Khamenei, One of Most Evil People in History, is Dead

POSTED BY: 6ixStringJack
UPDATED: Wednesday, September 2, 2026 05:42
VIEWED: 15626
PAGE 11 of 73

SIGNYM

Wednesday, March 11, 2026 6:13 PM

I think Trump has gotten himself into a situation he can't get out of. He made the fatal mistake of listening to Netanyahu and was convinced that killing Khamenie would collapse Iran like a house of cards.

Aside from the fact that it didn't work, he failed to realize that if Iran survived it had the strategic advantage: Iran's hundreds of missiles and thousands of drones far exceed our and Israel's air defenses. Iran can shut off oil flow, and the surrounding nations are fragile, target-rich environments with depleted defenses. And Trump killed the one man in Iran who was preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Now consider that the man who succeeded Khamenei, his son, had his father, wife, and infant son killed by America.

Trump may want to back out, but I think Iran has now committed itself to a fight to the end. In other words, the war ends when IRAN ends it, not when Trump wants to quit. (the above video makes that point)

When will Iran stop? What are its strategic goals?

When Israel's military and economy is destroyed?
When the Gulf states kick out American embassies and bases?
When sanctions are lifted or the Gulf States do business with Iran in something other than the dollar?
When Iran builds nuclear weapons?
More?

We face not one but TWO strategic defeats, one in Ukraine that could break NATO, and one in the Mideast that could destroy Israel and break the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).

Both wars started on the flawed premise that the targets of our aggression would collapse the moment maximum pressure was applied. This clusterfuck has been a bipartisan project started by vastly ignorant administrations that lacked competent leadership.

-----------

"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."- Henry Kissinger

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

SECOND

Wednesday, March 11, 2026 8:52 PM

A mega-deal to end the war

by Dan Perry, opinion contributor - 03/11/26 7:30 AM ET

https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/5776617-a-mega-deal-to-e
nd-the-war/

Much attention has focused on how the current war with Iran began — not so well argued, not necessarily so legal. But the real question is how it ends.

Although President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu do not inspire much confidence about their intentions, there is an achievable blueprint for an outcome that could leave the world a far better place.

Unless the conflict produces a strategic outcome that actually solves the underlying problem, it will merely be remembered as another costly episode in the long and destabilizing history of Middle Eastern chaos.

And there is a whopper of an underlying problem here. For decades, Iran has built a system designed to spread revolution across the Middle East while maintaining a theocratic police state at home. It pursued nuclear capabilities, developed increasingly sophisticated ballistic missiles, and armed a network of proxy militias from Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen. This has kept the region on tenterhooks and occasionally in flames. Without Iran, there would probably have been no Oct. 7.

The Obama administration’s 2015 nuclear deal attempted to constrain Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for economic relief, but it did little to address the broader architecture of missiles, militias and revolutionary ideology. Trump walked away from that deal in 2018 — a foolish move which, coupled with no other effective measures, enabled Iran to resume enrichment.

The result is the situation today: a confrontation that many observers fear could spiral into an ever-wider war, but that also presents a rare opportunity to permanently dismantle the threat Iran’s regime poses to the region and to its own people.

That objective should be uncompromising: Iran must permanently abandon the pursuit of nuclear weapons, dismantle its long-range missile program and end the financing and arming of militias across the region.

The goal should not be Iran’s humiliation or destruction as a nation. The Islamic Republic may even survive in some form. What should not survive is the system that allows it to continue causing such harm.

A settlement that includes carrots should therefore also require an end to clerical vetting of presidential candidates and a restoration of genuine authority to Iran’s elected institutions, above all the presidency and parliament.

This need not mean total regime overhaul, such as the immediate abolition of the office of supreme leader. In fact, when Ali Khamenei was elevated in 1989, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani helped shape a constitutional order that strengthened the presidency which he then assumed. He appears to have imagined a system in which elected institutions would wield the main governing power while the supreme leader would stand more as a symbolic or balancing figure.

That is not how things ultimately evolved — Khamenei instead became one of modern history’s most diabolical despots. But the precedent shows that a more republican version of the system would not be completely alien to Iran’s own political history.

These reforms should be part of a package presented by the broadest possible international coalition. And it should be paired with a powerful set of incentives. It should be a “deal” — the kind of thing Trump appreciates. In exchange for Iran’s acquiescence, the world should offer something transformative and generous.

All sanctions should be lifted. Iran should be welcomed into regional trade arrangements with Gulf economies and possibly others. The country should have full access to global markets, capital and technology.

Diplomatic relations should normalize. Formal peace treaties, if Iran wishes, would be on offer.

More controversially, the leadership of the current regime should be offered a form of political amnesty, allowed to keep their wealth and step aside without fear of international prosec

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

6IXSTRINGJACK

Wednesday, March 11, 2026 9:23 PM

We're 1,476 days into your war on Russia, faggot.

Shut the fuck up, and stop sucking Iranian dick.

--------------------------------------------------

Be Nice. Don't be a dick.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

6IXSTRINGJACK

Wednesday, March 11, 2026 9:35 PM

What the Critics Have Wrong About the Iran Conflict

https://www.newsweek.com/what-the-critics-have-wrong-about-the-iran-co
nflict-opinion-11651484

Quote:

---

Perhaps the only thing more remarkable than the joint U.S.-Israeli decapitation strike against the Iranian regime on February 28 is the nature of the criticism of the action. Nearly all opponents claim support for the demise of the bloody-handed Iranian leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, while simultaneously expressing outrage that the operation itself has supposedly violated a litany of laws, norms and other requirements that were necessary to proceed.

The most prominent objections are that President Donald Trump acted without first explaining his objectives; that he failed to secure Congressional authorization or the support of America’s international allies; and that he refused to exhaust diplomacy before choosing military options.

Aggressively questioning the use of military force by any government is healthy and, in a democracy, necessary. And there are always legitimate concerns about the course of any military conflict. But when opposition is more about obfuscating than informing, the process of deliberation and debate becomes tainted by unnecessary partisanship. Indeed, the thinness of the core objections to the Iran operation indicates that the Trump administration is on rather firm ground.

First, the primary objectives of the operation are obvious and reasonable. For nearly 50 years, the Iranian regime has been at war against America and its interests in the region, and over the past decade it had been escalating dramatically. Not only was Tehran moving ahead full steam toward a nuclear weapons capability, it radically increased its support for terror proxies in the region, culminating with the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led massacre in Israel. Even after its nuclear and ballistic missile programs were severely degraded by U.S. and Israeli strikes in June, the regime remained intent on rebuilding all of its bases of power including its nuclear capabilities.

Repeated criticism that the Trump administration hasn’t yet offered a specific “endgame” for the operation misses the point entirely—the only requirement is an Iran no longer able to threaten the region, or beyond. The type of regime that next governs, for example, is of lesser concern.

Second, the notion that the action is “unconstitutional” or “unlawful” betrays a misunderstanding of both the Constitution and historic practice. The original text of the Constitution granted Congress sole power “to make war,” but the final draft replaced "make" with "declare," recognizing the unique prerogatives of the president (“commander-in-chief”) on national security. Ever since Thomas Jefferson waged “undeclared” war against North African pirates in the Mediterranean, all presidents have claimed such authority. And while the 1973 War Powers Act tried to curb its excesses, the Trump administration met the letter of that law by informing Congressional leaders prior to the strike, and now has 60 days to garner formal approvals.

Third, America’s international allies were by no means neglected. The initial military operation aimed at taking out Khamenei and his inner circle, if it was to have any chance of success, required extreme secrecy. Select allies in the region were notified in advance, and many more, including NATO members, are now offering support for the longer-term mission of ensuring the Iranian regime remains defanged. Attempting to form an international coalition in advance—while the regime in Tehran prepared for war—would have been impractical and unwise.

Finally, the charge that the Trump administration ignored the possibility that diplomacy could achieve better outcomes than military action belies reality. White House envoys made several attempts at “coercive diplomacy,” but the barriers between the two sides—mostly centered on eliminating Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile threats—were all but unbreachable. This should come as no surprise: The last time comprehensi

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME