@wtg said:
What I'm reading is that control is basically distributed in a network in Iran, and the death of even several key leaders won't fundamentally change the control structure there. But by doing what we've done, we've introduced an element of chaos and uncertainty into the whole situation.
I think @mik is right, that this will be a short intervention; my assessment is that Trump was just looking for another headline about how brave and great he is. He will hold up the death of the ayatollah as a huge success, nothing anyone else would have done and he will continue to call for the Iranian citizens to take back their country. If they don't, he'll just say he set the stage and they didn't take advantage of it and wash his hands of the whole matter.
I doubt that he's considered what happens next.
I do not believe you're right. He saw an opportunity and took it. No one knows for certain how it will end up, but we've been screwing around with these bastards and their nuclear ambitions for 25 years.
What we must do is avoid trying to dictate what Iran looks like after this, and I certainly hope there has been groundwork laid for a replacement government. While Palavi probably has the most power behind him, I seriously doubt the Iranians wish to see the return of the Shah, even in his son. We cannot forget the genesis of the Islamic Republic was largely due to our brutal meddling, and several generations of Iranians have been taught all about that.
