Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Iran has now been offline for 96 hours

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 194 posts

Re: Iran has now been offline for 96 hours

#51

Post by squidbeak »

remarkEon wrote: post #31
csomar wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very unlikely. Unlike Syria or Venezuela, the Iranian regime has an ideological base and a very solid base of supporters. A civil war has more odds than that base of supporters accepting a new secular regime.

I’ve been looking for data on this. Has anyone quantified what the regime’s base of support actually is amongst the general population?

I can't see that it would be anything other than guesswork. Polls are unlikely to be possible with any accuracy there. This is anecdotal, but I've heard from the few Iranians I've known that much of the population lead western lives behind closed doors. Their civil subjugation seems to come from the threat of violent punishment (torture / rape / death / disappearance) and a Stasi-esque domestic intelligence network.

Re: Iran has now been offline for 96 hours

#52

Post by spiderfarmer »

SoftTalker wrote: post #42
andrewinardeer wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My fingers are crossed that whatever happens post current regime that life is markedly better for the Iranian people. I'd hate to see civil war or mass starvation. Their currency has fallen off a cliff and continues to do so.

Puts most of our western troubles in perspective. Things could be worse.

Yes and the perspective I’m taking is that it is very depressing to see direction current events are taking us.

Re: Iran has now been offline for 96 hours

#53

Post by ebbi »

farseer wrote: post #41
submeta wrote: post #13

Western governments do not want democracy in Iran. They want the son of Shah back in Iran, the Shah whose father tortured and exploited Iranians, and that led to the revolution and the rise of the mullahs. The US and Israel want regime change so Israel can dominate the ME. Just like they replaced Assad in Syria by Jolani, a wanted Al Qaeda terrorist who does not oppose Israel in any way but slaughter kurds and alavit…

You are partially right, Israel does want to subdue the middle east and Iran stands in the way. However that does not absolve the current Iranian government of being a despicable entity, mostly hated by its own people. I hope the Iranian people choose democracy, limit the Ayatollahs to their holy city in Qom like the Vatican, tell that rascal Shah's son to go fornicate himself and of-course continue putting a necessa…

Agree - but a lot of the sentiment I hear from my Iranian friends (and recent pro-regime protestors comments) is that they acknowledge they have issues, but they don't want a regime change at the hands of USA and Israel.

I despise the Iranian regime, but knowing what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, I find it quite troubling that people are quite giddy about this as though it's not going to result in many lives lost (many more than what the regime is currently responsible for), and destabilisation of the country.

And given the USA's track record in regime changes, and the issues they have in their own country currently, I don't think the US - nor Israel - have any standing to be carrying out a regime change in another sovereign state.

Re: Iran has now been offline for 96 hours

#54

Post by Cyph0n »

blobbers wrote: post #44
Cyph0n wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not going to happen. It might have been a possibility if Israel didn’t decide to start a war and assassination campaign against Iran.

In the sense that Trump wouldn't have gotten elected if he hadn't been prosecuted for those documents? I agree that these types of things galvanize a population. Sometimes better to just let sleeping bears sleep.

In the sense that an offensive war - especially one that intentionally targets civilians and their families - rallies people around the flag and provides a boost of support to whoever is in power.

The regime was organically declining in popularity. Israel’s war simply rejuvenated the regime’s supporter base without any meaningful gains on the ground. There was minimal impact to the enrichment campaign. And the fact that negotiation was used as a ruse by the Americans is definitely a motivation to pursue enrichment even further.

Not to mention that regional powers are now wary of Israel’s expansionist nature and see nuclear power as the only true deterrent. Think about it: does anyone ever mess around with Pakistan or NK?

This offensive directly led to the Saudi-Pakistan defense pact, with Turkey probably joining soon. I would also wager that both KSA and Turkey are starting or are considering starting their own nuclear weapons programs.

Re: Iran has now been offline for 96 hours

#55

Post by margalabargala »

zjzkshz wrote: post #46
bpt3 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's being downvoted because it's mostly nonsense based on what I'm aware of. Please enlighten us with some of this easily verifiable information.

If you google about Al Jolani you can see the terrorist orgs he worked for in the first paragraph of his Wikipedia page.

That's not the disputed part.

The part we're all having trouble with is "and therefore the US wants to install the son of the Shah."

Re: Iran has now been offline for 96 hours

#56

Post by nitwit005 »

observationist wrote: post #3

This looks like it might be the end for the current regime. There are still people getting information out, and they are tearing down and burning state buildings - around 3000 protesters killed since the crackdown began, but there appear to be tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people who have risen up against the ayatollah, with an unknown number of state forces and officials killed. Crazy start to the year.

It's possible, but remember that in an absence of any political or military rivals, you don't need the loyalty of the populace, only the military and police.

Re: Iran has now been offline for 96 hours

#57

Post by breppp »

submeta wrote: post #13

Western governments do not want democracy in Iran. They want the son of Shah back in Iran, the Shah whose father tortured and exploited Iranians, and that led to the revolution and the rise of the mullahs. The US and Israel want regime change so Israel can dominate the ME. Just like they replaced Assad in Syria by Jolani, a wanted Al Qaeda terrorist who does not oppose Israel in any way but slaughter kurds and alavit…

Example wrong claims:

1. Jolani was propped up by Turkey not Israel, their relations are still tense. E.g. Jolani has been massacring the Druze which are Israel's allies, while Israel-Turkey relations are only getting worse.

Unsure where so many get the idea Israel is excited about an ISIS veterans regime on its border that regularly massacres civilians including on-brand mass rapes, kidnappings, beheadings, cutting hearts out etc

The US had previously imprisoned Jolani and had a 10 million reward on his head until 2024, so, that also doesn't align with your narrative

2. Western governments make sure not to meet the crown prince in a state setting or using high dignities, as to limit their support

3. The Shah government was terrible in some respects but still arguably superior to the current one, in any case hopefully Iranians can find their own new way once they get rid of their current fascist theocracy

4. There is no real evidence that the local revolts are supported by the US or Israel. It is naturally the regime propaganda stance as authoritarian regimes usually turn the blame outwards rather than face their failures (environmental disaster, raging inflation, sanctions, complete regional defeat, unwanted religious laws)

5. Not many dictators in the region historically "accepted Israel's dominance" so I don't think you have many supporting points for your sweeping statements

Re: Iran has now been offline for 96 hours

#58

Post by everdrive »

submeta wrote: post #38
neoromantique wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Cry me a river about bloody dictators being deposed, wah wah. 2) Nobody is asking to "accept Israel's dominance", but dropping the "Destruction of Israel" as one of the main goals of the state would be a quite welcome. The world does not revolve around Israel, and the less bloody dictators it has (theocratic or not) the better.

[flagged]

Ask yourself why Jordan or Egypt are not tripping over themselves to accept Palestinian refugees.

Re: Iran has now been offline for 96 hours

#59

Post by literalAardvark »

nitwit005 wrote: post #56
observationist wrote: post #3

This looks like it might be the end for the current regime. There are still people getting information out, and they are tearing down and burning state buildings - around 3000 protesters killed since the crackdown began, but there appear to be tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people who have risen up against the ayatollah, with an unknown number of state forces and officials killed. Crazy start to the year.

It's possible, but remember that in an absence of any political or military rivals, you don't need the loyalty of the populace, only the military and police.

Be that as it may, Iran has plenty of rivals.

Re: Iran has now been offline for 96 hours

#60

Post by lbrito »

bpt3 wrote: post #36
zjzkshz wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t get the downvotes either. Everything you’ve mentioned is pretty easily verifiable and not disputed.

It's being downvoted because it's mostly nonsense based on what I'm aware of. Please enlighten us with some of this easily verifiable information.

The historical part about the shah is straightforward and uncontroversial. Pick up a history book covering 20th century Iran.

What part of the comment is disputable?

Post reply on HN