What's new
New posts

What's happening in Iran

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The ongoing protests in Iran have escalated due to severe inflation, currently at approximately 40%, and other socio-economic issues such as pollution and lack of economic growth. Merchants initially began closing shops in response to these challenges, leading to widespread dissatisfaction with the regime. Experts like Karim Sadjadpour from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace highlight the absence of a clear successor to the Ayatollah, with demonstrators calling for Reza Pahlavi, the former Shah's son. The potential for U.S. intervention raises concerns about foreign influence and its impact on the protests.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Iranian socio-political history
  • Knowledge of economic indicators, specifically inflation rates
  • Familiarity with the role of external influences in domestic protests
  • Awareness of key figures in Iranian politics, such as the Ayatollah and Reza Pahlavi
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the historical context of the 1979 Iranian Revolution
  • Examine the effects of inflation on social unrest in various countries
  • Investigate the role of social media and communication blackouts in modern protests
  • Analyze the implications of U.S. foreign policy on Middle Eastern stability
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for political analysts, historians, and anyone interested in Middle Eastern affairs, particularly those studying the dynamics of protests and regime change in Iran.

It started with merchants closing their shops, as many were finding it difficult to be profitable.
The loss comes about due to the inflation that Iran has been experiencing lately, around 40 %.

Other aggravating conditions such as pollution, degradation of ground water reserves, lacklustre economic growth hindering opportunities, and others, led to the population being not being anywhere near the top of the happiness scale. The regime did not conduct itself towards any sustainability, and the dissatisfied populace joined in the protest.

What comes out of this is anyone's guess. It might be the big one. The student led revolt against the Shah resulted in the Ayatollah, and a religious dominant governance, something they were not wishing for.

Trump meddles, and the whole mood can swing on a dime against the foreign interference.
 
Hopefully we get some more insights to what is actually going, as communications have been shuttered by the regime.
And of course, implications for the region, the Arab states, and as far as Russia, China.
And at the UN, as they will have one less boogeyman, or a worse one, to discuss at their meetings.
 
One question is who might take control if the Ayatollah leaves. According to Karim Sadjadpour, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Ayatollah has eliminated any reasonable successor currently in Iran. However, the name that has been shouted in the demonstrations is the former Shah's son Reza Pahlavi.
https://one-news.net/morning-joe-1-12-26-7am/ at 28:28
 
In the event of a US intervention, in whatever form, this would constitute a common external threat and save the mullahs.
 
I think that it is very hard to get a reasonable idea of what is going on in Iran. With the internet cut off and no independent journalists, most of the information hitting western media is coming from dissident sources. We may never get a clear picture about what is going on.
 
Greg Bernhardt said:
Interesting that Trump wants to protect protesters in another country, but directs violence to protesters in his own.
Click to expand...

You don't want to open this barrel! I could write an entire book about the USA and hypocrisy. And it would be a thick book. It's not just this administration. You can find examples like this in the entire society.

Example: https://civicswatch.com/threads/political-cartoons.22/page-22#post-3843

My personal standard examples are bare female breasts versus openly carried guns, and Colin Kaepernick.
 
Last edited:
gleem said:
One question is who might take control if the Ayatollah leaves.
Click to expand...
As far as I know the key player there is not really the religious leadership: the power (military and economical both) shifted to the IRGC at some point and by now they are the ones keeping the Ayatollah in check.

The IRGC can (and: will) snuffle out these protests too and can blame all the blood on the religion.
They do hold enough power for that.

It can only be prevented by thoroughly crippling the IRGC. Not just the leadership, but down to the middle levels, at the very least. And even if that happens, it'll be just another Syria. I don't know if that would be better.
 
Last edited:
It's time that we start articulating the conditions that will be required for the rest of the world to bring some sense back to the global order. I suggest that it will take nothing less than the form of annihilation that was brought to bear against the German or Japanese civilian populace throughout World War II to break the back of the insanity that has taken hold in the United States of America.

Maybe after a few Dresdens and Tokyos on US soil the remaining US population can be convinced of the value of the rest of the world through a committed reconstruction effort.
 
I'm the first to complain about American hypocrisy and the huge gap between message and action, but you sound as if you're still mad about the women's final. A war in the Middle East - and this has been proven on many occasions - costs unnecessary victims on each side. A US military strike could easily achieve the opposite of what it may intend: the stabilisation of the current regime under a common enemy. We shouldn't wish for American casualties, but even less, since they probably won't have it started, for Iranian.

However, maybe the only intention is to increase oil prices, or to steal oil money from Iran as Trump did from Venezuela.
 
This thread is titled Whats happening in Iran, and getting back to that a bit -

Based on how I view Trump and his mentality, I think it is very unlikely that the carrier groups will simply withdraw without having fired a shot. The only way I can see this happening is if the Iranian regime publicly humiliates itself with overt concessions to Trump and makes no effort at any face-saving on their part - and perhaps the only way to avoid this is if they actually leave Iran in short order - both of these notions are fanciful, imo.

I think US casualties caused by Iranian actions are also unlikely - there may be deaths resulting from accidents during airstrikes but I doubt the Iranians will shoot down any aircraft or be able to put any fire on US vessels. I'm no kind of military expert, I'm just going by recent history when I say this.

Bush The Younger lied to us about WMD's - Trump isn't even bothering to do that much. It may not be obvious to the non-US posters here, but I claim he has made absolutely NO domestic case for any imminent threat justifying military strikes against Iran. That is even further than he went with Venezuela where he claimed that smuggled drugs represented an imminent threat to national security - laughable perhaps, and at the time I thought the bar for justification of force couldn't get lower, but now here we are and the bar is indeed lower, with not even a laughable pretext at imminent threat being offered.

So where does that leave the US, I wonder. I certainly hope it adds momentum to his popularity dropping, and boosts the election chances of anyone running for congress who is asking to be elected to oppose his policies. I also hope that when the imo now inevitable strikes do happen, it peels away a few more House R's and congress will make further aggression explicitly illegal - but that is probably also fanciful. I echo your sentiment, @fresh_42, for no Iranian casualties, but how could that end up being the case?

fresh_42 said:
or to steal oil money from Iran
Click to expand...
He may have some notion that if the current regime falls, he can justify lifting sanctions and US oil companies will start operating there. I really hope that is not his thinking - if the US topples the government there the resulting chaos would be unimaginable.
 
Grinkle said:
He may have some notion that if the current regime falls, he can justify lifting sanctions and US oil companies will start operating there. I really hope that is not his thinking - if the US topples the government there the resulting chaos would be unimaginable.
Click to expand...

You don't need to go that far. A military strike can already gain big money with futures if you know it in advance.
 
We can't leave now without the Straight of Hormuz being closed - this is going to be another years long really bad conflict, I think.

The 'real' reason for these strikes is still very unclear to me - Zionism is maybe a large part of it, the list things that make any sense at any level is pretty sparse. Perhaps there is no rationale and its just another toy-without-strategic-purpose, like Tariffs.

Maybe there is some case that oil is at the root of it, but if so I can't picture how.

FWIW, here is the text of what Trump said is the justification for the attacks.

apnews.com

Read President Trump’s statement on Iran in full

U.S. President Donald Trump said in an 8-minute video posted on his Truth Social that the U.S. has begun “major combat operations in Iran.”
apnews.com apnews.com
 
Last edited:
EricDMMiller said:
Maybe after a few Dresdens and Tokyos on US soil the remaining US population can be convinced of the value of the rest of the world through a committed reconstruction effort
Click to expand...

Ridiculous assumption. Look no further than the 9/11 attacks on US sites for how this would unify and focus the inchoate anger of many Americans.

Returning to news about Iran on this Saturday, notice the differences among Washington Post and New York Times editorials on Trump's most recent attacks.


www.nytimes.com

U.S.-Led Strike on Iran: Live Updates as Trump Calls for Government Overthrow

Iran vowed retaliation after President Trump pledged to eliminate its nuclear program and devastate its military. Israel joined the U.S.-led attack and said it had targeted a gathering of senior Iranian officials.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

(PM me if paywalls interfere. Subscribers are allowed to share articles within limits.)
 
Last edited:
The Post really stayed as dry as they could while still presenting some of the news - seemed like they couldn't wait to have written enough to just stop talking about it. I think that's a reflection how poor a job the administration has done at communicating any narrative at all for media to latch on to.

Edit: I realize the WP is left leaning, still, that was my takeaway from the article.
 
Klystron said:
Ridiculous assumption. Look no further than the 9/11 attacks on US sites for how this would unify and focus the inchoate anger of many Americans.

Returning to news about Iran on this Saturday, notice the differences among Washington Post and New York Times editorials on Trump's most recent attacks.


www.nytimes.com

U.S.-Led Strike on Iran: Live Updates as Trump Calls for Government Overthrow

Iran vowed retaliation after President Trump pledged to eliminate its nuclear program and devastate its military. Israel joined the U.S.-led attack and said it had targeted a gathering of senior Iranian officials.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

(PM me if paywalls interfere. Subscribers are allowed to share articles within limits.)
Click to expand...
I am talking about the wholesale annihilation of cities. Not a building or two.
 
EricDMMiller said:
I am talking about the wholesale annihilation of cities.
Click to expand...
Doubling down on what was correctly called out as ridiculous without adding any context or justification for why you think it would result in the outcome you initially suggested is not good faith debate. If you just want to rant, use the rant hall.
 
Greg Bernhardt said:
Let's discuss what's happening in Iran because it's taken me a bit by surprise. How did these protests start and what is fueling their intensity? What chances are there for true revolution? Will Trump meddle? Would that help or hurt?
Click to expand...
First trump said, they have nuclear fuel, but of course we know last June he used that as a reason to bomb them saying it was 100% successful. Now I'm seeing on his own platform that they interfered with the election he lost. Plus he says no one in Iran supports the Ayatollah.. With trump, everything is a lie, designed to keep America in a state of confusion. My honest first thought was follow the money. Trump does nothing based on morals.
 
I think a big part of Trump‘s motivation is to get the Epstein files out of the news cycle, now that allegations of him abusing an underage girl have surfaced. His accusations of election interference is to continue sowing doubt about the midterms so he can try to justify whatever illegal actions he intends to take when the election doesn’t go his way.
 

Liberal Democracy Values

  • Free and Fair Elections
  • Rule of Law
  • Separation of Powers & Checks and Balances
  • Protection of Civil Liberties and Human Rights
  • Pluralism & Political Competition
  • Independent Media & Free Press
  • Open Civil Society

Community Values

  • Civility
  • Productivity
  • Good Faith Debate
  • Evidence Based Debate
  • Transparency
  • Integrity

Community Motto

"It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies." - Noam Chomsky
Back
Top