Do The Iranian People Support Their Government?......

[global1]

All this talk of war with Iran or Israel striking Iran or nothing is off the table - I'm concerned about the Iranian people. They are going to be the ones in the middle of any conflict. The Iranian government is making all this noise about the Straits of Hormuz and the pushing the Iran nuclear issue - but do the Iranian people support this?

Is there any chance that the Iranian people will stand up to the government?

[valerief]

1. Do people matter anymore? nt

[drokhole]

2. Uh, I think you mean "collateral damage"

That's what happens when we wave our magic wand and declare it a "war zone." It does wonders for justification, you see.

[phasma ex machina]

3. Actually, only our central bankster royalty gets to wave the wand that "we" the serfs paid for.

[global1]

4. Now Common Now - That Was A Legimate Question I Asked.....

do the Iranian people support their government?

[AndyTiedye]

5. When Has a Theocracy Ever Fallen to a Popular Uprising?

All this talk of war with Iran or Israel striking Iran or nothing is off the table - I'm concerned about the Iranian people. They are going to be the ones in the middle of any conflict. The Iranian government is making all this noise about the Straits of Hormuz and the pushing the Iran nuclear issue - but do the Iranian people support this?

It does not matter. It is a theocracy. They will obey. That is the truly terrifying thing about a theocracy,
the people will obey no matter how repressive it becomes. As we saw, the "Arab Spring" went absolutely nowhere
in Iran or Saudi Arabia. Theocracies seem to be completely immune to popular uprisings.
That is why the Koch brothers and other like-minded 1%-ers are trying to establish one here.

Is there any chance that the Iranian people will stand up to the government?

No.

[MADem]

8. Iran is not "Arab" and Egypt WAS somewhat secular before.

Egypt accommodated both a Muslim majority and Coptic Christians under Mubarak.

Now the Muslim Brotherhood is getting ready to take lead dog slot from the military; we'll see how that goes. I think it will be "not as good" as the unsatisfactory existence under Hosni.

I think Iran will shift. It will take time, but there is a critical mass forming there that the old school ulema can't quite fathom. Social media has been very helpful to the younger generations, censorship notwithstanding.

[joshcryer]

11. Once Iran finds a new Shariatmadari, it will happen.

I can't say for sure who will be this new Shariatmadari, but I think it will happen in the next decade. We live in really interesting times. The internet is causing all sorts of trouble for theocrats, autocrats, oligarchs, and dictators everywhere.

[joshcryer]

10. imo, that's not true, see my post down thread. They tried in 2009.

The protests there were what I would call the precursor to the Arab Spring (yes I know they are Persian).

[killbotfactory]

6. Some do, some don't

I don't think many would support a strike against Iran by anybody unless they were in open rebellion and needed help, just like any other other country.

[MADem]

7. They are nationalists. That doesn't mean they all love their leadership.

The Persian culture is ancient and very rich. The people of Iran know this and know that they have an incredibly rich heritage. They are quite understandably very proud of their place in world history.

If they are attacked, they would probably "rally round the flag." Remember the Iran-Iraq War? There are impossible numbers of widows and orphans as a consequence of that conflict, which went on for frigging ever and killed an unbelievable number of people.

However, no one is going to "invade" Iran. If anything does happen, it will involve a bunker busting bomb targeting nuclear facilities--not "boots on the ground" or hand-to-hand combat.

Anyone who lives near a secret underground facility would be well advised to put their house on the market and move somewhere a bit less contentious.

[joshcryer]

12. This is why the saber rattling must be stopped, Iran is in a very precarious position right now...

...I think. If an attack does happen you'll have reversed in large part the desire by Iranians to embrace democracy.

Hands off and watch what happens is the best approach, imo.

[joshcryer]

9. They tried.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Iranian_election_protests

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Iranian_university_dormitory_raids

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_the_Internet_during_2009_Iranian_election_protests

Precursor to the Arab Spring.

They'll do it again sometime.

They'll be slandered as agents of imperialism or some such nonsense.

[ronnie624]

14. They will be "slandered" as agents of imperialism

only if that becomes the obvious case.

U.S. involvement in the Middle East has always been about control of, and access to key resources. Not even one time has it been for altruistic reasons. That, by definition, is imperialism.

Don't be ashamed. Own it. An honest, critical assessment is the only way the situation in the Middle East will improve.

[joshcryer]

18. No, I think that will happen even if the US does nothing.

The powers that be in Iran will do the slandering, conspiracy theorists will buy into it. There's a reason Iran's English based news agency was created, purely as a propaganda arm of the government that uncritical western thinkers absorb and regurgitate without effort.

I never suggested or implied that the US does anything for altruistic reasons. The US has its own reasons. The current administration, for instance, is "islamist friendly," which goes against everything the US has done for the past 50+ years. It's not because the US suddenly cares about islamists, it's because the US likely feels that islamists will be marginalized over time by the reforms, and be themselves neutered by those reforms. Long term the current US policy of vocally advocating democratization in the middle east is the least islamist friendly process you can take. And that, my friend, is cultural imperialism.

But to embrace western media, technology, and social networks does not make you an "agent of imperialism." For me the question is whether a peoples are self-determined, if that is qualified, then it doesn't matter if there are outside, or even internal forces trying to manipulate the outcome. As I said in my OWS thread (in my journal), you cannot chastise a group or society based upon the actions of a few. Imperialism is just as irrelevant toward a societies self-determination as a brick being thrown at a cop is irrelevant toward the continuation of OWS. Yet we do have people, even today, bashing OWS over such trivialities, just as people bash the self-determination of Syrian protesters (they're armed thugs, heard it here on DU!). And just as they will likely bash the self-determination of Iranians.

Note: I do think imperialism can be an issue, but when it is it will be extremely obvious, invasion, and the like. Otherwise you cannot change an entire society based upon imperialist tactics. It has to come from within. One need only look at the failure of imperialism to take hold in Latin America, and indeed, the failure of imperialism to maintain hold in the Middle East. It's a failing strategy, going all the way back to Rome.

[ronnie624]

23. I don't know about all that,

but I do know the U.S. has been waging war, both covert and overt, against numerous countries in the Middle East for decades, and it continues to this day. Currently, Iran is its most prominent target. I don't care what the U.S. rationalizations are, coercion and violence against other countries is a violation of international law.

[Posteritatis]

17. I wish I didn't remember the reaction here to those protests. (nt)

[joshcryer]

20. I remember.

One of the many low points I've experienced in my time here.

[ronnie624]

24. I don't believe you are remembering them accurately. n/t

[Selatius]

13. In 2009, the people of Iran rebelled against a plainly rigged election. Many protesters were killed.

The people of Iran haven't forgotten what happened. They likely don't support the oligarchy, and they know that they are no longer a free people, but at the same time, if Iran is attacked from the outside by any country, the people of Iran would likely rally around the flag against the foreign aggressor.

As far as Iran threatening to shut down the Hormuz, it's just empty rhetoric from a regime trying to deflect domestic criticism away from its anti-democratic ways towards a common enemy, be that the United States or Israel. Also, Iran's military likely would only pull such a move after Iran is being attacked by Israel or the United States or some combination thereof.

[backscatter712]

15. Don't think it's just the U.S. rattling their saber at Iran...

It's vice-versa.

And for the same reasons.

The government uses the specter of That Other Eeeeeeevil Nation to scare the shit out of people, make them more submissive to authority, and drive patriotic hysteria.,

War is profitable, and keeps the psychopathic in power.

The U.S. gov't rattles its sabers at Iran to try to maintain power and milk us for our military-industrial complex, and Iran's powerful do the same shit to their people.

[Fumesucker]

19. The difference being there are Iranians old enough to remember the CIA instigated coup..

The coup against the democratically elected Mossadegh government in 1953..

The coup that led more or less directly to Iran being a theocracy today.

[joshcryer]

21. To be sure, the theocracy benefited greatly from it, and the Iranian's know that, too.

Latin America shows us the way, as practically every CIA instigated coup in Latin America has had its results reversed.

To act as if the Iranian's will embrace their CIA produced hegemony is to ignore history, imo.

[backscatter712]

22. Yep, and the current Iranian government is milking that for all it's worth.

Which government's the angel and which is the devil? They're both devils. I won't forget how many people the Iranian theocracy and the Basiji murdered to put down the Green Revolution....

[BrentWil]

16. Unknown...

Clearly there was some angst in Tehran among the professional class concerning the re-election of Ahmadinejad. However, it is unclear if that concern spreads among the population as a whole, which outside of Tehran and other large cities tends to be more conservative and supportive of the regime. Moreover, Ahmadinejad holds a largely meaningless office, besides for very limited domestic power. Very few of the protesters questioned the overall power structure in the society. The Supreme Leader, currently Khamenei, really holds the power in Iran. If he has any organization that is his check, it comes from the even more conservative Revolutionary Guard, not the protesters. In other words, the real sign for me would be pushing for a new power structure, not protesting a largely unimportant office.