For those who are OK with the bombing of Iran (or not), do you support regime change?

[Aristaeus]

How is the leader of Iran “out of control”?

Aside from the terrorist funding and pushing gay people off roofs?

 

[tijl]

This regime has been promising to wipe off Israël for more than 40 years. And it's a terrorist regime, both within and abroad (remember all the attacks all over Europe).

And they are definitely trying to have nuclear bomb capacity; they've been approaching this objective for many years.

Whether they're on the verge of reaching that goal or not, it's Israël duty to try and prevent them to reach it, before it is too late.

On the other hand, Israël has recently sharply weakened Iran's proxies in Lebanon, in Gaza itself (Hamas), in Yemen (the Houthis), not to mention Syria.

So, they feel they're in a better position to further weaken Iran than they've been for years, and they considered they couldn't miss the opportunity. Hence their attack on Iran on June 14.

After the US bombing session in Iran a couple of days ago, the Israëlis consider that the job isn'nt completed yet and they need to further weaken the regime. I'm not sure their initial goal included a regime change in Iran.

And, personnally, as much as I long for such change, I firmly believe such change should be coming from the inside, i.e. the iranian people themselves.

There have been many attemps by that population to change the regime, that always were violently suppressed.

Israël's current actions on Iran could weaken some parts of the system, allowing the population to take over. However, such actions need to be carefully calibrated in a way that avoids it to create a reinforcement of national sentiment that could favor those who support the regime.

 

[Simpletruther]

Not making a poll, but just looking for feedback.

I don't support the bombing. I don't think it was justified. This would not have happened if Israel didn't purposely go after Iran's nuclear program. Netanyahu finally found his American sucker president.

Tbh, I don't know how I feel about regime change. Will it solve anything or just create extended turmoil in the Middle East.

I can't say we've had good success at this "regime change" thing. I don't support it.

Thoughts?

No. Let them change themselves.

 

[Perotista]

Not making a poll, but just looking for feedback.

I don't support the bombing. I don't think it was justified. This would not have happened if Israel didn't purposely go after Iran's nuclear program. Netanyahu finally found his American sucker president.

Tbh, I don't know how I feel about regime change. Will it solve anything or just create extended turmoil in the Middle East.

I can't say we've had good success at this "regime change" thing. I don't support it.

Thoughts?

Morally, I have no problem with regime change. The problem is that you never know who or what your going to get after you taken out a country’s leader. The new leader may be better or worse, more competent or less. It might make things better or it could make things worse. You’re going from a known quantity to an unknown one. One thing to remember, in most countries there’s always a number two or three to take the place of number one.

 

[Questerr]

Aside from the terrorist funding and pushing gay people off roofs?

What gay people get pushed off roofs in Iran? Do you think Iran is ISIS?

Are the Saudi’s out of control? Their royals fund terrorism and put gay people in prison like Iran does.

 

[justoneman]

Not making a poll, but just looking for feedback.

I don't support the bombing. I don't think it was justified. This would not have happened if Israel didn't purposely go after Iran's nuclear program. Netanyahu finally found his American sucker president.

Tbh, I don't know how I feel about regime change. Will it solve anything or just create extended turmoil in the Middle East.

I can't say we've had good success at this "regime change" thing. I don't support it.

Thoughts?

I do not support anything that pulls us into a war. I do not support regime change created by us. I am not interested in spending billions and billions only to have a terrible government in these places anyway. This includes Syria. Were you in favor of bombing there and the regime change it brought about?

 

[Moderate Right]

Not making a poll, but just looking for feedback.

I don't support the bombing. I don't think it was justified. This would not have happened if Israel didn't purposely go after Iran's nuclear program. Netanyahu finally found his American sucker president.

Tbh, I don't know how I feel about regime change. Will it solve anything or just create extended turmoil in the Middle East.

I can't say we've had good success at this "regime change" thing. I don't support it.

Thoughts?

Most of the Iranian people support regime change.

 

[Aristaeus]

What gay people get pushed off roofs in Iran? Do you think Iran is ISIS?

Are the Saudi’s out of control? Their royals fund terrorism and put gay people in prison like Iran does.

Iran has the death penalty for gay people and implements it. Did you not know this? Though they may be hanged rather than thrown off roofs, so I'll concede that point.

 

[Questerr]

Iran has the death penalty for gay people and implements it. Did you not know this? Though they may be hanged rather than thrown off roofs, so I'll concede that point.

Saudi Arabia has the death penalty for gay people and implements it. Are they “out of control” and need to be bombed?

 

[Aristaeus]

Saudi Arabia has the death penalty for gay people and implements it. Are they “out of control” and need to be bombed?

I never said Iran needs to be bombed, I agreed they were out of control, as are Saudi Arabia, though SA seems overall less brutal in their rule.

I'd love to see the Iranian and Saudi regimes removed for more liberal regimes, but that shouldn't be done by the west.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Not making a poll, but just looking for feedback.

I don't support the bombing. I don't think it was justified. This would not have happened if Israel didn't purposely go after Iran's nuclear program. Netanyahu finally found his American sucker president.

Tbh, I don't know how I feel about regime change. Will it solve anything or just create extended turmoil in the Middle East.

I can't say we've had good success at this "regime change" thing. I don't support it.

Thoughts?

I am 100% in support of Regime Change™.

Right here in the USA, the Crooked donnie trump regime has got ta GO!

"Sucker president" is right, his idiocy is eclipsed only by that of his braindead willfully stupid supporters.

 

[coyote505]

The United States created this mullah regime, brought them to power, by overthrowing the legitimately elected govt of Mossadegh in 1953 and installing its own handpicked dictator, the Shah, ramming him down their throats for 25 years. The resulting backlash that boiled up saw the mullahs come to power in Tehran. The United States created that situation, yet won't speak a word about its culpability.

Even today, we can see all these Washington elites calling for the Shah's kid to be returned to power in Tehran.

These people have learned nothing, and are impervious to learning anything.

Much of what you say is true. However, if you can find it , I suggest you watch the anime film Persepolis, which is an Iranian eye view of the events from about 1950 into the 1980s. It points out that Iran traded the Shah's 3,000 political prisoners for the Mullahs' 300,000.

Doesn't change the fact that intervention in other folks' affairs rarely ends well.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

I never said Iran needs to be bombed, I agreed they were out of control, as are Saudi Arabia, though SA seems overall less brutal in their rule.

Jamal Khashoggi tell you that? LMMFAO!

WHOA!! Guess he lost his head huh?

 

[Questerr]

I never said Iran needs to be bombed, I agreed they were out of control, as are Saudi Arabia, though SA seems overall less brutal in their rule.

I'd love to see the Iranian and Saudi regimes removed for more liberal regimes, but that shouldn't be done by the west.

How exactly is Saudi Arabia less brutal? What regime in the Middle East isn’t “out of control” by your standard?

 

[Tigerace117]

They are radicalized by their religion. The only time Muslim controlled countries have been peaceful is when they have been beaten militarily and the rest of the world keeps a heavy foot on their necks.

Oh really?

Because, gee, places like Tunisia sure say otherwise.

 

[coyote505]

How did Iran pose an imminent threat to the USA?

Answer: Iran did not pose an imminent threat to the USA.

Thus, our attack on Iran doesn't seem justified.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/22/us/politics/trump-strikes-war-iran.html

...What are legal scholars saying?

Several lawyers and scholars who have studied the international law of armed conflict say the United States is without a doubt at war with Iran for purposes of application of that law, and that Mr. Trump acted in violation of international conventions.

“The short answer is that this is, in my view, illegal under both international law and U.S. domestic law,” said Oona Hathaway, a professor of international law at Yale Law School who has worked at the Defense Department.

Brian Finucane, a former lawyer at the State Department, agreed that Mr. Trump needed to ask Congress for authorization beforehand. He also said “there is certainly a U.S. armed conflict with Iran, so the law of war applies.”

On Sunday, Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, called the U.S. attack an “outrageous, grave and unprecedented violation” of international law and of the United Nations charter, which forbids U.N. members from violating the sovereignty of other members.

Mr. Araghchi did not specifically say that his country is now at war with America. Mr. Finucane also said the United States had violated the U.N. charter.

Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University who has also worked at the Defense Department, said “one important matter for both domestic law and especially international law is the issue of ‘imminence.’”

The Trump administration is justifying the U.S. attack by saying Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon was imminent, Mr. Goodman noted.

But “the law would require that the attack would be imminent,” he said, and “it is very hard to see how the administration can meet that test under even the most charitable legal assessment.”

Even if one were to focus on the question of a nuclear bomb, U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that Iran had not yet decided to make such a weapon, even though it had developed a large stockpile of the enriched uranium necessary for doing so....

The fact remains that Iran had accumulated a large pile of 60% enriched uranium, which no nation without nuclear weapons ambitions has done, and that the distance from that to a bomb is a short time.

Iran with a bomb is like a 2 year old with a loaded gun. Not an acceptable risk, International law or not.

 

[sanman]

Much of what you say is true. However, if you can find it , I suggest you watch the anime film Persepolis, which is an Iranian eye view of the events from about 1950 into the 1980s. It points out that Iran traded the Shah's 3,000 political prisoners for the Mullahs' 300,000.

Doesn't change the fact that intervention in other folks' affairs rarely ends well.

The Israel lobby doesn't care -- just as they don't care about the US Constitution -- especially parts like Article 1, Section 8 which vest the right to make war with the US Congress, not the President.
All they care about is that Israel needs a Far Emperor to save it, and that means drafting the American vassal into service for that purpose.
America's founders did not intend for America to become an empire. Having fought to free themselves from the clutches of an empire, they did not wish to see themselves trapped in yet another one - even of their own making. That's why they designed the US Constitution the way that they did.
But those who are desperate for America to be an empire, so that they can use American imperialism for their own special benefit, will never abandon their advocacy of imperial pursuits thru America and its people.
It may be best for Americans to stop enlisting in the US military, and instead just enlist for National Guard duty. While National Guard units do get sent to war overseas, it at least makes it more difficult.

 

[Plasmaball]

The bombing was a good thing...for the world. Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.

Regime change would be a good thing...for the Iranian people. But the Iranian people must be the ones doing the changing.

What do you do if china or Russia give Iran a nuke now?

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Iran with a bomb is like a 2 year old with a loaded gun. Not an acceptable risk, International law or not.

Actually, its the dumb**** trump that is a toddler with a loaded gun.

So you are supportive of Crooked donnie trumps new phony "war" for Pissrael then? Lets get you on the record?

 

[WisconIndependent]

Most of the Iranian people support regime change.

SO, if that is true, let them do it and not us. This is how the GOP works, first they attack saying they are not doing for regime change, and then once successful, they start talking about regime change. It happens every time.

 

[Questerr]

They are radicalized by their religion. The only time Muslim controlled countries have been peaceful is when they have been beaten militarily and the rest of the world keeps a heavy foot on their necks.

The world has a heavy foot on the neck of Jordan? Or Oman? Or Malaysia?

 

[bythoughts]

SO, if that is true, let them do it and not us. This is how the GOP works, first they attack saying they are not doing for regime change, and then once successful, they start talking about regime change. It happens every time.

Hear, hear! Listening to Trump is an outright waste of time. He was against it ... two weeks to attack ... attacks end here, no regime change ... more attacks coming ... regime change ...

 

[ColdHardTruth]

I have long believed the hardliners in Iran need to be removed from power. They have done nothing but cause strife and other issues since 1979. It's time for Iran to go back to secular government.

They Ayatollahs have no business being involved in government. They are de facto terroists that use the government to terrorize the population of Iran.

 

[Ganondagan]

Oh really?

Because, gee, places like Tunisia sure say otherwise.

Yes, really. Any Muslim country can be peaceful for a time, but a core element of Islam is hatred of Jews and a mandate to kill every single Jew on earth.

 

[bythoughts]

They Ayatollahs have no business being involved in government. They are de facto terroists that use the government to terrorize the population of Iran.

We said the same about the Taliban. Problem is, how much credibility does the U.S. have when talking about how they're going to drive out the Taliban?! And Iran is twice as big a country!