Revolution for the Iranian

[Monk]

I am starting this thread to get your input on what could lead to a revolution of the Iranian people against their current government. One of the thoughts I have had is whether the Ayatollah Khamenei's death could be the turning point however he is not the first Ayatollah to rule Iran. When they didn't revolt after the death of the first why should they now.

The Iranians whom I have met have been either secular or atheistic who want to have nothing to do with the Ayatollah or the Islamic religion. Indeed many believe that Iran's current woes are to be blamed on Islam. They also come across as educated and Intelligent but powerless against the Ayatollah and his thugs.

The anger of many Iranians against the Israelis is more due to Israel's conviction to attack Iran rather than hatred for jews or any other religious angle from what I have heard. I see it as a sense of nationalistic pride.

The more the west moves to isolate Iran or worse attack them the greater the chances I fear of Iranian people falling behind their government. This would be a catastrophe since the world would be to blame for radicalizing the Iranians then.

What are your views?

[Dreadnought]

Iran's government supports terror and terror funded,armed groups. May she reap exactly what she sows ie: terror and intolerance for others.

[Monk]

Iran's government supports terror and terror funded,armed groups. May she reap exactly what she sows ie: terror and intolerance for others.

That's exactly my point. Take out the government and you have 65 million decent folks (atleast a major portion of 65 million - you have to discount the morons ).

[Dreadnought]

That's exactly my point. Take out the government and you have 65 million decent folks (atleast a major portion of 65 million - you have to discount the morons ).

The bad news about that: Al Sadr, Since he can no longer operate in Iraq, is now in Iran supposedly studying to become "Asssaholla". I wonder how those good people you mention will think about what he says.

[Le_Scientifique]

The Iranians whom I have met have been either secular or atheistic who want to have nothing to do with the Ayatollah or the Islamic religion. Indeed many believe that Iran's current woes are to be blamed on Islam. They also come across as educated and Intelligent but powerless against the Ayatollah and his thugs.

Except if you went yourself in Iran, which I doubt, the expat iranians you have met doesn't necessarily give a good sampling of the iranian population.

Even if the masses suffer the current government more than they support it, it is those same masses who are usually politically inactive and can't structure themselves into a viable revolutionary movement.

From what I know, there is actually no opposition movement in Iran strong enough to overthrow the current theocracy, not without foreign support.

[lwarmonger]

My view of Iran is that even if the regime has lukewarm support in the cities it still has very significant support in the countryside. It also bears remembering that the most vocal elements of the cities may not represent the "silent majority." Personally I don't think that the Iranian regime is anywhere close to failing yet.

[Le_Scientifique]

My view of Iran is that even if the regime has lukewarm support in the cities it still has very significant support in the countryside. It also bears remembering that the most vocal elements of the cities may not represent the "silent majority." Personally I don't think that the Iranian regime is anywhere close to failing yet.

Even more if we compare to a state like Pakistan.

[Traxus]

There is a large appetite for reform in Iran, not revolution.

[Aryajet]

There is a large appetite for reform in Iran, not revolution.

Traxus,
I concur with your assertion.
I'm sure you know this but allow me to mention it anyway.
In span of 70 years we've gone through 3 major/bloody revolutions (the highest in the history in such a short period of time) all in pursuit of democracy and civil liberty and at the end of all 3 we've managed to fail miserably, that is probably why Iranians are so reluctant to believe that 4th will be any different. Reform or as Iranians domestically call it a "Velvet Revolution" seems to be more practical alternative to the fourth rev. which undoubtedly will be the bloodiest of all if it happens.

[1980s]

There is no shortage of candidates to replace Ayatollah Khamenei as the Supreme Leader. Another revolution in Iran to replace the Islamic Republic is a pipe-dream.

[Optimus]

The West cannot blame anyone but itself for any animosity displayed by Iran towards it.. What with the CIA and the British overthrowing a democratically elected PM in 1954, and installing a unwanted monarchy upon the people. After that went down the tubes, persuading Saddam to invade Iran.The shooting down of an Iranian airliner is amongst many unjust incidences along with continuing covert ops inflicted upon .Iran
I am of the belief that the Iranians, a highly talented ad educated society was inclined towards the West until the West stuffed up.

[zraver]

Traxus,
I concur with your assertion.
I'm sure you know this but allow me to mention it anyway.
In span of 70 years we've gone through 3 major/bloody revolutions (the highest in the history in such a short period of time) all in pursuit of democracy and civil liberty and at the end of all 3 we've managed to fail miserably, that is probably why Iranians are so reluctant to believe that 4th will be any different. Reform or as Iranians domestically call it a "Velvet Revolution" seems to be more practical alternative to the fourth rev. which undoubtedly will be the bloodiest of all if it happens.

I concur, the people don't want more upheaval they want freedom. They don't even necessarily want the end of the Islamic state, which has done so much for Iran in so many ways. The is a strong steady push for reform and it seems to be advacing if sometimes remarkably slowly. The current Ayatollah won't live for ever and Iran has a young population more concerned with the social good than the religious dogma. Minus the IRGC there is nothing in Iran time alone won't cure.

Its the IRGC that throws a wildcard into the mix. I've been tryign to figure out where that situation is headed for some time. We know the Guard has surpassed the clerics as the leading economic power in the country, and the IRGC is at least as powerful as the regular services and has been seeking increasing political power as well. That is a nasty combo and has few good endings in history. However, the Supreme Leader just announced the creation of a 4th uniformed service via the new Air Defense Branch. If this service gets the ADA assets assigned to the Guards we might be seeing the beginning of a process to trim the guards of its clout.

[Dreadnought]

The West cannot blame anyone but itself for any animosity displayed by Iran towards it.. What with the CIA and the British overthrowing a democratically elected PM in 1954, and installing a unwanted monarchy upon the people. After that went down the tubes, persuading Saddam to invade Iran.The shooting down of an Iranian airliner is amongst many unjust incidences along with continuing covert ops inflicted upon .Iran
I am of the belief that the Iranians, a highly talented ad educated society was inclined towards the West until the West stuffed up.

It wasnt just the West and no Iran is not as innocent as you claim and it is reflected every single day looking at Iraq and Gaza. Iran supports terror thats a fact and until it changes its backing for Hamas and Hezbollah and other extremeists it will never change.;)

[Optimus]

[QUOTE=Dreadnought;614068]It wasnt just the West and no Iran is not as innocent as you claim and it is reflected every single day looking at Iraq and Gaza. Iran supports terror thats a fact and until it changes its backing for Hamas and Hezbollah and other extremeists it will never change.;)[/QUOTE

If I remember, there has always been a bit of agro between the Arabs and the Persians since biblical times, while not condoning Iran's present day actions, I'm suggesting that its a response to all the efforts by the West to undermine them since the end of WW2, more so when the clerics became the ruling body.
So what it actually boils down to is, ones substantiated opinion on who was doing what to who first so that one or the other can be justifiably aggrieved or condemned . I still maintain that if the West had played its cards right, the Iranians would have been in the West's camp long ago. It just so happens they placed a greater importance with the Arabs.
Futhermore I can't see why everybody gets upset at the utterances of Iran's current President, as the real power lies with the Clerics, and if they decided he was too much of a liability, they would have him out in a jiffy.

[Roycerson]

It wasnt just the West and no Iran is not as innocent as you claim and it is reflected every single day looking at Iraq and Gaza. Iran supports terror thats a fact and until it changes its backing for Hamas and Hezbollah and other extremeists it will never change.;)

By Iran you mean the monarchy that was installed by the US? You can't blame the people for the actions of a monarchy, they have no choice in the matter. I agree with you that that monarchy is terrible and needs to go, that's how I feel about all monarchies. Don't mistake the government for the country. We'll know a lot more about how Iranians think when they are allowed to say what's on there mind w/o fearing the government that the US placed in power over them.