Are people still rejoicing about Iran?

[binnibonnieboo]

When Israel and the US took out Khamenei there was a thread on how great it was. Some of us expressed that it may not end well, given how forced regime change went previously in many countries. We were told to stop "leftsplaining" to Iranians. How do those people think it's going so far?

Yes very well said @Ihatetomatoes

How badly does a regime have to behave before the "leave them alone" message no longer makes sense.

Very well said 👏

But the objective isnt regime change. It's at best a potential outcome. One of many.

Just as it wasnt in Venezuela. Posters claimed that Trump's actions in Venezuela would lead to democracy and freedom and yet the regime is still in place, detentions are still happening etc.

The regime needed to be weakened and it is being weakened.

It may be weakened. It may welcome in more hardliners and a desire to reassert itself through further violence on the population. A weak regime and a country in chaos won't necessarily lead to peace and democracy. We've seen that elsewhere.

Meanwhile the Russian economy has the chance to make up for some of the financial losses.

Determined to look only at the negatives I see @Notonthestairs

Yes, I see the negative in an emboldened, financially shored up Russia.

@RedTagAlanshould they be left alone as suggested here?

No, I don't think so. But how to "punish" them?

They are already sanctioned to the hilt. And it's a strange thing, to me anyway, how the US has never really gotten over Iran and Cuba for having their revolutions. And the DPRK too, to an extent anyway. But really it's Iran and Cube who are on the US eternal naughty list.

There has never been an attempt at normalisation from the US side. Until Obama of course. He and the other nations got their anti nuke deal in 2015 ( and Obama started stuff with Cuba). Iran were sticking to the deal so far as we know, things were on the path to more normal relations. Some sanctions dropped etc, in return for Iran "behaving better".

Then Trump. He tore up the deal, put the sanctions on steroids, effectively because of internal US politics. His MAGA base loved it. Iran STILL had to be punished for their '79 revolution.

Same with Trump and Cuba. Undo what Obama done. Shut it all down. Gotta punish Cuba.

So with Iran, you had this nation with a different system who were effectively being eternally punished by the US, and they were finally having the door to international normalisation slowly creak open, and Trump slammed it shut.

No carrot and stick for them. Just the big stick.

There is possibly a bit of goose for gander here.

So how can Iran be "punished" at all ? They already have max sanctions enforced by the US. No sign of them being lifted, and Trump who refuses to even talk to them.

And now compare US Iran relations with those of other states. Vietnam. A single party communist state who defeated the US in a war. Pretty much normallised relations. But not for Iran and Cuba. All they get are threats of invasion and constant " punishment" and calls for "regime change" for stuff that happened in the fairly dim and distant past.

That policy has not worked at all. So how about trying policies similar to with Vietnam ?

I mean other Gulf states are authoritarian. Near theocracies too. And they have been persuaded to get on with the world, including Isreal, with no demands for them to change their regime.

Maybe it's the religious extremism that makes Iran different?

Death to the US/Death to Israel.

Hard to normalise relations with that kind of mindset.

I don’t see it as punishing for decades old decisions, focusing on Iran what seems to be missing is the relationship between the people and the IRGC.

And promoting proxies and terrorism.

If a state is murdering protestors and nurses are gang raped to near death for providing healthcare to them then it’s not really the picture painted in the post.

Saudi Arabia is just as religious really. They have laws just as oppressive. Many Islamic countries do. Just ask any Islamophobe to explain.

Death to the US/Death to Israel. Yeah. From the revolution. It used to be death to England and death to the USSR too. What was the USSR is now Iran friendly Russia, and England did sort of normalise relations so that chant was mostly dropped. The USA and Isreal just ramped up everything anti Iran.

Iran are far from the only anti US country.

Quote :

"I don’t see it as punishing for decades old decisions, focusing on Iran what seems to be missing is the relationship between the people and the IRGC."

So why are the US so against any discussion on anything with the Iranian Government ?

Remember this :

Obama Didn't Give Iran '150 Billion in Cash' - FactCheck.org

Apart from Obama, I don't recall any US politician trying to repair relations with them. None. And Cuba too by the way. Apart from Obama.

And yes, they shot protestors. And the way to deal with that should be sanctions/ arrest warrants etc. But sanctions can't be imposed when there are no sanctions left to impose. Reference my goose for gander line. Imagine an Iranian guv meeting on the protests. Hardliners demanding they be shot. Moderates saying " no, don't shoot because we will be sanctioned". Who would win that argument ?

Iran is anti US government, not the ordinary Americans. As are several other countries around the world.

Most people do not know that Iran was invaded and occupied during both WW1 and WW2 despite declaring neutrality.

So Iranians do have weariness of foreign intervention and occupation.

Remember during the hostage crisis, Iran released all the Female and Black (except for Carl*) hostages "as they suffer too".

s

I think you are showing extreme bias here

Death to the US/Death to Israel. Yeah. From the revolution.

It's not from the revolution is it? The Iranian regime is continually trying to bring death to Israeli civilians through it's proxies such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

Aw how sweet of them ...

Many countries in the Middle East are sick of their bullshit too.

Joint statement issued today by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Qatar, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Türkiye and the United Arab Emirates:

The Ministers discussed the Iranian attacks ... and they affirmed their condemnation and denunciation of these Iranian deliberate attacks with ballistic missiles and drones which targeted residential areas, civilian infrastructure, including oil facilities, desalination plants, airports, residential buildings, and diplomatic premises. The Ministers further affirmed that such attacks could not be justified under any pretext or in any manner whatsoever.

The Ministers also stressed the right of states to defend themselves in accordance with Article (51) of the United Nations Charter. The Ministers called on Iran to immediately halt its attacks and affirmed the necessity of respecting international law, international humanitarian law, and the principles of good neighborliness, as a first toward ending the escalation, and achieving security and stability in the region, and promoting diplomacy as a means to resolve crisis.

The Ministers further emphasized that the future of relations with Iran depends on respecting the sovereignty of states and non-inference in their internal affairs, as well as refraining from violating their sovereignty or their territories in any manner whatsoever, and to not use or develop its military capabilities to threaten countries of the region.

The Ministers stressed the need for Iran to abide by implementing the Security Council Resolution 2817 (2026), which called for an immediate halt to all attacks, and unconditional cessation of any provocative acts or threats against neighboring states, and the cessation of support, financing and arming its affiliated militias in Arab countries, which Iran is doing to serve its goals and against the interests of these countries.

Furthermore, to refrain from any measures or threats aimed at closing or obstructing international navigation in the Strait of Hormuz or threatening maritime security in Bab al-Mandab.

The Ministers reaffirmed support for the security, stability and territorial integrity of Lebanon, activating the sovereignty of the Lebanese state over all its territories, and supporting the Lebanese government's decision to limit weapons to the state. They also condemned Israel's aggression against Lebanon and its expansionist policy in the region.
The Ministers reaffirm their commitment to continuing intensive consultation and coordination in this regard, to monitor developments and assess emerging issues in a way that ensure the formulation of common positions and the adoption of necessary legitimate measures and procedures to protect their security, stability, and sovereignty, and to halt the Iranian heinous attacks on their territories.

https://mofa.gov.qa/en/latest-articles/statements/joint-statement-issued-by-the-consultative-ministerial-meeting-of-the-foreign-ministers-of-a-group-of-arab-and-islamic-countries-regarding-the-iranian-attacks

The objective isn’t regime change though.
So the US and Israel may decimate military capabilities but leave an administration with a similar outlook.

They probably have a weariness of being killed if they protest or gang raped if they provide healthcare to those protestors.

On the not ordinary people I recommend listening to an interview on Times radio from a spokesperson yesterday who pretty much reigned hostility to all, including the interviewer and us. Intense rhetoric.

So trying to look at something objectively is extreme bias ?

And yes. Iran hates the state of Isreal and wants to see it wiped out.

Can you think of any other nations that used to take that position but now don't ? Was there any other nations who had wars with Isreal in the last 70 years, and who now don't because they were "rewarded" with normalised relations and were removed from the US naughty list and were put on their pals list ?

It is a feature of war isn't it that they are usually ended with dialogue. Has that happened with Iran ? Nope. The US have never even had a sit down chat with them about the revolution. They are on the eternal naughty list, as I have mentioned before.

Hell, Trump even had his meetings his pal from the DPRK.

Oh, and never Cuba too as I keep saying. Iran and Cuba. Only total defeat of them is allowed in any conversations of certain factions in the US. Total defeat. And I think they are the only two.

Regime change is a hope rather than a goal, because the US/Israel do not have the ability to impose regime change. All they can do is weaken the existing regime in the hope that they are overthrown from within Iran.

Even if that doesn't happen on this occasion, even a different administration with a similar outlook will have less power than the original regime. The country will have less money and less ability to threaten other countries. Also, they will be decades away from developing nuclear capability.

I listened to the Times Radio interview, it's on their YouTube. Surprisingly the comments on the video largely support the Professor.

The Times Interviewer was clearly unprepared and uncritically repeated her propaganda/lies about the 30'000 deaths, trying to blame these deaths on Ali Larajani.

The Professor rightly stated that the rest of the world saw what was happening live during the protests and saw Pompeo, Mossad talking about being on the ground.

So if regime change is only a hope, why was Trump going on about it right at the start ?

I mean... what to you see as the aim of this war ? What one of the many different and changing reasons do you have faith in ?

Knowing Trump, he would have wanted to take the credit for regime change if the war helps to bring it about. However both Trump and Netanyahu have stressed many times that regime change can only come from within.

The aims of the war have been suggested repeatedly by several different sources. They all boil down to the same 4 listed by the Washington Institute:

One week into the war with Iran, the United States seems to have settled on four primary objectives: (1) destroying Iran’s navy; (2) destroying Iran’s missile capabilities; (3) preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons; and (4) preventing Iran from supporting proxy groups, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon or the Houthis in Yemen

www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/assessing-us-progress-iran-war

She was likely surprised by his fire and death to you all rhetoric.

She should have followed up with a question on what happens to people who oppose the IRGC?

Plus hearing him I can understand why what happened to the nurses did. It’s relentless.