The day is coming. Maybe not today and maybe not tomorrow but the situation between the Islamic regime and the people of Iran is approaching a breaking point. So the question is "What does that actually mean?" The end game we'd all like to see is a liberal democractic Iran which is open to the world for economic, cultural and scientific exchange but the route to that end has many many stops and, very unfortunately, much suffering along the way. First the regime in power must "collapse." That means that it must lose effective control of some institution or territory of significance. One could even say that the IRGC's independence from the Guardian Council is itself a sign of regime collapse, but for true change the IRGC must cede control of sime city or province so that an alternative regime will take root. It means that some localized effort needs to draw definitive lines saying it is loyal elsewhere (maybe to the Shah, but even to some local oppositionary council of local popular leaders). That initial rejection of regime authority can be easy by mass-defection in a specific locale or it could be bloody, but won by overwhelming popular support. US or Israrli air cover can help, but only once it is clear that good people will be the ones to take over that city or province. From there the revolution (more like counter-revolution) can spread but by nature tge hardest of the hardliners won't fall quickly. They might consolidate in Tehran or even in Mashad which is closer to regime-sympathetic borders. As long as some hold out resists there is still danger of terrorism against any emergent regime, as well as internal instability among opposotion groups. I do believe Iran is on the right track but we must acknowledge that stability and peace for regular Iranians could still be 4-5 years away. Even reconstruction aid from the US or Israel may be delayed until a unified authority can guarantee how aid money will be used (ie will this build a hospital or a missile factory?)

I'll bring this up in tonight's discussion, but as we barrel back towards kinetic action, can we ask whose hand this plays into? On one hand, the more hellfire brought to military installations the more demoralized and decentralized the IRGC will become - hopefully making it easier to overturn. On the otherhand, direct conflict may be just what the hardliners are looking for to solidify the currently divided powers. Maybe the blockade and stasis was tearing up the regime more effectively than any bombs could? Thoughts welcome.

I suspect the UAE will be trying to match the US instead of OPEC, because US petrol-industry costs notably more, so the preferred normative price of petrol for the US will generally fetch the UAE more revenue than trying to align with OPEC. This is good news for the US, since it gives them to more ability to buffer the decline of the USD. We might however see the contentions between the Saudis and UAE sharpen further, since their mutual interests that were aligned via OPEC, will no longer prevent them from diverging further. With UAE making moves like this, we should also not be surprised if they add more momentum behind their recognition of Somaliland. Either way, this is no tiny matter, and it's very likely we'll be seeing ripple effects as a direct result of the Emiratis choice to leave OPEC. The above are my from-the-hip takes. Wyatt at Defense Politics Asia (DPA) provides us with a leisurely synoptic coverage on this matter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYEkcLRVfIE

seen somewhere in Israel

Gen Jack Keane: That is NOT sustainable