Yes, removing leadership is very important. It's why the US does it every 4 to 8 years. The Iranians aren't gone just because they lost a leader. If anything they proved resilient.

The biggest problems with all of this seem to be the knock-on effects, as well as the lead-up. Does this new deal actually do more than Obama's? Doubtful. Obama's didn't come with a girls' school blown to bits or a world leader assassinated.

Everything around the politics of the attack looks amateurish. Calling on Europe to attack Iran even though no deal is in place with them to do so. Not stopping Iranian strikes throughout the middle east. Not keeping Israel in line. The war has been dragging on for months, but "it'll end this week." No, this week. "Very close this week." "Very close this week."

Then there's the issue of shooting down cheap drones with expensive equipment. Why in the name of the Lord is it that Ukraine has been bombed by Shaheds for years and defended against them using NATO and US weapons, but operators of US equipment in the Middle East had nothing to show for it? Did the US not have direct access to how the Ukrainians were using their equipment in a war characterized by the use of drones and AI to an extent never before seen? Did the US decide to not look into that for years, or simply let it slide knowing Iran would bomb its neighbors? Why was it that Zelenskyy had to go to the Middle East to make sure they used American weapons correctly? It seems to me lately that every country that can produce a meaningful amount of oil has been directly or indirectly affected by American aggression, and one has to wonder why you'd do something so blatant in slow motion.

[dead]