← Back to context

Comment by Xixi

7 hours ago

I understand the desire to end that murderous regime. If I were Iranian, I'd want to see it ended too. But do they really think bombs will achieve that? More importantly, would more bombing actually bring the regime down?

Regimes rarely fall because civilians are reduced to searching for food and water. Destroying Iran's infrastructure would be more likely to produce desperation and disorder than revolt. It would hurt the weakest most, not those closest to the regime and best positioned to shield themselves from scarcity.

If outsiders want to help bring the regime down, supporting opposition forces would at least make more sense than bombing civilians into misery.

This is where not betraying the Kurds (several times) would have come in handy...

I don’t think civilians are being bombed into misery. My in-laws live in Tehran.

During the entire war, life goes on. The bakeries are open. They go about their life. My in-laws were driving back-and-forth across the city throughout the entire war. They recently bought a fridge.

They were seeing bombs and smoke from the city, sure. But it’s like living in uptown Manhattan, and seeing smoke come from the financial district. It doesn’t really affect your life, although it may be scary.

Only after a month of war did a bomb finally go off in their neighborhood. The shockwave broke the windows in their house. But the Red Crescent was in the neighborhood to support.

I agree with you that arming the opposition is probably the best move. All I can say is that whatever we’ve been doing the last 40+ years has accomplished nothing. Anti-regime Iranians want action.