> At Amirkabir University of Technology in Tehran, students dressed in black shouted “Long Live the Shah,” a reference to Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran’s last monarch, who has emerged as a leader of the recent protests.
This is unfortunate and gives the regime a chance to say "see, these people are puppets of the monarchy".
I feel like the people who want a monarchy installed are trying to fish in troubled waters.
Not puppets of the monarchy per se but at least some of them may be puppets of foreign actors who are backing the monarchy.
Honestly very hard to say, I don’t know what to believe about the Iran situation. I think it’s pretty much impossible to get a good understanding of it from a western country
1) Iran's government has not done a good job of running the country and is therefore genuinely unpopular among a significant percentage of the population.
2) Iran's current government has powerful enemies (US, UK and of course a country in the Middle East all really hate the Iranian regime) and those enemies are actively trying to destabilise it.
So it's really hard from the perspective of being in a western country to work out how much of the protests are genuinely endogenous to Iran and how much is an intelligence operation, because it's clearly not 0%
> it's really hard from the perspective of being in a western country to work out how much of the protests are genuinely endogenous to Iran and how much is an intelligence operation, because it's clearly not 0%
Intelligence assets are generally covert. It's incredibly difficult to engineer a protest–particularly in a repressive regime–out of nothing. Like half of the CIA's history in the Cold War was trying and failing to do this.
That's what I'm saying though, it's not out of nothing, people have legitimate grievances and at the same time there is probably at least some foreign influence. It's not either/or, it's (probably) a bit of both.
But like I said, I'm not there, so I don't know the truth and there's no way for me to find it out.
My basic point is just that you can't trust what you read in the papers because the Soviet Union is not the only state to engage in propaganda
> It's not either/or, it's (probably) a bit of both
It's never purely one or the other. But it's also never predominantly foreign action. Again, it's incredibly difficult to do that, and not for lack of trying.
> It's incredibly difficult to engineer a protest–particularly in a repressive regime–out of nothing.
No. It may have been difficult to do so in the past for the CIA (or other foreign powers) because they had limited avenues to directly influence foreign citizens as they had limited control over foreign media or foreign communication platforms (to control the flow of information).
Today, a large part of both communication and media in nearly all countries happen over the internet, a medium that has been usurped by western tech companies. The role of online social media (like Facebook and WhatsApp) in fomenting riots and genocide is well documented and researched (e.g. genocide in Myanmar).
Look at all the meaningless so called "youth protests" (youth who obviously have grown up consuming media and, communicating on the internet) that have happened in India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh or the "colour revolutions". (India was the only exception where it didn't turn violent because its then leaders knew how to genuinely deal democratically with the protestors, but it still resulted in India's democratic fall as it allowed a right-wing authoritarian leader to capture power). In Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bangladesh the protests became directionless violent "revolutions" to overthrow an elected government, and illegally transfer power to a bunch of inexperienced "leaders". Then (like what has happened in Bangladesh) they seek to exclude and ban certain political leaders and / or political parties from participating in a new "democratic" election, ensuring an easy win for the opposition. It is then claimed what a success this "democratic" youth revolution has been (and used as fodder to brainwash the youths in some other country).
Youths are easy targets here because they are hooked to the internet and are politically naive.
China was quite astute in this aspect to ensure that their internet didn't fall into the hands on western tech companies. They made sure that their own tech companies dominated in China, and were ruthless in not allowing western tech companies to compete successfully. This is why the west has found it so hard to foment any similar "online social media" revolutions there. And why the west were so obsessed about getting control over TikTok. (Note that this has nothing to do with "democracy" - it's a political necessity that if you want to be a sovereign country and do not want a foreign power to have influence in your country, it is essential to ensure that foreigners don't control your media or communication platform. This is why everyone's talking about "digital sovereignty" and banning teens from social media).
(Sadly, it isn't just the "west" - every country is now using the internet against nations they consider hostile, and doing some form of information warfare to influence foreign elections).
> gives the regime a chance to say "see, these people are puppets of the monarchy"
Regime isn't the messaging target. Foreign actors are. And rightly or wrongly, desperate people will choose the icons they have, and the set to choose from is generally those that are helping and those the current regime despises. The first set is scarce. So we're left with the second.
The idea that Iranians are marching in the streets begging for a monarchy is so absurd only the dumbest will believe it.
And specifically they are "dying" to bring back the clown prince, son of a foreign puppet that was deposed by their parents/grandparents.
Afraid the zionist controlled media has already set the stage for an Iraq level invasion, using their propaganda machine, to install the guy they control.
> The idea that Iranians are marching in the streets begging for a monarchy is so absurd only the dumbest will believe it.
What they are begging for is change. What they know practically is basically two forms of government in modern memory. It would not be unusual to advocate for the other alternate you know or your grandparents have told you about.
FYI - in Persianate Islam (Shia and Sunni), the 40th day of mourning is extremely important, which is called Arbaeen, Chehelom, Chawlisan, or Qirq depending on the region. This is when mourners will conduct a procession.
It has been roughly 40 days since the massacres began, and something similar happened in 1979 during the revolution, which was largely sparked during the mourning period (chehelom) for the Qom Massacre.
The cynic in me feels that this must have been recognized by policymakers given how critical the motif of martyrdom is in Persianate culture as Ali Shariati, Ahmed Fardid, and Jalal Al-e-Ahmad - the three pillars of modern Iranian philosophy and culture, as well as the Shia undertones of the 1979 Revolution - have elucidated.
Edit: can't reply
> This just shows how bad the situation for our philosophy and culture have become in the last century...
Yep.
I don't agree with their beliefs, but you cannot decouple a large portion of modern Iran from Shariati/Fardid/Al-e-Ahmad's motifs, which themselves are largely derived from Iqbal and Heidegger.
That's just an opinion, not an argument. It adds nothing valuable to this discussion. If you want to criticize, can you point to specific things and explain your reasoning? It might be useful, to make an actual point. Or whatever.
1. "Occidentosis: A Plague from the West" by Jalal Al-e-Ahmad
2. "Red Shi'ism vs. Black Shi'ism" by Ali Shariati
3. "Martyrdom: Arise and Bear Witness" by Ali Shariati
4. "The Purification of the Soul" by Ahmed Fardid
Most modern Iranian Shia philosophy is largely a synthesis of Heiddiger and Muhammad Iqbal ("Saare Jahan Se Aacha, Hindustan Humara"), as these Iranian philosophers were largely from Khorasan and Dari speaking so most were acquaintances with Iqbal, who popularized Heiddiger's thought across Persianate society.
Basically, if you synthesize Heidigger's concept of authenticity with the Persianate motif of martyrdom with a dose of Persianate chauvinism and Shia theology, you have what became Khomeinism.
It's basically Maoism but with the Marxist-Leninist and Confucian undertones replaced with Shia and Persianate undertones.
I also can't help but notice how both Mao/Li/Chen and Shariati/Fardid/Al-e-Ahmad were all members of the rural elite who faced dislocation when immigrating to urban society in the early 20th century.
Edit: can't reply
> Are there specific translations you’d call out
We had English translations at Widener Library [0]. There might be similar ones online. Idk, I don't want to get on a list.
> Wait, is this Farsi? I think I can parse it with my rough knowledge of Hindi
Muhammad Iqbal was both an Indian freedom fighter, the creator of the Pakistan movement, and one of the first modern Persianate scholars.
Back during that era, most Persian scholarship was centered amongst the South Asian community. Additionally, educated Koshur and Paharis (irrespective of religion) from that era were heavily Persianate in outlook (eg. Even Koshur Hindus back then would consider studying a BA Persian as an alternative to a BA Sanskrit).
As such, Iqbal's works were very common amongst the madrassa-turned-western educated Iranian intelligentsia of the early 20th century.
That is an Urdu poem and Urdu borrows from Hindi, Farsi, Arabic too. But I am confused too - Muhammad Iqbal ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Iqbal ) was an Iranian philosopher? Wasn't he a British Indian (in colonial India), who later became a Pakistani?
> None of the Arab Spring revolutions have gone well
None of the Arab-Spring populations had democratic rule since, arguably, Carthage. Iran is different [1].
More importantly, Iran was recently a secular society. It has memory of education and freedom. Many Arab countries have been fundamentalist for their entire modern eras.
(To be clear, every first democracy arose from the ashes of a string of fallen autocrats. I'm arguing for Iran being different from Egypt, Tunisia or Gaza.)
Iran had a parliament until they wanted Iran to control its own oil, whence the US and UK overthrew Mossadegh. They had ayatollah Borujerdi wreck the democracy. Also Kashani who helped oust Mossadegh, and then later supported Khomeini.
The US recently worked to oust the secular leader of Syria to replace him with an ISIS leader. Actually al-Sharaa was on the US wanted terrorist list, only removed three months ago. Many such stories.
No Iran had a parliamant until it was overthrown in a socialist revolution. Then the ayatollahs started killing people, taking power. The KGB, of course, was also involved, on the side of the ayatollahs, like all socialists (the socialist international supported Khomeini personally). I kind of agree that the CIA is not always on the right side, but in Iran, is it so hard to say that at the very least the CIA was a lot better than the alternative?
Hell, the ayatollahs even gave communist housing a shot. They failed, just like they failed at everything, but they gave it a shot.
So you can ask the direct question: just like Venezuela was way better off with oil extraction before Chavez/Maduro ... and also in Iran you can easily say the situation was better before ... so is oil extraction and participating in the global economy not a lot better, at least for anyone actually living there?
According to the book "A Convergence of Civilizations" from Youssef Courbage and Emmanuel Todd [1], the Iran revolution actually happened at the end of the 70s. And indeed, the political situation is not stable yet. The authors argue in the book that historically, it can take from 30 to more than 100 years before a country gets a stable democracy after a revolution.
Notably, the book was written before the Arab Spring revolutions, and yet, it predicted them rather accurately. The main thesis of the book is that a revolution arises when most of the men and most of the women in a country can read.
maybe the fact that Persians != Arabs will improve their odds. Recent uprisings had more luck (i.e. Bangladesh), even if it’s too early to fully assess their success
Bangladesh hasn't become a "democracy" in any manner. Remember that a whole host of leaders were arrested, and the most popular political party banned from participating in the recent elections! You can claim that if they were popular there wouldn't have been any "revolutions" when they were ruling. But note that this is a country that has struggled with violence throughout its history, has seen many military coups, and struggled to be a democracy. If they weren't popular, why were these so-called revolutionaries so hell-bent in not allowing them to participate in the "first free and fair" elections organised by them? You don't become a democracy by deliberately excluding a political party that was instrumental in the founding of Bangladesh, and is supported by half the country - that's how you weaken your country's unity and lay the grounds for a civil war.
Right, a clearer way of saying this, as you do, is the West imposed crippling sanctions just prior to all of this, as Trump sends aircraft carriers to the Gulf.
> a clearer way of saying this, as you do, is the West imposed crippling sanctions
The world doesn't revolve around the West. Nobody in America caused the IRGC to engineer a water crisis. Nobody asked for them to murder students in an internet-connected age, like the single thing you do not do if you want to calm things down.
Sanctions have made Iranians poorer. But so has their gerontocratic theocracy pursuing autarky and misguided nuclear ambitions at any cost. Khamenei can't hold open elections because he knows he'd lose.
So why don't we apply the same reasoning to the other authoritarian theocracies in the region that are just as oppressive? This whole idea that Iran is somehow uniquely bad just stinks to high heaven, and we have caused the people of iran to suffer for decades for it. I don't think Iran is the uniquely evil state between the two of us. (Not that the US is the cause of all evil, of course, but we certainly have caused many orders of magnitude more harm to the iranian people...)
> why don't we apply the same reasoning to the other authoritarian theocracies in the region that are just as oppressive?
They're either our allies, aren't pursuing nuclear weapons and/or aren't actively destabilising everything in their vicinity.
America calling for regime change in the Middle East is fraught, and I'm honestly not yet on board with direct action (though that's about as influential as what shade the moon is tonight). But Iran is "uniquely bad." It's also uniquely imperialistic in the region, up there with to Israel.
Right and we could allow that government to continue to murder tens of thousands of it’s innocent civilians, build proxy armies that are larger than all the armies of Europe to kill all the Jews, to murder all of their minorities and anyone that remotely scares them while they build nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles that they could use to murder Americans in the east coast, I mean they so scream “Death to America!” at all of their pro Islamic regime rallies …
Or was that not what you meant?
https://archive.ph/P3QFa
> At Amirkabir University of Technology in Tehran, students dressed in black shouted “Long Live the Shah,” a reference to Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran’s last monarch, who has emerged as a leader of the recent protests.
This is unfortunate and gives the regime a chance to say "see, these people are puppets of the monarchy".
I feel like the people who want a monarchy installed are trying to fish in troubled waters.
Not puppets of the monarchy per se but at least some of them may be puppets of foreign actors who are backing the monarchy.
Honestly very hard to say, I don’t know what to believe about the Iran situation. I think it’s pretty much impossible to get a good understanding of it from a western country
> Honestly very hard to say
It really isn't. Inflation at a fraction of Iran's prompts governments to change in any democracy.
What I mean is two things are true at once:
1) Iran's government has not done a good job of running the country and is therefore genuinely unpopular among a significant percentage of the population.
2) Iran's current government has powerful enemies (US, UK and of course a country in the Middle East all really hate the Iranian regime) and those enemies are actively trying to destabilise it.
So it's really hard from the perspective of being in a western country to work out how much of the protests are genuinely endogenous to Iran and how much is an intelligence operation, because it's clearly not 0%
> it's really hard from the perspective of being in a western country to work out how much of the protests are genuinely endogenous to Iran and how much is an intelligence operation, because it's clearly not 0%
Intelligence assets are generally covert. It's incredibly difficult to engineer a protest–particularly in a repressive regime–out of nothing. Like half of the CIA's history in the Cold War was trying and failing to do this.
That's what I'm saying though, it's not out of nothing, people have legitimate grievances and at the same time there is probably at least some foreign influence. It's not either/or, it's (probably) a bit of both.
But like I said, I'm not there, so I don't know the truth and there's no way for me to find it out.
My basic point is just that you can't trust what you read in the papers because the Soviet Union is not the only state to engage in propaganda
> It's not either/or, it's (probably) a bit of both
It's never purely one or the other. But it's also never predominantly foreign action. Again, it's incredibly difficult to do that, and not for lack of trying.
> It's incredibly difficult to engineer a protest–particularly in a repressive regime–out of nothing.
No. It may have been difficult to do so in the past for the CIA (or other foreign powers) because they had limited avenues to directly influence foreign citizens as they had limited control over foreign media or foreign communication platforms (to control the flow of information).
Today, a large part of both communication and media in nearly all countries happen over the internet, a medium that has been usurped by western tech companies. The role of online social media (like Facebook and WhatsApp) in fomenting riots and genocide is well documented and researched (e.g. genocide in Myanmar).
Look at all the meaningless so called "youth protests" (youth who obviously have grown up consuming media and, communicating on the internet) that have happened in India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh or the "colour revolutions". (India was the only exception where it didn't turn violent because its then leaders knew how to genuinely deal democratically with the protestors, but it still resulted in India's democratic fall as it allowed a right-wing authoritarian leader to capture power). In Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bangladesh the protests became directionless violent "revolutions" to overthrow an elected government, and illegally transfer power to a bunch of inexperienced "leaders". Then (like what has happened in Bangladesh) they seek to exclude and ban certain political leaders and / or political parties from participating in a new "democratic" election, ensuring an easy win for the opposition. It is then claimed what a success this "democratic" youth revolution has been (and used as fodder to brainwash the youths in some other country).
Youths are easy targets here because they are hooked to the internet and are politically naive.
China was quite astute in this aspect to ensure that their internet didn't fall into the hands on western tech companies. They made sure that their own tech companies dominated in China, and were ruthless in not allowing western tech companies to compete successfully. This is why the west has found it so hard to foment any similar "online social media" revolutions there. And why the west were so obsessed about getting control over TikTok. (Note that this has nothing to do with "democracy" - it's a political necessity that if you want to be a sovereign country and do not want a foreign power to have influence in your country, it is essential to ensure that foreigners don't control your media or communication platform. This is why everyone's talking about "digital sovereignty" and banning teens from social media).
(Sadly, it isn't just the "west" - every country is now using the internet against nations they consider hostile, and doing some form of information warfare to influence foreign elections).
> gives the regime a chance to say "see, these people are puppets of the monarchy"
Regime isn't the messaging target. Foreign actors are. And rightly or wrongly, desperate people will choose the icons they have, and the set to choose from is generally those that are helping and those the current regime despises. The first set is scarce. So we're left with the second.
This article glows.
The idea that Iranians are marching in the streets begging for a monarchy is so absurd only the dumbest will believe it.
And specifically they are "dying" to bring back the clown prince, son of a foreign puppet that was deposed by their parents/grandparents.
Afraid the zionist controlled media has already set the stage for an Iraq level invasion, using their propaganda machine, to install the guy they control.
> The idea that Iranians are marching in the streets begging for a monarchy is so absurd only the dumbest will believe it.
What they are begging for is change. What they know practically is basically two forms of government in modern memory. It would not be unusual to advocate for the other alternate you know or your grandparents have told you about.
FYI - in Persianate Islam (Shia and Sunni), the 40th day of mourning is extremely important, which is called Arbaeen, Chehelom, Chawlisan, or Qirq depending on the region. This is when mourners will conduct a procession.
It has been roughly 40 days since the massacres began, and something similar happened in 1979 during the revolution, which was largely sparked during the mourning period (chehelom) for the Qom Massacre.
The cynic in me feels that this must have been recognized by policymakers given how critical the motif of martyrdom is in Persianate culture as Ali Shariati, Ahmed Fardid, and Jalal Al-e-Ahmad - the three pillars of modern Iranian philosophy and culture, as well as the Shia undertones of the 1979 Revolution - have elucidated.
Edit: can't reply
> This just shows how bad the situation for our philosophy and culture have become in the last century...
Yep.
I don't agree with their beliefs, but you cannot decouple a large portion of modern Iran from Shariati/Fardid/Al-e-Ahmad's motifs, which themselves are largely derived from Iqbal and Heidegger.
> Ali Shariati, Ahmed Fardid, and Jalal Al-e-Ahmad - the three pillars of modern Iranian philosophy and culture
This just shows how bad the situation for our philosophy and culture have become in the last century...
I really wouldn't call these charlatans "pillars of modern Iranian philosophy and culture"
That's just an opinion, not an argument. It adds nothing valuable to this discussion. If you want to criticize, can you point to specific things and explain your reasoning? It might be useful, to make an actual point. Or whatever.
Is there a good book on “the three pillars of modern Iranian philosophy” that could serve as an overview to someone unfamiliar?
The main primary sources I'd say are:
1. "Occidentosis: A Plague from the West" by Jalal Al-e-Ahmad
2. "Red Shi'ism vs. Black Shi'ism" by Ali Shariati
3. "Martyrdom: Arise and Bear Witness" by Ali Shariati
4. "The Purification of the Soul" by Ahmed Fardid
Most modern Iranian Shia philosophy is largely a synthesis of Heiddiger and Muhammad Iqbal ("Saare Jahan Se Aacha, Hindustan Humara"), as these Iranian philosophers were largely from Khorasan and Dari speaking so most were acquaintances with Iqbal, who popularized Heiddiger's thought across Persianate society.
Basically, if you synthesize Heidigger's concept of authenticity with the Persianate motif of martyrdom with a dose of Persianate chauvinism and Shia theology, you have what became Khomeinism.
It's basically Maoism but with the Marxist-Leninist and Confucian undertones replaced with Shia and Persianate undertones.
I also can't help but notice how both Mao/Li/Chen and Shariati/Fardid/Al-e-Ahmad were all members of the rural elite who faced dislocation when immigrating to urban society in the early 20th century.
Edit: can't reply
> Are there specific translations you’d call out
We had English translations at Widener Library [0]. There might be similar ones online. Idk, I don't want to get on a list.
> Wait, is this Farsi? I think I can parse it with my rough knowledge of Hindi
Muhammad Iqbal was both an Indian freedom fighter, the creator of the Pakistan movement, and one of the first modern Persianate scholars.
Back during that era, most Persian scholarship was centered amongst the South Asian community. Additionally, educated Koshur and Paharis (irrespective of religion) from that era were heavily Persianate in outlook (eg. Even Koshur Hindus back then would consider studying a BA Persian as an alternative to a BA Sanskrit).
As such, Iqbal's works were very common amongst the madrassa-turned-western educated Iranian intelligentsia of the early 20th century.
[0] - https://library.harvard.edu/collections/middle-eastern-colle...
Are these texts accessible to someone without a lot of context for Persian culture? (Are there specific translations you’d call out?)
> Saare Jahan Se Aacha, Hindustan Humara
Wait, is this Farsi? I think I can parse it with my rough knowledge of Hindi.
That is an Urdu poem and Urdu borrows from Hindi, Farsi, Arabic too. But I am confused too - Muhammad Iqbal ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Iqbal ) was an Iranian philosopher? Wasn't he a British Indian (in colonial India), who later became a Pakistani?
Good luck to them. None of the Arab Spring revolutions have gone well. 0/6
> None of the Arab Spring revolutions have gone well
None of the Arab-Spring populations had democratic rule since, arguably, Carthage. Iran is different [1].
More importantly, Iran was recently a secular society. It has memory of education and freedom. Many Arab countries have been fundamentalist for their entire modern eras.
(To be clear, every first democracy arose from the ashes of a string of fallen autocrats. I'm arguing for Iran being different from Egypt, Tunisia or Gaza.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_classical_Iran
Iran had a parliament until they wanted Iran to control its own oil, whence the US and UK overthrew Mossadegh. They had ayatollah Borujerdi wreck the democracy. Also Kashani who helped oust Mossadegh, and then later supported Khomeini.
The US recently worked to oust the secular leader of Syria to replace him with an ISIS leader. Actually al-Sharaa was on the US wanted terrorist list, only removed three months ago. Many such stories.
Sure. Not sure what about any of that says Iranians are incapable of governing themselves as a democracy.
Iranians are protesting because their economy is collapsing from targeted attacks by the US/West.
Foreign media records them and says they are trying to depose the theocracy, propaganda to justify a military incursion.
Wild claims of civilians being killed by the regime, with zero evidence, manufactured from thin air. (WMD's in Iraq, White phosphorus in Syria)
Average person now thinks it's their duty to to send American sons to die in the sandbox for another generation.
The only winner here, israel.
It seems pretty clear civilian protests have been killed by the regime, even by the regimes own admission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_massacres
There's a lot of uncertainty as to how many though.
No Iran had a parliamant until it was overthrown in a socialist revolution. Then the ayatollahs started killing people, taking power. The KGB, of course, was also involved, on the side of the ayatollahs, like all socialists (the socialist international supported Khomeini personally). I kind of agree that the CIA is not always on the right side, but in Iran, is it so hard to say that at the very least the CIA was a lot better than the alternative?
Hell, the ayatollahs even gave communist housing a shot. They failed, just like they failed at everything, but they gave it a shot.
So you can ask the direct question: just like Venezuela was way better off with oil extraction before Chavez/Maduro ... and also in Iran you can easily say the situation was better before ... so is oil extraction and participating in the global economy not a lot better, at least for anyone actually living there?
According to the book "A Convergence of Civilizations" from Youssef Courbage and Emmanuel Todd [1], the Iran revolution actually happened at the end of the 70s. And indeed, the political situation is not stable yet. The authors argue in the book that historically, it can take from 30 to more than 100 years before a country gets a stable democracy after a revolution.
Notably, the book was written before the Arab Spring revolutions, and yet, it predicted them rather accurately. The main thesis of the book is that a revolution arises when most of the men and most of the women in a country can read.
[1]: https://cup.columbia.edu/book/a-convergence-of-civilizations...
maybe the fact that Persians != Arabs will improve their odds. Recent uprisings had more luck (i.e. Bangladesh), even if it’s too early to fully assess their success
Bangladesh hasn't become a "democracy" in any manner. Remember that a whole host of leaders were arrested, and the most popular political party banned from participating in the recent elections! You can claim that if they were popular there wouldn't have been any "revolutions" when they were ruling. But note that this is a country that has struggled with violence throughout its history, has seen many military coups, and struggled to be a democracy. If they weren't popular, why were these so-called revolutionaries so hell-bent in not allowing them to participate in the "first free and fair" elections organised by them? You don't become a democracy by deliberately excluding a political party that was instrumental in the founding of Bangladesh, and is supported by half the country - that's how you weaken your country's unity and lay the grounds for a civil war.
The status quo in Iran isn’t going well either; the economy is terrible and getting worse, and the government is slaughtering its own citizens.
> the economy is terrible and getting worse
we could always stop punishing the people of Iran for their government...
And the government could stop murdering people.
So could ours. But wishes were fishes there would be no room for water.
Right, a clearer way of saying this, as you do, is the West imposed crippling sanctions just prior to all of this, as Trump sends aircraft carriers to the Gulf.
> a clearer way of saying this, as you do, is the West imposed crippling sanctions
The world doesn't revolve around the West. Nobody in America caused the IRGC to engineer a water crisis. Nobody asked for them to murder students in an internet-connected age, like the single thing you do not do if you want to calm things down.
Sanctions have made Iranians poorer. But so has their gerontocratic theocracy pursuing autarky and misguided nuclear ambitions at any cost. Khamenei can't hold open elections because he knows he'd lose.
So why don't we apply the same reasoning to the other authoritarian theocracies in the region that are just as oppressive? This whole idea that Iran is somehow uniquely bad just stinks to high heaven, and we have caused the people of iran to suffer for decades for it. I don't think Iran is the uniquely evil state between the two of us. (Not that the US is the cause of all evil, of course, but we certainly have caused many orders of magnitude more harm to the iranian people...)
> why don't we apply the same reasoning to the other authoritarian theocracies in the region that are just as oppressive?
They're either our allies, aren't pursuing nuclear weapons and/or aren't actively destabilising everything in their vicinity.
America calling for regime change in the Middle East is fraught, and I'm honestly not yet on board with direct action (though that's about as influential as what shade the moon is tonight). But Iran is "uniquely bad." It's also uniquely imperialistic in the region, up there with to Israel.
Right and we could allow that government to continue to murder tens of thousands of it’s innocent civilians, build proxy armies that are larger than all the armies of Europe to kill all the Jews, to murder all of their minorities and anyone that remotely scares them while they build nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles that they could use to murder Americans in the east coast, I mean they so scream “Death to America!” at all of their pro Islamic regime rallies … Or was that not what you meant?
The Tunisian revolution was a success.
Hang on tight, a ship called Gerald still has another few dozens of hours to Suez!
Brave heroes.