Tweet
Originally posted by GePap
The people of Iran can do as they please- the issue is US policy, not Iranian popular actions.
LOTM - i took issue with the use of the word counterrevolutionary. No, not every issue is about US policy. But thanks for revealing something of the outlook that some bring to discussing US policy. And one neednt be a manichean to consider that calling a revolution in Iran a counterrevolution reveals a certain view about the desirability of said revolution.
I seriously doubt thought at all that a revolt is on the way simply because people are unhappy- if that was all that was needed, revolt would be much more widespread, and regimes throughout the world would have fallen long ago, you know, like Egypt.
Unemployment is enough to bring down a parlimetary or democratic government, not an authoritarian one.
LOTM - first, theres been some ferment lately in Egypt. I wouldnt bet the farm on Hosni being able to pass the throne to his son. Secondly Ive seen evidence of ferment in Iran. In addition to items in the media, ive heard things from people I know whove been to Iran. Im afraid I dont know anyone whos been to Egypt lately, so i cant really compare. I think there are two differences - in Egypt the ferment in the 80s was led by radical Islamists, and thats caused a large segment of the population, and all of the elite and security services to rally to the regime. Not the case in Iran. Also in Egypt the regime tends to divert anger against ISrael (even when they are quietly working with Israel) While this has worked for the regime in the past, my sense is that this is of lessening value - Iranians are not concerned directly with Israel as Egyptians are, but were hostile to Israel for its support of the late Shah. As time passes and the late Shah becomes less central to Iranian politics, this changes.
The people of Iran can do as they please- the issue is US policy, not Iranian popular actions.
LOTM - i took issue with the use of the word counterrevolutionary. No, not every issue is about US policy. But thanks for revealing something of the outlook that some bring to discussing US policy. And one neednt be a manichean to consider that calling a revolution in Iran a counterrevolution reveals a certain view about the desirability of said revolution.
I seriously doubt thought at all that a revolt is on the way simply because people are unhappy- if that was all that was needed, revolt would be much more widespread, and regimes throughout the world would have fallen long ago, you know, like Egypt.
Unemployment is enough to bring down a parlimetary or democratic government, not an authoritarian one.
LOTM - first, theres been some ferment lately in Egypt. I wouldnt bet the farm on Hosni being able to pass the throne to his son. Secondly Ive seen evidence of ferment in Iran. In addition to items in the media, ive heard things from people I know whove been to Iran. Im afraid I dont know anyone whos been to Egypt lately, so i cant really compare. I think there are two differences - in Egypt the ferment in the 80s was led by radical Islamists, and thats caused a large segment of the population, and all of the elite and security services to rally to the regime. Not the case in Iran. Also in Egypt the regime tends to divert anger against ISrael (even when they are quietly working with Israel) While this has worked for the regime in the past, my sense is that this is of lessening value - Iranians are not concerned directly with Israel as Egyptians are, but were hostile to Israel for its support of the late Shah. As time passes and the late Shah becomes less central to Iranian politics, this changes.
but i'm not your enemy - i hope to save you 
Comment