As much as I want to see the Islamic Republic collapse, and as much as I do believe it will collapse in the next few years, to me this hack[1] seems state-sponsored. It looks like professionals trying to look like amateurs. Not a bad thing, though. Iranians need all the help they can get.
The collapse of the Islamic Republic will likely bring much misery, upheaval and deaths. Why wish for this from the comfort of our countries?
If the collapse comes with a power vacuum and the resurgence of competing fundamentalist groups, this wouldn't be helping any Iranians. Last time Western powers meddled, it resulted in the Islamic Revolution, after all.
Iranians are willing to die (and are dying) to fight the current government. Inflation and the economy has destroyed their hope of a future for decades. Talk to any Iranian now and they’re all hoping for the end of the regime. It can’t get much worse.
Iran is not Syria, there’s a flourishing academic population, the fundamentalists are the ones in power, plenty of people still remember what life was like pre-1979.
Regime rapes and murders women and children, imprisons thousands, mismanages the economy to the point where millions live in poverty and everyone's life savings are slashed in half , environmental degradation to the point where lakes are drying up, state-sponsored terrorism etc....but hey guys have you "pondered" how bad state collapse would be?
Method matters. If people overthrow the government in violence, then it is just another turn of the revolving door of violence. What will happen to the former partisans and supporters of the old guard? Not to mention, if a movement without sufficient ability to take power rises and fails, the loss in life and chaos in society will be far worse than the status quo.
Iran is not starvation level desperate, nor people trapped under earthquake rubble desperate, to my knowledge, so I do not expect a successful popular movement without buy in from the elite and military classes of the country.
Yeah, I’m sure if we would have just waited a few more years, slavery would have also ended, we would have ended child labor, women would be allowed to vote… come on, this is just utterly dumbly naive.
Can't say much about slavery, but the issues of child labor and women rights weren't solved through a bloody revolution, and there are good arguments that they were primarily the consequence of technological progress fueled by economic growth.
On that note, we don't know for how many decades a popular uprising will be even possible. Technology may offer a turning point at sometime, where a rogue government can obtain total control and force over its populace.
Actually Patience might be the best answer. The folks leading Iran are all quite old and once the big guy dies - only a few more years - change will happen naturally.
Don't need millions of deaths in another revolution.
Please assume good faith and don't incite flamewars.
When I'm arguing against wishing for collapse "from the comfort of our countries", where do you read that I'm talking to Iranians? I'm talking to HN commenters who are not from Iran. I'm obviously not arguing with pinkbeanz since he/she is from Iran.
Try arguing in good faith, unless you want this to devolve into a flamewar. You already tried something like this in another comment: please stop.
> You're in the wrong here, it's time to walk away.
Nope. The people who are in the wrong are the coach warriors who want to see collapse but aren't unwilling to go fight for it, making arguments from the safety of their countries.
How so? I'm not calling for any specific course of action, I'm just saying "be thoughtful before arguing in favor of collapse", especially if you don't live in the country under discussion.
My "weapon of choice" is calling for restraint before violence.
That's the go-to lie of people trying to start civil wars and scare people into taking their side. "If you're not with us, you're against us". "Not taking side is just supporting status quo, which is taking a side". War is peace.
It reads to me like others are talking regime collapse, whereas you're concerned about societal-level collapse. I'd agree few with good intentions would wish for the latter.
Regimes can and do collapse without it meaning anything like the level of nationwide chaos and misery you seem to have in mind.
Yes, I think that's what may be happening, at least for the people arguing with me in good faith.
In that case, let me be explicit that I'm pessimistic about the current government of Iran (a dictatorship which I'm not in any way in favor of) collapsing without a lot of destruction and bloodshed, and that I do not wish this destruction on the families currently living there. I also fear that if this collapse leaves a power vacuum, something like -- similar, not exactly the same -- ISIS could rise in its place. I'm very pessimistic about this, and so I'm wary of wishing for collapse.
I interpreted GP as talking specifically about induced regime collapse, specifically one induced externally. As in, not about the regime itself slowly decaying into a more benign form, but rather about attempts to remove it by force.
Historically, I can't think of a single case of a regime being destroyed through revolution or invasion that didn't end in at least partial societal collapse and a drastic increase in deaths and suffering for a generation or more.
The Nazi Reich? Arguably it brought about its own downfall via its misguided attempts at "invasion" - at any rate it was about as violent and sudden an end to a regime as you could ask for. But history is full of coups d'etat that didn't necessarily negatively impact the greater population all that directly.
You're right, Nazi Reich is a valid counterexample to my assertion. It was destroyed by external forces, though as you say it was totally self-inflicted, and a lot of people living under it suffered greatly in the process, but the situation for them improved very quickly.
Per my understanding of history, that last part was an anomaly in several ways. This being a world war is one way, of course, but another factor was that the hot war between the Allies and the Axis transformed, after the Axis was defeated, into a cold war between members of the Allies. Both sides of this new conflict considered it critical to capture and stabilize the very territories they helped liberate from the Nazis. This wasn't a half-hearted "nation-building" program like we've been seeing in more recent times - both the US and USSR committed tremendous amounts of resources to get Europe back into shape, because this was still a war - arguably the same war, just going through a cool-down period - and both sides expected it to go hot eventually.
Also, while Germany survived the death of Nazi regime quite well, the Cold War is also known for US and USSR sponsoring and orchestrating coups and regime changes all around the world, and (AFAIK) those cases all ended badly for the locals.
In some sense, it might be that World War II was itself an anomaly - I can't think of any other war that ended with both the winners and the losers coming out better off. But it's also worth remembering that WWII itself was in large part a consequence of the societal collapse Germany underwent after losing WWI. And the subsequent Cold War was in large part a consequence of societal collapse caused by bloody revolutions in Russia and elsewhere around the start of the 20th century.
The way I see it, we have one special case of regime collapse making everyone better off almost immediately, but even that one is surrounded and infused with countless cases of regime changes that caused generations to suffer.
I asked ChatGPT for some other examples - it listed "the overthrow of the Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua in 1979 [by] the Sandinista National Liberation Front" and "the overthrow of the Marcos dictatorship in the Philippines in 1986".
With additional prompting it also listed the overthrow of the apartheid regime in South Africa, and the Solidarity movement's ultimate success in Poland in 1989.
"good faith" - it is a highly subjective term, but it is typically used as if it is objective.
There is a whole class of reality distorting phrases like this in Western culture[1], this sort of thing has always been with us but seems to have taken on much more causal significance with the rise of the internet.
Instead of replying indirectly, please address what I'm saying: what's the actual "reality distortion meme" I'm deploying here? Be upfront and accuse me of something I can defend myself of.
> "good faith" - it is a highly subjective term
HN defines is pretty clearly (note there's more, I'm just quoting some parts):
> "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes."
So snark replies are out.
> "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names."
So calling someone an Iranian secret police agent is out.
> "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
So instead of cross-examining me or trying to "catch me" somehow, address the fact I'm calling for nonviolence and restraint, and that I claim recent experience in the Middle East shows that regional collapse leads to the rise of fundamentalist groups and a general rise of unchecked violence. Assume good faith; assume I want the common good. If I made a mistake, reason with me. If you are an Iranian, don't withhold this information from me until we are 10-levels into a nested discussion.
> "Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes."
Self-explanatory. I'd say name-dropping "reality distortion memes" is one such internet trope (one, to be frank, I still don't understand because you haven't explained).
> Instead of replying indirectly, please address what I'm saying: what's the actual "reality distortion meme" I'm deploying here? Be upfront and accuse me of something I can defend myself of.
"good faith" - it is a highly subjective term, but it is typically used as if it is objective.
I will copy/paste this every time you represent that I have not disclosed the term - to others that sort of thing might be annoying, but to me it is fun!
>> "good faith" - it is a highly subjective term
> HN defines is pretty clearly (note there's more, I'm just quoting some parts):
>>>>> "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes."
> So snark replies are out.
a) People break the guidelines all the time.
b) "Be kind. Don't be snarky...." - this text stands on its own in the guidelines and is not given as a definition of good faith.
c) The only reference to "good faith" in the guidelines is this (which you are in violation of, as am I (and I have strong ideological reasons for my non-compliance)): "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
d) There is an important distinction between the definition of a term, and each individual's classification of behavior as being a valid instance of the term.
> So calling someone an Iranian secret police agent is out.
Agreed, thus I have not done that.
> So instead of cross-examining me or trying to "catch me" somehow, address the fact I'm calling for nonviolence and restraint, and that I claim recent experience in the Middle East shows that regional collapse leads to the rise of fundamentalist groups and a general rise of unchecked violence.
I acknowledge that you believe this, and that there is surely some truth to it.
I will not refrain from criticizing your claims though.
> Assume good faith; assume I want the common good. If I made a mistake, reason with me.
I will assume what I want to, or nothing at all.
My reasoning is above.
> If you are an Iranian, don't withhold this information from me until we are 10-levels into a nested discussion.
I am not Iranian.
> Self-explanatory. I'd say name-dropping "reality distortion memes" is one such internet trope (one, to be frank, I still don't understand because you haven't explained).
"Good/bad faith" is also a (much more) popular trope, one that I believe is also much more dangerous.
This reads like a low-key, state-sponsored bot post on Twitter: spreading FUD under the guise of being “safe.” Iranians need to take back their country, they are already not safe.
At this point, the only transfer of power that will happen will be due to a hostile civilian takeover. The current regime will not abdicate and any foreign military coup will likely not be tolerated by the people.
A revolution will serve as a cautionary tale to future governments who attempt to push fundamentalism as law.
One is right to be careful about another state collapsing, after the failures of Irak, Syria, Lybia, etc....
However, I also think the Iranian situation (and unlike many commenters I know Iran, have been there many times, and more) is different because there already is a quite successful diaspora of Iranians ready to take back control of the country.
Iranians have managed to somehow maintain a decent amount of infrastructure despite the sanctions and the general adversity (they did not become Cuba). There is an inherent vitality within the Iranian people which makes me very confident that once the islamists are rooted out, their country will spring back to being a working economy thanks to its intellectually very capable people and its diaspora.
I hope what you're saying actually results in a transition with minimal violence. I would also like minimum interference from foreign powers, the US included.
You're right, if the future holds the possibility of danger, we should never try to improve anything at all. Better to always stay with the misery we already know, and never try to improve our lives. Good point. /s
This is not at all what I said, I suggest you look at HN guidelines.
When "we" "improve" other countries, it often doesn't come well. "We" tend to create power vacuums and help the rise of fundamentalist groups. "We" messed up Iraq and neighboring countries. "We" helped create the opportunity for the Islamic Revolution to occur. All of what I'm saying is documented fact, not conspiracy theories. Recent history.
All I'm saying is self evident to any thinking person: do not wish for the "collapse" of a nation state. Not unless you are willing to live there during its collapse. Not from the comfort of your home.
Having the decency to exercise some restraint before wishing for the collapse of anyone's nation state is a lesson we should have learned by now.
I am a thinking person and I wish for the collapse of the Iranian, Russian, and Chinese nation states (among others). Some people always have a rough time in a societal collapse, but that would at least offer the possibility of a brighter future instead of perpetual authoritarian oppression. And, selfishly, it would eliminate threats to the US and our allies.
I don't think we should intervene military to cause such a collapse. But we should exert peaceful pressure to hasten it, just like we did with the USSR.
And the "crazy nineties" happened shortly after USSR's collapse. Hyperinflation, high levels of poverty, poor law enforcement, gang wars and high unemployment where things the average exsoviet citizen had to face in his daily life for years.
In some countries this was solved with external intervention (like adhesion to the EU) but others ended up being post-soviet dictatorships. In my humble opinion, we wouldn't have seen this many wars unfold in Eastern Europe if both Yugoslavia's and USSR's collapse had been better organized and supervised. Citizens of countries under oppressive regimes must fight against them... But avoid at all costs a power vacuum to appear.
The USSR collapse was actively organised badly, at least in Russia proper, in the years following 1991. A neoliberal society was transplanted from whole cloth to the people. In reality, a few oligarchs-to-be in various ways acquired for free what had been state property. A ruling elite replaced by another ruling elite who could climb the ladders fast enough.
Had the transition not been so chaotic and fast, a lot of grief would have been spared.
But is there any reasonable way for that to happen without outside intervention from an organized entity? It seems like something that can’t happen “without bootstrapping”.
No, there isn't, but also it's a virtual certainty that you will have outside intervention. So the powers that be should take it seriously and try to reign in both official operators and buckaroos going over. Every opportunistic country and individual will take a shot, so standing back won't work either, unfortunately.
Trying to switch systems peacefully without losing total control of a country is not an easy feat.
Even countries that managed to do that like Germany's unification, Portugal (Carnation Revolution), Greece (military junta fall) or Spain ended up with regrets and damage that takes generations to cure.
Germany's unification? A huge mess and the damage is ongoing. Kohl bought votes by setting Ostmark exchange rates to 1:1. This took on all debt of the GDR at full price but got him favour with veryone with money in the bank. He enriched his cronies by selling companies and banks with credits in billions (taxpayer backed) for peanuts. He promised them "Blooming Landscapes" but they got sold out big time. What is blooming there? Fascism.
Why not wish for a peaceful transition to a more open and free society? China has already proven it can move towards being more open without collapse, for example.
Why wish for a peaceful transition? The best approach for China, and the world as a whole, would be for revolutionaries to summarily execute every member of the Communist Party down to the lowest village commissar. Communism is a cancer, and it's too dangerous to leave them alive.
> All I'm saying is self evident to any thinking person: do not wish for the "collapse" of a nation state. Not unless you are willing to live there during its collapse. Not from the comfort of your home.
I guess what's leaving you open here to hostile takes is that you're not mentioning other things to hope for instead, so some number are defaulting to interpreting your comments as "the status quo in Iran is fine".
Ah, but I can be asked about what I think and I will happily reply: I do not think the status quo of Iran is fine. I dislike Islamic theocracies and I don't think Iran does well in public freedom. I think it is a tragedy that Iran used to be closer to a democracy (yes, with a king and all, but still) and Western interference created the conditions for both a dictatorship and the horrible Islamic theocracy that came later and is still in power today.
I hope the Iranians get a better deal (hopefully without being part of some power game by external nations), because they deserve it.
I do not wish any families living in Iran to go through a "collapse", especially not a violent one.
See? If people reply to my comments with reasonable questions, I reply in a similar tone. When people go in full attack mode, they get worse responses. Which is the tone that HN should favor?
There's one common logical error we all often make, and it's becoming more relevant by the day. We naturally see things as being either a good choice or a bad choice. But in reality, you're often not choosing between a good choice and a bad choice, but between a bad choice and a horrible choice. So focusing on the bad choice being bad doesn't really therefore suggest that the other choice is any better!
Exactly. This is the exact logic people fail at when it comes to medication side effects. Sure, the vaccine has a tiny chance for this and that negative side effect, but you are not choosing between getting the vaccine and gambling on the side effect, vs not taking any risk, but gambling on not taking a vaccine and having a higher chance of catching the virus which has orders of magnitude higher chance for way worse side effects. It is a tradeoff with a quite clear better shot (pun semi-intended)
A vaccine has a small risk that it can cause harmful effects to a small subset of the population. The predicted outcome is very positive.
Societal collapse and power vacuums in Iran and neighboring countries have a high risk of resulting in harm to a large population. The risk is very high and it has happened before -- in the same country, even!
Collapse and revolutions, unlike vaccines, are a high risk gamble. They can, for example, result in the Islamic Revolution, ISIS or who knows what.
My point was more regarding the zero sum nature of these problems. Of course the “weights” are way different, but one situation is something everyone have experienced, so I don’t think it is a bad analogy.
Have you ever asked yourself, whether you have any right whatsoever to "improve" other countries? It looks like this simple question is very rarely being asked in US..
I'm not from the US and I share the sentiment in the question you're asking. More importantly, I don't think any country has the right to hasten another country's collapse.
I'm sure you're a great person and not a secret agent (I mean this lol). But anyone who is even slightly following this situation (or has lived through it), will know that the argument you present is the exact kind of propaganda that is used by authoritarian regimes to make people fearful of change. And so yes, I believe I have every right to state that your comment has a close resemblance to State TV
In which work by Lenin would I read this? (Hint: it's most likely a misatribution).
Regardless, not wishing for war and collapse is an universal feeling, and it has nothing to do with supporting Iran's theocracy. Just in case, let me state explicitly that I think the current state of Iran is a tragedy and that I wish they lived in a democracy, and that I of course do not support any theocratic dictatorship, Islamic or otherwise. I specifically find the Islamic Republic as a depressing turn of events, when Iran could have been so much better.
Iraq now vs Iraq post military intervention in the ensuing years, the rise of ISIS, and the ongoing destabilization of the region is my point.
I don't like the Islamic Republic. But do I wish war on the families living there? And what is the likelihood of something even worse rising there if a power vacuum with no clear goals is created in its stead? I'd say "very high", giving recent history.
Can you, in full honesty, tell me how much you know about Iran? You (and some others in the comment section) seem to only extrapolate from Iraq, a country with a completely different culture, economy, and sequence of events/trajectory etc.? This is quite concerning to say the very least.
You are aware that you are comparing a situation that arose from a US military invasion (Iraq), with a grass-roots, cross-class and cultural movement that is being supported across the world (Iran)? You are aware that, for the first time, Iranians across Kurdistan, Zahedan, Tehran, Baluchistan are chanting the same slogans under the same values, fighting the same enemy? And yet you speak of "no clear goals" and "very high likelihoods", but it sounds like you are simply ignorant of the situation. The protests are not the result of foreign meddling, but rather the result of millions of Iranians with the agency and awareness to realize their situation is horrendous and existential, and they need to take a stand. Why? Because they are already at war. Having your child hung from a crane in public is war. Having your daughter raped and killed is war. Having your life savings taken from your is war.
I am both an Iranian (with family in Iran) and a "Westerner", and I damn well implore all of my peers to support and amplify the voice of Iranians without feeling bad about whether they are encouraging "societal collapse" (an absurd argument). Supporting Iranians that have made their voices heard, shed blood and tears is not "foreign interference" or "wishing war", it is empathy and camaraderie for your fellow human.
On a final note, the regime is not reformable. This means if me or someone else says "Iranians deserve democracy" or "human rights", this implies that one supports the collapse of the Islamic Republic. Why? Because one can not happen without the other. Ultimately, their fate is in their hands, but it is absolutely idiotic to sit here and gate-keep people from wishing the collapse of a psychopathic, murderous, raping, and looting regime.
Well, you could have opened with this. If you have family in Iran and still wish for collapse, you have something important at stake and understand the risks (or so I hope).
I was initially responding to someone who didn't identify as Iranian and who was wishing for collapse.
Some people would rather live under an oppressive regime rather than die during its death throes. I won't judge them. It's not for me to decide, not if it's not my country.
Did we ever find out whether Iraqis preferred living under Saddam's dictatorship if the alternative was the turmoil that ensued afterwards, insurgency, terror attacks, ISIS, etc?
Considering Iran is actively trying to build a nuclear bomb, I’d say it’s a problem for the world, and I’m fairly certain that very few westerners would care about the well-being of the general population of Iran should they get too close to building one.
An internal coup would likely be far better than an external one.
The ayatollahs simply cannot remain in power. You don’t need to be an Iranian for this to matter to you.
> Considering Iran is actively trying to build a nuclear bomb, I’d say it’s a problem for the world, and I’m fairly certain that very few westerners would care about the well-being of the general population of Iran should they get too close to building one.
The apartheid occupation has a nuclear bomb that threatens the entire area, yet it seems fine for you?
What is "easy for me to say" because I don't live there? That before we (not Iranians) wish for the collapse of the current Islamic state, we should understand what it will mean for the people living there -- sure, no longer under the yoke of the Islamic Revolution, but very likely either dead from the destruction that will ensue, or under the yoke of whatever fundamentalist group moves in after, which is very likely to happen based on similar events in the region?
In what sense it's "easy" for me to say, "think hard before wishing for violence on others 'for their own good'"?
I'm sorry, but you cannot throw back my statement at me because I'm arguing for thoughtfulness.
I am saying it's easy to say " don't do anything", "be patient" or even "it could be worse" when you don't live there, just like it's easy to wish for the regime to fall.
My point was, you seem to only perceive one side of the argument as being "easy from the comfort of our homes", your view is somehow not, because you think your view is neutral. But not taking action is a decision as well. It's a decision very easy to push for when you don't leave under the Iranian regime.
Wishing for war/collapse is the "active" path, while urging caution is like the null-hypothesis (stretching the analogy a bit). You can reach the conclusion that violence is needed, after all -- I'm just urging more thoughtfulness, especially when the collapse is desired by people who don't have to live with the consequences.
Consider that the Islamic Revolution was also the consequence of a collapse.
Finally, let me reiterate I think the current regime is bad, and if there was a way to make it go away, as directed by Iranian people, without interference from other countries with vested interests not necessarily aligned with Iranians, I'd be all for it. Alas, magic solutions don't exist.
The default option should always be non-violence/non-societal-collapse.
I think the error is to assume staying with the current regime is non-violent.
Maybe some urged the population to be cautious and patient in the eighties. Look where it got them.
I am not saying a regime change is going to be peaceful, I am not saying it cannot be worse. I am saying they waited decades and it's only getting worse with the current regime. Asking them to exert caution feels sanctimonious and insensitive, this was what I was trying to convey in my initial message.
> Last time Western powers meddled, it resulted in the Islamic Revolution, after all.
There were 25 years between those two events though, so it's hard to draw a direct line. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that the Islamic Revolution would've happened even without the 1953 coup d'état and the economic growth that followed it.
So without the 1953 coup d'état you're certain there wouldn't have been an Islamic revolution because Islamic groups would never again have held any public sway and power?
That's hard to imagine. Just because it didn't happen in a vacuum doesn't meant "it would never have happened unless exactly these circumstances had existed", which is what I'm saying.
One could similarly claim that the German reunification resulted in Russia invading Ukraine, but it's obviously not a direct consequence, and over 30 years lots of things are happening, and things are dynamic, so the "if this then that" line gets weaker with each year that passes. Otherwise we end up with "Cain slaying Abel resulted in cell phones".
> So without the 1953 coup d'état you're certain there wouldn't have been an Islamic revolution because Islamic groups would never again have held any public sway and power?
No, saying something isn't "reasonable to assume" doesn't mean it cannot ever happen. It's hard to prove an hypothetical wouldn't have happened.
I meant that it's unreasonable to suppose the Islamic Revolution would have happened without first the coup (by the West) and then the continued Western support of a tyrannical dictatorship, which gave support to the Islamic revolutionaries that the West was "the devil".
Had Iran had a stable, less tyrannical government for decades, support for a Islamic revolution would have been much, much lower.
Would it have been impossible? No. Would it have been much less likely? Sure.
Could this be a false flag/sabotage by Iran itself? I don't know what the video says, but it's pretty scary, with the spooky mask moving up and down as the woman speaks in a deep voice.
Imagine if children were watching this, would it not leave a scar on them and make them less likely to support protesters when they grow up?
> They ought to embrace changes and unlock the abilities that lies in half of their population.
I would say that's the problem. A bright future for Iran is a future that does not include his dictatorship. They know if they embrace change, they will be the first to be ousted.
> Security forces have responded with a deadly crackdown to the protests, among the strongest challenges to the Islamic Republic since the 1979 revolution ended 2,500 years of monarchy.
Iran had a democratically elected government in 1953 when the US and UK overthrew their democracy, and installed the dictator/monarch, the Shaw.
The monarch wasn't installed in that there was a monarch in the Iran before 1953, and it wasn't really all that much of a democracy at the time. Its not like Iran was a well running democracy, then the US overthrew it's president and set up a monarch. I'm not defending the US's actions,just pointing out your comment seems to be implying Iran didn't have a monarch and then the US installed one. It's more like the US supported one part of the government in not undertaking necessary reforms, even though those reforms were popular, which then shifted power away from another part of the government.
The Shaw had tried to take back power that had passed to the democratically elected portion of government earlier in 1953. This was unpopular, and he was forced to flee. After the US and UK led coup removed Mosadedeq, they brought the Shaw back to Iran, and installed him as ruler. In return, the Shaw repealed the legislation that Mosaddeq had spearheaded to nationalize Iran's oil fields.
The Shaw was in exile at the time of the US and UK led coup.
You're leaving out the fact that Mosaddegh was trying to set himself up as the dictator of Iran.
In 1952, he began invoking emergency powers and arresting his opponents, and in 1953, shortly before the coup that put the Shah back in power, he dissolved the Iranian Parliament, justified by a referendum in which 99.9% of votes were in favor (probably because votes were cast in public and voters were intimidated - no fair election has an outcome like that).
That was the start of the power struggle and the CIA wasn't even involved yet. The Shah issued a royal order dismissing Mosaddegh as Prime Minister (an action legally allowed by the Iranian constitution at the time), but Mosaddegh refused to step down and arrested the commander of the Shah's Imperial Guard, who had delivered the royal order.
That's when the Shah fled to Baghdad and accepted US help. So you see, he was not in "exile" when the struggle began (in fact, he was only out of the country for a few days); he fled only after Mosaddegh arrested the commander of his Imperial Guard.
You also left out the fact that the actual coup was carried out by Iranian citizens and Iranian military forces whose leaders were loyal to the Shah.
The CIA assisted, but their role in the whole thing has been exaggerated. Some portray the CIA as an omnipotent mastermind responsible for everything that happens in the world, but usually, as in this case, they're simply taking sides in existing power struggles.
The monarchy hadn't stopped, and the Shah was still the monarch before, during and after Mosaddegh's time as Prime Minister. The Shah got more powers concentrated on him during the coup d'état, but you make it sound like the monarchy hadn't existed before 1953.
The Shah was the monarch and wasn't ousted until 79.
The 1953 coup replaced the system where a democratically elected head of government, Mosaddegh, ruled under the head of state, Shah Pahlavi, with a system where the Shah appoints the head of government.
Gotcha. You're right, but that requires even more knowledge of the event to understand, and I read "oust the Shah" as "dissolve the monarchy," which didn't happen until 79.
No, that's not correct. The king of England has the right of Consent (as far as I understand, King's consent to bills is required), along with the veto right.
That's the idea of a functional constitutional monarchy: the long-reigning monarch counterweights the short-governing government.
> As far as I understand, King Charles exists for the purposes of being a tourist attraction, and has no power.
No, the monarchy has veto power over parliament, and has secretly used the threat of it to shape British law. Apparently most new legislation is run by the ruling monarch's office to make any changes they'd like before it hits the parliament floor for debate. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...
The Shah needed the military to help him remove the head of government in 1953. He was technically at the top, but really the prime minister held more power until the coup
King Charles has little actual power, but a ton of theoretical power. If he somehow convinced the military to back him (and he would probably need all of NATO's support) he could do whatever he wanted in the UK too.
Didn't he shoot himself with a gun given to him as a gift? By a certain Fidel Castro? Who was something of a totalitarian dictator?
I mean, the leader of a democratic country having a totalitarian dictator as a dear fried doesn't prove he was plotting to destroy democracy, but it's kinda suggestive. And almost inevitably, by the time you get real proof, it's going to be too late to do anything about it.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" might be one of the most common and yet painfully misguided pillars of statecraft.
To wit: this is a natural outcome of a belief that there are Good Guys and Bad Guys because in that case "good == !!good".
But the world is much more in thrall to Interests, which have higher dimensionality than a singular axis of Goodness, and besides, very few people (and fewer states) self-identify as "evil".
Why do "we" (you) even think you have the right to meddle with other countries on the other side of the planet, despite an overwhelming evidence of so many instances of it going clusterfuck wrong?
I'm not sure I said that I think the US has that right. I referred to what happened in Iran as a "bad thing."
I am criticizing the Iranian government on its own terms for being oppressive. The US's conduct doesn't enter into it, and is used a distraction and a false equivalence.
> we'd better give these nice religious authoritarians a pass
> we
> give a pass
You are clearly implying that this is somehow your (collective) business and it is up to you to "give a pass" (also implying that the contrary is an option) to a country that is world away from you.
Imagine someone in Iran/Russia/China saying "we shouldn't give a pass to the US for all the arrests and even a murder during the Capitol riots" - how would that FEEL like? I know empathy doesn't cross western cultural borders, but stepping in someone's shoes is a simple exercise.
"We" means "the Hacker News community discussing this topic."
You don't even know that I'm American. (I am, but you had no way of knowing that when I wrote my post.)
This is a website for discussing things and having opinions. That's kind of the point.
You're the one who assumed the collective pronoun was nationally based.
I am under no obligation to turn a blind eye to anybody's bad behavior simply because they live in a different country. Nor have I said anywhere that anyone else ought to treat me differently.
If a Russian person wants to critique the US response to Jan 6th, let them. I suspect there would be facts in need of clarifying if they think it's equivalent to Iran, but they're entitled to their opinion.
I don't and I've never implied this in any of my comments, although I definitely suspected it - some cultural things really stick out, no offense.
> This is a website for discussing things and having opinions. That's kind of the point.
Yes it is, and this is me challenging you point. Don't take it the wrong way.
> You're the one who assumed the collective pronoun was nationally based.
I certainly did not, definitely not national, but rather cultural.
> I am under no obligation to turn a blind eye to anybody's bad behavior simply because they live in a different country. Nor have I said anywhere that anyone else ought to treat me differently.
Nobody is under any obligation to do anything towards anybody, obviously. I just try do deconstruct you reasoning and understand why does your whole attitude screams that this whole deal is for you (plural) to manage. No other culture does that even when people completely shit over some other countries governments. Is this just purely a linguistic thing then?
> I suspect there would be facts in need of clarifying if they think it's equivalent to Iran, but they're entitled to their opinion.
You have completely missed my point regarding stepping in someones shoes, but unfortunately I don't have much examples of other nations meddling with some western countries internal affairs tangibly enough to be representative.
You might be right that this is a cultural difference, but to me it seems like our approaches are:
Me: "Something bad is happening. We should try to stop bad things from happening and instead encourage good things to happen, even if "
You: "Something bad is happening, but because it doesn't involve me or people culturally related to me, it's none of my business."
I really don't mean this with any animus - I see why a reasonable person might take one approach or the other. And in different contexts, I might take a different approach. It's unlikely that either of us is in favor of the arbitrary detention and execution of protestors, for example, so it's a matter of what we are willing to ignore on the grounds that it's none of our business.
The things that are happening in Iran are over that line for me. I think there is a moral imperative to speak out against, and preferably to act against, actions that are bad enough to cross that line. And while the line is certainly different for different people, I think a lot of people from a lot of different cultures, including the Iranian culture itself, agree with me on this.
> No other culture does that even when people completely shit over some other countries governments. Is this just purely a linguistic thing then?
I don't think this is true. I think I could go to RT or Xinhua or the Times of India and find lots of people criticizing other countries' governments AND cultures. One of the major points that Vladimir Putin loves to make is how degenerate the West is, in his view. India is constantly dunking on Pakistan, and vice versa. Everybody criticizes everybody else.
They are doing it again in Pakistan currently for the US democracy is not important as long as the monarchy or military dictator tow the line. Western media almost silence against the killing of journalists torture, arrests of politicians assassination attempts shows the true face of western democracies. If the arrest and murders are done by powers in countries that say what US wants then there is media silence.
Someone says that part of the blame of what is happening in Iran lies with USA as they derail democracies that don't follow their agenda which leads to what we are seeing in Iran. Another guy said that USA might have made a mistake in the past but I replied that they are still doing the same stupid shit ie what is happening in Pakistan. Where a democracy that was taking root was derailed because the political party in power did not want to fight wars or allow other countries to use it soil for such ie USA. Now Pakistan is at a ledge where if the Pakistan military which is being supported by the US in removing a popular democratic leader. Hundreds of ordinary people were arrested and tortured but no noise from the west and they are moving towards a similar situation that is happening in Iran and US has its hands in it.
That is true. And then the West pushed the Shah to losen up control and become less authoritarian which enabled the Islamic Revolution.
There is a reason a lot of countries verbally lash out when the US/EU or Western NGOs accuse them of being too authoritarian. The alternative to authoritarianism is often worse.
The CIA should stop meddling in other countries. But the same goes for Western governments and NGOs. The latter is often worse than the former.
This sounds like a source of fear that is likely to motivate people to seek security and stability. I imagine it would remind people of the threat they've been told their community faces from the countries which created Stuxnet, and the weapons carried by Saddam Hussein's army, and the 1953 coup against Mossadeq.
I imagine it would motivate Iranian men to stand together to serve as protectors of the stability of their community and to tolerate the flaws of their leaders.
I imagine it would stand in the way of freedom-loving Iranians trying to create an alternate vision of Iranian civic virtue.
Victor Mair quoting a colleague said:
"In 1998 when the reformist president, Mohamad Khatami, came to power he tried to eliminate this slogan from the political scene and he suggested to replace any 'marg bar' slogan with 'zendeh baad my opponent'."
Why would he try to do this if "marg bar X " neutrally means "down with X", not "death to X". Similarly:
"Alireza is right to try to downplay the slogan — for two reasons: 1) This is an early revolutionary slogan that is quite exaggerated. 2) Not many Iranians actually subscribe to this view…The official government uses this slogan, but not many actually take it seriously."
Again, why is your colleague /so concerned to downplay the significance of this slogan/ as "exaggerated" (whatever that means — do they mean "hyperbolic") and "not taken seriously" if it merely means "down with America?"
Frankly this piece reads like pure political drivel of the type that's increasingly infecting Language Log of late, when it seems perfectly obvious that:
1) Marg bar Amrika literally means "Death to America"
2) Native Persian speakers are perfectly aware of this fact, or else why try to euphenize/euthemize the expression or downplay how "seriously" Iranians take it?
Reza Mirsajadi's effort in sophistry reminds me of David Irving's attempts to prove that "ausrotten" doesn't mean "exterminate". And indeed, given what happened to the Shah, the fact that the phrase originated in the Iranian revolution is the opposite of comforting.
Violent metaphors have a long provenance in all langauges, but in the age of terrorism and the twitter soundbite every English speaker has had to learn to avoid them /precisely because/ you can never know if such threatening language is sincere or not. I fail to see why Iranians should get a free pass and a translational obfuscation courtesy of Mirsajadi on such language. Can anyone trust Mirsajadi to translate honestly after this particular effort?
You may as well claim "go kill yourself" is an idiom that means "I don't like you". An idiom is when it's nearly impossible to infer the actual meaning based off the literal meaning of the words. A hyperbole or a metaphor does not make an idiom. Death is invoked here exactly because of what it implies. "Death to X country" is not any less metaphorical in English. A country obviously cannot die.
The problem they face, is it has become a well-known tradition in American (and Western) journalism, going at least back to the hostage crisis in 1979. If they change the translation now, people will attack them as pro-Iran/pro-regime/etc. It is possibly an even bigger problem when it comes to the use of the phrase against Israel; I wouldn’t be surprised if a change of translation in that context got labelled as anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, even antisemitic. The politically safest course is just to keep on doing what you’ve always done
I think it’s more nuanced and can mean both, depending on what the speaker wants it to mean. Like two buddies trading insults )it could be banter or of could be a genuine insult). The tone denotes the meaning.
Iran is currently in a position where nothing but violent resistance is likely to have an effect. The people in charge live safely in gated communities or abroad and have no shame, protestor deaths in the streets don't faze them even a little bit.
Why would violent resistance be effective at this point? That seems likely to result in Syria or Libya at best.
Speaking uncharitably (and ignoring vast theological differences…), the folks talking about violent overthrow seem pretty naive. ISIS was bad enough when they didn’t have the Zagros mountains to hide behind.
It would be effective because the current leaders would flee the country. ISIS was created due to a power vacuum (actively, but naively) engineered by the US civil administration in Iraq. With some luck, things will turn out differently in Iran.
Let's be careful using words like 'hijack'. Reza Pahlavi (i.e. the son of the Shah) has led one of the most consistent and coherent oppositions to the Islamic Regime for the past few decades (has dedicated his life to it), and has clearly stated his only intent is to create a transition/solidarity council to enable an actual, democratic system in Iran.
Over 85% of protestors are in favour of such a council, and 33% of them believe Reza Pahlavi should be the representative of such a council (which places him as the most popular representative by far).
The Shah regime is still widely despised in the country.
If you're suggesting that we treat the revolutionaries as representatives of the people a la Chalabi and his motley crew in 2003, be prepared for disaster.
Here's a guy who was raised as a prince. Dropped out of two universities. Then got a BSc in political science from private persian professors. Never had to work for anything, and then waited until other people started a movement and then he somehow has a claim to the movement once it started. His supporters then went on to attack anyone that suggested that should he really want to be a part of the movement he should put himself up to vote.
Not only that, but all his addresses where through representatives, never publicly decided to speak, probably because he would fail without his DC speechwriters and you sit here and tell us that he has majority support? In which universe?
It's funny how everyone keeps shouting how great democracy is, but then when it comes to actually putting themselves up for vote, they're "naaah, why would I risk not being elected".
There was massive grassroots opposition to Saddam too.
And there is also precedent of a "grassroots" revolution back in 1953 in this very same country. Sorry that I'm taking this claim with a pinch of salt.
I'm not sure why you keep insisting on equating Iran and Iraq? They are different countries, demographics, cultures, political systems, etc...with very different circumstances. The Iraqi National Congress was setup and funded by the CIA (after the invasion of Iraq by US military), with a banking elite as it's figurehead.
The coalition being built in and outside of Iran is an organic, cross-class, cross-cultural network that is the result of years of activism. Within it, you will find figures like Masih Alinejad, a world-renowned journalist and women's rights activist, and Hamed Esmaeillion, a representative for the families of PS752 (the plane that was shot down by the Islamic Regime with 170+ souls on board). To equate this to a CIA-backed coup is not well-founded.
1. Any political movement will attract people who are hungry for power-for-power’s-sake or to inflate their own ego. Naiveté about this is malpractice in the same way that US naïveté about Chalabi was malpractice.
Iranians who are naive to the point of self-deception will be as misleading as those who are willfully deceptive. Discernment without undue cynicism is necessary but hard.
From the perspective of the US/UK, Iran and Iraq are pretty culturally similar. They are strangers to us. Lets not pretend to be more anthropologically/politically knowledgeable than we are.
2. We don’t have access to reliable intelligence. It is wise to be humble about our ability to sort fact from myth from falsehood.
3. If we want this to succeed, then we want marginal (in the sense of “swing voters”) and civic-minded Iranians to switch to supporting this. Those Iranians will have “CIA-backed coup” as a historical memory so it is worth empathizing with them.
Yeah, because the US/CIA would never infiltrate countries that aren’t on board with US hegemony and start color revolutions to overthrow democratically elected leaders.
Yes, it's obvious that in a country where between your childhood and now, the currency has been divided by several thousands; your passport only allows you to travel to Venezuela and North Korea; you risk your life by not wearing a hijab; government jams signals so that you don't get the BBC or any western TV; women in prison are raped so that "they don't die as virgins and go to heaven"; etc, etc,etc... it's clear, in that situation, that if the people are fed up, it can only be as a result of a CIA operation !
[1] https://twitter.com/EdaalateAli1400/status/16243732348366684...