• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Monitoring the situation in Iran

When my youngest employees are telling me about their lives, it's not access to home ownership or the cost of secondary education that they cite as reasons they're not advancing up the professional ladder. It's the un-rubblized status of Tehran. Single mothers can be heard complaining loudly about it in any grocery store or shopping center. Cabbies and construction workers grouse about it all day long. Finally, we've got an administration in power truly listening to the material needs of the next generation Americans. As a bonus we can even lobby for a few million of their displaced citizens to migrant here and become permanent residents. I know when China and Russia witness how easily and quickly our Total Victory comes, geopolitical tensions are going to cool off quite a bit. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq 2 and Syria do not count as we weren't really trying. This time will be completely different. In those conflicts we had to overcome having such a well-stocked and competently staffed force. It'll lull you to sleep! This time with the physical inventory precarity and constant shuffling of bodies to piece-together physically fit and English-literate units, our decision makers area going to be operating with greatly heightened senses on the razor's edge. The world ought to be reminded of our exceptionalism.

I see Iran as a threat to our allies in the region, but hardly worth trading our readiness to deter Russia or China to mobilize against. Not that Iran is inhabited by altruistic, Hollywood movie loving Carebears or any other such hallucinations. We're just up to our ears in the cans and checks our grandfathers kicked down the road and wrote with the utmost confidence. We ought to be paving that road to kick things down and stuffing our banks to make sure those checks clear with every ounce of effort we have. Lest we become Greece without the magnanimous demographics and social bonds.
 


Vance, no!

I'm usually all for diplomacy, nine or eight times out of ten, but this is one of those times in world history where I think that would be stupid.
 
Last edited:


Vance, no!

I'm usually all for diplomacy, nine or eight times out of ten, but this is one of those times in world history where I think that would be stupid.

Getting involved in a land war in Asia is the height of stupidity.

E23hIjnYdvj5oCRN.jpg
 
Getting involved in a land war in Asia is the height of stupidity.

E23hIjnYdvj5oCRN.jpg

The U.S. does not need to fight a land war in Asia to win this (although, purely hypothetically speaking, it could arguably be more justified than the whole Iraq War fiasco).

I don't think the U.S. needs to land regular forces in Iran, but they could distribute weapons, hack computer systems, knock out key regime infrastructure and military bases, bribe or kill military leaders...lots of other things.
 
Last edited:
The U.S. does not need to fight a land war in Asia to win this (although, purely hypothetically speaking, it could arguably be more justified than the whole Iraq War fiasco).

I don't think the U.S. needs to land regular forces in Iran, but they could distribute weapons, hack computer systems, knock out key regime infrastructure and military bases, bribe or kill military leaders...lots of other things.
It's a lot more complicated than that. This needs some major thinking, one does not simply walk into Iran.
 
The only "idiocy" is the EU spending more buying Russian LNG than they have spent on Ukraine aid. Spare me the pontificating about what the US is or isn't doing while the EU continues to fund both sides of the war due to their energy reliance on Russia. Something President Trump warned EU leaders about during his first term and was laughed at for his troubles.

The EU has been catastrophically retarded on this (and still is), but pretending the US response has been a masterclass is something. Appeasing Putin whose word isn't worth shit, economic lifelines, back-channel territorial bargaining, and sanctions relief for not only an enemy, but an enemy that's struggling, is next-level idiocy. That's on top of that period where Washington denied Ukraine weapons and intelligence in their fight against one of the West's top geopolitical enemies.

While Putin obviously bears the full responsibility of this war, the US and the West response never helped with relations "resets" that followed each time Russia fucked someone over. I actually place most of the blame on Obama for incentivising Russian aggression due to his his weak-ass appeasement policies. I remember thinking WTF are you doing when he announced he wouldn't be proceeding with Bush's plans for a missile defence shield over Eastern Europe. And Obama did everything he could to stop sending arms and equipment into Ukraine, and this was after Russia's annexation of Georgia, Crimea and the MH17 shoot-down, and all the other shit I've lost track of. It would have been the perfect and valid excuse to fortify Ukraine and try to get them into NATO, but instead Obama's weak-ass responses showed Putin that the sky was the limit.

And sure, the EU buying Russian LNG is ludicrous (and something we've already blasted them for in the locked Ukraine War thread), but that is only one slice of the picture. If the EU is guilty of funding Russia's war machine, the US shares some of the blame for enabling the strategic conditions for the war in the first place by signalling that Ukrainian sovereignty was negotiable and that NATO security guarantees had limits or wouldn't be enforced.

The one thing I will always credit Trump for is that from his first term onward he forced NATO members to take defense spending seriously. Underinvestment was directly encouraging Russian bullshit, and Trump's pressure actually moved the needle. Whether his current rhetoric is part of an intentional 5D chess pressure campaign to get NATO/EU faster into gear, or just Trump being Trump, but the effect was real and overdue. No argument from me there.

But the real strategic question and something I will always "pontificate" whenever the US kicks Zelenskyy / Ukraine in the balls: how does a Russian victory in Ukraine benefit the United States and allies. It fucking doesn't. It weakens NATO, rewards nuclear coercion, expands Russian strategic depth, undermines US interests and security guarantees globally... so why the fuck is the US bending over backwards for Russia instead of just bitchslapping at every opportunity while they still can?
 
It's a lot more complicated than that. This needs some major thinking, one does not simply walk into Iran.

Of course it's complicated. We've only scratched the surface of the issues here.

At the same time, not doing anything is also a choice with its own complications.

Leaving a theocratic regime in place that, sooner or later, will continue developing nuclear weapons is also a choice with consequences. Letting the brave Iranian people on the streets die alone after Trump, directly or indirectly, raised their spirits and hopes is also a choice. Iran is arguably at one of its weakest points in modern history. Russia, one of its main sponsors, is also weaker now than ever before. It's not a perfect scenario, I know, but it's certainly better now than even thinking of doing this five or ten years ago. If there is one area where Trump's "new" muscular foreign policy, so to speak, could represent a radical change for good, this is it (not, say, the Greenland nonsense).

If you're never going to intervene in Iran, then stuff like the nuclear deal, with all of its limitations, made sense. Now that Trump has already attacked Iran before and has indicated that won't be the last time, then things should be different. The absolute worst thing that Trump could do right now would be to enter into nuclear talks with Iran, even if they are willing to offer ostensibly better terms, and let the repressive regime defeat the opposition with a bloodbath.
 
Last edited:


Vance, no!

I'm usually all for diplomacy, nine or eight times out of ten, but this is one of those times in world history where I think that would be stupid.


I know Vance is in the unenviable position of being a voice of measured action as Trump's right hand, but this is one of those times I think he should adopt a more aggressive stance alongside Trump. Just NOT a ground war.
 
I know Vance is in the unenviable position of being a voice of measured action as Trump's right hand, but this is one of those times I think he should adopt a more aggressive stance alongside Trump. Just NOT a ground war.
One would hope its a posture designed to force democrats to voice approval of Vance that could then later be flipped on them when he runs for POTUS in 2028. If he says "negotiate" and Trump says "we fight", then dems gotta support one of those 2 positions, right?
 
This makes no sense. Do you really see American liberals as pro-Ayatollah? Do you talk to any liberals with any good-faith effort?

I would argue the opposite, that legacy media is dominated by Fox News and liberals are split amongst several channels. CBS is now trying to move into the Fox News space by aligning its coverage with what boomers want to see, which is generally a pro-Trump, America-First, Anti-city perspective.

In fact, X and other social media is even worse at worldview confirmation bias because it programmatically cherry picks the news that people want to engage with, and that happens to be news that emtertains them while it confirms their world view.

Have a anti-black racist worldview? Bam! All videos of black people behaving antisocially/violently. Combine that with cognitive illusions such as overly-strong pattern recognition and generalization and you have essentially created a choose-your-own reality simulator that ratchets toward silos and extremism.

Fox News originated the idea of intentionally boosting a worldview and conditioning people distrust other news outlets. Social media accelerates that trend a thousand-fold.

Those without a shared history cannot have a shared future.
Legacy media in the US is Fox on the right and it seems every other channel is left. So it's basically one main channel supporting conservatives vs the rest.

Liberals cherry pick the topics that always seem to go against the right. Even something like the recent Venezuela or Iran events the past couple weeks you hardly see any non-Fox channel or loud Karen types supporting liberating the people. Simply because Trump supports it.

Lefties alway will pick the side that skews to the down and out guy. Even if it's a criminal doing dumb shit, as long as that guy is perceived as a lesser class person, they'll always be more lenient. But if it's a white guy or rich guy, it's different. Left will almost always pick the side that is anti-conservative gov, anti-corporation/business, and anti-western.

Not too often you'll see any left wing media or social media types parade views about liberating something as simple as women in those regions who have to wear hijabs, or cant vote, or cant do this or that, honour killings, or whatever the topic is.
 
"Effective immediately, any Country doing business with the Islamic Republic of Iran will pay a Tariff of 25% on any and all business being done with the United States of America," Trump wrote on Truth Social.

 
Last edited:
But the real strategic question and something I will always "pontificate" whenever the US kicks Zelenskyy / Ukraine in the balls: how does a Russian victory in Ukraine benefit the United States and allies. It fucking doesn't. It weakens NATO, rewards nuclear coercion, expands Russian strategic depth, undermines US interests and security guarantees globally... so why the fuck is the US bending over backwards for Russia instead of just bitchslapping at every opportunity while they still can?
The optimal position for the US is the war continuing as long as possible. This is a difficult needle to thread, but it's something which the US government is very good at. President Trump wants to end it because he considers the loss of life on both sides a tragedy beyond the strategic benefit of prolonging the war, but he is surrounded by an apparatus of state which doesn't think in moral terms like that, and which will do what it can to prolong the war.

President Trump's instinct in Iran will similarly be to help end the bloodshed, but there's no neat line from 'US strikes against Iran' to that outcome. It may just strengthen the regime's hand by giving them an external meddling enemy to link the protesters to.
 
The EU has been catastrophically retarded on this (and still is), but pretending the US response has been a masterclass is something.
Well to be fair, it should have been Europeans sending their troops and plans etc. from the very beginning, but they spent too much time arguing over how much gas they can buy still from Russia. Trump asked them in 2016 what the hell they were doing.

It should have been Europeans applying tarrifs on countries trading with Russia. Even now we have Europeans cheering regardless they will trade more with China...Who is propping up Russia.

But the real strategic question and something I will always "pontificate" whenever the US kicks Zelenskyy / Ukraine in the balls: how does a Russian victory in Ukraine benefit the United States and allies. It fucking doesn't. It weakens NATO, rewards nuclear coercion, expands Russian strategic depth, undermines US interests and security guarantees globally... so why the fuck is the US bending over backwards for Russia instead of just bitchslapping at every opportunity while they still can?
The bigger question is how does the victory of Russia change anything for USA? Closer to NATO? lol there are baltic states? Black sea control? lol there is Turkey.

Russia does not trade with USA much either. And the black and medditeranean sea is not something Russia can control. Russian power projection is also pretty limited as they tried once with Turkey, their plane was shot and Russia put embargo on tomatoes. Iran and Venezuela are too far away too for a consistent support. Even in Syria Russia was able to do anything because nobody tried to oppose them really - dealing with ISIS was a priority. And considering the origin of ISIS...It was a mess.

USA only benefitted from LNG sales to Europ, but considering that they spent 170b on Ukraine, it remains to be seen how much benefit is there. All while Europe and UK are doing their best to keep USA in Ukraine as long as possible.

The optimal position for the US is the war continuing as long as possible.
The issue is that they have no mechanisms to pressure Russia really. And when Trump tries to.chsnge this you have cries about - tariffs, let Maduro alone, don't kill Suleimani, WW3 etc.
 
Last edited:
President Trump's instinct in Iran will similarly be to help end the bloodshed, but there's no neat line from 'US strikes against Iran' to that outcome. It may just strengthen the regime's hand by giving them an external meddling enemy to link the protesters to.
The issue is that there is no strike - well there is one - that can end the regime. Protesters do not have the organizing force, the police and the army are doing nothing and the ground invasion is out of question.
 
I'm seeing figures of between 500-5000 protesters killed alongside mass arrests across the country. It doesn't matter how strong your resistance is if the Regime has decided to fight a war of attrition against its own people. They'll literally bury the country to keep their Islamic Regime in control. Sadly, the only way you're getting that out is civil war.
If the leader and his cabinet are killed, you might convince parts of the current army to at least stand down, or at best step up. But the Regime has spent the last 40 years setting up safe havens and bunkers to ensure that even in total obliteration, the Islamic Regime keeps control over Iran. And Iran will have support from the terrorist organisations its been funding and backing.
I don't think this ends well unless a superior military force steps in.
This is something I would never understand. Like huge crowds on the street, and you're like principal Skinner "am I out of touch ? no it's the protesters who are wrong" and not hesitating to kill people. What kind of legacy you'll leave to the country after doing that ?
 
What kind of legacy you'll leave to the country after doing that ?
Nobody cares. They are also thinking about who is going to pay them, will they be disbanded and so on.

In Belarus for example, the government has its own towns and areas for military families and police, where mainly the people like that purchase cheaper housing and get it for free. It is like a parallel society.
 
This is something I would never understand. Like huge crowds on the street, and you're like principal Skinner "am I out of touch ? no it's the protesters who are wrong" and not hesitating to kill people. What kind of legacy you'll leave to the country after doing that ?
Despotic regimes care only about staying power and nothing else

They all know that they would be immediately killed by the people they oppressed for so long so of course they will kill anyone they have to in order to keep power
 
12000 over 2 days is absurd. Opposition media highly inflating the number I would guess

The problem is we have no clear idea what's going on in Iran exactly. The Iranian opposition in the west has everything to gain by pumping up the number of dead hoping this will make the west take action. Then there's also Israel in the background urging the US to finally attack Iran, something Netanyahu has been pushing for 20 years now.

I read came across a Haaretz article from last October about a covert influence campaign using fake accounts and AI to drum up support for Reza Pahlavi as a possible new ruler in Iran. Now looking back at various tweets of Iranian protesters shouting Reza Pahlavi's name I wonder if those videos were genuine, altered or completely AI.


Ironically the biggest group opposing Reza Pahlav's ascendancy to the throne is the only well organized Iranian oppositon group: MEK. They've got a couple of big western supporters but MEK are seen as terrorists in Iran because they were on the side of Iraq during the absolutely brutal war with that country. Besides that, MEK is organized like a cult and came out of a communist armed resistance group. Just look at their logo and you already know this is not a democratic party based on western liberal values.

 
Last edited:
I know Vance is in the unenviable position of being a voice of measured action as Trump's right hand, but this is one of those times I think he should adopt a more aggressive stance alongside Trump. Just NOT a ground war.
Good cop, bad cop media.
 
Last edited:
Ironically the biggest group opposing Reza Pahlav's ascendancy to the throne is the only well organized Iranian oppositon group: MEK. They've got a couple of big western supporters but MEK are seen as terrorists in Iran because they were on the side of Iraq during the absolutely brutal war with that country. Besides that, MEK is organized like a cult and came out of a communist armed resistance group. Just look at their logo and you already know this is not a democratic party based on western liberal values.
The fundamental issue is that Pahlavi is a basically a "foreign" person for the elites within Iran. He is basically Elbaradei of Iran. Plus considering his love for speeches and appearing in EU, flying around on Air France. And the Khomeini was installed after one year of protests, successfully duping (or more like the media was complicit) for calling him a "moderate" figure. Interally Iran is a mess and no matter what students want, unless they are able to build a viable opposition - nothing will be done. Pahlavi should ride a tank in Iran instead of giving speeches.

I know Vance is in the unenviable position of being a voice of measured action as Trump's right hand, but this is one of those times I think he should adopt a more aggressive stance alongside Trump. Just NOT a ground war.
While it is not a good look for Vance - I do wish he was doing more in local issues instead of foreign ones as the Secretary of State is much better in that regard. Vance should spend his time dealing with AGs, Governors and such, rallying up people against the protesters and mayors. He is basically behaving like EU now.
 
Last edited:


Article:
A senior Iranian health ministry official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said about 3,000 people had been killed across the country but sought to shift the blame to "terrorists" fomenting unrest. The figure included hundreds of security officers, he said. Another government official, also speaking on the condition of anonymity, said he had seen an internal report that referred to at least 3,000 dead, and added that the toll could climb. -NYT
 


Article:
A senior Iranian health ministry official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said about 3,000 people had been killed across the country but sought to shift the blame to "terrorists" fomenting unrest. The figure included hundreds of security officers, he said. Another government official, also speaking on the condition of anonymity, said he had seen an internal report that referred to at least 3,000 dead, and added that the toll could climb. -NYT

Revolutions are always bloody. The bigger question is how to make it succeed? Shame that the protesters do not have an organizing force as "Instagram calls" are not an unifying force. Without military support - nothing will be done. Ideally Europe should have joined tarriff bandwagon with Trump, but we know that Europe won't do that. They would rather condemn on X.
 
Last edited:


Article:
A senior Iranian health ministry official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said about 3,000 people had been killed across the country but sought to shift the blame to "terrorists" fomenting unrest. The figure included hundreds of security officers, he said. Another government official, also speaking on the condition of anonymity, said he had seen an internal report that referred to at least 3,000 dead, and added that the toll could climb. -NYT

Awful
 
Revolutions are always bloody. The bigger question is how to make it succeed? Shame that the protesters do not have an organizing force as "Instagram calls" are not an unifying force. Without military support - nothing will be done. Ideally Europe should have joined tarriff bandwagon with Trump, but we know that Europe won't do that. They would rather condemn on X.
Is there a roadmap for Iran to even drive?

It's one thing for there to be some specific reforms that could be put into place, but it seems like a total government reset and all new people is completely unfeasible, at least in the short term. So what is Iran to do, exactly? Agree to hold a "fair and transparent" election in 6 months? Boot the Ayatollah and replace him with....who? A military protectorate to ensure the elections, allow in peacekeeper monitors, and manage the oil revenue and infrastructure for food and water?

Just ratcheting up the tariffs, sanctions, and blockades might increase unrest, but its gonna be a breeding ground for the most ruthless person to come out on top and I'm not sure that's in the best interests of Iran or the West. Hell, enough turmoil and some of Iran's neighbors are gonna invade to take a piece. If Iraq has their shit together they could take the oil fields and we'd be in for another Gulf War (though I don't think Trump could sell anyone on it this time).
 
Is there a roadmap for Iran to even drive?

It's one thing for there to be some specific reforms that could be put into place, but it seems like a total government reset and all new people is completely unfeasible, at least in the short term. So what is Iran to do, exactly? Agree to hold a "fair and transparent" election in 6 months? Boot the Ayatollah and replace him with....who? A military protectorate to ensure the elections, allow in peacekeeper monitors, and manage the oil revenue and infrastructure for food and water?

Just ratcheting up the tariffs, sanctions, and blockades might increase unrest, but its gonna be a breeding ground for the most ruthless person to come out on top and I'm not sure that's in the best interests of Iran or the West. Hell, enough turmoil and some of Iran's neighbors are gonna invade to take a piece. If Iraq has their shit together they could take the oil fields and we'd be in for another Gulf War (though I don't think Trump could sell anyone on it this time).
Well that's why Iraq was such a mess. Any attempts to establish a puppet won't work really - though the west kinda succeed with the first ayatollah who came from France right? It was a different time though and it took a year.
Essentially some agreement has to be made with elites, but right now the elites are ok with IRGC fighting the students. IRGC will win long term, but ayatollah will become even weaker than now so the elites from within will gain even more power without sharing it with anybody else. As I mentioned before, ideally Palhavi should have made some deals with inner forces but he hasn't done much. And elites from within would not be willing to give away the power easily like that. Invasion by other forces is also possible and even from within the fragmentation is possible with MEK, Kurds, Balochistan etc. Potentially some terrorists crossing the border from Pakistan and Afghanistan too. Iran is a very diverse state and that's why the plain bombings won't work.
Iraq War was a bit different because at least it was a plain - not the mountainous area. Iran by itself is closer to Afghanistan but has more mature institutions.

The best scenario would be if Pahlavi could recreate the Soviet Union situation with Lenin. But Lenin had bolsheviks, controlling various institutions and red army on his side. Then you had counter revolution before that where the elites took power via the Provisional Government and Lenin arrived. So for Iran it would look like the inner elites (army and co.) overthrow ayatollah and install their government. Then they crash and Pahlavi arrives on a tank.

But I don't see that happening in Iran.
 
Last edited:


On the other hand, there's this figure.



Personally I put more faith in news reports about Iran from CNN than an anonymous US "open intel" X account who usually forgets to link sources. In this case that OSINTdefender account quotes CBS News, but the actual article also shared other estimates of the number of casualties.

Article:
Britain's Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper said in Parliament on Tuesday that the U.K. government believed there "may have been 2,000 people killed, there have been more. My fear is that the number may prove to be significantly higher."

The truth has been incredibly difficult to piece together due to Iran's hardline rulers cutting off internet access and phone service in the country for the last five days. While a complete internet shutdown in Iran remained in place for a fifth day, some Iranians were able to make phone calls out of the country on Tuesday, though it was still not possible to call into Iran from outside.

A source inside Iran who was able to call out told CBS News on Tuesday that activist groups working to compile a full death toll from the protests, based on reports from medical officials across the country, believed the toll was at least 12,000, and possibly as high as 20,000.

The same source said security forces were visiting the many private hospitals across Tehran, threatening staff to hand over the names and addresses of those being treated for injuries sustained in the protests.

CBS News has not been able to independently verify the massive death toll indicated by the source, which is some many times larger than the numbers reported by most activist groups independently in recent days — though those groups have always made it clear that their tallies are likely underestimated.


So the death toll could be as "low" as 1,850 and as high as 12,00-20,000 depending on the source . .
 
Last edited:
On the other hand, there's this figure.



Personally I put more faith in news reports about Iran from CNN than an anonymous US "open intel" X account who usually forgets to link sources. In this case that OSINTdefender account quotes CBS News, but the actual article also shared other estimates of the number of casualties.

Article:
Britain's Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper said in Parliament on Tuesday that the U.K. government believed there "may have been 2,000 people killed, there have been more. My fear is that the number may prove to be significantly higher."

The truth has been incredibly difficult to piece together due to Iran's hardline rulers cutting off internet access and phone service in the country for the last five days. While a complete internet shutdown in Iran remained in place for a fifth day, some Iranians were able to make phone calls out of the country on Tuesday, though it was still not possible to call into Iran from outside.

A source inside Iran who was able to call out told CBS News on Tuesday that activist groups working to compile a full death toll from the protests, based on reports from medical officials across the country, believed the toll was at least 12,000, and possibly as high as 20,000.

The same source said security forces were visiting the many private hospitals across Tehran, threatening staff to hand over the names and addresses of those being treated for injuries sustained in the protests.

CBS News has not been able to independently verify the massive death toll indicated by the source, which is some many times larger than the numbers reported by most activist groups independently in recent days — though those groups have always made it clear that their tallies are likely underestimated.


So the death toll could be as "low" as 1,850 and as high as 12,00-20,000 depending on the source . .

To be fair there is no reason to trust any reporting as both of them has agenda in numbers. CNN also references "the rights group" and those for sure has an agenda there.
 
On the other hand, there's this figure.



Personally I put more faith in news reports about Iran from CNN than an anonymous US "open intel" X account who usually forgets to link sources. In this case that OSINTdefender account quotes CBS News, but the actual article also shared other estimates of the number of casualties.

The OSINT accounts I've been posting are a generally reliable channel of breaking information. Any deficiencies there stem from the nature of breaking news more so than the accounts themselves. Regarding "forgetting links," the way X works, anything with a link is significantly deboosted to near-zero, so they can't include a link directly. That's Elon's fault, not theirs.
 
The OSINT accounts I've been posting are a generally reliable channel of breaking information. Any deficiencies there stem from the nature of breaking news more so than the accounts themselves. Regarding "forgetting links," the way X works, anything with a link is significantly deboosted to near-zero, so they can't include a link directly. That's Elon's fault, not theirs.
To be fair CNN might as well report that IRGC was nice and kind for not killing too much.

Case in point
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom