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

[C C]

[...] Apparently the US believes that it has more or less achieved its objectives for the war... So the President didn't hold back and posted this:

"Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran," Trump's post read. "There will be nothing like it!!!"

"Open the F----- Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH!" read Trump's message to Iran's leaders. "Praise be to Allah."

Israeli media is reporting that Israel is working with the US to draw up a target list of infrastructure (electricity grid, transport and perhaps oil industry) targets. Israel has always taken a hard line on the war (go for a knockout blow) while the US wanted to avoid attacking things that would crash the Iranian economy and make the Iranian people suffer. Throughout the first five weeks of the war, lights have remained on in Iran. They might be about to go out on Tuesday and roads and bridges might be cut as well. That could conceivably cut off water (which sometimes depends on electric pumps) and halt food from reaching markets. [...]

It was always going to be some extreme that Israel wanted at the start, so just get it done already. The show needs to be closed down well before the mid-terms to give the economy a chance to stabilize, and encourage amnesia to incrementally creep in. Do the Republican candidates and incumbents a favor, which includes keeping a hand out of the war and fossil fuel disruption cookie jar for the rest of the year.

Granting that Iran will let the US and Israel quit after this. They may keep lobbing an occasional missile and drone attack at American bases and Israeli cities for months. The new military regime could be crazy or drunk enough on power to not allow the conflict a curtain fall.

You sound more and more like you've been drinking from the horseshoe-right/left antisemitic conspiracy theories.

I agree that it needs to wrap well before the midterms, but I think you give people's memories far too much credit. It could easily go another 2 months, with plenty of time for the economy to kick back up into high gear... especially if my theory about Trump dropping all the tariffs to boost the economy is also correct. If anything, right now, the war is working in Trump's favor for the midterms. If enough of the tariffs couldn't be maintained long enough, the war tamping down the economy does the same job.

The trick is making sure no one has time to think a booming economy is the status quo before the midterms, but enough for Republicans to campaign on it. But even with the war and tariffs, jobs numbers, etc. continue to beat expectations.

And there's only one way to ensure that Iran doesn't continue to be a thorn in the international side, no matter how small. That's to finish the job. An engagement that lasts 2 or 3 months is a small price to pay for more lasting peace and prosperity in the region... which would be historic.

#Background (an Israeli plan that the US was following): David Barnea devised a plan to overthrow the Islamic Republic of Iran by galvanizing the Iranian opposition after several days of U.S.-Israeli strikes and assassinations, prompting them to riot and rebel against the government, leading to its collapse. [...] According to Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz, Israel had been planning to strike Iran in mid-2026, however the timetable was moved earlier to February in light of the widespread 2025-2026 Iranian protests which had been ongoing since 28 December 2025 [...] On 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel launched attacks on various Iranian military sites and leaders...

#Lack of uprising (regime change redefined to having been accomplished or was never an objective to begin with): On 20 March, Netanyahu said that "You can't do revolutions from the air" and therefore "There has to be a ground component as well," of which "there are many possibilities," and expressed hope that "the Iranian people will exploit the conditions we are creating for them to take to the streets." Trump meanwhile emphasized that the killing of Iranian leaders was in itself "regime change." [...] Secretary of State Marco Rubio, however, downplayed the regime change element, asserting that "our objectives here from the very beginning had nothing to do with the leadership."

Since sufficient ground troops to accomplish an overthrow seems to be where the US is going to draw the line when it comes to listening to Israel...

Trump's April 1st speech echoes Rubio: "Regime change was not our goal. We never said regime change, but regime change has occurred because of all of their original leaders’ death. They’re all dead. The new group is less radical and much more reasonable."

But sure, let's get out prematurely, abandon the Iranian people to retaliation, and go right back to the decades-old status quo within a year or two. 9_9

Again, if the next round of "we are going to hit each and every one of their electric generating plants very hard" still somehow does not completely eliminate Iran's urge and capacity to occasionally launch attacks on Israel, US military bases, and refineries in the overall region, then... The desire for extended conflict could well be fulfilled right up to the mid-terms and beyond.

[Syne]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh
"He [Mohammad Mosaddegh] was elected to the Iranian parliament in 1923 and served through a contentious 1952 election into the 17th Iranian Majlis,[7] until his government was overthrown in the 1953 Iranian coup d'état aided by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom (MI6) and the United States (CIA), led by Kermit Roosevelt Jr.[8][9] Mosaddegh's National Front was accordingly suppressed in the undemocratically manipulated 1954 general election.

His time as prime minister was marked by the clash with the British government, known as the Abadan Crisis, following the nationalisation of the Iranian oil industry, which had been built by the British on Persian lands since 1913 through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC/AIOC), later known as British Petroleum (BP).

In the aftermath of the overthrow, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi consolidated power and negotiated the Consortium Agreement of 1954 with the British, which gave split ownership of Iranian oil production between Iran and Western companies until 1979."

...
In March 1951, Mosaddegh nationalised the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, cancelling its oil concession, which was otherwise set to expire in 1993, and expropriating its assets.
...
The British government announced a de facto blockade and embargo, reinforced its naval force in the Persian Gulf, and lodged complaints against Iran before the United Nations Security Council,[43] where, on 15 October 1951, Mosaddegh declared that "the petroleum industry has contributed nothing to well-being of the people or to the technological progress or industrial development of my country."
...
The entire Iranian oil industry came to a virtual standstill, with oil production dropping almost 96% from 664,000 barrels (105,600 m3) in 1950 to 27,000 barrels (4,300 m3) in 1952.[47] This Abadan Crisis reduced Iran's oil income to almost nothing, putting a severe strain on the implementation of Mosaddegh's promised domestic reforms.
...
As his base of support was in urban areas and not in the provinces, the proposed reform no longer barred illiterate voters, but it placed them into a separate category from literate voters and increased the representation of the urban population.
...
His government came under scrutiny for ending the 1952 election before rural votes could be fully counted.
...
His National Front party had made up 30 of the 79 deputies elected. Yet none of those present vetoed the statement, and completion of the elections was postponed indefinitely. The 17th Majlis convened in April 1952, with the minimum required[d] of the 136 seats filled.
...
On 16 July 1952, during the royal approval of his new cabinet, Mosaddegh insisted on the constitutional prerogative of the Prime Minister to name a Minister of War and the Chief of Staff, something the Shah had done up to that point. The Shah refused, seeing it as unconstitutional and a means for Mosaddegh to consolidate his power over the government at the expense of the monarchy.
...
Veteran politician Ahmad Qavam (also known as Ghavam os-Saltaneh) was appointed as Iran's new Prime Minister. On the day of his appointment, he announced his intention to resume negotiations with the British to end the oil dispute, a reversal of Mosaddegh's policy. The National Front—along with various Nationalist, Islamist, and socialist parties and groups[57]—including Tudeh—responded by calling for protests, assassinations of the Shah and other royalists, strikes, and mass demonstrations in favour of Mosaddegh. Major strikes broke out in all of Iran's major towns, with the Bazaar closing down in Tehran. Over 250 demonstrators in Tehran, Hamadan, Ahvaz, Isfahan, and Kermanshah were killed or suffered serious injuries.
...
Frightened by the unrest, the Shah asked for Qavam's resignation and re-appointed Mosaddegh to form a government, granting him control over the Ministry of War he had previously demanded.[60] The Shah asked whether he should step down as monarch, but Mosaddegh declined.
...
More popular than ever, a greatly strengthened Mosaddegh introduced a single-clause bill to parliament to grant him emergency "dictatorial decree" powers for six months to pass "any law he felt necessary for obtaining not only financial solvency, but also electoral, judicial, and educational reforms"[62] in order to implement his nine-point reform program and to bypass the stalled negotiations of the nationalisation of the oil industry.
...
Six months proved not long enough, so Mosaddegh asked for an extension in January 1953, successfully pressing Parliament to extend his emergency powers for another 12 months.
...
Partly through the efforts of Iranians sympathising with the British, and partly in fear of the growing dictatorial powers of the Prime Minister, several former members of Mosaddegh's coalition turned against him, fearing arrest.
...
Hossein Makki strongly opposed the dissolution of the majlis by Mossadegh and evaluated that, because of its closure, the right to dismiss the Prime minister is reserved for the Shah.
...
A referendum to dissolve parliament and give the prime minister power to make law was submitted to voters, and it passed with 99 per cent approval, 2,043,300 votes to 1,300 votes against.[87] According to historian Mark Gasiorowski, "There were separate polling stations for yes and no votes, producing sharp criticism of Mosaddegh" and that the "controversial referendum...gave the CIA's precoup propaganda campaign to show up Mosaddegh as an anti-democratic dictator an easy target".[88] On or around 16 August, Parliament was suspended indefinitely, and Mosaddegh's emergency powers were extended.
...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh

So Mosaddegh's ambitions to autocracy actually forced the shah to consolidate power to himself, which eventually led to the mullahs taking over that centralized power under authoritarian theocracy. Due to Mosaddegh's actions, power was going to be centralized, one way or the other... where it had been becoming more democratic. This is what led to the ayatollahs taking over... once power was centralized enough to rig elections, etc..

---

You sound more and more like you've been drinking from the horseshoe-right/left antisemitic conspiracy theories.

I agree that it needs to wrap well before the midterms, but I think you give people's memories far too much credit. It could easily go another 2 months, with plenty of time for the economy to kick back up into high gear... especially if my theory about Trump dropping all the tariffs to boost the economy is also correct. If anything, right now, the war is working in Trump's favor for the midterms. If enough of the tariffs couldn't be maintained long enough, the war tamping down the economy does the same job.

The trick is making sure no one has time to think a booming economy is the status quo before the midterms, but enough for Republicans to campaign on it. But even with the war and tariffs, jobs numbers, etc. continue to beat expectations.

And there's only one way to ensure that Iran doesn't continue to be a thorn in the international side, no matter how small. That's to finish the job. An engagement that lasts 2 or 3 months is a small price to pay for more lasting peace and prosperity in the region... which would be historic.

#Background (an Israeli plan that the US was following): David Barnea devised a plan to overthrow the Islamic Republic of Iran by galvanizing the Iranian opposition after several days of U.S.-Israeli strikes and assassinations, prompting them to riot and rebel against the government, leading to its collapse. [...] According to Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz, Israel had been planning to strike Iran in mid-2026, however the timetable was moved earlier to February in light of the widespread 2025-2026 Iranian protests which had been ongoing since 28 December 2025 [...] On 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel launched attacks on various Iranian military sites and leaders...

#Lack of uprising (regime change redefined to having been accomplished or was never an objective to begin with): On 20 March, Netanyahu said that "You can't do revolutions from the air" and therefore "There has to be a ground component as well," of which "there are many possibilities," and expressed hope that "the Iranian people will exploit the conditions we are creating for them to take to the streets." Trump meanwhile emphasized that the killing of Iranian leaders was in itself "regime change." [...] Secretary of State Marco Rubio, however, downplayed the regime change element, asserting that "our objectives here from the very beginning had nothing to do with the leadership."

Since sufficient ground troops to accomplish an overthrow seems to be where the US is going to draw the line when it comes to listening to Israel...

Trump's April 1st speech echoes Rubio: "Regime change was not our goal. We never said regime change, but regime change has occurred because of all of their original leaders’ death. They’re all dead. The new group is less radical and much more reasonable."

But sure, let's get out prematurely, abandon the Iranian people to retaliation, and go right back to the decades-old status quo within a year or two. 9_9

Again, if the next round of "we are going to hit each and every one of their electric generating plants very hard" still somehow does not completely eliminate Iran's urge and capacity to occasionally launch attacks on Israel, US military bases, and refineries in the overall region, then... The desire for extended conflict could well be fulfilled right up to the mid-terms and beyond.

See, you're still buying into the conspiracy that Israel pulls the strings in the US. Yes, Israel has its own motives and goals. Shocking, I know. But the US deciding that the window of opportunity, before Iran gained nuclear weapons, was closing is independent. Yes, I know, shocking that the US can also have its own, independent motives and goals.

So you imagine Iran has an infinite supply of missiles and drones, even with their manufacturing capacity crippled... even if they lose power?