[orthogonal_cube]

Removal of the head of state is often a turning point. Either a regime becomes more extreme or the government collapses due to in-fighting as individuals attempt to gain control.

I would hold back on any hopes until we see how the current government handles things. Intervention from other countries does not always lead to positive outcomes.

[lamontcg]

Has there been a regime which has collapsed due to an external strike like this where it hasn't resulted in some decades long civil war nightmare?

I can't think of any time when bombing the shit out of a country and killing their leader has actually worked.

All I can think of is examples of blowback.

[Jensson]

> I can't think of any time when bombing the shit out of a country and killing their leader has actually worked.

Japan? Although their leader wasn't killed, but same logic. The more civilized a country is the easier it is to reform them into a good state, and Iran is a pretty civilized and structured nation, the dictatorship is the main issue.

Most people in Iran want a democracy and are capable of running it, you just have to let them. That isn't the case in most of these dictatorships that lacks such structure, but it is there in Iran.

[mr_toad]

> Has there been a regime which has collapsed due to an external strike like this where it hasn't resulted in some decades long civil war nightmare?

People have already mentioned the post WW2 occupation of Germany and Japan.

There’s also the Roman occupation of Greece (and other Hellenistic territories), and even perhaps the Norman occupation of England. Not that either of these didn’t cause some strife and rebellion in both cases, but still there was a concerted effort to build up both territories.

[oceanplexian]

> Has there been a regime which has collapsed due to an external strike like this where it hasn't resulted in some decades long civil war nightmare?

The US operation to depose the dictator of Panama in 1989 is one example.

[ant6n]

The canonical example is WWii Germany. Denazification actually sort of worked. But it required a lot of effort, resources and special circumstances.

[logicallee]

>I can't think of any time when bombing the shit out of a country and killing their leader has actually worked.

This happened just weeks ago in Venezuela, though in that case the removal was by abduction and foreign trial. (The U.S. struck Venezuela and abducted its President at the time, bringing him to trial in the United States. I've just now asked ChatGPT for a research report on his current status, you can read it here[1].)

This led to immediate and definitive regime change, the U.S. now has an excellent relationship with the new President of Venezuela.

[1] https://chatgpt.com/share/69a424b4-de38-800c-8699-cb95d25090...

[general_reveal]

Naval blockade and the military capacity to simply siege you from afar. Tactically , why America didn’t do more of that is … well who knows. I mean, what if we literally parked our carrier group off of Iraq and sieged them until

A) Put in a government we like

B) Population behave or quality of life will be bad, you see, the simple life is difficult with cruise missiles coming at you

If that’s as effective as sending 250k ground troops (which … actually wasn’t effective), one could make the observation that Trump is a military genius.

Someone please talk sense to me because I cannot believe what I am saying.

[tim333]

Trump seems to have thought it through a bit. Recent post:

>...This is the single greatest chance for the Iranian people to take back their Country. We are hearing that many of their IRGC, Military, and other Security and Police Forces, no longer want to fight, and are looking for Immunity from us. As I said last night, “Now they can have Immunity, later they only get Death!” Hopefully, the IRGC and Police will peacefully merge with the Iranian Patriots, and work together as a unit to bring back the Country to the Greatness it deserves...

The merge peacefully or die thing may motivate them.

[nullocator]

Uh huh, and if you are an Iranian Policeman are you more concerned that the funny orange man yelling on the tv/phone is going to get you, or the mob forming outside your window? They might see it in their personal self interest to stay lock step with the former regime as a better form of self preservation than just surrendering to the population they've been abusing. It's not like the U.S. can offer them any actual immunity lmao.

[Rapzid]

Certainly people within the Trump administration have thought a lot about this.

[jacquesm]

And/or neighboring countries see their chance to start another front in the war.

[dredmorbius]

Few of Iran's neighbours are in a position to do this.

Afghanistan? No. Lacks means, motive, or organisation.

Iraq? Probably not, despite past history of conflict, too much internal strife.

Turkmenistan? Very unlikely.

Pakistan? Has the capability perhaps, but little motive AFAIU.

Azerbaijan, Aremenia, Turkey? Again, unlikely.

The most likely beligerents would be Israel (already involved, but not seeking occupation in all likelihood), and Saudi Arabia. But both those also seem unlikely. Both benefit by a weakened and submissive Iran, but occupation would be an extraordinary undertaking and highly problematic.

Non-bordering countries might be considerations (India likely tops that list) but again the upsides seem slight given costs.

[christkv]

It's likely the regime will be denied use of heavy weaponry by the US and Israel. This means any actual popular revolt in some sense could be supported by massive air power.