile, as this missile struck the specific part of the building that the target was in, rather than flattening it entirely.

2) This wasn't a stand off cruise missile, like a JASSM or RAMPAGE, as the 1000lb warheads would have ripped the building to pieces.

3) This wasn't a JDAM either as again, the building would have been flattened.

4) The targeting precision means that this was laser guided or with active-guidance, which means that there was an aerial asset in direct non-BVR of the building.

5) This means that there was an active Israeli plane directly over Tehran without any detection by Iranian air defences (which is so incompetent).

6) Given the size of the impact, the two most likely culprits are AGM-114 (or R-9X variant), with a 100lb warhead that limits the damage to just the localized part of the building

OR

7) This was a Delilah missile that is native to Israel which can loiter and also has a smaller warhead. Both of these require an active, non passive, targeting solution.


It's fair to say with a degree of certainty that if the above image is true, Israel was operating fighter jets armed with small warhead Air to ground missiles with active laser/radar guidance without any detection from Iranian defences, and it's also fair to say this particular asset didn't just do a hit and run, but was circling the area for a non-insignificant amount of time.

Of course, the alternative is that this wasn't an airstrike at all and some agent managed to blow up the building from the ground.

EDIT, upon second inspection if it was an airstrike, given the lack of scorch-marks around the main impact epicentre, the most likely culprit is an AGM-114R-9X

I think they probably used a human source to pinpoint the specific bedroom where Haniyeh was sleeping, then used a Mossad team on the ground to use a ground based missile that was near enough to avoid detection before it hit the target.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

I think they probably used a human source to pinpoint the specific bedroom where Haniyeh was sleeping, then used a Mossad team on the ground to use a ground based missile that was near enough to avoid detection before it hit the target.

Didn't the Iranians come out and say it was an airstrike?

Ground based assassinations are very rare and difficult to pull off these days - extraction and exfil is very difficult, especially in Iran.

But yeah, occams razor right now is between:

a) Iranian air defense is none existent

b) It was a ground operation.

 

[Raoul]

Didn't the Iranians come out and say it was an airstrike?

Ground based assassinations are very rare and difficult to pull off these days - extraction and exfil is very difficult, especially in Iran.

But yeah, occams razor right now is between:

a) Iranian air defense is none existent

b) It was a ground operation.

I think the Iranians claimed the previous attack on Isfahan a couple of months ago were drones. Admitting they were missiles would probably be even more embarrassing.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

I think the Iranians claimed the previous attack on Isfahan a couple of months ago were drones. Admitting they were missiles would probably be even more embarrassing.

Every news outlet is reporting an air strike today, but then again, MSM when it comes to military matters are clueless.

 

[africanspur]

Didn't the Iranians come out and say it was an airstrike?

Ground based assassinations are very rare and difficult to pull off these days - extraction and exfil is very difficult, especially in Iran.

But yeah, occams razor right now is between:

a) Iranian air defense is none existent

b) It was a ground operation.

Could it not also be the case ( no less embarrassing) that the air defences picked up the plane but the Iranians had no mechanism to actually strike the planes?

 

[africanspur]

You have done exactly this in the Israel Palestine thread from day one, creating an arbitrary starting point in history to suit your preferred narrative.

This is so on the nose that I can’t believe it’s not a parody unless you have absolutely no sense of self awareness whatsoever.

That was excellent, gave me a good chuckle to read.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Could it not also be the case ( no less embarrassing) that the air defences picked up the plane but the Iranians had no mechanism to actually strike the planes?

They didn't even scramble interceptors.

So this is very plausible, as you need L-band huge wavelength but very low frequency radars to detect stealth (F-35's basically), but the resolution is so poor they're unable to provide a targeting solution.

What is does provide is a semi-precise location and general altitude of where the plane is operating, meaning that Iran's fleet of fighters such as F-14's and Mig-29's should have been scrambled to the detection location of the F-35.

If Israel didn't even send a stealth fighter, F-15's are easily trackable and engaged by S-300's, which Iran does have plenty of.

No scramble, no interceptors, no SAM's being fired indicates that there was no detection at all.

 

[Raoul]

They didn't even scramble interceptors.

So this is very plausible, as you need L-band huge wavelength but very low frequency radars to detect stealth (F-35's basically), but the resolution is so poor they're unable to provide a targeting solution.

What is does provide is a semi-precise location and general altitude of where the plane is operating, meaning that Iran's fleet of fighters such as F-14's and Mig-29's should have been scrambled to the detection location of the F-35.

If Israel didn't even send a stealth fighter, F-15's are easily trackable and engaged by S-300's, which Iran does have plenty of.

No scramble, no interceptors, no SAM's being fired indicates that there was no detection at all.

There was no detection last time as well (April-ish when the Israelis retaliated for Iran's retaliation). The entire country is probably crawling with Mossad agents who have the capability to do work locally without Israeli planes having to fly all the way to Iran.

 

[calodo2003]

There was no detection last time as well (April-ish when the Israelis retaliated for Iran retaliation). The entire country is probably crawling with Mossad agents who have the capability to do work locally without Israeli planes having to fly all the way to Iran.

This post just made me go see when Season 3 of Tehran drops.

 

[Raoul]

This post just made me go see when Season 3 of Tehran drops.

Seasons 5 of Fauda and 3 of Tehran are basically writing themselves.

 

[berbatrick]

 

[Hanks]

Omg, just see the fear in his eyes. Honestly, this is so pleasant for all the pain this man and his goons have caused us for 45 years...

 

[Revan]

Omg, just see the fear in his eyes. Honestly, this is so pleasant for all the pain this man and his goons have caused us for 45 years...

I think it is a bit overstated. And searching for drones with eyes is a bit stupid.

But on the other hand, it was probably a message that he too can be killed, so there is always that.

 

[Mainoonited]

No they don't but we don't have the luxury of playing chicken or egg by creating arbitrary starting points in history in order to suit our preferred narrative. The present context has Hezbollah and Hamas both at odds with Israel, where both are being significantly funded by Iran. This is why people in the west have been beating the drum of regime change in Iran in recent years, because it is viewed as the head of the snake which foments trouble all over the region.

Might be worth starting in 1947 when the British gave Arab lands they were occupying to European settlers. Seems relevant.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

They are the biggest hindrance to security in the region.

You underestimate the amount of damage your side is willing to cause.

Case in point: you repeatedly claimed that the Israel/Gaza war would be over and forgotten long before the election. The election is in three months so that prediction was quite off. It was off because you underestimated the amount of depravity that Israel and the U.S. are willing to inflict.

 

[Hanks]

It makes full sense. Does Iran in its current state actually compete economically with any of its rivals? It's in Israel's interest to keep Iran as an international bogey man in order to get the vast levels of investment from the USA. Israel benefitted almost immediately from the 1979 revolution in the delivery of F-16s that were on their way to Tehran, but diverted. It's also in Iran's interest to having a belicose Israel. The trick of both regimes is to push each other enough without ever going into full scale war that would be disastrous for both countries.

The expat community is absolutely massive and operate on a very wide political scale, ranging from the monarchists in Los Angeles (who are incredibly pro-Israel) to the Mojaheden (MEK) to communists to all sorts.

The rise of the gulf states is purely down the vacuum that was left by the Iranian revolution in 1979 - a country that was growing at 8% per year. Iran should have an economy similar to South Korea, fully integrated with the West, which it is culturally aligned with, and be the leading power in the region. However, instead, it is led by a ruling elite that has managed to enrich itself beyond comprehension and all foreign investment that was heading Iran's way prior to 1979 has instead gone to Israel, the UAE and Saudi Arabia. So why would they want Iran to open up and take away billions of dollars headed their way?

The current status quo is exactly what hardliners in both Israel and Iran want. Netanyahu has been saying since 1993 that Iran is going to nuke Israel, which is laughable because everyone knows Israel already has nuclear weapons and would absolutely wipe out Iran if it actually wanted to.

The quicker the Iranian regime falls and is replaced with a democratically elected, demilitarised, open government, the better for the rest of the world - just not Israel.

That is very key. A lot of people who have zero knowledge of Iranian history and revolution don't comprehend that this was purely an "ideological" revolution. It was also allowed to take place because it benefited (At the time) both sides of the cold war. The problem was that the Shah was 50 years ahead of his people in. terms of vision, class, elegance, and overall world outlook. He was also getting extremely powerful (He literally ran OPEC which led to price of oil quadrupling in early 1970s massively benefiting Iran )even for the Western elite, and hence he had to be taken out by combining the two forces of Islamism and Communism (Toudeh party + MEK). Jimmy Carter is the most despised man in Iran and I'm sure you'll see clips of people celebrating on the streets once the prick kicks the buck.

It honestly sucks. It's the only country in the world where the past looks like its future. We had a more reputable passport than most European countries, one of the fastest growing economies in the world, massive modernization, women in Iran got the right to vote before Swiss women, Iran was also one of the favourites to host the 1990s World Cup actually before the revolution happening...all of these were happening when Dubai and Abu Dhabi were desserts and some were still commuting with camels.

And now what we are? We are nothing. We have the second worst passport in the world. Our ruling regime hates the concept of Iran and Persian culture. They're actively trying to destroy Persepolis and thomb of Cyrus the Great or anything resembling the ancient Iranian civizliation. Our economy is in literal. toilet (When Shah left Iran 2 weeks before the revolution, the exchange rate of Iranian TOMAN to USD was 7:1 , as of now, it's about 70,000 : 1). Our women are treated like animals, picked up on streets and shoved into vans, beaten up, for having their hair showing up...environmentally we're so mismanaged , the lakes keep drying (I'm very Esfahan and Zayandeh-Rood has no water anymore because of years of water mismanagement). Our best football stadium and hospitcal is still built 50 years ago by SHAH (Aryamehr Stadium , now name changed to Azadi).

We have a wealth of natural resources, oil and gas, that is never spent on its own nation. All our money goes abroad to "Resistence Axis" while the people inside get poorer and poorer. The regime says it supports Palestine/Hezbollah/Houthi/Assad/ etc to protect "Islamic values" , yet Palestinian and Lebanese women are allowed to go to Olympics in normal swimming outfit, whereas Iranian women themselves are banned by the regime.

so @berbatrick , while yes, Palestine might be a loser of a relatively free Iran (I honestly don't care about democratic part as much as a regime that just. cares about its own people. I'll gladly take a Bin Zayed or MBS type, I don't expect us to be a Finland liberal democracy, because this is Middle East we're talking about), the Iranian nation and people will be winners.

After 45 years of misery, downgrade, abuse, and not ever ever being proud of my country's flag....that's the single issue I personally care about. Plus, It is possible to have a gov't that can cooperate both with Israel and the Arab States and even Palestine. Life doesn't have to be black or white. In fact, The Shah was one of the first people who brought the Jewish control of Western media to public in 1976. (so much for a so called "puppet" that Western far left academia brainwash their audience about him).

 

[VorZakone]

That is very key. A lot of people who have zero knowledge of Iranian history and revolution don't comprehend that this was purely an "ideological" revolution. It was also allowed to take place because it benefited (At the time) both sides of the cold war. The problem was that the Shah was 50 years ahead of his people in. terms of vision, class, elegance, and overall world outlook. He was also getting extremely powerful (He literally ran OPEC which led to price of oil quadrupling in early 1970s massively benefiting Iran )even for the Western elite, and hence he had to be taken out by combining the two forces of Islamism and Communism (Toudeh party + MEK). Jimmy Carter is the most despised man in Iran and I'm sure you'll see clips of people celebrating on the streets once the prick kicks the buck.

It honestly sucks. It's the only country in the world where the past looks like its future. We had a more reputable passport than most European countries, one of the fastest growing economies in the world, massive modernization, women in Iran got the right to vote before Swiss women, Iran was also one of the favourites to host the 1990s World Cup actually before the revolution happening...all of these were happening when Dubai and Abu Dhabi were desserts and some were still commuting with camels.

And now what we are? We are nothing. We have the second worst passport in the world. Our ruling regime hates the concept of Iran and Persian culture. They're actively trying to destroy Persepolis and thomb of Cyrus the Great or anything resembling the ancient Iranian civizliation. Our economy is in literal. toilet (When Shah left Iran 2 weeks before the revolution, the exchange rate of Iranian TOMAN to USD was 7:1 , as of now, it's about 70,000 : 1). Our women are treated like animals, picked up on streets and shoved into vans, beaten up, for having their hair showing up...environmentally we're so mismanaged , the lakes keep drying (I'm very Esfahan and Zayandeh-Rood has no water anymore because of years of water mismanagement). Our best football stadium and hospitcal is still built 50 years ago by SHAH (Aryamehr Stadium , now name changed to Azadi).

We have a wealth of natural resources, oil and gas, that is never spent on its own nation. All our money goes abroad to "Resistence Axis" while the people inside get poorer and poorer. The regime says it supports Palestine/Hezbollah/Houthi/Assad/ etc to protect "Islamic values" , yet Palestinian and Lebanese women are allowed to go to Olympics in normal swimming outfit, whereas Iranian women themselves are banned by the regime.

so @berbatrick , while yes, Palestine might be a loser of a relatively free Iran (I honestly don't care about democratic part as much as a regime that just. cares about its own people. I'll gladly take a Bin Zayed or MBS type, I don't expect us to be a Finland liberal democracy, because this is Middle East we're talking about), the Iranian nation and people will be winners.

After 45 years of misery, downgrade, abuse, and not ever ever being proud of my country's flag....that's the single issue I personally care about. Plus, It is possible to have a gov't that can cooperate both with Israel and the Arab States and even Palestine. Life doesn't have to be black or white. In fact, The Shah was one of the first people who brought the Jewish control of Western media to public in 1976. (so much for a so called "puppet" that Western far left academia brainwash their audience about him).

Don't want to go too much into Iranian history here in this thread but question: wasn't the West content with the Shah as an anti-communist bulwark? Was there really a Western interest in using the Communists in Iran to overthrow the Shah?

 

[Hanks]

Don't want to go too much into Iranian history here in this thread but question: wasn't the West content with the Shah as an anti-communist bulwark? Was there really a Western interest in using the Communists in Iran to overthrow the Shah?

The West mostly emboldened the Islamist faction (Housing Khoemini in France for 15 years and BBC basically being Khomeini's propaganda mouthpiece , Ayatollah BBC is a famous meme in Iran) ...whereas Soviets worked with Toudeh communist party and their agitators..and MEK was a mix of both. (A North-Korean style cult of Islamo-Marxism)

The 25-year oil contracts were coming to an end in 1979 and Shah had no interest in renewing them at same terms with Western powers. There is a famous "Blue Eyed People" interview he has with British TV if I'm not mistaken. The West knew Political Islam and religion overall, is anti-communism, hence it was their card.

In the end, when revolution succeeded, it was a victory for both Islamists and Communists. They were supposed to share power. But Khomeini purified the leftists one by one. By 1981, there was barely any more Left parties left. This always happens. Islamists always get allies from the Left to get to their goals, and then they'll eat them alive.

Anyways, back on track to topic. Just wanted to give some context of why many Iranians are so resentful of "Resistence Axis" and all it represents.

 

[VorZakone]

The West mostly emboldened the Islamist faction (Housing Khoemini in France for 15 years and BBC basically being Khomeini's propaganda mouthpiece , Ayatollah BBC is a famous meme in Iran) ...whereas Soviets worked with Toudeh communist party and their agitators..and MEK was a mix of both.

The 25-year oil contracts were coming to an end in 1979 and Shah had no interest in renewing them at same terms with Western powers. There is a famous "Blue Eyed People" interview he has with British TV if I'm not mistaken. The West knew Political Islam and religion overall, is anti-communism, hence it was their card.

In the end, when revolution succeeded, it was a victory for both Islamists and Communists. They were supposed to share power. But Khomeini purified the leftists one by one. By 1981, there was barely any more Left parties left. This always happens. Islamists always get allies from the Left to get to their goals, and then they'll eat them alive.

Yeah ok, I was aware that the Islamist faction was preferred over the left/communists. Your other post seemed to suggest the West was throwing its weight behind the communists which didn't make sense to me.

 

[Spark]

That is very key. A lot of people who have zero knowledge of Iranian history and revolution don't comprehend that this was purely an "ideological" revolution. It was also allowed to take place because it benefited (At the time) both sides of the cold war. The problem was that the Shah was 50 years ahead of his people in. terms of vision, class, elegance, and overall world outlook. He was also getting extremely powerful (He literally ran OPEC which led to price of oil quadrupling in early 1970s massively benefiting Iran )even for the Western elite, and hence he had to be taken out by combining the two forces of Islamism and Communism (Toudeh party + MEK). Jimmy Carter is the most despised man in Iran and I'm sure you'll see clips of people celebrating on the streets once the prick kicks the buck.

It honestly sucks. It's the only country in the world where the past looks like its future. We had a more reputable passport than most European countries, one of the fastest growing economies in the world, massive modernization, women in Iran got the right to vote before Swiss women, Iran was also one of the favourites to host the 1990s World Cup actually before the revolution happening...all of these were happening when Dubai and Abu Dhabi were desserts and some were still commuting with camels.

And now what we are? We are nothing. We have the second worst passport in the world. Our ruling regime hates the concept of Iran and Persian culture. They're actively trying to destroy Persepolis and thomb of Cyrus the Great or anything resembling the ancient Iranian civizliation. Our economy is in literal. toilet (When Shah left Iran 2 weeks before the revolution, the exchange rate of Iranian TOMAN to USD was 7:1 , as of now, it's about 70,000 : 1). Our women are treated like animals, picked up on streets and shoved into vans, beaten up, for having their hair showing up...environmentally we're so mismanaged , the lakes keep drying (I'm very Esfahan and Zayandeh-Rood has no water anymore because of years of water mismanagement). Our best football stadium and hospitcal is still built 50 years ago by SHAH (Aryamehr Stadium , now name changed to Azadi).

We have a wealth of natural resources, oil and gas, that is never spent on its own nation. All our money goes abroad to "Resistence Axis" while the people inside get poorer and poorer. The regime says it supports Palestine/Hezbollah/Houthi/Assad/ etc to protect "Islamic values" , yet Palestinian and Lebanese women are allowed to go to Olympics in normal swimming outfit, whereas Iranian women themselves are banned by the regime.

so @berbatrick , while yes, Palestine might be a loser of a relatively free Iran (I honestly don't care about democratic part as much as a regime that just. cares about its own people. I'll gladly take a Bin Zayed or MBS type, I don't expect us to be a Finland liberal democracy, because this is Middle East we're talking about), the Iranian nation and people will be winners.

After 45 years of misery, downgrade, abuse, and not ever ever being proud of my country's flag....that's the single issue I personally care about. Plus, It is possible to have a gov't that can cooperate both with Israel and the Arab States and even Palestine. Life doesn't have to be black or white. In fact, The Shah was one of the first people who brought the Jewish control of Western media to public in 1976. (so much for a so called "puppet" that Western far left academia brainwash their audience about him).

All good points, but the Shah was very weak - he pretended to be a dictator without actually wanting to do the things that dictators have to do. He didn't shoot protestors when he should have done at the start of the revolution (e.g. like the Gulf monarchies would today - look at Bahrain a few years ago) and he didn't allow a multi-party parliamentary democracy to take root, which he should have done at the start of the 1970s that would have likely staved off the revolution in its entirety.

The revolution only became ideological when Khomeini came back from exile and completely hijacked it with his band of Islamists. The reasons people demonstrated originally would be insane today, as the economy at the time was thriving in comparison. The difference between today and 1979 is that the IRGC, the basij etc will club heads, kill innocent women and children, and murder anyone they see fit in order to maintain authoritarian order - something the Shah could never comprehend doing but pretended he could. My cousins that are still there all say that they are "used to it" now. They've been beaten into submission.

On topic, if Netanyahu and the far right can be ousted in Israel and the Iranian regime can fall at the same time we will see flames go out in the Middle East. Hardliners love rival hardliners. I just honestly think Israel would rather deal with the devil they know and keep this regime in place for as long as possible - it's ironically the least threat to them in the long run, despite the narrative that Iran is an existential threat.

 

[That_Bloke]

Don't want to go too much into Iranian history here in this thread but question: wasn't the West content with the Shah as an anti-communist bulwark? Was there really a Western interest in using the Communists in Iran to overthrow the Shah?

Iran under the Shah got way too powerful and independent to the West's taste, especially the US.

The latter got rid of Mossadegh only to found itself confronted to an even bigger problem and a man who knew what he was doing. The Shah never was an "American puppet". To the contrary, he actively sought to limit its influence to the minimum. The Shah had his own strong regional ambitions which didn't necessarily align with US views of the region.

Iran basically ran the OPEC at the time and the Shah was the main instigator (and beneficiary) of the 1973 oil shock (the prices were increased by 470% over 12 months) that absolutely crippled the West's economy. The iranian economy and industry have been booming since he took over. Its growth rate equalled Taiwan and South Korea, and it was predicted that Iran would become a First World country in the mid-90's.

The Algiers Accords in 1975 which settled the border problem between Iran and Iraq (at the cost of the Iraqi Kurds who he sold down the drain after actively supporting them alongside Israel and US prior to these Accords), ruined the US and Israel's plans to weaken Iraq and influence Saddam's Hussein foreign policy.

The Carter Administration saw Shah as doomed as of 1978, due to his increasingly authoritarian ruling, and was open to "regime change" in Iran. Declassified reports show that US Adm. Huyser was sent by Carter to Iran in order to prevent the Iranian military leaders from orchestrating a coup in order to save the Shah after Khomeini, who took refuge in France at the time, gave Carter assurances to the US interests would be preserved, as the oil contracts which were coming to an end weren't going to be renewed by the Shah.

I don't think that going too much into Iran's history is a bad thing since it's essential to understand what's happening now in the region. The US has continuously been a blight and a destabilizing force in Iran and the region since the 50's.

Anyone trying to paint Iran as the big baddie in the Middle-East is simply gaslighting.

 

[VorZakone]

 

[Kaos]

So it was essentially a terrorist attack on foreign soil? Granted the target wasn't a savoury character, but they could have feasibly killed a few innocent bystanders too.

Now imagine a scenario if Iran had detonated a bomb in the US, killing someone like Ben Gvir or Gallant.

 

[Raoul]

So it was essentially a terrorist attack on foreign soil? Granted the target wasn't a savoury character, but they could have feasibly killed a few innocent bystanders too.

Now imagine a scenario if Iran had detonated a bomb in the US, killing someone like Ben Gvir or Gallant.

The US would've retaliated against the Islamic Republic. The difference in the comparison obviously being that the US is much more powerful and could do some serious damage to the IR, so they wouldn't be incentivized to do anything other than something symbolic.

But we don't even have to engage in hypotheticals given that we have an actual recent example of the Suleimani hit in Baghdad. The regime sheepishly telegraphed an attack on Al-Asad Airbase so they could be perceived domestically as getting some degree of revenge. Or more recently, the tit for tat attacks between the IR and Israel after the Israelis took out a Quds Force General and his deputy in Damascus. Ultimately, none of the sides want to engage in a regional war and prefer one off responses. In this case, if Khamenei tries something on Israeli soil, he now knows the Israelis have the capability to take out any individual within his own borders.

 

[calodo2003]

So it was essentially a terrorist attack on foreign soil? Granted the target wasn't a savoury character, but they could have feasibly killed a few innocent bystanders too.

Now imagine a scenario if Iran had detonated a bomb in the US, killing someone like Ben Gvir or Gallant.

I think the prospect of potentially killing bystanders pales greatly in comparison to the prospect of eliminating someone in the upper echelon of Hamas.

 

[hasanejaz88]

I think the prospect of potentially killing bystanders pales greatly in comparison to the prospect of eliminating someone in the upper echelon of Hamas.

What about the second part of the question? What if Iran did the same to eliminate Bibi or Ben Gvir?

 

[calodo2003]

What about the second part of the question? What if Iran did the same to eliminate Bibi or Ben Gvir?

Don't see much, if any, difference between the two scenarios. An action of this nature will definitely elicit a severe response & both sides know this. Israel seems to have the technical ability to pull it off, don't think Iran possesses such capability currently.