International Do you support toppling the Iranian Regime?

[ShinkanPo]

I think we should nuke everybody.
Just to be sure

Do not topple the Iran regime.
But I am curious who will replace Khamenei.

It could be Khimenei.

Do not topple the regime

 

[Hog-train]

Everything that's happening right now is good for the USA.

Iran's capacity to fund the terrorists that harass the entire world like the Houthis do international shipping vessels is being gloriously impaired. Their confidence they can continue to sponsor terrorism abroad against the US, Israel, and other western nations without any fear of repercussions reaching their own doorstep is shattered.

Their skin is in the game, now. It's beautiful.

If the US gets pulled into a long regime change war, that is definitely not good for the US. Regime change in the Middle East has literally never had a good result.

 

[Flower2dPeople]

If the US gets pulled into a long regime change war, that is definitely not good for the US. Regime change in the Middle East has literally never had a good result.

I trust Iranians more than Iraqis or Afghans if they're left to their own devices if there ever was a regime change. Educated and still retain their pre-islamic pride. The Iranians I trained and worked with hate their government and openly denounce Islam - which shocked me because they're saying this in front of other (non-iranian) Muslims.

 

[Madmick]

If the US gets pulled into a long regime change war, that is definitely not good for the US. Regime change in the Middle East has literally never had a good result.

It could in Iran. It's one of the only places I'm optimistic for regime change. For me, fundamentally, I want the theocratic structure of their government dissolved. Second to that, I also desire all of the sitting seniormost clerics, and military hardliners aligned with them, killed or removed.

I actually don't mind the current President, or others belonging to their reformist parties. If we could achieve all of the above, I'd gleefully embrace a much stronger American relationship with Iran. Let's do serious trade, let's be friends. They're a sophisticated people. This would finally bring the weight they need to the negotiating table on behalf of Palestinians. They need the US to be on their side. We will never be on their side as they chant "Death to America" in the halls of their parliament, and rightly so.

But constitutional & regime change will only happen either from within, or from a full-scale boots-on-the-ground conquering of Iran. I don't want to occupy Iran. I don't think Israel wants to do that, either. Fortunately, I don't think that is the objective.

I'm not sold on the narrative woven in the media by observers who say that Trump is seizing on the weight of Israel's attacks to force Iran to the negotiation table. That doesn't seem like a viable strategy to me. It seems more sensible to me the goal be to physically destroy these nuclear facilities, and kill their top scientists. Also, demolish Iran's capability to defend itself against air attacks, so that they are nervous in the years moving forward about their vulnerability, while killing as many of the aforementioned clerics and military leadership as possible. Decimate infrastructure. Set Iran's capability to arm and fund proxy groups back even further than sanctions already have. Then withdraw the offensive. That sounds to me like an achievable set of goals.

Because I am skeptical Iran will yield on nuclear ambitions at negotiation tables in response to a preemptive missile barrage, and the ensuing campaign. However, I am highly optimistic they will seize on the opportunity of a ceasefire should Israel achieve what I've stated.

In other words, if Israel persists, I'm doubtful Iran negotiates. But whatever destruction Israel achieves, I'm optimistic that if Israel stops, Iran stops.

 

[Hog-train]

I trust Iranians more than Iraqis or Afghans if they're left to their own devices if there ever was a regime change. Educated and still retain their pre-islamic pride. The Iranians I trained and worked with hate their government and openly denounce Islam - which shocked me because they're saying this in front of other (non-iranian) Muslims.

We literally had this twice already in Iran. The CIA and the UK engineers a coup d'etat in 1953 and installs a US puppet monarchy. The shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi is corrupt and autocratic for decades leading to the 1979 revolution. And now we have the current theocratic bullshit we have now.

To somehow expect them to all of a sudden become this flowering democracy if we do another regime change is naive.

The original regime we toppled in 1953 was much more democratic and modern than what we have now. There were women wearing mini skirts, the latest fashions, etc. Then we toppled that because the greedy western oil companies got kicked out. WE created the problem in the first place.

It could in Iran. It's one of the only places I'm optimistic for regime change. For me, fundamentally, I want the theocratic structure of their government dissolved. Second to that, I also desire all of the sitting seniormost clerics, and military hardliners aligned with them, killed or removed.

I actually don't mind the current President, or others belonging to their reformist parties. If we could achieve all of the above, I'd gleefully embrace a much stronger American relationship with Iran. Let's do serious trade, let's be friends. They're a sophisticated people. This would finally bring the weight they need to the negotiating table on behalf of Palestinians. They need the US to be on their side. We will never be on their side as they chant "Death to America" in the halls of their parliament, and rightly so.

But constitutional & regime change will only happen either from within, or from a full-scale boots-on-the-ground conquering of Iran. I don't want to occupy Iran. I don't think Israel wants to do that, either. Fortunately, I don't think that is the objective.

I'm not sold on the narrative woven in the media by observers who say that Trump is seizing on the weight of Israel's attacks to force Iran to the negotiation table. That doesn't seem like a viable strategy to me. It seems more sensible to me the goal be to physically destroy these nuclear facilities, and kill their top scientists. Also, demolish Iran's capability to defend itself against air attacks, so that they are nervous in the years moving forward about their vulnerability, while killing as many of the aforementioned clerics and military leadership as possible. Decimate infrastructure. Set Iran's capability to arm and fund proxy groups back even further than sanctions already have. Then withdraw the offensive. That sounds to me like an achievable set of goals.

Because I am skeptical Iran will yield on nuclear ambitions at negotiation tables in response to a preemptive missile barrage, and the ensuing campaign. However, I am highly optimistic they will seize on the opportunity of a ceasefire should Israel achieve what I've stated.

In other words, if Israel persists, I'm doubtful Iran negotiates. But whatever destruction Israel achieves, I'm optimistic that if Israel stops, Iran stops.

I also believe if Israel stops, so does Iran. Moreso because they're seriously overmatched.

Problem is I don't think Israel wants to stop. They want regime change. They've said as much multiple times recently and throughout the years.

Just killing their military hardliners and top clerics won't make the country liberalize. If I'm wrong, great, but I don't think so. Often this kind of action results in sectarian infighting and then the leadership that wins is even more extreme.

Regime change requires boots on the ground. And Israel does not have that ability. So they're going to try to pull the US into it. That's what I, and most of the country, do not want.

As soon as we commit any kind of boots on the ground to "stabilize" a country, it becomes a years long occupation. Literally the same shit happened in Afghanistan. We wrecked the Taliban easily and quickly at first. Then it took 20 years and 2 trillion dollars to "stabilize" the leadership there... and then we failed at that.

 

[Flower2dPeople]

We literally had this twice already in Iran. The CIA and the UK engineers a coup d'etat in 1953 and installs a US puppet monarchy. The shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi is corrupt and autocratic for decades leading to the 1979 revolution. And now we have the current theocratic bullshit we have now.

To somehow expect them to all of a sudden become this flowering democracy if we do another regime change is naive.

The original regime we toppled in 1953 was much more democratic and modern than what we have now. There were women wearing mini skirts, the latest fashions, etc. Then we toppled that because the greedy western oil companies got kicked out. WE created the problem in the first place.



I also believe if Israel stops, so does Iran. Moreso because they're seriously overmatched.

Problem is I don't think Israel wants to stop. They want regime change. They're said as much multiple times recently and throughout the years.

Just killing their military hardliners and top clerics won't make the country liberalize. If I'm wrong, great, but I don't think so. Often this kind of action results in sectarian infighting and then the leadership that wins is even more extreme.

Regime change requires boots on the ground. And Israel does not have that ability. So they're going to try to pull the US into it. That's what I, and most of the country, do not want.

As soon as we commit any kind of boots on the ground to "stabilize" a country, it becomes a years long occupation. Literally the same shit happened in Afghanistan. We wrecked the Taliban easily and quickly at first. Then it took 20 years and 2 trillion dollars to "stabilize" the leadership there... and we failed at the end.

Fuck the US(West) for that shit. Iran was well on their way to becoming the goat in the region. Everyone has oil but they have the brains. The rest of their neighbors were camel herding illiterates.

 

[Madmick]

The original regime we toppled in 1953 was much more democratic and modern than what we have now. There were women wearing mini skirts, the latest fashions, etc. Then we toppled that because the greedy western oil companies got kicked out. We created the problem in the first place.

"Because the greedy western oil companies got kicked out", LOL. C'mon, at least you could use the same lingo Communists like Chavez down in Venezuela used when he stole billions worth of equipment he didn't own or build from those greedy western oil companies: "nationalized". And all they had to do was get their terrorists to murder the sitting PM to do it!

It isn't a story of lambs and lions. It's all wolves.

 

[SandisLL]

At what point have I said it wasn't? Specifically said capitalism is the better model to avoid this confusion. He still went there.

Doesn't mean the cold war wasn't a thing and we didn't all gang up on the USSR.

There's a running theme where I say something happened and people draw wild conclusions on my opinions from something that happened. We gang fucked them. It was not competing ideas, that's not how the battle for geopolitical dominance works. That's some naive shit right there.

Yeah, furthest thing from it. Within reason I'm pro fuckery, especially economical.

Lack of economic coercion against Autocratic dictatorships enables what we're seeing in Ukraine.

Not enforcing invisible line theory against what we're seeing in Ukraine results in small countries acquiring nuclear weapons. Which we'll see in Ukraine. Possibly others.

Despite what @Mock Artwork artwork says it's not just people afraid of us that may be forced to seek nuclear weapons in the future.

The degradation of alliances between secular democracies poses just as much risk of nuclear proliferation amongst small democracies bordering autocratic dictatorships.

They should get thermonuclear weapons likes this yanks or doesen't likes.
While almost all stuff Lukashenko and Kim are telling is stupid propaganda for sheeps, in one case they both are correct: U.S and U.K does have proven by historical facts track record that they are cynic speculants and does have long term multiple times proved track record that they were and are russians bottlemates and does have excellent proved track record to betray their friends and sell behind spine under the table their partners and even allies with excuses and smile.

This is reality, they are and always were russians bottlemates and always will be.

They are looking on smaller countries as tool they might use and even actually milk dry of it is comfortable for them and they might shake hands and smile, while negotiate with dudes like Hitler, Stalin etc behind table if this is business deal.

Now yanks with IAEA and U.N ( U.N is Chinesse and Russia's ruled empty noise ) are dreaming that other countries doesn't see anglo saxonians as dictators friends and bottlemates in reality?

A bit stupid is to think that everyone is blind and doesn't see real life.

 

[Hog-train]

"Because the greedy western oil companies got kicked out", LOL. C'mon, at least you could use the same lingo Communists like Chavez down in Venezuela used when he stole billions worth of equipment he didn't own or build from those greedy western oil companies: "nationalized". And all they had to do was get their terrorists to murder the sitting PM to do it!

It isn't a story of lambs and lions. It's all wolves.

That's literally what happened. Mossadegh had sought to audit the documents of the British oil company AIOC, (now known as BP) to verify that AIOC was paying the contracted royalties to Iran, and to limit the company's control over Iranian oil reserves. Upon the AIOC's refusal to cooperate with the Iranian government, the parliament voted to nationalize Iran's oil industry and to expel foreign corporate representatives from the country.

Then Winston Churchill and Eisenhower decided in early 1953 to overthrow Iran's government.

Facts are facts.

 

[Mock Artwork]

Oh yay. The response from the guy who missed my point completely getting emotional. It's no wonder you think I'm the unhinged one.

They don't scramble towards nukes. There's hundreds of countries in the world and 9 nuclear powers with all but 1 being friends/frenemies.

You saying that Iran can't do what Pakistan achieved 40 years ago?


You know why WE have dealt with this shit for decades?

Because we've been doing it for thousands of years. Been a scourge for our whole history and technology makes it easier, not harder. No losing 1/2 your army trying to get to the country you want to wage war with in 2025. No need be near the country let alone the battlefield.

You think something we've done for thousands of years will end in your life time?
And you accuse me of being egotistical?

Provably false claim. Good there.

9 with, with 3 more soon, and more to come. Shitty argument. Good there.

Rambling nonsensical close? Perfect.

You should reassess your position and check - cough - your ego.

The West has dealt with this forever because, well, we kinda helped make the problem.

 

[Mock Artwork]

Lack of economic coercion against Autocratic dictatorships enables what we're seeing in Ukraine.

Tried that.

Not enforcing invisible line theory against what we're seeing in Ukraine results in small countries acquiring nuclear weapons. Which we'll see in Ukraine. Possibly others.

Tried that.

Despite what @Mock Artwork artwork says it's not just people afraid of us that may be forced to seek nuclear weapons in the future.

The degradation of alliances between secular democracies poses just as much risk of nuclear proliferation amongst small democracies bordering autocratic dictatorships.

This sounds like whataboutism. What is the differentiation here you’re trying to prove? Countries attempt nukes for a plethora of reasons, usually to prevent external threats. Not sure where autocratic dictatorships or democracies tend to differ in this regard.

 

[SandisLL]

That's literally what happened. Mossadegh had sought to audit the documents of the British oil company AIOC, (now known as BP) to verify that AIOC was paying the contracted royalties to Iran, and to limit the company's control over Iranian oil reserves. Upon the AIOC's refusal to cooperate with the Iranian government, the parliament voted to nationalize Iran's oil industry and to expel foreign corporate representatives from the country.

Then Winston Churchill and Eisenhower decided in early 1953 to overthrow Iran's government.

Facts are facts.

Like just business in casual anglo saxonian souce.

FDL and Churchill had sold under the table for example East Germany and Chezhoslovakia for their friend Stalin and it is notable charity: U.S.S.R had used uranium mined in these areas for their nuclear programme and their bottlemate Stalin in 1949 th told that they are enemies and peace of sh*t. After he get first nuke tested.

For a reason russians always are happy with phrase " anglo saxonians always were, are and will be stupid ".

 

[Madmick]

That's literally what happened. Mossadegh had sought to audit the documents of the British oil company AIOC, (now known as BP) to verify that AIOC was paying the contracted royalties to Iran, and to limit the company's control over Iranian oil reserves. Upon the AIOC's refusal to cooperate with the Iranian government, the parliament voted to nationalize Iran's oil industry and to expel foreign corporate representatives from the country.

Then Winston Churchill and Eisenhower decided in early 1953 to overthrow Iran's government.

Facts are facts.

I know. It was Communist sympathizers who formed the party that backed his decision to renege on a contract the Iranian's had signed nearly nine years before it expired. The part about killing the sitting PM to achieve their goals was part of the "joke", too. The British proved again and again they were conciliatory to renegotiations of revenue sharing. You understand that "nationalizing" the Iranian oil industry meant he just said, "Hey, all these refineries and excavation equipment...they're ours."

It's exactly what Venezuela did.

 

[SandisLL]

Funny stuff was 1979 revolution in Iran and beautiful comrade Sadam in Iraq.
Iraq - Iran war, U.S S.R and their comrades in west took popcorn and enjoyed cinema with happiness.

 

[TheMaster]

It could in Iran. It's one of the only places I'm optimistic for regime change. For me, fundamentally, I want the theocratic structure of their government dissolved. Second to that, I also desire all of the sitting seniormost clerics, and military hardliners aligned with them, killed or removed.

I actually don't mind the current President, or others belonging to their reformist parties. If we could achieve all of the above, I'd gleefully embrace a much stronger American relationship with Iran. Let's do serious trade, let's be friends. They're a sophisticated people.

Your statements are ignorant and wrong on so many levels its ridiculous.

First up, you have gotten way, way too big for yourself to even be talking like that. You need to check yourself here.
Its not your business who is running their government,thats an issue for the Iranian people.
Toppling foreign governments we dont like is against international law and a war crime. It never has good results and leads to devastation and destabilisation.
Are you that dumb to have forgotten the illegal unjustified Iraq invasion already?

This very attitude is one of the rationales for why Iran needs a nuclear deterrant.

Guess what, we arent going after North Korea anymore, why - because we are scared. I dont hear you talking about regime change in North Korea? Is that because you think their regime is more agreeable and pro America than Iran? No of course not. Its because you would be shitting yourself at the response, and rightly so.

Their sophisticated people. Yes. And btw the narrative that they even need to develop a bomb is also a joke. If they faced existential threat from the US or Israel, do you honestly think they wouldn't be able to procure a nuke to arm some of their advanced Ballistic and hypersonic missiles from Pakistan or North Korea?

 

[MrShady]

Why isn't America going after Pakistan? They got nukes!!!

Anyone want to take a wild guess at how much terrorism Pakistan sponsors and funds? Their proxies have killed American troops.

Why Iran but not Pakistan I wonder. Perhaps the IMF and the fed reserve has something to do with this?

 

[Madmick]

Your statements are ignorant and wrong on so many levels its ridiculous.

First up, you have gotten way, way too big for yourself to even be talking like that. You need to check yourself here.
Its not your business who is running their government,thats an issue for the Iranian people.
Toppling foreign governments we dont like is against international law and a war crime. It never has good results and leads to devastation and destabilisation.
Are you that dumb to have forgotten the illegal unjustified Iraq invasion already?

This very attitude is one of the rationales for why Iran needs a nuclear deterrant.

Guess what, we arent going after North Korea anymore, why - because we are scared. I dont hear you talking about regime change in North Korea? Is that because you think their regime is more agreeable and pro America than Iran? No of course not. Its because you would be shitting yourself at the response, and rightly so.

Their sophisticated people. Yes. And btw the narrative that they even need to develop a bomb is also a joke. If they faced existential threat from the US or Israel, do you honestly think they wouldn't be able to procure a nuke to arm some of their advanced Ballistic and hypersonic missiles from Pakistan or North Korea?

I love it when the mask comes off. Thank you for at least being bluntly honest.

The truth is those who have supported Iran never believed that negotiations like Obama's treaty were securing a denuclearized Iran, and a safer Middle East. They knew Iran was continuing to pursue nuclear development behind the scenes. They knew they continued to build new centrifuges with higher and higher enrichment percentages. You guys want Iran to possess the "nuclear deterrent". All the jawing on the side is disingenuous distraction.

I don't care about regime change in North Korea because North Korea is so poor they can't even feed their own people. They aren't arming, funding, training, and sharing intelligence with anti-American terrorist factions all across a region that assail our bases, our ships, and our troops: having many times killed Americans in these attacks. Iran is. North Korea isn't the prime state actor contributing to the butchery of innocent Israelis such as on October 7th. Iran is.

And, with that mask off, knowing those of you who support Iran openly support their ongoing machinations to obtain a nuclear weapon, I am further cemented in my support of Israel to annihilate that program right now, and anyone who participates in it. I pray they are successful.

 

[Anewt]

Why isn't America going after Pakistan? They got nukes!!!

Anyone want to take a wild guess at how much terrorism Pakistan sponsors and funds? Their proxies have killed American troops.

Why Iran but not Pakistan I wonder. Perhaps the IMF and the fed reserve has something to do with this?

Also pakistan is a good customer to certain us companies.

Its pretty funny to watch usa provide a lot of india and pakistans weaponry.... the whole sell em to pakistan then try sell em to india lol because they need parity..... fucking cartel shit like always..

I mean.. sure arm and train them both... i definetely would want the same jets , training and maintence deal you just gave my enemy..

i wonder why india is slowly leaning away from usa lol.

Pakistan has purchased F-16 fighter jets from the United States. Initially, the US was going to subsidize the sale of eight F-16s, but this subsidy was later dropped, meaning Pakistan had to pay the full cost. The deal involved 18 F-16 Block 52 aircraft, costing Pakistan $1.4 billion, plus $1.3 billion for upgrades to its existing F-16 fleet. The US also provides training for Pakistani pilots and maintenance personnel.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has defended US military sales to Pakistan amid criticism from India, which says it is the target of a $450m F-16 fighter jet deal between Washington and Islamabad.

During a news conference in the United States capital on Tuesday, Blinken said that the military package approved earlier this month was for maintenance of Pakistan’s existing fleet.




While the US has offered F-16s to India, including a potential relocation of production lines, India has not purchased the aircraft and is currently focused on its own indigenous fighter jet development and other foreign purchases like the Rafale.

The US has indeed offered F-16 training and support to India, with Major General David A Piffarerio stating that the US is ready to offer F-16 fighter jets to India. This offer is part of a broader effort to strengthen defense cooperation and provide India with advanced military capabilities.

• Training and Support:
  The offer includes not just the aircraft but also associated training, sustainment services, spare parts, and classified systems and software.

India and the U.S. have significantly increased their military cooperation and arms purchases in recent years. India has contracted for at least $24 billion worth of U.S.-origin defense articles, including items purchased through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) and Direct Commercial Sales processes, according to Congress.gov. This includes major purchases of weapons systems and equipment to modernize India's military.

 

[SandisLL]

Why isn't America going after Pakistan? They got nukes!!!

Anyone want to take a wild guess at how much terrorism Pakistan sponsors and funds? Their proxies have killed American troops.

Why Iran but not Pakistan I wonder. Perhaps the IMF and the fed reserve has something to do with this?

Pakistan was counterweight for U.S against then pro U.S.S.R oriented India and China plus against spreading ideology of USSR Afganistan.

also likes this or no, China, Pakistan and India had managed to fool both USSR and U.S like pupps.

It is assumed that Pakistan already had thermonuclear weapons in early 1980 ies.

They just didn't had tested because why? Centrifuges are working, design for primers well known ( I assume that cos according to some experts they are dumb and mentally handicaped etc ).

 

[Belaya Smert]

Album came out in 88-89

Oh, no she’s a woke bigot that went to Jr College with Pakis.