Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

OperationSpringAwake t1_j9cmmui wrote

Reply to comment by ShahsMan in If you’ve noticed some protests for solidarity with Iranians going on, this is one of the groups organizing them! by ShahsMan

Why are you being downvoted? Kerry and Obama literally sent a plane of cash over to Iran. Biden, and many of the corporate dems (Markey, Warren, etc.) want to negotiate with Iran to get the nuclear deal back on the table. Many Iranians in the US, I would presume the majority of which are liberal, support cutting all relations with the current Iranian govt.

1

ShahsMan OP t1_j9cn57l wrote

I’ve said in other comments I don’t even like this be a partisan issue, I don’t care democrat or Republican I just want Iran to be free.

We can’t know unless someone that feels the need to downvote would tell us, but that’s okay with me, I just hope more people show up to the protest :)

4

Opposite_Match5303 t1_j9f120u wrote

Cutting off all dialogue with Iran is a good way to encourage the Ayatollah to go all-in on a nuke. That path leads to Iran becoming North Korea of the Middle East: not a great outcome for the Iranians currently fighting for freedom.

2

OperationSpringAwake t1_j9f18b0 wrote

It could also lead to the overthrow of the regime.

2

Opposite_Match5303 t1_j9f1ip5 wrote

It literally never has. Not in Cuba, not in North Korea etc. It just gives the regime an easy common enemy to blame for the suffering of their people and an excuse to engage in further repression.

1

OperationSpringAwake t1_j9f24bq wrote

But it’s happened twice in Iran. First the early 50s and again in 1979?

2

Opposite_Match5303 t1_j9f2l9w wrote

How are you reading the 1979 revolution as US pressure leading to the overthrow of the regime?

1

OperationSpringAwake t1_j9f3dlo wrote

Well the 50s one was, no? And the US could’ve ended 1979, but decided not to step in.

2

Opposite_Match5303 t1_j9f5tpg wrote

Even looking at 1953, supporting 1 side in an internal power struggle is pretty different from the North Korea/Cuba methods you are advocating against Iran. And if the Ayatollah thought he had a credible internal challenger the US could support, it would certainly push him to get a nuke as fast as possible.

1

OperationSpringAwake t1_j9g5689 wrote

You said it literally never has - 1953 says otherwise.

In 1979, was it internal though? Khomeini was in France. The US propped up the Shah then took away support. The US could support a govt-in-exile.

If the Ayatollah wanted a nuke, he could get one. He knows doing so would immediately be the end of his country, so he only uses it as threat.

2

Opposite_Match5303 t1_j9mkmzv wrote

It wasn't the end of North Korea. Who would attack a country with a nuke?

You're being too unspecific with "it": yes, CIA-caused regime changed happened dozens of times in the last century. Yes, targeted sanctions work for convincing a regime to change concrete policy: the original JCPOA was a great example. But what you're describing is sanctions and external pressure convincing a regime to dissolve its own existence, which has arguably literally never happened (maybe the end of Apartheid in South Africa would count).

1