10 ms·

Iranian government has a history of bloody crackdown. Enough is enough. There has been no free and fair election in the past decades so this government doesn't

Iranian government has a history of bloody crackdown. Enough is enough. There has been no free and fair election in the past decades so this government doesn't represent the people. I am worried this tyrannical government succeeds in putting down this movement and then the western governments sign another nuclear treaty which means sanction relief and more money for the regime that doesn't represent the people. The west should recognize that this government is a dictatorship and is not afraid of using any means including live bullets to put down protests.

lazide 4y ago
Ok, but what does that actually mean? The reality is, unless the Iranians themselves replace the Ayatollahs, it would require a foreign sponsored coup or outright invasion to meaningfully change the status quo there.
- amir734jj 4y ago
  It means: 1) publicly condemn the government 2) recognize that this government doesn't represent the people of Iran 3) don't give money to this government.
  - lazide 4y ago
    Anyone giving money to Iran already gets sanctioned by the US, no? And the gov’t is already pretty isolated, except for ‘persona non grata’ countries like North Korea or Russia anyway. And I doubt those folks are going to change their mind over what’s going on.
    - MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
      I think point 3 is this, no? >I am worried this tyrannical government succeeds in putting down this movement and then the western governments sign another nuclear treaty which means sanction relief and more money for the regime
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > already gets sanctioned by the US Iran trades with Turkey, Pakistan, the U.A.E., Germany, India, Kuwait and Qatar [1]. [1] https://oec.world/en/profile/country/irn/?flowSelector1=flow0 https://oec.world/en/profile/country/irn/?flowSelector1=flow...
- mdibaiee 4y ago
  We are not asking for foreign countries to "replace the Ayatollahs" for us. What we are asking, is ending their diplomatic relations with this government, or at least severing it, instead of trying to strengthen their diplomatic relations. A deal between this dictatorship and the west will only strengthen them, leading to more oppression. A weakened dictatorship due to foreign pressure will make it easier for the people of Iran to replace them.
  - oliwary 4y ago
    I am genuinely curious - are there any historical examples where ending diplomatic relationships and imposing sanctions on a country has improved the situation for people living there?
    - weatherlite 4y ago
      South Africa
      - lazide 4y ago
        It's not clear how much of South Africa's Apartheid collapse was due to external pressure, and how much was from internal problems. They had widespread and growing internal rebellion for a long time, with independent internal discussions and controversies going on about the unsustainability of Apartheid - both from a moral and economic perspective. Hell, they even tried Mandela for Treason in '56 and spent 27 years in prison after he started the revolutionary group in '61. Apartheid didn't end until the early '90's. Saying external sanctions caused it, is a bit like saying the USSR collapsed because of embargos. They definitely weren't helping make it stay, but it's hard to say those where why it collapsed.
  - lazide 4y ago
    That’s already been happening for decades. Has it made any difference?
    - ghufran_syed 4y ago
- jokowueu 4y ago
  >would require a foreign sponsored coup Won't be the first time
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- case0x00 4y ago
  I do wonder on the feasibility of such events. I don't know a huge amount about pre-revolution Iran, but I don't think the Shah had an exceptionally powerful security force (I could be wrong). But now at least, the IRGC makes a revolution/coup very difficult.
  - PraetorianGourd 4y ago
    The Shah had a very powerful secret police, the SAVAK[1]. Prior to the overthrow of Mosaddegh, there wasn’t a comparable security force.. but I think something about gaining power in a coup makes one incredibly paranoid about being a victim of a coup. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK
- Alir3z4 4y ago
  > Ok, but what does that actually mean? 1. Sanctions: check 2. International isolation: ~check 3. freezing foreign assets: check 4. Bringing freedom to Iran by liberating them (successful operations like Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, ....): LOL, never gonna happen
petre 4y ago
There won't be another treaty but rather a green pass from the US for Israel to attack Iran and even more sanctions. Iran is currently cooperating with Russia so it could only go south for them.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ars 4y ago
  It's too far for Israel to effectively attack it. Israel would need to refuel over Turkey or Iraq, or launch from an American aircraft carrier. i.e. it would not be a Israeli mission, it would have to be a joint mission. Or in other words America would not be able to say "Israel did it", America would have to be fully on board - and perhaps help. And that's not something small, that's why it hasn't happened yet.
  - Alir3z4 4y ago
    Let's think that happens. Russia-Ukraine case made the whole world go crazy due to gas/oil and price increase in anything that touches fossil fuels. Imagine what would happen globally by Iran settings mines in Straits of Hormuz or rain missiles on countries that are hosting US bases (Oil producers) in retaliation and pressuring global economy in order to maximize the effect of the war. The maximum Israel can do is to slow down the progress of whatever Israil think Iran is doing, is to conduct sabotage missions in Iran, killing scientists, military commanders, cyberattacks or lobbying as much as possible in other countries for more sanctions etc and so far that has not been effective. In matter of fact, it has backfired.
    - YZF 4y ago
      It's unlikely that Iran would do that in response to an attack on their nuclear facilities. What would they gain from it? They'd just lick their wounds and move on. Iran is already fighting a proxy war against Saudi in Yemen. Their military would be eroded pretty quickly in an outright direct conflict and that would risk losing power internally. Iraq fired plenty of missiles all over the place during the gulf war and it didn't really do much. Mining the straits will likely just result in the US or some international task force taking control over those and de-mining. All that said it's very unlikely there will be an attack on Iran. The US would much prefer to see the regime fall. That doesn't seem super likely either but attacking Iran will probably just strengthen the regime.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kache_ 4y ago
jimbob45 4y ago
That sounds like a lot of words to say, “we should create whatever pretext we need to invade Iran like we invaded Iraq in 2003”. I’m not sure Iraq is far enough away in the collective US memory for your comment to be received positively.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  That has been tried a few times now. The Israel lobby and the Neocons had at least 3 major 'War with Iran' campaigns since 2003.
Alir3z4 4y ago
The fact that Rouhani got elected and became a president and JCPOA got signed and so many catastrophic events happening by that administration shows there's a democratic election. Impossible to think if it was a "dictatorship", such person would be elected in the first place.
- emilsedgh 4y ago
  Iran is a semi dictatorship. People have _some_ agency but not much. The _election_ in which you can choose between 2 people who have already been filtered out by the regime is not really a democratic election. As someone voted for Rouhani (and would do so again), in a democratic situation he would've been my last choice.
  - Alir3z4 4y ago
    The fact that presidents get filtered out is a god send tbh in case of Iran. Imagine ending up wit people like Masoumeh Alinejad-Ghomi, Reza Pahlavi, Supreme Grandma Maryam Rejavi (_Masoud Rajavi decided to become against the IR since his or his party was filtered out_) or any other weirdo. Not so great process, but I don't think letting everyone run for presidency has much of its goodies packed with it anyway. In either case, Iran's constitution keeps the president above so many levels that having impeachment becomes even harder. Whoever president Iran ends up with, it becomes almost impossible to replace or take them down by Majles. I don't know, probably a role of Prime Minister will be more suited with some changes to law that person can be nailed down in wrongdoing or pressure to step down, but who knows, maybe that backfires too. yuck, so complicated :p edit: some typos
    - JSfran 4y ago
      I'm Iranian just like the OP above. There is no doubt this narrative is the narrative of Basij which their propaganda outlets constantly put out. For further detail see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basij https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basij However, for those who are not familiar with such jargon, Alir3z4, basically says it's good thing that his Supreme leader filtered out candidates. So then the people can select from "good" choices. Otherwise people would have select X, Y and Z which are bad. The argument needs no counter-argument other than removing the jargon... I encourage the interested to read his other comments to take a first hand look how the regime internal propaganda put together. For fabrications and their constant strive for western mainstream media propaganda machine, you may look into NIAC and all its delicate network: usually they're commentator or journalists at NYT (e.g. Farnaz Fasihi), Washington post, CNN (Trita Parsi), Independent (Negar Mortazavi), BBC, etc. That's another more fascinating story.
throwayyy479087 4y ago
You are correct. These are frequent and I’m not paying attention until something meaningful changes. The US will resign the Obama-era nuclear treaty as a fuck you to Trump, and the money will reinforce the regime. Little people don’t count in this situation.

lazide 4y ago

Ok, but what does that actually mean? The reality is, unless the Iranians themselves replace the Ayatollahs, it would require a foreign sponsored coup or outright invasion to meaningfully change the status quo there.

amir734jj 4y ago
It means: 1) publicly condemn the government 2) recognize that this government doesn't represent the people of Iran 3) don't give money to this government.
- lazide 4y ago
  Anyone giving money to Iran already gets sanctioned by the US, no? And the gov’t is already pretty isolated, except for ‘persona non grata’ countries like North Korea or Russia anyway. And I doubt those folks are going to change their mind over what’s going on.
  - MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
    I think point 3 is this, no? >I am worried this tyrannical government succeeds in putting down this movement and then the western governments sign another nuclear treaty which means sanction relief and more money for the regime
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > already gets sanctioned by the US Iran trades with Turkey, Pakistan, the U.A.E., Germany, India, Kuwait and Qatar [1]. [1] https://oec.world/en/profile/country/irn/?flowSelector1=flow0 https://oec.world/en/profile/country/irn/?flowSelector1=flow...
mdibaiee 4y ago
We are not asking for foreign countries to "replace the Ayatollahs" for us. What we are asking, is ending their diplomatic relations with this government, or at least severing it, instead of trying to strengthen their diplomatic relations. A deal between this dictatorship and the west will only strengthen them, leading to more oppression. A weakened dictatorship due to foreign pressure will make it easier for the people of Iran to replace them.
- oliwary 4y ago
  I am genuinely curious - are there any historical examples where ending diplomatic relationships and imposing sanctions on a country has improved the situation for people living there?
  - weatherlite 4y ago
    South Africa
    - lazide 4y ago
      It's not clear how much of South Africa's Apartheid collapse was due to external pressure, and how much was from internal problems. They had widespread and growing internal rebellion for a long time, with independent internal discussions and controversies going on about the unsustainability of Apartheid - both from a moral and economic perspective. Hell, they even tried Mandela for Treason in '56 and spent 27 years in prison after he started the revolutionary group in '61. Apartheid didn't end until the early '90's. Saying external sanctions caused it, is a bit like saying the USSR collapsed because of embargos. They definitely weren't helping make it stay, but it's hard to say those where why it collapsed.
- lazide 4y ago
  That’s already been happening for decades. Has it made any difference?
  - ghufran_syed 4y ago
jokowueu 4y ago
>would require a foreign sponsored coup Won't be the first time
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
case0x00 4y ago
I do wonder on the feasibility of such events. I don't know a huge amount about pre-revolution Iran, but I don't think the Shah had an exceptionally powerful security force (I could be wrong). But now at least, the IRGC makes a revolution/coup very difficult.
- PraetorianGourd 4y ago
  The Shah had a very powerful secret police, the SAVAK[1]. Prior to the overthrow of Mosaddegh, there wasn’t a comparable security force.. but I think something about gaining power in a coup makes one incredibly paranoid about being a victim of a coup. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK
Alir3z4 4y ago
> Ok, but what does that actually mean? 1. Sanctions: check 2. International isolation: ~check 3. freezing foreign assets: check 4. Bringing freedom to Iran by liberating them (successful operations like Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, ....): LOL, never gonna happen

petre 4y ago

There won't be another treaty but rather a green pass from the US for Israel to attack Iran and even more sanctions. Iran is currently cooperating with Russia so it could only go south for them.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ars 4y ago
It's too far for Israel to effectively attack it. Israel would need to refuel over Turkey or Iraq, or launch from an American aircraft carrier. i.e. it would not be a Israeli mission, it would have to be a joint mission. Or in other words America would not be able to say "Israel did it", America would have to be fully on board - and perhaps help. And that's not something small, that's why it hasn't happened yet.
- Alir3z4 4y ago
  Let's think that happens. Russia-Ukraine case made the whole world go crazy due to gas/oil and price increase in anything that touches fossil fuels. Imagine what would happen globally by Iran settings mines in Straits of Hormuz or rain missiles on countries that are hosting US bases (Oil producers) in retaliation and pressuring global economy in order to maximize the effect of the war. The maximum Israel can do is to slow down the progress of whatever Israil think Iran is doing, is to conduct sabotage missions in Iran, killing scientists, military commanders, cyberattacks or lobbying as much as possible in other countries for more sanctions etc and so far that has not been effective. In matter of fact, it has backfired.
  - YZF 4y ago
    It's unlikely that Iran would do that in response to an attack on their nuclear facilities. What would they gain from it? They'd just lick their wounds and move on. Iran is already fighting a proxy war against Saudi in Yemen. Their military would be eroded pretty quickly in an outright direct conflict and that would risk losing power internally. Iraq fired plenty of missiles all over the place during the gulf war and it didn't really do much. Mining the straits will likely just result in the US or some international task force taking control over those and de-mining. All that said it's very unlikely there will be an attack on Iran. The US would much prefer to see the regime fall. That doesn't seem super likely either but attacking Iran will probably just strengthen the regime.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

kache_ 4y ago

jimbob45 4y ago

That sounds like a lot of words to say, “we should create whatever pretext we need to invade Iran like we invaded Iraq in 2003”. I’m not sure Iraq is far enough away in the collective US memory for your comment to be received positively.

panick21_ 4y ago
That has been tried a few times now. The Israel lobby and the Neocons had at least 3 major 'War with Iran' campaigns since 2003.

Alir3z4 4y ago

The fact that Rouhani got elected and became a president and JCPOA got signed and so many catastrophic events happening by that administration shows there's a democratic election. Impossible to think if it was a "dictatorship", such person would be elected in the first place.

emilsedgh 4y ago
Iran is a semi dictatorship. People have _some_ agency but not much. The _election_ in which you can choose between 2 people who have already been filtered out by the regime is not really a democratic election. As someone voted for Rouhani (and would do so again), in a democratic situation he would've been my last choice.
- Alir3z4 4y ago
  The fact that presidents get filtered out is a god send tbh in case of Iran. Imagine ending up wit people like Masoumeh Alinejad-Ghomi, Reza Pahlavi, Supreme Grandma Maryam Rejavi (_Masoud Rajavi decided to become against the IR since his or his party was filtered out_) or any other weirdo. Not so great process, but I don't think letting everyone run for presidency has much of its goodies packed with it anyway. In either case, Iran's constitution keeps the president above so many levels that having impeachment becomes even harder. Whoever president Iran ends up with, it becomes almost impossible to replace or take them down by Majles. I don't know, probably a role of Prime Minister will be more suited with some changes to law that person can be nailed down in wrongdoing or pressure to step down, but who knows, maybe that backfires too. yuck, so complicated :p edit: some typos
  - JSfran 4y ago
    I'm Iranian just like the OP above. There is no doubt this narrative is the narrative of Basij which their propaganda outlets constantly put out. For further detail see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basij https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basij However, for those who are not familiar with such jargon, Alir3z4, basically says it's good thing that his Supreme leader filtered out candidates. So then the people can select from "good" choices. Otherwise people would have select X, Y and Z which are bad. The argument needs no counter-argument other than removing the jargon... I encourage the interested to read his other comments to take a first hand look how the regime internal propaganda put together. For fabrications and their constant strive for western mainstream media propaganda machine, you may look into NIAC and all its delicate network: usually they're commentator or journalists at NYT (e.g. Farnaz Fasihi), Washington post, CNN (Trita Parsi), Independent (Negar Mortazavi), BBC, etc. That's another more fascinating story.

throwayyy479087 4y ago

You are correct. These are frequent and I’m not paying attention until something meaningful changes. The US will resign the Obama-era nuclear treaty as a fuck you to Trump, and the money will reinforce the regime. Little people don’t count in this situation.