Should the US become involved in helping protesters in Iran?

[Ihatetomatoes]

The situation is awful there now. Should the US become involved?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2jek15m8no.amp

The people of Iran have had enough of this government and those protestors really do need outside help - I don't think they care from where the help comes.

It might seem unpalatable but the Iranians I know would welcome intervention from Israel and the US. What the outcome of such intervention will be who knows, but it can't be worse than the last 47 years.

I don’t think Israel should get involved. They already get enough flak for the war in Gaza. Iran leadership targets Israel aggressively so would be better for Netanyahu to adopt a defensive position, in my opinion. Because the Iranian “leaders” ( so called) have already threatened to attack Israel if they are attacked by the US.

I don’t know.

The left wing scream blue murder if the West gets involved, and they scream blue murder if the West doesn’t get involved. Mostly they seem to think we should leave other countries alone but suddenly change their mind when something like this actually happens.

The current "Left" are a bunch of useless fuckwits. Let them scream, it is the all they do anyway. Who gives a shit.

Breaking the Islamic Regime is better for everyone no matter who does it.

@FOJN

We should know by now that nothing good happens to ordinary citizens when the US gets involved in the politics of other nations.

It’s not that simple.

Germany, France, Poland (etc), Japan, South Korea, Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait?

You have cherry-picked your list, but even the failure cases aren’t all clear-cut.

Iraq life expectancy is five years longer and GDP is 10x higher than under Saddam and a sizeable minority (especially older people, ie those who remember) see the invasion favourably, including most Kurds.

Syria is a weird one to pick: life under Assad was a hell of a lot worse than ‘not great’, the new regime was not US-installed (its roots are in Al Qaeda). And Assad’s butchery was actively supported by Iran (and Russia).

Intervention is morally and practically messy, and high risk.

But Iran’s regime is itself one of the biggest meddlers, actively funding terrorism and repression across the region.

If your argument against intervention is “it will make things worse”, you have a duty I think to recognise the many cases where it’s made things better, and ask instead: does Iran look more like the successes or the failures. I think that on several dimension it looks more like the successes.

(Still might not be a good idea, but your opposition seems to have started with the conclusion and then looked for confirming examples).

Of all the countries in the world, the US is the last I'd want to wade in to Iraq. Trump is unpredictable and dangerous and has not the slightest notion of diplomacy or international relations.
How can a self-serving moron possibly defuse the situation?

GeneralPeter

I respectfully disagree. I think it helps to understand that many of the awful regimes in the countries I listed were supported by western governments until it no longer suited us. I wonder if you are aware of how much we interfered before we lost control of the monsters we created and had to resort to bombs to facilitate "regime change".

As an aside slightly ironic that Trumps Militia, ICE, have shot (and killed) a number of American protesters. As awful as the Iranian regime may be, my gut feeling is that trumps involvement is unlikely to help.

I think you mean Iran not Iraq?

If Trump wades in militarily- and it’s not at all definite he will - I don’t think it will be with the idea of defusing the situation exactly. More like forcing the military and Iran leadership to give up thinking they can carry on bullying people into submission.

Send a bigger bully to scare off the smaller bully - maybe.

I would support targeted strikes on revolutionary guard - I sincerely hope they Iranian people succeed this time.

As an aside the silence from the left on this has been deafening.

Indeed.

"But Iran’s regime is itself one of the biggest meddlers, actively funding terrorism and repression across the region." Hezbollah, Hamas, The Houthis, all funded by Iran.

It is.

J K Rowling called the silent ones out:

“If you claim to support human rights yet can’t bring yourself to show solidarity with those fighting for their liberty in Iran, you’ve revealed yourself. You don’t give a damn about people being oppressed and brutalised so long as it’s being done by the enemies of your enemies (sic).”

Her remarks quickly went viral, provoking both acclaim and criticism across social media platforms. I personally feel she's right.

I agree that JK Rowling sums it up.

I think JK’s comments apply to a lot of people.

I see very very little condemnation, outrage or marches by the left when the person doing the brutalising isn’t white, male and right wing.

Yes I agree on that. The West has backed many people who were, or became, awful. But as soon as you recognise that, you recognise we can judge and compare regimes.

And once we do that, I think it becomes clear that some interveners have a patchy record and some are outright malign, in intent and effect.

I think any fair look at US intervention puts them in the ‘patchy’ bucket and any fair look at Iran puts it in ‘outright malign’.

I think one can take the view that intervention is always wrong on principle (I disagree). But if we’re deciding on the grounds of whether it ‘works’ we should be brave enough to realise that this is the US (in this hypothetical) vs a regime that is much, much worse and that is people is calling to replace.

And on local support, virtually 100% of Germans, Japanese believe their countries were improved by US intervention (they also had fanatical totalitarian regimes), plus Kosovars and even a significant number of Venezuelans seem to now. So at best it’s complicated.

The irony of that orange despot saying if a country murders its own citizens in the street he will step in! He's fucking disgusting

What’s disgusting about his statement?

The people of Iran deserve better than the regime they have. It would be nice to believe the US would want to help to give them better options, reality is more likely they would “ help” because Iran has oil

I think it’s likely this shall be US lead with others involved including us

this though leads to Isreal being very vulnerable so this can’t be a half job done it’s long term

Iran’s regime needs to be rid of but they are extremely powerful

the question also to consider is what will China and Russia’s response be

would ex presidents get involved yes I believe they would at this point in time but with more diplomacy and long term vision

How do people not see the US manipulation here?

Why don’t you fuck with China and Russia? Too big for you eh?

No, the US aren't the world police.

mmm no I can’t see it

can you explain this ?

How can a self-serving moron possibly defuse the situation?

The situation doesn't need defusing - the regime needs to be overthrown not just left to carry on as before, as they've done in the past when they've overcome the protests by brutal measures.

Russia certainly isn’t. China is.

A reason not to seek regime change in those places (especially China) is it’s likely to make things catastrophically worse. Iran’s not clear-cut for many reasons.

You are mocking, but I think “let’s judge different cases differently” and “let’s not do things we expect to make things catastrophically worse” are good decision rules.