I wonder if any can attempt an answer to the question. How does/could the IRGC actually collapse?

Their inteference of the straight has waned though not entirely diminshed. The damage many predicted would occur to the world economy has been significantly less then predictions stated.

Irans economy however really does seem to be collapsing and their military capability, though still clearly dangerous, is massively reduced.

Though despite this I struggle to see how they collapse, at least into the dream scenario of say, some pro west secular governmemt or a peoples democracy forming.

I see how the IRGC factions might split. But that doesn't really solve the issue. Just creates a temporary civil war. From what I understand they are not so divided and are investing even more heavily in suppresing civilian dissent.

I guess I am asking whar realistic steps couls be taken and events occur that could lead to the israelis stated desire if a regime overthrough and a pahvlavist "New Iran" occuring?

Firstly, before I get into this post

I have been making a compilation of posts to highlight misinformation around this topic. I have been compiling information since Oct 7th because I find I am constantly second guessing my memory and I so often need to recheck things due the sheer volume of misinformation that comes out about the Israel/Gaza War

Here are my other posts: 
IPC Famine Misinformation
Hamas's Intentions from their own word
Question Of UN Bias against Israel
40 beheaded babies propaganda
Hamas utilises Hospitals
Bias of Francesca Albanese

Now! Here is my case. It is in fact very simple.

It is objectively an impossibility at this point to say that Israel was attempting to maximize the Palestinian civilian death count, during the course of the Gaza war.

Israel has near complete access to the entire population of Gaza and has dropped more than 100,000 tons of bombs at a minimum. This means they have a negative hit rate in relation to bomb tonnage.

The only way they could have possibly achieved this is if they were not trying to maximize deaths. but were intentionally avoiding people. That isn't a suggestion that is a practical fact.

1. Gaza is uniquely dense,
2. The civilian population has very little if any access to any form of bomb sheltering
3. The military targets are very often among civilian infrastructure
4. The civilian population is trapped in this tiny dense area.

There has almost never been a situation as suited to maximizing civilian casualties as this. Anywhere that gets close also has a higher death rate.

For example:

Battle of Mariupol - Lasted 3 months, 10-25 thousand civilians killed, It was both significantly less dense than Gaza, had bomb shelters and most of the civilian population had fled.

The Dresden Bombing - lasted 2 - 3 days, 25 thousand civilians killed, and is a historical example of an indiscriminate bombing campaign. Less dense than Gaza

Battle of Mosul - lasted 9 months, 9,000 – 11,000 civilians killed. At least 2/3 of the civilian population managed to flee, Less dense than Gaza.

Second Battle of Fallujah - Lasted 6 weeks, 2000 civilians killed. Only 30-50 thousand of the 400,000 population due to people fleeing, Considerably less dense.

Battle for Grozeny - Lasted 3 months, 5,000–10,000 civilians killed. Most of the population had fled only 40,000–100,000 remained in the city. Less dense than Gaza, Had bomb shelters.

Battle of Berlin - lasted 2 - 3 weeks, 125,000 civilians dead. Less Dense than Gaza, Had bomb shelters.

You might be confused as to why I am using something like the Second Battle of Fallujah when the civilian death toll was 2000, and then saying it is deadlier than Gaza. What I am doing here is factoring comparable variables.

That is to say within Fallujah or within any of these urban battles. If you were a civilian within the area at the time, You had a significantly higher chance of death then a civilian in Gaza during the height of the Gaza war did.

The comparable variables are things such as, Length of conflict, relative present population, etc... Fallujah for example is often hailed as an operation that was incredibly militarily successful in regards to low civilian cost. around 6% of the present civilian population in Fallujah was killed within 6 weeks.... compared that to under 4% of the Gaza population, civilians , combatents and non war related deaths, (none of those data points are separately counted in the Gaza war death toll by the Gaza Ministry of Health) in about 2 1/2 years of alleged "Genocide"

Now remember 100,000 tons is the minimum estimated total bomb tonnage dropped. It was potentially much more. but there is an objective practical reality connected to this fact.

1. Had Israel Aimed with intention, 100,000 tons of bombs, to maximize deaths that is more then enough to have killed everyone in Gaza multiple times over.
2. With 100,000 tons of bombs, dropped entirely randomly, so entirely indiscriminately Israel should have killed at least multiple hundreds of thousands, that is a claim supported by every other urban bombing campaign in history. The formula being estimated deaths per bomb relative to density.
3. Basically With 100,000 tons of bombs, the only way to have killed 70-80 thousand people in Gaza is if one was trying at least often to minimize casualties.

Additionally, concerning the mass death of children, Often attributed to Israel, It first needs to be said this is only tragic and I do think "Israel could have done more" is an entirely fair criticism. It could have and should have. Yet, and I must say yet, the blame should be almost entirely be placed at the feet of Hamas.

As shown in my other posts
Hamas's Intentions from their own word
Hamas utilises Hospitals

The operational methods of Hamas intentionally and callously were/are an attempt to maximize dead children, their own children. There is proof here that absolves much from Israel.

The Gaza health ministry published This Data on May 7th 2026 It is casualty data broken down by demographics. This Post contains and image displaying the break down. The population of Gaza under the age of 18, So children, hovered around 50%.

Before I continue I understand talking about child deaths in this way seems callous to a lot of people, I understand that, It is true that we should try our best not to turn them in to numbers, We should remember names like Hind Rajab, who did not in anyway deserve their fate and yet it is very important to understand the numbers here as it reveals very clearly where the fault lays. That is important to know as this kind of tragedy, horrific wars like this can only be prevented if we can prevent the causes. So I ask you to just try your best to at least, even if you think I am wrong, to realize this isn't hate, It is fundamentally an attempt to place blame where it belongs.

To continue, hopefully to a receptive audience, Gaza's child population is roughly 50%, and the Gaza ministry of health casualty data shows us the death toll as of May 7th 2026 was 72,835. This is almost a year after the main bombing campaign was halted, time to count many, if not most (likely not all) dead found under collapsed buildings. Of that 72,835 dead 21,637 are listed as under 18. and 7406 are listed as between 13-18 (anyone over 18 is not counted)

In Other words.
29.71% of the dead were under 18. That means they were under represented in deaths.
If the bombing was indiscriminate you would expect see much closer to 50% of deaths to be under 18.

But even more in the defense of Israel are some other facts.

1. Hamas openly does not allow civilians within their many many miles of tunnels. So women and children should be over represented in comparison to military aged males. In each case it is the reverse.
2. Hamas has utilized child soldiers, and children in military activities, this inherently inflates the numbers of "child" deaths. i.e See here or Here Or Here or Here or Here or Here or Here or Here or Here or Here or Here I will stop there as surely that is enough.

I cannot say how many of the 29.71% under 18's where utilised by Hamas as combatants, It may have been only some or it may have been many But it was clearly more then enough to ihenrently increase the risk to all Gazan children.

Lastly just as a comparison. As I think people think Gaza is a uniquely deadly war.

Iran killed anywhere between 30,000-50,000+ civilians in 2 days in January. That is potentially more civilians killed in 2 days than were killed in the first and deadliest year of the Gaza war( 39000 ) and it was more killed in 2 days than in the first 6 months of the deadliest year of the Gaza "Genocide"

Note: If you wonder how I got the 39000 number it is rather straight forward. GHM (Gaza Health Ministry )reported 45,000 dead after the first year of war. 6 months into the war Al-Jazeera reported that a Hamas official had stated at least 6000 Hamas combatants had been killed. Assuming zero died in the following 6 months (just to minimize logical wiggle room) then the death toll of civilians was at maximum 39000. As you may agree however this is likely very exaggerated.

The Yemen war and The Sudan war both have significantly higher death tolls than Gaza in the hundreds of thousands.

To Finish, Genocide, in the way it has been historically understood, the "extermination project" an attempt to be rid of a group entirely, i.e trying to maximize casualties; can not be true when Israel was objectively trying to limit casualties. It is therefore an irrational and indefensible claim that a genocide has occurred.

Edit: People have pointed out a definitional error I have made. I will change the claim from minimised to limited civilian casualties. I was using ninimized not as an antonym of maximised but as a synonym of limited. I can claim confidently that Israel limited civilian casualties. I can't claim they minimised them, not because they didn't but because the level of evidence I would require to make that claim is really really high.

"Genocide is the eradication project"

Those 4 words really are, fundementally all you need to know to know gaza is not a genocide.

It isn't even an uniquely deadly urban war.

Trump is seemingly willing ttmo target civilian infrastructure.

My question is, If this is the only way to be free of the regime. War and destruction, and it seemingly is, is it tolerable or is the status quo better?

I am aware this is the r/NYT sub and I shave seen some similar type posts and so thought I could make this post here also.

Over the last year or so I have made a number of posts in r/IsraelPalestine Speaking directly, I think the majority of accusations against Israel are empty and the public perception of Israel now being mostly the result of otherwise sensible people, thinking they are above falling for propaganda and misinformation in fact falling for a wildly successful disinformation campaign against Israel and the West.

I have been making a compilation of posts which of some of the misinformation I perceive around this topic. I have been compiling information since Oct 7th partly because I find I am constantly second guessing my memory and I so often need to recheck things due the sheer volume of misinformation that comes out about the Israel/Gaza War and because I want to know what is true here.

I have one stark problem, which is on subs like r/IsraelPalestine most of the responsive is agreement or particularly irrational critics. I can see this sub is mostly convinced of the opposite of me and I suspect I will get some quality push back here.

Here are my other posts: 
IPC Famine Misinformation
Hamas's Intentions from their own word
Question Of UN Bias against Israel
40 beheaded babies propaganda
Hamas utilises Hospitals
Bias of Francesca Albanese

And I have the one related to this post title below

Israel was objectively trying to minimize casualties in the Gaza war.

I am not going to specifically state that Israel has not committed genocide though in spirit that is this argument. But arguing that specifically causes people to get confused about international law & rulings and definitions of genocide and end up arguing very silly points like "if there is intention there killing 1 person can be a genocide." This is neither true or sensible but In order to avoid a definitional debate I am basing this argument around the claim

Israel was objectively trying to minimize casualties.

(Note: If you make an argument about the definition of genocide you will not get a reply from me.)

Firstly, before I get into this post

Now! Here is my case. It is in fact very simple.

It is objectively an impossibility at this point to say that they were trying to max kill Palestinian civilians in the last few years and people need to stop holding on to it as a truth and just admit they were wrong.

Iran killed anywhere between 30,000-50,000+ civilians in 2 days in January. That is potentially more civilians killed in 2 days than were killed in the first and deadliest year of the Gaza genocide ( 39000 ) and it was more killed in 2 days than in the first 6 months of the deadliest year of the Gaza genocide

Note: If you wonder how I got the 39000 number it is rather straight forward. GHM (Gaza Health Ministry )reported 45,000 dead after the first year of war. 6 months into the war Al-Jazeera reported that a Hamas official had stated at least 6000 Hamas combatants had been killed. Assuming zero died in the following 6 months (just to minimize logical wiggle room) then the death toll of civilians was at maximum 39000. As you may agree however this is likely very exaggerated.

Israel has near complete access to the entire population of Gaza and has dropped more than 100,000 tons of bombs at a minimum. This means they have a negative hit rate in relation to bomb tonnage.

The only way they could have possibly achieved this is if they were not trying to maximize deaths. but were intentionally avoiding people. That isn't a suggestion that is a practical fact.

1. Gaza is uniquely dense,
2. The civilian population has very little if any access to any form of bomb sheltering
3. The military targets are very often among civilian infrastructure
4. The civilian population is trapped in this tiny dense area.

There has almost never been a situation as suited to maximizing civilian casualties as this. Anywhere that gets close also has a higher death rate.

For example:

Battle of Mariupol - Lasted 3 months, 10-25 thousand civilians killed, It was both significantly less dense than Gaza, had bomb shelters and most of the civilian population had fled.

The Dresden Bombing - lasted 2 - 3 days, 25 thousand civilians killed, and is a historical example of an indiscriminate bombing campaign. Less dense than Gaza

Battle of Mosul - lasted 9 months, 9,000 – 11,000 civilians killed. At least 2/3 of the civilian population managed to flee, Less dense than Gaza.

Second Battle of Fallujah - Lasted 6 weeks, 2000 civilians killed. Only 30-50 thousand of the 400,000 population due to people fleeing, Considerably less dense.

Battle for Grozeny - Lasted 3 months, 5,000–10,000 civilians killed. Most of the population had fled only 40,000–100,000 remained in the city. Less dense than Gaza, Had bomb shelters.

Battle of Berlin - lasted 2 - 3 weeks, 125,000 civilians dead. Less Dense than Gaza, Had bomb shelters.

You might be confused as to why I am using something like the Second Battle of Fallujah when the civilian death toll was 2000 civilians and saying it is deadlier than Gaza. What I am doing here is factoring comparable variables.

Length of conflict, relative present population, etc... Fallujah for example is often hailed as an operation that was incredibly militarily successful in regards to low civilian cost. around 6% of the present civilian population in Fallujah was killed 6 weeks.... compared that to around 4% of the Gaza population in about 24 months of bombing.

So to finalize this argument. remember 100,000 tons is the minimum. It was likely much more.

- With 100,000 tons of bombs, Aimed with intention Israel had the potential to kill everyone in Gaza multiple times over.

- With 100,000 tons of bombs, dropped entirely randomly Israel should have killed at least multiple hundreds of thousands if compared to any other similar event within history.

- With 100,000 tons of bombs, the only way to have killed 70-80 thousand people in Gaza is if one was trying to minimize casualties.

Genocide, in the form of trying to maximize casualties, can not be true when Israel was objectively trying to minimize casualties. It is practically speaking, impossible that they weren't.

If you are one of those that "have been dismayed by my enduring support for Israel" as stated by Sam. This post is for you.

"if ordinary Israelis begin to celebrate martyrdom above every other earthly priority, producing generations of bright-eyed, suicidal fanatics, if the residents of Tel Aviv condone the taking of Palestinian infants, old women, and other noncombatants as hostages and then gather in crowds of thousands, baying for their blood—if, in other words, the Israelis begin to resemble the Palestinians"

Here is the key quote that you all who think Sam is mad or off the mark need to focus on. I want you to actually sit with that quote, for a moment. Is it inaccurate? Is it irrelevant? What specifically does it get wrong! Because here is what I think is actually going on when you all push back on Sam on this.

Why you disagree is because at your core you believe Sam is overestimating how extreme jihad-ism is and how prevalent jihad-ism really is within Palestinian society, You also think what is there, is a direct result of Israels actions. You Also believe Sam underestimates how extreme Israeli society is in comparison.

This is an information disagreement, but so often I see you all confuse this informational divide with thinking it is blatant hypocrisy. That like many other westerners, Sam recognizes Palestinian extremism as indicative of their society but to Israeli extremism, he gives the benefit of the doubt; framing it as fringe and not representative.

It is not a double standard on display here by Sam. It's an informational dispute. One side has the wrong picture of what these societies actually look like, how the people in them think, and what ideas and goals are actually driving the societal decision making.

Sam's picture, which is also mine, is this:

1. Jihad-ism is not comparable to run-of-the-mill nationalism or even ordinary religious extremism. It is Nazism with paradise attached. Super Nazism. The ideological package on offer is categorically worse.
2. Jihad-ism is not fringe in Palestinian society or within the broader network of Israel's enemies. It is front and center. It is politically dominant. It directly shapes the culture and is too often driving it.
3. Israeli extremism exists. It is a real problem. But it is genuinely fringe. It does not run the state. Israeli society is, in terms of its everyday functioning and dominant culture, closer to Denmark than to an extremist religious state like Iran.

When you say Sam is applying a double standard, treating Palestinian extremism as representative while giving a pass to Israeli extremism, you are missing the mark.

The core contention, is that, the true and presently available information displays that Israel really is fighting a form of Super Nazism. Super Nazism is prevalent and constantly aimed at Israel. Israel Itself does not have Super Nazi's driving their own country though. It has much like every other country on earth a extremist fringe religious sect that constantly causes controversy.

Put New Zealand in the same position as Israel, That being: surrounded by countries full of super Nazis as well as a population within New Zealand of super Nazis dedicated to the destruction of everyone else in New Zealand at the expense of their own children, and you would likely have similar constant controversy likely perpetrated by inhabitants of Gloriavale (An extremist NZ based cult)

One group's fringe is not being unfairly spotlighted while the other's is ignored. One's group is fringe. Now that I have repeated that in multiple different ways, lets continue:

There is also a framing move that keeps appearing in these discussions that I want to point out directly. It goes like this: "Palestinian violence is treated as the origin point, Israeli force is treated as response, and that is unfair because if you zoom out far enough you can always find an earlier Israeli action that preceded it." This might be a true historical observation (might be because I personally think not) but it doesn't actually matter at all, it is a pointless point to make. It does not get you where people think it gets you. It is an attempt to answer the question of what produced Palestinian extremism, making the answer out to be "Israel &/or The West"

This is not the same question as whether Palestinian extremism is dangerous, prevalent, and ideologically distinct from Israeli society's dominant values. Which is the question that matters. These are entirely separate questions and collapsing is something I see constantly done in relation to this article as well as just critique of Sam's position in general.

It is pure confusion on the part of you all and causes this conversation to go in circles.

The conditions argument also does not settle the comparative ideology question. Yes, occupied, displaced, stateless people under prolonged military pressure are more likely to radicalize In some way. That is real.
What does not follow is that they are likely to radicalized into a literal death and martyrdom cult or that the ideology they radicalize into is therefore morally equivalent to, or causally indistinct from, the ideology of the society imposing those conditions. The character of the ideology still matters.

Where I think most of the disagreement actually lives is not in the logic but in the underlying factual picture. People who find Sam's position non-serious largely believe that Israeli state conduct has been so extreme as to dwarf anything on the Palestinian side in terms of real-world harm. Sam and I do not see it that way. We see a war, with all the tragedy every war produces, and honestly much less then most wars in the last 3 decades. It is just not a uniquely horrible war, but just a horrible war. That is an informational disagreement, not a philosophical one.

You'll find, I suspect, that if you pull on almost any specific claim in this debate, the disagreement traces back to that. What actually happened. How many. Under what orders. With what intent. The double standard accusation is almost always doing the work of skipping over those factual disputes and going straight to the conclusion and It does this because It means you do not have to think.

NOTE: Now I know this is a wall of text. To back up what I have stated here I am going to link a chain of posts I have made slowly that relate to the information around this conflict, they all link from the one below. Read it or not, it is just my personal overview of much of the information around this conflict.

Israel was objectively trying to minimize casualties in the Gaza war

Salam everyone, I wanted to share this petition so it can get more traction and hopefully change FIFA’s mind about banning the Lion and Sun flag at the World Cup. Long live Iran! 🦁☀️

Case: Fractal Terra Graphite Mini Tower

CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 7900

CPU Cooler: Thermalright AXP120-X67

Motherboard: B650I AM5 ITX WiFi DDR5 board (MSI / ASUS / Gigabyte equivalent)

GPU: MSI RTX 4070 Ti Super 16GB

RAM: 32GB DDR5-6000 CL30 EXPO

SSD: 2TB NVMe PCIe 4.0 (WD SN770 / similar class)

PSU: Corsair SF750 SFX

Optional: bottom exhaust fan for the Terra

OS: Windows 11 Home

It will be dual use for AI workloads and some gaming. I am also quite attached to the aesthetic look of the Fractal Terra but am unsure if I really am being practically speaking silly in trying to squeeze this all inside of that small case and still hope for pretty good performance.