Does Iran have any armed opposition?

[Jews4Peace]

Since so many of our troops are stuck in Iraq, an attack on Iran would not follow the same method as the one on Iraq, in order to spare the use of troops there, we should try arming and training oppositional groups in Iran. Just the only problem is, is there any oppositional military in Iran? How powerful are they? Are they willing to cooperate with the United States and Israel? Do they support democracy? What are the name of those opposition groups?

[snapper]

Kurds for one...

[Dreadnought]

Kurds for one...

Half the civilized world for another.:))

[zraver]

Iran has several armed groups operatign inside its borders, some they claim are US supported. Most are small and the nation does enjoy a high level of national identity so unravelling the country via internl dissent is not really an option. Besides within 20 years the IRGC will start a civil war on its own when it moves to replace the clerics as the supreme authority. Might be as soon as when the current supreme leader dies.

[Traxus]

Iran has several armed groups operatign inside its borders, some they claim are US supported. Most are small and the nation does enjoy a high level of national identity so unravelling the country via internl dissent is not really an option. Besides within 20 years the IRGC will start a civil war on its own when it moves to replace the clerics as the supreme authority. Might be as soon as when the current supreme leader dies.

Pretty much what I was going to say. The US is probably supporting insurgents in Iran, particularly Sunni groups. But Iran has been a single nation with roughly its current boarders for a very, very long time. These insurgents will be at most a thorn in the side of the government; they will never gain widespread support even from their own ethnic groups, and Iran is not going to splinter into several nations, just not going to happen.

zraver, why do you say the IRGC will try to oust the clerics within 20 years?

[1980s]

Since so many of our troops are stuck in Iraq, an attack on Iran would not follow the same method as the one on Iraq, in order to spare the use of troops there, we should try arming and training oppositional groups in Iran. Just the only problem is, is there any oppositional military in Iran? How powerful are they? Are they willing to cooperate with the United States and Israel? Do they support democracy? What are the name of those opposition groups?

Interesting choice of screen name, 'Jews4Peace', yet floating ideas about arming and training potential terrorists, lol. So much for being 'Jews4Peace' huh?

There are several token armed 'resistance' and separatist groups in Iran. None of them are a serious threat to the regime or to the territorial integrity of Iran. And none of them are stupid enough to co-operate with Israel if they want to have even a shred of credibility with ordinary Iranians or the Iranians they claim to represent.

Just look at what happened to the MEK/MKO/PMOI when it sided with Saddam. Lost any last bit of credibility it might have once had with Iranians.

So, sorry. You're out of luck. Iranians wont side with Israel, not even the anti-regime or secessionist terrorist groups.

[T_igger_cs_30]

Since so many of our troops are stuck in Iraq, an attack on Iran would not follow the same method as the one on Iraq, in order to spare the use of troops there, we should try arming and training oppositional groups in Iran. Just the only problem is, is there any oppositional military in Iran? How powerful are they? Are they willing to cooperate with the United States and Israel? Do they support democracy? What are the name of those opposition groups?

You think this has not been tried and done before? and is ongoing now not just by the US.

[1980s]

Besides within 20 years the IRGC will start a civil war on its own when it moves to replace the clerics as the supreme authority. Might be as soon as when the current supreme leader dies.

Its a possibility, but a slim one. You underestimate the fanaticism and commitment of IRGC cadre to Islam and the Islamic Revolution. Afterall, that is what they exist for. It had been claimed and predicted before that the Islamic Republic was built around the personality cult of the Imam Khomeini, and that it would collapse after him. 20 years after Khomeini's death and the I.R has never been in a stronger position.

Once Ayatollah Khamenei dies the Islamic system in Iran might undergo somewhat of a reform. But i think its wishful thinking on your part that the IRGC would attempt to take control of the country.

Iranian society is not like American society. Iranians do not think like Americans do either. People in Iran actually believe in God, religion and patriotism - without needing the incentive of money, power and personal accumulation. These are the kinds of people a hardcore military like the IRGC would attract. People who are genuinely ideologically committed. Not people who are 'looking to make a buck or two'.

[Mercenary]

Kurds for one...

arming the kurds would be akin to kicking turkey on its balls..

US/israel isn't stupid enough to do that - they'll pretty much be looking at another hostile nation in the region

[snapper]

arming the kurds would be akin to kicking turkey on its balls..

US/israel isn't stupid enough to do that - they'll pretty much be looking at another hostile nation in the region

I am not suggesting that we should support Kurds in Turkey yet for the last part of Saddams time we basicaly supported a semi-autonimous kurdish state in the north of Iraq. The same could possibly be done in Iran...

[Mercenary]

I am not suggesting that we should support Kurds in Turkey yet for the last part of Saddams time we basicaly supported a semi-autonimous kurdish state in the north of Iraq. The same could possibly be done in Iran...

Supporting kurds anywhere is pretty much going to incite armed rebellions in all kurd territories regardless of country.... the arms given to a section of kurds would find its way to the ones the turkish forces are fighting..

[Guest]

Iranian society is not like American society. Iranians do not think like Americans do either. People in Iran actually believe in God, religion and patriotism - without needing the incentive of money, power and personal accumulation. These are the kinds of people a hardcore military like the IRGC would attract. People who are genuinely ideologically committed. Not people who are 'looking to make a buck or two'.

I do not think, the ideological commitment of the Revolutionary Guards are being questioned here, rather their commitment to a 'new' supreme leader.

In my opinion, the Guards have the belief that only 'they' are fitted to guard the nation, the fruits of revolution and the memory of the Imam, hence they will move to acquire more power with time against the clerics who are fatten with money and wealth. You are right that the Guards have their fanaticism and commitment in regards to Islam and the Islamic Revolution, but only 'they' are worthy enough - in their view - to continue that path that was set 27 years ago. That is my view.

[S2]

Irgc

They've been anointed as the revolution's "praetorian guard". Certainly, there could be vanity and, perhaps, an elitist and (therefore) entitled sense attached to this status with some. If so, that's a potential source of political perversion.

"Iranians do not think like Americans do either. People in Iran actually believe in God, religion and patriotism - without needing the incentive of money, power and personal accumulation."

Perhaps we've just identified one of those vain and elitist types here. 1980s might wish to take a deep breath here and re-assess his perspective. This one is chuck full of holes and renders a decisive slam of it's own accord to his/her credibility.

As to more "base" motivations, don't assume that IRGC status renders one invulnerable. In point of fact, there are economic numbers around here somewhere proffered by Zraver, IIRC, that indicate that the largest "corporate" entity in Iran may just be the IRGC. My suspicion is that the insidious intersection of money and power may have it's usual corrosive influence regardless of the projected image of ideological zeal that may be assumed by the IRGC.

[zraver]

[QUOTE=1980s;558123]Its a possibility, but a slim one. You underestimate the fanaticism and commitment of IRGC cadre to Islam and the Islamic Revolution. Afterall, that is what they exist for.[quote]

Get off your high horse there sport. Ever heard of the Mamluks? The Janniseries? Both were created to serve the state and God, both rebelled, both were Islamic. If you give a group poltical, military, and economic power it will not long remain content with being 2nd.

It had been claimed and predicted before that the Islamic Republic was built around the personality cult of the Imam Khomeini, and that it would collapse after him. 20 years after Khomeini's death and the I.R has never been in a stronger position.

I'm not arguing sociology, but what history says.

Iranian society is not like American society. Iranians do not think like Americans do either. People in Iran actually believe in God, religion and patriotism - without needing the incentive of money, power and personal accumulation. These are the kinds of people a hardcore military like the IRGC would attract. People who are genuinely ideologically committed. Not people who are 'looking to make a buck or two'.

You don't understand America at all. We don't have religious police, we go to church because we want to, we give alms because we want to, we pray because we want to. Your view of my nation is probalby colored by Hollywood so its understandable. But look for the truth, the firefighters who went up the Twin towers when every one else was coming down, or the Otis Elevator tech from another building who used to work at the WTC who went with them- liberal New Yorkers almost everyone of them who may or may not have believed in God. Or their chaplain one of the first fire fighters to die at the WTC. Or the American medic who rushed on to a bridge over the Tigris in 2003 to pull a woman trapped in the cross fire to safety, of the hundreds of millions of dollars and millions of hours donated to charity each year. Or the fact that no large US unit has broken in combat in almost 60 years. Or the whistle blowers who risk all to expose corruption and lawbreaking. WE don't need guardians of the revolution because every American is by right and ability such a person. Not all will take on this role, but millions do, as we will again in just under 3 weeks. When 60+ million of us will take to the polls electing every one from local school board members to the President.

[Ironduke]

Since so many of our troops are stuck in Iraq, an attack on Iran would not follow the same method as the one on Iraq, in order to spare the use of troops there, we should try arming and training oppositional groups in Iran. Just the only problem is, is there any oppositional military in Iran? How powerful are they? Are they willing to cooperate with the United States and Israel? Do they support democracy? What are the name of those opposition groups?

Iran doesn't have any major armed opposition groups, though it does have two military arms who beyond the Supreme Leader are independent of one another, the Revolutionary Guards and the regular military. The Revolutionary Guards answers only to the Supreme Leader, and often pursues actions and policies that are contradictory to those of the elected portion of the Iranian government, the Maljis and the President.

It is a rather dichotomous setup, but I don't think this division can be realistically exploited by external forces. Any perception of foreign involvement/direction by the Iranians will result in complete failure of any oppositional movement. Again, if the Iranian people believe there is foreign influence upon the actors attempting to exact a change in the political system, they will reject those actors. Thus a political change can only take place in an environment that is free from foreign involvement and must be entirely homegrown.

The Iranian people are very conscious of the US-backed 1953 coup against Mossadeq and American (and even Israeli support) of the Shah and his repressive, brutal policies. It is a very emotional issue for them just as the 1979-81 hostage crisis is for Americans.

Groups in Iran such as the pragmatists (e.g. Rasfanjani) and reformists (e.g. Khatami) completely denounce any efforts by outside parties to effect a change in Iranian policy. Just a few days ago there was a meeting between Khatami and former/current EU/UN leaders, and Khatami instantly and bitterly denounced suggestions that such a meeting constituted an endorsement for him to run again for President against Ahmadinejad in 2009.

Most people in Iran do support democracy, and Iran already has a few democratic institutions, though combined with autocratic institutions that can overrule the parliament and President. The vast majority of Iranians would prefer that the Supreme Leader be elected. So there is no need to find oppositional groups to support democracy because the support is already there. Though the press in Iran is not entirely free, there is however a marked amount of freedom and a wide range of opinion, including dissident, that is tolerated.

Personally, I believe that best policy with regards to Iran is to not to make statements or undertake actions that serve to strengthen the hands of the hardliners. Remember, Iran was for all practical purposes a US ally, fully supporting the US-led NATO intervention in Afghanistan. There were face-to-face meetings between high level US and Iranian officials that are now a subject of debate with regards to "preconditions" between McCain and Obama. The thawing of relations that began to trickle in the late Clinton Administration serendipitously turned to a flood in the first year of the Bush Administration, during the aftermath of 9/11. All evidence points to Iran under the reformist President Khatami seeking to re-establish diplomatic relations with the US with the blessing of the Supreme Leader, and perhaps a re-alignment even more favorable than that. In 2001, circumstances existed that could have effected a nearly 180 degree turnaround in US-Iranian relations, the possibility of which was then destroyed by the "Axis of Evil" statement in Bush's 2002 State of the Union Address. This missed opportunity is very regrettable, for at that point in time I believe the stars aligned and there existed a window for a "Nixon to China" moment. It also served to make the 2005 triumph of the hardliners under Ahmadinejad inevitable.

Since then, there have been a number of complications that have re-driven the wedge between the US and Iran, such as the Iranian nuclear program as well as material and other support to Shi'ite militias in Iraq. It might be a number of years before the circumstances again exist for a US-Iranian reconciliation.