Velvet Revolution in Iran?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Fallschirmmongsturm, Dec 8, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Does anyone else think bombing the place will lead to anything but the people involved being strung up as traitors?

    Velvet Revolution in Iran ?
  2. You imply that any offensive action taken by the US against Irans nuclear programme will couse internal retribution against the democratic movement within Iran?
  3. No.

    The democratic movement in Iran could hardly be held responsible if the west battered Iran for a completely different reason.

    That's like saying, right the postman came to my house this morning, but didn't deliver my letter, I'm going to bash the builder.

    You know, I should write a book of really cr@p analogies. I'd make loads of nothing.
  4. My initial thoughts likewise... However one has to consider that almost any aggressive action by a western nation, especially the US consdering their 'interests' in a democrtic Iran, could result in the Islamic state clamping down on anything deemed a threat to its institution.

    At any rate it probably would not help the very idea of a non-violent revolution.
  5. Bombing Iran would be a terrible mistake. But then Dubya and his cronies thrive on mistakes.

    And the acquiscence of the Brits.
  6. Shemulie, that's exactly what I'm saying.

    The fact is that virtually ALL Iranians view nuclear technology, including owning the fuel cycle as non-negotiable, regardless of whether they support Dinner Jacket or not. Part of this is predicated on the sense of self importance of a people with a 5,000 year old history of civilisation, the other that its national pride.

    Making weapons is another factor, but to the best of my knowledge, Iran has not broken the NPT. The rest is window dressing and the shrill speechs of the AEI.

    The mullahs are pretty discredited, and viewed as parasites, as films such as "The Lizard" illustrate. The last thing that any pro-democracy movement and that includes part of the Ulema, is for President Fcuknuts to go in. It's just the excuse the harder elements in their government are looking for. Nothing works better than externalising a problem !
  7. Once lots of US ordnance falls on them the reformists would want payback just as much as the conservatives.

    You mark my words.
  8. You are right Iran hasn't broken the Non Proliferation treaty.
    But we have.
    We and the Americans up grade our nukes regularly and helped Israel acquire them now most dangerously we are breaking another most crucial condition of the N.P.T.


    Which of course will do the world of good if we don't want others to acquire them - I don't think.

    (There used to be a graffiti that read "We are the children our parents warned us against."
    Now there might soon be another "We have become the enemy our parents fought against.")
  9. Oh come now, but we are the 'good guys!' Why would we do something purely out of national self interest... even if it is shooting ourselves in the foot? - Quite agree SLRboy.

    Fallschirmmongsturm I see much light to your point. Also consider that US action could indirectly kill the movement. They did after all turn down the money offered by Condoleeza Rice. It seems, and rightly so, they do not want to become another faction in another country bought out by the US, they are Iranian, not traitors to their country for 'democracy's' sake and wish to do things their way.
    Thus any action by the US to push democracy on Iran could smother their movement just as accepting US aid (strings attached) would dirty their revolution.
  10. Why is it that everyone who is a fan of that Teutonic bastard, Habermas, has the uncanny ability to send me to sleep?

    Giblets. It just works that way. In the presence of a security crisis the people rally around the flag and its leadership, whether the leadership created the crisis or not. It has happened time after time after time, Ahmadinejad, like Bush, Thatcher, Galtieri, Napoleon etc. etc. etc. is using this clumsy sabre-rattling by the US to build on his very, very narrow base of support. (But this has been pointed out many times on many different Iran-related threads, so I won't expand on it here.)
  11. Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran in 1980 and the subsequent 8 year war held to unite the Iranian people behind the clerical regeime at a point were support for the mullahs internally was by no means certain. Any US strikes at Iranian nuclear facilities, let alone a ground invasion, would serve the same purpose.

    Any change in Iran must be generated internally for it to work.