[Eddy_Viscosity2]

This admin does TACO all the time. A likely scenario is Iran causes economic problems, Trump chickens out and withdraws while simultaneously declaring absolute victory. Any lingering problems he blames on Rubio and hegseth.

[baq]

TACO isn't enough, Iran must also withdraw, this isn't a given if they feel they have nothing to lose

[pseudohadamard]

TACO is fine. Iran have shown the world what will happen if Israel/US try that stunt again. So the sensible approach for them would be to declare themselves the peacemakers and pull back, then invest heavily in better drones, seaborne drones, and semi-autonomous minelaying systems. They know what'll happen next time, and how to respond appropriately.

[morkalork]

Unfortunately, the new leader's father, wife and children are all dead.

[orwin]

Not all his children, only his daughters. Also his nomination seriously pushes Iran from a theocracy to an elective monarchy imho. Wich, to be clear, is a common slide for theocracies. The Papal ban on children for priests is perhaps the only instance where a theocracy managed to prevent this slide.

[dragonwriter]

> The Papal ban on children for priests is perhaps the only instance where a theocracy managed to prevent this slide.

Pretty impressive effect, given that there is no such ban. There are a number of other rules which can combine to make it look approximately like there is, but there isn't.

[orwin]

Sorry, ban on priest marriage. Or rather, a celibacy obligation for bishop and priests. Which makes it a ban on children for Christians. I think it's in the 12th century that the rule was instaured, and was, let say, made effective by the council on Trent during the reformation.

[dragonwriter]

> Sorry, ban on priest marriage. [...] Which makes it a ban on children for Christians.

Well, no, it doesn't, and its important to note what the actual bans are to understand why it doesn't. There is:

* a fairly hard ban (essentially absolute, except for an exception noted at the end of this list) on men who are already priests marrying in the Catholic Church,

* a softer ban on married men becoming priests in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church (this is the 12th Century rule you reference),

* no ban on married men becoming priests in the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church,

* a fairly hard ban (essentially absolute, except for an exception noted at the end of this list) on currently-married men becoming bishops in the Catholic Church,

* no ban on men who are widowers (including men admitted to the priesthood while married) becoming bishops in the Catholic Church,

* no ban on a married Catholic man (possibly a layman, a Latin Rite deacon, one of the already exceptional Latin Rite priests, or an Eastern Rite priest) being ordained Bishop of Rome after being elected by the College of Cardinals (the rule for this specific allows any Catholic man to be elected) to the Papacy, though its never happened.

It is not impossible for a man to be both married and have children licitly while being a Catholic priest, and it is not impossible for a man to licitly have children through marriage as a widower while being a Catholic bishop (including the Pope), and its even technically possible for a married man with children to be Pope, though it is improbable that someone not already a bishop---and therefore not currently married, but possibly widowed and with children—and cardinal would be elected.)

As I said originally, there is no rule against a Catholic priest having children, though “there are a number of other rules which can combine to make it look approximately like there is.”