Not the leftists I’m talking about, they were on Mossadegh’s side, and perhaps initially looked on the Ayatollahs as sort of “Enemy of my enemy” but mostly they’ve been hoping for a better form of government for Iran for decades.
They just don’t think (And I agree with them) that U.S. bombs are the way to get there.
Wait. Are you lumping ALL leftists together due to this opinion you assert that leftists had fifty years ago?
It seems to me the logic of those supporting the Ayatollahs’ side then is very similar to those supporting the bombing now: the old regime was authoritarian and terrible, so whatever comes next will be an improvement.
This will also look foolish in fifty years. And probably in six months, and to me, already does.
Note: when I say “Leftists” I mean “Argentinian leftists”, the U.S. left is (or was, I don’t really know anymore) more like Center-right to Center from an Argentinian perspective.
The difference is that when there was enough unrest in the streets of Tehran, the Shah abdicated and left the country, while the Ayatollah murdered tens of thousands of civilians. So objectively, there is a vast difference between the two regimes; pretending that they’re equally bad is silly.
If you think “well, it can’t get any worse” because you’re government is vaguely pro-American and won’t nationalize the oil industry, that is a very different situation than thinking “well, it can’t get any worse” because your government is actively attacking its neighbors, building nukes, and executing tens of thousands of its own civilians.
Do you honestly think the Shah’s regime is comparable to the Ayatollahs’?
I understand what you meant, a leftist in the US usage of the term is not just “someone who is on the left”.
Sort of. They are comparable in that they are both authoritarian regimes who were / are bad for the country and bad for other countries. I don’t think they are the same or even very similar, though, and by this point they are operating in very different worlds, so on balance it’s not that useful to compare them.
What I meant was that those waging this war seem to think it will improve the situation, a belief that is as naïve and unfounded as the believe that the 1970s revolution would improve things.
Moderating:
I’m not going to say that prior terror events like 9/11, the various American wars in the Middle east, or the possible examples of failed states are precisely off-topic, but it’s been the subject of a lot of back and forth that has been distracting from the current focus. When bringing these up, please be aware of other posters wanting to follow the current developments and be mindful of their needs as well. A better option of course, if you want to debate details, would be to spin off your own thread.
How to Reply as a linked Topic
Click Reply, in the upper left corner of the reply window is the reply type button, looks like a curving arrow point to the right.
Choose Reply as linked topic and it starts a new thread. As an example, you can choose GD, IMHO or The Pit for it.
That is actually the best method.
To the extent the Shah was emplaced by foreign powers, and was viewed as corrupt and repressive, I could imagine a nationalist considering him to be worse.
Comparable? I’m not sure how that would be defined. Pretty sure they were both quite awful. But at least the clerics are not Western puppets.
Apologies - did not see the warning. Please feel free to hide if appropriate.
The Shah left after decades of brutal oppression - using people trained by the CIA originally, and a high toll in terms of rape (rape as a tool of political control has been historically encouraged by the US), torture, and of course lots of murder. Which both enabled the rise of the Ayatollah, and ensure long-lasting (and justified) hatred of the West.
Brutalizing people won’t make them less hostile to us. Every bomb Trump drops digs us just that little bit deeper. And makes it that much clearer that Iran needs nuclear weapons, if it ever wants to experience anything else other than repeated attacks and brutalization from outside.
Additional aircraft on the move to the ME. Also, B-52 bombers were employed the past night (air launched cruise missiles, not sticks of bombs).
This has always been true, though. The only thing that ever stopped anyone was either (a) lack of means, or (b) reliable security guarantees from the US, or (c) reliable guarantees of either economic sanctions or physical destruction by the US.
So for countries to actually pursue this course of action, they would be countries who have been enjoying US protection and never had a reason to question it until now. Iran of course now has no reason to cooperate with the US or anyone, but their means to build has been neutralized (at least for now).
The countries to worry about now are places like Ukraine, Japan, Saudi Arabia. None of this is particularly awesome, but the one that scares me is Poland, which was making noises in this direction earlier this afternoon on Bluesky. Having a nuclear-capable state spring up on Russia’s border could go wrong ten different ways before Poland even possesses the actual package. Mideast countries are a whole other kind of Gordian knot that honestly I can’t even think through, but that’s not good either obviously.
But people, including national leaders have been in denial about it for a long time. It’s just that the increasing aggression of nations like Russia and the US are making it clear that international relations are still based on the law of the jungle.
The example of Iran being especially vivid, given that Trump tore up the agreement they had and is now attacking them. People are going to be looking at that and realizing that the only way to keep America from just tossing out any treaty they have with us is to get nuclear weapons and point them at us.
That’s of course is the issue with people saying that Iran should negotiate or make a peace treaty; that won’t work. They could sign any deal, surrender anything and everything we demand, and it wouldn’t stop us (or Israel) from just tossing the deal out the window the very next day and dropping more bombs.
So true, and we’ll said.
No, what the example of Iran shows is that America will not let you pretend to negotiate in good faith while continuing to attack America’s allies. Iran played stupid games at the negotiating table, and now they’ve won a stupid prize.
Thankfully, I think that’s obvious to anyone who isn’t bought in to this idea that America is the Great Satan.
Iranian state media is reporting that the next Ayatollah will be Khamenei’s son. Interesting, because apparently Khamenei had him arrested in 2011 for being part of a plot to kill Khamenei? That last tidbit comes from an Al Arabiya article, so take it with a big grain of salt.
So much for the idea that they have some super hardliner tactical genius who’d make America tremble in reserve 
The world is not required to buy into the narrative that Trump and Israel are clumsily pushing. They know perfectly well what Trump did, and that’s what they are going to respond to.
Nobody even said that. America is the threat, not Iran. Iranians will hate and attack America, because America won’t stop attacking them. Not because of who is in charge of Iran.
HOLY SHIT! I may have to eat my words here!
Can it be? Is it finally happening? Did Lebanon’s army grow a spine?
This is huge news.
I somewhat agree. Honestly, the US should have just helped Israel do this- business as usual then. Then sent massive stuff into the Straight to protect shipping. That the US didnt do that- which the World would applaud- shows how out of touch diplomacy-wise the current administration is. Mind you, Iran would almost certainly attack US escort services in the Straight- and then is the time to get more involved.
Iran lies, they want nukes- and not for nice reasons.
Very interesting that you now agree with Trump rather than Obama about the nuclear deal (which Iran was following until Trump tore it up and thus increased the Iranian threat).
The Minab school bombing sure seems Satanic to me. How else can you explain bombing a school while it is in session?