Hacker News

Aren't these Iranians the same folks that declare religious wars or Jihad's ?

I would not be surprised if we see increased terrorism against Americans worldwide for the next 100 years . . .

"interesting new phenomenon"

I would argue, directly targeting the leaders of another state is a "interesting new phenomenon".

We can talk about Hulk Hogan's death for 100 comments but not this?

We allow death threads for all kinds of celebrities and people with no relationship to tech. Out of all of the guidelines, this one is probably the most often quoted and the least consistently followed.

Yeah NOW it's suddenly about the guidelines lmao

Iran is already a parliamentary democracy, the aspect that’s criticized is the fact that candidates must be approved by their religious council. The Ayatollah didn’t/doesn’t exercise direct executive control over the country, so his removal wouldn’t create an immediate leadership vacuum.

For as much as the far right in the US likes to criticize Iran, ultimately their only real complaint about their ‘theocracy with democratic characteristics’ is that it isn’t Christian.

Where did democracy kicked in in the last two decades after their leaders were assassinated or captured by foreign aggressors though?

The closest is Iraq, and it's not a functioning democracy but a hybrid regime.

Excellent question - my understanding is that previous decapitation attacks were avoided due to the probability that the IRGC would take over as a simple dictatorship. Unclear what's changed now though.

So, what does that mean?

Their government is structured to resist this. There are another 20K Mullah's that succeed in their place. I have no idea how much experience they have or how that works in detail. Most of them at the moment AFAIK are in underground bunkers. I'm waiting for news on those.

They assuredly have a succession plan. This won’t cause them to back down.

> one of those regimes that they just choose/install someone else and keep going

The council (50+ members) may elect another leader in his stead, provided the current council can hold on to their seats, which depends on a lot of factors.

> If it falls, will the democracy kick in or a civil war

If the previous Western policy for the region is any indicator, they'd prefer a monarch over democracy. Probably even civil war over democracy, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Disagree about the first part. Israeli intel agencies have very deep roots in Iran, and could very quickly be humiliated if Khamenei popped up with a jeering rebuttal to their claim.

Generally when you murder 30k of your own people the civilized world doesn't let you get away with it.

The U.S. hasn't declared war since WWII.

Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (I and II), Afghanistan, etc. were not technically wars in the sense that there was any form of formal declaration by congress. The U.S. constitution allocates the authority to declare war to congress but, in practice, it's been under the sole authority of the POTUS since long before Trump.

This reallocation of authority hasn't been a huge problem until now. Now you have a POTUS whose motives for starting a war are entirely suspect. It's true that negotiations between Iran and the U.S. would have had significant trust hurdles to overcome. The U.S. and Iran had a deal that granted Iran relief from economic sanctions in exchange for a halt to Iran's nuclear program. It was working, but Trump is the president who unilaterally broke that agreement in his previous term[1]. Trump has also repeatedly broken his own agreements in his current term. Even his own signature is now completely worthless. What would it have taken to assure Iran the U.S. could be trusted to honour its word with Trump in power?

Moreover, the timing of this war makes it hard to view as anything other than the bloodiest case of "Wag the Dog" of the modern era. Americans need to put this "president of peace" behind bars or he'll just keep starting wars. Once that's done, serious consideration should be given to restoring many of the powers the constitution allocates to congress, including the authority to declare war.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_...

Israel does not need a declaration of war to kill heads of state. Their targeted killing policy has been upheld by their own Supreme Court. Whether international law agrees is another matter.

The US has also done this since 1945 (at least) although executive orders have, at times, placed some restraint on the practice.

One could easily imagine certain foreign leaders saying, “Will no one rid me of this turbulent orange buffoon?”

Did you miss that time Russia sent multiple kill squads after Zelensky? Seems like it's been on the table for a few years now.

What's the time window of "now"?

For example in 2022 Russia tried to take out the Ukrainian president with a "3 day special military operation", that is still going on.

Do you think the estimated 6,221 men and women protesting against the regime who were killed on orders from that head of state should get a vote here?

The same state's leader that sold to Russia the drones being used to violate Ukraine's sovereignty?

If the 86-year old leader is still alive one would imagine that he would want to offer reassurance and & encouragement to his supporters by making some kind of appearance.

More relevant is who'll take his place, and whether they're better or worse.

Note that regime collapse, in a major petrostate with a population of 92 million and in the middle of a critical yet volatile region, can be worse than "the devil you know".

There is no benefit, and significant risk, in lying about that (it's an easily disproven claim if they're lying).

I don't trust them because I like them. I trust them because being truthful is in their best interest (and I trust they will always act in their own interest).