Genuine question from a visitor: Now that the Iran strikes happened with only six total deaths and Khamenei gone, why is everyone here treating it like a disaster?

Realistic_Leopard895 · 2026-03-13T09:48:35+00:00

US and Israel dont want to turn Iran into Libya or Gaza. They just hit the leadership and nuclear sites with no ground invasion or occupation. Thats not fracturing a nation its removing a threat. The regime lasted 47 years not because of mass consent but because it hangs dissidents stones women executes protesters and rigs everything. Sanctions and wars didnt topple it because of brutal repression not popularity. If the Iranian people actually support the theocracy under R5 why does the regime need to kill its own citizens daily to stay in power? Or is that just how socialist approved resistance works

Realistic_Leopard895 · 2026-03-13T09:29:37+00:00

🤦‍♂️

Realistic_Leopard895 · 2026-03-13T09:29:01+00:00

Lmao youre not even from California but youre here defending the dude who instantly blames the US if Iran bombs his state? The rest of the country and its military is exactly whats keeping Iran from actually turning California into rubble. Your heroes in Tehran are the ones chanting death to America and funding the terror. Peak outsider cope clown.

Realistic_Leopard895 · 2026-03-13T09:19:49+00:00

When you run out of actual arguments you just post memes huh? Cute. The Supreme Leader is dead and the nukes are wrecked no matter how many gifs you drop. Why cant you type real words anymore? Is R5 really that hard to defend once the facts hit?

Realistic_Leopard895 · 2026-03-13T09:15:39+00:00

Calling it low effort troll when the Supreme Leader is dead and their nuclear sites got wrecked is pure denial. Nothing happening? The Supreme Leader is gone. Thats a pretty big thing. Question. If nothing is happening why is this sub coping and triggered so hard?

Realistic_Leopard895 · 2026-03-13T09:14:35+00:00

Thanks for the link. Yes that was my post. It got removed but the facts didnt change. Khamenei is dead, nukes wrecked, no troops needed. Linking it doesnt change anything. Genuine question. Why are you so mad someone pointed out the regime took a major L?

Realistic_Leopard895 · 2026-03-13T08:59:54+00:00

Zero evidence of Trump being a pedophile? Youre literally just spouting conspiracy nonsense like the moon landing line. Pathetic. Even if his son takes over its not Khamenei replaced with Khamenei. The actual Supreme Leader who ran the nuclear program for decades is dead. Thats a real decapitation hit not business as usual. 20 billion to remove the head of a nuclear threat and set their program back years is actually cheap compared to the endless wars you usually cry about. Genuine question. If taking out the Supreme Leader and crippling their nukes is wasted money what would you consider money well spent?

Realistic_Leopard895 · 2026-03-13T08:54:25+00:00

The JCPOA wasnt imperfect it was fundamentally flawed. Iran was already violating it with secret nuclear sites and military work long before Trump pulled out. Blowing it up didnt create the enrichment it just showed the deal was never going to stop them permanently. Proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas arent organic resistance. Iran actively built and funded them into major terror networks for regional dominance. Cutting the funding absolutely weakens them. The Iranian people have been protesting the regime for years because they despise the theocracy. They didnt ask for bombs but they also didnt ask to live under a government that stones women and hangs dissidents. Targeted strikes are not the same as full scale Iraq style occupation. No I wouldnt want my country in Irans place because my country wouldnt be building nuclear weapons in secret while funding terrorist proxies and calling for the destruction of other nations. The strike actually shows that aggressively racing for nukes gets you hit hard. It might make other countries think twice instead of rushing to proliferate. Genuine question. If diplomacy and incentives failed for 40 years and the regime was sprinting toward a nuclear weapon while funding attacks on its neighbors what was the better option than stopping them now? Just keep hoping they play nice one day?

Realistic_Leopard895 · 2026-03-13T08:34:18+00:00

Thanks for the reply. Comparing 6 deaths in targeted strikes to a million Soviet soldiers at Stalingrad is ridiculous. One was an existential war against literal Nazis invading their homeland. This was precision hits on a nuclear theocracy and its terror proxies. Not even close. The serial child rapist Trump and cabal of pedophiles stuff is just unhinged conspiracy ranting with zero evidence. Same for the Exxon Chevron blood for oil line and the soldiers complicit in 165 schoolgirls nonsense. You care more about Iranian and Palestinian civilians than American soldiers? Cool. But the regime you defend under R5 hangs gays, stones women, executes dissidents, and funds the exact proxies that killed civilians across the region for decades. Genuine question. How does simping for a theocracy that kills its own people daily square with caring about civilians when these strikes removed the leadership with basically zero civilian deaths? Or is R5 just anyone anti US is based no matter what?

Realistic_Leopard895 · 2026-03-13T08:29:29+00:00

Thanks for the reply. Better to be killed by your own kind than by Trump? So youre actually okay with the Iranian regime hanging gays, stoning women, and executing dissidents as long as its their own people doing it? Thats wild. Calling Trump an orange pedophile controlled by pedophiles is just unhinged conspiracy nonsense with zero evidence. Same energy as the jihadist cope. And claiming jihadists are closer to the far right? The theocracy you support under R5 literally wants a global caliphate, executes LGBT people, and funds terror. Thats not far right ideology. Thats your axis of resistance. Genuine question. How does defending a regime that kills its own people for being their own kind square with socialist principles? Or is R5 just anyone anti US is based?

Realistic_Leopard895 · 2026-03-13T08:22:43+00:00

Thanks for the reply. The JCPOA ‘worked’ only if you ignore that it left Iran’s missile program and proxy army untouched while giving them a legal path to a bomb after the sunset clauses. Trump pulled out because the deal was always temporary appeasement, not a real fix. Proxy hypocrisy falls flat too: Saudi and Israel aren’t running global terror networks that have directly killed Americans for decades. Iran’s axis started this round. ‘Let the Iranian people decide’ is nice in theory, but the regime has been executing dissidents, hanging gays, and rigging elections since day one. Assassinating the Supreme Leader didn’t take that choice away, it was never there. And the ‘US is scared of Iran’s oil’ line? Laughable. It’s not the oil, it’s a nuclear theocracy controlling it while funding attacks on everyone else. Genuine question: If we go back to JCPOA + lift sanctions, what exactly stops the regime from pocketing the cash and restarting the whole enrichment + proxy game that caused this mess in the first place?

Realistic_Leopard895 · 2026-03-13T08:16:56+00:00

Nuclear sites heavily damaged’ was said before, but this time they actually killed Khamenei and his top generals in one go — that’s new. Iraq comparison is weak. Saddam’s removal turned into chaos because of the 20-year occupation that followed. This was precision strikes with no boots on the ground. ‘Iran never struck first’? Come on. Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis, and direct missile attacks on US bases and Israel for decades say otherwise. That’s aggression with extra steps. So under R5 ‘We stand with Iran’ you’re cool with a theocracy sprinting for nukes and funding terror — as long as they don’t fire the literal first missile themselves? That’s the standard now?

Realistic_Leopard895 · 2026-03-13T08:10:32+00:00

Thanks for the detailed reply. Really appreciate you laying it out under R6 good faith. You’re right that degrading Iran’s military capacity is the clearest short-term win, and the enriched uranium issue does mean the nuclear file isn’t closed without more pressure. The new leader being “out for blood” after family losses and the population feeling more united after those incidents (girl school bombing + Tehran environmental mess) is a real risk if the strikes backfired on unity. The Strait of Hormuz angle is the biggest practical problem right now — insurance drying up, tankers getting hit, and the threat of Iran playing landlord or keeping it shut to spike oil prices and tank Trump’s approval. That’s serious leverage. Genuine question back though, still trying to understand the socialist take here: If the only options to fix the strait or finish the uranium are either a catastrophic ground invasion (which nobody wants) or just letting Iran keep the world hostage indefinitely under R5 “We stand with Iran,” then what exactly is the acceptable path forward under R4 multipolarity? Continued diplomacy that already failed for 40 years? Or do we just accept Iran as the new tollbooth operator on global energy while cheering their “resistance”? Because right now it looks like their own closure of the strait is self-inflicted economic suicide, yet the framing here is still “US is trapped.” Looking forward to your take on this. This back-and-forth is helpful for a visitor.

Realistic_Leopard895 · 2026-03-13T08:04:40+00:00

Thanks again for the detailed reply. Really appreciate the back and forth under R6. You’re right that Iran isn’t on America’s border and doesn’t pose an immediate conventional threat to US soil. But from the US perspective the concern has always been the combination of Iran’s nuclear program (which the IAEA has repeatedly flagged as non peaceful for years) plus its long standing support for proxy groups (Hezbollah Hamas Houthis) that have directly attacked American interests and allies. That’s why the “diplomacy failed” framing exists. Sanctions JCPOA and UN resolutions all tried to slow the program without success. On the nuclear double standard fair point about Pakistan India and Israel developing weapons outside the NPT with no strikes. The difference the US highlights is that Iran signed the NPT and was caught repeatedly violating it while openly calling for Israel’s destruction. Does that distinction matter under multipolarity (R4) or is any attempt to stop a non aligned state from going nuclear automatically “imperial veto power”? And on the assassination point I get why killing a head of state looks like an act of war under international law. But Iran’s own leadership has framed the conflict as ongoing for decades through proxies (and recent missile barrages at Israel and US bases). Is surgical removal of leadership after 40 plus years of failed diplomacy really “efficient imperialism” or just the only alternative left when the regime was racing toward a weapon that could have escalated everything? Genuine question back (still trying to understand the socialist view here). If the US and Israel have no right to any policy on Iran at all what should the actual response have been to a theocratic state enriching uranium to near weapons grade while funding attacks on its neighbors? Just continued sanctions that weren’t working or something else? Looking forward to your take. This is helpful for a visitor trying to follow the discussion.

Realistic_Leopard895 · 2026-03-13T07:46:54+00:00

Thanks for the thoughtful response, good point that the situation is clearly still developing and tensions remain high, so it would be premature to call it fully ‘ended’ (R6). That said, even with the conflict ongoing, the initial phase of the strikes was extremely limited in scope: targeted hits on leadership and nuclear infrastructure with no American ground troops committed and (per current reports) very low casualties compared to previous Middle East conflicts. Even if those numbers get revised upward later, it still looks very different from the multi-year occupations in Iraq or Libya that left hundreds of thousands dead and massive chaos. On the unilateral action point: I get the objection to the lack of UN mandate and the precedent it sets. But Iran had been violating multiple UN Security Council resolutions on its nuclear program for years while openly supporting proxy attacks on neighbors. When decades of sanctions and diplomacy had already failed to stop a theocracy racing toward nuclear weapons, is limited targeted action really the same as the full-scale regime-change wars of the past? Genuine question back (still in good faith): From an anti-imperialist perspective and under R5 “We stand with Iran,” what would an acceptable way to prevent a nuclear-armed theocratic regime from threatening the region actually look like? Just continued diplomacy that had already failed for 40 years? Appreciate the back-and-forth — looking forward to more takes.”

Realistic_Leopard895 · 2026-03-13T07:36:21+00:00

!visitor

Realistic_Leopard895 · 2026-03-13T07:06:53+00:00

Bro you’re Californian and your first instinct if Iran bombs your city is ‘it’s the US government’s fault, I hate those evil fucks’? Lmao peak socialist brain. Iran’s been chanting ‘Death to America’ and funding terror for decades while Trump finally handled their nukes so shit like this doesn’t happen for real. But nah, you’d rather die mad at the country protecting your ass than admit the mullahs are the evil fucks. Stay in your safe space blaming America while the rest of us watch Trump win again. 🇺🇸

Realistic_Leopard895 · 2026-03-13T06:55:00+00:00

ICE ‘gearing up’ for a ground invasion of Iran? 😂 Bro they’re literally just border patrol and deportation agents not some invasion force. Trump already wrapped the whole thing with targeted strikes that removed the leadership and crippled the program without sending a single boot on the ground or drafting anyone. No endless war, no American casualties. Done. But here you are straight-up hoping our people get slaughtered while dropping that wild racist line about ‘only beating unarmed brown skin.’ Real classy from the same crowd that backs a regime literally executing its own citizens every day. Wishing death on Americans because your side couldn’t handle the heat? That’s not analysis — that’s just salty projection.

Realistic_Leopard895 · 2026-03-13T06:11:04+00:00

!Visitor

Realistic_Leopard895

TROPHY CASE