Revolution... Was it worth it?

[Ming]

Back in 1979, this revolution replaced the Dictator, Shah Pahlavi, with Islamism and Khomeini in Iran. The Shah was a nasty dictator at best, he was brutal and his "state police" were feared by all. People got dragged out of their homes in the middle of the night, many times for no reason. The US supported this pond scum... He was replaced by a "religious" leader.
Many of the youth of the nation played an important role in this revolution.

Now here it is 30 years later, are the people really any better off? They still haven't seen the improvements in their lives that were promised to them. Poverty levels are as bad as they were under the Shah. Woman's rights have taken 10 steps backwards...

I was reading a newspaper piece and many Iranians who participated in the revolution 30 years ago, now wish they hadn't. Many admitted that even though the Shah was bad, it is now far worse in the country. The majority of people interviewed even go as far as to state that they wish they hadn't been involved, and it was a bad thing for Iran. And of course, none of their names were printed because of fear of the secret police.

Was it worth it... even to get rid of a brutal dictator... many don't seem to think so.

[Solomwi]

Worth. Every. Penny.

[Heresson]

Have You read Persepolis comic book? It shares this view I guess.
And the nicest thing showed there was that, before the revolution, someone's burned a cinema, with people inside... The shah regime claimed that it were the fundamentalists, but people, of course, believed these was shah's fault.. but these were fundies later closing the cinemas... A noteworthy detail. I don't know if it's true, but this, and other details in this book, show that the shah was blamed for everything, even for the dids of his enemies... or the book is showing that some people think like so nowdays.

I believe many people fought against the shah during the revolution for religious ideas, for shari'a etc. but, also, many fought for their democratic or commie views. The revolution was hi-jacked completely by religious fundies.
but in fact it brings Irani people closer to USA. Not the fundies, but I remember stats, although that was a long time ago, showing great admiration of USA by Irani youth.

A polish politician said once that "the shortest way to the de-christianisation of Poland leads through ZChN, which was an ultra-catholic party at this time.
The same may be true about Irani clerics. Next revolution could be aimed against them.

But I have no real knowledge on Irani situation.

[Kitschum]

Iran's economy experienced a crash that coincided with the revolution. The crash might not have been the direct fault of the revolutionary government, but the slow recovery from it almost certainly was a side effect of putting myopic, backwards looking religious students in charge of every part of society.

But Iran at present has huge, inescapable problems whether or nto they have ayatollahs or shahs at the top. Two of their biggest neighbors are the dysfunctional US 'projects' of Iraq and Afghanistan, the opium/heroin problem is out of control and the country is very corrupt. There are unruly Kurds in the west and dirty Afghan refugees coming in from the east.

Of course Iranians in exile generally despise the regime as anyone of them can tell you. Nobody really seems to know what the clerics' actual base of support is. It reminds one of communist eastern Europe before the wall fell down.

[Zevico]

Reza Zarabi has some old blog posts he wrote for/at the Jerusalem Post back in around 2007. They are passionately writtten and provide an interesting viewpoint on Iranian foreign relations and the regime. Even though they're old, they're still worth a look in my opinion: http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/persianabyss/

The most interesting assertion he makes is that Iran is at once an 'ideological' regime, yet also one that is quite willing to do away with what appears to be a fundamental plank of its ideology: the view of Israel as an irredeemably evil, 'unnatural' entity. He writes reasonably, but doesn't go too deeply in the way of evidence, which is strange considering it's the backbone of his call to give Iran a 'Grand Bargain' in exchange for normalisation. Here's what he has to say here (http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/persiana...iran_relations)

"The fact is that the "Palestine problem" is probably one of the least complex issues that America would be able to solve with Iran, if the former was offered a Grand Bargain. As a nation, Iran, its government, its people, and its future is wholly disaffected from whatever happens in the Levant- it has always used the impasse in the Peace Process for political fodder in garnering favor from the disenfranchised masses in the Arab world, most of which live under incompetent, archaic despots who are viewed by their people as nothing but lifeless American puppets who only are able to survive by reason of mankind's thirst for oil. In a future Grand Bargain, Hamas would be instantaneously sacrificed, never to receive a dime from Iran. Hizbullah, in turn, would be totally disarmed by Iran and be wholly infused into Lebanese politics - all of which was previously offered by the Islamic Republic in 2003."

Questions--

(1) Did Iran make an offer in 2003? To whom?
(2) What were its terms?
(3) Was it bona fide? What were its intentions in making the offer?
(4) If so, how should that affect US-Iran/EU-Iran relations now?

[SlowwHand]

There's no point in involving ourselves to any great degree in the Middle East. They've been the way they are for quite some time. Unless it's a preemptive strike, we should just stay out of it.

[Riesstiu IV]

You could ask the same question about the 5,000 years of civilization in the Middle East.

While the Pahlavi dynasty was dictatorial, how exactly does the last shah's reign significantly differ from the past 2,500 years of absolute rule by Persian monarchs? The shah was simply carrying on that tradition of tyranny. The only thing that made him newsworthy is that he was swept away like dozens of other kings and queens by post-World War II revolutionary movements.

Problems in the middle east lie with a culture and mindsets that conflict with what Western's perceive to be modern civilization, not with the systems of government. A Middle Eastern ruler could a communist, fascist, capitalist, pro-democracy but in the end, he always be a terrible and corrupt ruler. I can think of many bad leaders but I'm hard-pressed to list 10 good ones.

Even a supposedly progressive region like Dubai is a corrupt, kleptocratic ****hole that has managed to create a thin, shallow veneer of respectability thanks to massive oil profits and disneyeque construction projects.

In the end, I only wish we stayed out of that mess.

[Sirotnikov]

(1) Did Iran make an offer in 2003? To whom?
(2) What were its terms?
(3) Was it bona fide? What were its intentions in making the offer?
(4) If so, how should that affect US-Iran/EU-Iran relations now?

Apparently there was such an offer made to the USA, by the Iranian government in 2003.
It isn't exactly clear what went down, but the USA didn't buy it / didn't take it.

Iran returned to profiting from being the nasty guy again.


Regarding the question - I think that the Iranian revolution was a huge catalyst of alot of bad things that followed. Humeini's views and teachings affected a whole generation of Islamic jihadists, who suddenly decided to turn against the west, instead of their previous focus - despotic atheistic arab governments.

Theoretically, there would have been much less radicalism in Islamic groups in Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, and even places like Aghanistan and Bosnia.

Lebanon would still be a mess, but maybe less so with only Syria meddling there, and not Iran as well.

Without the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq might have gained a better status and maybe would have chosen a different path when the USSR fell down - perhaps aligning itself with the west - like Egypt and Jordan did. Iran could have become a very strong nation, with a more benevolent leader replacing the Shah, and things turning out well, like south korea.

[Serb]

Was it worth it... even to get rid of a brutal dictator... many don't seem to think so.

A better question is:

Was American agression against an independent state of Iraq in 2003... even to get rid of a brutal dictator (read: to take control over Iraqis oil fields) worth it?

[Kuciwalker]

We already know the answer to that was "obviously not".

[Riesstiu IV]

A better question is:

Was American agression against an independent state of Iraq in 2003... even to get rid of a brutal dictator (read: to take control under Iraqis oil fields) worth it?

Yeah cuz we get cheap oil.

[St Jon]

Yeah cuz we get cheap oil.

I think it will take a very long time to turn a profit on that one! Britain should have told 'born again christian fundamentalist bigot' Bush to sod off and stuck to selling Saddam guns.

Biggest thing is that he was about the best friend the West had in the Middle East as he was 100% anti-fundamentalist and enjoyed killing clerics in large numbers.

[KrazyHorse]

We already know the answer to that was "obviously not".

I remember that I couldn't even watch American news broadcasts during the buildup to (and initial phases of) the Iraq war. It was pathetic how easily the media rolled over in this country.

[MOBIUS]

I thought this was a thread about Dale's new forum falling flat on its face...

Is the bible thread still the most popular one? Last time I visited I was bored to tears so much that I can't even be bothered lurking...

[Ming]

True enough... it seems like the only people posting are staff. There are a few others posting, but it's the staff that's trying to make the place look active. I guess it's not as easy as they thought