It's been a 40 year disaster. I think the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is the key. Hit their C2 network and as many related facilities as possible.
Ultimately, totalitarian regimes fall from within when the internal security forces won't fire on the rioting populace. Iran has a complex set of police, religious police, IRGC of varying types and quality (Quds force) and the "regular" armed forces. As bad as Syria was / still is, Assad supporters had Alawi enclaves to run to...until they didn't. The IRGC has a real problem given the way they've treated the general populace. Lacking a readily accessible bolt-hole if things continue to worsen, their only option may be to fight. Nicolae Ceaușescu's security forces went down fighting, but down they went. Iran: the disaster, forty years and counting. What was, and what is. Look for pictures of Afghanistan (Kabul), Egypt (Cairo) and Teheran before going hardcore Islamist. No burkhas, headcovers, a vibrant population. Today? Not so much. This is the best chance they've had, but a sad truism is, Islamism is just like socialism, you can arrive by accident or even vote yourself into it. But you're going to have to shoot your way out of it. And that has a cost in lives and treasure...both of which should be Iranian, not U.S.
I'm not even sure what a post-Revolution Iran would look like. The last 100 years of British and American involvement (and Soviet/Russian) in the country are so convoluted that they defy description or even understanding.
If I had to parse out nuance, I would say that the Shah's totalitarianism was not being exported in the way of the Islamic Revolution. So I guess that makes the Shah's better?
I actually meant the Shah, who the CIA ushered into power in 1953, and his totalitarian regime that was overthrown in 1979 by a sectarian totalitarian regime. And I'm being loose with authoritarianism versus totalitarianism, which is a thing.
But the general thought is that authoritarian regimes rely on a lack of political diversity, weak institutions, and power in the hands of a few. Authoritarians exploit real problems - such as economic stability or security threats - to justify their control.
From that perspective, the ideology or belief system behind the authoritarian is merely the underlying motivation for executing a fairly standard playbook.
As CDR Sal masterfully described, a combination of mother nature (decades of drought), economic mismanagement, sanctions, military action, changing international order, and dwindling friends / allies have left Iran with two broken legs. With Russia, Venezuela, Hamas, Hezbollah, and to some extent China regionally marginalized, their economic crutches have been kicked out from under them. What comes next? Who knows. Hopefully it will be better than the Shia Islamist theocracy. As always, "be careful what you wish for". Getting Iran back into the "rules based international order" in a meaningful way would likely help their economy. Europe would like to buy their oil, I'm sure.
Europe actually gets most of their oil from the U.S. So, not sure we want to make Iran a competitor - or Venezuela for that matter. The US already pays some of the highest prices to generate a barrel of oil in the world, so any increases in world supplies has negative effects on our own domestic market.
You might not be interested in globalization, but globalization is interested in you! Good times.
The Iranian oil infrastructure is basically over 100 years old and I would venture it is in need of hefty maintenance and repair since the mullahs have spent much of their national treasure on other priorities.... like their nuclear weapons program and exporting their revolution. Whoever ventures in there to make a profit will have much to attend to first.
This post triggered me into remembering reading Mike Vickers book, and throwing it across the room in disgust. Because there's this ingrained attitude in the American International Relations elite that the United States HAS to be intimately involved in the internal affairs of every country on earth. And despite what it's gotten us, like any addicts they just can't stop. All you have to do is put your ear to the ground now and you can hear them bleating: What are we going to do about Iran? HOW ABOUT NOTHING? Let the Iranian people sort it out, for good or ill, and then think really, really hard and long about how to engage with whatever emerges from this. Now I hear more bleating: But what if...what if...? To which my reply would be: WHAT IF WE SCREW THIS UP AND THEN WALK AWAY LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE WE'VE DONE SINCE 1961????
Humans have a remarkable ability to rationalize, and groups of them just make that worse. British and US involvement in the last 100 years of Iranian history is so deep and so convoluted that it beggars description.
And while I do believe that we have to work to shape the international order to support our national interests, I also know that this country has a track record of breaking things and not paying for them - to your point. "Tactical patience" is not a virtue we seem to possess.
Yeah. All we can do in this moment is stay hands-off but continue to weaken their economic and other support systems outside the country, discourage other powers from the opposite, mourn the slaughter, and be poised, ready to go in capitalistically (not NGO-interventionally), when we reach the moment we can help turn the taps back on with a new regime.
It won't be a perfect new regime, if it happens, but hopefully one with which we can do some deals and see what happens.
We have the technology and used to have lots of companies working in Iran. Then again, they used to have lots of engineers, etc., themselves, so it will be a rebuilding effort across a lot of dimensions. Abundant opportunities and enormous room to grow.
Sometimes God has a sense of humor. Imagine: The Islamic Republic's #1 enemy is Israel; Iran is suffering from an enormous water crisis that has much bigger causes than short term climate effects. They need immediate technological interventions (desalination plants at scale for example). And who is the #1 demonstrated innovator and manifestor of such solutions in the world by far?- the Israelis, who under a different political relationship w Iran would be happy to help.
Had a couple of childhood friends that were refugees. Back then, the refugees were actually that. One girl was from Afghanistan, here parents having fled the Soviet invasion (it was that or backs-to-the-wall since they belonged to the ruling castes). One, a boy, was Persian. His parents managed to get out before the Shah's Secret Police could nab them for "disapperance" (torture, rape and murder... eventually).
I well remember the "Key to Paradise" they gave the poor souls herded into the mine-fields in the Irak-Iran war too.
And yes, despite all the ugliness that has always emanated from the Near East, the best the Occident can do is:
Keep them East of the Eastern Mediterranean/Bosporus/Black Sea/Kaspian Sea line.
Keep them South of the Mediterranean.
Remove their colonies in Europe and repatriate 99.9% of them.
And then leave them to sort out their own problems. Business we can do if they can deal straight.
Just look at where I'm from. For over 800 years Denmark and Sweden was at war - being at war with the neighbours was the normal; peace was the outlier. Now, we're the best of friends and have been for almost two centuries. Because? You tell me. But if we could, why wouldn't other races be able to? And if they can't, there's not much anyone can do about it short of genocide or perpetual military dictatorship.
So just leave them to it, in this case, is wisdom.
Speaking of my nation, Sweden, Iran has been a double-edged sword to deal with. For the past decade or so, we have had regular arrests of Iranian spies here, trying to infiltrate our Secret Police, our Military intelligence, and our Foreign Affairs Department. Precisely because we, just as most European nations, have a sizeable diaspora of various Iranian peoples (not just Persians) originating from the time of the Shah's brutal rule. However, among the diaspora there's a strong sense of unity /against/ the current rulership, to put it mildly - they positively hate the priesthood and the more religious ones see the mullahs as heretics committing fitnah to maintain power.
I'm sure the international Iranian diaspora feels much the same, and is ready and willing to go home and help out, once a new order can be established.
(Wow, I'm being optimistic. Is this a day not ending in 'Y'?)
We had an Iranian family in the mid fifties that travelled with the seasonal yearly Farmers fair they ran the rides and shops. Nice folks with some knock you down beautiful women!
One older kid gave me a coin from Iran. I swapped him a pocket knife.
"The usual pattern through the 20th century was the communists, being the more ruthless of the various factions in popular fronts, would make short work of tearing down, compromising, and eventually lining up against the wall everyone else in their popular front until they had all the power. "
Well, in case of Iran, it was actually Shah who lined up against the wall everyone he deemed a threat to his rule - communists, socialists, liberals... America turned blind eye on decidedly un-democratic Shah politics, since Iran was viewed as important ally against the pro-Communist Iraq (and because Shah helped to control oil prices).
Asking respectfully: Do you feel Iran is better off under Islamist rule than the Shah? We have forty years of history for consideration. The future, is, as they say, uncertain.
Definitedly not better. I just explain that Shah regime was pretty far from democratic and/or liberal - and US willingness to turn blind eye on anything Shah done was part of the problem, that led to the situation deteriorating.
"Well, in case of Iran, it was actually Shah who lined up against the wall everyone he deemed a threat to his rule - communists, socialists, liberals... " You say this like it's a bad idea. (Looks around USA with raised eyebrow)...... What is the alternative. To let these soul sucking nation destroying ideologies undermine liberty and freedom?
It’s kind of ironic that the only country that Iran destroyed with its nuclear program was Iran. Sounds like a tale out of the Shahnameh or Arabian Nights.
Great article. I'm following the same hoping for the best for the Iranian people and the world. Our favorite restaurant where we live in Northern Virginia is a Persian restaurant. The owners are great people and all attendees are honorable people, none with green hair, face tattoos, or nose rings. Hoping for Iran regime to go the way of Assad in Syria.
Well, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was a Shia millenial adherent. They want to bring about the end of the world so the 12th Imam can return. This made Iran getting a nuke...problematic. According to some. So there's that. I'll take "Islamists (not muslims) of all stripes are bad for $500, Alex."
Excellent article. I come from a different part of the world, so my childhood had zero connection to this story, but ever since I started learning about global politics, the "Iran Islamic Republic" was a cornerstone of the bad guys.
I fear this will end up again fizzling out, since without guns, actual guns, in the hands of people, it's very easy to kill 50k people and just say "everything is resolved".
But if this does end up with an overthrow of the Ayatollah and the IRGC, it would change the landscape not only in the middle east, but across the globe. Just imagine the Russian invasion without the Iranian drones! And China without both Iran's and Venezuela's oil.
I hope the US administration does the right choice here — I don't know what that choice is, but I hope they take it. It would a very big wasted opportunity if this ends just like the previous 4-5 protest waves.
My own view of Iran was largely shaped by Stephen Kinzer’s book All the Shah’s Men, which traced the Islamic Revolution to America’s support of the Shah’s overthrow of democratically elected Mohammed Mosaddeq. According to Kinzer, the British were convinced that Mosaddeq was sympathetic to Tudeh, the Iranian communist party, and was about to nationalize the oil industry - so the Brits enlisted the Americans to overthrow him. I was always confused by this narrative. There was very little Iranian agency here. Then the Shah tried to modernize Iran and allied with the West, stoking strong Islamist opposition. His secret police, the Savak - aided by the American CIA with lists of alleged communist sympathizers, but really pro-democracy activists - eliminated the left while the Islamists seethed and schemed from inside mosques. I like this take by CDR Salamander.
Now you have me wondering about those multiple recent visits by Obama to 10 Downing Street like he was still president or something. He must be getting very nervous about what information may be coming out of Persian file drawers should this not go his way. Old enough to remember him raiding our Treasury without permission of congress to send $1.5 billion in cash to the mullahs. Part of which they turned around surely and used to build weapons and armaments to use against our own troops on the battlefield. History cannot grind that rat bastard and his legacy to a pulp soon enough. My own government program had to raid one pocket to pay the other to reimburse the Judgment Fund that called in its debts to shovel this money out the door. You'd be shocked at the projects that took a financial hit that were for OUR people at this time. Also, I would wager the Saudis are finding ways to happily help this downfall of the Shia menace in their own neighborhood. Our closeness with MBS and Trump getting two sword dances and a hair dance (!) is something that has not missed my notice. I'm sure this story goes deeper than we'll ever know.
as well as a taint from our boots on the ground
It's been a 40 year disaster. I think the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is the key. Hit their C2 network and as many related facilities as possible.
Pray for Translators,
Pray for Persia! 🦁☀️
⚓ Semper Fortis
Semper Supra! 🛰️
https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/4f9670c0-6708-4b97-add1-75fb4c217996
Ultimately, totalitarian regimes fall from within when the internal security forces won't fire on the rioting populace. Iran has a complex set of police, religious police, IRGC of varying types and quality (Quds force) and the "regular" armed forces. As bad as Syria was / still is, Assad supporters had Alawi enclaves to run to...until they didn't. The IRGC has a real problem given the way they've treated the general populace. Lacking a readily accessible bolt-hole if things continue to worsen, their only option may be to fight. Nicolae Ceaușescu's security forces went down fighting, but down they went. Iran: the disaster, forty years and counting. What was, and what is. Look for pictures of Afghanistan (Kabul), Egypt (Cairo) and Teheran before going hardcore Islamist. No burkhas, headcovers, a vibrant population. Today? Not so much. This is the best chance they've had, but a sad truism is, Islamism is just like socialism, you can arrive by accident or even vote yourself into it. But you're going to have to shoot your way out of it. And that has a cost in lives and treasure...both of which should be Iranian, not U.S.
I'm not even sure what a post-Revolution Iran would look like. The last 100 years of British and American involvement (and Soviet/Russian) in the country are so convoluted that they defy description or even understanding.
If I had to parse out nuance, I would say that the Shah's totalitarianism was not being exported in the way of the Islamic Revolution. So I guess that makes the Shah's better?
I actually meant the Shah, who the CIA ushered into power in 1953, and his totalitarian regime that was overthrown in 1979 by a sectarian totalitarian regime. And I'm being loose with authoritarianism versus totalitarianism, which is a thing.
But the general thought is that authoritarian regimes rely on a lack of political diversity, weak institutions, and power in the hands of a few. Authoritarians exploit real problems - such as economic stability or security threats - to justify their control.
From that perspective, the ideology or belief system behind the authoritarian is merely the underlying motivation for executing a fairly standard playbook.
My thoughts...
As CDR Sal masterfully described, a combination of mother nature (decades of drought), economic mismanagement, sanctions, military action, changing international order, and dwindling friends / allies have left Iran with two broken legs. With Russia, Venezuela, Hamas, Hezbollah, and to some extent China regionally marginalized, their economic crutches have been kicked out from under them. What comes next? Who knows. Hopefully it will be better than the Shia Islamist theocracy. As always, "be careful what you wish for". Getting Iran back into the "rules based international order" in a meaningful way would likely help their economy. Europe would like to buy their oil, I'm sure.
Europe actually gets most of their oil from the U.S. So, not sure we want to make Iran a competitor - or Venezuela for that matter. The US already pays some of the highest prices to generate a barrel of oil in the world, so any increases in world supplies has negative effects on our own domestic market.
You might not be interested in globalization, but globalization is interested in you! Good times.
The Iranian oil infrastructure is basically over 100 years old and I would venture it is in need of hefty maintenance and repair since the mullahs have spent much of their national treasure on other priorities.... like their nuclear weapons program and exporting their revolution. Whoever ventures in there to make a profit will have much to attend to first.
I see a period of civil disasters and civil strife until one group becomes the leadership base.
Then it will become another Turkey possibly.
I hope it gets better.
A colour revolution Always Wrecks the country. Because it’s a takeover to rape that country.
"Look for pictures of ..."
A picture is worth a thousand lies.
The ayatollah urinating in a burned America airman's face at desert one is the picture I see.
This was a long time coming.
This post triggered me into remembering reading Mike Vickers book, and throwing it across the room in disgust. Because there's this ingrained attitude in the American International Relations elite that the United States HAS to be intimately involved in the internal affairs of every country on earth. And despite what it's gotten us, like any addicts they just can't stop. All you have to do is put your ear to the ground now and you can hear them bleating: What are we going to do about Iran? HOW ABOUT NOTHING? Let the Iranian people sort it out, for good or ill, and then think really, really hard and long about how to engage with whatever emerges from this. Now I hear more bleating: But what if...what if...? To which my reply would be: WHAT IF WE SCREW THIS UP AND THEN WALK AWAY LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE WE'VE DONE SINCE 1961????
Humans have a remarkable ability to rationalize, and groups of them just make that worse. British and US involvement in the last 100 years of Iranian history is so deep and so convoluted that it beggars description.
And while I do believe that we have to work to shape the international order to support our national interests, I also know that this country has a track record of breaking things and not paying for them - to your point. "Tactical patience" is not a virtue we seem to possess.
There it is, help rid them of the Mullahs and Islamists then give humanitarian aid and let the people sort it out.
Yeah. All we can do in this moment is stay hands-off but continue to weaken their economic and other support systems outside the country, discourage other powers from the opposite, mourn the slaughter, and be poised, ready to go in capitalistically (not NGO-interventionally), when we reach the moment we can help turn the taps back on with a new regime.
It won't be a perfect new regime, if it happens, but hopefully one with which we can do some deals and see what happens.
What taps? How much money can the US debase its currency?
What the Iranians will need after the dust settles is a water desalination plant the size of Rhode Island! They are out of water.
We have the technology and used to have lots of companies working in Iran. Then again, they used to have lots of engineers, etc., themselves, so it will be a rebuilding effort across a lot of dimensions. Abundant opportunities and enormous room to grow.
Sometimes God has a sense of humor. Imagine: The Islamic Republic's #1 enemy is Israel; Iran is suffering from an enormous water crisis that has much bigger causes than short term climate effects. They need immediate technological interventions (desalination plants at scale for example). And who is the #1 demonstrated innovator and manifestor of such solutions in the world by far?- the Israelis, who under a different political relationship w Iran would be happy to help.
That is true.
Pray for Translators
Pray for Persia! 🦁🌐
'79 Gatorbowl! 🏟️🏈🐊🇺🇲
And yeah,
The Ayatollahs are still AssAHole-ahs! [2026AD]
Had a couple of childhood friends that were refugees. Back then, the refugees were actually that. One girl was from Afghanistan, here parents having fled the Soviet invasion (it was that or backs-to-the-wall since they belonged to the ruling castes). One, a boy, was Persian. His parents managed to get out before the Shah's Secret Police could nab them for "disapperance" (torture, rape and murder... eventually).
I well remember the "Key to Paradise" they gave the poor souls herded into the mine-fields in the Irak-Iran war too.
And yes, despite all the ugliness that has always emanated from the Near East, the best the Occident can do is:
Keep them East of the Eastern Mediterranean/Bosporus/Black Sea/Kaspian Sea line.
Keep them South of the Mediterranean.
Remove their colonies in Europe and repatriate 99.9% of them.
And then leave them to sort out their own problems. Business we can do if they can deal straight.
Just look at where I'm from. For over 800 years Denmark and Sweden was at war - being at war with the neighbours was the normal; peace was the outlier. Now, we're the best of friends and have been for almost two centuries. Because? You tell me. But if we could, why wouldn't other races be able to? And if they can't, there's not much anyone can do about it short of genocide or perpetual military dictatorship.
So just leave them to it, in this case, is wisdom.
Speaking of my nation, Sweden, Iran has been a double-edged sword to deal with. For the past decade or so, we have had regular arrests of Iranian spies here, trying to infiltrate our Secret Police, our Military intelligence, and our Foreign Affairs Department. Precisely because we, just as most European nations, have a sizeable diaspora of various Iranian peoples (not just Persians) originating from the time of the Shah's brutal rule. However, among the diaspora there's a strong sense of unity /against/ the current rulership, to put it mildly - they positively hate the priesthood and the more religious ones see the mullahs as heretics committing fitnah to maintain power.
I'm sure the international Iranian diaspora feels much the same, and is ready and willing to go home and help out, once a new order can be established.
(Wow, I'm being optimistic. Is this a day not ending in 'Y'?)
Had friends and still have family members from the late 70's flight from Iran.
We had an Iranian family in the mid fifties that travelled with the seasonal yearly Farmers fair they ran the rides and shops. Nice folks with some knock you down beautiful women!
One older kid gave me a coin from Iran. I swapped him a pocket knife.
"The usual pattern through the 20th century was the communists, being the more ruthless of the various factions in popular fronts, would make short work of tearing down, compromising, and eventually lining up against the wall everyone else in their popular front until they had all the power. "
Well, in case of Iran, it was actually Shah who lined up against the wall everyone he deemed a threat to his rule - communists, socialists, liberals... America turned blind eye on decidedly un-democratic Shah politics, since Iran was viewed as important ally against the pro-Communist Iraq (and because Shah helped to control oil prices).
Asking respectfully: Do you feel Iran is better off under Islamist rule than the Shah? We have forty years of history for consideration. The future, is, as they say, uncertain.
Definitedly not better. I just explain that Shah regime was pretty far from democratic and/or liberal - and US willingness to turn blind eye on anything Shah done was part of the problem, that led to the situation deteriorating.
Not better but under the Shah they were more modern.
"Well, in case of Iran, it was actually Shah who lined up against the wall everyone he deemed a threat to his rule - communists, socialists, liberals... " You say this like it's a bad idea. (Looks around USA with raised eyebrow)...... What is the alternative. To let these soul sucking nation destroying ideologies undermine liberty and freedom?
LOL I see what you mean.
The middle east like Russia prefers strong men in charge.
Star link is nice but bombing the internal security apparatus of Iran would give the people a fighting chance.
I hope Trump doesn’t abandon the people of Iran the way Kennedy did to the people of Cuba in 1961.
If this evil regime is overthrown then Trump will deserve a place in the pantheon of freedom right next to Ronald Reagan.
Dangerous Dance for sure....
Perhaps. But danger is inherent in the job. I think Machiavelli said something to that effect.
Semper Fortis,
Semper Supra!
Definitely.
🦁☀️⚓🌐🗝️💫🛰️⏰
https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/4f9670c0-6708-4b97-add1-75fb4c217996
It’s kind of ironic that the only country that Iran destroyed with its nuclear program was Iran. Sounds like a tale out of the Shahnameh or Arabian Nights.
Great article. I'm following the same hoping for the best for the Iranian people and the world. Our favorite restaurant where we live in Northern Virginia is a Persian restaurant. The owners are great people and all attendees are honorable people, none with green hair, face tattoos, or nose rings. Hoping for Iran regime to go the way of Assad in Syria.
The 20 Saudis that "pulled off" 9/11/2001 were Sunni. As were the insurgents in Fallujah. And ISIS is Sunni.
Not sure I want that side of the schism on my team.
Well, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was a Shia millenial adherent. They want to bring about the end of the world so the 12th Imam can return. This made Iran getting a nuke...problematic. According to some. So there's that. I'll take "Islamists (not muslims) of all stripes are bad for $500, Alex."
The restoration of the Crown Prince to his father’s throne would undo the damage that Carter did as well as the appeasement of Obama and Biden.
How democratic.
And after they apologize, they should shut up and never open their mouths again.
Excellent article. I come from a different part of the world, so my childhood had zero connection to this story, but ever since I started learning about global politics, the "Iran Islamic Republic" was a cornerstone of the bad guys.
I fear this will end up again fizzling out, since without guns, actual guns, in the hands of people, it's very easy to kill 50k people and just say "everything is resolved".
But if this does end up with an overthrow of the Ayatollah and the IRGC, it would change the landscape not only in the middle east, but across the globe. Just imagine the Russian invasion without the Iranian drones! And China without both Iran's and Venezuela's oil.
I hope the US administration does the right choice here — I don't know what that choice is, but I hope they take it. It would a very big wasted opportunity if this ends just like the previous 4-5 protest waves.
My own view of Iran was largely shaped by Stephen Kinzer’s book All the Shah’s Men, which traced the Islamic Revolution to America’s support of the Shah’s overthrow of democratically elected Mohammed Mosaddeq. According to Kinzer, the British were convinced that Mosaddeq was sympathetic to Tudeh, the Iranian communist party, and was about to nationalize the oil industry - so the Brits enlisted the Americans to overthrow him. I was always confused by this narrative. There was very little Iranian agency here. Then the Shah tried to modernize Iran and allied with the West, stoking strong Islamist opposition. His secret police, the Savak - aided by the American CIA with lists of alleged communist sympathizers, but really pro-democracy activists - eliminated the left while the Islamists seethed and schemed from inside mosques. I like this take by CDR Salamander.
Now you have me wondering about those multiple recent visits by Obama to 10 Downing Street like he was still president or something. He must be getting very nervous about what information may be coming out of Persian file drawers should this not go his way. Old enough to remember him raiding our Treasury without permission of congress to send $1.5 billion in cash to the mullahs. Part of which they turned around surely and used to build weapons and armaments to use against our own troops on the battlefield. History cannot grind that rat bastard and his legacy to a pulp soon enough. My own government program had to raid one pocket to pay the other to reimburse the Judgment Fund that called in its debts to shovel this money out the door. You'd be shocked at the projects that took a financial hit that were for OUR people at this time. Also, I would wager the Saudis are finding ways to happily help this downfall of the Shia menace in their own neighborhood. Our closeness with MBS and Trump getting two sword dances and a hair dance (!) is something that has not missed my notice. I'm sure this story goes deeper than we'll ever know.
Nothing will come of it. The media will bury it, and Republicans are too much (cat word) to do anything.
Labels are so important. Label them pro-democracy activists, the CIA may not look so good. Easier to string them up when you label them as communists.