Iran War?

[Tonitrus]

Wouldn't matter much...there are plenty of ayatollahs.

Interestingly/oddly...among all the headlines of the attack, I've seen all of "Israel strikes Iran (with U.S. help)", "U.S. strikes Iran (with Israeli help)" and "U.S. and Israel strike Iran".

The regime is now cut off from any oil revenue. Doesn't matter if they find another Ayatollah, the Praetorian Guard has to be paid. This is not some gentle benevolent regime change operation, this is Timur making an example of Khwarezm. 

Sure, and the Praetorian guard will be able to cannibalize the host for years.  The ayatollahs are mostly symbolic figureheads to give legitimacy to the "Islamic Revolutionary" part.  The Praetorian guard was already in effective control, and will still be in control.

Sure, they won't get paid...but who will they turn on?  Themselves?  Nah.

[Tonitrus]

The operation name is also dumbly dangerous.  "Epic Fury" is too easy to be lampooned as "Epic Fail".

[Legbiter]

Sure, and the Praetorian guard will be able to cannibalize the host for years.  The ayatollahs are mostly symbolic figureheads to give legitimacy to the "Islamic Revolutionary" part.  The Praetorian guard was already in effective control, and will still be in control.

Sure, they won't get paid...but who will they turn on?  Themselves?  Nah.

Not disagreeing with you really. We are on the same page, the regime may well just endure even if you end up having to elevate the janitor to Ayatollah/IRGC). But it will rule over a wasteland that will make Somalia seem modern by comparison. It will not fund a Shia axis of resistance, Tehran may not have electricity except for a couple of hours like Cuba. Millions will try to get to anywhere else with say, clean drinking water.

Best case scenario is a military junta takes over who's leader charms Trump enough the US decides to relax sanctions. Rubio takes over as temporary Shāhanshāh.

[Tonitrus]

Khamenei was/is also 86...they probably already had a guy or three in mind as his successor.

[Hansmeister]

Khamenei was/is also 86...they probably already had a guy or three in mind as his successor.

The intended successor died two years ago in a helicopter crash.  Pretty much any other potential successor, Khameni's son, the head of the IRGC, the head of their intelligence service, and another 10 senior leaders are dead.

Iranians are overwhelmingly secular, and even amongst the shias, the regime represented a fringe millennial cult. Iran's economy had totally collapsed over the last year, mainly because they ran out of water due to mismanagement. This is why the protest had gotten so strong in the last few months. Heck, the President of Iran admitted that they didn't have any solutions to the problem and that Tehran might have to be abandoned.

The oil export money to pay off their supporters was the only real source of revenue left and with that gone they're pretty much done.

[The Minsky Moment]

If the objective was to strengthen the internal opposition, then the strikes should have been US only and back in early January.  It could have made a difference then, and validated Trump's pledge to protect the protestors.

Striking now and with the Israelis in the apparent lead, delegitimizes any internal force that would align with the US or use the strikes as a basis for anti-regime action.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I guess the question one has—is the reason Iran is so hostile to the West because they have a theocratic form of government or is it because they have a revolutionary government founded in opposition to the West?

There's a whole clerical caste in Iran, and they have a process for naming a new Ayatollah. Finding a replacement in that sense is easy. However, the only other time Iran had this transition, they named Khamenei who had long clearly been the successor and who was deeply entrenched in leadership in the revolutionary movement and had been President of Iran.

As in all such regimes the real power are the guys with weapons, they are not likely to make a random cleric who isn't already a significant leader of the regime into the Grand Ayatollah—-a position of considerable constitutional power.

Seems like you may see some sort of military leader explicitly in charge for a while.

[The Minsky Moment]

"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"

-Donald J. Trump

Well folks that's the "plan" 

From the same people that brought you the "Let's grab Maduro and Then What?" plan for Venezuela.

[Bauer]

Remember he said they were going to run Venezuela though 

What I'm really wondering about now is if terrorism starts rekindling.  Any chance Iran has sleeper cells ?

[Sheilbh]

Has the US positioned assets for putting boots on the ground? I haven't followed things closely, but my assumption is they haven't.

I've no idea if this is the case now but I saw something last week comparing the amount of resources the US had moved ino the region. It is vast. But it is comparable with what Clinton used to bomb Saddam in the 90s, not the Gulf Wars or the like.

This whole assassination/kidnapping strategy with world leader or other state actors seems a significant shift. Obviously Israel and the US (and other states) have conducted military assassinations in the past but they have generally been of terrorists or dissidents or similar, but all non-state actors. With Soleimani, this attack, Caracas it seems the taboo against striking leaders and significant officials from other states (and particularly "sovereigns") has gone. I'm not sure where that leads us but it strikes me as a risky shift in world politics - not least because I suspect one of the reasons to avoid it in the past is possibly what OvB is pointing out - who succeeds? What comes next sems highly unpredictable and while I think there were forces in the regime in Venezuela in the know, I'm far less sure that'll be the case here.

I'd add from a European perspective this is not good - but there's nothing Europe can do to actually influence things becaue no power. But we should at least prepare for it - as an energy poor neighbouring region whose politics has already been destabilised by refugee flows (we my be depending more than ever on the good graces and effectiveness of Ankara).

Edit: I should add on the killing heads of state etc point - my assumption there is that this shift doesn't reflect a change in capability/capacity but self-imposed restraint. That this is the sort of thing the US (and perhaps some others) would have been able to do for various heads of state at various points in the past but have chosen not to. It is possible, but it seems unlikely to me, that it's only something they're able to do now for some reason.

[The Minsky Moment]

DJT does not want to stop Iran's oil exports. Oil is globally traded and if the Chinese get less Iranian oil, they have to bid up the price on the world market.

DJT wants to show that the killed the bad guy and then find someone to do a "deal" with.  I.e. someone who will say that they will let US oil companies in and stop the nuclear program.  It does not matter whether any of this actually happens as long as someone will get on TV and say the right words.

So the plan is to deal with the IRGC and the rest of the Iranian siloviki, right over the heads of whatever ragtag Iranian opposition might speak up, just like he has sought to deal with the PSUV and has humiliated Machado.  That fits the policy objective which is keep oil prices low no matter what and make things as smooth as possible for the kind of corrupt big business corporatism he favors.