← Back to context

Comment by orthogonal_cube

5 hours ago

Removal of the head of state is often a turning point. Either a regime becomes more extreme or the government collapses due to in-fighting as individuals attempt to gain control.

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.

Has there been a regime which has collapsed due to an external strike like this where it hasn't resulted in some decades long civil war nightmare?

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.

Trump seems to have thought it through a bit. Recent post:

>...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.

  • Uh huh, and if you are an Iranian Policeman are you more concerned that the funny orange man yelling on the tv/phone is going to get you, or the mob forming outside your window? They might see it in their personal self interest to stay lock step with the former regime as a better form of self preservation than just surrendering to the population they've been abusing. It's not like the U.S. can offer them any actual immunity lmao.

    • I'd probably think about which side is going to end up in power and try to get along with whoever that is. The US's demonstrated willingness to kill the leader will probably have an influence there.

  • Certainly people within the Trump administration have thought a lot about this.