Iran Protests. What if....?
Discussion
Reports say that the current protests in Iran are by far the most violent since they began earlier this year.
Sayed, Ali Mousavi, a nephew of the opposition leader has been killed in clashes.
Protesters are demonstrating openly, demanding an end to the Theocracy. They seem to have moved on from merely complaining about a rigged Presidential election.
What if the current regime fell, to be replaced by some type of democratic, Western leaning (or, at least least a less hostile) government?
How would this change the geopolitic map? With both Iran & Iraq in some type of representative, forward looking stances, would this affect the rise of fundamental Islam?
It seems to me, from my simplistic view on the matter, that radical Islamic groups began their rise with the Iranian Revolution in 1979.
What chance a reversal of fortunes for these groups when faced with a democratic and relatively peaceful Iran/Iraq grouping?
Syria would be extemely vulnerable if Iran changed. Lebanon would then be affected. As would the Occupied Territories. Without their Paymasters, whither Hamas?
We could be in for some fascinating upheavals is things escalate in Iran next year.
Sayed, Ali Mousavi, a nephew of the opposition leader has been killed in clashes.
Protesters are demonstrating openly, demanding an end to the Theocracy. They seem to have moved on from merely complaining about a rigged Presidential election.
What if the current regime fell, to be replaced by some type of democratic, Western leaning (or, at least least a less hostile) government?
How would this change the geopolitic map? With both Iran & Iraq in some type of representative, forward looking stances, would this affect the rise of fundamental Islam?
It seems to me, from my simplistic view on the matter, that radical Islamic groups began their rise with the Iranian Revolution in 1979.
What chance a reversal of fortunes for these groups when faced with a democratic and relatively peaceful Iran/Iraq grouping?
Syria would be extemely vulnerable if Iran changed. Lebanon would then be affected. As would the Occupied Territories. Without their Paymasters, whither Hamas?
We could be in for some fascinating upheavals is things escalate in Iran next year.
Blib said:
Reports say that the current protests in Iran are by far the most violent since they began earlier this year.
Sayed, Ali Mousavi, a nephew of the opposition leader has been killed in clashes.
Protesters are demonstrating openly, demanding an end to the Theocracy. They seem to have moved on from merely complaining about a rigged Presidential election.
What if the current regime fell, to be replaced by some type of democratic, Western leaning (or, at least least a less hostile) government?
How would this change the geopolitic map? With both Iran & Iraq in some type of representative, forward looking stances, would this affect the rise of fundamental Islam?
It seems to me, from my simplistic view on the matter, that radical Islamic groups began their rise with the Iranian Revolution in 1979.
What chance a reversal of fortunes for these groups when faced with a democratic and relatively peaceful Iran/Iraq grouping?
Syria would be extemely vulnerable if Iran changed. Lebanon would then be affected. As would the Occupied Territories. Without their Paymasters, whither Hamas?
We could be in for some fascinating upheavals is things escalate in Iran next year.
If Iran did manage to obtain such a government they would likely have their hands full for some time internally keeping the fundis inside the country from trying to disrupt things. This would be even more so if they show cozier relations to the West. That said, I hope they follow the path to a better government.Sayed, Ali Mousavi, a nephew of the opposition leader has been killed in clashes.
Protesters are demonstrating openly, demanding an end to the Theocracy. They seem to have moved on from merely complaining about a rigged Presidential election.
What if the current regime fell, to be replaced by some type of democratic, Western leaning (or, at least least a less hostile) government?
How would this change the geopolitic map? With both Iran & Iraq in some type of representative, forward looking stances, would this affect the rise of fundamental Islam?
It seems to me, from my simplistic view on the matter, that radical Islamic groups began their rise with the Iranian Revolution in 1979.
What chance a reversal of fortunes for these groups when faced with a democratic and relatively peaceful Iran/Iraq grouping?
Syria would be extemely vulnerable if Iran changed. Lebanon would then be affected. As would the Occupied Territories. Without their Paymasters, whither Hamas?
We could be in for some fascinating upheavals is things escalate in Iran next year.
Edited by Jimbeaux on Monday 28th December 01:59
Fascinating isn't quite the word I would use. Bloodbath is more akin to what would happen. There is no way that the Mullah's would consider any true relinquishment of their power. They will kill any number of their own to stay in power.
Iranians are a complex peoples and change in Iran will be a complex process.
Iranians are a complex peoples and change in Iran will be a complex process.
Like Iraq, change in Iran will undoubtedly result in another long winded vicious civil war between different factions. It will get bloody, and boring very quick. People are quick to announce how much they would like for change to occur, and yet when the s
t hits the fan, they'll be left to fight amongst themselves.
t hits the fan, they'll be left to fight amongst themselves. heebeegeetee said:
Blib said:
What if the current regime fell, to be replaced by some type of democratic, Western leaning (or, at least least a less hostile) government?
I'm sure we'd be in there pronto, interfering and meddling and generally fking things up.MiniMan64 said:
heebeegeetee said:
Blib said:
What if the current regime fell, to be replaced by some type of democratic, Western leaning (or, at least least a less hostile) government?
I'm sure we'd be in there pronto, interfering and meddling and generally fking things up.Iranians are deeply suspicious and highly cynical of western intervention in their affairs, none more so than with the British gvt who are seen as the brains behind any moves or actions against them. (Mind you, with Brown in charge, that has quite probably diminished). It's an ingrained mistrust that is taught at a very early age. It's not the rent-a-mob rantings of Mugabe, this is something far deeper engrained and it's just one of the reasons that makes Iran such a comples peoples and gvt to deal with.
Iran will change from the inside and actually many don't want 'regime change', that they want is greater personal freedom and choice and that's a different thing entirely.
There is a great history of bloodshed in Iran. The western support of Saddam Hussein, the many lost lives and the years of war they endured have left and indellible mark on the peoples and at the root of it lies the belief and perception of western meddling. So, to use the phrase 'America better butt out' is a higlhy important one.
Well, there was substantial funds going to Iran during the Bush years to fund the opposition, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/29/international/mi... , but seemingly Obama has cut it all, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8315120.stm .
So really, DinnerJacket was right when he said the West were 'meddling' as they were indeed funding opposition. Was he right, or was he wrong?
So really, DinnerJacket was right when he said the West were 'meddling' as they were indeed funding opposition. Was he right, or was he wrong?
Blue Meanie said:
Well, there was substantial funds going to Iran during the Bush years to fund the opposition, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/29/international/mi... , but seemingly Obama has cut it all, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8315120.stm .
So really, DinnerJacket was right when he said the West were 'meddling' as they were indeed funding opposition. Was he right, or was he wrong?
I would say so, but Bush always was a small minded imbecile.So really, DinnerJacket was right when he said the West were 'meddling' as they were indeed funding opposition. Was he right, or was he wrong?
Funding for groups outside Iran would be 'tricky' to pull off anyway. Some groups outside of Iran actually supported the downfall of the Mullah's from inside Iraq and some even went so far as to now be considered 'traitors' - not from the mullahs, but from the general public. They would never be accepted.
Any change needs to come from within Iran and I just hope it does not kick off a civil war. Iran's peoples have already suffered more than their fair share of loss, brutality and grief.
drivin_me_nuts said:
Blue Meanie said:
Well, there was substantial funds going to Iran during the Bush years to fund the opposition, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/29/international/mi... , but seemingly Obama has cut it all, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8315120.stm .
So really, DinnerJacket was right when he said the West were 'meddling' as they were indeed funding opposition. Was he right, or was he wrong?
I would say so, but Bush always was a small minded imbecile.So really, DinnerJacket was right when he said the West were 'meddling' as they were indeed funding opposition. Was he right, or was he wrong?
Funding for groups outside Iran would be 'tricky' to pull off anyway. Some groups outside of Iran actually supported the downfall of the Mullah's from inside Iraq and some even went so far as to now be considered 'traitors' - not from the mullahs, but from the general public. They would never be accepted.
Any change needs to come from within Iran and I just hope it does not kick off a civil war. Iran's peoples have already suffered more than their fair share of loss, brutality and grief.
Yes, we know that Jim... However, the problem with places like Iran is that despite any opposition they have to their leadership, if the west is seen as interfering, they will coagulate as one group. They are a proud people, and like any other country they will resent anything from the outside. If it is public support, as the US was doing, then it will I think be counter productive. I can't find anything about MI-6 and funding, which is a good thing.
Edited by Blue Meanie on Monday 28th December 14:28
Blue Meanie said:
Yes, we know that Jim... However, the problem with places like Iran is that despite any opposition they have to their leadership, if the west is seen as interfering, they will coagulate as one group. They are a proud people, and like any other country they will resent anything from the outside. If it is public support, as the US was doing, then it will I think be counter productive. I can't find anything about MI-6 and funding, which is a good thing.
I guess our military our better at keeping secrets.Blue Meanie said:
Yes, we know that Jim... However, the problem with places like Iran is that despite any opposition they have to their leadership, if the west is seen as interfering, they will coagulate as one group. They are a proud people, and like any other country they will resent anything from the outside. If it is public support, as the US was doing, then it will I think be counter productive. I can't find anything about MI-6 and funding, which is a good thing.
I agree with you that they should be left to their devices, I am just saying that that is not how it is. As for you not finding something on MI-6 regarding this; do you really think info such as that is just there for your taking? Edited by Blue Meanie on Monday 28th December 14:28
elster said:
Blue Meanie said:
Yes, we know that Jim... However, the problem with places like Iran is that despite any opposition they have to their leadership, if the west is seen as interfering, they will coagulate as one group. They are a proud people, and like any other country they will resent anything from the outside. If it is public support, as the US was doing, then it will I think be counter productive. I can't find anything about MI-6 and funding, which is a good thing.
I guess our military our better at keeping secrets.Jimbeaux said:
Blue Meanie said:
Yes, we know that Jim... However, the problem with places like Iran is that despite any opposition they have to their leadership, if the west is seen as interfering, they will coagulate as one group. They are a proud people, and like any other country they will resent anything from the outside. If it is public support, as the US was doing, then it will I think be counter productive. I can't find anything about MI-6 and funding, which is a good thing.
I agree with you that they should be left to their devices, I am just saying that that is not how it is. As for you not finding something on MI-6 regarding this; do you really think info such as that is just there for your taking? Edited by Blue Meanie on Monday 28th December 14:28
Jimbeaux said:
drivin_me_nuts said:
Blue Meanie said:
Well, there was substantial funds going to Iran during the Bush years to fund the opposition, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/29/international/mi... , but seemingly Obama has cut it all, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8315120.stm .
So really, DinnerJacket was right when he said the West were 'meddling' as they were indeed funding opposition. Was he right, or was he wrong?
I would say so, but Bush always was a small minded imbecile.So really, DinnerJacket was right when he said the West were 'meddling' as they were indeed funding opposition. Was he right, or was he wrong?
Funding for groups outside Iran would be 'tricky' to pull off anyway. Some groups outside of Iran actually supported the downfall of the Mullah's from inside Iraq and some even went so far as to now be considered 'traitors' - not from the mullahs, but from the general public. They would never be accepted.
Any change needs to come from within Iran and I just hope it does not kick off a civil war. Iran's peoples have already suffered more than their fair share of loss, brutality and grief.
"My enemy's enemy is my friend".
Satellite TV & the Interweb coupled with a population, the majority of whom are under the age of thirty, create enormous pressures for the Mullahs.
Many of these young people have seen how their peers in the West live and want what they see.
Personally, I have a feeling that Jimmy Choo & Ferrari will win out over Friday prayers and devotion.
It happened in Eastern Europe, I believe that it will happen in Iran too. This may not be what the leaders of this uprising want. But, like Gorbachev, they may well be swept away by the tide.
I feel that this would be 'A Good Thing'. We shall see.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff