-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Monitoring the situation in Iran
- Thread starter EviLore
- Start date
Hypnotoad
Member
These mental gymnastics to make sense of the Trump administration's policy toward US allies are absurd. One can rightfully denounce the Iranian regime as a blight on humanity, and also call out the plethora of problems that exist in Europe. Heck, I even agree with the viewpoint that parts of Western Europe are on the precipice of civilizational suicide. That still doesn't absolve the utter insanity that Trump and his circle have displayed over the past year. Even supposed allies in governments like Italy and political parties that welcomed his presidency can't stand all this verbal diarrhea that he spouts daily, and it has already hindered their chances of stronger electoral success.
Smiggs
Member
Leaders that are religious fanatics would rather die as a martyr instead of letting their people have freedom.
Bojji
Gold Member
I don't think they will anytime soon. If USA leaves Iran without any ground invasion going on they will just rebuild their stuff in the next few years (with Russian/Chinese help).
Last edited:
MisterFalcon
Member
The Iranian clerics will be in power long after Trump dies. That's not a good thing at all but it's the most likely outcome.
Read up on the Iran-Iraq war when an actual massive army invaded a much, much weaker Iran.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
It will fracture for sure. And it can swing any way. There was nice write up on it
In Iran, power is built on clan‑family networks rather than formal institutions. The Larijani family is among the top three in terms of control over key state structures (the judiciary, security, and the nuclear program). After Ali Larijani's death, the clan's influence will weaken, but his brothers (above all Sadeq) will retain part of their positions. However, it is important to understand that in recent years Ali Larijani himself has held a literally key position in Iran's power system and was not a purely technical figure who could easily be replaced (as Aragchi claims).
Apart from the Larijanis, there are several other top clan‑family networks. First and foremost is, of course, the Khamenei family, which maintains control over the office of the Rahbar, the security services, and a significant part of the IRGC. Members of the clan occupy key positions in intelligence, the economy, and propaganda.
Next in influence is the Hashemi‑Rafsanjani family. After the death of former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, its influence declined, but it is preserved through his children and sons‑in‑law, and the Rafsanjani clan is the undisputed leader of the systemic opposition and reformist circles.
The Khatami family clan—its influence has also weakened. The clan competed with the Rafsanjani family for influence within the reformist wing of the elite and remains an influential player on this flank, enjoying strong support from the urban middle class.
The Motahhari clan is a classic "revolutionary aristocracy," with strong ties to the Larijani clan and, in fact, together with it exerts influence through the clergy, parliament, and ideology.
The Golpayegani family holds a key post—the leadership of the Rahbar's office together with the Khamenei family—controlling huge financial flows, intelligence, and personnel appointments across all structures. This is a shadow elite comparable in influence to the Larijani family.
One can also mention the Velayati and Qadr/Arafi families. The choice of Arafi as interim Rahbar was due to the strong influence of these families in Qom and their unique position linking the clergy, the security apparatus, and the secular authorities.
Fans of the series "Game of Thrones" will find much in common (though, of course, direct analogies would be inaccurate) between the power system of Westeros and that of contemporary Iran. The Larijani clan occupies roughly the position of the Lannister clan in Martin's universe.
In other words, Larijani's death may not bring about obvious, immediate critical problems for the stability of power in Iran, but the loss looks almost irreplaceable—there is simply no one right now who can take his place. In 2025–2026, Ali Larijani was not just "one of the influential figures"; in the course of the current war he effectively became the central figure in running the country after Khamenei's death. Many Western and Iranian sources called him the "de facto leader," "the one who really rules," the coordinator of the war, nuclear policy, repression, and foreign relations. His death is not just the weakening of one clan, but the loss of the strongest remaining centralized player who was holding the system together under conditions of war and a Rahbar vacuum—including now, when the fate and condition of Mojtaba Khamenei are unknown.
With Ali Larijani's death, his clan loses a huge share of its functional powers and influence, which will inevitably give an advantage to more militaristic groupings within the IRGC and to the current leader, Mojtaba (if he ultimately survives and manages to bring the security wing under his control).
The death of leading clan leaders under the conditions of the current war, given the specific organization of power in Iran, is very likely to lead to its fragmentation and split. The system is holding together by inertia, but a much wider window opens for unforeseen shifts—potentially in any direction.
Apart from the Larijanis, there are several other top clan‑family networks. First and foremost is, of course, the Khamenei family, which maintains control over the office of the Rahbar, the security services, and a significant part of the IRGC. Members of the clan occupy key positions in intelligence, the economy, and propaganda.
Next in influence is the Hashemi‑Rafsanjani family. After the death of former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, its influence declined, but it is preserved through his children and sons‑in‑law, and the Rafsanjani clan is the undisputed leader of the systemic opposition and reformist circles.
The Khatami family clan—its influence has also weakened. The clan competed with the Rafsanjani family for influence within the reformist wing of the elite and remains an influential player on this flank, enjoying strong support from the urban middle class.
The Motahhari clan is a classic "revolutionary aristocracy," with strong ties to the Larijani clan and, in fact, together with it exerts influence through the clergy, parliament, and ideology.
The Golpayegani family holds a key post—the leadership of the Rahbar's office together with the Khamenei family—controlling huge financial flows, intelligence, and personnel appointments across all structures. This is a shadow elite comparable in influence to the Larijani family.
One can also mention the Velayati and Qadr/Arafi families. The choice of Arafi as interim Rahbar was due to the strong influence of these families in Qom and their unique position linking the clergy, the security apparatus, and the secular authorities.
Fans of the series "Game of Thrones" will find much in common (though, of course, direct analogies would be inaccurate) between the power system of Westeros and that of contemporary Iran. The Larijani clan occupies roughly the position of the Lannister clan in Martin's universe.
In other words, Larijani's death may not bring about obvious, immediate critical problems for the stability of power in Iran, but the loss looks almost irreplaceable—there is simply no one right now who can take his place. In 2025–2026, Ali Larijani was not just "one of the influential figures"; in the course of the current war he effectively became the central figure in running the country after Khamenei's death. Many Western and Iranian sources called him the "de facto leader," "the one who really rules," the coordinator of the war, nuclear policy, repression, and foreign relations. His death is not just the weakening of one clan, but the loss of the strongest remaining centralized player who was holding the system together under conditions of war and a Rahbar vacuum—including now, when the fate and condition of Mojtaba Khamenei are unknown.
With Ali Larijani's death, his clan loses a huge share of its functional powers and influence, which will inevitably give an advantage to more militaristic groupings within the IRGC and to the current leader, Mojtaba (if he ultimately survives and manages to bring the security wing under his control).
The death of leading clan leaders under the conditions of the current war, given the specific organization of power in Iran, is very likely to lead to its fragmentation and split. The system is holding together by inertia, but a much wider window opens for unforeseen shifts—potentially in any direction.
Last edited:
winjer
Gold Member
I doubt Russia will be in a position to help Iran.
But I bet China will take the opportunity to expand it's Belt and Road initiative.
Taking control of some Iranian ports and oil fields will be a boon for China's economy.
Dirk Benedict
Gold Member
Belt and road is almost dead.
Dirk Benedict
Gold Member
Suspicious package on Monday.
Meicyn
Gold Member
Yeah, wonder what kind of shenanigans are making their way in from Tampa.
IlGialloMondadori
Member
From the data points:
Net approval: US military action on Iran
- Canada: -27 pts
- UK: -34 pts
- Japan: -73 pts
War on Iran is even less popular compared to the war on Iraq in 2003:
- Canada: -27 pts lower
- Japan: -45 pts lower
- UK: -48 pts lower
Last edited:
TransTrender
Gold Member
I have been VERY aware for the past 9,188 days how much America lives rent free in the heads of the rest of the Western World and how ANY action or policy by the wrong political party is received negatively.
Sadly it seems like this will never change.
It was also funny to see how much seething and head space occupying in the past 3,344 days, even when he wasn't in office, by the same people for Trump.
A lot has happened over this time and Europe has mostly acted like an active antagonist while also completely destroying their own economies and civilization, so I'm glad they're being left out or behind on some things.
Also, anyone with any perspective or a better memory than a goldfish can look back at this and realize, at least to some extent, how pathetic and performative it all is. Now it's all very easy to brush aside or laugh at this kvetching.
NickFire
Member
It's more lack of care than oblivious.
I don't want to derail this thread so this is one and done on the issue. Imagine a parent who keeps paying a kid's cell phone, insurance, rent and utilities. The kid keeps buying more extra stuff with their income while the parent keeps racking up debt paying for everything. Eventually the parent says you're on your own if you don't start pitching in a lot more.
Vestal
Junior Member
Feels like it's being viewed in a vacuum and not looking at the entire chess board. Which is the failure of this operation to begin with. Hell it's the whole issue with this way of governing.
I cant trust anything with literal bullet points. It looks like AI and im skipping it.
IlGialloMondadori
Member
Jesus Christ. You won't read bullet points. Have you ever seen a PowerPoint presentation? Are you a child? 6 lines of data. Bullet points are not AI.
You don't even have to accept those points, it's just meant to illustrate that there is another path to gaining support in other countries.
Bojji
Gold Member
America gained the most on post WW2 order that was set by USA. Petrodollar, all those military contracts, world domination with tons of military bases. USA gained the most wealth and power when Europe didn't have any superpowers left after WW2.
Concept of Europe freeloading on USA money was always laughable to me. Nothing serious happened in Europe after WW2 outside of Balkan war and (now) Ukraine war, so USA military didn't have to "save" Europe at any point.
StueyDuck
Member
And you are caught up in the beauracratic "what is a tax" rather than what is happening.
I understand your "well Akshually"
But it shows you arent thinking of anything beyond semantics
Harkonnen
Member
It seems so. Trump insults and threatens openly historical allies since last year, but the problem is "the europeans".
BlackTron
Member
"He's
Yep, and now it will be used as a pretense to call them shit allies and fragment NATO, when we are in fact the shit ally. Want NATO? Well better get on the Titanic!
It's just a textbook narcissistic relationship where I'm always right and anything I ever do wrong is your fault.
Moondoggy
Member
The last 2 pages of this thread has almost completely been shitting on Trump and no ones said anything and let you guys have you fun with it, maybe stop at that instead of trying to call people out.
rorepmE
Member
This is a shadow war that has been going on for 47 years before it became kinetic. No one wanted to deal with it because of bitter medicine of Iran using Hormuz as a leverage tool for decades.
The problem with your "sensible strategy" and "significant domestic/international support" checklist is that it's almost never fully met until it's too late. Your sensible strategy only occurs with the luxury of hindsight and whether you believe Iran was dangerously close to obtaining nuclear weapons or it's just "Jewish lies to get the US to fight their wars for them".
BlackTron
Member
Most of us appear to be and it's deeply embarrassing.
rorepmE
Member
They only started to appear when it appears the US is about to "lose". When it was the 1st quarter they just sat by and watched, afraid of talking shit like what happened in South America where the US was supposed to be bogged down in another insurgent nation building war in the jungles of Venezuela.
It comes down to social "receipts" and the fear of being wrong twice. After Venezuela, they didn't want to get dunked on for predicting a disaster that didn't happen.
Mind you Hormuz isn't really closed, it's not a physical blockade. There is no mines in the water that we know of. Just the risk of getting hit by a drone and the shipping company and insurance companies won't risk it.
Last edited:
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Honestly its a minor issue considering how incredibly unpopular/ineffectual most of Europe's governments are.
The reality is most of them are holding on by a thread, and the worse things get the more unpopular they'll become, opening the door wider for the right-wing populists to finally come to power.
In the UK for instance, the Labour/Conservative duoply that's been in place for the last century is effectively dead. They are being annihilated country-wide in local elections. France barely has a functional government and Germany is going down the same road in their desperation to keep AFD out of power.
That's basically all the Northern European power players, and as the EU has been letting most of Southern Europe rot for decades basically that's the entire continent militarily diminished and divided. The EU has never been less popular generally as swathes of the population are growing increasingly tired of its overreach over national sovereignity.
And if these idiots think they are going to raise national armies to make up for the shortfall of American coverage... Beyond the decades of deindustrialization making mass producing arms severely problematic good luck finding people who'll fight for them after brow-beating them for years for colonialist crimes they were never party to.
nush
Gold Member
I find their terms acceptable.
rorepmE
Member
Yup, Japan is building up capabilities it has never had since the end of WW2, but one of the biggest issue is recruitment and manpower. A chunk of their budget has gone to increase pay and retention.
There was a video of a Swedish dude who let a muslim dude (the ex of his female friend) climb up to a 2nd story "flat" with a ladder while he pleads with him to reconsider his action. Didn't cross his mind to knock this dude off the ladder when he was 100% vulnerable or take any sort of action but to run inside and lock the a glass door that Mohammed smashed through. He of course got stabbed.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I remember that video. An absolute frustration watch, for sure.
Moondoggy
Member
Extinction level "Empathy"
calico
Member
It doesn't matter, Iran is the party threatening neutral civilian ships, not America. Pandering to terrorists in case they respond with terrorism is Europe's default policy, America is not obliged to adopt it.
They may have been mistaken for being strong. They were not strong.
Very risk averse allies with little capability beyond their own borders, but which you are obliged to defend, are not particularly worthwhile allies.
MisterFalcon
Member
How many civilian ships has the US sunk now around South America? Fifty?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
wHaTaBoUt tHe dRuG cArTeLs
Unknown Soldier
Member
Similar threads
- Locked