If the collapse comes with a power vacuum and the resurgence of competing fundamentalist groups, this wouldn't be helping any Iranians. Last time Western powers meddled, it resulted in the Islamic Revolution, after all.
Iran is not Syria, there’s a flourishing academic population, the fundamentalists are the ones in power, plenty of people still remember what life was like pre-1979.
What do you think will happen if the Iranian state collapses? What happened the last time the Iranian state collapsed?
Something to ponder before wishing for another collapse.
Please assume good faith and don't incite flamewars.
When I'm arguing against wishing for collapse "from the comfort of our countries", where do you read that I'm talking to Iranians? I'm talking to HN commenters who are not from Iran. I'm obviously not arguing with pinkbeanz since he/she is from Iran.
Try arguing in good faith, unless you want this to devolve into a flamewar. You already tried something like this in another comment: please stop.
please don't leap behind this when someone engages your comment in an equal tone. mom has nothing to do with this conversation.
In that case, let me be explicit that I'm pessimistic about the current government of Iran (a dictatorship which I'm not in any way in favor of) collapsing without a lot of destruction and bloodshed, and that I do not wish this destruction on the families currently living there. I also fear that if this collapse leaves a power vacuum, something like -- similar, not exactly the same -- ISIS could rise in its place. I'm very pessimistic about this, and so I'm wary of wishing for collapse.
Historically, I can't think of a single case of a regime being destroyed through revolution or invasion that didn't end in at least partial societal collapse and a drastic increase in deaths and suffering for a generation or more.
Per my understanding of history, that last part was an anomaly in several ways. This being a world war is one way, of course, but another factor was that the hot war between the Allies and the Axis transformed, after the Axis was defeated, into a cold war between members of the Allies. Both sides of this new conflict considered it critical to capture and stabilize the very territories they helped liberate from the Nazis. This wasn't a half-hearted "nation-building" program like we've been seeing in more recent times - both the US and USSR committed tremendous amounts of resources to get Europe back into shape, because this was still a war - arguably the same war, just going through a cool-down period - and both sides expected it to go hot eventually.
Also, while Germany survived the death of Nazi regime quite well, the Cold War is also known for US and USSR sponsoring and orchestrating coups and regime changes all around the world, and (AFAIK) those cases all ended badly for the locals.
In some sense, it might be that World War II was itself an anomaly - I can't think of any other war that ended with both the winners and the losers coming out better off. But it's also worth remembering that WWII itself was in large part a consequence of the societal collapse Germany underwent after losing WWI. And the subsequent Cold War was in large part a consequence of societal collapse caused by bloody revolutions in Russia and elsewhere around the start of the 20th century.
The way I see it, we have one special case of regime collapse making everyone better off almost immediately, but even that one is surrounded and infused with countless cases of regime changes that caused generations to suffer.
Make of that what you will!
You're in the wrong here, it's time to walk away.
> You're in the wrong here, it's time to walk away.
Nope. The people who are in the wrong are the coach warriors who want to see collapse but aren't unwilling to go fight for it, making arguments from the safety of their countries.
My "weapon of choice" is calling for restraint before violence.
Dropping the use of reality distorting memes like this would be a good place to start, assuming you're actually serious.
There is a whole class of reality distorting phrases like this in Western culture[1], this sort of thing has always been with us but seems to have taken on much more causal significance with the rise of the internet.
[1] Possibly related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel
> "good faith" - it is a highly subjective term
HN defines is pretty clearly (note there's more, I'm just quoting some parts):
> "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes."
So snark replies are out.
> "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names."
So calling someone an Iranian secret police agent is out.
> "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
So instead of cross-examining me or trying to "catch me" somehow, address the fact I'm calling for nonviolence and restraint, and that I claim recent experience in the Middle East shows that regional collapse leads to the rise of fundamentalist groups and a general rise of unchecked violence. Assume good faith; assume I want the common good. If I made a mistake, reason with me. If you are an Iranian, don't withhold this information from me until we are 10-levels into a nested discussion.
> "Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes."
Self-explanatory. I'd say name-dropping "reality distortion memes" is one such internet trope (one, to be frank, I still don't understand because you haven't explained).
Need I go on?
"good faith" - it is a highly subjective term, but it is typically used as if it is objective.
I will copy/paste this every time you represent that I have not disclosed the term - to others that sort of thing might be annoying, but to me it is fun!
>> "good faith" - it is a highly subjective term
> HN defines is pretty clearly (note there's more, I'm just quoting some parts):
>>>>> "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes."
> So snark replies are out.
a) People break the guidelines all the time.
b) "Be kind. Don't be snarky...." - this text stands on its own in the guidelines and is not given as a definition of good faith.
c) The only reference to "good faith" in the guidelines is this (which you are in violation of, as am I (and I have strong ideological reasons for my non-compliance)): "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
d) There is an important distinction between the definition of a term, and each individual's classification of behavior as being a valid instance of the term.
> So calling someone an Iranian secret police agent is out.
Agreed, thus I have not done that.
> So instead of cross-examining me or trying to "catch me" somehow, address the fact I'm calling for nonviolence and restraint, and that I claim recent experience in the Middle East shows that regional collapse leads to the rise of fundamentalist groups and a general rise of unchecked violence.
I acknowledge that you believe this, and that there is surely some truth to it.
I will not refrain from criticizing your claims though.
> Assume good faith; assume I want the common good. If I made a mistake, reason with me.
I will assume what I want to, or nothing at all.
My reasoning is above.
> If you are an Iranian, don't withhold this information from me until we are 10-levels into a nested discussion.
I am not Iranian.
> Self-explanatory. I'd say name-dropping "reality distortion memes" is one such internet trope (one, to be frank, I still don't understand because you haven't explained).
"Good/bad faith" is also a (much more) popular trope, one that I believe is also much more dangerous.
> Need I go on?
No, but you are more than welcome to.
Iran is not starvation level desperate, nor people trapped under earthquake rubble desperate, to my knowledge, so I do not expect a successful popular movement without buy in from the elite and military classes of the country.
Don't need millions of deaths in another revolution.
At this point, the only transfer of power that will happen will be due to a hostile civilian takeover. The current regime will not abdicate and any foreign military coup will likely not be tolerated by the people.
A revolution will serve as a cautionary tale to future governments who attempt to push fundamentalism as law.
Let me call out your idiocy: please review my comments history.
This is the dumbest, stupidest thing you can argue about my post. It's something that can be refuted with a 5-minute perusal of my comments history.
Please try to do better.
However, I also think the Iranian situation (and unlike many commenters I know Iran, have been there many times, and more) is different because there already is a quite successful diaspora of Iranians ready to take back control of the country.
Iranians have managed to somehow maintain a decent amount of infrastructure despite the sanctions and the general adversity (they did not become Cuba). There is an inherent vitality within the Iranian people which makes me very confident that once the islamists are rooted out, their country will spring back to being a working economy thanks to its intellectually very capable people and its diaspora.
I hope what you're saying actually results in a transition with minimal violence. I would also like minimum interference from foreign powers, the US included.
When "we" "improve" other countries, it often doesn't come well. "We" tend to create power vacuums and help the rise of fundamentalist groups. "We" messed up Iraq and neighboring countries. "We" helped create the opportunity for the Islamic Revolution to occur. All of what I'm saying is documented fact, not conspiracy theories. Recent history.
All I'm saying is self evident to any thinking person: do not wish for the "collapse" of a nation state. Not unless you are willing to live there during its collapse. Not from the comfort of your home.
Having the decency to exercise some restraint before wishing for the collapse of anyone's nation state is a lesson we should have learned by now.
I don't think we should intervene military to cause such a collapse. But we should exert peaceful pressure to hasten it, just like we did with the USSR.
In some countries this was solved with external intervention (like adhesion to the EU) but others ended up being post-soviet dictatorships. In my humble opinion, we wouldn't have seen this many wars unfold in Eastern Europe if both Yugoslavia's and USSR's collapse had been better organized and supervised. Citizens of countries under oppressive regimes must fight against them... But avoid at all costs a power vacuum to appear.
Trying to switch systems peacefully without losing total control of a country is not an easy feat.
Even countries that managed to do that like Germany's unification, Portugal (Carnation Revolution), Greece (military junta fall) or Spain ended up with regrets and damage that takes generations to cure.
Had the transition not been so chaotic and fast, a lot of grief would have been spared.
I guess what's leaving you open here to hostile takes is that you're not mentioning other things to hope for instead, so some number are defaulting to interpreting your comments as "the status quo in Iran is fine".
I hope the Iranians get a better deal (hopefully without being part of some power game by external nations), because they deserve it.
I do not wish any families living in Iran to go through a "collapse", especially not a violent one.
See? If people reply to my comments with reasonable questions, I reply in a similar tone. When people go in full attack mode, they get worse responses. Which is the tone that HN should favor?
A vaccine has a small risk that it can cause harmful effects to a small subset of the population. The predicted outcome is very positive.
Societal collapse and power vacuums in Iran and neighboring countries have a high risk of resulting in harm to a large population. The risk is very high and it has happened before -- in the same country, even!
Collapse and revolutions, unlike vaccines, are a high risk gamble. They can, for example, result in the Islamic Revolution, ISIS or who knows what.
So I don't think the analogy works at all.
(Pro tip: Islamic Republic propaganda wouldn't point to the rise of their own movement as a bad thing, like I did, so your suspicion is illogical).
From HN guidelines: assume good faith. Are you doing this?
Regardless, not wishing for war and collapse is an universal feeling, and it has nothing to do with supporting Iran's theocracy. Just in case, let me state explicitly that I think the current state of Iran is a tragedy and that I wish they lived in a democracy, and that I of course do not support any theocratic dictatorship, Islamic or otherwise. I specifically find the Islamic Republic as a depressing turn of events, when Iran could have been so much better.
The reality though is there is already misery in Iran; economic stagnation, government sanctioned murders and beatings, and people are deeply unhappy.
Source - my partner is Persian and she still has family living in Tehran.
I don’t really see your point.
Some people would rather live under an oppressive regime rather than die during its death throes. I won't judge them. It's not for me to decide, not if it's not my country.
Did we ever find out whether Iraqis preferred living under Saddam's dictatorship if the alternative was the turmoil that ensued afterwards, insurgency, terror attacks, ISIS, etc?
An internal coup would likely be far better than an external one.
The ayatollahs simply cannot remain in power. You don’t need to be an Iranian for this to matter to you.
The apartheid occupation has a nuclear bomb that threatens the entire area, yet it seems fine for you?
You mean Israel? How is Israel a nuclear threat to anybody? They don’t even admit that they have them, let alone threaten anybody.
I don't like the Islamic Republic. But do I wish war on the families living there? And what is the likelihood of something even worse rising there if a power vacuum with no clear goals is created in its stead? I'd say "very high", giving recent history.
Lessons learned, right?
You are aware that you are comparing a situation that arose from a US military invasion (Iraq), with a grass-roots, cross-class and cultural movement that is being supported across the world (Iran)? You are aware that, for the first time, Iranians across Kurdistan, Zahedan, Tehran, Baluchistan are chanting the same slogans under the same values, fighting the same enemy? And yet you speak of "no clear goals" and "very high likelihoods", but it sounds like you are simply ignorant of the situation. The protests are not the result of foreign meddling, but rather the result of millions of Iranians with the agency and awareness to realize their situation is horrendous and existential, and they need to take a stand. Why? Because they are already at war. Having your child hung from a crane in public is war. Having your daughter raped and killed is war. Having your life savings taken from your is war.
I am both an Iranian (with family in Iran) and a "Westerner", and I damn well implore all of my peers to support and amplify the voice of Iranians without feeling bad about whether they are encouraging "societal collapse" (an absurd argument). Supporting Iranians that have made their voices heard, shed blood and tears is not "foreign interference" or "wishing war", it is empathy and camaraderie for your fellow human.
On a final note, the regime is not reformable. This means if me or someone else says "Iranians deserve democracy" or "human rights", this implies that one supports the collapse of the Islamic Republic. Why? Because one can not happen without the other. Ultimately, their fate is in their hands, but it is absolutely idiotic to sit here and gate-keep people from wishing the collapse of a psychopathic, murderous, raping, and looting regime.
Well, you could have opened with this. If you have family in Iran and still wish for collapse, you have something important at stake and understand the risks (or so I hope).
I was initially responding to someone who didn't identify as Iranian and who was wishing for collapse.
You don't live under the current regime.
What is "easy for me to say" because I don't live there? That before we (not Iranians) wish for the collapse of the current Islamic state, we should understand what it will mean for the people living there -- sure, no longer under the yoke of the Islamic Revolution, but very likely either dead from the destruction that will ensue, or under the yoke of whatever fundamentalist group moves in after, which is very likely to happen based on similar events in the region?
In what sense it's "easy" for me to say, "think hard before wishing for violence on others 'for their own good'"?
I'm sorry, but you cannot throw back my statement at me because I'm arguing for thoughtfulness.
My point was, you seem to only perceive one side of the argument as being "easy from the comfort of our homes", your view is somehow not, because you think your view is neutral. But not taking action is a decision as well. It's a decision very easy to push for when you don't leave under the Iranian regime.
I hope it's clearer.
Consider that the Islamic Revolution was also the consequence of a collapse.
Finally, let me reiterate I think the current regime is bad, and if there was a way to make it go away, as directed by Iranian people, without interference from other countries with vested interests not necessarily aligned with Iranians, I'd be all for it. Alas, magic solutions don't exist.
The default option should always be non-violence/non-societal-collapse.
Maybe some urged the population to be cautious and patient in the eighties. Look where it got them.
I am not saying a regime change is going to be peaceful, I am not saying it cannot be worse. I am saying they waited decades and it's only getting worse with the current regime. Asking them to exert caution feels sanctimonious and insensitive, this was what I was trying to convey in my initial message.
There were 25 years between those two events though, so it's hard to draw a direct line. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that the Islamic Revolution would've happened even without the 1953 coup d'état and the economic growth that followed it.
That's hard to imagine. Just because it didn't happen in a vacuum doesn't meant "it would never have happened unless exactly these circumstances had existed", which is what I'm saying.
One could similarly claim that the German reunification resulted in Russia invading Ukraine, but it's obviously not a direct consequence, and over 30 years lots of things are happening, and things are dynamic, so the "if this then that" line gets weaker with each year that passes. Otherwise we end up with "Cain slaying Abel resulted in cell phones".
No, saying something isn't "reasonable to assume" doesn't mean it cannot ever happen. It's hard to prove an hypothetical wouldn't have happened.
I meant that it's unreasonable to suppose the Islamic Revolution would have happened without first the coup (by the West) and then the continued Western support of a tyrannical dictatorship, which gave support to the Islamic revolutionaries that the West was "the devil".
Had Iran had a stable, less tyrannical government for decades, support for a Islamic revolution would have been much, much lower.
Would it have been impossible? No. Would it have been much less likely? Sure.
You say something against the mainstream media or US hegemony, you'll b labeled as Basiji or "iranian regime supporter" or "on Putin payroll".
Not a place for thinking even epsilon out of tunneled vision made by westerners propaganda machine.
After all, majority are the ones that gonna rewrite their project in different language or stack because "the landing page said so"