Either Iran negotiates some more, digs into nuclear weapon development, has regime change, or things go to shit more broadly. Same 4 options that were available before and these strikes do nothing but make things worse for every party involved. Just more Trump machismo, best I can hope is that it’s 3 strikes and we are out… but I really doubt it.
The bombing actually makes the chances of regime change even harder. There’s nothing like being attacked by a foreign adversary to galvanize support for an authoritarian regime.
Could go both ways, really. A good part of the population - especially in big cities - is quite fed up with the Islamist regime, and a large number of them likely aren’t too thrilled about the prospect of it building nuclear weapons either. It might not be the way they would’ve preferred a regime change to happen, but if it looks like it’s about to happen, they’ll likely seize the opportunity.
I guess it really depends on what you bomb. Military bases, government buildings etc – there is a chance. Civilian infrastructure, hospitals etc – no.
It should be noted though that for example during WWII, the allied bombing of German cities really lowered morale, despite what propaganda tried to portray; but the situation is obviously different because Germany was actively at war with boots on the ground and everyone including its citizens knew they were an open aggressor.
Edit: of course it wasn’t open revolt, but it sped up regime change.
Also please don’t read this as pro bombing. I think this is worst solution to the issue that was caused by Western countries that never stepped up
Either Iran negotiates some more, digs into nuclear weapon development, has regime change, or things go to shit more broadly. Same 4 options that were available before and these strikes do nothing but make things worse for every party involved. Just more Trump machismo, best I can hope is that it’s 3 strikes and we are out… but I really doubt it.
The bombing actually makes the chances of regime change even harder. There’s nothing like being attacked by a foreign adversary to galvanize support for an authoritarian regime.
Could go both ways, really. A good part of the population - especially in big cities - is quite fed up with the Islamist regime, and a large number of them likely aren’t too thrilled about the prospect of it building nuclear weapons either. It might not be the way they would’ve preferred a regime change to happen, but if it looks like it’s about to happen, they’ll likely seize the opportunity.
You don’t revolt under bombardment.
I guess it really depends on what you bomb. Military bases, government buildings etc – there is a chance. Civilian infrastructure, hospitals etc – no.
It should be noted though that for example during WWII, the allied bombing of German cities really lowered morale, despite what propaganda tried to portray; but the situation is obviously different because Germany was actively at war with boots on the ground and everyone including its citizens knew they were an open aggressor.
Edit: of course it wasn’t open revolt, but it sped up regime change.
Also please don’t read this as pro bombing. I think this is worst solution to the issue that was caused by Western countries that never stepped up