This is just a short update on the news, as I presume everyone with an interest in this conflict is following what is happening today. Below is the headline in the NYT; click on the screenshot to read or find the article archived here:
Of coure you wonder how Trump knew that. An excerpt:
President Trump announced on Saturday that the U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran had killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the nation’s supreme leader for almost 37 years and an implacable enemy of Israel and the United States, in a potentially seismic political shift in Tehran and the broader region.
“Khamenei, one of the most evil people in History, is dead,” Mr. Trump wrote on Truth Social.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel had said earlier that there were “many indications” that Ayatollah Khamenei was dead, but stopped short of making a definitive statement.
There was no immediate confirmation from the Iranian government. Earlier in the day Iranian officials had dismissed such claims as bravado or psychological warfare. Later the ayatollah’s official account on X later posted an image rich with Shia religious symbolism, of a faceless clerical figure holding a flaming sword.
It was not immediately clear which country’s forces had killed Ayatollah Khamenei, but either way, the action exhibited a high degree of coordination between the United States and Israel. Israel’s military said it had targeted a gathering of senior Iranian officials in the opening strikes. Satellite imagery showed a plume of smoke and extensive damage at the supreme leader’s high-security compound.
Mr. Trump and Mr. Netanyahu both made clear that regime change was a goal of the massive waves of strikes on Iran that began around 1 a.m. local time Saturday.
But it is uncertain whether removing Ayatollah Khamenei, who was 86, would result in significant changes to the system he led, as many people in authority owed their positions to him.
The power to choose a new supreme leader rests with the Assembly of Experts, a conservative body of clerics who, given Ayatollah Khamenei’s age and infirmities, have likely given ample thought to potential successors.
In retaliation for the Israeli-U. S. attack, Iran fired waves of ballistic missiles at Israel, while the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait — all of which host U.S. military bases — said they had come under attack, as did Jordan.
So it is not definitive, but surely Israel has spies in Iran that could provide some confirmation. Eventually Iran will have to announce it.
So far there ha been little damage to the countries Iran attacked, and not one death in Israel.
Will there be regime change? I have no idea; it is foolish to predict such a thing so early in the conflict. Perhaps the U.S. could find an amenable leader in the current regime to do its bidding, as it has in Venezuela, but that seems unlikely: all the rulers are, as it says, conservative theocrats. And the government has all the soldiers and weapons while the people have none.
Every day will tell a new story, but the critics of the attacks are predictable: most Democrats (save the rogue Fetterman) and the mainstream media (save Bret Stephens at the NYT). We will know if the attack was a good thing only in retrospect.
My fear is if this is true some real maniac would take over.
Don’t let fear prevent action for good.
Maybe. In WW2 they had plenty of chances to get Hitler, they didn’t as they feared Himmler may take over.
Nope. July 20 ’44 tragically failed, for a myriad of tiny details. There were many eariler attempts, too. There’s even a Wikipedia summary of them.
Yep, know of them. I meant SOE/MI6 canned their schemes to kill him as they concluded it was better he bring Germany down.
Please adhere to the commenting-frequency rules, thanks.
As I heard it, they wanted Hitler to live because from a military perspective tactically and strategically he was an idiot.
If I recall my history correctly, the British, (Churchill) opposed Hitler’s assignation for the reasons you, and others here have cited. What we don’t know if the successor would have brought the war to a close earlier through negotiation. What we do know is Hitler could give a shit about his own people and insisted everyone die instead of surrender.
I just posted this in the Comments section to an article by Anne Applebaum in The Atlantic about today’s attack on Iran:
From ReaderinMN
This feels like another legacy move by Donald Trump. He appears increasingly concerned with wanting to be remembered as having done great, bold things that “lesser” men were too timid to do. Hence everything from bulldozing the East Wing and building his own Arc de Triomphe–style monument in D.C., to mass deportation of undocumented immigrants, to territorial ambitions like Greenland or even talk of Canada as a 51st state, to regime change in places like Venezuela and now Iran.
What all of these have in common are a preference for dramatic, highly visible, history-defining gestures—moves that project strength and ambition, but often sidestep complexity, long-term consequences, and the quieter, less glamorous work of governance. Seen through a psychological lens, they also fit with a longstanding pattern of grandiosity and a strong need for recognition. As he ages, that drive can take on an added urgency—one that can begin to shape planning and decision-making in ways that prioritize legacy over deliberation.
The geopolitical complexities of Iran are, of course, very real—rooted in deep ideological conflict, regional power struggles, nuclear ambitions, and a web of proxy relationships across the Middle East.  However, this still feels less like a carefully calibrated response to that complexity and more like a continuation of a pattern: bold, high-stakes action driven in part by the desire to secure a place in history.
Well said!
This could all be true, but one certainly wouldn’t want to “sidestep complexity” and the “less glamorous work of governance.” So, perhaps you could don that mantle of responsibility for an imaginary moment; set aside the psychologizing; deal with the messiness of policy decisions that put lives at stake in uncertain environments; and tell us whether you oppose the joint US-Israeli operations. If you don’t, then what does Trump’s motivation have to do with the merits of the case? If you do, then same question.
Fair question. My personal view of the merits of this specific action is beside the point I am making here. Motivation matters because it shapes execution. It influences how evidence is weighed, how risks are judged, which options are considered, and how quickly or cautiously decisions are made. In complex situations, the quality of that process — driven in part by motivation — is closely tied to the quality of the outcome. If the motivation is driven by legacy needs, the risk is a tilt toward high-visibility, high-stakes actions that prioritize historical impact over careful, deliberative judgment.
I see you didn’t answer the question and have done so by evading it. Instead, you deal with a far less important point. I won’t ask you any questions as I see you avoid them, so I’ll just say that whatever one’s motivation is, the result is to be judge by RESULTS, not motivations. And also that you have no evidence for your assertion that motivations have a significant effect on “quality of the outcome.”
Trump lies about everything, so I have my doubts
That was my first thought too. But Israel also seems to have evidence suggesting it is true.
Agreed, but the only “evidence” I’ve seen so far are statements from Israel and the US. It seems odd that Ali would hang out in his compound since it would be a primary target. It does seem clear that not surprisingly lots of folks were killed
Fine, but Iran has admitted it, and Israel announced it about the time that Trump did.
Yes, has been confirmed and accepted as true.
Two questions.
1. Won’t Israels’ role in these strikes increase animosity toward Israel in the region?
2. Isn’t there an informal policy to not target a countries leaders when at war? Now bad guys have a precedent to do the same.
Oh I think that bird has flown, Mark. Those who hate Israel – and the Jews – will continue to do so – giving Israel total latitude of action.
A few years ago Egyptian media reported shark attacks at Sharmel Sheik beach resort were caused by….. Mossad trained sharks. 🙂
D.A.
NYC
This would be hilarious if only people didn’t believe it. The fact that they do is testament to stupidity is very hard to eradicate.
Don’t forget those specially trained, fearsome and virile Israeli Rape Dogs.
I agree especially with your Point 2. Killing a leader is pretty easy in democratic countries. An untrained amateur with a stock weapon shot Trump in the ear. A hostile government could get their hands on more powerful and more accurate weapons, which could be fired from farther away. This could open the floodgates.
Khamenei wasn’t that popular outside of Iran. If he is actually dead (big if), his many enemies will probably rejoice.
As for Iran’s future, who knows? I favor letting the Shah’s son temporarily run Iran. Long enough for free elections and no longer. Apparently, he agrees. Will it actually happen? My crystal ball is cloudy.
I think Israel can handle that. It’s not their first rodeo.
The remarkable thing is that the other countries in the ME now see Israel as their ally against Iran. That is a profound sea change in what, 10 years or so?
Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Israeli role in the conflict improves its standing. Almost all of the Middle East hates Iran and has been having proxy (and non proxy) wars with it for decades.
I’ve been watching and reading off and on all day. It remains to be seen if Iran has a succession plan that can be put into action effectively—keeping the terror state in business. It probably does, but how effective can it be? There are reports that many senior leaders other than the ayatollah were killed as well.
If the government falls, it’s not clear what will take its place. An ambitious IRGC leader could seize the helm, which would be bad. Are there democratic leaders from among the protestors who can step in and lead the country? I doubt it, as the regime has been very effective at crushing dissent. I don’t see a Lech Wałęsa emerging from the masses to lead.
Could Raza Pahlavi come into the country and take charge to conduct elections? Seems like a long shot. If the regime falls and there’s a morning after, we have little idea what it might look like. Even so, if Khamenei is dead—and I think he is—it couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.
I can’t stop thinking that we’ll never know how many of those ~30K recently massacred would have been among those who would rise to lead a new Iran.
They would have had a chance at that, but for that tragically premature, “Help Is On the Way”.
Is this really the Iran War? Or would it be better described as the Epstein War? Everything we seem to know about Trump is that it is all about him. People who know and worked for him all seem to agree (Anthony Scaramucci has made this same point about the attack). It is all about distraction from Trump’s personal difficulties.
He has no interest in the lives of innocent Iranians, what’s best for America, removing a monstrous dictator or even Americans coming home in body bags, as long as no one finds out about what went on between him Epstein and those poor kids.
It is all very well taking out the leadership, stopping the Iranian regime’s nuclear ambitions and destroying their ballistic missiles. What they can’t do is remove the IRGC’s AK47s. These monsters are now wounded animals; if the population rise against them now there will be a bloodbath.
To be fair, his approach to Iran started way before Epstein became an issue for him.
As far as AK47’s – I agree with you. I have been hoping to hear of massive airdrops of armaments for the public for months – and not a peep.
I am glad you’re so sure about what Trump’s motivations were. He does have advisors, too, you know, and the main point is whether what he did was good, not what his motivations were, which you don’t really know but claim to know. See the next comment down.
I would prefer it if people didn’t use every post to bash Trump, but rather stay on the topic. There’s another site for incessant Trump-bashing.
While everything that Trump does has an Epstein-deflection component, my understanding is that Trump was particularly swayed by the Saudis and Israel to follow up on his threats. I also read that some military folks at the Pentagon were not particularly keen on the idea, but Trump generally has advisors that will back his actions.