4 ms·

Will this result in bloody civil war like in Iraq and minimal dysfunctional central government after?

hexomancer 1y ago
What’s the alternative? Live under the delusional islamic theocratic dictatorship forever? If you think the islamic republic can be replaced through peaceful protests you have another thing coming, they have already killed thousands of protestors and they have no problem killing because they actually believe they are doing god’s work and the protestors are infidels that deserve to die. I take my chances for a probable dysfunctional government rather than a definitely dysfunctional one.
- exolymph 1y ago
  Best of luck to you, sir. Thank you for sharing your perspective.
- quickthrowman 1y ago
  I’m hopeful for the Iranian people, thanks for your perspective.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- MoonGhost 1y ago
  If ayatollah gets nuke regime becomes forever like in North Korea. And Israel may suffer first because nuke strike is the only chance for Iran right now. Hope they don't have it and ayatollah goes to Moscow.
  - pcthrowaway 1y ago
    The thing about nukes is that they're completely useless at defending against an internal revolution
    - toast0 1y ago
      Not completely. You're more likely to get external help to prop up your regime iff you have nukes and the external forces think it's better for your regime to stay in power than have a revolutionary force control the nukes. (Of course, if the external forces would rather the revolutionary force, then it's not so helpful)
      - pcthrowaway 1y ago
        For every country that has nukes, some countries will want them in power and some will want them deposed. You can assume both forces will be operating at all times (which to be fair is also true of pre-nuclear countries) Hostile foreign countries are however much more likely to pour resources into fomenting a revolution if you have nukes as this would avoid conventional warfare which has the potential to escalate to the point of nuclear deployment. In the context of Iran vs. North Korea which this discussion is in reference to, Iran is very likely to fall from internal forces which overwhelmingly disapprove of the government, compared to North Korea which seemingly has overwhelming support from its people, and has been cut off from the rest of the world since before the Internet was available. It's unlikely another country will ever be capable of instituting the same degree of isolationism that North Korea has, owing to the prevalance of internet-capable devices everywhere else in the world. And honestly I don't think the North Korean government would have survived as long as it had without this policy.
- cced 1y ago
  I didn't know we were short of examples of what happens when regime-change operations are conducted or when governments get toppled. You don't need to guess as to what happens; there are examples.
- FpUser 1y ago
  >"I take my chances for a probable dysfunctional government rather than a definitely dysfunctional one." I hear tickets to Libya are cheap lately. You can visit and compare.
pphysch 1y ago
That's sadly the goal
swat535 1y ago
I’m another Iranian but I’m not actively living in Iran. I agree with others here that regime really needs to go but I of course share your fear of what could happen to Iran once the central government is weakened. Currently there are multiple tiers of special forces keeepinf various groups in check, however once this is gone, things could get ugly. I worry about my family living there, we have been having a hard time time reaching there since the attacks started and there is no way of telling what is going to happen next.
- whatshisface 1y ago
  You may know more about this than I do, but what happened in Iraq was that the first military governor held together the same people who were under Saddam in a semi-stable arrangement, but was replaced with someone else that had instructions from Washington to conduct "De-Ba'athification," for some reason. This lead quickly to the collapse of the state due to the persecution of everyone who had any authority, and the replacement of Iraqi systems with military administration at all levels down to the villages as far as it could be maintained, which created the ten year war. I do not think it would be to the benefit of people who live in Iran, even if they were Christian, to live through the bombings and mass destruction of the proposed war in exchange for life under US territorial administration, which has not been very good historically.
  - FridayoLeary 1y ago
    i don't get that. Saddam Hussain was a genocidal, fascist lunatic. The world is certainly a better place with him gone. Even if America didn't handle the subsequent occupation too well, i would argue (and you are free to disagree) that Iraq was still better off. But an American occupation isn't even on the table. Nobody is interested in that. The most anyone wants at the moment is for the US to drop a MOAB on fordo and mop up the rest of Irans military from the air.
    - worik 1y ago
      > Saddam Hussain was a genocidal, fascist lunatic. Yes. > The world is certainly a better place with him gone. Even if America didn't handle the subsequent occupation too well, i would argue (and you are free to disagree) that Iraq was still better off. That is mad talk. Things have been much worse, so much worse for almost everyone in and around Iraq since that war. ISIS for one thing, was a direct result of the perfidious actions of foreigners in Iraq. So much chaos was created, there is no way the invasion of Iraq improved the world
scythe 1y ago
I would expect that the end of the current Iranian regime brings about a heavily military-influenced fake democracy that structurally resembles the current government of Pakistan. The clerics are a paper tiger. Their domestic support base has been almost fully eroded. The Islamic Revolution had proclaimed the hijab as a cause célèbre; today, Iranians generally ignore it when the government isn't looking, after decades of protest and suppression. But the Iranian military controls a vast amount of the country's economy (by comparison to normal countries) and retains popular support as an opponent of the West. It won't go quietly, and Israel lacks the resources and the United States lacks the will to dismantle it, which anyway would be a Herculean undertaking and cost millions of innocent lives. Military dictatorships are usually pragmatic on social issues, economically protectionist, and politically repressive — making the hypothetical new Iran look more like China's ideal ally than America's. The most likely vector of regime change is a military coup that produces a government which sues for peace. They may agree to dismantle the nuclear program, but there will be a sense of "for now", and they will cultivate alliances with an eye to protection from the West. We may then see real nuclear weapons in Iran, but with red flags and yellow stars on them, instead of the imaginary nuclear weapons that were invented to keep Bibi out of prison.
klyonrad 1y ago
Iran played a role in Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_involvement_in_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_involvement_in_the_Ira... That bloody civil requires resources from somewhere, so a bi geopolitical power with interests in that chaos is necessary

What’s the alternative? Live under the delusional islamic theocratic dictatorship forever? If you think the islamic republic can be replaced through peaceful protests you have another thing coming, they have already killed thousands of protestors and they have no problem killing because they actually believe they are doing god’s work and the protestors are infidels that deserve to die. I take my chances for a probable dysfunctional government rather than a definitely dysfunctional one.

exolymph 1y ago
Best of luck to you, sir. Thank you for sharing your perspective.
quickthrowman 1y ago
I’m hopeful for the Iranian people, thanks for your perspective.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
MoonGhost 1y ago
If ayatollah gets nuke regime becomes forever like in North Korea. And Israel may suffer first because nuke strike is the only chance for Iran right now. Hope they don't have it and ayatollah goes to Moscow.
- pcthrowaway 1y ago
  The thing about nukes is that they're completely useless at defending against an internal revolution
  - toast0 1y ago
    Not completely. You're more likely to get external help to prop up your regime iff you have nukes and the external forces think it's better for your regime to stay in power than have a revolutionary force control the nukes. (Of course, if the external forces would rather the revolutionary force, then it's not so helpful)
    - pcthrowaway 1y ago
      For every country that has nukes, some countries will want them in power and some will want them deposed. You can assume both forces will be operating at all times (which to be fair is also true of pre-nuclear countries) Hostile foreign countries are however much more likely to pour resources into fomenting a revolution if you have nukes as this would avoid conventional warfare which has the potential to escalate to the point of nuclear deployment. In the context of Iran vs. North Korea which this discussion is in reference to, Iran is very likely to fall from internal forces which overwhelmingly disapprove of the government, compared to North Korea which seemingly has overwhelming support from its people, and has been cut off from the rest of the world since before the Internet was available. It's unlikely another country will ever be capable of instituting the same degree of isolationism that North Korea has, owing to the prevalance of internet-capable devices everywhere else in the world. And honestly I don't think the North Korean government would have survived as long as it had without this policy.
cced 1y ago
I didn't know we were short of examples of what happens when regime-change operations are conducted or when governments get toppled. You don't need to guess as to what happens; there are examples.
FpUser 1y ago
>"I take my chances for a probable dysfunctional government rather than a definitely dysfunctional one." I hear tickets to Libya are cheap lately. You can visit and compare.

pphysch 1y ago

That's sadly the goal

swat535 1y ago

I’m another Iranian but I’m not actively living in Iran. I agree with others here that regime really needs to go but I of course share your fear of what could happen to Iran once the central government is weakened. Currently there are multiple tiers of special forces keeepinf various groups in check, however once this is gone, things could get ugly. I worry about my family living there, we have been having a hard time time reaching there since the attacks started and there is no way of telling what is going to happen next.

whatshisface 1y ago
You may know more about this than I do, but what happened in Iraq was that the first military governor held together the same people who were under Saddam in a semi-stable arrangement, but was replaced with someone else that had instructions from Washington to conduct "De-Ba'athification," for some reason. This lead quickly to the collapse of the state due to the persecution of everyone who had any authority, and the replacement of Iraqi systems with military administration at all levels down to the villages as far as it could be maintained, which created the ten year war. I do not think it would be to the benefit of people who live in Iran, even if they were Christian, to live through the bombings and mass destruction of the proposed war in exchange for life under US territorial administration, which has not been very good historically.
- FridayoLeary 1y ago
  i don't get that. Saddam Hussain was a genocidal, fascist lunatic. The world is certainly a better place with him gone. Even if America didn't handle the subsequent occupation too well, i would argue (and you are free to disagree) that Iraq was still better off. But an American occupation isn't even on the table. Nobody is interested in that. The most anyone wants at the moment is for the US to drop a MOAB on fordo and mop up the rest of Irans military from the air.
  - worik 1y ago
    > Saddam Hussain was a genocidal, fascist lunatic. Yes. > The world is certainly a better place with him gone. Even if America didn't handle the subsequent occupation too well, i would argue (and you are free to disagree) that Iraq was still better off. That is mad talk. Things have been much worse, so much worse for almost everyone in and around Iraq since that war. ISIS for one thing, was a direct result of the perfidious actions of foreigners in Iraq. So much chaos was created, there is no way the invasion of Iraq improved the world

scythe 1y ago

I would expect that the end of the current Iranian regime brings about a heavily military-influenced fake democracy that structurally resembles the current government of Pakistan. The clerics are a paper tiger. Their domestic support base has been almost fully eroded. The Islamic Revolution had proclaimed the hijab as a cause célèbre; today, Iranians generally ignore it when the government isn't looking, after decades of protest and suppression. But the Iranian military controls a vast amount of the country's economy (by comparison to normal countries) and retains popular support as an opponent of the West. It won't go quietly, and Israel lacks the resources and the United States lacks the will to dismantle it, which anyway would be a Herculean undertaking and cost millions of innocent lives. Military dictatorships are usually pragmatic on social issues, economically protectionist, and politically repressive — making the hypothetical new Iran look more like China's ideal ally than America's. The most likely vector of regime change is a military coup that produces a government which sues for peace. They may agree to dismantle the nuclear program, but there will be a sense of "for now", and they will cultivate alliances with an eye to protection from the West. We may then see real nuclear weapons in Iran, but with red flags and yellow stars on them, instead of the imaginary nuclear weapons that were invented to keep Bibi out of prison.

klyonrad 1y ago

Iran played a role in Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_involvement_in_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_involvement_in_the_Ira... That bloody civil requires resources from somewhere, so a bi geopolitical power with interests in that chaos is necessary