Will Iran regime fall, or just another umpteenth fail of protesters? (rerun hobbies)

Syne Wrote:The Trump admin never agreed to any part of their ridiculous 10-point plan, nor anything about Hezbollah. So that's all a lie,

Negotiation starts with agreement to negotiate .. if either side won't negotiate then no negotiation .. that isn't a lie .. that's just how it works - I don't see why you would pretend it isn't.

(Apr 10, 2026 11:21 PM)confused2 Wrote:

Syne Wrote:The Trump admin never agreed to any part of their ridiculous 10-point plan, nor anything about Hezbollah. So that's all a lie,

Negotiation starts with agreement to negotiate .. if either side won't negotiate then no negotiation .. that isn't a lie .. that's just how it works - I don't see why you would pretend it isn't.

No, you're just ignorant of the concessions the Trump admin offered. 9_9

---

(Apr 10, 2026 10:59 PM)C C Wrote: Unfortunately, though, the citizenry of Iran is like that of Russia and China. The only time they can overthrow a regime is when the ultimate result is to replace it with an equally or worse tyrannical regime. And the US can't accomplish it sans ground troops.

The Trump admin has never planned to take the lead in forming any government in Iran. That has always been up to the people... learning the lessons from trying to implant democracy from the outside. Will they pick worse? Maybe, but the ensuing chaos is as effective in stopping the Iranian regime ambitions as an occupation. All we need is enough internal turmoil to keep them busy enough within their own country that they have no resources to seek nuclear weapons, spread terrorism, etc..

Iranians currently want the shah back, at least as a transitional leader, but remember, before the socialist Mosaddegh tried to centralize power, the shah was leading a relatively free, egalitarian, modern parliamentary government.

(Apr 11, 2026 02:38 AM)Syne Wrote: Iranians currently want the shah back, at least as a transitional leader, but remember, before the socialist Mosaddegh tried to centralize power, the shah was leading a relatively free, egalitarian, modern parliamentary government.

That "belief" of what Iranians want is based upon a minority that uses the west as a voice to oppose their regime. In some sense is the same issue as Russia, not everyone agrees with the regime but there isn't enough countering the regime to make any real difference, so the people end up in a zombie state towing the regime line for survival.

While it might be assumed running bombing runs on targets would wake them from the zombie slumber if they realise they have less "Masters", due reliance caused by repression (Stockholm Syndrome) they aren't particularly likely to rise up and seize the innitiative. If anything, they are more likely to see the death and destruction and rally around those that have opressed them in that way.

They are not going to want an americanised puppet shah to replace their regime. So this is a proper pickle the US has made for itself, as Israel will wash it's hands of them once they've used the "Seizefire" to their advantage.

(Apr 11, 2026 12:18 PM)stryder Wrote:

(Apr 11, 2026 02:38 AM)Syne Wrote: Iranians currently want the shah back, at least as a transitional leader, but remember, before the socialist Mosaddegh tried to centralize power, the shah was leading a relatively free, egalitarian, modern parliamentary government.

That "belief" of what Iranians want is based upon a minority that uses the west as a voice to oppose their regime. In some sense is the same issue as Russia, not everyone agrees with the regime but there isn't enough countering the regime to make any real difference, so the people end up in a zombie state towing the regime line for survival.

While it might be assumed running bombing runs on targets would wake them from the zombie slumber if they realise they have less "Masters", due reliance caused by repression (Stockholm Syndrome) they aren't particularly likely to rise up and seize the innitiative. If anything, they are more likely to see the death and destruction and rally around those that have opressed them in that way.

They are not going to want an americanised puppet shah to replace their regime. So this is a proper pickle the US has made for itself, as Israel will wash it's hands of them once they've used the "Seizefire" to their advantage.

No, it's what the Persian majority who were out protesting, risking, and in the tens of thousands, being killed by the regime believe. You don't risk that if you're completely cowed.

Sounds like you've drank deeply from the Iran regime propaganda, and their hapless parrots.

No one said anything about "Americanized" nor puppet anything. We just want an Iran friendlier to the West. We're well-aware that any change, no matter what it may be, has to be done internally, whether the will of the Iranian people or next regime to fill the power vacuum.

---

We’re not speaking the same language.
When Westerners say “ceasefire,” they imagine the cessation of violence as the beginning of peace and goodwill.
In Arabic, the word “hudna” is translated to English as “ceasefire,” but the meaning is very different. Hudna is a temporary pause in fighting, to rest, rearm, and regroup so that fighting can continue later more successfully.
A hudna can last days, weeks, and even years. It is a matter of how much time it takes to be ready to fight again.
In the Middle East, treaties, “deals,” are not made out of a desire to create peace. They are made because the weak side needed to find a way to live to fight another day.
There is no such thing as the victor being magnanimous and “sharing.” Sharing between opposing parties occurs when one side is too weak to assert victory over the other. Victory is subjugation. Dominance.
While the people of the West might think that sounds barbaric and awful, those of us who have learned to live in the Middle East will tell you that not speaking the language, assuming that the other side thinks and desires the same thing you do, is the fastest way to being subjugated yourself.
- https://www.facebook.com/ForestRainM/pos...D1LVHgKp9l

Trump and Iran.. not speaking the same language?
The Art of War was written in about 500BC .. Trump's read it*, the Iranians have read it .. everyone with any influence has read it.

Currently it looks like the Iranians are playing a weaker hand better than Trump is playing his stronger hand.

Try 'The art of war summary' or read in pdf form.

*Possibly not.

Quote:While the people of the West might think that sounds barbaric and awful, those of us who have learned to live in the Middle East will tell you that not speaking the language, assuming that the other side thinks and desires the same thing you do, is the fastest way to being subjugated yourself.

Well duh! That's why it's standard protocol to take some really good translators with you.

MR Wrote:Well duh! That's why it's standard protocol to take some really good translators with you.

In fairness the Iranians probably speak such good English that folks don't think they need a translator - I'm not sure 'dealing with idiots' is even addressed in 'The Art of War'.

It's past 2 AM in Pakistan and talks between the United States and Iran are continuing at this extremely late hour.

The tone is said to be mutually respectful, but neither side seems willing to move off its own red lines, which appear to be deeply incompatible.

Frankly, I expect these talks to fail and the war to resume. The US might not go for a total knockout blow to the Iranian economy, which Trump seems loathe to do. But the US might again pursue more limited objectives such as cutting off Iran's oil exports in such a way that they can be turned on again fairly quickly if Iran cooperates. And again, I expect to see use of graphite bombs to take down large parts of the Iranian power grid without seriously damaging it (by creating short circuits that trigger protective circuit breakers). Perhaps cyber attacks, stuff like that. A less-lethal attack on the Iranian economy, coupled with redoubled attacks on anything remaining of the Iranian military and defense industries.

And we will probably see warships escorting convoys of oil tankers through Hormuz. Our "allies" really need to be part of that, since they (and China) are the ones who consume that oil. About the only way that Iran has left (they no longer have a navy or an air force) to attack convoys would be drones, and modern warships should be able to defeat them in the great majority of cases. While wasting million dollar missiles on $30K drones would be wasteful, aircraft can splash drones, phalanx type close in weapons systems are effective, and there are all kinds of radio jamming things. Plus punitive attacks on wherever drones are observed being stored or launched from.

As of March 30, the Iranians had fired 1,941 drones at the United Arab Emirates. It's probably well over 2,000 now. The country has suffered some damage, but it's still doing reasonably well due to effective drone defenses.

(Apr 11, 2026 10:30 PM)confused2 Wrote:

MR Wrote:Well duh! That's why it's standard protocol to take some really good translators with you.

In fairness the Iranians probably speak such good English that folks don't think they need a translator - I'm not sure 'dealing with idiots' is even addressed in 'The Art of War'.

Syne already called them savages. He thinks there is only one language they can understand--being threatened with death.

(Apr 11, 2026 10:19 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:

Quote:While the people of the West might think that sounds barbaric and awful, those of us who have learned to live in the Middle East will tell you that not speaking the language, assuming that the other side thinks and desires the same thing you do, is the fastest way to being subjugated yourself.

Well duh! That's why it's standard protocol to take some really good translators with you.

(Apr 11, 2026 10:48 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: Syne already called them savages. He thinks there is only one language they can understand--being threatened with death.

Translators do not make up for incompatible cultures. You'd know that if you understood them at all. But you naively presume they share your values. 9_9