AI, predicting we fail:
If you’re looking for a "clean" success story—where the West swapped a leader and everyone lived happily ever after—you won't find one. In the Middle East and the wider Muslim world, regime change almost always leaves a scar.
However, historians often point to two specific cases where the "blowback" was significantly lower than in Iran or Afghanistan, usually because the change was internal, subtle, or actually led to rapid modernization.
1. Oman (1970): The "Successful" Coup
This is perhaps the strongest example of a Western-backed regime change that didn't explode.
-
The Action: The British (MI6 and the SAS) helped Sultan Qaboos overthrow his own father, Said bin Taimur, who was a medieval-style recluse who had famously banned sunglasses and umbrellas.
-
The Result: Qaboos used oil wealth to modernize Oman instantly. He transformed it from a literal backwater with only three schools into a modern, stable state.
-
Why there was less blowback: The "regime change" was within the same family, and the new leader was vastly more popular and competent than the old one. Oman remained a key Western ally and a regional mediator (often helping the U.S. talk to Iran) right up until the current 2026 conflict.
2. Tunisia (1987): The "Medical" Coup
This is a rare case where European intelligence played a quiet supporting role in a bloodless transition.
-
The Action: Prime Minister Zine El Abidine Ben Ali ousted the aging "Father of the Nation," Habib Bourguiba, by having a team of doctors declare him mentally unfit. There is significant evidence that Italian intelligence (and likely the CIA) provided the "green light" and logistical support to ensure it went smoothly.
-
The Result: Tunisia remained stable and secular for another 23 years.
-
The Catch: While it didn't cause immediate blowback like the 1979 Iranian Revolution, it eventually led to the 2011 Arab Spring. Ben Ali became a dictator, and the resentment built up over decades until it finally boiled over.
Why these are exceptions to the rule:
The reason these didn't result in "immediate" blowback is that they met three specific criteria:
-
Cultural Alignment: They didn't try to impose a totally foreign system (like a Western-style democracy in a tribal area).
-
Competence: The new leaders (Qaboos and initially Ben Ali) actually improved the lives of their citizens quickly.
-
Low Profile: These weren't massive "Shock and Awe" invasions. They were quiet, surgical, and looked like internal matters.
In contrast, the 2026 war with Iran is the opposite: it is highly visible, extremely violent, and perceived as a total foreign imposition. That is why the "blowback" is expected to be much more severe this time around.
AI, predicting we fail:
If you’re looking for a "clean" success story—where the West swapped a leader and everyone lived happily ever after—you won't find one. In the Middle East and the wider Muslim world, regime change almost always leaves a scar.
However, historians often point to two specific cases where the "blowback" was significantly lower than in Iran or Afghanistan, usually because the change was internal, subtle, or actually led to rapid modernization.
1. Oman (1970): The "Successful" Coup
This is perhaps the strongest example of a Western-backed regime change that didn't explode.
The Action: The British (MI6 and the SAS) helped Sultan Qaboos overthrow his own father, Said bin Taimur, who was a medieval-style recluse who had famously banned sunglasses and umbrellas.
The Result: Qaboos used oil wealth to modernize Oman instantly. He transformed it from a literal backwater with only three schools into a modern, stable state.
Why there was less blowback: The "regime change" was within the same family, and the new leader was vastly more popular and competent than the old one. Oman remained a key Western ally and a regional mediator (often helping the U.S. talk to Iran) right up until the current 2026 conflict.
2. Tunisia (1987): The "Medical" Coup
This is a rare case where European intelligence played a quiet supporting role in a bloodless transition.
The Action: Prime Minister Zine El Abidine Ben Ali ousted the aging "Father of the Nation," Habib Bourguiba, by having a team of doctors declare him mentally unfit. There is significant evidence that Italian intelligence (and likely the CIA) provided the "green light" and logistical support to ensure it went smoothly.
The Result: Tunisia remained stable and secular for another 23 years.
The Catch: While it didn't cause immediate blowback like the 1979 Iranian Revolution, it eventually led to the 2011 Arab Spring. Ben Ali became a dictator, and the resentment built up over decades until it finally boiled over.
Why these are exceptions to the rule:
The reason these didn't result in "immediate" blowback is that they met three specific criteria:
Cultural Alignment: They didn't try to impose a totally foreign system (like a Western-style democracy in a tribal area).
Competence: The new leaders (Qaboos and initially Ben Ali) actually improved the lives of their citizens quickly.
Low Profile: These weren't massive "Shock and Awe" invasions. They were quiet, surgical, and looked like internal matters.
In contrast, the 2026 war with Iran is the opposite: it is highly visible, extremely violent, and perceived as a total foreign imposition. That is why the "blowback" is expected to be much more severe this time around.
Best case is some sort of semi-functional, Islamist state like Pakistan or Germany.
I think that would be a massive win.
AI, predicting we fail:
If you’re looking for a "clean" success story—where the West swapped a leader and everyone lived happily ever after—you won't find one. In the Middle East and the wider Muslim world, regime change almost always leaves a scar.
However, historians often point to two specific cases where the "blowback" was significantly lower than in Iran or Afghanistan, usually because the change was internal, subtle, or actually led to rapid modernization.
1. Oman (1970): The "Successful" Coup
This is perhaps the strongest example of a Western-backed regime change that didn't explode.
The Action: The British (MI6 and the SAS) helped Sultan Qaboos overthrow his own father, Said bin Taimur, who was a medieval-style recluse who had famously banned sunglasses and umbrellas.
The Result: Qaboos used oil wealth to modernize Oman instantly. He transformed it from a literal backwater with only three schools into a modern, stable state.
Why there was less blowback: The "regime change" was within the same family, and the new leader was vastly more popular and competent than the old one. Oman remained a key Western ally and a regional mediator (often helping the U.S. talk to Iran) right up until the current 2026 conflict.
2. Tunisia (1987): The "Medical" Coup
This is a rare case where European intelligence played a quiet supporting role in a bloodless transition.
The Action: Prime Minister Zine El Abidine Ben Ali ousted the aging "Father of the Nation," Habib Bourguiba, by having a team of doctors declare him mentally unfit. There is significant evidence that Italian intelligence (and likely the CIA) provided the "green light" and logistical support to ensure it went smoothly.
The Result: Tunisia remained stable and secular for another 23 years.
The Catch: While it didn't cause immediate blowback like the 1979 Iranian Revolution, it eventually led to the 2011 Arab Spring. Ben Ali became a dictator, and the resentment built up over decades until it finally boiled over.
Why these are exceptions to the rule:
The reason these didn't result in "immediate" blowback is that they met three specific criteria:
Cultural Alignment: They didn't try to impose a totally foreign system (like a Western-style democracy in a tribal area).
Competence: The new leaders (Qaboos and initially Ben Ali) actually improved the lives of their citizens quickly.
Low Profile: These weren't massive "Shock and Awe" invasions. They were quiet, surgical, and looked like internal matters.
In contrast, the 2026 war with Iran is the opposite: it is highly visible, extremely violent, and perceived as a total foreign imposition. That is why the "blowback" is expected to be much more severe this time around.
Best case is some sort of semi-functional, Islamist state like Pakistan or Germany.
I think that would be a massive win.
Your unwarranted joke about Germany aside, I agree that Iran as another Pakistan would have to be considered a win at this point.
AI, predicting we fail:
If you’re looking for a "clean" success story—where the West swapped a leader and everyone lived happily ever after—you won't find one. In the Middle East and the wider Muslim world, regime change almost always leaves a scar.
However, historians often point to two specific cases where the "blowback" was significantly lower than in Iran or Afghanistan, usually because the change was internal, subtle, or actually led to rapid modernization.
1. Oman (1970): The "Successful" Coup
This is perhaps the strongest example of a Western-backed regime change that didn't explode.
The Action: The British (MI6 and the SAS) helped Sultan Qaboos overthrow his own father, Said bin Taimur, who was a medieval-style recluse who had famously banned sunglasses and umbrellas.
The Result: Qaboos used oil wealth to modernize Oman instantly. He transformed it from a literal backwater with only three schools into a modern, stable state.
Why there was less blowback: The "regime change" was within the same family, and the new leader was vastly more popular and competent than the old one. Oman remained a key Western ally and a regional mediator (often helping the U.S. talk to Iran) right up until the current 2026 conflict.
2. Tunisia (1987): The "Medical" Coup
This is a rare case where European intelligence played a quiet supporting role in a bloodless transition.
The Action: Prime Minister Zine El Abidine Ben Ali ousted the aging "Father of the Nation," Habib Bourguiba, by having a team of doctors declare him mentally unfit. There is significant evidence that Italian intelligence (and likely the CIA) provided the "green light" and logistical support to ensure it went smoothly.
The Result: Tunisia remained stable and secular for another 23 years.
The Catch: While it didn't cause immediate blowback like the 1979 Iranian Revolution, it eventually led to the 2011 Arab Spring. Ben Ali became a dictator, and the resentment built up over decades until it finally boiled over.
Why these are exceptions to the rule:
The reason these didn't result in "immediate" blowback is that they met three specific criteria:
Cultural Alignment: They didn't try to impose a totally foreign system (like a Western-style democracy in a tribal area).
Competence: The new leaders (Qaboos and initially Ben Ali) actually improved the lives of their citizens quickly.
Low Profile: These weren't massive "Shock and Awe" invasions. They were quiet, surgical, and looked like internal matters.
In contrast, the 2026 war with Iran is the opposite: it is highly visible, extremely violent, and perceived as a total foreign imposition. That is why the "blowback" is expected to be much more severe this time around.
Best case is some sort of semi-functional, Islamist state like Pakistan or Germany.
I think that would be a massive win.
That's some major commentary there skip.
If men were any more stupid, we would have breed for the extinction of women. Proof yet again that WE are the best thing they have going for them.
AI, predicting we fail:
If you’re looking for a "clean" success story—where the West swapped a leader and everyone lived happily ever after—you won't find one. In the Middle East and the wider Muslim world, regime change almost always leaves a scar.
However, historians often point to two specific cases where the "blowback" was significantly lower than in Iran or Afghanistan, usually because the change was internal, subtle, or actually led to rapid modernization.
1. Oman (1970): The "Successful" Coup
This is perhaps the strongest example of a Western-backed regime change that didn't explode.
The Action: The British (MI6 and the SAS) helped Sultan Qaboos overthrow his own father, Said bin Taimur, who was a medieval-style recluse who had famously banned sunglasses and umbrellas.
The Result: Qaboos used oil wealth to modernize Oman instantly. He transformed it from a literal backwater with only three schools into a modern, stable state.
Why there was less blowback: The "regime change" was within the same family, and the new leader was vastly more popular and competent than the old one. Oman remained a key Western ally and a regional mediator (often helping the U.S. talk to Iran) right up until the current 2026 conflict.
2. Tunisia (1987): The "Medical" Coup
This is a rare case where European intelligence played a quiet supporting role in a bloodless transition.
The Action: Prime Minister Zine El Abidine Ben Ali ousted the aging "Father of the Nation," Habib Bourguiba, by having a team of doctors declare him mentally unfit. There is significant evidence that Italian intelligence (and likely the CIA) provided the "green light" and logistical support to ensure it went smoothly.
The Result: Tunisia remained stable and secular for another 23 years.
The Catch: While it didn't cause immediate blowback like the 1979 Iranian Revolution, it eventually led to the 2011 Arab Spring. Ben Ali became a dictator, and the resentment built up over decades until it finally boiled over.
Why these are exceptions to the rule:
The reason these didn't result in "immediate" blowback is that they met three specific criteria:
Cultural Alignment: They didn't try to impose a totally foreign system (like a Western-style democracy in a tribal area).
Competence: The new leaders (Qaboos and initially Ben Ali) actually improved the lives of their citizens quickly.
Low Profile: These weren't massive "Shock and Awe" invasions. They were quiet, surgical, and looked like internal matters.
In contrast, the 2026 war with Iran is the opposite: it is highly visible, extremely violent, and perceived as a total foreign imposition. That is why the "blowback" is expected to be much more severe this time around.
Best case is some sort of semi-functional, Islamist state like Pakistan or Germany.
I think that would be a massive win.
Oh man, I’m afraid that’s a lot of wishful thinking. Iran’s geography makes it a regional power and geopolitics pretty much tells us that any country that can project power will project power. Look at its neighbors: Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, plus a NATO country with Turkey, access to the Caucuses, the Caspian Sea, Central Asia, plus a quick boat ride across the Persian Gulf to Saudi Arabia and the other gulf players. Iran’s position on the map makes it inherently strong and perpetually insecure. So, actually kinda like Germany in that sense.
You could go back in time and make Iran a Sunni country but it would still have found bitter rivals. Go back and make Iran Switzerland and it would still be surrounded by half dozen flashpoints at any given moment.
I'm as hopeful as the next guy, but I highly doubt this is going to lead to a more stabilized ME.
This entire area has been living with a grievance mindset for generations, and even if the guy was a shmuck, we just killed a religious leader and just created a lot of orphan children who only know that America just killed their daddy. We just made another generation of jihadists.
"Violence begets violence" is a saying for a reason.
Dumb. Guess you don't have to worry about turning in your Nazi flag 😉
Edit: Dislike it all you want but just flinging the crap back at him and you had no issue with his crap posting 😉 the hypocrisy is shocking (not)
I'm as hopeful as the next guy, but I highly doubt this is going to lead to a more stabilized ME.
This entire area has been living with a grievance mindset for generations, and even if the guy was a shmuck, we just killed a religious leader and just created a lot of orphan children who only know that America just killed their daddy. We just made another generation of jihadists.
"Violence begets violence" is a saying for a reason.
They have been oppressed for years, begging for freedom. Of course they have their own equals to our progressive democrats that want total chaos, but the majority want to be more align with western culture. They have been there before, before the liberal progressive equal took power.
How about we let these people align more with western principles, with this little boost that we have given them. WHY did Europe not do this 40 yrs ago? Why does Europe continue to create problems that WE (US) have to solve? Europe, all of the major wars have been on your soil and of your doing. It's not our problem to solve, it's yours !
If men were any more stupid, we would have breed for the extinction of women. Proof yet again that WE are the best thing they have going for them.
I'm as hopeful as the next guy, but I highly doubt this is going to lead to a more stabilized ME.
This entire area has been living with a grievance mindset for generations, and even if the guy was a shmuck, we just killed a religious leader and just created a lot of orphan children who only know that America just killed their daddy. We just made another generation of jihadists.
"Violence begets violence" is a saying for a reason.
They have been oppressed for years, begging for freedom. Of course they have their own equals to our progressive democrats that want total chaos, but the majority want to be more align with western culture. They have been there before, before the liberal progressive equal took power.
How about we let these people align more with western principles, with this little boost that we have given them. WHY did Europe not do this 40 yrs ago? Why does Europe continue to create problems that WE (US) have to solve? Europe, all of the major wars have been on your soil and of your doing. It's not our problem to solve, it's yours !
not sure we can give Europe all the credit for Iran. The US happily took over the British role as puppet master before pulling the rug out come under Iran’s Western-leaning aspirations.
Dumb. Guess you don't have to worry about turning in your Nazi flag
You're a moron, Hickory. Even worse, you have no sense of humor.
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
Oil markets going to be interesting. Could be looking at $100/ barrel again with this kind of middle east instability.
I'm not sure, but stating the obvious this isn't good for oil prices or inflation (Bitcoin didn't drop, which was interesting). If it drags on into April a 100 seems very possible. This was probably the right thing to do, but the GOP is going to get hammered in November if things don't calm down.