Are people still rejoicing about Iran?

Nobody has said that a good proportion of civilians want change. But which change? Who do they support? Who is the opposition? How extended and strong is that oposition?
I have no clue.
If US really wanted to help the Iranians, they would have the answer to these questions and help said opposition till they were strong enough to take over. Like they, actually, did before with a prime minster who nationalised the oil industry.
It could, actually, even be a political overthrow, rather than military. If they gather a majority large enough.

@RedTagAlanI see your genuine question and will answer it properly just rushing to go out, hence the jumpy replies.

I think the people do want change it’s just hard when torture and death happen to anyone who tries it.

I think you cannot destroy an ideology with bombs.
If it is a small emerging group, then, yeap it could work. But for something of the size of the Islamic Republic, they are far too determined and too strong to disappear because of the bombing. You need some other strong ideology and project to take over, from within.
Comunism has not been destroyed, even after all the attempts.
The Nazis were fully taken by a land invasion, that was what ended them. But... Iran is a huge difficult country to take by land from the outside. That is the core of the problem.
This war may end with the very same Islamic Republic, with the very same type of IRGC, just a few top ones missing. How is that any better?

And you support all the death and destruction going on at the moment because you have concerns that Iran MIGHT develop a nuke in 5 to ten years time.

Just one question really. And it's a genuine question, not a deflection or whataboutism.

Do you not have any concerns at all about the raving lunatic in the Whitehouse ?

MAD by the way. It has worked so far. In fact, it could be said with confidence that MAD has presented wars. Especially total war at WW2 level. That's not me saying I support everyone having nukes. Not at all.

On the last point, NK have the weapons and don’t use them. They’d be at odds with their own behaviour to sell some to Iran to bring destruction that would likely reach them too.

Plus your point is another reason to question having the IRGC in place.

I’ve put my concern which is where we are in five to ten years and a MAD situation. If what you’re saying happens then I think the risk is there.

If someone wants to say the opposite and it’ll be fine I’m happy to hear why.

I am not claiming Iranians are not oppressed. I don't think there is any place in the modern world for theocracies. And I defo aint a fan of authoritarianism.

So you appear to be saying that the bombing is worth it because they might get nukes. And that somehow, if any IRGC are left at all, then they will get nukes no matter what, in 5 to 10 years.

And keep bombing them, because no matter what they must not have nukes, or a delivery system for them. And never trust anything they say... NEVER... because they will stop at nothing to get nukes.

And lets ignore evidence. Seismograph indicators of nuke testing, atmospheric radiation. All the stuff that can't be hidden, even with underground testing. As shown by the DPRK.

And we could go on and on.

But have you considered, having mentioned the DPRK, that Iran might just buy some nukes from them ?

That would make all the bombing pretty pointless I reckon.

I was going to ask but then I remembered you had answered already @RedTagAlanyou said the outcome you want is for the people to be free of their authoritarian government / regime.

Do you still want that?

My concern is as some are saying IRGC do as you suggest and get through it. The RoW thinks yeh that can’t happen again for a while if ever, politicians bury their head in the sand and in five to ten years Iran get to nuclear weapons.

Nearly everyone because if that evolves it’s at game over level.

Same as for pp I’m not getting the claim the people aren’t severely oppressed given the brutal actions against any one who opposes.

Well, there you go. It’s only been three weeks so far.

How is the term “regime” suggestive of a small clique?
A regime is a system of government and administration. That alone indicates that it won’t be a small group of people, especially in a country of the size of Iran.
You haven’t seen any evidence they’re the enemy of their own people, really? What would you call a government gunning down people in their thousands, simply for protesting?
Or would you only be willing to call them “enemy” if every single Iranian wanted them gone?

I do not think so either.

Yes, sure their anti aerial and shipping is gone. The entrance to their nuclear installations is gone. Many of their missiles sites and many of their leaders, but:

The Islamic Republic number one line is that the US and Israel are the devil in person and they will not have much to do with them, or the rest of the West. And they keep 93 million people away from the world based on that. This point is hugely re-inforced now. Their determination to keep themselves well out of the rest of the world, do not allow internet access back on and double on the isolation of their population from us will double.
If there was any substantial opposition within Iran, it does not seem strong enough to confront the current government. And it could be crashed by the population having witnessed their land bombed, their people killed by the outsiders too. Both the Iranian government and the outside governments could look as bad as each other to some Iranians by now.
Plus the new leaders have an extra tool to bargain with their citizens to control them. Rationing and repairs and cover of basic needs.
The new goverment has an even bigger incentive to pursue a nuclear weapon than before. Let's hope that the fatwa stays in place. But they will have the money ( from the oil and the 93 million population they control), the contacts (Russia) and the raw materials in their soil. And it makes zero difference if Israel and US take this batch of U and all the centrifuges. Iran does have the ore and they can get themselves to this point as many times as they want. I think it will be rather difficult to sit them on any table to discuss any nuclear deal and 24/7 cameras are allowed in Iran again. I can only hope.
We may not evven have journalists allowed within Iran to report what is going on any more.

You cannot weaken an ideology with bombs or bullets. Nevermind the size of them. It just does not work.

And these guys are still in control of Iran's government and showing zero signs of cracking.

It would have been better to incentivise Iran to open up, keep talks, try to get observers in, show them that we are the guys who held talks in the UN, rather than those who send airplanes to dispatch you off. Too late now. And history will tell if anything better happened after this. But I cannot see it. Not even one better thing. And a shit lot of issues that will take us down.
No one wins in a war. No one.

Plus Trump..... Trump may think that he has won and done really good. But he has dispatch "alliances" for good now. US has lost its status with us, thanks to Trump.

I am in no way angry, upset or offended at the Iranian Government being called a regime. I use the word Government because it demonstrates the scale better.

"Regime" is rather suggestive of a small clique having a hold on a country. It's a propaganda tool really, used to potentially indicate it is a common enemy of both the populace of the nation and it's geopolitical foes. But I have seen no evidence of that, beyond that one poll, and that is flawed.

And yes, the IRGC is part of that Government. Or are they the regime. No idea, proscribe away.

Quote " .. .but nearly everyone will feel it if Iran is left alone to get the weapons they want."

Who is "nearly everyone" ? Not the people who were involved in the 2015 nuke deal surely ?

Is Trump this everyone ? How many times has he said the Iranian nuke stuff has been totally destroyed ? Tulsi Gabard said it too in a senate hearing a few days ago. She said destroyed, then the next day she said it had to be destroyed. Or was it other things she said had to be destroyed. What is it ? Destroyed or not destroyed ?

And wait, did Trump not say last week that Iran had surrendered ?

This is confusing, They surrendered, their government killed, nuke labs destroyed, air force, rader, navy, missiles... all destroyed according to Trump. Oh, and regime change is not the aim.

So why are they still being bombed ?

I would say no.

Can a regime be substantially weakened in three weeks?

The guy on Times Radio flipped out about being called a regime. He was angry about it.

We unfortunately are not with Sweden, Canada and recently the EU and others in proscribing the IRGC so if it’s legitimate to us as a state then it’s a state that tortures and kills protestors and endorses gang rape for nurses who provide healthcare.

They can hold the world to ransom via the Strait and you can see many politicians not wanting the price hit. If what you’re suggesting does happen then no one wins. I’m not sure where you are geographically but nearly everyone will feel it if Iran is left alone to get the weapons they want.

Or maybe some do feel outside what would happen knowing many wouldn’t be. Either way, Iran coming through this is going to be concerning.

I think play the ball here and not the player applies here.

I never said Iran are winning, I said they have the upper hand.

I made 3 points in my post :

1 - The US etc are getting low on anti missile interceptors. It is basically a numbers game, as likes of Sky UK news and CNN made clear from day one. I can link articles in defence of this point. And it's easy to figure out. Manufacturing output, defence spending and unit cost. All that against interceptions claimed. Easy sums.

2 - Iran has Gulf oil supplies by the balls. Well yes, they do.

3 - Trump is threatening to split the US from the rest of the world. Well yes. That is true.

You have not addressed any of those points. Instead you say I get propaganda.

And this, quote " They have alienated most of their neighbours for little gain. Shown the world how utterly mad the regime is. And will force further action to be taken against them re the Hormuz Straight."

And what action will this be ? More sanctions ? What is there left to sanction ? Will the gulf states destroy Iran's oil and gas industry without their own being destroyed too ? What action can they do that will not result in the entire gulf petro industry being offline for at least a year ? Or lets say 6 months even.

And it's not just petro that is at risk. There is also fertiliser and Helium to consider.

Dream on.

You’ve said before that you live somewhere where you don’t get access to all media sources. You must be seeing a propaganda heavy selection of media sources if you believe Iran are objectively “winning”.

They have alienated most of their neighbours for little gain. Shown the world how utterly mad the regime is. And will force further action to be taken against them re the Hormuz Straight.

And is the "regime" weakened substantially ?

I put "regime" in inverted commas, because what we are really talking about is the government. And governments do tend to be rather big. Especially in authoritarian states. And this is a theocratic state on top of that.

I have not seen anything mentioned on the news about what the new government will look like. I would have thought that would be important.

You mean like the 2015 anti nuke deal that Trump tore up despite all the other party countries begging him not to ?

Or are you talking about the anti nuke talks of a few weeks ago, which were apparently going well. Then Trump and Netanyahu decided to do a Pearl Harbour on the Iranian leadership ?

Oh, and this is after the Maduro thing.

Absolutely there is a raving lunatic who is the common denominator. And his name is Trump.

What does it matter? If they manage to substantially weaken the regime, do you think those in Iran who want the regime gone will care what the exact goals of this war were?

Of course it’s okay to have reservations.

I think I know who it was you listened to. That professor guy? I saw him on Piers Morgan, but could barely stand watching him with his self-righteous grin and an utterly chilling attitude.

I’d be happy to hear from anyone who feels they know how to remove the threat of MAD in say five to ten years.

People like U v d Leyen or whomever, leaders or experts that people want to hear from. Those who make unequivocal statements on Iran having weapons. How to do that?

The silence, and focus on oil prices makes me cold sweat. Politicians know it’ll dampen their chances for votes but it’s a kick in the long grass issue.

Someone needs to reassure that in five to ten years time people aren’t saying they knew this, they knew Iran was a threat why was nothing done? By the time they have the capability they won’t be stoppable.