Anti-government riots broke out in Tehran on Monday. On the spurs of what's going on in Egypt and Tunisia, they're demanding fair elections, freedom of speech, end of persecutions etc. One person's been killed so far, many are/were injured.
I didn't add a news link, as you can google and select which news agency you wish to read it in, it's all over.
Going to laugh if this trend continues and stable 'western-style' democracies start popping all around the Middle East; yet Iraq and Afghanistan stay the mess they are.
I don't think it will either. Iran police and military forces have their shit together and they won't think twice about mowing down mobs of people if the shit gets too thick.
This is why the people should be armed and why the "Founding Fathers" made provisions in the second amendment: so we could literally kill our corrupt government. We could do what we've done to African conflicts and "sprinkle weapons to the side we like the most.
do you honestly think armed protesters in IRAN would make the movement more successful?
EDIT: i really don't think so, it would simply give cover to the authorities to completely crack down on any resistance. Iran, as in the people, are too entrenched with the regime. Western support for these protests, in fact, solidifies this.
__________________ yes, a million times yes
Last edited by tsilamini on Feb 15th, 2011 at 10:07 PM
It's pretty dang hard to "Crack down" on your people when there's hundreds of thousands of them armed to the teeth. RPGs, full automatics, mortars, and so forth. A "crack down" can only take you so far against your own people. If they started doing that, that would cause others to take up arms that otherwise, wouldn't have. There is a "barrier" with which a people has to cross in order for an uprising to be successful.
except that the majority of Iranians, while maybe wanting democratic reforms, do not oppose the state?
A fighting force like the one you outlined requires many things to survive. One is the "sea" for the "fish" to swim in (revolutionaries need to be able to hide among the people). The "sea" doesn't exist in Iran. The people are loyal to the regime because it is seen as a protection against Western interference and the association of Iranian/Muslim is too strong, which is itself a leftover of American meddling in the region.
except given what we just saw in Egypt and Tunisia
You model of revolution is based on a time where the weapons of war were widespread and obtainable by rag-tag groups who could oppose empirical armies. In the modern world, where the Iranians would be more than happy to use gunships against infantry, there is little these groups can do to effectively fight back, and the media control in the state is nearly absolute.
Like, I assume you also take this to the "lets arm them with American weapons" extreme, to which I would say, "look at how well that worked in Afghanistan". Even with stinger missiles though, the popular support just isn't there, especially outside of Tehran.
"A 'crack down' can only take you so far against your own people. If they started doing that, that would cause others to take up arms that otherwise, wouldn't have."
It does exist and quite easily. The "sea" you speak of exists in nations that have better "crack down" infrastructure, much less a country that does not have much "crack down" resources such as Iran.
But, if you think that Iran is a futuristic fascist state (similar to the one seen in Equilibrium or V for Vendetta), examples of "cells" existed and experienced success and, to me, seemed telling or realistic of how a system would operate with technology figuratively and literally shoved up your ass.
It is also possible that I've completely missed your point and have no idea what you're talking about.
I see it closer to "50/50" than a do this other Iran you speak of. With the "other" 50 being varying degrees of "I don't care as long as it's all good" to "I am a steel pillar of support for my government." Meaning, a portion of the "stationary" 50 could be persuaded during certain situations.
Are you trying to make my point? I'm very confused, now. What is your stance?
But didn't you just make a case for Egypt and Tunisia? Deaths occured primiarly from the military and police actions against the protesters. Granted, it wasn't mass, but if it were, "mass" I believe the "chemistry" of the conflict would have changed, as well.
Additionally, mass slaughter of your own people would be acceptable to both Iranian leaders and the rest of the world? I don't really think that would fly on both counts.
We are talking about tens of thousands that would have to be murdered.
If the moder war "on terror" has shown us anything, it's that killing thousands of people doesn't do jack shit to rid us of insurgents: a point that I'm sure you agree with.
You mean like the Soviet war in Afghanistan?
Edit - I'd like to point out that people said the protesting would spread to Iran, and it did. How successful that will be has yet to be seen.
you know that in both Tunisia and Egypt the army was not on the side of the state? deaths were almost unanimously caused by police and security forces, loyal to the leader.
this is not true in Iran, the military takes it orders, and gladly, from the Mullahs.
otherwise, I think you misjudge the Iranian people. They do want democracy, at least reforms from what they have now (though I would be surprised if more than 50% wanted to do away with the Mullahs), but what it means to be an Iranian, and a Muslim, in that nation are so much different than in Egypt or Tunisia. For these protests to work, there would have to be an entire redefinition of Islam in the nation, such that people could oppose the regime and still be pious.
Its the same reason the 2008 protests didn't work. The main leavers of power and the majority of society are not interested in such a transition, especially given the national narrative of security. American involvement in these protests actually strengthens the power of the regime to suppress them.
These protests are merely a step forward in the right direction, of course in rebelling against any regime there will be acts of violence and Iran has already shown to the world they will stop at nothing to contain and eradicate opposition.
The interesting thing is the fact that they are happening again, especially within such a short amount of time.
I'm sick of hearing about this American involvement in shit. Look at the revolutions America got its filthy hands all over and look at the conditions that country is in now.
On a side note: wasn't the United States behind some sort of assassination in Iran that put a dictator into power?
__________________ "Every daring attempt to make a great change in existing conditions, every lofty vision of new possibilities for the human race, has been labeled Utopian."
I thought the army in Egypt tried to stay neutral and in Tunisia it contributed to the deaths of the protesters?
Why did I phrase that in a question? lol
I can hear it now: "Death to the Mullahs!" And then change.
Really? Cause like, that's not the impression I got from a news report on the people. Neither of us can say what the people socially want or do not want, however. I don't want to start talking about that: I'd rather focus on the possibility of regime change. It's too hard to guess and generalize when some want to run around naked and others want full body suits. We could discuss polls...if they exist in any recent and "scientific" sampling fashion.
I do not see it that way. I see a potential for regime change especially because of the 08 protests. People do not forget that.
In Egypt they stayed neutral, as in, didn't try to get the protestors off the streets... this would not be the case in a place like Iran or Saudi Arabia. It wouldn't be 30 000 people dead in the streets, but the Iranians aren't against a massacre (re: Kurds in Western Iran)
god, I should probably look this up, but I think the army joined the protests in Tunisia very quickly... you could be right though
EDIT: this sort of insinuates what I was saying, the army wasn't targeting the protestors to get them off the street, or at least, soldiers weren't doing so
I wrote a bunch of papers on the Iranian rev in undergrad, so thats what I'm falling back on. I'd agree with you if you restricted the population to "Urban youth", but in terms of the nation (where in Egypt and Tunisia, the protests spread from the youth to the middle classes) they aren't with them. These are the people who fought for Sharia as a way to oppose the west, in living memory. The idea that some Western system is going to replace their national/religious identity would not fly well with these people, and they control the levers of power in the nation.
people weren't calling for regieme change in 08, they simply wanted their, hand-picked-by-the-mullahs, candidate to win their "election"
__________________ yes, a million times yes
Last edited by tsilamini on Feb 16th, 2011 at 12:56 AM
Adding weapons in iran would be a terrible idea... at the best it would end up like afghanistan, and it could easily become the most horrifying state in world history.
Cool, then I'd say you're more informed on the social situation, than I. It just wasn't the impression I got from what appears to now be biased news sources in America.
"Regime" change may be the words others used. If I erred, I apologize. I'm only a parrot.
But that gets off track of my real point: I do not think it's futile for the people to protest. If they get massacred, then there will definitely be change.
Hillary Clinton released a Tweet, or some shit, today in Farsi supporting the protestors in Iran (compare that to how long it took Obama to get behind those in Egypt). The US gets a hard on any time they see instability in Iran, and the media never looks at issues in depth enough to talk about things like the cross between identity, religion and nationalism.
That being said, I don't want to overemphasize the control the regime does have. People identify with it and feel protected by it, but they aren't happy with a lot of its choices. ALE did a program on Tehran (ragge omar was the host, and his stuff is always top notch) where, the #1 thing that got me, was women's hairstyles. Because of veil laws (and they do have cops on the streets monitoring this), the only hair women can show is right at the front of their head, but the styles and dying that they had done to this was the exact same as girls from around here (well, it was unique in style, but you get what I'm saying, people expressing themselves and challanging the "intent" of the law).
The thing is, the power the regime has is exactly that, power. it will throw people in jail, torture and kill them with no scruples. An all out revolution like those in Egypt or Tunisia faces the full brunt of the Iranian military. The more militaristic the protests, the more justification people will give the hard handed tactice of the mullahs. Regime change is totally possible, and I would say an unavoidable eventuallity, but imho the model of Egypt doesn't fit.
I guess I can say, I hope I'm wrong.
I don't think it is either, and it is this type of civilian action that will set the groundwork for anything that does pose a real challange to the regime.
I just think it is too early to start thinking that way about Iran. Their leaders are far too entrenched, much like the Saudis. Nations like Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, sure, they have a real chance, especially now that the eyes of the world are pointed on them. These more powerful states... give it 30 years
KMC Community Forums
Feb 15th, 2011 09:45 PM
