How long until the Iranian regime collapses?

[mids2019]

I think days......

The dismantling of its defence systems, the panic in Terhan coupled with decapitation of the senior ministry leadership alongside important government institutions makes control increasingly hard for the regime.

I think the lack of good options for Iran has made them separately wave a white flag attempting to get back to the negotiating material but maybe it's just too late?

On the topic of the thread, Katz has stated that Khameini 'can no longer exist'. I'm guessing that Israel will set out to assassinate him now. What happens after that?

No, you can't believe both at the same time. Iran isn't going to play nice and fair, which is exactly why it's essential they don't get that far.

Ok you're at odds with the G7 etc and those who advise on the threat.

I don't think we have the insight on mn to know more

But this is exactly my point.

Rationality can'[t just be a western virtue. If we’re going to deny entire nations their rights based on the assumption that they’re irrational, unpredictable, or suicidal without actual evidence we’re not defending peace, we’re enforcing prejudice.

Iran has existed for thousands of years. Its current leadership is repressive, yes, but it’s not stupid. They’ve survived war, sanctions, assassinations, cyberattacks. They understand realpolitik better than many in the West give them credit for.

And let’s not forget the US did a full regime change on Iran in 1953, helped Saddam Hussein gas Iranians in the '80s, and has threatened war constantly since. If anyone has reason to feel paranoid and defensive, it’s Iran.

But even then, they haven’t built a bomb. And even Israel’s own defence and intelligence officials have admitted they know Iran wouldn't launch a nuclear first strike because it would mean instant annihilation.

Fear isn’t a policy. And painting people as too irrational to be trusted with sovereignty is how we ended up with Iraq, Libya, and half the region in ruins. So no I won’t suspend rationality just because the West refuses to apply it universally.

And trusting the G7 to make an assessment?

The same block that

– Backed the 1953 coup in Iran, overthrowing a democratically elected leader to protect British oil interests?
– Armed Saddam Hussein while he was gassing Iranians?
– Invaded Iraq over WMDs that didn’t exist!
– Toppled Libya, leaving a failed state and open-air slave markets?
– Sold billions in weapons to Saudi Arabia to bomb Yemen into famine??

Some lovely virtuous behaviour being upheld here. I won't give credit or benefit of the doubt to any country, which does this

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ced8qw8q62jo.amp

Iran is a hostile state and the UK recognises that. I think on mn it's more likely to be seen as benign.

I think the people are likely rational but limited in control over the regime. Otherwise they wouldn't be oppressed and brutally controlled when the need arises.

I think there's good reason to assess the regime and their desire for nuclear weaponry.

Nuclear weapons are a manfestation of a collective madness of human beings. That madness ends in one of two ways: human societies come to their senses and dismantle the nukes, or, some day, the nukes dismantle human societies.

We'll barely even know about it. A nuclear war will be over within a couple of hours and the only stae to actually use them - twice - on civilian popualtions is the US.

No one here is defending the Islamic Republic. Not once.

Naming the regime’s brutality, executions, repression, torture is not the issue.

That’s a known fact. I’ve been clear that the regime must go.
What I won’t do is use that brutality as a blank check for foreign powers who have a long record of exploiting human suffering for their own gain not to liberate, but to dominate.

If the goal is real justice, then let’s be consistent:
Saudi Arabia executes people too often by beheading, for speech or protest.
Egypt jails thousands without trial.
Israel holds children without charge in military detention.
The U.S. carried out executions and indefinite detentions at Guantanamo.
Libya now has open-air slave markets after “liberation.”

So no I won’t hand moral authority to powers that pick and choose which brutality matters based on their interests. That’s not justice. That’s opportunism dressed as virtue.

The Iranian people have risen up themselves and paid with their lives. That’s where the fight for freedom lives.

Not in bombs. Not in invasions.

And not in moral outrage that only shows up when it serves foreign power.

Even those who aim for a negotiated stop to Iran having nuclear weapons see the threat. They don't want to use force just organised controls.

There's pretty much no one who thinks it's a good idea. Except on SM, so why is that

The logic of Israel possessing nuclear weapons while remaining beyond international oversight implies that any state should be entitled to acquire them and disregard international control altogether.

Exactly @Dangermoo

It wasn’t rational for Hamas to attack Israel and has rather predictably led to a lot more harm to Gaza & deaths to Palestinians than they inflicted on Israel/to Israelis.

Yet they still did it. It’s not a logic we can easily understand from a Western perspective. But it makes it seem more likely that Iran could act irrationally too.

You’re right that the people of Iran have little control over the regime, that’s precisely the point!

The regime is oppressive to them, not just to the West. So when we talk about “Iran,” we need to be specific: are we talking about the state apparatus or the people? Because conflating them fuels the exact kind of policy that punishes civilians under the guise of targeting governments.

Yes, assess the regime, rigorously. But do it with facts, not fear. After decades of surveillance, sabotage, and assassinations, there is still no evidence that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program. U.S. and Israeli intelligence have said as much repeatedly. So we need to ask: is this about security, or is it about power?

Also, calling Iran “a hostile state” without context ignores this:
The UK helped overthrow Iran’s democratic government in 1953.
Western governments backed Saddam as he gassed Iranians.
Iran has been under sanctions, threats, and covert attacks for decades.

If any other state faced that, wouldn’t it act defensively? We don’t have to like the regime to recognize that some “hostility” is reaction, not initiation.

Finally, understanding and akcnowledging the regime’s brutality while rejecting military or coercive intervention is not being naive

Because history has shown that outside pressure tightens the regime’s grip and that then undermines the very people who are trying to change it from within.

Real support means not repeating the playbook that destroyed Iraq and Libya.

But that’s exactly the trap and it does come off a little racialised and prejudiced. Was the US rational when it dropped a bomb on Japan???

Projecting one group’s actions onto an entire state is not logic, it’s assumption. Iran is not Hamas. Iran is a state with a military hierarchy, a deep understanding of regional balance, and a long history of survival through calculated strategy not suicidal moves.

Even Israeli and U.S. intelligence agencies have consistently said that Iran has not made the decision to build a nuclear weapon, and even if it did, a first strike would be national suicide. That’s not martyrdom that’s annihilation.

You say “it wasn’t rational” for Hamas to act as it did. But even that is context-dependent: many would argue it was a calculated act of desperation under siege. Not wise. Not humane. But not without internal logic. Desperation is not the same as irrationality and neither is ideology.

The Islamic Republic is brutal, yes but also deeply rational in its pursuit of survival. It’s precisely why it’s still standing after sanctions, cyberattacks, and assassinations.

So no we can’t casually say “they might do something irrational, therefore we should preemptively treat them as a nuclear threat.” That’s how we ended up with Iraq where no WMDs were ever found, but hundreds of thousands died anyway.

Benign doesn't start to begin to explain why some are reluctant to believe the nuclear threat. The most concerning was the view that if everyone else can have nukes, why can't Iran. As well as being naive, it really boils down to this being more about holding Israel to a higher standard than any other player in the ME.

I do separate the regime and the people. Unfortunately it's the former with the control over any weapons.

Are you in the UK out of interest @datcherygrateful ?

I think @datcherygrateful makes some excellent points. I am yet to see a convincing argument against them.

Spot on.

Ok. I'm interested if you don't think Iran will use a nuclear weapon why do you feel they shouldn't have one?

Given others still will, that's not changing. So when you say you don't want them to have one, why is that

And are you as certain as the pp that they will not use it, given the outcome if you're wrong, how can you be this sure?

You've got more patience than me. X

@datcherygrateful you say we can’t casually say “they might do something irrational, therefore we should preemptively treat them as a nuclear threat.”

But I believe that is what other world leaders are effectively saying to Iran.

It's almost certain that when this is over, Iran will have been forced to agree not to pursue having nuclear weapons - with many checks in place to ensure they comply.

However it is dressed up, the G7 countries and many others including Israel do not trust Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

Tobias Ellwood, a Conservative MP and former army officer, has just spoken passionately on LBC, forcefully arguing that it's madness to believe relentless bombing of Iran would lead to regime change beneficial to the West.

The more I read about it @sualipa and think about it - the more convinced I feel that the West shouldn't try to bring about a regime change in Iran.

We should focus on one goal and that is to stop Iran being able to develop nuclear bombs.

Yes, I agree knowingly bombing a state into regime change is fraught with danger, not just for that state but for regional and global stability. What the world needs now (apart from love, sweet love) is rational, thoughtful, and considered responses not increasingly escalatory rhetoric and actions. And then there's Trump...

I've been dying to use this term for ages and it now feels very befitting ...

oh my days 😂

I think it is the goal

But the regime might be tied to wanting to nuclear capability