Subject: Re: Iran - The Difference in Assessment
It took 7 months and "main shot" implies only doing 1 thing, which isn't accurate. There are several "shots" being taken.

"Main shot" does not imply only doing one thing. Quite the opposite - it implies doing more than one thing, of which one is the most significant. And that's absolutely what happened. It's hard to imagine what 'shot' would be more significant than the decapitating attack that took out nearly all of the country's then-leadership all at once. That was the moment when the regime's stability and continuity plans would have undergone their biggest stress: most of the decision-makers killed at once, the successors having whatever internal jockeying for power all happening at the same time and under extreme duress, all during the fog of ongoing attacks by the U.S.

And the regime held.

That's why the Libya comparison is inapt. Here, we did in Week 1 what didn't happen in Libya until Month 7. But unlike Libya, where the old regime immediately collapsed upon Gaddafi's death, the Iranian regime successfully implemented their contingency planning and maintained control of the country. There's been no sign of any civil war starting, intelligence consistently reports that the IRGC maintains firm control over the country and the Iranian populace, and there's no public sign of any weakening of the political or military command structures.

That's certainly one take.

What's the contrary take? If the regime didn't collapse after the decapitating strike, what's the "shot" we take that causes them to collapse? Seizing Kharg Island would be a significant event - but is it plausible that it would bring down the regime? Why would the U.S. seizing a single island literally on the other side of the country from Tehran - even a critically important small island - affect their ability to remain in power?