I wonder if anything will come of these protests?
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/01/iran-state-tv-12-killed-in-protests-attacks-on-security.html
God be with the brave protesters. Here's hoping by some miracle they succeed in gaining their freedom from these thugs.
Dictatorships often stick around if they have enough troops willing to massacre civilians. Horrible, but true.
Iran pretends to be a little progressive. I wonder how long they will continue to do that with protests in the streets?
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/01/01/leaked-meeting-notes-show-how-panicked-iranian-regime-considered-stopping-deadly-protests-god-help-us.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/01/iran-protesters-attack-police-stations-raise-stakes-in-unrest.html
Most dictators have money salted away, and have kept open a line of communications with a potential country to flee for refuge.
From this point of view, I cannot think of anyplace right now that would be willing to give the ayatollahs asylum.
Maybe Russia, to give them a new chip in their destabilization program for the Mid East?
Certainly not China or North Korea, both being avowedly anti clerical.
Perhaps the Assads in Syria?
(Ayatollah Khomeini got asylum in England from the Shah, but would they flee to the Satanic West?)
But with no place of asylum, they have no place to go. Like Hitler, they may prefer to burn down their country, rather than admit their faults and corruption.
This, coupled with the professionals in Quds force, could make for a very bloody result.
Quote from: besilarius on January 02, 2018, 08:58:46 AM
Most dictators have money salted away, and have kept open a line of communications with a potential country to flee for refuge.
From this point of view, I cannot think of anyplace right now that would be willing to give the ayatollahs asylum.
Maybe Russia, to give them a new chip in their destabilization program for the Mid East?
Certainly not China or North Korea, both being avowedly anti clerical.
Perhaps the Assads in Syria?
(Ayatollah Khomeini got asylum in England from the Shah, but would they flee to the Satanic West?)
But with no place of asylum, they have no place to go. Like Hitler, they may prefer to burn down their country, rather than admit their faults and corruption.
This, coupled with the professionals in Quds force, could make for a very bloody result.
Agreed. This is why I think dictators who leave and don't burn down the house should have asylum. I'm against the International Criminal Court or post-hoc retribution trials for dictators who fade away instead of burning down the house.
former National Security Advisor Susan Rice thinks we should all "be quiet" about the protests in Iran...that is the best way to help them.
while I don't agree with "all quiet" there is some merit to it - you don't want to give the Iranian leadership any leverage to legitimize a claim that it's all a US plot to overthrow them
the flip side of it is this - if not "all quiet" then what instead?
^Some action is better than none in my opinion.
The Obama administration sat back and did nothing during the 2009 protests and the budding revolution was thereafter crushed. "Being quiet" was anything but effective in bringing about change and destabilizing the regime. This was probably the hope of BHO, anyway, since it wouldn't do anything to upset the regime and jeopardize the nuclear "deal".
By vocally supporting the protestors, they are encouraged to spread and continue with the belief that they have the backing of the western world. This outweighs any attempt by the regime to capitalize on western support as being part of some foreign plot. This do-nothing philosophy is just another sign of cowardice and lack of conviction and resolve...that is, it is simply just being afraid of doing the right thing.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 02, 2018, 02:50:36 PM
former National Security Advisor Susan Rice thinks we should all "be quiet" about the protests in Iran...that is the best way to help them.
Maybe, she thinks we should give the government of Iran more billions of dollars.
60% of the people in Iran are under 30. Part of why they are protesting is not enough work to keep them employed enough to live a more robust life. I certainly don't know how this will turn out, but, old people with money and the military don't give in to young, poor people.
The protests have already gone on a bit longer than I expected. I mean without being tanked.
Quote from: JasonPratt on January 03, 2018, 10:08:52 AM
The protests have already gone on a bit longer than I expected. I mean without being tanked.
Apparently, these protests are much wider ranging when compared to the nascent protests of 2009. Today, people are rising against the regime in over 80 cities across the country. In 2009, I believe the protests may have been mostly limited to Tehran.
I'm certain, without reservation, that we as a country must support this uprising. I believe Trump's vocal support for the protestors is righteous and well-meaning. I do wish that his comments were more formal and eloquent, but even affirmative support on twitter is preferable to the deafening and shameful silence of Obama in 2009. I mean think about it, he basically let a movement toward freedom and democracy die in its infancy so that he could later commit treason by entering into a disastrous deal with the Iranian regime that accomplished nothing for US security and has funded the Iranian's proxy wars in Syria and Yemen. The media? Totally silent.
Agree with all the above. The protests in '09 were a result of the ruling party stealing an election as I recall but these are more spontaneous and wide-spread. I am amazed at the calls supporting the formal Royal Family. I thought they were still hated in Iran. I think the unexpectedness of these protests is what's got the Imams scared poop-less. I'm rooting for them but afraid the blood will soon begin to flow.
https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/951483877075374081
Quote
BEIRUT—When protests against Iran's theocratic Shiite regime erupted late last month, the reaction from the region's two main Sunni powers couldn't have been more different.
Saudi Arabia, which is the custodian of Islam's holy cities of Mecca and Medina and aspires to lead the entire Sunni world, quietly gloated over the unexpected troubles of its Iranian nemesis.
Saudi-run pan-Arab media brimmed with enthusiastic coverage of demonstrators who called for an end to the Islamic Republic and who challenged Iran's involvement in Syria and Iraq
Turkey, which—in Ottoman Empire times—controlled Mecca and Medina for much longer than the House of Saud, and which is unwilling to subordinate its interests to Riyadh's, has taken the opposite side.
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan quickly called Iran's President Hassan Rouhani to express Ankara's support for Tehran's handling of the protests. Pro-government media in Turkey went out of its way to depict Iranian demonstrations as an American and Israeli conspiracy—a theory later endorsed by Mr. Erdogan himself.
To many in the Middle East, this divergence once again highlighted the reality that any notion of a "Sunni bloc," let alone one led by Riyadh, to counter Iran's might in the region is fanciful at best.
While President Donald Trump seemed to endorse Saudi claims to regional leadership on his trip to Riyadh last year, the fact is that—among significant Sunni regional powers—only the United Arab Emirates is firmly aligning itself with Saudi policies.
The others—Turkey, Egypt and, of course, Saudi Arabia's maverick neighbor, Qatar—are increasingly engaged in a complicated and multidimensional power struggle that has little to do with the Middle East's sectarian divide.
Qatar, targeted by the U.A.E. and Saudi Arabia over its support for the Muslim Brotherhood last year, has turned to Iran for help in response. That coincided with a general warming of ties between Tehran and Qatar's main Sunni ally, Turkey—where Mr. Erdogan is increasingly infuriated by the U.S. trial of his senior associates who are accused of using Turkey to circumvent American sanctions on Iran.
Despite generous Saudi aid, Egypt also isn't eager to jump on the anti-Iranian bandwagon. Egypt's President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, who ousted a Muslim Brotherhood government in a 2013 coup, is far more hostile to Mr. Erdogan—a vocal backer of Brotherhood causes—than to Iranian leaders. On Mr. Sisi's watch, Cairo has also maintained warm ties with the Iranian-backed regime of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria that Saudi Arabia had tried to help overthrow.
"Ultimately, it's the geopolitical interests that dictate the actions of states in the region, not sectarian identities, even though these states may instrumentalize sectarian discourse," said Bassel Salloukh, a professor of political science at the Lebanese American University in Beirut. "As for Turkey, it doesn't want to see a Saudi leadership of the Sunni world because Turkey has its own aspirations for that."
There is even less common ground between Turkey and the U.A.E., a strident opponent of the Muslim Brotherhood. It's also a country that competes with Turkey throughout the region—and in particular alongside the strategic maritime routes in the Horn of Africa, where both nations have established several military outposts and back rival proxies. It doesn't help that many of Mr. Erdogan's aides suspect the U.A.E. of involvement in the failed 2016 coup attempt against the Turkish president—something denied by Emirati officials.
"Ankara sees the U.A.E. as trying to act much more forcefully than the real influence it can have given their size, their power structure and their set of relationships," said Sinan Ulgen, a former Turkish diplomat and head of the Edam think tank in Istanbul. "U.A.E. is not Saudi, and the view in Ankara is that they are getting way ahead of themselves in trying to harm Turkey."
Historical claims—and especially the legacy of the Ottoman Empire—help fuel this rivalry. One of the most unusual recent spats was between Mr. Erdogan and the foreign minister of the U.A.E., Abdullah bin Zayed.
The Emirati minister last month retweeted a post that accused Ottoman forces led by Fakhreddin Pasha of looting the holy city of Medina and abducting its Arab residents in 1916, during World War I—a widespread Arab view that clashes with Mr. Erdogan's efforts to glorify the Ottoman age.
In response, Mr. Erdogan blasted "miserable people" making such "delirious" allegations. Then, he had the street on which the U.A.E. embassy is located in Ankara renamed after Fakhreddin Pasha.
Write to Yaroslav Trofimov at yaroslav.trofimov@wsj.com