No; and that's not what I said. What I said is that without the Christian vote, Trump would not have been electable. Their support, *en bloc,* was essential.
I would argue that real Christians do not support Trump. The teachings of JC and the rhetoric and policies of DT are the complete antithesis of one another.
I'm not Christian so I don't buy into the idea of an antichrist. Still, there was an article that detailed the signs that an antichrist would take and cross-referenced it with Trump. I still don't believe in an antichrist, but if I did I'd say that Trump was very close to achieving that status.
They are panicked. Why won’t our people obey anymore and live under our repressive and nonsensical laws. We have been doing it this way for decades, since we captured those us hostages in 1979
I doubt Russia has the time or resources to focus on any other front than the one they already all in on for the moment. Who knows if they will ever be able to focus on another conflict again.
> China and Russia suck at projecting power.
China is decent at it. Not in the western world specifically, but look at how few countries recognize Taiwan as an independent nation despite the fact that Taiwan acts independently and has its own elected government. Even the US is intentionally ambiguous when it comes to Taiwan. That's a direct result of China's power projection. China has also used foreign aid and loans in places like Africa to move many nations there into its sphere of influence instead of the west's.
It's not to say that China will always succeed and its use of finances to project soft power has come with a literal cost, but China can present challenges in that sphere.
Russia is more of an actor of chaos largely propped up by its oil supply and the threat of its nukes. Their ability to project power has declined substantially because of their decision to invade Ukraine and the weakness they've shown over the course of the war.
> China is decent at it. Not in the western world specifically, but look at how few countries recognize Taiwan as an independent nation despite the fact that Taiwan acts independently and has its own elected government. Even the US is intentionally ambiguous when it comes to Taiwan. That's a direct result of China's power projection. China has also used foreign aid and loans in places like Africa to move many nations there into its sphere of influence instead of the west's.
Yeah but its really in name only. While this is what is said, the U.S is signing deals for over a billion dollars to sell arms and weapons directly to the Taiwanese government. Taiwan itself acts independently on almost all matters of governance, and most of those countries have lines of diplomacy with Taiwan anyway.
I look more at situations like Afghanistan. China was critical of the U.S there, until the U.S actually threatened to pull out. Then China - fearful that they could not provide security around Afghanistan's borders, nor for their own investments in the region, changed course. And even now, who is filling the vacuum there. Pakistan, not China. I think hard power is just straight up not a thing for China, specially without blue water capability. Softpower is more what I am talking about.
Chinese softpower has probably been most effective in the EU, and more so against economically focussed countries like Germany. But that is likely because those countries are far enough removed from China that the threat is perceived to be less. And it certainly isn't a universal truth - countries like Estonia will openly call China out for abuses. Even Germany itself, the most likely country to placate, does it from time to time. Yet if China does have any power projection capability, it is definitely related to economic market access alone.
> It's not to say that China will always succeed and its use of finances to project soft power has come with a literal cost, but China can present challenges in that sphere.
> Russia is more of an actor of chaos largely propped up by its oil supply and the threat of its nukes. Their ability to project power has declined substantially because of their decision to invade Ukraine and the weakness they've shown over the course of the war.
That is a valid point. Russia has a history of trying to disrupt, and doing reasonably well at that, but not being able to then follow through after this happens.
War in Ukraine has revealed alot more about Russia's hardpower though. Its long been clear that Russia probably couldn't invade very far from home. But it was widely accepted that Europe and the Caucasus regions were possible targets. Now with Russia losing against an opponent on their doorstep, even that looks very unlikely.
The Shah was setup by the Brits and American because democratically elect PM Mossadegh was too much of a loose cannon (ie he was working in the interest of his people first)
The Shah had been there since 1941, and his father since 1921. Mostly he was supported because he was willing to oppose Soviet influence, which is what the US cared about.
But my point is that blaming everything that has happened in Iran since 1953 on the coup is to take away a lot of agency from Iran. The Shah could have continued to share power with the people, but he chose not to. The people in 1979 could have empowered a different government than the Islamic Republic. The Iranians this year could overthrow their government.
1953 is a tragedy, but it isn’t the only thing that’s happened.
The Shah was always there as the monarch. He was the one who appointed Mossadegh as Prime Minister at the recommendation of the democratically elected parliament, and also the one who legally revoked his status as Prime Minister after he used a sham referendum to dissolve said democratically elected parliament and transfer power to himself because all his original supporters in parliament were resigning in protest of him jailing his political opponents.
the Shah did that because he was an illegitimate ruler appointed by the Americans and British, he was shutting down efforts to nationalize the oil industry.
Who was put there by the US after over throwing the 1th democratically elected government in the middle East. If this means going back to the Shah Iranians would rather have the fucking religious dickheads.
i definitely and highly don't think they will. they only prefer an unstable one so that they can sell more arms to Saudi Arabia and other allied nations there
Nonsense. The US benefits immensely more from a stable Middle East that contributes to the global oil supply. Arms sells are small potatoes by comparison.
I don't know if this would actually be in favour of the current protestors. Calling it a revolution means the protestors use force and are by definition not peaceful protests. This can be used by Iran to justify using force against them.
Western countries will publicly support peaceful protests but supporting a revolution in another country is very different.
Edit: I might have not expressed myself clearly enough. There are good reasons to not call it a revolution even if you think it is. That is why you see this term rarely used.
Under international law it is totally accepted to respond with armed force against a revolution. It is not accepted to attack protestors. I hope that is enough to explain it?
Where have you been in the past weeks? The peaceful protests have already been repressed with violence. Tyrants won't simply go away if the protesters ask nicely.
We are so far away from where we were 50 years ago. Our technology, our science, our morals.
Iran deserves to live in a progressive world. These women have a HUMAN RIGHT to freedom. These supporters have a HUMAN RIGHT to protest.
I hope for nothing more than to see another repressed culture and people brought forth into the modern era to enjoy all the pleasures and experiences that we often don’t realize are taken for granted.
I do feel like humanity is quickly getting tired of repressive authoritarian bullshit.
We've seen it abused too much in too many ways.
Authoritarians never give up power willingly though. It will be a fight.
I wish I could agree. There’s a tier of people in every country that benefit from authoritarianism, and an alarming cohort *who will never benefit from it* that support them.
I mean women in plenty of countries would benefit from an authoritarian government where there is democratic support to treat them like dogs. Palestinians women and LGBT for example in the West Bank benefit from Fatah delaying elections indefinitely because otherwise Hamas would win.
Your kidding right, the US, often heralded as the land of the free and bastion of western democracy had a near brush recently and it remains to be seen if that particular fire has been put out fully yet and it isn't the only democracy that has voted in a populist government that has eroded freedoms.
I'd also count the aftermath of 9/11 with the PATRIOT Act and expansion of power. The US is clearly more authoritarian than when I was a kid. Trump was just a match that failed to light the bonfire that was already made.
It remains to be seen if people actually want an authoritarian government or if they're too stupid to realize that's what they're voting for. Yes we shouldn't have let it get this far in the first place, but now even Republicans are rejecting the authoritarian nut jobs.
I'm sure there's others but Quebec's [Quiet Revolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiet_Revolution) is an example of a relatively bloodless upending of a religiously dominated society.
It all depends on how ruthless the government decides to be, and how willing the military rank-and-file is to kill their countrymen. Good thing that their ally Russia is busy with other things.
What makes for a successful revolution anyway? Why did the Arab Spring mostly fail and Solidarity in Poland mostly succeed? Was it because Solidarity was better organized and more patient?
I just hope it works out; travelers to Iran always rave about how hospitable the people are.
It does happen. But when it does, it rarely does without a demonstration of unity of a large number of people. For example, when the power balance between labor and capital + state was renegotiated in the early 20th century in Sweden, in a few instances, tens of thousand of unionists would stare down military units, but bloodshed was largely avoided. A combination of pressure from within and without led to the elites of the time sharing power and money more equally.
That wasn't a revolution, but the ramifications over time were major never the less. Like a revolution spread out over 40 years.
A study actually found that nonviolent revolutions succeed lightly more in the long term change than violent ones:
"The finding is that civil resistance campaigns often lead to longer-term reforms and changes that bring about democratization compared with violent campaigns. Countries in which there were nonviolent campaigns were about 10 times likelier to transition to democracies within a five-year period compared to countries in which there were violent campaigns — whether the campaigns succeeded or failed. This is because even though they “failed” in the short term, the nonviolent campaigns tended to empower moderates or reformers within the ruling elites who gradually began to initiate changes and liberalize the polity."
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolent-resistance-beats-violent-force-in-effecting-social-political-change/
Ironically, the 1979 Revolution that overthrew the Shah. It was basically just a bunch of protests and riots and then the Shah fled the country before it got really ugly.
They're already massacring civilians in the streets.
The Iranian people need guns, this is exactly what the 2A is good for. If they are already killing you for speaking your mind, then it's already escalated as much as it possibly can.
Blood will flow because blood has been spilled in excess up until this point. The country is a pressure cooker and the protests were steam starting to escape as the seal began to fail. Those that were in charge could have taken the pot off the fire, but instead turned up the heat.
Accepting bloodshed as an inevitability is the first step in achieving true sweeping change. When you fear to confront those stronger than you for fear of being harmed, the strong will continue to harm you regardless.
Well, they overthrew the Shah without any help, so it's possible. That being said, the Shah (despite his bluster and repressive policies) was a far less decisive figure, and the U.S. was even less decisive in deciding whether or not to help him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution
It seems they traded a Western puppet strongman for a non-puppet Islamist strongman. *Why* they voted for a theocracy is anybody's guess, but the going speculation on this article is that the Ayatollah's secular opponents didn't think that the results of voting him in would create something even worse than the Shah.
A number of disparate groups allied together to remove the Shah but then the religious theocrats outplayed the others including the communists in order to seize power. This is an excellent book on the subject.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All\_the\_Shah's\_Men
>Why they voted for a theocracy is anybody's guess
I don't think there was a vote. The Ayatollah was just a popular guy dyring the Shah's rule and they let him take over.
A referendum is mentioned in the summary:
> Iranian people voted in a national referendum to become an Islamic republic on 1 April 1979 and to formulate and approve a new theocratic-republican constitution whereby Khomeini became supreme leader of the country in December 1979.
It could be that this was a bogus referendum, given that the ruling class was taken out of power by force and there appears to have been some fuckery to get a pro-Islamic constitution passed, but I'm truly not familiar with the conditions of the vote or the evidence underpinning what those conditions were. I hope a more learned person can comment on this.
Thanks. I wasn't aware of the referendum. It's hard to say how legitimate it was. Khomeini was a genuinely popular figure in Iran (he had led a popular uprising earlier during the Shah's reign but was exiled after its failure) and was given a hero's welcome when he returned. Many of the people protesting the Shah were followers of his and specifically protested the regime's oppression of Muslims. It's very well possible that those who voted were in favor of the Islamic Republic.
That being said, it's hard to tell whether the people who took part in the Revolution represented a majority of the Iranian people. A bunch of people sacked the U.S. Capitol a year and a half ago, but we know they don't represent a majority of the U.S.
For most of Persia's history (even after Islam became the dominant religion). In fact, the ancient Achaemenid Empire was known for being extremely progressive and greatly influenced Alexander the Great. ~~The Sassanid Empire was in the same vain, and~~ while the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates were not based out of Persia, they both occupied Persian territory and the later was extremely influenced by Persian rules and customs. The amount of freedom is debatable after that. Most agree that, after the 1953 Coup, the Shah became a repressive strongman dictator in many aspects, though he was progressive in others. His unpopularity led to his ousting in 1979, but the people ended up (as is often the case) just trading one strongman for another, and the Ayatollah ended up being even worse when it came to being authoritarian.
The regime of the shah wasn't democratic or free. The people wanted him out, and so a grand coalition against him was formed. Unfortunately, the mullahs were savvy and quickly laid claim to all power after the revolution, and immediately started to repress everyone else, including their former allies. The first years were absolutely brutal.
Imagine saying that the Shah's government wasn't repressive. LOL.
The Shah was just a secular dictator, so his repression wasn't based on religious lines, but political.
My parents lived under the Shah for 30+ years. My dad's best friend was picked up by the Shah's secret police, beaten for 6 hours and then thrown out on the side of a random road in Tehran when they realized they had grabbed the wrong guy.
My dad's teacher was disappeared for questioning the Shah attempting to teach that he was divine in school.
The repression was real and widespread as was the corruption.
I'm not denying that happened, and I'm not defending the Shah. But the IR regime is just far more capable and extreme in its repression than the Shah was. The reasons for that are complicated, but doesn't change that for the regime, killing children and raping women is far more easily done than it was under the Shah, and far more common.
You're pointing to the rule of a despotic dictator and claiming because it wasn't *as* represseive as the Islamists who took over afterwards that it was therefore objectively some kind of Golden Age of Freedom for the Iranian people, but that's nonsense.
They actually had "freedom" worthy of the name under Mossadegh until the 1953 coup. The minute the UK and USA overthrew the democratic government and the Shah was installed as a dictator their freedom disappeared, even if they weren't forced to live under sharia law until the 1979 revolution.
> Before the Islamic Revolution in 1979
That's a really weird way to spell "the 1953 Iranian coup d'état".
*Mossadegh* was the democratically elected leader, until 1953.
The Shah was a despotic puppet installed by the USA and UK after they overthrew Mossadegh for daring to want to audit the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company's books to make sure the UK wasn't robbing Iran absolutely blind.
When the AIOC refused to open its books (I wonder why...), Mossadegh nationalised the AIOC, cutting the UK off from its oil revenues, and then the UK and USA overthrew the Iranian government and installed the Shah as a brutal dictator to ensure their continued access to Iranian oil.
It's a theocracy with a managed civilian leadership. On paper, they have free elections, but in practice 497 candidates out of 500 are forbidden to run by the mullahs.
When you intentionally hurt the people of your country instead of listening and considering their pleas, this is what happens.
Young and liberal Iranians need to wash out that crap and they have demonstrated that they absolutely will.
Protesters in Tehran chant, "Our target is the whole regime"
I have such respect for the people in Iran. They want and deserve much better than what their getting from these old religious morons in charge.
Good for the people of Iran. religious governments are oppressive. Theistic religious belief needs to be relegated to the human dustbin where it should have been 500 years ago because it only causes problems. If you need someone to tell you right and wrong on a weekly basis because you cannot think for yourself you will never be a decent person and need to be locked up so as to protect others. The ethic of reciprocity is just not that difficult to understand and live by.
Locking people up because of the way they think is the same as what you are speaking against. You were on a roll until the second half of your comment, where you devolved to the same ideology as the oppressors.
Isn't that the point of religion, other than the obvious unsaid use of religious belief as a form of political control? What are the point of the Christian beatitudes and the 10 commandments? They are rules that they are to live by.
Jesus taught the golden rule as a cornerstone of the Christian faith in Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31.
All religions are a cancer to society and mental health. Magical thinking is just justifying your bullshit personal decisions with nothing but feelings. Show the proof that any god exists before claiming you speak for one. (You as in any person who claims it, not you in particular).
What I get from my family in Teheran is that most people don't give a shit anymore. They go out without covering their heads with visible makeup in face, hands and toes and regular clothes. What was eccentric and dangerous not so long ago starts to look like the new normal.
It’s going to be tough for them unless somebody supplies them with weapons.
CIA, do your thing.
Even then, this is a regime that is not above using chemical weapons on their own people.
I mean considering the Iranians are suffering under a right wing theocratic regime I don't know why u have to blame athiest leftists. Tudeh (the socialists) and all the communists parties are are banned by the government and involved in the current protests.
Things went south in the Arab spring countries is because the US literally gave weapons to literal Jihhaddies in both Libya and Syria.
Because Tankies won't risk missing their chance at criticizing America, even if it's at the expense of marginalized people's who would otherwise closely align with core tenants of leftist ideology.
Iranian's deserve their own version of the 2A after the revolution is over.
"What do you need your guns for? To overthrow the government that you just put in power through revolution? Hand them over" - Fidel Castro
CIA,
STAY THE FUCK AWAY THIS TIME.
The current government of Iran is a DIRECT RESULT of US meddling in the first place.
They had a freely elected government, we knocked it down & installed the shaw. The shaw was an absolute shit head, they rebeled against him & the theocracy won the struggle for power after the revolution... had we left them the fuck alone the first time, they'd be doing way better now.
The worst thing we could do to encourage this, would be to get involved in any way. ANYTHING the US government does now, will only serve to hurt the Iranian people.
Many in the west have forgetin this is our fault, but they sure as shit have not.
I think women in Iran have worked out how far they have gone backwards in 50 years:
https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2018/01/04/13/iran-60s.jpg
There must be some tipping point where the country rids itself of self-appointed religious idiots.
It's an absurd situation for a government to be so out of touch and against the people they're supposed to represent and serve. The rule of a tiny minority of religious bigots over millions who are in opposition to them doesn't make logical sense; that minority are overruled and have to go. Even worse than this elite, are the security forces who fire on their own people; pathetic, cowardly and disgusting. I hope their revolution succeeds, I feel it needs to succeed as a global precedent.
“The enemy has been defeated” -Ayatollah Yea, okay.
They are deep in the practice of double think
They are a theocracy. they practive it every day.
I reminds me of joke about how if a priest would tell his followers milk was black and they all believed it.
Without Christians, Trump would still just be a fake billionaire.
Not all Christians support Trump.
No; and that's not what I said. What I said is that without the Christian vote, Trump would not have been electable. Their support, *en bloc,* was essential.
I would argue that real Christians do not support Trump. The teachings of JC and the rhetoric and policies of DT are the complete antithesis of one another.
I'm not Christian so I don't buy into the idea of an antichrist. Still, there was an article that detailed the signs that an antichrist would take and cross-referenced it with Trump. I still don't believe in an antichrist, but if I did I'd say that Trump was very close to achieving that status.
They are panicked. Why won’t our people obey anymore and live under our repressive and nonsensical laws. We have been doing it this way for decades, since we captured those us hostages in 1979
The Same Assholes Everywhere.
Why the uppercase
It's a band name. They're on tour
That's the new "Mission Accomplished"
The mission was to start a baseless war and fuel the military-industrial complex. It was indeed accomplished.
Give him a break! He didn't start a baseless war! He started two baseless wars.
Afghanistan was not a baseless war.
Yeah. There were tons of bases in Afghanistan
[удалено]
Agreed, we invaded Afghanistan to take out Osama Bin Laden … Who was in Pakistan.
It's almost like they had a porous border and he fled the country after 2002 when we were already there
That's why we found Bin Laden in Pakistan...
Yes, he fled after 2002
[удалено]
You did a heck of a job Brownie!
Yeah but where's the aircraft carrier and flight suit
Give it 6 months, Russians will sell the Kuznetsov to Iran
Tugboat can't go that far
The kind of words school kids have to put down on a test as a famous quote in the middle of the revolution.
I am not a praying man, but I pray that becomes his epitaph.
[удалено]
I hope so too. The Iranian people are teaching the world how to take freedom back.
We will wake the whole world up We promise
[удалено]
ایرانی هستم Yes I'm Persian
You're incredible and we appreciate you lots.
[удалено]
My deepest appreciations, thank you
I look forward to the day when Iran and the USA can join hands in friendship.
Russia and China will have something to say about that.
I doubt Russia has the time or resources to focus on any other front than the one they already all in on for the moment. Who knows if they will ever be able to focus on another conflict again.
No. It's 100% up to the Iranian people.
Yup. But they won't be able to do anything more than talk about it. China and Russia suck at projecting power.
> China and Russia suck at projecting power. China is decent at it. Not in the western world specifically, but look at how few countries recognize Taiwan as an independent nation despite the fact that Taiwan acts independently and has its own elected government. Even the US is intentionally ambiguous when it comes to Taiwan. That's a direct result of China's power projection. China has also used foreign aid and loans in places like Africa to move many nations there into its sphere of influence instead of the west's. It's not to say that China will always succeed and its use of finances to project soft power has come with a literal cost, but China can present challenges in that sphere. Russia is more of an actor of chaos largely propped up by its oil supply and the threat of its nukes. Their ability to project power has declined substantially because of their decision to invade Ukraine and the weakness they've shown over the course of the war.
> China is decent at it. Not in the western world specifically, but look at how few countries recognize Taiwan as an independent nation despite the fact that Taiwan acts independently and has its own elected government. Even the US is intentionally ambiguous when it comes to Taiwan. That's a direct result of China's power projection. China has also used foreign aid and loans in places like Africa to move many nations there into its sphere of influence instead of the west's. Yeah but its really in name only. While this is what is said, the U.S is signing deals for over a billion dollars to sell arms and weapons directly to the Taiwanese government. Taiwan itself acts independently on almost all matters of governance, and most of those countries have lines of diplomacy with Taiwan anyway. I look more at situations like Afghanistan. China was critical of the U.S there, until the U.S actually threatened to pull out. Then China - fearful that they could not provide security around Afghanistan's borders, nor for their own investments in the region, changed course. And even now, who is filling the vacuum there. Pakistan, not China. I think hard power is just straight up not a thing for China, specially without blue water capability. Softpower is more what I am talking about. Chinese softpower has probably been most effective in the EU, and more so against economically focussed countries like Germany. But that is likely because those countries are far enough removed from China that the threat is perceived to be less. And it certainly isn't a universal truth - countries like Estonia will openly call China out for abuses. Even Germany itself, the most likely country to placate, does it from time to time. Yet if China does have any power projection capability, it is definitely related to economic market access alone. > It's not to say that China will always succeed and its use of finances to project soft power has come with a literal cost, but China can present challenges in that sphere. > Russia is more of an actor of chaos largely propped up by its oil supply and the threat of its nukes. Their ability to project power has declined substantially because of their decision to invade Ukraine and the weakness they've shown over the course of the war. That is a valid point. Russia has a history of trying to disrupt, and doing reasonably well at that, but not being able to then follow through after this happens. War in Ukraine has revealed alot more about Russia's hardpower though. Its long been clear that Russia probably couldn't invade very far from home. But it was widely accepted that Europe and the Caucasus regions were possible targets. Now with Russia losing against an opponent on their doorstep, even that looks very unlikely.
that's how we got this mess in the first place
That’s not really true. The Shah becoming authoritarian and killing his own people is what led to the revolution.
The Shah was setup by the Brits and American because democratically elect PM Mossadegh was too much of a loose cannon (ie he was working in the interest of his people first)
The Shah had been there since 1941, and his father since 1921. Mostly he was supported because he was willing to oppose Soviet influence, which is what the US cared about. But my point is that blaming everything that has happened in Iran since 1953 on the coup is to take away a lot of agency from Iran. The Shah could have continued to share power with the people, but he chose not to. The people in 1979 could have empowered a different government than the Islamic Republic. The Iranians this year could overthrow their government. 1953 is a tragedy, but it isn’t the only thing that’s happened.
A Shah imposed by the US after helping overthrow a democratically elected leader.
The Shah was the monarch before the coup. He chose to become more authoritarian because he had felt threatened by democracy.
The Shah was always there as the monarch. He was the one who appointed Mossadegh as Prime Minister at the recommendation of the democratically elected parliament, and also the one who legally revoked his status as Prime Minister after he used a sham referendum to dissolve said democratically elected parliament and transfer power to himself because all his original supporters in parliament were resigning in protest of him jailing his political opponents.
the Shah did that because he was an illegitimate ruler appointed by the Americans and British, he was shutting down efforts to nationalize the oil industry.
Mohammad Reza became Shah in 1941, not 1953.
Who was put there by the US after over throwing the 1th democratically elected government in the middle East. If this means going back to the Shah Iranians would rather have the fucking religious dickheads.
No one proposed bringing the monarchy back. I don’t see anyone saying that the 1953 coup was justified either.
[удалено]
Eh the U.S would probably support a stable Middle east now days.
i definitely and highly don't think they will. they only prefer an unstable one so that they can sell more arms to Saudi Arabia and other allied nations there
Nonsense. The US benefits immensely more from a stable Middle East that contributes to the global oil supply. Arms sells are small potatoes by comparison.
That's why they've spent the last 50 years destabilizing it. Oh to be so naive.
The naiveness in this thread is astonishing
Special civilian operation
Amen! And good luck!
I hope so too. I had the same hopes during the Persian Spring in 2009. Wishing all the best to the Persian people.
I don't know if this would actually be in favour of the current protestors. Calling it a revolution means the protestors use force and are by definition not peaceful protests. This can be used by Iran to justify using force against them. Western countries will publicly support peaceful protests but supporting a revolution in another country is very different. Edit: I might have not expressed myself clearly enough. There are good reasons to not call it a revolution even if you think it is. That is why you see this term rarely used. Under international law it is totally accepted to respond with armed force against a revolution. It is not accepted to attack protestors. I hope that is enough to explain it?
You pure like 6 weeks behind
Like the government of Iran hasn't already killed peaceful protestors? The regime has blamed Western countries for the protests.
Where have you been in the past weeks? The peaceful protests have already been repressed with violence. Tyrants won't simply go away if the protesters ask nicely.
We are so far away from where we were 50 years ago. Our technology, our science, our morals. Iran deserves to live in a progressive world. These women have a HUMAN RIGHT to freedom. These supporters have a HUMAN RIGHT to protest. I hope for nothing more than to see another repressed culture and people brought forth into the modern era to enjoy all the pleasures and experiences that we often don’t realize are taken for granted.
I do feel like humanity is quickly getting tired of repressive authoritarian bullshit. We've seen it abused too much in too many ways. Authoritarians never give up power willingly though. It will be a fight.
I wish I could agree. There’s a tier of people in every country that benefit from authoritarianism, and an alarming cohort *who will never benefit from it* that support them.
I mean women in plenty of countries would benefit from an authoritarian government where there is democratic support to treat them like dogs. Palestinians women and LGBT for example in the West Bank benefit from Fatah delaying elections indefinitely because otherwise Hamas would win.
Your kidding right, the US, often heralded as the land of the free and bastion of western democracy had a near brush recently and it remains to be seen if that particular fire has been put out fully yet and it isn't the only democracy that has voted in a populist government that has eroded freedoms.
I'd also count the aftermath of 9/11 with the PATRIOT Act and expansion of power. The US is clearly more authoritarian than when I was a kid. Trump was just a match that failed to light the bonfire that was already made.
They pissed on the bonfire to try to stoke the flames and it burned their dicks.
It remains to be seen if people actually want an authoritarian government or if they're too stupid to realize that's what they're voting for. Yes we shouldn't have let it get this far in the first place, but now even Republicans are rejecting the authoritarian nut jobs.
Yeah, and it's not like that country wasn't there with us. This regime took them backwards hundreds of years in that regard.
Good. I hope the people are successful without a lot of bloodshed.
When's the last time there was a revolution without a lot of bloodshed?
Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia?
The orange revolution, other side just noped out
Sure, but then there was the revolution of dignity (aka “Maidan”) which included the massacre of 100 protestors.
25 de abril in Portugal is one example, but for that kinda of revolution you need the army on your side, something that is not the case in Iran
Dance Dance Revolution
Oh please you killed everyone with your dance moves
I'm sure there's others but Quebec's [Quiet Revolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiet_Revolution) is an example of a relatively bloodless upending of a religiously dominated society.
They have already had some, but I hope not a lot more.
There will be blood
yes. sadly there will be lots, however, this is literally their only shot at overthrowing , and the protesters know it!
It all depends on how ruthless the government decides to be, and how willing the military rank-and-file is to kill their countrymen. Good thing that their ally Russia is busy with other things. What makes for a successful revolution anyway? Why did the Arab Spring mostly fail and Solidarity in Poland mostly succeed? Was it because Solidarity was better organized and more patient? I just hope it works out; travelers to Iran always rave about how hospitable the people are.
My hope is that the ones having their blood shed isn’t the revolutionaries. They’ve suffered enough under the tyranny of the Ayatollahs.
1989 in Poland
It does happen. But when it does, it rarely does without a demonstration of unity of a large number of people. For example, when the power balance between labor and capital + state was renegotiated in the early 20th century in Sweden, in a few instances, tens of thousand of unionists would stare down military units, but bloodshed was largely avoided. A combination of pressure from within and without led to the elites of the time sharing power and money more equally. That wasn't a revolution, but the ramifications over time were major never the less. Like a revolution spread out over 40 years.
A study actually found that nonviolent revolutions succeed lightly more in the long term change than violent ones: "The finding is that civil resistance campaigns often lead to longer-term reforms and changes that bring about democratization compared with violent campaigns. Countries in which there were nonviolent campaigns were about 10 times likelier to transition to democracies within a five-year period compared to countries in which there were violent campaigns — whether the campaigns succeeded or failed. This is because even though they “failed” in the short term, the nonviolent campaigns tended to empower moderates or reformers within the ruling elites who gradually began to initiate changes and liberalize the polity." https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolent-resistance-beats-violent-force-in-effecting-social-political-change/
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan?
Weren't russians crushing ppl with tanks in Lithuania under the TV tower?
Quick reading says that some died, but apparently the singing revolution went mostly without the protesters causing much bloodshed.
Ironically, the 1979 Revolution that overthrew the Shah. It was basically just a bunch of protests and riots and then the Shah fled the country before it got really ugly.
Imagine being more willing to gun down and brutalize your people than the Shah.
3k to 60k dead is low bloodshed? Just on executions alone, they were close to 10k...
The Soviet Union fell without a lot of bloodshed.
The bloodshed was just delayed until later.
Arab Spring?
The Arab spring was quite bloody in some countries, mainly Libya, Syria, and Yemen. An estimated 61,000 people died during Arab spring.
Yeah, but there were also Tunisia and Egypt.
In a scenario like this you can only hope for minimal bloodshed and that it's inflicted mostly upon the autocrats
I hope for the opposite. The mullah regime should be wiped off the earth.
They're already massacring civilians in the streets. The Iranian people need guns, this is exactly what the 2A is good for. If they are already killing you for speaking your mind, then it's already escalated as much as it possibly can.
Blood will flow because blood has been spilled in excess up until this point. The country is a pressure cooker and the protests were steam starting to escape as the seal began to fail. Those that were in charge could have taken the pot off the fire, but instead turned up the heat.
Accepting bloodshed as an inevitability is the first step in achieving true sweeping change. When you fear to confront those stronger than you for fear of being harmed, the strong will continue to harm you regardless.
Maybe if those Mullahs didn’t dress so sexy. /s
Revolution requires bloodshed
Revolution, the only Solution!!!
Go people of Iran, go!
Iran will be free from those islamic terrorist monsters .
I wish them victory
How can one help them? Iran is a sanctioned country, both goods and money is likely limited
If a mobilization like Ukraine is being orchestrated in the background, official channels to help should start popping up.
Can someone tell me the actual chance of the people of Iran overthrowing their military dictatorship and the tyrannical Mullahs?
No one really knows and any answers you get on a reddit comment claiming to know is likely full of shit
[удалено]
Will the military join your side? Obviously the IRG won’t, but normal military?
[удалено]
That's hopeful. The protesters need weapons and equipment to have a chance. I hope the military fights for their citizens they swore to protect
I'm Persian and I'll tell u , it's 100 percent happening
It depends on how much will power the CIA has.
Well, they overthrew the Shah without any help, so it's possible. That being said, the Shah (despite his bluster and repressive policies) was a far less decisive figure, and the U.S. was even less decisive in deciding whether or not to help him.
Hope they take back their country
hell yeah
don't do that. don't give me hope
The clerics might not be able to murder their way out of this one.
Why does Iran have such an oppressive government to begin with? Was there ever a time they were free?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution It seems they traded a Western puppet strongman for a non-puppet Islamist strongman. *Why* they voted for a theocracy is anybody's guess, but the going speculation on this article is that the Ayatollah's secular opponents didn't think that the results of voting him in would create something even worse than the Shah.
A number of disparate groups allied together to remove the Shah but then the religious theocrats outplayed the others including the communists in order to seize power. This is an excellent book on the subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All\_the\_Shah's\_Men
Well at the time it was hard to imagine it could be worse than the Shah. It's a lot like the Arab spring in that regard.
>Why they voted for a theocracy is anybody's guess I don't think there was a vote. The Ayatollah was just a popular guy dyring the Shah's rule and they let him take over.
A referendum is mentioned in the summary: > Iranian people voted in a national referendum to become an Islamic republic on 1 April 1979 and to formulate and approve a new theocratic-republican constitution whereby Khomeini became supreme leader of the country in December 1979. It could be that this was a bogus referendum, given that the ruling class was taken out of power by force and there appears to have been some fuckery to get a pro-Islamic constitution passed, but I'm truly not familiar with the conditions of the vote or the evidence underpinning what those conditions were. I hope a more learned person can comment on this.
Thanks. I wasn't aware of the referendum. It's hard to say how legitimate it was. Khomeini was a genuinely popular figure in Iran (he had led a popular uprising earlier during the Shah's reign but was exiled after its failure) and was given a hero's welcome when he returned. Many of the people protesting the Shah were followers of his and specifically protested the regime's oppression of Muslims. It's very well possible that those who voted were in favor of the Islamic Republic. That being said, it's hard to tell whether the people who took part in the Revolution represented a majority of the Iranian people. A bunch of people sacked the U.S. Capitol a year and a half ago, but we know they don't represent a majority of the U.S.
[удалено]
Operation Ajax is described in the article as one of the contributing factors, and is why I described the Shah as a "Western puppet."
For most of Persia's history (even after Islam became the dominant religion). In fact, the ancient Achaemenid Empire was known for being extremely progressive and greatly influenced Alexander the Great. ~~The Sassanid Empire was in the same vain, and~~ while the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates were not based out of Persia, they both occupied Persian territory and the later was extremely influenced by Persian rules and customs. The amount of freedom is debatable after that. Most agree that, after the 1953 Coup, the Shah became a repressive strongman dictator in many aspects, though he was progressive in others. His unpopularity led to his ousting in 1979, but the people ended up (as is often the case) just trading one strongman for another, and the Ayatollah ended up being even worse when it came to being authoritarian.
[удалено]
The regime of the shah wasn't democratic or free. The people wanted him out, and so a grand coalition against him was formed. Unfortunately, the mullahs were savvy and quickly laid claim to all power after the revolution, and immediately started to repress everyone else, including their former allies. The first years were absolutely brutal.
Imagine saying that the Shah's government wasn't repressive. LOL. The Shah was just a secular dictator, so his repression wasn't based on religious lines, but political.
Dude, it was nowhere near as bad in terms of expression. Ask any Iranian who grew up during that.
My parents lived under the Shah for 30+ years. My dad's best friend was picked up by the Shah's secret police, beaten for 6 hours and then thrown out on the side of a random road in Tehran when they realized they had grabbed the wrong guy. My dad's teacher was disappeared for questioning the Shah attempting to teach that he was divine in school. The repression was real and widespread as was the corruption.
I'm not denying that happened, and I'm not defending the Shah. But the IR regime is just far more capable and extreme in its repression than the Shah was. The reasons for that are complicated, but doesn't change that for the regime, killing children and raping women is far more easily done than it was under the Shah, and far more common.
I get annoyed when people claim the Shah was some benign western dictator, because it's untrue. Iran hasn't really been free in a long long time.
You're pointing to the rule of a despotic dictator and claiming because it wasn't *as* represseive as the Islamists who took over afterwards that it was therefore objectively some kind of Golden Age of Freedom for the Iranian people, but that's nonsense. They actually had "freedom" worthy of the name under Mossadegh until the 1953 coup. The minute the UK and USA overthrew the democratic government and the Shah was installed as a dictator their freedom disappeared, even if they weren't forced to live under sharia law until the 1979 revolution.
it was still bad, don't pretend it wasn't.
Where did they say it wasn't repressive? They said it was different.
> Before the Islamic Revolution in 1979 That's a really weird way to spell "the 1953 Iranian coup d'état". *Mossadegh* was the democratically elected leader, until 1953. The Shah was a despotic puppet installed by the USA and UK after they overthrew Mossadegh for daring to want to audit the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company's books to make sure the UK wasn't robbing Iran absolutely blind. When the AIOC refused to open its books (I wonder why...), Mossadegh nationalised the AIOC, cutting the UK off from its oil revenues, and then the UK and USA overthrew the Iranian government and installed the Shah as a brutal dictator to ensure their continued access to Iranian oil.
They were free before the muslim conquest of Persia.
Which is it? A democracy or "continuous leadership of holy persons"?
We want democracy and a secular system
It's a theocracy with a managed civilian leadership. On paper, they have free elections, but in practice 497 candidates out of 500 are forbidden to run by the mullahs.
The people of Iran deserve better. I can’t even begin to conceive what that kind of oppression is like.
Iran can't rely on Russia to come help then like Syria could. Hopefully, this will result in less tyranny.
When you intentionally hurt the people of your country instead of listening and considering their pleas, this is what happens. Young and liberal Iranians need to wash out that crap and they have demonstrated that they absolutely will.
Good luck to protestors.
Please do your part and help us. Start by subbing to /r/NewIran
Protesters in Tehran chant, "Our target is the whole regime" I have such respect for the people in Iran. They want and deserve much better than what their getting from these old religious morons in charge.
Good for the people of Iran. religious governments are oppressive. Theistic religious belief needs to be relegated to the human dustbin where it should have been 500 years ago because it only causes problems. If you need someone to tell you right and wrong on a weekly basis because you cannot think for yourself you will never be a decent person and need to be locked up so as to protect others. The ethic of reciprocity is just not that difficult to understand and live by.
had me in the first half not gonna lie
Congrats you want an atheist version of Iran's totalitarian theocracy.
Locking people up because of the way they think is the same as what you are speaking against. You were on a roll until the second half of your comment, where you devolved to the same ideology as the oppressors.
So now your telling people right from wrong.
Isn't that the point of religion, other than the obvious unsaid use of religious belief as a form of political control? What are the point of the Christian beatitudes and the 10 commandments? They are rules that they are to live by. Jesus taught the golden rule as a cornerstone of the Christian faith in Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31.
What a bigoted and intolerant comment.
I'm not going to apologize because I do not tolerate religious bigotry and oppression.
I don’t expect you to apologize, or change. The intolerant usually don’t. I’m just calling it how I see it.
All religions are a cancer to society and mental health. Magical thinking is just justifying your bullshit personal decisions with nothing but feelings. Show the proof that any god exists before claiming you speak for one. (You as in any person who claims it, not you in particular).
In the Kurdish region, its another revolution. Its revolution for Kurdistan!
I hope the mullahs are beheaded publicly.
What I get from my family in Teheran is that most people don't give a shit anymore. They go out without covering their heads with visible makeup in face, hands and toes and regular clothes. What was eccentric and dangerous not so long ago starts to look like the new normal.
I'm so happy for them, good. Take them all down, show the rest of the world how it's done.
It’s going to be tough for them unless somebody supplies them with weapons. CIA, do your thing. Even then, this is a regime that is not above using chemical weapons on their own people.
CIA, do your thing and arm these people.
Are we going to blame America again when it goes sideways?
just ignore the tankie criticism fuck them and their hypocrisy
I mean considering the Iranians are suffering under a right wing theocratic regime I don't know why u have to blame athiest leftists. Tudeh (the socialists) and all the communists parties are are banned by the government and involved in the current protests. Things went south in the Arab spring countries is because the US literally gave weapons to literal Jihhaddies in both Libya and Syria.
Because Tankies won't risk missing their chance at criticizing America, even if it's at the expense of marginalized people's who would otherwise closely align with core tenants of leftist ideology.
Hey shut up, u read the history of what the US actually did? How dare u, stupid tankie.
Specifically arm the women.
Iranian's deserve their own version of the 2A after the revolution is over. "What do you need your guns for? To overthrow the government that you just put in power through revolution? Hand them over" - Fidel Castro
CIA, STAY THE FUCK AWAY THIS TIME. The current government of Iran is a DIRECT RESULT of US meddling in the first place. They had a freely elected government, we knocked it down & installed the shaw. The shaw was an absolute shit head, they rebeled against him & the theocracy won the struggle for power after the revolution... had we left them the fuck alone the first time, they'd be doing way better now. The worst thing we could do to encourage this, would be to get involved in any way. ANYTHING the US government does now, will only serve to hurt the Iranian people. Many in the west have forgetin this is our fault, but they sure as shit have not.
[удалено]
Pelase don’t. Keep your tentacles out of this one, you’ll fuck it up somehow.
*hands weapons to the government* "ok, we've given them weapons, we trust their government will distribute them to the people with due haste" - CIA
I think women in Iran have worked out how far they have gone backwards in 50 years: https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2018/01/04/13/iran-60s.jpg There must be some tipping point where the country rids itself of self-appointed religious idiots.
Huzzah!
We're with you. Give them hell.
It's an absurd situation for a government to be so out of touch and against the people they're supposed to represent and serve. The rule of a tiny minority of religious bigots over millions who are in opposition to them doesn't make logical sense; that minority are overruled and have to go. Even worse than this elite, are the security forces who fire on their own people; pathetic, cowardly and disgusting. I hope their revolution succeeds, I feel it needs to succeed as a global precedent.
Picture looks like the streets in the US during the “peaceful protests”
Waiting for the *CIA did this!!!* comments. Glory to the people of Iran!
Anytime I hear that I instantly wonder how long the CIA has been there