7 ms·

Do you have a suggestion for a plausible alternative that can stop the IR government from continuing to murder thousands of its own people?

by kasrak 8mo ago

delusional 8mo ago
I can accept that I don't have any better alternative while while not exactly being consoled.
pineaux 8mo ago
It's not about the Iranian government killing its own. Then we should have seen a lot more interventions. It's about oil and regional power. The US wants that the region is in hands of their allies and Iran threatens this.
- tgma 8mo ago
  Everything is about self-interest. That does not mean there is no such thing as aligning interests.
JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
Yes. Iran’s territory includes ethnic minorities that could be joined to its neighbors, neighbours who are less brutal. Starting there might be a good first step since we’re now firmly back into redrawing borders with force.
- tgma 8mo ago
  Really? You are advocating regional/civil war, aligned with ethnic ties at that, instead of surgical regime change by the US? How would a regime change of the Mullahs equate to "redrawing borders?" No such thing happened when they were installed and won't need to happen now. Seems like that's what you are suggesting.
  - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
    > How would a regime change of the Mullahs equate to "redrawing borders?" It doesn’t. Maybe there is a Delcy Rodriguez in the IRGC. I’m doubtful. If there isn’t, we have the option of creating a power vacuum or quarantining the problem. I’m arguing for the latter. The Azeri-majority northnorth to Azerbaijan; the Turkic areas to its west to Turkey [1]. Balochistani southeast to Pakistan. Arab southwest to Iraq. Hell, if you’re ambitious, find a way to give Bandar Abbas to the Emiratis and secure the Strait of Hormuz. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicities_in_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicities_in_Iran
    - tgma 8mo ago
      There's a widely popular Shah who is ready to take the helm, at least for a "transition" and that's what the majority seems to want in the protests. I'm certain given enough enticement from United States, we can easily find someone who is able and willing from the army or even an IRGC figure who would eagerly jump on the opportunity. Plus, you somehow think the Iranians would just roll with your whiteboard map? Even among the minorities--let alone the majority--you specified, it is not clear that separation is the predominant preference. Many of those plans may look attractive today to some simply because Islamic Republic has mismanaged the economy, not because there is no national bond. To boot, why would United States prefer to hand over such important region to arguably as bad or worse governing bodies like Pakistan, Taliban, or Iraq, and questionable partners like Turkey[1], rather than own Iran by installing its own preferred partner as an ally[1]? Are you delusional? [1]: I won't be surprised if regime change will be coming for Erdogan not too far from now, after Iran is done. [2]: If US really wants to shit on the region like that, there are various cards they could have played much easier: unleash groups like MEK/Kurds and start a civil war. So far, it does appear Israel/US behavior, like the way they conducted the 12 day war, is to keep Iran intact and does not mess with the balance of power in the region as much as possible.
      - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
        > widely popular Shah This is strongly contested. > we can easily find someone who is able and willing from the army or even an IRGC figure who would eagerly jump on the opportunity This is not the history of nation building. > Even among the minorities--let alone the majority--you specified, it is not clear that separation is the predominant preference They have insurgencies for a reason. Many of these groups were also promised some level of self governance, promises which have been trotted back. > why would United States prefer to hand over such important region to arguably as bad or worse governing bodies like Pakistan, Taliban, or Iraq, and questionable partners like Turkey Never said Taliban. We have influence over Iraq. And even Pakistan isn’t really fucking with American interests that much, and giving them Balochistan might help them with their anti-terror mission. (It would also piss off India. So maybe skip that, too.) > to keep Iran intact and does not mess with the balance of power in the region as much as possible I’m not suggesting this is currently U.S. strategy. I’m saying there are advantages to it over trying to do the Shah again. Namely, it shatters a regional problem more evenly and protects choke points around the Caspian and Strait of Hormuz.

Do you have a suggestion for a plausible alternative that can stop the IR government from continuing to murder thousands of its own people?

by kasrak 8mo ago

Do you have a suggestion for a plausible alternative that can stop the IR government from continuing to murder thousands of its own people?

delusional 8mo ago

I can accept that I don't have any better alternative while while not exactly being consoled.

pineaux 8mo ago

It's not about the Iranian government killing its own. Then we should have seen a lot more interventions. It's about oil and regional power. The US wants that the region is in hands of their allies and Iran threatens this.

tgma 8mo ago
Everything is about self-interest. That does not mean there is no such thing as aligning interests.

JumpCrisscross 8mo ago

Yes. Iran’s territory includes ethnic minorities that could be joined to its neighbors, neighbours who are less brutal. Starting there might be a good first step since we’re now firmly back into redrawing borders with force.

tgma 8mo ago
Really? You are advocating regional/civil war, aligned with ethnic ties at that, instead of surgical regime change by the US? How would a regime change of the Mullahs equate to "redrawing borders?" No such thing happened when they were installed and won't need to happen now. Seems like that's what you are suggesting.
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
  > How would a regime change of the Mullahs equate to "redrawing borders?" It doesn’t. Maybe there is a Delcy Rodriguez in the IRGC. I’m doubtful. If there isn’t, we have the option of creating a power vacuum or quarantining the problem. I’m arguing for the latter. The Azeri-majority northnorth to Azerbaijan; the Turkic areas to its west to Turkey [1]. Balochistani southeast to Pakistan. Arab southwest to Iraq. Hell, if you’re ambitious, find a way to give Bandar Abbas to the Emiratis and secure the Strait of Hormuz. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicities_in_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicities_in_Iran
  - tgma 8mo ago
    There's a widely popular Shah who is ready to take the helm, at least for a "transition" and that's what the majority seems to want in the protests. I'm certain given enough enticement from United States, we can easily find someone who is able and willing from the army or even an IRGC figure who would eagerly jump on the opportunity. Plus, you somehow think the Iranians would just roll with your whiteboard map? Even among the minorities--let alone the majority--you specified, it is not clear that separation is the predominant preference. Many of those plans may look attractive today to some simply because Islamic Republic has mismanaged the economy, not because there is no national bond. To boot, why would United States prefer to hand over such important region to arguably as bad or worse governing bodies like Pakistan, Taliban, or Iraq, and questionable partners like Turkey[1], rather than own Iran by installing its own preferred partner as an ally[1]? Are you delusional? [1]: I won't be surprised if regime change will be coming for Erdogan not too far from now, after Iran is done. [2]: If US really wants to shit on the region like that, there are various cards they could have played much easier: unleash groups like MEK/Kurds and start a civil war. So far, it does appear Israel/US behavior, like the way they conducted the 12 day war, is to keep Iran intact and does not mess with the balance of power in the region as much as possible.
    - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
      > widely popular Shah This is strongly contested. > we can easily find someone who is able and willing from the army or even an IRGC figure who would eagerly jump on the opportunity This is not the history of nation building. > Even among the minorities--let alone the majority--you specified, it is not clear that separation is the predominant preference They have insurgencies for a reason. Many of these groups were also promised some level of self governance, promises which have been trotted back. > why would United States prefer to hand over such important region to arguably as bad or worse governing bodies like Pakistan, Taliban, or Iraq, and questionable partners like Turkey Never said Taliban. We have influence over Iraq. And even Pakistan isn’t really fucking with American interests that much, and giving them Balochistan might help them with their anti-terror mission. (It would also piss off India. So maybe skip that, too.) > to keep Iran intact and does not mess with the balance of power in the region as much as possible I’m not suggesting this is currently U.S. strategy. I’m saying there are advantages to it over trying to do the Shah again. Namely, it shatters a regional problem more evenly and protects choke points around the Caspian and Strait of Hormuz.