Derek Hunter https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/follow_button.2f70fb173b9000da126c79afe2098f02.en.html#dnt=false&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&screen_name=derekahunter&show_count=false&show_screen_name=false&size=m&time=1773766899743 | Mar 17, 2026

I’m not one of those people tapping their foot saying, “When is the war going to end? It’s been dragging on and is a disaster!” No, those people are idiots actively hoping the United States is damaged because of who the President of the United States is. Nor do I think the Iranian regime didn’t deserve to be wiped out – those who used to be in charge (and alive) were evil and them no longer existing is a great thing for humanity. But what comes next isn’t up to us, it’s up to the people of Iran to act. And there is still an open question about what it is they want, so we have to consider the possibility that most of them simply don’t want to be “free.”

The theory of the Bush administration was that the people of Iraq would greet us as liberators when we took out Saddam Hussein, which they actually did. But after that, rather than embrace their newfound freedoms, they simply reverted back to centuries old tribal warfare with each other. 

How could that happen? Because they didn’t have any concept of freedom, or they simply would’ve liked to be the ones forcing their will on others, rather than having the will of others forced on them. Kind of like Democrats here.

If you’ve never experienced liberty before, you don’t know what it is. It’s not the natural state of humanity. Most of human history is riddled with oppression. Not in the way a leftist would have you think, but in a raceless way of there being a leadership that tells everyone else what and how to be. The idea of voting existed in some places, but it was often ignored or tossed when it went against the wishes of the leaders, like Democrats here when they lose a referendum and sue.

We’ve had the concept of liberty in this country for almost 250 years, but another way to look at this is we’ve had the concept of liberty in this country for only almost 250 years. Human beings have been around a lot longer than that, and most of them never experienced anything like we have today.

In Afghanistan, as oppressive as the Taliban is, most Afghans are either down with because they share their oppressive religious beliefs, or they live in such remote, unconnected places that whatever government they have in Kabul doesn’t matter to them either way. We thought they were oppressed, they thought they were living how they’ve always lived. We were both right and they didn’t care to change.

All you can do is give people the opportunity to step up for themselves, you can’t make them take it. 

Iran is slightly different in that before the radical Islamists took over, the country was very modern. There are a lot of people alive who remember what it was like to not have to cover women or fear their government murdering them because they’ve somehow offended religious sensibilities. They’ve likely told stories of what it was like before the fascists overthrew the Shah, so the concept isn’t foreign. But maybe it’s not wanted?

It’s clear there was a desire for ridding itself of the fascist Ayatollah, which brought hundreds of thousands of Iranians to the streets in protest. But maybe that was all they were willing to do – march in protest hoping their government would change? 

Revolutions are rarely bloodless, but to conduct one you must be willing to fight to the point of death, either to you or your opponent. The regime has proven time and again, from its founding, that it has the appetite to kill for power. The people who oppose it have not shown that. 

Every few years, the Iranian people would rise up in the streets, then their government would quash them. A bunch of people would get killed, the world would condemn it, lather, rinse, repeat. Nothing would come of it.

We thought it was because the people didn’t have arms and the government did. Maybe that was part of it, but maybe it was also that protesting was about as far as anyone was willing to go? The regime had no problem killing, but average people do. Without that last step, failure was the only option as regime collapse wasn’t going to happen with nothing there to cast it aside.

Iran just slaughtered anywhere from 30,000 to 50,000 of its own people for protesting, the remaining people are probably a little hesitant to step out again, understandably so. There’s also the possibility that the people willing to do what is necessary to overthrow their government were those people killed. It only takes a few to spark something, but a fuse doesn’t light itself. If the people with the fire are gone…

Or maybe they’re just waiting for the US to tell them it’s go-time, I don’t know. Personally, I think what happens to Iran is up to the Iranian people, so if a military guy is allowed to seize power and dominate, if the religious monsters stay in, or the people take over and implement something better is not my concern. I don’t want them to have a nuclear program, to fund terrorism or have any influence over shipping. The rest is up to them.

The actions the Trump administration have taken are helping on those points, what comes after, or even if there is a change, is up to the Iranian people. There will come a point ever soon where they will have a chance, probably their only chance, to overthrow their despotic oppressors. That is, however, only if they want to. A fish doesn’t know it’s wet, some people don’t know they’re oppressed. All you can do is give them the opportunity to take care of themselves, you can’t make them take advantage of it. I hope they do, because they’ll never have a better one.