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

That wasn’t the US. That was a global allied effort (which the US was late too.)

The US cannot claim that one.

That was 73 years ago - different times.

This time it is the will of the people.

I'm on the fence about this. On the one hand, Trump actively encouraged the protests with the promise of help if things went south, which they rapidly did.

On the other hand, I'm not sure US forces, as they are under Trump's leadership, would make things better or worse. We should also consider why Trump offered support; he doesn't do anything that is not for his own personal benefit, and was he legally able to offer that support?

I think a compromise of providing support from afar, such as communications technology, military intelligence, and medical supplies, is probably the best way to go.

Out of interest, who can claim that then?

Where does the USSR stand, what with actively colluding with Hitler?

Perhaps it’s a clear win for the UK. Hurrah!

I'm not sure why posters assume assistance meant bombings? My question was 'should the US become more involved', which could mean support, negotiation or even removal of leadership or something entirely different.

All involved but not one individual country. It was not an example of “the USA bombing a country into stability”.

Ok.

It’s likely because your links were to “US threats to intervene” which has been discussed in terms of bombing military sites.

No of course not, but Iran isn't invading countries like the Nazis is it? They want a regime change which is fair enough but there are ways of doing it..

@Wintersgirl How do you think they should they be doing it?

He specifically said, "If they start shooting, so will we." It's reasonable to assume he meant boots on the ground when he said that.

You seem to arguing with an invisible person because as far as I can see, no one on this thread is saying that the US could just step in anywhere in the world (including Iran) and make it all fine. We know it doesn't work like that.

Speaking for myself, I said on page 2 of this thread that my answer to the AIBU that the US should become involved is "I'm not sure - the US wading in could make things worse".

Ok.

I was wondering about various types of support including negotiation. The people who have been uprising have been slaughtered at least in the hundreds and over 10,000 imprisoned. Its awful.

Bombing military sites but not the people (as they did several months ago) didn't result in a war.

I have no idea what action should be taken but I feel for the brave people who are trying to overthrow a evil regime that not only affects them, day to day, but, also funds terrorists who operate in a number of countries.

It is beyond awful, and I think the US has an obligation to help after Trump encouraged it under the promise of support.

How many of those killed would not have taken action if they didn't believe they'd have US backing?

I'm just not sure we should push for the US to make good on Trump's promise. There is every chance that US boots on the ground could add to the atrocities, especially under Trump's leadership. The US military has its own history of committing horrific crimes against locals in countries it occupies.

I am too. The ME is so complex that it is very difficult to have a 'good guys/ Bad guys' narrative ( Obviously the Iranian Mullahs are very easy to characterise as 'bad guys, as they are funding terrorism worldwide while their people starve and women are stoned to death for having a strand of hair showing). The problem is, what will happen if the USA intervenes? Will the Mullahs be able to characterise them as outside Western/Israeli forces and unite the population behind them as a result? The protesters do want US support because they are being killed in their droves and cannot do it just on their own. But we don't know how many people in Iran support the regime and would turn on the protesters, causing more bloodshed. Hopefully the US does mean humanitarian and infrastructure support and the promise of lifting sanctions if there is a democratic regime. There is also talk of the return of the Shah. I don't know whether that will make things worse, as the Shah being the puppet of the US was what caused the Islamic revolution in the first place. I don't know what the new Crown Prince is like, and he doesn't seem to have any ideas, just wants the fall of the current regime and to return. Maybe an absolute Monarchy in the interim may be a good thing for the purposes of stability but it is very easy for them to fall into dictatorship and decide not to leave/ change etc. But it seems to be a system that is satisfactory in some of the other wealthier and more stable parts of the ME. A fall in the Iranian regime will hopefully mean the collapse of Hamas, Hezbollah, Boko Haram and the rest of them and mean the money is spent on the Iranian people, rather than waging a proxy war against the US/Israel.

Trump will discuss the options for US intervention on Tuesday, according to the Wall Street Journal .

He is said to be considering “very strong options”, which may include cyber-attacks and direct strikes by the US or Israel or tightening sanctions, sources said.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-retaliation-trump-war-military-bases-middle-east-b2898605.html

I think you underestimate the power of censorship in authoritarian states. Iran has one of the strictest internet censorship programs in the world. It's in the bottom 3 for internet freedom in the world.

Typical Iranians are not reading the same news as people in the west. Western social media banned too. And VPNs

I know, JHound, but that's overall and in fairness I did say that forcing others to pay more for their defence was "one thing" which had gone down well

I don't know too many US Trump supporters, but even those who detest him tend to give him that one ... "stopped clock" and all that

When has the West getting involved actually ever helped??

Theres an argument to be made that if Saddam was still in power the ME wouldn’t be the disaster zone that it now is. And groups like ISIS wouldn’t have grown in prominence

True, but the protestors are getting some news out; they're also backing Pahlavi, which suggests they do have some access to wider online media.

I'm not saying the unrest would not have happened if not for Trump; it's been brewing for a long time, but I'm not sure we can say for certain his statements haven't inflamed it.

There is also talk of the return of the Shah.

I read that there would be a referendum. However, were the Shah’s son to win the referendum then all the human rights advocates who have been silent about these protests would immediately call for him to be deposed.

I am not saying his statements inflamed it, I am saying your average person in the street, in normal circumstances, can only see the news the regime allows them to see.

The stuff you see now, that gets out by satellite. Smuggled dishes, satellite phones . It will be very dangerous. There won't be shops with signs in the window saying " download your vids to X here"

I think you're grossly underestimating the ingenuity of the average urban Iranian, particularly the tech-savvy young people.

I possibly am. But maybe I know a bit about the effects of state web control because I am posting this from a nation that alongside Iran, is also in the bottom 3 of various internet freedom indexes.

And yes, you can get around it. Without being young by the way.

Edit to add, are you always ageist ?

As you are agreeing with a post saying the left are a bunch of fuckwits, or whatever, can you take a look at the photo below and tell me how you know there are no "lefties" here ? I see plenty of bobble hats. Are they not a "left" thing?

I don't see any face masks or attempts to hide their identity though which seems to be the obligatory dress code for left wing and pro Pal protests.

I guess it because they are either quite open and proud of their views or that they're not too worried about Covid anymore.

So no lefties there then, Cool. All to the right.

That's a fine skill to have.