Khamenei, One of Most Evil People in History, is Dead by 6ixStringJack

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

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

POSTED BY: 6IXSTRINGJACK
UPDATED: Wednesday, March 11, 2026 22:40
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1208
PAGE 3 of 3

Wednesday, March 11, 2026 8:13 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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 | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 11, 2026 10:52 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

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 prosecution. In authoritarian systems, that kind of “golden bridge” has often been the only way to facilitate meaningful change.

Such an approach may seem generous toward a regime responsible for decades of repression at home and violence abroad. But the objective of strategy is not justice or moral satisfaction — it is a better future and an end to violence.

There is an appetite for change. Freedom House ranks Iran among the most politically restrictive states in the world, comparable to countries like North Korea and Syria in the bottom tier of the index. Its GDP per capita is only about $4,000 to $6,000, far below most of its Gulf neighbors, about one-tenth of Israel’s, and well below the global average. Living standards have been heavily eroded by persistent economic instability. Inflation has regularly hovered in the range of 30 to 50 percent in recent years — among the highest in the world.

But under better circumstances, Iran’s vast oil and natural gas reserves — among the largest in the world — could attract large-scale investment and joint energy projects with Gulf partners. Current trade between Iran and Gulf states is roughly $25 billion annually, much of it indirect or routed through intermediaries. Under open conditions, that could plausibly double or triple.

For the Iranian people, the improvement would be spectacular. One path leads to continued isolation, economic stagnation and endless confrontation with the outside world. The other leads to reintegration into the global economy and the possibility of normal political and economic life after decades of revolutionary isolation. The protests that have shaken Iran in recent years suggest that many citizens are already keenly aware of that choice.

Would the remnants of the regime agree? Few would predict it, but with almost their entire leadership gone, the skies controlled by enemies, their navy sunk, their people despising them, they are not in the strongest bargaining position. More violence may be needed to convince them, but an offer should be made.

For the U.S. and its allies, the logic is equally clear. If the war fails to produce such a transformation, it will only have reinforced the cycle of hostility that has defined relations with Iran for 47 years. Israel has also seen its standing badly undermined not only in Europe but also in U.S. public opinion. It must shift back toward a paradigm of peace.

Indeed, a peace treaty between Israel and a new Iran would be an excellent goal to strive for. It is a vision for the future, to be sure — but if the international community plays its cards right, that future could be years away rather than decades. Trump has a chance to do something truly great.

___________________

Dan Perry is the former Cairo-based Middle East editor and London-based Europe-Africa editor of the Associated Press, the former chairman of the Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem, and the author of two books.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

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

Wednesday, March 11, 2026 11:23 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

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 | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 11, 2026 11:35 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

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 comprehensive diplomacy was attempted, in the form of the Obama administration’s 2015 nuclear agreement, Iran refused to give up its ability to enrich uranium all the way up to bomb-grade, curtail its ballistic missile programs or reduce support for its regional terror proxies. Diplomacy with this regime had been a dead end for decades.

It is certainly understandable that critics and concerned citizens alike would worry that the Iran mission could lead to another “endless war” in the Middle East. But this was not a specific “regime change” operation requiring a direct U.S. long-term commitment. It was a rare opportunity to eliminate a decades-old security threat to the region and the world, and offer the possibility of a better future for the Iranian people. We can all join in wishing for its success.

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

Be Nice. Don't be a dick.

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

Wednesday, March 11, 2026 12:33 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
In other words, the war ends when IRAN ends it

The war ends when we say it ends.

Khamenei will meet his father, wife and son in hell soon enough.

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

Be Nice. Don't be a dick.

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

Wednesday, March 11, 2026 1:12 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

SIX, I say this as a friend: Time for a mental/ emotional/ moral course correction.

-----------

"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 | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 11, 2026 4:09 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

That's how you maintain the status quo.

Nah. We're good.

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

Be Nice. Don't be a dick.

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

Wednesday, March 11, 2026 5:51 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
That's how you maintain the status quo.

Nah. We're good.

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

Be Evil. Be a dick.

Trump’s war against Iran is uniquely unpopular among US military actions of the past century

By Charles Walldorf, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Wake Forest University

Published: March 10, 2026 1:48pm EDT

https://theconversation.com/trumps-war-against-iran-is-uniquely-unpopu
lar-among-us-military-actions-of-the-past-century-277586

It’s clear that regime change is among the biggest objectives of the U.S. war in Iran.

“I have to be involved in the appointment” of Iran’s next leader, President Donald Trump said on March 5, 2026.

Trump has also said he might put U.S. boots on the ground to get the job done.

Trump now joins a long list of modern U.S. presidents – from Franklin Roosevelt to Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, George W. Bush and Barack Obama – who started wars to either overthrow hostile regimes or support embattled friendly governments abroad.

For all the parallels to history, though, Trump’s Iran war is historically unique in one critically important way: In its early stages, the war is not popular with the American public.

A recent CNN poll found that 59% of Americans oppose the war – a trend found in poll after poll since the war began.

As an expert on U.S. foreign policy and regime change wars, my research shows that what’s likely generating public opposition to the Iran war today is the absence of a big story with a grand purpose that has bolstered public support for just about every major U.S.-promoted regime change war since 1900. These broad, purpose-filled narratives generate public buy-in to support the costs of war, which are often high in terms of money spent and lives lost when regime change is at stake.

Two historical examples

In the 1930s and ’40s, a widely accepted – and largely true – story about the dangers of fascism spreading and democracies falling galvanized national support in the United States to enter and then take on the high costs of fighting in World War II.

Likewise, in the 2000s a dominant narrative about preventing a repeat of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and stopping terrorism brought strong initial public support for the war in Afghanistan, with 88% support in 2001, and the war in Iraq, with 70% support in 2003.

With no comparable narrative around Iran today, Trump and Republicans could face big problems, especially as costs continue to rise.

No anti-Iran narrative

Iran has been a thorn in the side of many American presidents for a long time. So, what’s missing? Why no grand-purpose narrative at the start of this war?

Two things.

First, grand-purpose narratives are rooted in major geopolitical gains by a rival regime – the danger to the U.S. For the anti-fascism narrative, those events were German troops plowing across Europe and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. For the anti-terrorism narrative, it was planes crashing into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Gains like these by rivals prove traumatic to the nation. They also dislodge the status quo and provide the opportunity for new grand-purpose narratives with new policy directions to emerge.

Today, most Americans see no existential danger around Iran. A Marist poll from March 3, 2026, found that 55% of Americans view Iran as a minor threat or no threat at all. And the number who see Iran as a major threat, 44%, is down from 48% in July 2025.

By contrast, 64% of Americans saw Iraq as a “considerable threat” prior to the 2003 U.S. war in Iraq.

The poll numbers on Iran aren’t surprising. Iran is far from a geopolitical menace to the United States today. To the contrary, it’s been in geopolitical retreat in the Middle East in recent years.

In the summer of 2025, Iran’s nuclear nuclear enrichment facilities were significantly damaged – “completely and totally obliterated,” according to Trump, though there is no confirmation of that claim – during the 12-Day war between Iran and Israel.

And in recent years, Tehran has lost a major ally in Syria and witnessed its proxy network all but collapse. Iran has also faced crippling economic conditions and historic protests at home.

As the polls show, none of that has sparked a grand-purpose narrative.

Missing a good story

The second missing factor for narrative formation today is any strong messaging from the White House.

In the months prior to World War II, Roosevelt used his position of authority as president to give speech after speech, setting the context of the traumatic events of the 1930s, explaining the dangers at hand and outlining a course going forward. Though less truthful in its content, Bush did the same for nearly two years before the Iraq War.

Trump did almost none of this storytelling leading up to the Iran war. Five days before the war started, the president devoted three minutes to Iran in a nearly two-hour State of the Union Address.

Prior to that, he made a comment here and there to the press about Iran, but no storytelling preparing the nation for war. Likewise, since the war began, the administration’s stated reasons for military action keep shifting.

No wonder 54% of Americans polled disapprove of Trump’s handling of Iran and 60% of Americans say Trump has no clear plan for Iran. Also, 60% disapprove of Trump’s handling of foreign policy in general.

By comparison, Americans approved of Bush’s handling of foreign policy by 63% in early 2003.

Absent a cohesive, unifying story, it’s also no surprise there is lots of political fracturing today.

Partisan divides run deep – Democrats and independent voters strongly oppose the war. But Trump’s MAGA coalition is cracking too, with people like Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene sharply criticizing the war.

The way out

If he opts for it, there is an off-ramp for Trump from the Iran war. It’s one he knows well.

When U.S. leaders get caught up in costly regime change wars that outrun national support, they tend to back down, often with far fewer political costs than if they’d continued their unpopular war.

When the disaster referred to as Black Hawk Down hit in Somalia in 1993, killing 18 U.S. Marines, President Bill Clinton opted to end the mission to topple the warlords that ruled the country. Troops came home six months later.

Likewise, after the Benghazi attack killed four Americans in Libya in 2012, Obama pulled out all U.S. personnel working in Libya on nation-building operations.

And just last year, when Trump realized that U.S. ground troops would be necessary to topple the Houthi militant group in Yemen, he negotiated a ceasefire and ended his air war in that country with no significant political fallout.

With Trump’s Iran war, gas prices keep rising, more soldiers are likely to die, and stocks are highly volatile.

Backing down makes a lot of sense. History confirms that.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

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

Wednesday, March 11, 2026 9:27 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
That's how you maintain the status quo.

Nah. We're good.

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

Be Evil. Be a dick.
Trump’s war against Iran is uniquely unpopular among US military actions of the past century

By Charles Walldorf, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Wake Forest University

Published: March 10, 2026 1:48pm EDT

https://theconversation.com/trumps-war-against-iran-is-uniquely-unpopu
lar-among-us-military-actions-of-the-past-century-277586

It’s clear that regime change is among the biggest objectives of the U.S. war in Iran.

“I have to be involved in the appointment” of Iran’s next leader, President Donald Trump said on March 5, 2026.

Trump has also said he might put U.S. boots on the ground to get the job done.

Trump now joins a long list of modern U.S. presidents – from Franklin Roosevelt to Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, George W. Bush and Barack Obama – who started wars to either overthrow hostile regimes or support embattled friendly governments abroad.

For all the parallels to history, though, Trump’s Iran war is historically unique in one critically important way: In its early stages, the war is not popular with the American public.

Well... just wait until more sleeper cells activate, they don't flub their attacks like they just did in NYC, Americans start dying by the dozens or even hundreds at a time and the Legacy Media can't run cover for them anymore.

This isn't a fucking game dude.

You have no idea the peril that your party and ideology put us in.

You will though.

You will.

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

Be Nice. Don't be a dick.

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

Wednesday, March 11, 2026 9:51 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
That's how you maintain the status quo.

Nah. We're good.

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

Be Nice. Don't be a dick.

You seem to think that change .. ANY change ... is good.

But there are good changes and bad changes.

You don't Make America Great Again by leaving behind everything that made us great in the first place. Starting with our Constitution.

-----------

"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 | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 11, 2026 10:00 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
That's how you maintain the status quo.
Nah. We're good.

SECOND:
Trump’s war against Iran is uniquely unpopular among US military actions of the past century

By Charles Walldorf, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Wake Forest University

Published: March 10, 2026 1:48pm EDT

https://theconversation.com/trumps-war-against-iran-is-uniquely-unpopu
lar-among-us-military-actions-of-the-past-century-277586

It’s clear that regime change is among the biggest objectives of the U.S. war in Iran.

“I have to be involved in the appointment” of Iran’s next leader, President Donald Trump said on March 5, 2026.

Trump has also said he might put U.S. boots on the ground to get the job done.

Trump now joins a long list of modern U.S. presidents – from Franklin Roosevelt to Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, George W. Bush and Barack Obama – who started wars to either overthrow hostile regimes or support embattled friendly governments abroad.

For all the parallels to history, though, Trump’s Iran war is historically unique in one critically important way: In its early stages, the war is not popular with the American public.

SIX:
Well... just wait until more sleeper cells activate, they don't flub their attacks like they just did in NYC, Americans start dying by the dozens or even hundreds at a time and the Legacy Media can't run cover for them anymore.

This isn't a fucking game dude.
You have no idea the peril that your party and ideology put us in.
You will though.
You will.

I read your posts, SIX, and they're head- bangingly stupid. You're the poster child of dumb fucks.

IRAN wasn't sending terrorists around the world, that was our “Arab ally in the Mideast“, Saudi Fucking Arabia.

Iran isn't even Arab. They're Persian. And it wasn't the Dems who just turned Iran into an implacable enemy, it was Dumb Fuck Trump, Fearless Leader of the Dumb Fucks.

-----------

"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 | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 11, 2026 10:40 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Uh huh.

Just like your picture of so-called Iranian women showing off their legs in what looks to be 1960's fashion garb.

Meanwhile, any pictures we've seen of Iranian women out on the streets marching with pictures of the Ayatollah are covered head to toe with no makeup and no skin showing except for their faces.

Right.

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

Be Nice. Don't be a dick.

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS SINCE LAST READ

USER	POST DATE
6ixStringJack	03.11 22:40