2025 Israel - Iranian conflict

F

Friendly

Just Hatched
Registered Member
Trump has mentioned regime change, that term can be internal as well as external. As it stands, Khamenei is the last thing standing between either the security agencies/IRGC/army and full power. Those guyes don't just hold the guns, but also lots of resources and businesses. I really don't think Khamenei will be targeted unless whoever does it wants Iran to turn more like Russia or perhaps Pakistan, with security types ultimately running the show.

Iran is still a constituitional monarchy, despite the name change. The Ayatollah 'dynasty' just replaced the last fascist monarch of the Pahlevi dynasty through a popular revolt, and even opened up the system a bit. Not to say they're not authoritarian to a degree, but that's typical of countries sanctioned by the US for decades, you just learn to be paranoid.

Now consider that Putin, who wokred in the KGB, controls the church. The similarities to Iran are pretty obvious. That's a reall possibility in Iran if Khamenei goes but another 'monarch' aka Ayatollah is apointed.

Or Iran's new rulers might decide to do away with the monarchy and go full 'republic' in which case they're more like Pakistan. Does anyone in the US think that's a better outcome? I don't think so.
 
Randomuser

Randomuser

Captain
Registered Member
You know if this ceasefire actually lasts, this will be the second one Trump negotiated quickly after India-Pakistan.

I have to give him credit for managing to come up with this strategy of finding a loud mouth but somehow effective way of getting out while saving face for various sides. They can basically say we achieved our goals so we have the right to stop now.

I think what we learnt is countries just don't have the same appetite for war like before. No matter how bad things are, war is to be avoided. War is damn expensive after all.
 
S

SinoAmericanCW

Junior Member
Registered Member
Randomuser said:
I think what we learnt is countries just don't have the same appetite for war like before. No matter how bad things are, war is to be avoided. War is damn expensive after all.
Click to expand...
It depends. Countries still have the stamina for wars that matter to their core interests, i.e. Russia in Ukraine, Israel in the Near East since 10/7, China and the U.S. (prospectively) in the Pacific, etc.
 
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
Sinnavuuty said:
The deniers will deny it: but Iran was shamefully defeated.

Its missile force was compromised. We don't know what happened, but Israel probably managed to disable part of Iran's MRBM arsenal.

Its air defense was compromised and even in the capital they lost control of the airspace. They may have good systems but they didn't have enough quantity or variety. They need to rebuild their air defense.

They delayed the nuclear program by attacking their facilities. They can build but they won't be able to produce. The main objective was to destroy the facilities, and in addition to Fordow, the US also attacked a mountain deposit in Isafhan where enriched uranium material was stored. Probably taking into account the attacks by Israel and these attacks by the Americans, the infrastructure of the nuclear program was badly damaged and will have to start almost from scratch. The loss of nuclear scientists will be felt more than the loss of material, since training new scientists takes more time and money than recovering material damage.

Its intelligence and counterintelligence need to improve considerably. There is no excuse for what happened, there should be a purge just like the Russians purged several directors and agents of the SVR/FSB at the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine, the purge is necessary because their entire intelligence corps may still be compromised by the Mossad.

Iran should dissolve the IRGC. I have never seen a more useless army that can only launch ballistic missiles at other countries without causing much damage, without targeting strategic targets and incapable of preventing enemy superiority. In fact, this division between the army and the IRGC must end, the IRGC must be dissolved and formed into a single army with all IRGC assets transferred to the single army.

I could say more but I think that is enough for now.
Click to expand...

A lot of what you wrote is just speculation.

Considering what Iran stands to lose if the US decided to attack them for real, a ceasefire at this point is probably the best outcome it could hope to achieve.

I also find your conclusion that the IRGC is useless to be quite strange considering that the Iranian army barely did anything.
 
AlexYe

AlexYe

Junior Member
Registered Member
Moonscape said:
This the lose condition for Israel. Missile landings become routine, and all the settlers with dual citizenship leave.
Click to expand...
I think that will happen for both, one of the things Netanyahoo said was 'we will treat iran like lebanon from now' as in bomb them whenever they feel like it, So that tit-for-tat might keep going.

I do disagree with some folk here that said Iran didnt do damage, considering israel censorship and how they hide deaths, even if some senior leaders in Israel did die they wont say it, they will show kids and other innocent folk caught up. Like how they repeatedly showed the hospital damage from the shock-wave of the missile that hit the intel-center closeby.
They have had damage and deaths not to same extent no, it wasnt a 'surprise coordinated' attack after all during 'peace time negotiations'

Friendly said:
Iran is still a constituitional monarchy, despite the name change. The Ayatollah 'dynasty' just replaced the last fascist monarch of the Pahlevi dynasty through a popular revolt, and even opened up the system a bit. Not to say they're not authoritarian to a degree, but that's typical of countries sanctioned by the US for decades, you just learn to be paranoid.

Now consider that Putin, who wokred in the KGB, controls the church. The similarities to Iran are pretty obvious. That's a reall possibility in Iran if Khamenei goes but another 'monarch' aka Ayatollah is apointed.

Or Iran's new rulers might decide to do away with the monarchy and go full 'republic' in which case they're more like Pakistan. Does anyone in the US think that's a better outcome? I don't think so.
Click to expand...
Ayatollahs doesnt do any government or IRGC leadership at all, he is more religious figurehead that gives a few redlines' you cant cross, otherwise its completely upto the civil/military/irgc leadership how to go about things, He isnt someone in Putin's position at all that has directly proper communication and role with his military/forces.
Even if/when he dies, the council will select a new one (and he has specifically excluded his son from the selection).

An example of redline he gave the negotiators was that 'no enrichment' was off the table, tho even 3.5% was fine.
this is reason the liberals/reformists (who were elected by the people) had so much sway and trust about the west, and completely got blindsided (or they were involved) when they got attacked, if the political system survives and anger of the people is directed towards the liberals... they will get thrown out (Current FM and President is a liberal reformists/pro-west guy too)
 
F

Friendly

Just Hatched
Registered Member
AlexYe said:
Ayatollahs doesnt do any government or IRGC leadership at all, he is more religious figurehead that gives a few redlines' you cant cross, otherwise its completely upto the civil/military/irgc leadership how to go about things, He isnt someone in Putin's position at all that
Click to expand...
Yeah that's what I said. Ayatollah is like a monarch, i.e. he's more of a figurehead. If he goes, a Putin-like figure from intelligence, IRGC, etc, might declare an emergency & take power. Then you have an Iranian Putin. Alternatively a new Ayatollah comes, and is scared for his life, so relies more and more on the security establishment. Not something the US wants, so I doubt the rumours swirling around about an assassination.
 
T

TPenglake

Junior Member
Registered Member
FairAndUnbiased said:
They could always get millions of their citizens displaced, captured or killed, 25% of their territory permanently captured, get their entire navy sunk, lose most of their coastline except a small sliver, have 100s of glide bombs and cruise missiles hitting them every day and lose 30% of their GDP.

That's much worse, no?
Click to expand...
Isn't that kind of an apples-oranges thing? Ukraine is a backwater that never had regional ambitions and is merely fighting for its survival. Iran wanted to be one of the ME's regional powers.

With respect to the current topic now, Trump's ceasefire may or may not hold, but with respect to the situation thus far, here's my two cents. I don't think there's any way to argue otherwise, these past two years have been a strategic disaster for Iran. The short version is simply that the Axis of Resistance has been completely dismantled. The immediate consequence of which is that unfortunately, unless Ben Gvir's heart suddenly grows Grinch Christmas style, the Palestinian people will have to bear whatever revenge the Israelis are in the mood for. With three years to go in the Trump presidency, it likely won't be pretty for them.

However, the IRI despite its defeats in the war has thus far managed to avoid regime change and kept its nuclear program intact, they are winning on that front. With their regional empire in tatters, they can now focus inwards. A certain country has the ability to reap all the benefits by taking advantage of Iran's current weakend state and making it a satellite within the Middle East. But as long as Iran gets to work on finally building nukes rather than tiptoeing around the issue in hope for sanctions relief and create a somewhat competent ground army now that the need to rely on militias is gone, they can be a valuable satellite.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top