Iranian women spark debate by defying hijab rule in cars

[N1019]

How is Iran a real enemy?

I never said Iran was the enemy.

Iran is an obstacle to unfettered Anglo-American-Israeli hegemony in the middle east. Iran fights for independence and sovereignty, particularly fiscal and energy sovereignty, seeks to establish a sphere of influence beyond its borders and supports the opposite side to the US/UK/Israel in middle eastern conflicts. Iran also produces some very silly propaganda about the future of Israel.

Now, you might not have a problem with the above, and in theory it sounds fine, but it's clear there are bigger fish in the pond who don't like it. What does that mean? Well, have a look around and see how the world works.

Also, looking at the article you linked, putting a peace symbol in the centre of the Iranian flag makes a mockery of all the atrocities that regime has committed.

[Dandelion]

Iran "should" this, "if only" that... This stuff is pure fantasy. The theocracy won't fizzle out because it is receiving a constant income from oil and gas exports, and there are countries like Russia willing to sell them arms. Iran even has its own military industrial complex. They have what they need to cling to power, and massacre any serious uprising. There are too many powerful interests benefiting from the survival of the current regime. The transition is going to be bloody, the country a mess, and that's if they don't end up like Iraq. If the US et al start supporting a new revolution, they will probably stir up ethno-sectarian strife to weaken and destabilise the new Iran.

I was thinking of Franco Spain which got formed after a bloody war, yet Spain transitioned to a democracy without any bloodshed. It can happen without revolution. Usually by foundationed laid by a progressive leader and/the passing of one generation. For us Westerners only their foreign politics matter.

I'm not talking in what if scenarios of the past and I think it's not wrong to prefer a peaceful evolution of a regime that's very authoritarian and theocratic today. Am I allowed to?

[N1019]

***

[N1019]

I was thinking of Franco Spain which got formed after a bloody war, yet Spain transitioned to a democracy without any bloodshed. It can happen without revolution. Usually by foundationed laid by a progressive leader and/the passing of one generation. For us Westerners only their foreign politics matter.

I'm not talking in what if scenarios of the past and I think it's not wrong to prefer a peaceful evolution of a regime that's very authoritarian and theocratic today. Am I allowed to?

You're allowed to dream and I'm allowed to remind you that you're dreaming.

But anyway, yeah, a peaceful transition is possible in theory. It just doesn't seem likely given how the empire operates in the middle east. Looking at recent events in nearby countries I fail to see why Iran would be an exception to the trend of violence.

Sadly for Iran, it has a few problems that on the one hand might seem like advantages but which actually get it into a lot of trouble. Iran is inherently strong owing to its size, population and resources. Furthermore, its persistence in terms of fighting for independence, sovereignty, autonomy etc. are an issue for the global powers. The Shahs did it and the mullahs are doing it. In terms of foreign policy they have more in common than one might think. Iran has been given a chance to behave and it has repeatedly failed in the eyes of the big fish. It doesn't bode well for the future of the country.

Regime change in Iran will never be some purely organic grassroots event (although our media might portray it as such). It will be under strong influence from external forces and most likely involve a lot of violence, if not destruction of the country.

[Sarmatian]

Agreed. A violent overthrow won't help anybody. Hopefully the theocracy will be gradually, and more quickly, overturned.

We should not forget the fact theocracy was a mere reaction to US meddling into Iranian internal affairs in attempt to turn outdated monarchy into puppet. It was never intended to make lives of Iranians better but rather retain nation's sovereignty.

As far as I'm aware wearing hijab was never mandatory in Islam nor in Persian traditional religion. It's purely Arab cultural (not religious) custom.

[N1019]

We should not forget the fact theocracy was a mere reaction to US meddling into Iranian internal affairs in attempt to turn outdated monarchy into puppet.

Yeah, that's what the Iranian socialists (and their Western libtard associates) who lost out in the revolution say because they don't want to accept responsibility for the disaster that unfolded between 1979 and 1989. But it's no more a proven fact than to suggest that the CIA and MI6 simply controlled the revolution and put the mullahs in power themselves.

[Gizem]

My heart is with them.

[Gizem]

The Iranian people are probably the most secular and liberal people in the Middle East bar possibly Turkey and Israel. I certainly think that Persian culture is by and large a lot more intelligent and rational than Arab (especially Saudi) culture, and this current Government is a real aberration.

MENA = Arab, desert culture. Turkey is Eurasian, Israel is only geographically MENA but they are like Australia in Asia. Iran is as well a region on its own, maybe Near East but not MENA again.

[Sarmatian]

Yeah, that's what the Iranian socialists (and their Western libtard associates) who lost out in the revolution say because they don't want to accept responsibility for the disaster that unfolded between 1979 and 1989. But it's no more a proven fact than to suggest that the CIA and MI6 simply controlled the revolution and put the mullahs in power themselves.

What would be reasons behind such move?

[Herr Abubu]

What would be reasons behind such move?

Because the Shah didn't want to renew the contract with British Petroleum. We do know Ayatollah Khomeini was in contact with the US government, including direct contact with Jimmy Carter. Also something I'm forgetting about the hotel he stayed at in Paris.

There's also the Shah accusing the British and the Americans of being behind the revolution, which makes sense on its own and in the context that if he had just been a sockpuppet of these interest groups he wouldn't have spoken that way.

Anyway, foreign-sponsored revolutions often turn on the foreign powers. The German support of the Bolsheviks didn't end up well for them, because if you give rope to someone so he can hang your enemy there's also a chance he might hang you.