"How fragile is Iran’s regime?" Topic

"Smartphone videos of anti-regime protests in Tehran circulated in global news media this weekend, after the Iranian government admitted it shot down a Ukrainian civilian airliner. The latest demonstrations followed a national wave of protests last November in which up to 1,500 demonstrators were killed. Hard information about the origins and extent of the anti-regime protests is difficult to find. But there is a good deal of evidence of extreme dissatisfaction with the regime due to economic stress.

Iran's average monthly after-tax wage was US$318.53, according to the website Numbeo, which tallies thousands of user inputs to arrive at wage and price data…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

I can see a time after the people rise up, that Iran and the U.S. will become allies once again.

I can see a time after the people rise up, that Iran and the U.S. will become allies once again.

Wishful thinking, VCarter? Certainly this would be a wonderful outcome but I can't see a successful uprising succeeding soon. An authoritarian regime based on religion is very hard to topple as it will have its supporting religious fanatics.

Do you have any proof of your assertion? If so, respond. It might cheer us all up after a bad start to the year.

Who could have imagined the Soviet Union falling from internal dissent? Same story, different totalitarian religion.

Good point….but a rotten-to-the-core political dictatorship differs from a bigoted, fanatical religious one, IMO.

I do hope you're correct but I, unfortunately, see not that much proof yet.

Iran can suppress internal dissent like China did in Hong Kong and Xinjiang. Regardless, a "Persian Spring" (analogue to Arab Spring) is probably doomed to failure.

It's looking pretty dicey for the leaders in Iran tonight. They're calling for the removal of the Ayatollah, and denouncing (defacing his posters) Soliemani, which is quite brave of them to do, given how ruthless the current Iranian leadership is known to be.

Supposedly, many people were killed in the country during the last wave of protests just a few weeks ago.

It will be interesting to see how things play out in the coming days/weeks/months.

Reportedly, Iranian military/security forces are using teargas and live rounds against the student protesters there.

At least

Perhaps the Persian Spring is starting early this year.

You can rule through fear, but once people tire of being in constant fear (or replace it with anger) and feel they have nothing to lose, you probably won't be ruling much longer…

Anything could happen. It's going to collapse in our lifetimes, and it will be on an occasion like this. Fingers crossed for everyone's safety.

The US should drop blue jeans and coke a cola.

I can see a time after the people rise up, that Iran and the U.S. will become allies once again.

Yes, surely they will become allies (that is, Iranian lackeys) if the US enthrone another despicable dictator such as the Shah Reza Pahlavi.

Relax Ruchel, the US is not in the enthroning business anymore. And hopefully we are not in the regime change business either. The Iranian people can decide what type of government they want.

Iran can suppress internal dissent like China did in Hong Kong and Xinjiang. Regardless, a "Persian Spring" (analogue to Arab Spring) is probably doomed to failure.

"Arab Spring" was actually a failure. In fact, "Arab Spring" was an artificial concept made up by Western journalists and politicians.

Iran is a different and complicated country. Simplistic Western "solutions" are useless. Maybe you prefer the "Egyptian solution", a despicable dictator: Al-Sisi, Trump's favorite dictator (in his own words).

Relax Ruchel, the US is not in the enthroning business anymore. And hopefully we are not in the regime change business either. The Iranian people can decide what type of government they want.

Do not worry, I am relaxed. But I am not naïve. Yes, the US is always in the enthroning business and in regime changes business. The US continues supporting dictators and puppet regimes according to US economic and strategic interests. The typical colonialist and imperialist behaviour.

Do people really still talk like that?

Could I toss in a "running dog lackey" just for the fun of it?

It is the reality, the truth. So deal with it. And please, come out of the American bubble. Make your choice: American propaganda (fanatical nationalism) or critical thinking.

Imperialist pigs (and commie rats). The good old days of the Cold War. Lol

YouTube link

Ruchel's choice of words may be a bit anachronistic but, unfortunately, the meaning is still relevant. US foreign policy then & now embraces some quite unsavoury regimes.

I understand realpolitik but, Saudi Arabia? Really?

I'll stop at US supported dictatorships in Egypt, Chile, Bahrain, Iran, Argentina, Brazil.

So LOL…..or shed a few tears?

"Arab Spring" was actually a failure. In fact, "Arab Spring" was an artificial concept made up by Western journalists and politicians.

Relax Ruchel. Hence my prediction that it's doomed to fail as in Syria, Egypt, Yemen and Libya. The only country Arab Spring had any success was Tunisia.

And my favorite phrase is Mao's "running dogs of western imperialism." Recent history in Venezuela and Hong Kong shows western-encouraged (if not supported) democratic movements don't work.

Al-Sisi is far better than the Muslim Brotherhood. Even the Egyptians wanted them out, so were relatively calm when Al-Sisi took over.

Seems that for a lot of Middle East nations, a strong dictator is required to wield power, and to "keep the peace" so to speak, since when there isn't a ruthless guy in charge, anarchy abounds, and things get even worse, see the following for clear cut examples of that: Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and yes, even Iran. I imagine Saudi Arabia and a number of other nations in the Middle East and North Africa follow that same failing.

I've always liked the phrase "Axis of Evil". Powerful iconography. But I also think it's important you're actually on the right side of that particular demarcation.Sidling up to authoritarian dictators simply isn't a good look. It just isn't.

YouTube link

NB I think this a nice piece of parody and I am not (repeat *not*) calling Americans "Nazis". A satiric comment only.

Seems that for a lot of Middle East nations, a strong dictator is required to wield power, and to "keep the peace" so to speak, since when there isn't a ruthless guy in charge, anarchy abounds, and things get even worse,

Well, if we're in the business of choosing forms of government for foreign countries, I say that the US should beg to be re-admitted to being subject to the British monarchy:

link

Imperialism and Colonialism are not anachronistic concepts because they are historiographical concepts in essence, and I am using them as such. Of course, there is a typical confusion regarding those concepts. Because it is also true that, in the context of Cold War, many communist and far left groups used those concepts but with a different meaning and with a different aim, as a theoretical criticism against Western capitalism.

But the real origins of those concepts are historiographical in essence, and in their correct meaning they remain valid and fully in force. You should distinguish between historiographical concepts and ideological concepts.

Imperialism, as historiographical concept, describes a set of procedures, processes, behaviours and actions, in time and space, carried out by certain states in order to achieve economic domination and political control over extensive areas through a massive international expansion. It implies supremacy and hegemony, and rivalry with other powers.

It is not necessary to occupy territories. Old style colonies are no longer necessary because nowadays there are other ways to achieve economic domination and political control without having to establish colonies.
In this sense, Colonialism, another historiographical concept, remains valid and fully in force too, now under the term "Neo-colonialism" (New Colonialism). This concept describes new ways of colonial domination and dependency, different from the typical colonies in the past. It is a historiographical concept developed after the decolonization processes (second half of the 20th century).

Modern imperialist (and new colonialist) procedures and behaviour, such as American imperialism, nowadays the world's greatest imperialist power, comprise the following ways to achieve political control and economic domination (just a few examples):

- Military power and military expansion: hundreds of military bases around the world.

- Intelligence services personnel and offices: thousands of agents around the world, in most countries.

- Full control over maritime routes: naval fleets dominate the seas of the planet.

- Full control over airspace: aircrafts, satellites and other technological devices.

- Political control over other countries: support to dictators and puppet governments.

- Destabilization of "rebel" governments: support to coups, support to paramilitaries and terrorist groups, instigations of violence between factions and civil wars.

- Dirty war and state terrorism against "rebel" countries.

- Military invasions and bombings, making up fake justifications and despicable excuses (fighting for "freedom and democracy", in fact fighting for economic and strategic interests). In short, immoral crimes and contempt for international laws.

- Killing hundreds thousands of people from those "rebel" countries.

- Harsh economic sanctions against "rebel countries". Even other sovereign countries must obey and take part in the application of sanctions against those "rebel countries", even though they disagree on those sanctions. Otherwise they may be sanctioned as well. It is a total despotism and it is an indicator of absolute economic domination.

- Economic domination: control over the major trading routes, support to large corporations, support to corporate contractors, partnership with the powerful speculative economy, and so on.

So yes, the US is an imperialist power. In fact, nowadays is the main imperialist power. Russia and China want to be imperialist powers too, and they act as such, but they lack sufficient military and economic power.

Iran can never be considered as an imperialist power. Firstly, Iran is not a power. Iran is an impoverished country without any military or economic power. Secondly, its external projection is very limited and only at regional level.

Iranian actions are always related to its ancient and traditional links to Shia population who live in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and other places. They are considered as brothers and they protect each other. In fact, Syria was one of the few countries that gave Iran some support against Saddam Hussein during the criminal war started by this dictator with American support. That religious and cultural link is very ancient. It was established long before the discovery of America. If you do not understand the importance of that link, you will not understand anything about Iranian actions in Middle East.

recent history in Venezuela and Hong Kong shows western-encouraged (if not supported) democratic movements don't work.

Democracy seems to be dying a slow death. Look at Eastern Europe with the rise of so-called illiberal democracy in Hungary and Poland.

Most western states are creating large scale surveillance states (eg ECHELON and Five Eyes, various bits of Patriot Act). A lot of third world countries are sinking back to dictatorship even if it's under the guise of pseudo-democracy.

Additionally in Australia we now have police raids on media organisations, government agencies being authorised to spy without warrants and hold people without charge,
government whistleblowers facing life imprisonment for divulging government malpractice, secrecy surrounding trade deals and government contracts, brutal defamation laws and even a secret prisoner convicted in a secret trial.

link

There have also been numerous attempts to reduce people's rights to protest or organise union action and greater pushes to stop public servants from revealing corruption and wrong doings.. On both sides of politics there are calls to silence opponents and suppress freedom of speech.

We even pay third world countries to keep illegal immigrants in badly equipped camps where even medical services are few and far between.

The future of the world is authoritarianism (and in all reality probably poor with a few rich elites).

One day our descendent will view the period 1945-2030s as some sort of golden period, assuming history hasn't been rewritten by the ruling elites.

"The Soviet Union left its mark as one of the deadliest political regimes in the history of mankind. However, it could not get away with such atrocities without having a complete monopoly on the use of force.

To maintain its iron grip, the Soviet Union had to turn to the most proven form of suppression — gun confiscation. On December 10, 1918, the Council of People's Commissar mandated that Soviet citizens turn in their firearms. Failure to do so, led to criminal prosecution."

"When totalitarian regimes ban and seize firearms from their citizens they are free to murder as many of their own people as they desire"

Let's not forget that in 1918 the Soviets were already engaged in civil war.

Confiscation of firearms is common in war for a number of reasons. My grandfather had to hand in his pistol when the war started in Yugoslavia.

I am still not sold on liberty and guns (and I like shooting guns). I think good laws and community values are much better personally.

After all every Somali, Pakistani and Afghan has access to cheap AKs and their societies aren't much to boast about.