- Welcome to Languish.org.
Recent posts
#1
Off the Record / Re: Iran War?
Last post by Tonitrus - Today at 01:20:12 AMI am sure national leadership protective services have had lots of agonizing meetings on the whole topic.
#2
Off the Record / Re: Iran War?
Last post by Fate - Today at 01:18:17 AMQuote from: HVC on Today at 01:02:35 AMI have to imagine said fatass travels with radio scramblers in tow
Fiberoptic drones are currently used by both sides in the Ukraine war which you can't scramble. Russia could sell/lose a few off a truck.
#3
Off the Record / Re: Iran War?
Last post by HVC - Today at 01:02:35 AMI have to imagine said fatass travels with radio scramblers in tow
#4
Off the Record / Re: Iran War?
Last post by Razgovory - Today at 12:16:21 AMQuote from: grumbler on February 28, 2026, 10:40:56 PMYeah, I'm not thinking random fat asses. This fat asses has been remarkably hard to kill. The Ukrainians smuggled in or built a bunch of drones that destroyed several Russian bombers deep within Russia. There is no reason a country like Iran couldn't do the same thingQuote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2026, 10:01:52 PMI imagine it wouldn't be too hard to kill a fat ass on a golf course with a drone. All it would take is some people with expertise in bomb making and drone control and a bit of cash.
There are easier ways to kill random fatasses on gold courses than using jury-rigger kamikaze drones.
#5
Off the Record / Re: Iran War?
Last post by Bauer - February 28, 2026, 11:31:04 PMEventually that knowledge will spread out of Ukraine. Could we see gang hits with kamikaze drones flying through open windows soon?
#6
Off the Record / Re: Iran War?
Last post by Tonitrus - February 28, 2026, 10:49:58 PMConsidering that kamikaze drones are being used in industrial quantities in Ukraine, I am almost surprised that random drone assassinations haven't already become more common.
#7
Off the Record / Re: Iran War?
Last post by grumbler - February 28, 2026, 10:40:56 PMQuote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2026, 10:01:52 PMI imagine it wouldn't be too hard to kill a fat ass on a golf course with a drone. All it would take is some people with expertise in bomb making and drone control and a bit of cash.
There are easier ways to kill random fatasses on gold courses than using jury-rigger kamikaze drones.
#8
Off the Record / Re: Iran War?
Last post by Razgovory - February 28, 2026, 10:01:52 PMQuote from: Jacob on February 28, 2026, 07:50:15 PMHad to go to the dentist and was 20 minutes late in spite of leaving early due to large throngs of anti-regime demonstrators. The news said 45 000 locally, and more than 100 000 in Toronto.
As for what happens next, I have no idea. Trump and his advisors obviously subscribe to the swing-your-big-stick-around school of foreign policy, so I expect they'll keep doing it until such a time as it backfires.
Venezuela didn't, so far at least. Will the action in Iran backfire? Time will tell
Sheilbh's point on declaring open season on leaders is interesting. I wonder where it will lead.
I imagine it wouldn't be too hard to kill a fat ass on a golf course with a drone. All it would take is some people with expertise in bomb making and drone control and a bit of cash.
#9
Off the Record / Re: Iran War?
Last post by Grey Fox - February 28, 2026, 09:46:56 PMI think the Russian weakness and China's not actually interested in being a countermeasure to Imperialism is enabling this behaviour by the USA.
#10
Off the Record / Re: Iran War?
Last post by OttoVonBismarck - February 28, 2026, 09:33:27 PMI don't really know that leaders have ever been truly "sacrosanct", I think there's always been a willingness to kill them if the conditions were right. I think it's just generally been the case that there was recognition that killing an individual leader is unlikely to produce desired outcomes if it occurs in a vacuum, and certain leaders America has historically wanted dead might have been able to impose immense counterattacks.
There's some obvious examples--several of the Soviet Premiers at various times there was probably a desire by the American President to see that person dead, but the USSR could respond with nuclear weapons and killing a Soviet Premier doesn't make the USSR go away. They actually had a pretty decent process of replacing their top guy.
Saddam before the Iraq War I think the view was he had a long line of succession. He had at least one son who was absolutely positioned to take over. After that Saddam had a number of very high ranking generals who could have viably taken over without serious trouble. Almost all of those people did end up dead, but it was once we'd actually started the invasion. I assume outside the kinetic action of the war, there was an open question as to whether or not a surgical strike would have been able to get them all.
Bush was also concerned with having an American friendly regime, even if he had been able to take out the top half dozen Ba'athists, it wouldn't necessarily be any more likely that a pro-American ends up in charge.
With Iran I assume both the first and second Ayatollahs were considered for killing since at least 1980, but I think there are a number of reasons it was never tried before now.
Right after the revolution I think Reagan didn't want to risk something like Carter did in the failed hostage rescue, in a direct conflict with Iran, that could have been a huge political loss if it turned into a boondoggle. Reagan was also concerned with the more important conflict with the Soviets, and Vietnam's memory loomed large in that era--I think there were just too many uncertainties and bigger fish to fry.
Remember, the U.S. had just had a very pro-U.S. Shah that they thought ruled Iran with an iron fist. His regime fell so rapidly I think it instilled a lot of self doubt about the U.S. ability to monitor the situation on the ground there and likely made the U.S. doubtful any sort of puppet it might attempt to install would be able to survive without essentially a permanent U.S. security backing, which is the sort of Vietnam-esque commitment we were still stringently avoiding in that era.
As both the Cold War and the specter of Vietnam receded, I think the Ayatollah basically got another 20 years because of how badly the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan went, it made military adventurism in the Middle East a toxic political proposition.
Additionally, during that time Iran built a much feared network of militant groups all around the Middle East, and I think there were fears any attempts to take out Iran's government would result in the mass activation of these forces, imperiling Israel and other U.S. allies.
I think one of the things that made this most recent operation seem acceptable to at least some national security experts (my guess is Trump had at least some "adults in the room" that agreed this was a good gamble to take), is the Gaza War. Israel ended up more or less neutering Iran's axis of terror and then exposed Iran's air defense capabilities as being a paper tiger and Israel's ability to rule Iran's skies at will for over 10 days last year likely changed a lot of the thinking on Iranian capabilities with the professional national security types.
I would still guess no contemporary President or even possible President other than Trump does this--because even while I think others would have agreed with the assessment the Ayatollah was gettable, I think most would have serious concerns about what comes next.
The reality is this--Iran has been a revolutionary regime for almost 50 years, its leader was a man who was in his mid 80s. If killing a man in his mid 80s was enough to actually cause regime change, one questions if the regime's fall was almost imminent in any case.
But of course--we have no real indication his death will cause a serious regime change.
There's some obvious examples--several of the Soviet Premiers at various times there was probably a desire by the American President to see that person dead, but the USSR could respond with nuclear weapons and killing a Soviet Premier doesn't make the USSR go away. They actually had a pretty decent process of replacing their top guy.
Saddam before the Iraq War I think the view was he had a long line of succession. He had at least one son who was absolutely positioned to take over. After that Saddam had a number of very high ranking generals who could have viably taken over without serious trouble. Almost all of those people did end up dead, but it was once we'd actually started the invasion. I assume outside the kinetic action of the war, there was an open question as to whether or not a surgical strike would have been able to get them all.
Bush was also concerned with having an American friendly regime, even if he had been able to take out the top half dozen Ba'athists, it wouldn't necessarily be any more likely that a pro-American ends up in charge.
With Iran I assume both the first and second Ayatollahs were considered for killing since at least 1980, but I think there are a number of reasons it was never tried before now.
Right after the revolution I think Reagan didn't want to risk something like Carter did in the failed hostage rescue, in a direct conflict with Iran, that could have been a huge political loss if it turned into a boondoggle. Reagan was also concerned with the more important conflict with the Soviets, and Vietnam's memory loomed large in that era--I think there were just too many uncertainties and bigger fish to fry.
Remember, the U.S. had just had a very pro-U.S. Shah that they thought ruled Iran with an iron fist. His regime fell so rapidly I think it instilled a lot of self doubt about the U.S. ability to monitor the situation on the ground there and likely made the U.S. doubtful any sort of puppet it might attempt to install would be able to survive without essentially a permanent U.S. security backing, which is the sort of Vietnam-esque commitment we were still stringently avoiding in that era.
As both the Cold War and the specter of Vietnam receded, I think the Ayatollah basically got another 20 years because of how badly the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan went, it made military adventurism in the Middle East a toxic political proposition.
Additionally, during that time Iran built a much feared network of militant groups all around the Middle East, and I think there were fears any attempts to take out Iran's government would result in the mass activation of these forces, imperiling Israel and other U.S. allies.
I think one of the things that made this most recent operation seem acceptable to at least some national security experts (my guess is Trump had at least some "adults in the room" that agreed this was a good gamble to take), is the Gaza War. Israel ended up more or less neutering Iran's axis of terror and then exposed Iran's air defense capabilities as being a paper tiger and Israel's ability to rule Iran's skies at will for over 10 days last year likely changed a lot of the thinking on Iranian capabilities with the professional national security types.
I would still guess no contemporary President or even possible President other than Trump does this--because even while I think others would have agreed with the assessment the Ayatollah was gettable, I think most would have serious concerns about what comes next.
The reality is this--Iran has been a revolutionary regime for almost 50 years, its leader was a man who was in his mid 80s. If killing a man in his mid 80s was enough to actually cause regime change, one questions if the regime's fall was almost imminent in any case.
But of course--we have no real indication his death will cause a serious regime change.