Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Abdolrahim Mousavi --> Ahmad VahidiI think Israel would rather prefer a takeover by the reformists, if regime change is not possible in the near future.
If you look at the people they have assassinated so far, nearly all of them were hardliners except for a few cases like Larijani and Shamkhani. I think Larijani and Shamkhani were assassinated due to their extensive influence in the system, not because they were hardliners. No major reformist figure has ever been touched by these bombings. Zarif, Rohani, Khatami, Pezeshkian, they're all safe without a scratch.
I still think that Israel will try regime change again and again and again until it happens and if Iran signs a bad peace deal with the US, it will be the end of the Islamic Republic.
If you remember, one of my initial predictions was that Iran and the US will fight for a month without a winner, then the IR will accept a ceasefire like the 12-day war, then the US will increase its economic pressure on Iran and have another go at it a few months later. We will enter a cycle of war + economic pressure + internal instability until the system collapses.
Yes, but it was not Israel that chose who should replace whom, right?Abdolrahim Mousavi --> Ahmad Vahidi
Ali Larijani --> Mohammad Zolghadr
Amir Ali Hajizadeh --> Majid Mousavi
Ali Khamenei --> Mojtaba Khamenei
Ali Shamkhani --> Saeed Jalili
the reformists are not killed because they are not important or powerful enough to reach a deal with the US. while a pragmatic king maker like Larijani would be. everyone killed is replaced by someone more hardline.
as long as IRI remains opposed to a full deal with the US, Israel retains freedom of action to some degree. If a pragmatic unifying actor manages to compromise and reach a real detente with the US, suddenly Israel loses the support of the US to act against Iran.
Alright, let me clarify.I'm not following your logic. Killing a Knesset member means that you lack the resolve to resist? What? How did you come up with such a conclusion?
they know that killing these guys will lead to further militarisation and encroachment of power by the IRGC. I am sure Israel has pretty good ideas of who would replace each person, but regardless we know that logically each generation of replacements tend to be more radical than who they replace (we see this everywhere, including with Hezbollah and Hamas).Yes, but it was not Israel that chose who should replace whom, right?
Changing your negotiating partner at the request of your enemy highlights America's frustration with its efforts to reach a deal with Iran.She is a Mossad operative and is sharing how the Israeli govt views the negotiations. Basically, Kushner and Witkoff proved to be the operative of Israelis.
A PR win is a PR win. It is needed in war. I am still not following how you are reaching that last conclusion based on a cost analysis point of view. Sure, the cost of a missile is expensive but countries spend much more than half a million dollars on PR campaigns.Alright, let me clarify. He is just a knesset member; he does not represent Israel's military or economic value, so he is a low-value target srategically. Furthermore, if he remains alive, he will continue to make genocidal remarks, which can help Iran gain more political correctness and international support. His existence can also uningry Iranian people and secure their support for the war. If you kill him with a missile, you will waste a missile and gain nothing more than some venting of anger from tanians. Some Iranians might be satisfied by this and turn to supporting a ceasefire and negotiations. Moreover, you have not damaged Israel's core interests, and killing a legislator will not affect teasefire and negotiations. Therefore, choosing this target will undoubtedly lead other countries to doubt Iran's resolve to resist aggression.
The problem with that deal is that Iran's obligations under the deal are permanent and non-reversible while the US concessions are easily reversible with a stroke of a pen.they know that killing these guys will lead to further militarisation and encroachment of power by the IRGC. I am sure Israel has pretty good ideas of who would replace each person, but regardless we know that logically each generation of replacements tend to be more radical than who they replace (we see this everywhere, including with Hezbollah and Hamas).
the 15 point deal reported in the media is not that bad as long as it involves the lifting of all (primary and secondary) US sanctions and full western investment in Iran. and it even preserves our ballistic missiles. we are not enriching anyway, so naturally we will have to give up the HEU and the already destroyed facilities.