Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Iran Intervention and Break-UP

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by 1980s View Post
    Khuzestan isnt an exclusively Arab region. Saddam had banked on pan-Arab nationalism and so attempted to detach it permanently from Iran in 1980. The Iranian-Arab population resisted the invasion like the rest of the Iranian people and the Iraqis were expelled in 1982.

    Baluchestan isnt economically viable as a separate state outside of Iran. Its a lightly-populated desert expanse with serious social and crime problems, mainly drug running. It is also the least educated province in Iran, and most poverty stricken.

    Shomal (Gilan and Mazandaran) are no different from Persian-speaking provinces, except for the Gilaki and Mazandarani languages which evolved in a separate direction from Persian. The Russians tried to detach the north from Iran. They failed. This land is as inseparable from Iran as Pars region is. The name 'Mazandaranistan' btw is cute, and one of the stupidest things i have ever heard.

    And as for Azerbaijan, the Turks (Ottomans) and Russians (Imperial and Soviet) both tried to detach this region from Iran numerous times. They too, failed. Azerbaijan has no separate history or existence from that of Iran.
    Lots of "unworking" states worldwide doesn't mean they can't exist. The only thing stopping them is their will to go independent and the enforcement of that will. Baluchistan can exist and considering it has coasts its viable. Lots of deserts exist as countries...

    The Russians did not fail they took it 300 years ago just gave it back for join Turkey war. Russians also didn't really try all that hard to be quiet honest. Everything is separable, everything changes and evolves. I am glad you like the names i made up.

    Bear in mind I am think of complete revamping of borders among ethnic lines from Pakistan through Syria for peaceful evolution something close to what happened in Europe after WW2... I am just saying its an interesting hypothetical on my end.

    Azerbaidjan is in existance right now... granted only the Northern part but still it sort of gives a gravity to an ethnic state possibility. Also mind you I think the Azeris in Iran won't go for it unless things got really bad (like food costs going through the roof) AND treatment worsened etc... Right now the Alievs seem to be more corrupt with less opportunities than Iran offers integration wise class structure wise BUT things change...

    The problem with Iran is that it thinks that stall tactics and agreements with the west where they pretend to go along with something and the west goes along with pretending they believe it doesn't work. Both parties need to check on one another in a sense and realize where agreement actually exists. Right now it seems Iran is very isolated and the worse offers it gets ( and believe me they will get worse ) the more it will feel it can turn them down (only correct up to a certain point). What is happening is that they constantly have to up the ante for everyone whom backs them Russia, China, to buy support. Sooner or later it will become an nonviable bargaining position.

    P.S. don't take it so seriously its a "what if" scenario.
    But imagine if as the conflict erupted USA promised China to let it participate in the Iranian oil sector post reconstruction, same to Russia along with geopolitical guarantees not to meddle too much up north. Now think that this would be offered while the gulf conflict started like they were bombing Iran already.

    Also mind you there were Russian break up scenarios up the wazoo with Siberia going independent and whatnot by Cia analysts all the way up to 2000s... In Irans case a lot of chunks are ethnic/religious possibilities if you look at it pragmatically. Yes the balance of power in the region changes so much that the risk would only be viable for someone like USA whom would want regional fracture for resolution of international meddling by regional states in that part of the world.

    Additional thought:
    I was wondering what would happen if Kurdistan existed and realized that it would effectively seperate Turkey from Azerbaidjan and Turkic populated people in a similar way as Armenia does now. So if it existed while Iran was smaller (not much smaller just a little bit with Baluchistan, Ahwaz, Kurdish areas, and Azerbaidjan areas seperate (closer to a ball like shape like Romania with perhaps 40 million people or so). From a Russian perspective this would be OK. The problem is if Azerbaidjan had 20-30 million and Armenia 3-4, it would be overrun unless it was bolstered or borders were manipulated further.
    Last edited by cyppok; 29 Jul 12,, 00:18.
    Originally from Sochi, Russia.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by 1980s View Post
      Khuzestan isnt an exclusively Arab region. Saddam had banked on pan-Arab nationalism and so attempted to detach it permanently from Iran in 1980. The Iranian-Arab population resisted the invasion like the rest of the Iranian people and the Iraqis were expelled in 1982.

      Baluchestan isnt economically viable as a separate state outside of Iran. Its a lightly-populated desert expanse with serious social and crime problems, mainly drug running. It is also the least educated province in Iran, and most poverty stricken.

      Shomal (Gilan and Mazandaran) are no different from Persian-speaking provinces, except for the Gilaki and Mazandarani languages which evolved in a separate direction from Persian. The Russians tried to detach the north from Iran. They failed. This land is as inseparable from Iran as Pars region is. The name 'Mazandaranistan' btw is cute, and one of the stupidest things i have ever heard.

      And as for Azerbaijan, the Turks (Ottomans) and Russians (Imperial and Soviet) both tried to detach this region from Iran numerous times. They too, failed. Azerbaijan has no separate history or existence from that of Iran.
      People often overlook the power of national identity. Those Iranian Arabs fighting to stay part of a majority Persian nation did battle against an army largely made up of Shia soldiers who fought to the last against their co-religionists. Sometimes the world is more complex than people care to imagine.
      sigpic

      Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

      Comment


      • #18
        Like there wouldn't be repressions against them and their families if they didnt join and fight the invaders... The problem of inducement is you don't know the aspects on the ground and yes sometimes national identity does transpose over ethnicity, but usually not.

        Stress on a national level leads to stress on national identity and the burden of proof. Japanese-American battalions proving themselves against the Japanese while their families were interned does enter into ones mind does it not?...
        Originally from Sochi, Russia.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by cyppok View Post
          Like there wouldn't be repressions against them and their families if they didnt join and fight the invaders... The problem of inducement is you don't know the aspects on the ground and yes sometimes national identity does transpose over ethnicity, but usually not.

          Stress on a national level leads to stress on national identity and the burden of proof. Japanese-American battalions proving themselves against the Japanese while their families were interned does enter into ones mind does it not?...
          What a stunningly poor example. With a literal handful of exceptions Japanese-Americans proved themselves to be loyal Americans on and off the battlefield. Oh, and those 'battalions' served in the ETO. Individual Nissei served in the PTO as translators & in intelligence & such, but not units. I'm not aware that either Saddam or the Ayatollahs interned the families of those who chose their nation over their ethnic/religious group. It would have amounted to hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions. Even Stalin's regime coldn't manage such a successful enforcement of loyalty through fear.

          Perhaps your formulations are simplistic & flawed.
          sigpic

          Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by cyppok View Post
            Like there wouldn't be repressions against them and their families if they didnt join and fight the invaders... The problem of inducement is you don't know the aspects on the ground and yes sometimes national identity does transpose over ethnicity, but usually not.

            Stress on a national level leads to stress on national identity and the burden of proof. Japanese-American battalions proving themselves against the Japanese while their families were interned does enter into ones mind does it not?...
            Frankly, you are an idiot. The Japanese Americans fought so valiantly in WWII for America despite repression, not because of it.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Skywatcher View Post
              Frankly, you are an idiot. The Japanese Americans fought so valiantly in WWII for America despite repression, not because of it.
              Not denying that, the problem is free will and reality. In Iran as well as the US during WW2 it would have been socially unacceptable to not fight. Would these people have joined on their own free will without inducement? perhaps, but some might have not. Does national identity play a role sure it does but does ethnicity over come it in wars between that nation and the ethnic group, sometimes.

              Turkish Kurds are probably fighting the PKK as well unless they didn't have to join the Turkish army.
              Ukranian Cossacks fighting on the side of Polish Commonwealth against Khmelnitsky in their bid for Independent Ukraine.
              Sure I am sure limited numbers of both happened the problem is was there inducement, yes, how far it went we don't know. Would have they done it free will maybe.

              There are quiet a few examples of this.

              But like I said before things have to shift socially and economically for ethnic struggle to take priority over the nation state that is treating their minorities well. I did say this before and repeat it again.
              Originally from Sochi, Russia.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by cyppok View Post
                Not denying that, the problem is free will and reality. In Iran as well as the US during WW2 it would have been socially unacceptable to not fight. Would these people have joined on their own free will without inducement? perhaps, but some might have not. Does national identity play a role sure it does but does ethnicity over come it in wars between that nation and the ethnic group, sometimes.
                I'd forgotten about this travesty of intellectual exchange until this morning.

                Does the 442nd Regiment, which had 22 Medal of Honor recipients from World War II (by far the most decorated unit of its size in American history), sound like it was put together because "it would have been socially unacceptable to not fight." Some inducement right there.

                Comment

                Working...
                X