I don’t understand the need to contextualise it really. Iran is undemocratic, and so is SA.
Except that however undemocratic you might feel Iran is it is still a tad more democratic than western-backed Saudi Arabia.
There are a multitude of candidates in their elections, thousands I believe, and a multitude of political parties.
The US would much prefer if there were no political parties, candidates, and general elections, just like in Saudi Arabia.
A lack of democracy is obviously not a problem for the western powers. And yet the issue always gets dragged up.
Which is the reason to contextualise it.
Iran is an abhorrent terrorist state that is arming extremist militias and stoking proxy wars all over the region and has been doing for decades<br /><br />
The USA has been doing that globally, for a lot longer. And with far more devastating consequences.
It knows it’s own people would rather it had a completely different set of priorities to this, to say the least, but as it’s a brutal dictatorship it ruthlessly suppresses any hint of dissent
Democratic, my arse!
I agree, but it's very important to separate the people of a country, from the regime. There are many Iranians who would love nothing more than an end to the current regime, but at the same time, do not want Iran to become yet another puppet state of the West. Understandable. And we in the UK aren't exactly giving them much hope by setting a good example right now.
Iran has lots of potential internal strife too.
This is something that is often very underplayed in the West quite apart from the 'Religious conservatives Vs modernisers" tensions that exploded last year over the murder of Mahsa Amini there are serious ethnic tensions as well.
Only 51% of Iran is 'Persian' the rest are Arabs, Balochs, Yazidis etc, many of who are Sunni Muslims and who are repressed to varying degrees by the Tehran regime and as well as managing Iran's disruption operations around the region Soleimani was a major player in the security apparatus carrying out this repression.
If the US had done this it would have been a drone or air strike, If it was Mossad it would have been are targeted assassination at a prominent figure in the crowd, it's not that they'd be above a bombing of this nature but the juice would have to worth the squeeze and there so far seems to have been no such person present that would warrant such a risky operation.
My money is firmly on one of the ethnic groups who've been on the receiving end of Soleimani over the years, the methodology fits, they have plenty of motive and any former or current IS fighters in their ranks would have the skills and resources to carry it out.
Obviously, it's 100% in Iran's interest to blame the US and/or Israel to avoid inflaming internal tensions so I'd be stunned if they ever publicly acknowledge that it was a domestic faction that carried this out.
Except that however undemocratic you might feel Iran is it is still a tad more democratic than western-backed Saudi Arabia.
On that same website; Freedom House, they score SA higher (freer) than Iran, so no, it isn't. But again, neither country needs comparing with the other just becasue one is backed by western states and the other isn't and had a revolution. Both countries are undemocratic and their citizens not free.
You’re aware that it’s possible to hold the view that both the Iranian and Saudi regimes are abhorrent, right?
Both countries are undemocratic and their citizens not free.
Exactly, so democracy is not the issue behind western opposition to the regime in Tehran. Sorted! 😊
Hatter knocks the nail on the head imo. It obviously wasn't Israel or the US behind the double blast. Most likely to be Isis I would have thought.
On a side note, when I'm talking Iranian internal ethnic groups being responsible I'm strictly only talking about the strike on the Soleimani memorial.
The assassination of the senior Hamas leader in Lebanon was 100% Israel.
A couple of days ago an airstrike killed a Hamas leader in Beirut.
A couple of Russian secret service operatives enter the UK and murder a Russian dissident. UK, tabloids, government up in arms.
X country fires a missile into another sovereign country's capital city that it's not actually at war with, and nobody gives a hoot.
Perhaps thats where Russia went wrong. They should have used an airstrike on the dissident, instead of trying to poison him.
IsraelUSA fires a missile into a sovereign country and nobody gives a hoot.
For balance.😉
Obama, the President often held in high regard has the dubious honour of ordering more extra-judicial killings and operations on foreign sovereign nations soil but yet he is oft cited as a good president.
Interesting flexible morality measurement system people have I guess. Geopolitics is a funny old game.
The assassination of the senior Hamas leader in Lebanon was 100% Israel.
Yup. And in an area under the control of Hezbollah. Which is why it is probably Netanyahu trying to provoke Hezbollah into launching a serious assault on Israel, rather than the current daily exchanges.
Netanyahu and his ilk will never pass up an excuse to keep themselves in power by making sure this conflict will go on as long as possible, whether it provokes Iran into carrying out a direct strike I doubt it, but they will retaliate by using a proxy of some sort.
X country fires a missile into another sovereign country’s capital city that it’s not actually at war with, and nobody gives a hoot.
It's a digression, but you could also cite the USA's 9-year campaign of dropping bombs and landmines into Laos; an atrocity that still kills innocent people, half of them children, to this day.
Over 20,000 innocent people dead. And barely a whisper in western media.
Iran has lots of potential internal strife too.
It has a large well educated young population who would like to have a more modern, open country. It also has an old theocratic elite who would like to see the opposite.
Its this internal tension rather than external forces that are probably the biggest issues facing Iran
Good post.
I've spent a bit of time with a few Iranians recently whilst I've been in the region & most of them seem quite happy to talk quite openly with regards to how they would like to see their country. Unsurprisingly they are quite like us, they want a decent house to live in, they want a good education for their children, good healthcare, good employment opportunities etc etc. They do't care that much about what is going on in the UK or elsewhere as they have enough to deal with ensuring they get the best lives they can under the current ruling classes. They know they have little chance of changing their government or the direction their government is heading. They really don't like the restrictions their passport offers or western sanctions. Their country is beautiful and they like showing it off. The Iranians I've recently met have been lovely, very generous, intelligent & well informed.
The latest slaughter just creates more problems and division, it certainly doesn't help ordinary Iranians. I hope that one day Iranians will get the country that ordinary Iranians appear to want. That's what we should all be hoping for. I'm not sure any outside interference would be constructive but at the same time it's hard to know what can be done.
Edit - to those that keep adding that one side is worse than the other & vice versa etc. please stop, as it adds little to the conversation. The world really needs less armchair generals.
My memory's a bit rusty on all this but I seem to remember it was the West who led the coup against the democratically elected Mossadeq who proposed nationalising Iranian oil. The Pahlavis were put in place and the people were told 'BP' stood for 'Benzini Pars'. The Pahalvi's secret police were everywhere and I remember an Iranian refugee in Stoke Newington having to have metal grills put over the windows after they were shot at. They may have allowed bikinis but not an exemplary regime.
that it’s not actually at war with, and nobody gives a hoot.
It is one of the privileges of being President of the United States of America....... you don't have to worry about international law!
For me one of the best example of how US presidents use their unchallenged power for personal advantages is Bill Clinton's unprovoked attack on Afghanistan in August 1998.
On the 17th of August 1998 the FBI concluded after taking a blood sample from Bill Clinton that the semen on a blue dress owned by Monica Lewinsky was his.
https://www.famous-trials.com/clinton/889-lewinskydress
This was obviously hugely embarrassing for the US president as not only was Monica Lewinsky not his wife but it meant that he had publicly lied under oath.
It obviously risked bringing about his downfall so he took immediate action and ordered a cruise missile strike on Afghanistan. People needed to die to deflect attention away from the embarrassment of his semen stains on a blue dress.
He survived so you could arguably claim that it worked. And this was long before 9/11 btw.
http://edition.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.02/
They may have allowed bikinis but not an exemplary regime.
Aye, but the west has a habit of backing individuals as change agents with a very short sighted view for expediency and convenience for it to rather unsurprisingly blow up ('scuse pun) further down the line.
Some societies are culturally more complex than ours and our idea of what's right may not work, and we really need to grasp that.
But not before the 2 al qaeda embassy bombings that killed 220 on the 7 th of August 1998?
Why do you keep doing this? It has nothing to do with Iran….. Go and start a thread on the subject if it’s so important to you & you want to discuss it.
This. But do check all the relevant facts first, or you'll end up looking like a poor mans jivehoney
But not before the 2 al qaeda embassy bombings that killed 220 on the 7 th of August 1998?
Why do you keep doing this? It has nothing to do with Iran….. Go and start a thread on the subject if it’s so important to you & you want to discuss it.
Eh? Who said anything about it being "so important"? Have a look at the direction the thread went. President Obama came up and the issue of "flexible morality".
Just ignore the point if you think it is irrelevant.
I assume that the diversion to personal attacks is an attempt to put pressure on the mods to close the thread. Just make your point and don't worry too much about attacking other people 💡
Anyway Isis has claimed responsibility for the double blast in Iran. Which is no great surprise imo.
I assume that the diversion to personal attacks is an attempt to put pressure on the mods to close the thread. Just make your point and don’t worry too much about attacking other people
Pointing out the obvious error in the timeline you were claiming to support your tangent is not a personal attack.
The extremist group called the attack a “dual martyrdom operation,” and described how two militants approached a ceremony at the tomb of General Suleimani and detonated explosive belts strapped to their bodies “near the grave of the hypocrite leader.”
Not the first time IS have targeted Iran, having a pop at the 'Apostate' Shi'ites. ****ing tragic and barbaric.
With Islamic State claiming responsibility for this tragic event I believe that the Iranian government now has an additional excuse to introduce more restrictions on its own population.
I really feel for the Iranian people, what a mess they find themselves in.....
Pointing out the obvious error in the timeline you were claiming to support your tangent is not a personal attack.
That is clearly not what I was referring to.
The Qaeda attacks were obviously used as an excuse to justify the cruise missile strike on Afghanistan, which occurred two weeks later and happened to coincide with deeply embarrassing headlines concerning Bill Clinton's sexual escapades and seriously risked his presidency. You can decide for yourself what was foremost on his mind.
Getting back to Iran I suspect that Isis taking responsibility for the attack which killed dozens will only be a boost for the Iranian government in terms of how it is perceived in the region. I don't think Isis has many friends.
The Qaeda attacks were obviously used as an excuse to justify the cruise missile strike on Afghanistan, which occurred two weeks later and happened to coincide with deeply embarrassing headlines concerning Bill Clinton’s sexual escapades and seriously risked his presidency. You can decide for yourself what was foremost on his mind.
yeah alright mate
I don’t think Isis has many friends.
Sadly in the marketplace of Religious headbangers there's always a commercial incentive to be the most extreme, the most strident and the most 'pure' so I suspect ISIS will always have already supply of donations and recruits.
And if they ever mellow or are brought to the negoctiating table we'll immediately see 'Real ISIS' or 'Continuity ISIS' spring up to capture that end of the market.
Undoubtedly hatter, but Iran being seen as a bulwark against Isis is likely to enhance its reputation in the region, not damage it, no?
I can't see Isis carrying out a terrorist act killing dozens in Iran helping their cause in any way. Right now with hundreds dying every day in Gaza the whole of the Middle East sees Israel and her backers as the enemy. The only regional government giving any vague sort of practical support to opposition to Israel is Iran, imo targeting Iran is unlikely to increase support for Isis, especially as Palestinians are Sunni.
sorry to pump up another politics thread but
its all kicking off in Iran again https://bsky.app/profile/mobinkarami.bsky.social/post/3mbmphpr3o22r
And i reckon trump will be keen to get the bombers out again
As I'm reading this forum, posting a link to another platform (be it ****ter or bluesky) to which I have no access is not helpful. Maybe a clue as to what you're trying to refer to?
this is what i was referring to in Iran
it wont be just USA that gets involved either, Israel will be very keen to get in there, Khomeini's jet for Moscow will be on standby.
Pentagon Pizza Index increased massively overnight. Something's afoot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_pizza_theory
I don't find it surprising if the next "regime change" is Iran considering Iran is the last thorn in the Middle East. Internally, Iran has a lot of problems (5 large families controlling) in their admin. i.e. some with close tie to the power base are better off/better equipped than the others. I also foresee that any action taken against Iran will come from Israel as they have people on the ground to gather intelligence and information.
Protests still happening
https://bsky.app/profile/noelreports.com/post/3mbrovlf7zc24
Still a long way to go before it topples but the regime are obviously worried
https://bsky.app/profile/chadbourn.bsky.social/post/3mbrtb7toe22i
fascinating interview here
https://www.radiofarda.com/a/michael-rubin-and-iran-anti-government-landscape/33641538.html
who knew Michael Jackson stopped the last Iranian uprising!?
(Google translate is your friend)
I know it might be funny but try not to use too many gifs too often, coz you are going to spoil the thread.
I think a better phrase is "Iran is the last standing opposing nation in the middle east ..." (thorn in the side?)
(note: I love gif but I might get ban using them. LOL!)
I think a better phrase is "Iran is the last standing opposing nation in the middle east ..." (thorn in the side?)
you might think it is better but it's pretty meaningless - opposing who, who is everyone else fully onboard with ?
It's also an attempt to paint the IRGC with more legitimacy than they deserve
