"Khomeini's Home Set on Fire" Topic

Wow, looks like the new revolution IS in full swing, with people setting fire to Khomeini's home, and protests against Khameini too, after his forces reportedly killed a small child:

link

Additionally, conflict is coming for the IRGC as well, since one of their commanders was killed in the last few days also.

Apparently, at least 400 Iranian protesters have been killed in the last few months.

It is very interesting that this is NOT being covered well by the Western news media, but I guess that really shouldn't be a surprise, since our current regime is still trying to create some sort of deal with those in power, AND this sort of thing is a bit embarrassing to them, when considered in the full context of that.

It is very interesting that this is NOT being covered well by the Western news media

I have no idea what news sources you have been following, but for example BBC World Service (which I have been listening on radio a lot lately) has been covering the topic very frequently. This despite BBC not being officially allowed to operate in Iran by the local regime – though BBC has a number of ex-patriate Iranian journalists with in-country contacts working in London.

They talked about it on Morning Joe today.

Yes I been seeing stuff on the protest on various feeds.

The Iranian people will have to free themselves without US aid since the Biden/Obama team are ideologically wedded to their policy of boosting Iran as a regional Hegemon.

…and a nuclear power. Crazy.

Good luck to the Iranian people but I totally agree the U.S. cannot, should not and had better not become involved.

I've had enough "nation building" too.

Good luck to the Iranian people but I totally agree the U.S. cannot, should not and had better not become involved.

Yet the TMP is full of bullyish boosterism for Ukraine…why support Ukraine and not the Iranian people against a regime that has warred on the US for 40 years and directly killed and injured thousands of Americans??

SBminisguy,

My take is that Ukraine was invaded by Russia who has invaded Ukraine twice before and several other of their neighbors. Russia is clearly a danger to other countries in Europe and so we should help Ukraine and anyone else Russia attacks. Even if Ukraine is corrupt, as some allege, they don't deserve to be attacked and absorbed by Russia.

As for Iran, we have no idea who the "good guys" are or who to back. Since it is an internal struggle we don't know if the new folks in charge, if there are any, will be pro-nuclear weapons, pro-peace with Israel, or anything about them.

So it makes it very difficult to say more than I am glad there is unrest in Iran, but I don't know who to root for.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek

"Burn Baby Burn" ! I hope the youth overthrows the archaic theocracy keeping its people living in the past. But with the IRGC that may be very hard to do. The US does not need to get involved.

The US does not need to get involved.

L4, what leads you believe that the USA is not already involved? Just curious.

B

Yet the TMP is full of bullyish boosterism for Ukraine…why support Ukraine and not the Iranian people against a regime that has warred on the US for 40 years and directly killed and injured thousands of Americans??

Iran is not Ukraine. You need to look back on the history of Iran/US relations to understand why getting involved in supporting the Iranian people would severely harm the anti-government movement.

As for Iran, we have no idea who the "good guys" are or who to back. Since it is an internal struggle we don't know if the new folks in charge, if there are any, will be pro-nuclear weapons, pro-peace with Israel, or anything about them.

Who cares? Neither do we know who might replace Putin if he falls. How many Americans has Russia killed and injured? Iran is responsible for 21,200 American casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran is responsible for the Yemen civil war. Iran is responsible for the devastating Beirut Blast because of their continued support for Hezbollah – it was a Hezbollah rocket and bomb factory sited next to the stockpile of ammonium nitrate they used in warhead manufacturing that went up causing the main explosion.

So, sure, help Ukraine. All the armchair pundits like to opine about how we should help the Ukrainians blunt Russian power. Same applies in Iran, pretty much anything would be better than the openly hostile and destructive theocracy there now. And it would deprive both Russia and China of key ally in the Middle East and deprive Hamas, Fatah and Hezbollah of their main sponsor.

Iran is not Ukraine. You need to look back on the history of Iran/US relations to understand why getting involved in supporting the Iranian people would severely harm the anti-government movement.

"The slightest hint of American interest in "freeing" Iran will bring back bad memories of the Shah."

How many Iranians have any memory of the Shah? With all the problems being caused by the Iranians detailed above I'm all for helping, discreetly, with overthrowing the mullahs. Nothing overt.

You need to look back on the history of Iran/US relations to understand why getting involved in supporting the Iranian people would severely harm the anti-government movement.

I only care about the last 40 years of constant attacks on the US and allies, from our home soil to Argentina, Africa and Europe. That the US was involved with Britain SEVENTY years ago to topple a pro-Soviet Socialist and prop up a secular parliamentary monarchy concerns me not.

The Shah's regime, despite its reputation for authoritarianism, nonetheless empowered women with full legal rights and its secret police killed fewer people in 20 years than the Islamists killed in the first MONTHS in power. Do you think many Iranians, when the current regime will publicly beat a woman to death for not wearing the right clothes, really care about the Shah anymore??

I don't care what replaces the Mullahs. I don't care about nation building. Use covert means and financial/diplomatic means to help the revolt topple the mullahs, ending one serious and bloody threat, and then we'll deal with whatever happens next.

Iran is responsible for 21,200 American casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan

No, the US is the only responsible for 21,200 American casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US was the invader.

The Americans should not have invaded those countries. It was their choice and they must accept the consequences. Please, remember a basic logic: no invasions, no casualties. It is easy to understand.

By the way, the US was responsible for hundreds of thousands civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, due to the invasions.

Iran is responsible for the Yemen civil war.

It is not so simplistic. The relationship between minorities in Yemen and the rest of Arabian Peninsula has always been conflictive. Shi'a minorities has been repressed and discriminated for centuries.

and deprive Hamas, Fatah and Hezbollah of their main sponsor.

The conflicts in Lebanon and Palestine existed well before the Iranian 'sponsorship'. And there are many other 'sponsors' involved in those conflicts.

I hope the youth overthrows the archaic theocracy keeping its people living in the past.

In fact, Khomeini's ideology is a modern one. It is a new version of Twelver Shi'a, different from the classical Twelver and Sevener Shi'a doctrines. It is an absurd patchwork made from old and new ingredients. Regarding its ideological architecture, it is not medieval, it is modern in essence.

what leads you believe that the USA is not already involved?

Yes, there are many 'sponsors' involved in this Iranian crisis. It is ridiculous and naive to think the opposite.

How many Iranians have any memory of the Shah?

Well, they are well aware of the fact that the US and other Western countries are experts in putting up and supporting dictators and tyrants.

… overthrowing the mullahs

No 'mullahs'. Regarding the current Iranian context, the accurate word is 'ayatollahs'.

At least we understand that this situation is solely for the Iranians to solve.

Yes, we should understand it. The Iranians have to find their own solutions, without external interferences.

Ruchel, agree with much of this.

I doubt Obama is actively involved. No ideological weddings, far more flexibility than that. The US is letting this play out with fingers crossed. There will be covert assets there, from Israel as well. Otherwise, it's hands off or the movement could be crushed as an outside Western threat. This has been brewing for some time and is not going away. It is good news for the US as well as Iranians, although they will pay a price.

As this is an internal revolt, it does not compare to the war in Ukraine between separate sovereign nations.

L4, what leads you believe that the USA is not already involved? Just curious.

We very well may be … but it is very, very classified. But AFAIK, the current US leadership wants to make "friends" with them. Which I don't think is a good idea. But what do I know ? I'm sure they will take pallets loads of $ from us like before … And that worked out so well …

No, the US is the only responsible for 21,200 American casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan.

IIRC, some [moslem?] scholar in the US(?), estimated that the US and our allies since the 1st Gulf War. Are responsible for around 4 million moslem deaths/casualties in the Mid East, Africa, and A'stan. Sounds a bit high, but the very least we killed more of them than us. Including CD of course. Being a former Infantry Officer, '79-'90 that makes sense to me. For better or worse. I know what my old Plt Sgt would, "That's good shoot'n"! … Yes, to many Infantrymen … it is. A bit gritty ? AFAIK most Grunts are not academic intellectuals with a lot of classroom time, with little knowledge/experience of reality.

In fact, Khomeini's ideology is a modern one. It is a new version of Twelver Shi'a, different from the classical Twelver and Sevener Shi'a doctrines. It is an absurd patchwork made from old and new ingredients. Regarding its ideological architecture, it is not medieval, it is modern in essence.

Modern in what Century ? For one the way they treat females is still not up to modern 21st Century standards. I know those are Western standards, regardless. E.g. their Morality Police ? What Century is this again ?

The US was the invader.

The US & NATO invaded A'stan after 9/11. There was no choice, like Pearl Harbor … we were attacked. The Taliban would not give up UBL. I'm glad they didn't. I'm happy the USN SEALs, US Army's 160th SOAR, etc. terminated him with extreme prejudice.

The same with Iran's Suleimani, an enemy GEN in a combat zone. IIRC he was "droned". Then SF went in for BDA.

ISIS's al Baghdadi was removed from the battlefield by the SEALs, SOAR, etc.

And finally AQ's former 2IC AZK was sliced up like lunch meat by a CIA's drone. With a new Hellfire Missile's warhead.

Not to mention all the other islamic terrorist leaders, terrorist and their followers. That were removed from the battlefield. And yes, some CD probably occurred.

The Americans should not have invaded those countries. It was their choice and they must accept the consequences. Please, remember a basic logic: no invasions, no casualties. It is easy to understand.

Yes our enemies should have understood that. And they would not be dead, etc., as well as all the CD that occurred that comes with war.

Some don't get this, but if the USA was not concerned about CD, there be a lot of places that would look like the dark side of the Moon. Without WMDs …

No 'mullahs'. Regarding the current Iranian context, the accurate word is 'ayatollahs'.

Mullah, Imam, Cleric, or ayatollah … it comes down to theocratic leadership that generally considers everyone else an infidel, AFAIK.


Iraq is another story. They invaded Kuwait, they invaded a sovereign nation, it was IIRC a UN Sanction. To get Iraq out of there. No one in their right mind would want Iraq to annex Kuwait. If for no other reason that there is a lot of oil. The life blood of much of the world.

The Second Gulf War was an error. For all the reasons we already know. Then compounded when POTUS Obama pulled all troops out of there. And the US had to go back in …

We still have troops in Iraq and even Syria. And in some cases they are killing ISIS leadership, etc., and Iranian supported Shia militias. The US, etc. has a number of troops, agents, etc. in other places around the world. Some Classified.

Leaving no troops in A'stan and abandoning Bagram will prove to be an error. The US should have left 2500 + troops there + the 7000-8000 NATO troops. We can expect AQ & ISIS terrorist attacks in the West in the next year or so. Over 100 on the terrorists watchlist were captured crossing our very open Southern Border.
With probably 50+ "got aways" … Don't know what they did with those on the terrorist watchlist. But I hear Gitmo is nice this time of year.

IMO, Reality/Realpolitik trumps academic intellectual rose colored glasses, fantasy every time. I'm pretty sure there are few to no unicorns, rainbows, lollypops, etc. in many places in the Mid-East, Africa, A'stan, etc.

Good call on treatment of women and the Morality Police, Legion. This is social social unrest. Whatever century the leaders there are coming from, it's not this one. There are some universal truths involving human rights and it's no longer possible to keep young people from finding out if they want to.

Terrorist attacks from AQ and ISIS have always been a threat. British, Russian, US armies have never had full control over Afghanistan, lost much. I think that a few thousand troops will not deter them. What's the mission? There are all kinds of characters running around over there and a million places to hide. We are easy to spot. And work around. There are certain forces at work that have protected us pretty well from these guys since 9/11. But there are no guarantees and no easy answers. When someone is willing to die trying to kill you…

Yes, their treatment of females in many areas is medieval.

Terrorist attacks from AQ and ISIS have always been a threat. British, Russian, US armies have never had full control over Afghanistan, lost much.

No one had or has control of A'stan anytime recently. Not even the Taliban & AQ. They have to deal with ISIS-K.

What's the mission?

With a small contingent of US & NATO Troops on the ground and at Bagram we could call in air strikes on the Taliban, etc. These troops would be on a stability ops mission. And they would keep many of the ANA/ANP under marginal control. With training them, supporting them with CAS, etc.

If the USA & NATO were still on the ground, many/most of the ANA/ANP would not have dissolved. The Taliban, etc. knew with our firepower, e.g. CAS, they couldn't have taken up most of the provinces as they did. As quickly as they did. As they saw our leadership was doing nothing to stop and/or attrite them.

There are all kinds of characters running around over there and a million places to hide. We are easy to spot.

That is what happens in Guerilla War. But we had a lot of Spec Ops, etc., on the ground finding those bad guys. And killing them with CAS, FA, etc. As I have said before, the most powerful non-organic weapon a Plt Ldr or Co. Cdr has is our radios.

Like in any conflict they may replace those losses – I'm a trained Infantryman like some others here, we know what to do. Kill the replacements too. Repeat as needed, we have lots of ammo … C-17s, etc. resupply flights landed at Bagram probably almost daily AFAIK.

There are certain forces at work that have protected us pretty well from these guys since 9/11. But there are no guarantees and no easy answers. When someone is willing to die trying to kill you…

Again … You kill them and keep killing them with our firepower and high tech. They will send more, and we will kill those too. When I say "we" I mean US, NATO and local forces. With us on the ground the ANA/ANP were less likely to run, desert, etc.

"Please, remember a basic logic: no invasions, no casualties. It is easy to understand".

Ha, ha, ha, Ruchel. Thanks for the belly laugh, with this naive statement.

Of course, you are overlooking the almost 3,000 innocent people killed on 9/11 in the USA, not to mention the numerous additional first responders and others (including our military troops as well) that died afterwards from various illnesses caused by trying to help others after that unprovoked attack.

As mentioned, our only real response was to attack those involved overseas, in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Sadly, we didn't go far enough and attack those in Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other countries as well, to really clean house.

I don't know Legion. I respect your judgement, but a small contingent tends to grow in places like this, does it not? And I am never comfortable about local forces anywhere in the region. This is not a national unity kind of place…

VOTE 1 SB Minis Guy – The truth. I, as an Australian, support neither Russia nor Ukraine. It's a complex conflict that has seen murder and attrocities from both sides. Iran, however, IMO deserves to be thwacked with whatever force the West can garner. That's IMHO. I expect I'll probably be censored and banned here for saying Ukraine is anything but pure as the driven snow, but whatever, at least a few will read my post.

@Tippecanoe:

The worst possible thing that could befall the …. insurgents (?) would be for the Iranian government to find American fingerprints on the insurrection.
I'm surprised they haven't "discovered" involvement. Give them time.

Why would that be "the worst thing"?? Anyone who rebels against the Irainian Theocracy and is captured will be at a minimum jailed, probably tortured -- and possibly beaten to death or executed. The Theocracy is pushing the Iranian people into a "no frucks left to give" position, and our inaction doesn't help.

In fact, when the 2009 Green Revolution happened many Iranian student protest organizers BEGGED the US for help, and the Obama Admin essentially sided with the Theocracy by staying quiet when it had been vocal and active in toppling the regimes in Libya and Egypt, and the after the blood had finished pooling on the streets of Tehran the Obama team issued some weak homilies about peaceful resolution, tsk tsk.

@Milspex3000,

I expect I'll probably be censored and banned here for saying Ukraine is anything but pure as the driven snow, but whatever, at least a few will read my post.

Yep, I'm with you. I agree with the goal of foiling Russian ambitions in Ukraine by helping Ukraine defend itself, and in the process exhaust the Russian military. And then what? Do you really think Russia will give up its important naval base in Crimea? No. Putin will give up all his other gains to secure that base. So propping up Ukrainian ambitions there is a non-starter, and I have no doubt that Putin would cross the nuclear threshold and use tacnukes on Ukrainian forces should it look they that base is threatened.

So why are we supporting Ukrainian rhetoric about this? What do WE get out of this? Yes, if our self-interest coincides with Ukrainian self-interest, fine, but we can't go all the way to the point where nukes come free.

At some point there will have to be a negotiated settlement, Ukraine will have to formally accept it lost Crimea and accept the restoration of the areas Russia has occupied. Ukraine will also *not* be accepted into NATO, but it can have a series of bilateral agreements with other nations that mirrors a NATO type commitment. That will give Putin diplomatic air cover to announce mission accomplished. Russia will also *not* pay reparations, I don't see that happening. Overall, Russia comes out the strategic loser.

But one big problem is that the Ukraine War is being used a vast spending tool -- western militaries, especially the US, are sending old equipment and munitions, and then getting defense contracts worth billions of $$$ to replace that old stuff with new stuff. And a lot of foreign aid money being sent to Ukraine is being money-laundered back to Western politicians and special interest groups --as we saw with the FTX cryptocurrency debacle.

So maybe war is too good for business for saner heads to prevail…

I see the world getting a broader sense of stability and security with Putin's conventional forces exposed and beaten, his NATO border extended, his country an economic light weight at best, etc. NATO rallied and restored to some semblance of cooperative action. There are down sides to any war. But this is not entirely some corrupt wasteland and the Ukrainians are about as pure as most Western nations these days.

Thresher + 2 ! We know the deal when it comes to 9/11. Some intellectual academics, etc. don't see the reality of the "logic" to go to A'stan. But of course, everyone is entitled to an opinion based on their POV, etc.

I don't know Legion. I respect your judgement, but a small contingent tends to grow in places like this, does it not? And I am never comfortable about local forces anywhere in the region. This is not a national unity kind of place…

We already had a large number of forces there before. We with a smaller force our not primarily mission would be directly hunting down the terrorists, jihadis, etc. We'd have a large airbase with many assets to keep the Taliban from going on a general offensive and easily capture provinces, etc. As they did. They did not do that until they saw what the new denizens of the WH were. We've talk about this before, nuff said.

Our forces including NATO would support, train, etc. the ANA/ANP. Who if they knew they had that, i.e.: US/NATO support would. Would have a tendency to fight the enemy "better". Instead of run. Our mission would a support role, not a direct hunter/killer mission.

There would be no need to send many more troops. As our mission would be one of stability ops. Let's admit it, the ANA/ANP for many reasons will never be a very capable force.

But with the US/NATO there the failed state of A'stan would not be under the Taliban's and their close ally AQ. As we see now. Again, we still have a small number of forces in Iraq & Syria. We could do the same thing in A'stan. As long as we held Bagram, and had air assets that could give the Taliban, AQ, etc. some problems. We can't be afraid to use our firepower as needed. Which means every time the Taliban/AQ starts trying to go on the offensive. They'd collect into groups and in turn be targets.

Tippecanoe +1

Why did we invade Iraq the second time? And I am sure that some us money finds it way to Israel and it efforts against Iran.

+1 DA

Why did we invade Iraq the second time?

As we know it was complicated, etc., and IMO in error as the war continued on. Much was urban guerilla warfare. As much of Saddam's forces were destroyed, surrendered, etc., in short order. But as always hindsight is 20/20. link

And I am sure that some us money finds it way to Israel and it efforts against Iran.

I wouldn't doubt it. Remember Israel is the USA's best ally in the region. Also, remember Iran is an enemy of the USA & Israel.

"But as always hindsight is 20/20. link" The war was a gaslighted error from the get-go.

The war was a gaslighted error from the get-go.

At the time there were differing opinions. Could things have been handled differently ? Yes, and it was clear when the war turned into an insurgency.

We can't change the past. E.g. we know now Lee should have by passed Gettysburg and head for DC.

In all military ops we must learn lessons. But sometimes those lessons are forgot or disregarded, etc. So … Yes, Bush was wrong in 2003. So was Lee in 1863.

I am sorry legion it was not a case of being "wrong" it was case of description.

Ya just couldn't have a nice post w/out heaping on politics, could ya TMP.

it was not a case of being "wrong" it was case of description.

Again as I said opinions differed. Many nations' intel assets believed Iraq had WMDs. As we know intel can often be wrong.

Again I said in retrospect, the invasion by not the just the USA but the Coalition proved to be in error. Not just based on faulty/skewed intel but as always political concerns were paramount. Is the region better without Saddam ? I'd say yes. But just like in A'stan, after we went in shortly after 9/11. When we left … they went back to old, religious, tribal, ethic, etc. hatreds. You can't free a fish from water. And of course, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

This is not new, the recent A'stan Debacle ops were decided based on a political timeline and of course "optics". Not sound military strategy, etc. I can't imagine any military officer worth his[or her] rank would advise such as we saw in the evac of A'stan.