This market will resolve to “Yes” if, by December 31, 2026 at 11:59 PM Pacific Time (PT), the Islamic Republic of Iran is no longer the governing regime of Iran.
This includes scenarios in which the regime is overthrown, collapses, or otherwise ceases to govern, and a fundamentally different system replaces it. Qualifying scenarios may include:
Revolution
Civil war
Military coup
Voluntary abdication of power
Establishment of a new constitutional order, provisional government, or revolutionary authority
To qualify, there must be a broad consensus among credible international media (e.g. Reuters, AP, BBC, NYT) that the core institutions of the Islamic Republic—such as the Supreme Leader, Guardian Council, or IRGC under clerical control—have been dissolved, incapacitated, or replaced, and that the regime has lost sovereign authority over the majority of the population within Iran.
1,000People are also trading
@JoshuaTindall well, one good difference is that Pahlavi exists. He seems to have significant popular support in Iran, so putting him in could potentially stabilize things.
I do not expect this to be as clean as Maduro
@JoshuaTindall it could be. Persians are not immune to discombobulation
I'm curious why this is so low? It seems like an intervention is almost guaranteed in the coming days.
@asdf0ZQUz there's a big gap between "intervention" and "regime falling".
For e.g. the US has intervened in Venezuela but it would not be fair to describe the Venezuelan regime as having "fallen" (at least, not yet.); there's continuity with Maduro's VP having power now.
The US has also recently intervened in Yemen but the Houthi regime has not fallen.
US intervention against ISIS has eventually been broadly successful (in that ISIS is now much diminished) but it took a pretty long time to get to that point, and ISIS at its peak was significantly less powerful than Iran.
I don't expect that (e.g.) a reaper drone killing Khamenei would be enough to cause a regime change, and nor do I expect that the US has the appetite for a full-scale war with Iran this year, as much as the Holden Bloodfeasts of this world might want it
I'd also add that Iranians as a whole have a highly unfavourable view of the USA (this is relatively old data, but I don't expect it to have changed much - if anything, worsened):
In my opinion, with this background, there's a material risk that a US military intervention in Iran would actually bolster the regime's survival by refocusing everyone on their common enemy.
@draaglom I would assume that the US will support the Shah, who is decently popular,after removing Khameni.
@asdf0ZQUz right, and what I'm saying is that US support might be de-legitimising in a country that sees the US as its primary enemy.
Imagine if Trump had stolen the 2020 election and then China or Russia intervened militarily in support of Biden.
Setting aside the obvious implausibility of them actually achieving this, it would very likely immediately have polarised the US against Biden and secured massive support for Trump.
I don't really have a sense of if this is the most likely outcome of US intervention in Iran, but it seems at least pretty plausible.
@asdf0ZQUz Power transfer is always risky for shithole countries and Khamenei has to go very soon, the US would just be putting a finger on the scale for a process that will (or not) mostly happen regardless.
Popular protests are mostly irrelevant but power transfer means the patronage networks get rearranged, people with guns have to make new deals, and that opens up space for a new gov to get installed. Helps if a chance of dying from US bombs is added as a cost of not-choosing the head favored by trump.
@draaglom ah, so what you're saying is that, counterintuitively, to help topple the regime, the west might need to publicly appear to be supporting the regime, even if secretly they're giving supplies to the rebels or whatever
@TheAllMemeingEye I don't really have a thesis as to what the best action would be to topple the regime.
My point is just, I think a lot of people speculating on this question have a mental model which is basically like:
US bombs some things
???
regime collapses
but the theory has some obvious gaps at step 2.
@draaglom although personally I feel like it's kinda too late now all the most motivated protestors have been thoroughly massacred, I think rather than the usual strategy of bombing shit there would've been a chance if instead the west had airdropped supplies that help the protestors in a non-violent way (e.g. starlink dishes, bulletproof vests, gas masks, medical supplies etc.), though as you say the west is hated so it would've probably needed to be anonymous or under the banner of a sockpuppet faction
@TheAllMemeingEye maybe! however, AFAIK popular revolutions of this kind have a poor success rate unless they can get the military on side.
E.g. the Arab Spring was ~successful in Tunisia and Egypt because their militaries were on the side of the protestors; it was ~unsuccessful in countries where the military sided with the incumbent leader.
@TheAllMemeingEye very naive take, protestors stood no chance unless people with guns turned, and for that they would have to find that more profitable than staying loyal to ayatollahs
@skibidist bigger chance of the military deciding it's preferable to turn if the protestors are harder to wipe out, not guaranteed obviously but it helps
“A government spokesperson reportedly told Iranian media that the international internet would be shut off until at least Nowruz, the Persian new year, on 20 March.“
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckglee733wno
In a speech on Saturday, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said thousands had been killed, "some in an inhuman, savage manner", and blamed the US for the deaths. [...] "Those linked to Israel and the US caused massive damage and killed several thousand," Khamenei said, quoted by Iranian state media. "We consider the US president criminal for the casualties, damages and slander he inflicted on the Iranian nation."
This is the least convincing blame deflection for quite some time, if Trump had actually done it he would be boasting
@skibidist dude I fucking hope, I understand all the regional forces want stability but if the regime doesn't fall you don't really get stability either unless all you care about is oil through the shadow fleet 😂
I pray for the Iranian ppl
@uair01 Q: isn't it the case that they cannot bomb well without a carrier in the area which will take a week to arrive? So any statements made until then are meaningless?
@skibidist I'm not sure what "bombing well" means, but that didn't stop Trump from bombing Iran's nuclear facilities last year.
@TimothyJohnson5c16 I'm thinking regime changing bombing will need to be more extensive than attacking point targets which was done using long range bombers. Experts on X say it's much riskier without a carrier nearby.