Regime change might not be beneficial to the US, it might be too much trouble. https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cj691w2e840t?post=asset%3A8b0d... "... there will be plenty of voices around Trump advising him to be careful if he does go down that route. The Trump administration would be careful, because the consequences of regime change would be extremely complex ..."
Trump is going to be careful all of a sudden? That's not his MO, whether you think that's good or bad.
True. He's been talking about "negotiations", though.
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.
There’s no opposition though? As much as some people outside Iran want, I don’t think the Shah’s son has enough of a base of support inside Iran.
This doesn’t seem very different than the 2008 and Mahsa protests.
Most likely there will be an internal reorganization towards economic reform and moderate social policies.
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…
Dude, HN debate has held up pretty well for something thats been around for twenty years. Criticism of Western liberalism is not one of them.
And you think my point was about Western liberalism? That’s what you call destabilising countries? All while massively supporting some of the most aggressive dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, UAE?
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.
Well it sounds like the whole issue is that the regime has been tanking their economy due to years of funneling money to the Revolutionary Guard, and it's lead to them having to restrict more and more who they can provide favoritism to. It's unclear whether that means it's becoming more difficult to placate the IRGC or there are elements in the IRGC getting greedy, but either way it indicates the loyalty of the military and police can't be taken for granted.
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…
I find it impossible to see how the broad assertions you have made could possibly be subject to resolution in any way by argument so it would be a waste of time. I suspect whatever counter arguments were produced you'd diss them.
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.
And doesn't become another neoliberal, corrupt vassal state beholden to the IMF.
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 t…
> The regime was organically declining in popularity. Israel’s war simply rejuvenated the regime’s supporter base without any meaningful gains on the ground.
That is a statement that might make sense two weeks ago, but now? Evidently the effect Israel war had was not enough to prevents riots, or arguably might have emboldened them
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…
Israel does seem pretty excited about this and I doubt it is because they suddenly care about people they have killed themselves and a nation they have threatened to destroy.