True, but the successful ones tended to have a homogenous population that wished to be part of the Western world. I think that describes Iran.
I do suspect the popularity of the mullahs in Iran is pretty high in the rural areas and low in the urban areas.
Note: this is not saying I support such a coup, I don’t think it’s worth the risk (It’s 60/40 odds of success), or the cost (which would be a few hundred to few thousand soldiers)- especially when we can play a long game and co-opt the regime or use success (Iran without sanctions would be economically successful, and that would put pressure on the mullahs) in our favor.
Yeah I know, but it’s the best I can come up with the time I have. I would love to see a more complete list. At least it’s a source, as dumb as you think it is.
Note though, that military interventions on defense of invasions tend to be among the sucessful of the above. If you take that out, the outlook on successful regime changes becomes even dimmer.
Also, covert regime changes always use local movements as their basis, as they are otherwise impossible. Of course solidarity in Poland is to be credited, as are the factions that took power in all these, but saying that thes changes came without US external (US) support and participation is also disingenous.
Maybe. I couldn’t claim to know much about what Iranians who live in Iran (as opossed ot emigrees) think. But that above is a big assumption. Normally, when you throw sanctions at a country, people in that country tend to dislike and blame you (no matter the reasons for those sanctions).
It’s possible that the urban population in Iran would be all pro-west, but the opossite is also possible. We just don’t know (and assumptions of the will odf the people by foreigners tend to go very wrong). Is there any data on this???
Um, in the fifties we and the Brits short-circuited Iranian political aspirations by deposing Mossadegh and installing the Shah. Worked out for a while, but within 25 years it had all gone down the shitter, with interest. Iranians are deeply divided about their own government; most support the sort of independent policies and freedom from neo-colonialist domination that the current regime espouses, but many are deeply troubled about the more extreme and theocratic elements in their own society. It’s pretty safe to say though that nearly all Iranians would resist any imposition of foreign control, or a regime change at the point of foreign weapons. It’s a non-starter. This isn’t the case of a small minority of whack jobs holding a nation hostage–that might actually be the case in North Korea, though the inculcation of the cult of personality there is so deep who knows–but rather a case of a very complex, multi-faceted political and social landscape where you have religious fundamentalists side by side with modernists, reformers, tech-savvy millenials, old-school nationalists, and apolitical business people. Attacking, or even worse invading, Iran would simply unite these people. Saddam tried it, remember? Kick 'em when they’re divided and down. He got eight years of bloody war and WWI in the Gulf for his troubles.
Besides, the US doesn’t have the capacity to invade Iran. We keep reducing the size of our ground forces, as well as the number of platforms in our air arsenal, and we’re losing depth as well in personnel and probably logistics when it comes to the higher-end ordnance supplies. You can’t use drones and mine-resistant HUMMVEES to take over a nation.
Juan, how can Iran’s government be called anything BUT barbaric?
Iran, without question, funds terrorist activities in most of the regions in the middle east currently. You don’t dispute this, do you?
Likewise, Iran has laws which are not simply barbaric in that they specify punishments for things like adultery that involve stoning, or amputation, and which define children as young as 8 years old to be legally responsible.
Their government keeps their people in a constant state of fear, arbitrarily throwing people into jail if they speak out against their government, or hell, even if they just film things which MAY be perceived as negative by the theocratic regime.
Again, I’m not talking about the Iranian people themselves. I don’t think that the majority of Iranians really have any part in this. Everything that I’ve ever seen suggests that most Iranians are actually intelligent and friendly people.
Let us work from the assumption that these things are true. It may be possible to dispute the degree, or even the veracity, of these claims but I’m not interested in that at the moment.
What, if any of that, does not also apply to our friend and ally, the House of Saud? We have, despite the brutal and unwestern attitudes there, given a great degree of latitude and money. Saudi money has been frequently used to support terrorists, they are a destabilizing force in their region, and we constantly ignore their transgressions. Would we, using your own logic, also not have to cut Saudi lose and overthrow their regime as well?
The Iranian Ayatollahs may be unpleasant to deal with, and certainly deserving of removal from power, but how?
There needs to be a national awareness and consideration on what our objectives are in the middle east, and a serious look at if our actions achieve those goals. There is very few positive long term outcomes that could come from failing to deal with Iran. Failure to work with them here will have dramatic side effects. The moderate government that was elected was done so on the promise of improving the internal situation by improving relations with the west, if that attempt fails then it is highly probable that Iran takes a hard turn right politically, that is almost certainly counter to our interests. Further it is improbable in the extreme that we can prevent Iran from developing nuclear capabilities indefinitely through coercion or force. Driving them away at this point, when there does seem to be a genuine interest in some form of rapprochement with the west, would likely create a state with nuclear capabilities that is antagonistic towards the US. One potentially interested in forging closer bonds with Russia, a troublesome country in its own right.
If the goal is truly to prevent nuclear development the only possible way is to work with Iran, and make the prospects of further development internally unappealing. Remove the incentives they have currently that drive them towards such a goal. Refusing to negotiate with them only solidifies their resolve, and likely drives them politically into undesirable outcomes. Declaring war to stop their development is far worse. You want to destroy any hope of stability and moderation in the middle east in our lifetime? That’s how you do it.
I think it’s not as barbaric as you say (although certainly not a government I would like to live under, and one that would need deep reforms). But it’s mostly a matter of definiton and magnitude. I’d never defend the regime, I’m just trying to contextualize it.
It’s all a matter of perspective and volume (which is the point kedaha was trying to make). Certainly there has been a moving away from those barbaric laws, both in legislation (stoning now being illegal) and practice (although in the law, those laws are not executed that often). I find the prevalence of death penalty and lack of freedom of press and opinon worse concerns, but I don’t think they qualify for barbarism, and are the kind of things I see changing if the theocratic aspect of the system relaxes due to an improved economy. In the context the country is placed, I think it’s actually not barbaric, although undemocratic and oppressive (in-between a dictatorship and a democracy, not that different from countries like Singapore -although Singapore is somewhat closer to democracy and lacks the religious aspect-).
I also think we win nothing by calling them barbaric, instead of looking at the positive aspects and try to encourage them. There’s already a lot of hate for the West over there.
The only issue I have with your argument is with the funding of terrorism. I don’t think that defines anything (but the side on a conflict a country is in). Every single state with resources does this (although we in the west try to use diferent names for it).
I quite sure that Amnesty International would disagree with you. Here is Amnesty 2014report, Iran is on page 184. I’ve been reading their report periodically for 20 odd years and Iran’s is about as bad as they get. Really only ISIS and North Korea are significantly worse. Iran is listed as extreme risk by Human Rights watch. Freedom House gave Iran a score of 17 out of 100, just ahead of Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain, with Syria getting a score of 1.
The argument that there are lots of bad country some we do business with is frankly BS. Yes there are a lot of bad governments that do evil things, but there is a class of governments which are unspeakable evil Iran falls into that category and has been there ever since the revolution.
Surely you are forgetting Africa? I won’t be disputing AI or HRW, though. Most of my opinion on Iran was circumstancial (talking to Iranians and people who have been there) and can surely be biased.
The west has dealt with countries in that category as long as they are rational actors, unless that category only means countries we do not deal with, or it does not include fascist distatorships (for example).
Why do people keep bringing up these horrible regimes?
Is the Saudi regime horrific, and undeserving of our support? YES. I mean, is the expectation that I’d be supportive of dealing with the Saudis? Because I’m absolutely not.
The Iranian Ayatollahs may be unpleasant to deal with, and certainly deserving of removal from power, but how?
Honestly, the only two options are either military force which is messy, or enabling their people to eventually overthrow or moderate their government.
You should not lead with this; funding terrorists happens to be an occasional American pastime also.
Who are the state sponsored terrorist groups funded by the US?
Well, it’s “were” as far as I know, unless someone wants to count the FSA as a terrorist group (Assad would like to, at least). I personally think it’s too much of a stretch to label the Afghani Mujahideen as terrorists, although obviously some came out of that group. Anyway, we have the Contras, allegedly a group that carried out the Piazza Fontana bombing incident (among others), Jundallah (reportedly), Orlando Bosch/Luis Posada Carriles/CORU, and quite possibly several others in our history. It’s not as checkered of a past as many other nations, but it’s still out there.
My major concern is that the improvement in Iran’s economy will allow them to increase funding for Hezbollah and other such groups. That seems undeniable. On balance, though, it’s better than Iran (and, potentially Iran’s proxies) having nuclear weapons.
This is a rational concern. There are many reasons to be very concerned with Iran’s foreign policies (I detest their internal policies as well, but to be blunt they don’t concern me as much in practical terms). For a variety of reasons, Iranian regimes since 1979 have not been very good global citizens you might say. And it’s very complicated, because we need them to fight ISIS and yet they are themselves a very destabilizing force.
Of course, if the local Gulf Arabs wouldn’t abuse their Shia populations like they do, there would be less room for Tehran to meddle, but that’s a different tale.
There is also the counter-argument that Iran has a number of incentives to come in from the cold.
They have a fairly stable government (the riots a few years back granted) with working services and a reasonably united populace. They have an opportunity to create Shia-centric confederation or even super-state that includes Baghdad and become THE regional force in the area, displacing the Sauds.
They can consolidate power and achieve these goals while enjoying trade and income from Europe, or they can pick a fight with the US and try to do it covertly while their economy is strangled. Seems like a no-brainer.
I think that there are tons of reasons for Iran to moderate itself, and I think the Iranian people most definitely want this.
The problem is that Iran’s leadership is really NOT rational in this regard. While potentially not as crazy as North Korea, they are definitely being driven by completely irrational, paranoid, religious motivations.
I’m by no means an international politics expert. All I know is what I’ve learned in school, what’s on the news, and what I’ve read in my spare time. But has there been a case where isolating a country has worked to change their behavior in modern times? We throw sanctions at NK, Iran, Russia, Cuba, etc… and what happens? They continue on with their behavior, or they move the behavior under-ground (Russia in Ukraine, Iran refining uranium).
The U.S. needs to try new things, like this agreement with Iran. Being the “heavy”, both economically and militarily, isn’t working any longer. It’s causing hardship for the uninvolved citizenry of the affected countries. I agree that in some cases, like in the case of invasion (Russia), that sanctions and old-school scorning is the best we can do. But if you’re looking to change the behavior of a country like Iran, to get it to stop doing something, what other choice do you have but an agreement? There has been literally decades of sanctions in one form or another, and if anything it has helped to keep the current regime in power. I read an article that came from the position that the U.S. is a convenient common enemy that allows the Iranian government and the Iranian people to unite. Without a common enemy, the moderate university students would better be able to force change on the central government. “Death to America” doesn’t actually mean “Death to America” to most Iranians. It means “United we stand”. It’s become akin to students speaking the Pledge of Allegiance in school each morning. Normalizing relations with Iran kicks one of the legs out from under the Iranian government’s stool.
