Scrutable

IvanV wrote: Tue Mar 03, 2026 6:46 pm

Grumble wrote: Tue Mar 03, 2026 3:39 pm

TopBadger wrote: Tue Mar 03, 2026 1:39 pm The pre-emptive attack of Iran is just another nail in the coffin of "Rules based international order" - which was something of a facade in the first place.

Hopefully the US will successfully neuter the IRGC and Iranians will choose democracy because now is their time to choose.

Choosing democracy in a war zone is pretty hard. Maybe more likely Iran will fall into warlord rule.

And you don't get a choice, because the regime remains completely in charge and doesn't offer any such choice.

This is not remotely the level of military intervention that is going to cause societal ructions, loss of local control, in a state of this size and established central control. Iran is 1.6 million sq km, or in American units, about 6 Texases. It has about 92 million people. It has a long-established centralised state, arguably continuously for around 2500 years, in thorough control of all its lands. There are no insurgencies, for all that 50% of the population isn't ethnically Iranian.

The Iraqi army got trashed and humiliated in the recapture of Kuwait, but the Iraqi state survived. It took a much larger military build-up and a land invasion to topple the Ba'athist regime.

The Houthis in N Yemen have been bombed to pieces for years by the Saudis, who eventually stopped because they weren't achieving anything. The Americans recently bombed them too, specifically to reduce their military capabilities to interfere with shipping and bomb Israel. But the Houthis remain in charge. The US had no ambition to change that, because it knew it had no realistic ability to effect such a change with just aerial bombing.

This is not Syria, which was infested by jihadists able to call on international supplies from international jihadist groups. The Syrian Ba'athists very nearly held out, willing to commit appalling atrocities to stay in control. The Iranian regime will likely be as ruthless as the Syrian, if it has to be.

Maybe the Iranian Kurds are a potential source of resistance to the regime, in the area where they live, as they were in Syria and Iraq, and with routes through the mountains to be supplied by their ethnic compatriots over the border. But the Turks will be keeping a close eye on the Kurds, keen to ensure no independent Kurdish nation emerges.

So I don't see anything other than decorative changes occurring to the Iranian regime. And frankly I hope nothing as terrible as the Syrian civil war occurs. But I think the Iranian regime is sufficiently in control that such an intense civil war is unlikely.

TopBadger wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2026 9:17 am It's too early to tell what is going to happen.

I'm no change management guru... but it seems to me that there are only ever three possible outcomes on any change, things get better, get worse, or stay about the same. Therefore the odds of improvement, all things being equal, is 1 in 3.

It may be that the US and Israel believe that Khamenei was so bad that things couldn't really get worse, so maybe they figured the odds of improvement were 1 in 2.

In any case, they've started their experiment and we've all got to wait to see the outcome. But it seems that a "defanged" Iran would be a change for the better for everyone outside Iran. Whether the people of Iran are willing and able to push for democratic change is on them - hopefully we've learned by now that you can't force democracy on countries, they have to fight for that themselves.

jimbob wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2026 10:20 am I think you are giving them far too much credit for their level of thought.

TopBadger wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2026 9:17 am It may be that the US and Israel believe that Khamenei was so bad that things couldn't really get worse, so maybe they figured the odds of improvement were 1 in 2.

IvanV wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2026 5:44 pm

TopBadger wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2026 9:17 am It may be that the US and Israel believe that Khamenei was so bad that things couldn't really get worse, so maybe they figured the odds of improvement were 1 in 2.

Things can get a lot worse.

There are many places in the world a lot worse than Iran.

There are stable places with much more controlling leaders and much worse economies, like North Korea and Eritrea.

There are places without internal stability, which is usually a lot worse than places with internal stability.

Establishing central control to create internal stability is the first step on the route to better economic conditions. Dictatorships are bad for economic conditions, but not as bad as internal instability. The difficulty of economic growth in a dictatorship is, are you so much in control, with such credibility, that you can let go enough to let economic growth happen.

Lew Dolby wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2026 1:54 pm Many a true word ,etc, etc

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... ns-cartoon

Sciolus wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2026 5:59 pm ...The US are using a definition of "worse" that means worse for the people government of Israel. If Iran collapses into a failed state that is unable to launch missiles or sponsor anti-Israel paramilitary groups, that's a success in their book.

Lew Dolby wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2026 1:54 pm Many a true word ,etc, etc

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... ns-cartoon

Dubai residents stuck abroad because of the Iran war are trying to return home to avoid incurring large tax bills by spending too long outside the emirate, according to travel executives and tax lawyers.

Some are turning to private jet hire in order to prevent them being disqualified from the UAE’s generous tax status, which has no income tax on individuals, investors or most companies.

When you're more afraid of HMRC than the IRGC...

IvanV wrote: Thu Mar 05, 2026 9:00 am

Sciolus wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2026 5:59 pm ...The US are using a definition of "worse" that means worse for the people government of Israel. If Iran collapses into a failed state that is unable to launch missiles or sponsor anti-Israel paramilitary groups, that's a success in their book.

Good point. But, more generally, failed states - or at least states that do not control all their territory - are good bases for people sponsoring terrorism in other countries. Indeed they have become the usual places for it in recent times. Iran is something of an exception. At least in an established state like Iran, the rulers care something for the consequences of what they do, are interested in trade and an economy. Bad actors operating from a failed state care nothing for that, and so are more unrestrained in their behaviour.

You might be right that the present US government would think that Iran collapsing into a failed state would be a success. But it would be mistaken. As we saw previously in Iraq, Iran so collapsing could become a much more dangerous exporter of terrorism.

FlammableFlower wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2026 10:09 am He's the guy who, in the space of about 20 seconds, managed to say the US was at war with Iran and then deny they were at war with Iran. He also in another interview repeatedly said Iraq instead on Iran, corrected himself, and then kept repeating the mistake.

IvanV wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2026 6:33 pm If we are unlucky, well I don't want to think what he might do if we are unlucky.