The Death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ✎

A great day for the Jewish people. A huge day for the Iranian people. 

And a beautiful day for mankind.

I saw this video on the Guardian which made me smile:

I have several things to say.

1. We should take a moment to remember the tens of thousands of brave Iranian unarmed protesters which the regime has committed organised mass murder against in the past weeks.

2. The US and Israel are showing the world what military might can do to make the world a safer place by preventing Iran, a pariah and rogue state, from making nuclear and ballistic missiles. Take note China. They definitely deserve our gratitude. They have my support.

3. I think Ayatollah Khamenei more than warranted military action, and that Trump has already exhausted so-called “negotiations”. Iran’s paramilitaries, in other countries, have gunned down or abducted thousands of civilians. They have launched tens-of-thousands of unguided missiles at civilian areas. The Islamic Republic, since its founding, has constantly threatened to destroy a much smaller country thousand-miles away, which was allied with Iran and had never attacked it. And it is enriching uranium to weapons grade, while maintaining a public “countdown clock” to their use.

4. I am in favour of the US President’s unilateral military powers under the War Powers Act, passed by Congress in 1973. Ultimately, the US president is the Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces. I think the modern political mechanics of US democracy (especially amid rancorous politics and the degrading of a unified common culture) mean that domestic politics and media coverage distort the complex reality of warfare. The modern political factionalism demands unrealistic black-and-white precise definition of military objectives and successes, which can then be used as a club with which to beat political opponents over the head. The President’s war powers are too important to be fettered in this way. He therefore has legitimate power to order the armed forces to act, but the US constitutional balance (under the War Powers Act) is probably just right. Whether a particular military action constitutes a “war” seems to be a “political” question derived probably(?) from the power of the purse. Congress would have to decide that a war was needed, pass a declaration to that effect, then appropriate money to mobilise conscripts and resources (or hire mercenaries, in the old world). Recent US military precedent seems to confirm that the 60-day window is the constitutional pivot at which Congressional permission should, or would, be sought. Obama did it in Libya, Clinton in Kosovo, Kennedy in Vietnam, and Truman in Korea.

5. I don’t think peaceful or grassroots uprisings can succeed against a deeply entrenched military state. The IRGC was established after the 1979 revolution specifically to protect the Islamic system and prevent internal dissent or military coups. They have an estimated force of nearly 190k active personnel. I think a full-scale invasion, foreign occupation, and forced regime change by the West in necessary. This is the exact playbook the US used during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and historically during the post-WWII occupations of Germany and Japan. If the Shah-in-exile is assisted to become the pro-tem leader of the country while a new administration is put in place via elections then Iran stands a better chance of becoming a safe, civilised state than if it’s left to whoever on the streets has the most weapons when the dust settles.