william said:FLBear5630 said:boognish_bear said:Ah yes, the stock market is reopening https://t.co/5JqS5vt4OT
— Yousef Munayyer (@YousefMunayyer) April 5, 2026
Yes, we have to have movement in stocks to make money... Worst situation, stagnation. He is churning the market.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
- UF
D!
Go Bears!!
Eat Roast!!!
303Bear said:Oldbear83 said:
" So when is this internal uprising of disaffected and oppressed Iranian going to rise up and take back the country?"
To coin a phrase. that's not how this works.
The hardliners who ran Iran since 1979 made sure there would be no one to oppose them domestically. Other Muslim parties were purged, and secular leaders were expelled or purged wherever found. Ironically similar to Communists, the Islamic Republican Party itself (which brought the Ayatollah into Iran) was destroyed in 1987 to eliminate any possible rival to the Ayatollah.
Article 110 of Iran's constitution gives the Supreme Leader power to name the Guardian Council, who in turn name the Assembly of Experts, who in turn name the new Supreme Leader when the former dies. Iran does not have elections for the Supreme Leader.
Over the years, student groups originally founded to show devotion to theocracy have evolved to dissident groups demanding power to some degree. The Republican Guard has been unable to suppress them completely, and these groups show up from time to time, such as the Arab Spring in 2009, 2011, and of course now.
A number of parties are active in Iran now, including the National Front, the Constitutionalist Party, the Tudeh Party, People's Mujahedin Organization of Iran (MEK), Iranian People's Fedai Guerrillas (IPFG), Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan, and the Qashqai Freedom Path Party(QAYI).
None of these groups is particularly pro-US, but a number of them have been receiving US aid because they help provide intelligence information on Iran conditions, and because it serves the US interest for the Ayatollahs to have internal dissent.
The most likely 'good' outcome in Iran for the near future would likely include restoration of elections, and multiple political parties in Iran, even those which publicly oppose the US, because it would weaken unity of action in Iran. The US has made quiet deals in the past with regimes which disavowed supporting US goals, while de facto doing so.
If overthrow and change of regime are the goal (as I have heard from a number of sources, including this board), why are you talking about the succession mechanisms in the current Iranian constitution? This succession has happened several times since we began bombing and the regime, as it were, is still very much in power.
We were told in January that there were millions in the streets ready to remove the Islamist government, and if we just would strike the top and remove the leaders, there could be another revolution. We have been doing that for over a month now and there has been no movement toward replacement of the governmental system or an overthrow. So was January exaggerated, or is there really not an organized opposition beyond protesting and the best we can hope for is a power vacuum where the most brutal will end up being the replacement?
If the alternate groups are still not pro-America (and we know they aren't pro-Israel), then what are we doing at all that we could not have accomplished by further strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities? Why do we need to bomb them "back to the Stone Age"? If we replace bad with slightly less bad, what did we actually accomplish? Especially if there is the chance to destabilize the religion and have an even more hardline, anti-west group rise up in its place (as ISIS did for a time in parts of Iraq and Syria)? How does the US benefit from that long term? Israel is using this as an opportunity to push into Hezbollah controlled areas to secure their own territory and increase land area (though the campaign seems to be going worse than they anticipated so far), so if we go boots on the ground, it looks like we will go alone.
I am and will remain completely opposed to that.
JUST IN: The New York Times confirmed the unit. Navy SEAL Team 6. The same operators who killed Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad in 2011 extracted a downed Air Force colonel from the Zagros Mountains of Iran in 2026. The parallels are exact and the differences are what matter. In… https://t.co/DDuHIWxZyU pic.twitter.com/sbRtmapHO6
— Shanaka Anslem Perera ⚡ (@shanaka86) April 5, 2026
FLBear5630 said:BylrFan said:
Praising Allah on Easter
Is he nuts?
Porteroso said:historian said:Porteroso said:Doc Holliday said:The sloganeering went from “Free Iran,” to, “Bomb all civilian infrastructure and leave 90 million people without clean water or medical care.”
— Cernovich (@Cernovich) April 2, 2026Trump, in a new post, confirms that the U.S. bombed Iran’s B-1 bridge in Karaj today, and threatens additional strikes on Iranian infrastructure. pic.twitter.com/BLzl4U5WpQ
— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) April 2, 2026
Trump is so dumb. We are ensuring the next generation of terrorists truly hates America.
I cannot believe the cheerleaders here for mass murder and destruction.
How idiotic!
Has there ever been a generation of terrorists that did not hate America???
If you are not cheering on the US then you are a cheerleader for the Iranian regime, terrorists who have been bass murdering people for 47 years. In January of this year they slaughtered up to 45k of their own people for peacefully protesting against their tyranny.
People on the Left who try to take the moral high ground always end up looking like fools.
To answer the question, yes there have been many generation of Iranians that didn't hate America, and were not terrorists. With each new generation of Middle Easterners, we renew their hatred of America since the 70s. It doesn't have to be that way.
I think we are plenty willing to sacrifice Americans simply because it keeps the war machine going. Simple as that.
What is idiotic is your post which assumes there will always be terrorists in the Middle East that want to kill Americans.
whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:BylrFan said:
Praising Allah on Easter
Is he nuts?
Taunting our enemies. Love it!
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:BylrFan said:
Praising Allah on Easter
Is he nuts?
Taunting our enemies. Love it!
He is not taunting our enemies. He is mocking us. You folks just haven't figured that out yet.
whiterock said:RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:BylrFan said:
Praising Allah on Easter
Is he nuts?
Taunting our enemies. Love it!
He is not taunting our enemies. He is mocking us. You folks just haven't figured that out yet.
I would tend to agree that you are a crazy *******, but I didn't think you were megalomaniacal to think he was actually talking to you. You don't think you control the Strait of Hormuz, do you?
Iran has refused to compromise on its demands and has rejected a proposed Hormuz opening for ceasefire deal -WSJ
— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) April 5, 2026
The foreign ministers of Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan held phone calls with Iran's foreign minister and Witkoff on Sunday, but no breakthrough was reached.
UPDATED 🚨
— Shiv Aroor (@ShivAroor) April 5, 2026
🌑 Mar 22: “Open Hormuz in 48 hrs!”
🌓 Mar 26: “Open Hormuz in 5 days!”
🌔 Mar 27: “Open Hormuz in 10 days!”
🌕 Apr 4: “Open Hormuz in 48 hrs!”
🌒 Apr 5: “Open Hormuz by Tuesday!”
🌖 Apr 7: “Open fuckin’ strait by Tue!”
🌓 April 7: “Open Hormuz by Wednesday”
Every US president chose diplomacy over force, waited too long, and North Korea now has 50 nuclear warheads and ICBMs that can reach the continental US that mistake with Iran by learning North Korea lesson.
— Tymofiy Mylovanov (@Mylovanov) April 4, 2026
Trump decided not to repeat that mistake with Iran, writes WSJ. 1/ pic.twitter.com/1e4rYvpfn1
Porteroso said:historian said:Porteroso said:Doc Holliday said:The sloganeering went from “Free Iran,” to, “Bomb all civilian infrastructure and leave 90 million people without clean water or medical care.”
— Cernovich (@Cernovich) April 2, 2026Trump, in a new post, confirms that the U.S. bombed Iran’s B-1 bridge in Karaj today, and threatens additional strikes on Iranian infrastructure. pic.twitter.com/BLzl4U5WpQ
— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) April 2, 2026
Trump is so dumb. We are ensuring the next generation of terrorists truly hates America.
I cannot believe the cheerleaders here for mass murder and destruction.
How idiotic!
Has there ever been a generation of terrorists that did not hate America???
If you are not cheering on the US then you are a cheerleader for the Iranian regime, terrorists who have been bass murdering people for 47 years. In January of this year they slaughtered up to 45k of their own people for peacefully protesting against their tyranny.
People on the Left who try to take the moral high ground always end up looking like fools.
To answer the question, yes there have been many generation of Iranians that didn't hate America, and were not terrorists. With each new generation of Middle Easterners, we renew their hatred of America since the 70s. It doesn't have to be that way.
I think we are plenty willing to sacrifice Americans simply because it keeps the war machine going. Simple as that.
What is idiotic is your post which assumes there will always be terrorists in the Middle East that want to kill Americans.
FLBear5630 said:Realitybites said:FLBear5630 said:D. C. Bear said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:boognish_bear said:A true display of American strength would be NOT taking the escalation bait. Don’t double down on failure by committing ground troops & increasing air strikes.
— Joe Kent (@joekent16jan19) April 4, 2026
Show the world we can still lead by restraining Israel & negotiating w/Iran to open Hormuz, restoring order is power.
the only failure in his post is himself. He's already been removed from the equation, so no risk of doubling down at all.
Many agree with him.
Joe Kent is a crazy as an outhouse rat. Right down the "Charlie Kirk was killed by Jews" rabbit hole. How can I trust his Iran analysis when he comes up with this crap?
I have no idea about the Kirk stuff.
I do know he served 11 combat tours over there and knows security. He also had access to intel we don't. He is more knowledgeable than anyone on this Board and what he says is consistent with what our position has been for 50 years.
The outlier here is not Kent, it is the Trump decision and Hegseth desire to do this. All of a sudden this can't wait? After 50 years and 25 of them trying to build a bomb? After we obliterated their nuclear operation.
Kent is not the one that should be questioned, why now? Bibi?????
I'm pretty sure about two things.
(1) Charlie Kirk's assassin wasn't some random ****** that decided to kill him and acted without outside assistance/ties.
(2) The "text message" sequence released by the FBI without timestamps. There's not a person under 70 who is going to communicate with others using that bit of AI generated grammar, much less on text messages.
Was the Mossad pulling his strings? Maybe. Was it Antifa? Maybe. The Feds? Also possible. But *someone* was.
Well, there is a bunch of Israel stuff last few years. Maybe Kent is not so crazy?
🇺🇸🇮🇷🇮🇱 BIG | Israeli Channel 12: New details have emerged about the rescue of the American F‑15E navigator shot down over Iran.
— Visioner (@visionergeo) April 5, 2026
The officer was unconscious with a concussion and did not transmit a distress signal initially.
He made first contact at 12:00 on Friday, climbed to… pic.twitter.com/kDAJK4Y4vW
While there was a brief period of semi-secularism in the 20th century, the reality is that clerical authority and the role of Islam have always been either the outright power or the invisible hand of Iranian governance. For centuries prior to the Pahlavis, Iran was ruled by Islamic dynasties. Even the rise of the Pahlavis themselves was a negotiated shift away from republicanism toward a monarchy as a direct deference to the Islamic clerics of the 1920s.Oldbear83 said:
" The Clerical Islamist state isn't a temporary glitch. It is a deeply entrenched power structure that has become inseparable from the Iranian state. It has been around for centuries"
You are both correct and wrong.
The Islamists have indeed been around since Muhammad decided Allah wanted him to run everything for Allah's glory, but they have had varying levels of power, and have sometimes been very much in decline and limited. Certain people who don't like to read get mad whenever I provide a history in any detail, but you should be aware not only that there were and are a number of secular powers in the Middle East which have reined in the mullahs in the past, but there is also the long rivalry between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, not to mention smaller sects within Islam which debate the proper role Islam should play in government.
I believe there is a valid and viable US strategy at work, which for obvious reasons is not discussed publicly. While its success remains to be seen, it seems strange to me how many otherwise reasonable people assume things out of emotion which, if they stopped to think, they would reject.
BREAKING: Iranian Revolutionary Guards say the Strait of Hormuz will never return to its previous state, particularly for the United States and Israel.
— The Spectator Index (@spectatorindex) April 5, 2026
Gen. Patton on profanity:
— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) April 5, 2026
“When I want my men to remember something important, to really make it stick, I give it to them double dirty.
It may not sound nice to some bunch of little old ladies at an afternoon tea party, but it helps my soldiers to remember.
You can’t run an… https://t.co/vR7PJN5MXo
whiterock said:Every US president chose diplomacy over force, waited too long, and North Korea now has 50 nuclear warheads and ICBMs that can reach the continental US that mistake with Iran by learning North Korea lesson.
— Tymofiy Mylovanov (@Mylovanov) April 4, 2026
Trump decided not to repeat that mistake with Iran, writes WSJ. 1/ pic.twitter.com/1e4rYvpfn1
ATL Bear said:Oldbear83 said:
" The Clerical Islamist state isn't a temporary glitch. It is a deeply entrenched power structure that has become inseparable from the Iranian state. It has been around for centuries"
You are both correct and wrong.
The Islamists have indeed been around since Muhammad decided Allah wanted him to run everything for Allah's glory, but they have had varying levels of power, and have sometimes been very much in decline and limited. Certain people who don't like to read get mad whenever I provide a history in any detail, but you should be aware not only that there were and are a number of secular powers in the Middle East which have reined in the mullahs in the past, but there is also the long rivalry between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, not to mention smaller sects within Islam which debate the proper role Islam should play in government.
I believe there is a valid and viable US strategy at work, which for obvious reasons is not discussed publicly. While its success remains to be seen, it seems strange to me how many otherwise reasonable people assume things out of emotion which, if they stopped to think, they would reject.
If the goal is a stable region rather than a perpetual war, we have to stop chasing the ghost of a secular uprising that isn't coming and start dealing with the Iran that actually exists.
Oldbear83 said:303Bear said:Oldbear83 said:
" So when is this internal uprising of disaffected and oppressed Iranian going to rise up and take back the country?"
To coin a phrase. that's not how this works.
The hardliners who ran Iran since 1979 made sure there would be no one to oppose them domestically. Other Muslim parties were purged, and secular leaders were expelled or purged wherever found. Ironically similar to Communists, the Islamic Republican Party itself (which brought the Ayatollah into Iran) was destroyed in 1987 to eliminate any possible rival to the Ayatollah.
Article 110 of Iran's constitution gives the Supreme Leader power to name the Guardian Council, who in turn name the Assembly of Experts, who in turn name the new Supreme Leader when the former dies. Iran does not have elections for the Supreme Leader.
Over the years, student groups originally founded to show devotion to theocracy have evolved to dissident groups demanding power to some degree. The Republican Guard has been unable to suppress them completely, and these groups show up from time to time, such as the Arab Spring in 2009, 2011, and of course now.
A number of parties are active in Iran now, including the National Front, the Constitutionalist Party, the Tudeh Party, People's Mujahedin Organization of Iran (MEK), Iranian People's Fedai Guerrillas (IPFG), Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan, and the Qashqai Freedom Path Party(QAYI).
None of these groups is particularly pro-US, but a number of them have been receiving US aid because they help provide intelligence information on Iran conditions, and because it serves the US interest for the Ayatollahs to have internal dissent.
The most likely 'good' outcome in Iran for the near future would likely include restoration of elections, and multiple political parties in Iran, even those which publicly oppose the US, because it would weaken unity of action in Iran. The US has made quiet deals in the past with regimes which disavowed supporting US goals, while de facto doing so.
If overthrow and change of regime are the goal (as I have heard from a number of sources, including this board), why are you talking about the succession mechanisms in the current Iranian constitution? This succession has happened several times since we began bombing and the regime, as it were, is still very much in power.
We were told in January that there were millions in the streets ready to remove the Islamist government, and if we just would strike the top and remove the leaders, there could be another revolution. We have been doing that for over a month now and there has been no movement toward replacement of the governmental system or an overthrow. So was January exaggerated, or is there really not an organized opposition beyond protesting and the best we can hope for is a power vacuum where the most brutal will end up being the replacement?
If the alternate groups are still not pro-America (and we know they aren't pro-Israel), then what are we doing at all that we could not have accomplished by further strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities? Why do we need to bomb them "back to the Stone Age"? If we replace bad with slightly less bad, what did we actually accomplish? Especially if there is the chance to destabilize the religion and have an even more hardline, anti-west group rise up in its place (as ISIS did for a time in parts of Iraq and Syria)? How does the US benefit from that long term? Israel is using this as an opportunity to push into Hezbollah controlled areas to secure their own territory and increase land area (though the campaign seems to be going worse than they anticipated so far), so if we go boots on the ground, it looks like we will go alone.
I am and will remain completely opposed to that.
Also, there are at this time no national elections in Iran for any real position of authority, so anything like a secular regime would have to be built from the dirt up.
Despite being bombed from their homes by Israel forces 'Looking' for Hezbollah , Lebanese Christians still raise the Cross of Christ High. pic.twitter.com/9apTNMWEWM
— Knights Templar International (@KnightsTempOrg) April 5, 2026
Sam Lowry said:Oldbear83 said:303Bear said:Oldbear83 said:
" So when is this internal uprising of disaffected and oppressed Iranian going to rise up and take back the country?"
To coin a phrase. that's not how this works.
The hardliners who ran Iran since 1979 made sure there would be no one to oppose them domestically. Other Muslim parties were purged, and secular leaders were expelled or purged wherever found. Ironically similar to Communists, the Islamic Republican Party itself (which brought the Ayatollah into Iran) was destroyed in 1987 to eliminate any possible rival to the Ayatollah.
Article 110 of Iran's constitution gives the Supreme Leader power to name the Guardian Council, who in turn name the Assembly of Experts, who in turn name the new Supreme Leader when the former dies. Iran does not have elections for the Supreme Leader.
Over the years, student groups originally founded to show devotion to theocracy have evolved to dissident groups demanding power to some degree. The Republican Guard has been unable to suppress them completely, and these groups show up from time to time, such as the Arab Spring in 2009, 2011, and of course now.
A number of parties are active in Iran now, including the National Front, the Constitutionalist Party, the Tudeh Party, People's Mujahedin Organization of Iran (MEK), Iranian People's Fedai Guerrillas (IPFG), Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan, and the Qashqai Freedom Path Party(QAYI).
None of these groups is particularly pro-US, but a number of them have been receiving US aid because they help provide intelligence information on Iran conditions, and because it serves the US interest for the Ayatollahs to have internal dissent.
The most likely 'good' outcome in Iran for the near future would likely include restoration of elections, and multiple political parties in Iran, even those which publicly oppose the US, because it would weaken unity of action in Iran. The US has made quiet deals in the past with regimes which disavowed supporting US goals, while de facto doing so.
If overthrow and change of regime are the goal (as I have heard from a number of sources, including this board), why are you talking about the succession mechanisms in the current Iranian constitution? This succession has happened several times since we began bombing and the regime, as it were, is still very much in power.
We were told in January that there were millions in the streets ready to remove the Islamist government, and if we just would strike the top and remove the leaders, there could be another revolution. We have been doing that for over a month now and there has been no movement toward replacement of the governmental system or an overthrow. So was January exaggerated, or is there really not an organized opposition beyond protesting and the best we can hope for is a power vacuum where the most brutal will end up being the replacement?
If the alternate groups are still not pro-America (and we know they aren't pro-Israel), then what are we doing at all that we could not have accomplished by further strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities? Why do we need to bomb them "back to the Stone Age"? If we replace bad with slightly less bad, what did we actually accomplish? Especially if there is the chance to destabilize the religion and have an even more hardline, anti-west group rise up in its place (as ISIS did for a time in parts of Iraq and Syria)? How does the US benefit from that long term? Israel is using this as an opportunity to push into Hezbollah controlled areas to secure their own territory and increase land area (though the campaign seems to be going worse than they anticipated so far), so if we go boots on the ground, it looks like we will go alone.
I am and will remain completely opposed to that.
Also, there are at this time no national elections in Iran for any real position of authority, so anything like a secular regime would have to be built from the dirt up.
Not sure why you keep saying that. There are national elections for real positions of authority every four to eight years, depending on the position.
whiterock said:Every US president chose diplomacy over force, waited too long, and North Korea now has 50 nuclear warheads and ICBMs that can reach the continental US that mistake with Iran by learning North Korea lesson.
— Tymofiy Mylovanov (@Mylovanov) April 4, 2026
Trump decided not to repeat that mistake with Iran, writes WSJ. 1/ pic.twitter.com/1e4rYvpfn1
Oldbear83 said:Sam Lowry said:Oldbear83 said:303Bear said:Oldbear83 said:
" So when is this internal uprising of disaffected and oppressed Iranian going to rise up and take back the country?"
To coin a phrase. that's not how this works.
The hardliners who ran Iran since 1979 made sure there would be no one to oppose them domestically. Other Muslim parties were purged, and secular leaders were expelled or purged wherever found. Ironically similar to Communists, the Islamic Republican Party itself (which brought the Ayatollah into Iran) was destroyed in 1987 to eliminate any possible rival to the Ayatollah.
Article 110 of Iran's constitution gives the Supreme Leader power to name the Guardian Council, who in turn name the Assembly of Experts, who in turn name the new Supreme Leader when the former dies. Iran does not have elections for the Supreme Leader.
Over the years, student groups originally founded to show devotion to theocracy have evolved to dissident groups demanding power to some degree. The Republican Guard has been unable to suppress them completely, and these groups show up from time to time, such as the Arab Spring in 2009, 2011, and of course now.
A number of parties are active in Iran now, including the National Front, the Constitutionalist Party, the Tudeh Party, People's Mujahedin Organization of Iran (MEK), Iranian People's Fedai Guerrillas (IPFG), Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan, and the Qashqai Freedom Path Party(QAYI).
None of these groups is particularly pro-US, but a number of them have been receiving US aid because they help provide intelligence information on Iran conditions, and because it serves the US interest for the Ayatollahs to have internal dissent.
The most likely 'good' outcome in Iran for the near future would likely include restoration of elections, and multiple political parties in Iran, even those which publicly oppose the US, because it would weaken unity of action in Iran. The US has made quiet deals in the past with regimes which disavowed supporting US goals, while de facto doing so.
If overthrow and change of regime are the goal (as I have heard from a number of sources, including this board), why are you talking about the succession mechanisms in the current Iranian constitution? This succession has happened several times since we began bombing and the regime, as it were, is still very much in power.
We were told in January that there were millions in the streets ready to remove the Islamist government, and if we just would strike the top and remove the leaders, there could be another revolution. We have been doing that for over a month now and there has been no movement toward replacement of the governmental system or an overthrow. So was January exaggerated, or is there really not an organized opposition beyond protesting and the best we can hope for is a power vacuum where the most brutal will end up being the replacement?
If the alternate groups are still not pro-America (and we know they aren't pro-Israel), then what are we doing at all that we could not have accomplished by further strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities? Why do we need to bomb them "back to the Stone Age"? If we replace bad with slightly less bad, what did we actually accomplish? Especially if there is the chance to destabilize the religion and have an even more hardline, anti-west group rise up in its place (as ISIS did for a time in parts of Iraq and Syria)? How does the US benefit from that long term? Israel is using this as an opportunity to push into Hezbollah controlled areas to secure their own territory and increase land area (though the campaign seems to be going worse than they anticipated so far), so if we go boots on the ground, it looks like we will go alone.
I am and will remain completely opposed to that.
Also, there are at this time no national elections in Iran for any real position of authority, so anything like a secular regime would have to be built from the dirt up.
Not sure why you keep saying that. There are national elections for real positions of authority every four to eight years, depending on the position.
Nope. The positions elected are for show, they have no real power.
Sam Lowry said:Oldbear83 said:Sam Lowry said:Oldbear83 said:303Bear said:Oldbear83 said:
" So when is this internal uprising of disaffected and oppressed Iranian going to rise up and take back the country?"
To coin a phrase. that's not how this works.
The hardliners who ran Iran since 1979 made sure there would be no one to oppose them domestically. Other Muslim parties were purged, and secular leaders were expelled or purged wherever found. Ironically similar to Communists, the Islamic Republican Party itself (which brought the Ayatollah into Iran) was destroyed in 1987 to eliminate any possible rival to the Ayatollah.
Article 110 of Iran's constitution gives the Supreme Leader power to name the Guardian Council, who in turn name the Assembly of Experts, who in turn name the new Supreme Leader when the former dies. Iran does not have elections for the Supreme Leader.
Over the years, student groups originally founded to show devotion to theocracy have evolved to dissident groups demanding power to some degree. The Republican Guard has been unable to suppress them completely, and these groups show up from time to time, such as the Arab Spring in 2009, 2011, and of course now.
A number of parties are active in Iran now, including the National Front, the Constitutionalist Party, the Tudeh Party, People's Mujahedin Organization of Iran (MEK), Iranian People's Fedai Guerrillas (IPFG), Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan, and the Qashqai Freedom Path Party(QAYI).
None of these groups is particularly pro-US, but a number of them have been receiving US aid because they help provide intelligence information on Iran conditions, and because it serves the US interest for the Ayatollahs to have internal dissent.
The most likely 'good' outcome in Iran for the near future would likely include restoration of elections, and multiple political parties in Iran, even those which publicly oppose the US, because it would weaken unity of action in Iran. The US has made quiet deals in the past with regimes which disavowed supporting US goals, while de facto doing so.
If overthrow and change of regime are the goal (as I have heard from a number of sources, including this board), why are you talking about the succession mechanisms in the current Iranian constitution? This succession has happened several times since we began bombing and the regime, as it were, is still very much in power.
We were told in January that there were millions in the streets ready to remove the Islamist government, and if we just would strike the top and remove the leaders, there could be another revolution. We have been doing that for over a month now and there has been no movement toward replacement of the governmental system or an overthrow. So was January exaggerated, or is there really not an organized opposition beyond protesting and the best we can hope for is a power vacuum where the most brutal will end up being the replacement?
If the alternate groups are still not pro-America (and we know they aren't pro-Israel), then what are we doing at all that we could not have accomplished by further strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities? Why do we need to bomb them "back to the Stone Age"? If we replace bad with slightly less bad, what did we actually accomplish? Especially if there is the chance to destabilize the religion and have an even more hardline, anti-west group rise up in its place (as ISIS did for a time in parts of Iraq and Syria)? How does the US benefit from that long term? Israel is using this as an opportunity to push into Hezbollah controlled areas to secure their own territory and increase land area (though the campaign seems to be going worse than they anticipated so far), so if we go boots on the ground, it looks like we will go alone.
I am and will remain completely opposed to that.
Also, there are at this time no national elections in Iran for any real position of authority, so anything like a secular regime would have to be built from the dirt up.
Not sure why you keep saying that. There are national elections for real positions of authority every four to eight years, depending on the position.
Nope. The positions elected are for show, they have no real power.
They have their own version of separation of powers. Not a bad idea.
D. C. Bear said:FLBear5630 said:Realitybites said:FLBear5630 said:D. C. Bear said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:boognish_bear said:A true display of American strength would be NOT taking the escalation bait. Don’t double down on failure by committing ground troops & increasing air strikes.
— Joe Kent (@joekent16jan19) April 4, 2026
Show the world we can still lead by restraining Israel & negotiating w/Iran to open Hormuz, restoring order is power.
the only failure in his post is himself. He's already been removed from the equation, so no risk of doubling down at all.
Many agree with him.
Joe Kent is a crazy as an outhouse rat. Right down the "Charlie Kirk was killed by Jews" rabbit hole. How can I trust his Iran analysis when he comes up with this crap?
I have no idea about the Kirk stuff.
I do know he served 11 combat tours over there and knows security. He also had access to intel we don't. He is more knowledgeable than anyone on this Board and what he says is consistent with what our position has been for 50 years.
The outlier here is not Kent, it is the Trump decision and Hegseth desire to do this. All of a sudden this can't wait? After 50 years and 25 of them trying to build a bomb? After we obliterated their nuclear operation.
Kent is not the one that should be questioned, why now? Bibi?????
I'm pretty sure about two things.
(1) Charlie Kirk's assassin wasn't some random ****** that decided to kill him and acted without outside assistance/ties.
(2) The "text message" sequence released by the FBI without timestamps. There's not a person under 70 who is going to communicate with others using that bit of AI generated grammar, much less on text messages.
Was the Mossad pulling his strings? Maybe. Was it Antifa? Maybe. The Feds? Also possible. But *someone* was.
Well, there is a bunch of Israel stuff last few years. Maybe Kent is not so crazy?
Why is t-*-a-n-n-y censored?
Realitybites said:whiterock said:Every US president chose diplomacy over force, waited too long, and North Korea now has 50 nuclear warheads and ICBMs that can reach the continental US that mistake with Iran by learning North Korea lesson.
— Tymofiy Mylovanov (@Mylovanov) April 4, 2026
Trump decided not to repeat that mistake with Iran, writes WSJ. 1/ pic.twitter.com/1e4rYvpfn1
How long has North Korea had nukes?
How many have they launched in that time?
Do you think that our participation in Israel's attack on Iran is going to help or hurt the cause of nonproliferation?
🚨VERIFIED🚨
— A Gene Robinson (@AlBuffalo2nite) April 5, 2026
This one actually holds up… and it explains exactly why those pilots made it out.
What kept those downed F-15E crew members alive wasn’t luck… it was systems most people never hear about.
CSEL.
Combat Survivor Evader Locator.
A small device… strapped to the… pic.twitter.com/JudJxa0Gip
Oldbear83 said:303Bear said:Oldbear83 said:
" So when is this internal uprising of disaffected and oppressed Iranian going to rise up and take back the country?"
To coin a phrase. that's not how this works.
The hardliners who ran Iran since 1979 made sure there would be no one to oppose them domestically. Other Muslim parties were purged, and secular leaders were expelled or purged wherever found. Ironically similar to Communists, the Islamic Republican Party itself (which brought the Ayatollah into Iran) was destroyed in 1987 to eliminate any possible rival to the Ayatollah.
Article 110 of Iran's constitution gives the Supreme Leader power to name the Guardian Council, who in turn name the Assembly of Experts, who in turn name the new Supreme Leader when the former dies. Iran does not have elections for the Supreme Leader.
Over the years, student groups originally founded to show devotion to theocracy have evolved to dissident groups demanding power to some degree. The Republican Guard has been unable to suppress them completely, and these groups show up from time to time, such as the Arab Spring in 2009, 2011, and of course now.
A number of parties are active in Iran now, including the National Front, the Constitutionalist Party, the Tudeh Party, People's Mujahedin Organization of Iran (MEK), Iranian People's Fedai Guerrillas (IPFG), Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan, and the Qashqai Freedom Path Party(QAYI).
None of these groups is particularly pro-US, but a number of them have been receiving US aid because they help provide intelligence information on Iran conditions, and because it serves the US interest for the Ayatollahs to have internal dissent.
The most likely 'good' outcome in Iran for the near future would likely include restoration of elections, and multiple political parties in Iran, even those which publicly oppose the US, because it would weaken unity of action in Iran. The US has made quiet deals in the past with regimes which disavowed supporting US goals, while de facto doing so.
If overthrow and change of regime are the goal (as I have heard from a number of sources, including this board), why are you talking about the succession mechanisms in the current Iranian constitution? This succession has happened several times since we began bombing and the regime, as it were, is still very much in power.
We were told in January that there were millions in the streets ready to remove the Islamist government, and if we just would strike the top and remove the leaders, there could be another revolution. We have been doing that for over a month now and there has been no movement toward replacement of the governmental system or an overthrow. So was January exaggerated, or is there really not an organized opposition beyond protesting and the best we can hope for is a power vacuum where the most brutal will end up being the replacement?
If the alternate groups are still not pro-America (and we know they aren't pro-Israel), then what are we doing at all that we could not have accomplished by further strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities? Why do we need to bomb them "back to the Stone Age"? If we replace bad with slightly less bad, what did we actually accomplish? Especially if there is the chance to destabilize the religion and have an even more hardline, anti-west group rise up in its place (as ISIS did for a time in parts of Iraq and Syria)? How does the US benefit from that long term? Israel is using this as an opportunity to push into Hezbollah controlled areas to secure their own territory and increase land area (though the campaign seems to be going worse than they anticipated so far), so if we go boots on the ground, it looks like we will go alone.
I am and will remain completely opposed to that.
Your post seemed to respond to something other than my actual post, so I am not sure whether you are confused or simply reacting in emotion.
I do agree that a ground invasion of Iran is not feasible, but I believe all the talk about that is part of concealing our actual plans. Strange in a way to see how many people think everything that shows up in media reflects our real intentions.
To the main question of changing the regime in Iran, that both cannot be done, and can. I know it's in vogue to consider Trump an ignorant and emotional fool, but his first term showed a better sense of reality and valid options than we saw going back to 9/11. Trump certainly is aware of how occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan worked out. A US occupation of Iran would meet fierce resistance on many levels, and would damage relations with other ME nations. Also, there are at this time no national elections in Iran for any real position of authority, so anything like a secular regime would have to be built from the dirt up.
I believe Pakistan and Algeria are possible models for building a stable, almost-trustworthy government in Teheran. That would require sub rosa negotiations, which I believe have been going on for some years already, which would include stakeholders from other nations. Israel would not be part of such negotiations; the US would deal privately with Israel's concerns.
Most of the real negotiations would never see the news. We would only see the results later, and the critics - if they noticed at all - would mutter that we just got lucky.
Oldbear83 said:Sam Lowry said:Oldbear83 said:Sam Lowry said:Oldbear83 said:303Bear said:Oldbear83 said:
" So when is this internal uprising of disaffected and oppressed Iranian going to rise up and take back the country?"
To coin a phrase. that's not how this works.
The hardliners who ran Iran since 1979 made sure there would be no one to oppose them domestically. Other Muslim parties were purged, and secular leaders were expelled or purged wherever found. Ironically similar to Communists, the Islamic Republican Party itself (which brought the Ayatollah into Iran) was destroyed in 1987 to eliminate any possible rival to the Ayatollah.
Article 110 of Iran's constitution gives the Supreme Leader power to name the Guardian Council, who in turn name the Assembly of Experts, who in turn name the new Supreme Leader when the former dies. Iran does not have elections for the Supreme Leader.
Over the years, student groups originally founded to show devotion to theocracy have evolved to dissident groups demanding power to some degree. The Republican Guard has been unable to suppress them completely, and these groups show up from time to time, such as the Arab Spring in 2009, 2011, and of course now.
A number of parties are active in Iran now, including the National Front, the Constitutionalist Party, the Tudeh Party, People's Mujahedin Organization of Iran (MEK), Iranian People's Fedai Guerrillas (IPFG), Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan, and the Qashqai Freedom Path Party(QAYI).
None of these groups is particularly pro-US, but a number of them have been receiving US aid because they help provide intelligence information on Iran conditions, and because it serves the US interest for the Ayatollahs to have internal dissent.
The most likely 'good' outcome in Iran for the near future would likely include restoration of elections, and multiple political parties in Iran, even those which publicly oppose the US, because it would weaken unity of action in Iran. The US has made quiet deals in the past with regimes which disavowed supporting US goals, while de facto doing so.
If overthrow and change of regime are the goal (as I have heard from a number of sources, including this board), why are you talking about the succession mechanisms in the current Iranian constitution? This succession has happened several times since we began bombing and the regime, as it were, is still very much in power.
We were told in January that there were millions in the streets ready to remove the Islamist government, and if we just would strike the top and remove the leaders, there could be another revolution. We have been doing that for over a month now and there has been no movement toward replacement of the governmental system or an overthrow. So was January exaggerated, or is there really not an organized opposition beyond protesting and the best we can hope for is a power vacuum where the most brutal will end up being the replacement?
If the alternate groups are still not pro-America (and we know they aren't pro-Israel), then what are we doing at all that we could not have accomplished by further strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities? Why do we need to bomb them "back to the Stone Age"? If we replace bad with slightly less bad, what did we actually accomplish? Especially if there is the chance to destabilize the religion and have an even more hardline, anti-west group rise up in its place (as ISIS did for a time in parts of Iraq and Syria)? How does the US benefit from that long term? Israel is using this as an opportunity to push into Hezbollah controlled areas to secure their own territory and increase land area (though the campaign seems to be going worse than they anticipated so far), so if we go boots on the ground, it looks like we will go alone.
I am and will remain completely opposed to that.
Also, there are at this time no national elections in Iran for any real position of authority, so anything like a secular regime would have to be built from the dirt up.
Not sure why you keep saying that. There are national elections for real positions of authority every four to eight years, depending on the position.
Nope. The positions elected are for show, they have no real power.
They have their own version of separation of powers. Not a bad idea.
The phrase "Supreme Leader" is lost on you.
Sam Lowry said:Oldbear83 said:Sam Lowry said:Oldbear83 said:Sam Lowry said:Oldbear83 said:303Bear said:Oldbear83 said:
" So when is this internal uprising of disaffected and oppressed Iranian going to rise up and take back the country?"
To coin a phrase. that's not how this works.
The hardliners who ran Iran since 1979 made sure there would be no one to oppose them domestically. Other Muslim parties were purged, and secular leaders were expelled or purged wherever found. Ironically similar to Communists, the Islamic Republican Party itself (which brought the Ayatollah into Iran) was destroyed in 1987 to eliminate any possible rival to the Ayatollah.
Article 110 of Iran's constitution gives the Supreme Leader power to name the Guardian Council, who in turn name the Assembly of Experts, who in turn name the new Supreme Leader when the former dies. Iran does not have elections for the Supreme Leader.
Over the years, student groups originally founded to show devotion to theocracy have evolved to dissident groups demanding power to some degree. The Republican Guard has been unable to suppress them completely, and these groups show up from time to time, such as the Arab Spring in 2009, 2011, and of course now.
A number of parties are active in Iran now, including the National Front, the Constitutionalist Party, the Tudeh Party, People's Mujahedin Organization of Iran (MEK), Iranian People's Fedai Guerrillas (IPFG), Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan, and the Qashqai Freedom Path Party(QAYI).
None of these groups is particularly pro-US, but a number of them have been receiving US aid because they help provide intelligence information on Iran conditions, and because it serves the US interest for the Ayatollahs to have internal dissent.
The most likely 'good' outcome in Iran for the near future would likely include restoration of elections, and multiple political parties in Iran, even those which publicly oppose the US, because it would weaken unity of action in Iran. The US has made quiet deals in the past with regimes which disavowed supporting US goals, while de facto doing so.
If overthrow and change of regime are the goal (as I have heard from a number of sources, including this board), why are you talking about the succession mechanisms in the current Iranian constitution? This succession has happened several times since we began bombing and the regime, as it were, is still very much in power.
We were told in January that there were millions in the streets ready to remove the Islamist government, and if we just would strike the top and remove the leaders, there could be another revolution. We have been doing that for over a month now and there has been no movement toward replacement of the governmental system or an overthrow. So was January exaggerated, or is there really not an organized opposition beyond protesting and the best we can hope for is a power vacuum where the most brutal will end up being the replacement?
If the alternate groups are still not pro-America (and we know they aren't pro-Israel), then what are we doing at all that we could not have accomplished by further strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities? Why do we need to bomb them "back to the Stone Age"? If we replace bad with slightly less bad, what did we actually accomplish? Especially if there is the chance to destabilize the religion and have an even more hardline, anti-west group rise up in its place (as ISIS did for a time in parts of Iraq and Syria)? How does the US benefit from that long term? Israel is using this as an opportunity to push into Hezbollah controlled areas to secure their own territory and increase land area (though the campaign seems to be going worse than they anticipated so far), so if we go boots on the ground, it looks like we will go alone.
I am and will remain completely opposed to that.
Also, there are at this time no national elections in Iran for any real position of authority, so anything like a secular regime would have to be built from the dirt up.
Not sure why you keep saying that. There are national elections for real positions of authority every four to eight years, depending on the position.
Nope. The positions elected are for show, they have no real power.
They have their own version of separation of powers. Not a bad idea.
The phrase "Supreme Leader" is lost on you.
Feel free to do some research.
303Bear said:Oldbear83 said:
" So when is this internal uprising of disaffected and oppressed Iranian going to rise up and take back the country?"
To coin a phrase. that's not how this works.
The hardliners who ran Iran since 1979 made sure there would be no one to oppose them domestically. Other Muslim parties were purged, and secular leaders were expelled or purged wherever found. Ironically similar to Communists, the Islamic Republican Party itself (which brought the Ayatollah into Iran) was destroyed in 1987 to eliminate any possible rival to the Ayatollah.
Article 110 of Iran's constitution gives the Supreme Leader power to name the Guardian Council, who in turn name the Assembly of Experts, who in turn name the new Supreme Leader when the former dies. Iran does not have elections for the Supreme Leader.
Over the years, student groups originally founded to show devotion to theocracy have evolved to dissident groups demanding power to some degree. The Republican Guard has been unable to suppress them completely, and these groups show up from time to time, such as the Arab Spring in 2009, 2011, and of course now.
A number of parties are active in Iran now, including the National Front, the Constitutionalist Party, the Tudeh Party, People's Mujahedin Organization of Iran (MEK), Iranian People's Fedai Guerrillas (IPFG), Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan, and the Qashqai Freedom Path Party(QAYI).
None of these groups is particularly pro-US, but a number of them have been receiving US aid because they help provide intelligence information on Iran conditions, and because it serves the US interest for the Ayatollahs to have internal dissent.
The most likely 'good' outcome in Iran for the near future would likely include restoration of elections, and multiple political parties in Iran, even those which publicly oppose the US, because it would weaken unity of action in Iran. The US has made quiet deals in the past with regimes which disavowed supporting US goals, while de facto doing so.
If overthrow and change of regime are the goal (as I have heard from a number of sources, including this board), why are you talking about the succession mechanisms in the current Iranian constitution? This succession has happened several times since we began bombing and the regime, as it were, is still very much in power.
We were told in January that there were millions in the streets ready to remove the Islamist government, and if we just would strike the top and remove the leaders, there could be another revolution. We have been doing that for over a month now and there has been no movement toward replacement of the governmental system or an overthrow. So was January exaggerated, or is there really not an organized opposition beyond protesting and the best we can hope for is a power vacuum where the most brutal will end up being the replacement?
If the alternate groups are still not pro-America (and we know they aren't pro-Israel), then what are we doing at all that we could not have accomplished by further strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities? Why do we need to bomb them "back to the Stone Age"? If we replace bad with slightly less bad, what did we actually accomplish? Especially if there is the chance to destabilize the religion and have an even more hardline, anti-west group rise up in its place (as ISIS did for a time in parts of Iraq and Syria)? How does the US benefit from that long term? Israel is using this as an opportunity to push into Hezbollah controlled areas to secure their own territory and increase land area (though the campaign seems to be going worse than they anticipated so far), so if we go boots on the ground, it looks like we will go alone.
I am and will remain completely opposed to that.
