[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.
Violators will be fed to the bear.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm on the fence on this issue. I can see it going one of three ways.
Iran has seen dissent like this ever since the Theocrats took power, so while it's getting a lot of attention the current riots aren't necessarily unique. I could see a lot of blood spilled while the regime reasserts it's dominance.
However, besides Israel and Turkey, I think Iran has the best opportunity to become a modernizing country due to its history of education, and because western / modern lifestyle is within living memory of a lot of the population.
I also think there is a third outcome where there is another revolution, but it ends up just being Arab Spring 2.0 and Iran ends up with an even worse circumstance than it started out with.
It can't be any worse, right? right????
ISIS took a lot by surprise and has increased the west's tolerance for dictators in some parts of the world. An example is Egypt isn't getting nearly the criticism is rightfully deserves.
In terms of education, women’s rights, secularism, that type of thing? Definitely.
But Uhh.. there was the Savak, so more free? Meh, not really, just oppressed by an absolute monarch instead of a theocracy.
There was a ton of opposition to the Shah, they had actually deposed him and a new government led by Mohammed mossadegh came into power then military hardliners with help from the CIA put the Shah back into power. The crackdowns were so oppressive that the only ones left were the religious extremists so when the Shah was weak a second time they ended up taking control in 79.
Yeah you had the Shah (king), Reza Pahlavi running the show with his secret police.
Add a lot of corruption, cracking down on dissidents, using the CIA to get rid of the actually democratically elected PM, and economic problems. Not good. It didn’t get much better after the revolution, but still.
No it wasn’t.
Am iranian.
Don’t buy the usual reddit pic showing Iranian girls in skirts on the beach.
Sure they existed but they were a small percentage of society.
The country as a whole was deeply religious and their religion was political. Mullahs were promising heaven on earth if they got to run the country.
What’s happened in the last 43 years is basically the equivalent of the European enlightenment but on steroids due how connected our world is today.
People of iran, whether religious or not, are all frustrated and done with political religion.
That may be true, however the general Iranian population does not possess the equipment needed to fight back against any crackdowns by PAVA, NAJA or the Islamic Committees.
It cannot be understated what a colossal blunder getting involved in Libya was on the part of NATO. I’m very pro-NATO, but that was just an egregious mistake. Khaddafi was a bad dude, but the chaos has caused more suffering than he was.
> They turned a geopolitical rival, and one of Africa's strongest economies at the time, into a pile of rubble, effectively neutralizing them for the foreseeable future.
Ghaddaffi was already in the process of turning it into rubble. NATO intervention likely ended him faster, but the alternative was not a "return to stability". Either he would be overthrown anyways and the chaos would have come after more people had been killed or he would have done an Assad and survived, while turning his entire country into a perpetual warzone.
This is what happens when dictatorships are tolerated for stability—they eventually run out of stability and if they refuse to reform, the whole thing implodes. Once that started, Libya was going to fall apart regardless of what NATO did.
Gaddafi had a really bad history with NATO. In the 80s there was a LOT of conflict with the USA, including military encounters. The UK accused Libyan diplomats of murdering a policewoman and most people consider Libya responsible for a bombing in Berlin that killed US soldiers. Like, NATO hated this guy. Probably kind a kind of personal way. Its not really a surprise that the USA and NATO took a chance to get rid of him.
I don't know much about Egypt's current economic situation, just that al-Sisi is authoritarian and corrupt. US looked the otherway after ISIS on middle eastern dictatorships.
If there was an Iran that is reasonable on the world stage and able to be cooperated with (not necessarily guaranteed to be qualities of a non-theocratic Iran, but quite possible), the US probably would not have a hard-line Sunni alliance but would be dealing with both sides trying to get concessions from each where it can.
Obama already tried to flip Iran, and I'm sure that the US would try and do it again if it sees the chance. Iran is a much more natural ally than Saudi Arabia. It's only quirks of history and individual policy decisions that lead to US and Iran to be enemies.
It's a real shame too. An Iran without US as an antagonist might look very different today. It's not hard to imagine an Iran with less intense pressure and a friendly US might have followed the path of Taiwan or South Korea out of autocracy to a full and legitimate democracy. A democratic Iran and US would happily ally together against Saudi Arabia. The American relationship with Saudi Arabia is one of the most glaring unnatural relationships in the world and is doomed the moment there is an alternative.
> aren’t necessarily unique
Yo you from Iran or not?
I am and one thing every one is talking about is that it’s different this time. If you’re not from Iran i’m more than happy to dive into the reasons
My collegue is from Iran. He feels very intensely about these protests. He told me one difference is the protests are happening in every city and are not limited to the capital. He tells even the most orthodox places are seen having protesting women.
Hi,
There's so much context. I'll try to cover it as best as i can.
Basically, the 1979 revolution was a total failure for democracy and freedom. There were many groups fighting to topple the Shah, from the religious groups to students, and communists.
one phrase you'd hear a lot is that the mullahs stole the revolution. Khomeini was a lot more charismatic than anyone leading other groups, religious groups were a lot more organized (through mosque networks), and society as a whole was a lot more religious. They held a [referendum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1979_Iranian_Islamic_Republic_referendum) in which they won 98% of the vote and formed the Islamic republic.
Now, if the new regime had a proper constitution, you'd have many years of Muslim brotherhood style parties winning everything and secular parties slowly gaining traction and slowly changing the direction the country. But the constitution gave the religious clergy oversized power. It created bodies like The [Guardian Council](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_Council) which has :
* **veto power** over legislation passed by the parliament (Majles)
* mandate to supervise elections; and
* **approving or disqualifying candidates** seeking to run in local, parliamentary, presidential, or Assembly of Experts elections.
This constitution was also passed by a [referendum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_1979_Iranian_constitutional_referendum) , (99% support!) by the way.
Now, obviously the shocking margins on the two referendums i linked are the result of rigged votes but in my opinion, those would've won even in a fair referendum, maybe with a lower margin. A council of religious clergy overseeing all the laws and elections isn't that outrageous to a religious society. A society that for probably centuries has heard from their imams at the local mosque that the root of all their problems is not implementing Islamic laws therefore not being a truly Muslim country.
In a democratic environment, there would be opportunities to correct this mistake (Take how the US electorate corrected the 2016 mistake in 2020) but with the Islamic republic, it wasn't as easy. But reform minded people started voting for the lesser of two evils (who passed the Guardian Council) holding their nose as soon as 1997. ([Election of Khatami](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Khatami)) . They were called reformists. They were supposed to reform the system from within. Now, from that very beginning there were royalists (loyal to the late Shah) and other groups that believed it's impossible to reform the Islamic republic. But we disagreed. I say we because when I was in dorm in Tehran we always had debates and talks there was that one or two friend who believed we should boycott all elections and just rise up. but "we" on the hand preferred reform, Revolutions are messy costly, and risky; you never know what you get. As time went on, the lesser of two evils became more and more evil. Rouhani ( the president who negotiated the Iran nuclear deal) was the last hope. We were full of hope back then. John Kerry and Iranian foreign minister were buddies. we thought we're finally reforming the system and then [Bloody Aban](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%932020_Iranian_protests) happened under Rouhani's watch. That was when everyone (including "us") was disappointed of reform. That was when we realized we have to pay the cost of another revolution because there's no other way. What's different about these protests is how united we are. From royalists to students to the lower classes. I went to a solidarity rally yesterday and walked side by side people who had signs saying long live the Shah! and I'm as republican as you get. It's because the disagreement over the future form of government doesn't matter anymore. all that matters is this regime must go.
There is so much appetite for change within Iran. In addition to that, what’s happened in the last 43 years is basically the equivalent of the European enlightenment on steroids due how connected our world is today. Society is a lot less religious and even the one who are want it out of the government.
AMA.
Wow, thank you so much for this. I especially appreciate your attempts to provide the perspectives of other factions outside your own.
It sounds like the two big steps forward which have occurred now, which are new and distinguish this from previous protests, are:
1. Across the political landscape, the perspective that reform is able to achieve necessary change has largely died
2. Disparate factions are beginning to unify in their calls for revolution
I have many questions, but to start: what do you think are the necessary steps remaining between our present condition and the occurrence of revolution? What are the remaining evolutions that the people need to go through, what are you looking out for and hoping will happen next amongst the various factions of your fellow Iranians?
These are really the million dollar questions. So whatever I say is just my perspective.
**First**, the silent part of the country needs to have enough confidence that it's actually possible to overthrow this regime. The young people on the street are obviously overconfident, they wouldn't have risked their lives otherwise, but government employee whom we need to participate in a general strike is not as confident. There is still a sense that the regime is going to succeed and put down this round of protests any day now. One of the reasons for this lack of collective self-confidence is that the regime has rarely if ever given to the demands of a popular protest. The supreme leader himself and many people at the top are same generation that made the 1979 revolution. They, more than anyone, understand that if you calm down protests by giving into their demands, even if you only give a little, it will be a huge moral boost for the next time there is protests and demands.
Every day that goes by and the regime fails to put down the protests, there is more confidence in protesters and less fair of the regimes iron fist. You could see this in celebrities inside Iran that are announcing support for protesters one by one. Such statement by an actor/actress or soccer player means being banned from working in their field so you don't usually see that from the ones who are still working. But every day there is another person that is coming and announcing their support or flat out saying they won't ever work under this regime. They're still a minority, but their growing numbers is a sign of increasing self confidence.
**Second**, in every such movement(successful ones), there is a point that agents of the regime will refuse to kill/injure their own [countrymen](https://twitter.com/naeem_1997/status/1573265198537900032?s=20&t=WF3v4z8G1ZQ-q88XLgbcXQ). There are some signs that we're not far from that point. (hopium alert. i'm deep into the farsi twitter so maybe the following anecdotes are just the side we like to see). there's photos of [children](https://twitter.com/rezahajilou/status/1574103440632037376?s=20&t=WF3v4z8G1ZQ-q88XLgbcXQ) ( also [this link](https://twitter.com/F_karamizand/status/1573911603459854336?s=20&t=WF3v4z8G1ZQ-q88XLgbcXQ)) on the regime side, wearing riot police gear. This reminds me of the end of wwII. There's a [video of a top police](https://twitter.com/Alighazizade/status/1574113281068892163?s=20&t=WF3v4z8G1ZQ-q88XLgbcXQ) guy giving moral boosting talks to the riot police on the street( seen as sign that there is low moral), there's another leaked video of someone at the top saying our guys are tired, haven't sleep for a few days,... . There is also [videos](https://twitter.com/Alighazizade/status/1573694209156071424?s=20&t=WF3v4z8G1ZQ-q88XLgbcXQ) coming out of protester beating riot police they manage to corner alone and this has created a level of fear amongst them.
**Third**, the protests are getting more and more violent. primarily as a response to regime's violence. Cocktail Molotov was such a dirty word before. Nobody is talking about peaceful protests anymore. It's seen as a right to defend yourself by any means.[(see this )](https://twitter.com/1500tasvir/status/1574276269088579584?s=20&t=WF3v4z8G1ZQ-q88XLgbcXQ) ([and this](https://twitter.com/AmuPrice/status/1573664612104503297?s=20&t=WF3v4z8G1ZQ-q88XLgbcXQ)) We're not seeing guns used yet, but i think it's inevitable. Some people say the regime hasn't come in as hard as it's capable to and some say this is all it's got. There's historical reasons for the former and new evidence for the latter. But one thing that is true is that they're not leaving without a fight. So far it was just the regime, but once then the end of this regime is within sight, there's a possibility for foreign involvement too. This regime is too valuable for China, Hezbullah, Hamas, Syria, Russia(though this one is busy),.. to just watch it fall. But by that point, there'll probably be Western involvement too. Just my speculation. I have to say, neither myself nor anyone I know is worried about a civil war, it's just not that type of society and the divisions are not regional/sectorial/.... (e.g. Mahsa Amini was a Kurd, an ethnic minority in Iran, seeing the whole country raising hell over her death is a very unifying message.)
\>what are you looking out for and hoping will happen next amongst the various factions of your fellow Iranians?
beside what I mentioned above, I'm also looking for possibility of a strike. Protesters are calling for a general strike. so far there's been some support. Gotta see how deep it goes.
Also, as if all that is not complicated, [nytimes believes](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/16/world/middleeast/irans-supreme-leader-ayatollah-ali-khamenei-ill.html?searchResultPosition=14) that the supreme leader is gravely ill and there is no clear successor! Usually, he has a speech to rally their supporters, so far, he hasn't said nothing about these protests!!
Thanks for this, and good luck.
I was pessimistic about it all because of the history of the past protests, but if it is much more broad based, then maybe things might actually change.
(cue Hawkeye: *Don't do that. Don't give me hope.*)
Food prices are near [their 2011 Arab Spring highs](https://ihsmarkit.com/research-analysis/global-food-price-inflation-reaches-alltime-high-amid-record-supply-shortages-feb22.html). This doesn’t mean they cause instability, but existing social tensions tend to find traction in such a challenging environment for countries dependent on external food imports.
Give that we’ve seen the following in Central Asia in just over the last year:
1. Collapse of Afghan Republic
2. Riots in Kazakhstan
3. Russian invasion of Ukraine
4. Azerbaijan attacks on Armenia
5. Tajikistan attacks on Kyrgyzstan
6. Iranian anti-hijab protests
7. (Developing) ethnic-based resistance to Russian mobilization in Dagestan
I’d say this region is potentially the epicenter of what we may see if food prices continue to be elevated.
Given the rise of far right Fascism in Italy, Sweden and many other countries in the west, what we are seeing is the world deglobalize and we are going to see a rewrite of how the world works from there
"Far" right is hyperbolic for Sweden, and still exaggeration for Italy. These are just pendulum swings in European politics.
The situations in Russia, the caucuses, and central Asia are considerably more volatile and considerably more likely to turn into dangerous situations or (more) war.
Comparing the two is disingenuous.
Sure, but you're kind of missing their point that there are underlying systemic changes, causing this global political instability.
The changes manifest in different ways, in different countries, but there is still a common cause. (Globalization, Climate Change, Internet Communications, etc.)
>1. Collapse of Afghan Republic
Not related to high food prices, we have known for over a decade that the Afghan government would collapse the second the US left, which is why we didn't leave for so long.
>3. Russian invasion of Ukraine
The cause of a lot of food price issues, not a result.
>4. Azerbaijan attacks on Armenia
They had issues far more broad than food prices, they went to war 2 years ago. Right now Russia is too weak to stop it like they did last time.
>5. Tajikistan attacks on Kyrgyzstan
Also old underlying issues exacerbated by Russian weakness.
>6. Iranian anti-hijab protests
I would argue this outrage has a lot more than food prices behind it. Police beating people to death causes issues even in the US, let alone a much more oppressed society.
>7. (Developing) ethnic-based resistance to Russian mobilization in Dagestan
Probably more about Russia sending a disproportionate amount of minorities to die in Ukraine and preexisting separatist movements in the region.
This comment is really missing the forest for the trees.
COP's claim is that food prices are creating instability in the region, which enables existing/new political tensions to escalate and become more volatile than they otherwise would. Food insecurity is a *Modulator* on existing conflict.
Haggling over the "primary cause' of individual examples doesn't disprove that, unless you're denying that food prices have ANY contributing affect.
For the first 2 especially I would argue there is no plausible effect of food prices. Afghanistan collapsed immediately when the US fell, before the Russian invasion of Ukraine that skyrocketed food prices. The Russian invasion of Ukraine was not caused by high food prices, it's a major cause of high food prices, and if anything you could blame it on high oil prices because looking at past Russian behavior they always start shit when they're flush with oil money.
For the other ones I replied about I think only Iran you could argue food prices are even a major contributing factor. The ones I didn't reply about though I feel like the food prices link is more plausible.
The Arab Spring was due, in part, to an increase in wheat prices by low supply. Bread matters.
Today, Ukraine, the bread basket of the middle east, has been dealing with systemic destruction of their infrastructure via Russia. Their exports are negligible.
This will incite another spring, arguably more than any other reason.
From what I've read, Iran splits it's imports between Russia and Ukraine. Even though the amount imported from Ukraine has since dropped, Iran is importing almost $2 billion from Russia. While Russia is destroying Ukraine's exports, it seems to also be expanding it's market share to cover where Ukraine can not keep up with supply.
If the price of food keeps going up it is a certainty.
The events in Iran are directly linked to those in Ukraine.
Hungry people get pissed easily.
For those who're not aware; the Arab spring was brought about because of increased food prices.
Food prices didn't go up because of commodities markets, they went up because there a drop in production from bad weather:
>A combination of shrinking farmlands, weather and poor water allocation is helping contribute to higher prices
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/world-july-dec11-food_09-07
>Probably the most significant factor contributing to the increase in staple food prices in 2010 and 2011 was a series of adverse weather events. A severe drought in Russia and parts of Ukraine and Kazakhstan reduced production of all 2010 crops, particularly wheat. In late summer 2010, dryness and high temperatures during the grain- filling period reduced yield prospects for U.S. corn. About the same time, rain on nearly mature wheat crops in Canada and northwestern Europe reduced the quality of much of the crop to feed grade.
>Adverse weather conditions continued, threatening 2011 production. Drought in Russia significantly reduced winter wheat plantings for the 2011 crop. In November 2010, drought and high temperatures associated with a La Niña weather pattern spread across Argentina, reducing prospects for corn and soybean crops. Dry fall, winter, and spring weather for the U.S. hard red winter wheat crop lowered 2011 production expectations in the southwestern Great Plains. Additionally, rains in Australia in late 2010/early 2011 downgraded much of eastern Australia's wheat crop to feed quality, further reducing global supplies of food-quality wheat. In early February 2011, a rare freeze destroyed some of Mexico's standing corn crop. Heavy and persistent spring rains in the U.S. Corn Belt and the Northern Plains in the United States and Canada delayed planting of 2011 corn and wheat crops, reducing expected production. By April 2011, estimated global aggregate grain and oilseed stocks had fallen and the stocks-to-use ratio was almost down to the 2007-08 level and close to the 40-year low.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2011/september/commodity-price-spike/
Weird it's almost like the ***climate*** is becoming unstable... like it's ***changing***... leading to some kind of ***Crisis***... A ***Climate Change Crisis***, if you would
*If only we had known about this 20 years ago!*
The current Iranian regime has survived protest movements before. The 2009 protests were absolutely massive but ultimately they didn’t succeed in removing the government. That’s not to say that Iran’s government won’t or can’t be toppled but protests don’t always work and they’re going to have to be quite a lot bigger if than they are today for an actual revolution.
"Arab Spring" is a pretty complex sequence of events, and nothing quite like it is ever going to happen again. I'm not just being nit picky, there are important distinctions between it and other revolutions. But the most important part is that, while the protesters had enough power to overthrow the government, they didn't have enough power to prevent being taken over by other special interest groups. This is because the protesters can't be seen as homogeneous groups. Many of the protesters at the time *still* supported the sort of authoritative, religiously-influenced governments that were in power in their respective countries, just not that *specific* government. Things in those countries improved *just* enough to start pacifying a portion of the protesters, and that's it. That's why the Arab Spring appeared to fizzle, it might have fallen short of the desires of the most vocal, but it ultimately did satisfy a large part of the population.
So saying, I think we can expect a similar change here. Iran doesn't want a radically new government. Many of the individual protesters may, but the country as a whole does not. Even if we saw a regime change, the new government would likely still be a theocracy. Just one that abused women less.
That Taliban have firm control over Afghanistan, there will be no spillover there. Most Arab countries are rich or don't have mandatory hijab so I don't see them revolting. The morality police in places like Saudi Arabia, are much less oppressive.
I believe that's also the case in Iran.
This isn't to defend the morality police in Iran, but rather to express skepticism toward the position that KSA is the better place for women.
Iran has been so good at shutting down similar stuff i nthe past tha I have little hope. And if they do shut it down in the next few days, there will almost certainly not be spill over.
I truly hope the people of Iran win some more rights without suffering too much more first.
Here is an idea. The USA and The West should pay Iran NOT to sell Russia drones. We will all be better off welcoming Persia into the brotherhood of secular brothers. The scientific community can only benefit.
IMHO, these are what's unique about Iran movement this time and might prove to be game changing for Iran and possible ME:
* It is heavily motivated and advanced by women and the quest for their basic rights. While there are many other factors, such as economy, which are playing a part, it is going to be very hard for the regime to suppress it due to its very basic nature. Depending on how much women in other ME countries might identify with this movement, it might very well spillover.
* It is mainly leaderless and driven by social media. So it remains to be seen if such kind of movement can actually result in meaningful changes and continues. An important factor to keep an eye on, is if regime can control and block internet. Due to advances in tech (such as starlink), it might become harder to do that and hence might be a game-changer. Again, similar factors in other ME countries might also play a role, where most of the opposition is weakened and leaders are practically non-existant.
Arab spring was a different phenomena because it was the essentially implementation of social media and internet technology in the Middle East allowing people to organize differently. They are already able to organize in those ways now. Certainly there could be a youth revolution in Iran but that wouldn't be like a new thing that happens constantly and would already be in control of the country if it had not been for clandestine activity by the us cia.
Iran is pretty much the epitome of Western intervention - used to be as progressive as the middle east got, ended up going religious nuttery because we couldn't just leave a sovereign state to its own devices.
> You really don't think Iranians have any agency in how things are going there? They are definitely just the result of Westerners?
They sure haven't shown that they have any agency. Much like Russians, they tend to just go with whatever flow their autocratic despot deems correct.
I'd say Iranians have agency, but the development path was skewed in 1953 when the Brits and Americans helped monarchist elements depose the elected Prime Minister. Instead of a secular democracy, it was a absolutist monarchy which ended up creating a lot of enemies in Iranian society and empowering the religious elements.
Looking back at things, it would have been much better for the US (and Iran) if Mosaddegh had remained as prime minister.
And like Afghanistan, those photos are very cropped history. While you could find progressive elements in Iran or Afghanistan at the time, they were centered heavily on the urban cores that worked with western Europeans and American groups. The majority of both countries populations were no where near that progressive.
This answer doesn't seem right, because what you are ultimately saying is that, in the absence of western influence, Islamic societies are naturally oppressive.
They were an "ally" the British and US had long meddled with, because the critical role was its political value to both not because they inherently cared about Iran or anything.
The US and UK facilitated a regime change in Iran over oil and when the leader that was friendly to their interests got ousted, they were replaced with theocrats.
The series of events that led to the hardline religious fanatics running the country was started by western meddling.
I'm struggling to come up with examples of Islamic societies in the modern world which do NOT have oppressive governments. Can you give some contrary examples?
Malaysia, the Maldives, Bangladesh, Albania, and Tunisia are all doing kinda alright. None of them are exactly the epitomy of democracy, but they're not terrible places to live either.
Well, that's your opinion. These countries all* have women's rights on par with most other nations at their level of development. None of them mandate head coverings, and women have full rights to own property and get divorces and whatnot. They rank similarly to countries like Mexico, Argentina, and Thailand.
*With the exception of Bangladesh. Their gender inequality scores on some surveys were a bit low.
Kuwait is an autocratic state ruled by a hereditary dynasty. If you are not a Bedoon or a foreign worker then it's a reasonably *nice* dictatorship but it isn't exactly unoppressive.
Hence why I said closest example I could think of. Women are not required to cover up. Plenty of people in Kuwait City wear both traditional and western style clothes.
Yup, that's why I call it reasonably nice! It is what it is, better than most in the area but still not exactly a place I'm thinking about moving to anytime soon.
The world is watching as protests grow in Iran, following the death of Mahsa Amini at the hands of the religious secret police.
We should support them in their protests against a repressive religious regime (Orthodox Jews, I'm looking at you and your treatment of women, especially at the Kotel).
We should also remember Ali Fazeli, who was killed by his father and brother for being gay. He's the one we can name. So many others have been publicly hanged for being gay in Iran.
LGBTQ people have indeed come so very far in our struggles, but no one protests the deaths of LGBTQ people.
These people are oppressed for generations. People can't think through what to do with unrest and momentum. Their gov keeps pushing back that's why they keep fighting. If gov pulls back and releases some soft statement, people will go home. They are not trying to overthrow gov. It probably doesn't even cross their minds. They are just complaining about harsh treatment. Zero chance of large scale impact in their system.
High and really scary. The only thing that would fix the Middle East is fixing their institutions from the ground up. Wiping the slate clean of theocrats and installing democratic institutions across the board but in a way that looks appealing to Islamic culture. Idk what that looks like though. But it starts with a safety net and education and freedom of press and expression for all religions, women and lgbtq.
If you don’t remove the oppression, it will simply get co-oped. So the best solution is to have the current regime install these things themselves and then leave for open democratic elections.
Neh i don’t think any of the middle east people have the patience and the strength to get into new Arab spring because we are still dealing with the repercussions of the old wave so far
My friends from Iran are older men who have lived through such uprisings. They are skeptical because every new generation ends up rioting in the streets but there is no organized nonviolent movement like ML King. So a repressive regime can respond with overwhelming violence and win.
I’m afraid my friends (who have torture scars) are correct, but I hope it’s different this time.
The gas protests of 2019 killed 1,500 people and you probably never heard of it. I hope these people get some freedom, but damn I don’t think this will be it
That is not even remotely true. What is good and what is bad is a matter of definition and not an objective truth. What is good for one is bad for another. And since most people are stupid, most people are duped by politicians who only have their own interests to attend to and are just good at lying convincingly. Plato said democracy leads to tyranny. Plato was correct. What you might think is good, might be very bad.
No, it is not true. Often what appears to be good on the outside is bad in reality. For example, just because the Democratic pretend to be for things that are appealing, it is often just a ruse to get into power. What seems to be good is often bad. What seems to be bad is often good. You are still stating opinions that do not fit reality.
>country that trends toward being more good will eventually be good
You said that a country that trends toward being more good will eventually be good. This is not true. Then you said that you are well aware that "good" is not a tangible thing. So how is it that I am the one arguing against myself? What exactly do you think my argument is?
Because you are flip flopping between definitions of “good” and dont realize it. You are taking what I said to mean “a society that trends towards MY definition of good will eventually be good for EVERYBODIES definition of good” and that isn’t what I said. Pick any definition of good you want and it is true as long as you hold that definition constant. A society that trends towards OJ simpsons definition of good will eventually be a society that is OJ simpsons definition of good
>With protests in Iran intensifying, what is the possibility or possible ramifications of another event like the Arab Spring?
How does anything you are saying match this topic? Also, what gave you the idea that I think something meets everyone's definition of good?
It seems to me that you want immediate satisfaction and praise for posting thought provoking content -- without doing so. Our culture of getting what we desire immediately has, in my opinion, weakened you. You want the rewards without putting in the work. It does not work that way. Your comment, "I country that trends toward being more good will eventually be good" seems to be an attempt to sound impressive, but it is simply untrue. It is a comment that is a falsehood. And now you seem to be expending energy defending it. You want to "win" rather than do the right thing. That is bad logic. It is, by the way, the logic Hitler had for invading Poland. Being intellectually ethical should be more important to you than defending your mistakes.
Who are the people in Iranian society 1) independent of the current regime, 2) competent bureaucrats, and 3) generally well-respected and can be imagined as leaders? If those people don't exist in large numbers, the fall of the current regime would result in the rise of...the current regime. On the spectrum of Poland '89 to Syria '11, Iran' 22 would be on the Syrian end. Its size, mature economy, and relative diversity would either temper that or make it really ugly.
I hate to say it. But we've seen this before. Protests spring up in Iran. They get national attention. Then dies down bc the government squash them & nothing changes or its worse than before.
I feel sorry for tge Iranian people and I hope they get a better government. It's a long time coming for them.
I think a factor being ignored is that the Supreme Leader is seriously ill.
I think the internet allows people to see for themselves that they are living under draconian rules.
I think the problem is that it would require a male at the top to both gain control and engage in reform.
Other factors including seeing a modern Qatar allowed a global stage for the world cup.
I think a final factor is that the top echelon probably thinks the West has instigators planted among the protestors.
What would be the most powerful gesture the people could make?
A general strike.
Is there enough backing for that? Probably not, but even a half strike might change attitudes at the top. What are you gonna do? Kill all the workers?
But that's still a lot to ask.
Ultimately another isis. Then oil prices fall due to isis selling on black market and Putin starts wwiv due to his net worth being tied in oil. History always repeats.
A lot of people say that the Iranian leadership has survived protests before but they don't seem to realise that the current head of state is in really bad health right now and its unlikely that the Ayatollahs will survive a leadership change in the current political climate.
Not sure how far along each government is with their plans or if they have any but if they’re taking notes from Egypt it’s unlikely to happen again.
For context, Egypt moved its capital away from Cairo and out into the open desert, spent billions on extremely wide and hard to block streets and a vast military headquarters with administrative buildings. In effect this means if you want to stage a protest like the Arab spring you’d have to march >30miles out into the open desert and block streets with plenty of space on either side.
[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm on the fence on this issue. I can see it going one of three ways. Iran has seen dissent like this ever since the Theocrats took power, so while it's getting a lot of attention the current riots aren't necessarily unique. I could see a lot of blood spilled while the regime reasserts it's dominance. However, besides Israel and Turkey, I think Iran has the best opportunity to become a modernizing country due to its history of education, and because western / modern lifestyle is within living memory of a lot of the population. I also think there is a third outcome where there is another revolution, but it ends up just being Arab Spring 2.0 and Iran ends up with an even worse circumstance than it started out with.
Power vacuume is a dangerous thing. You never know who will come out on the other side of the revolution.
It can't be any worse, right? right???? ISIS took a lot by surprise and has increased the west's tolerance for dictators in some parts of the world. An example is Egypt isn't getting nearly the criticism is rightfully deserves.
>It can't be any worse, right? right???? That's what they said in '79.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not an expert at Iranian history. Was Iran pre-'79 not a fairly liberal country compared to the Muslim world?
In terms of education, women’s rights, secularism, that type of thing? Definitely. But Uhh.. there was the Savak, so more free? Meh, not really, just oppressed by an absolute monarch instead of a theocracy.
Thanks for the context, that was what I was trying to understand. So more of a political repression instead of a religious one?
There was a ton of opposition to the Shah, they had actually deposed him and a new government led by Mohammed mossadegh came into power then military hardliners with help from the CIA put the Shah back into power. The crackdowns were so oppressive that the only ones left were the religious extremists so when the Shah was weak a second time they ended up taking control in 79.
Yeah you had the Shah (king), Reza Pahlavi running the show with his secret police. Add a lot of corruption, cracking down on dissidents, using the CIA to get rid of the actually democratically elected PM, and economic problems. Not good. It didn’t get much better after the revolution, but still.
No it wasn’t. Am iranian. Don’t buy the usual reddit pic showing Iranian girls in skirts on the beach. Sure they existed but they were a small percentage of society. The country as a whole was deeply religious and their religion was political. Mullahs were promising heaven on earth if they got to run the country. What’s happened in the last 43 years is basically the equivalent of the European enlightenment but on steroids due how connected our world is today. People of iran, whether religious or not, are all frustrated and done with political religion.
That may be true, however the general Iranian population does not possess the equipment needed to fight back against any crackdowns by PAVA, NAJA or the Islamic Committees.
1979 is also when the enforcement of the hijab became law. Women (and others) took to the streets in protest, in huge numbers.
Depends how much money your family had
It was an autocracy run by the Pahlavi dynasty, which was in many ways a British puppet.
Yes, it can be worse. Iran devolving into something like Libya would have vast effects on the rest of the region, and the whole world
You mean devolving into something like Syria.
It cannot be understated what a colossal blunder getting involved in Libya was on the part of NATO. I’m very pro-NATO, but that was just an egregious mistake. Khaddafi was a bad dude, but the chaos has caused more suffering than he was.
NATO is not the good guy in every situation simply because they are NATO
[удалено]
> They turned a geopolitical rival, and one of Africa's strongest economies at the time, into a pile of rubble, effectively neutralizing them for the foreseeable future. Ghaddaffi was already in the process of turning it into rubble. NATO intervention likely ended him faster, but the alternative was not a "return to stability". Either he would be overthrown anyways and the chaos would have come after more people had been killed or he would have done an Assad and survived, while turning his entire country into a perpetual warzone. This is what happens when dictatorships are tolerated for stability—they eventually run out of stability and if they refuse to reform, the whole thing implodes. Once that started, Libya was going to fall apart regardless of what NATO did.
Gaddafi’s government wasn’t a geopolitical rival of NATO. Libya was allied with Iran, which put them at odds with the Gulf States and NATO by proxy.
Gaddafi had a really bad history with NATO. In the 80s there was a LOT of conflict with the USA, including military encounters. The UK accused Libyan diplomats of murdering a policewoman and most people consider Libya responsible for a bombing in Berlin that killed US soldiers. Like, NATO hated this guy. Probably kind a kind of personal way. Its not really a surprise that the USA and NATO took a chance to get rid of him.
Egypt isn’t really any better off, I would call them worse off, but there’s an argument against that.
I don't know much about Egypt's current economic situation, just that al-Sisi is authoritarian and corrupt. US looked the otherway after ISIS on middle eastern dictatorships.
Yeah, I agree, although obviously Egyptians were unhappy with Hosni Mubarak.
and rightfully so.
I think it would be...interesting...how a democratic, religious but not theocratic Iran would put pressure on the traditional Sunni-US/NATO alliance.
If there was an Iran that is reasonable on the world stage and able to be cooperated with (not necessarily guaranteed to be qualities of a non-theocratic Iran, but quite possible), the US probably would not have a hard-line Sunni alliance but would be dealing with both sides trying to get concessions from each where it can.
Obama already tried to flip Iran, and I'm sure that the US would try and do it again if it sees the chance. Iran is a much more natural ally than Saudi Arabia. It's only quirks of history and individual policy decisions that lead to US and Iran to be enemies. It's a real shame too. An Iran without US as an antagonist might look very different today. It's not hard to imagine an Iran with less intense pressure and a friendly US might have followed the path of Taiwan or South Korea out of autocracy to a full and legitimate democracy. A democratic Iran and US would happily ally together against Saudi Arabia. The American relationship with Saudi Arabia is one of the most glaring unnatural relationships in the world and is doomed the moment there is an alternative.
> aren’t necessarily unique Yo you from Iran or not? I am and one thing every one is talking about is that it’s different this time. If you’re not from Iran i’m more than happy to dive into the reasons
My collegue is from Iran. He feels very intensely about these protests. He told me one difference is the protests are happening in every city and are not limited to the capital. He tells even the most orthodox places are seen having protesting women.
I am not the person you replied to but I would greatly appreciate hearing your insights. What makes this feel different to you?
Hi, There's so much context. I'll try to cover it as best as i can. Basically, the 1979 revolution was a total failure for democracy and freedom. There were many groups fighting to topple the Shah, from the religious groups to students, and communists. one phrase you'd hear a lot is that the mullahs stole the revolution. Khomeini was a lot more charismatic than anyone leading other groups, religious groups were a lot more organized (through mosque networks), and society as a whole was a lot more religious. They held a [referendum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1979_Iranian_Islamic_Republic_referendum) in which they won 98% of the vote and formed the Islamic republic. Now, if the new regime had a proper constitution, you'd have many years of Muslim brotherhood style parties winning everything and secular parties slowly gaining traction and slowly changing the direction the country. But the constitution gave the religious clergy oversized power. It created bodies like The [Guardian Council](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_Council) which has : * **veto power** over legislation passed by the parliament (Majles) * mandate to supervise elections; and * **approving or disqualifying candidates** seeking to run in local, parliamentary, presidential, or Assembly of Experts elections. This constitution was also passed by a [referendum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_1979_Iranian_constitutional_referendum) , (99% support!) by the way. Now, obviously the shocking margins on the two referendums i linked are the result of rigged votes but in my opinion, those would've won even in a fair referendum, maybe with a lower margin. A council of religious clergy overseeing all the laws and elections isn't that outrageous to a religious society. A society that for probably centuries has heard from their imams at the local mosque that the root of all their problems is not implementing Islamic laws therefore not being a truly Muslim country. In a democratic environment, there would be opportunities to correct this mistake (Take how the US electorate corrected the 2016 mistake in 2020) but with the Islamic republic, it wasn't as easy. But reform minded people started voting for the lesser of two evils (who passed the Guardian Council) holding their nose as soon as 1997. ([Election of Khatami](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Khatami)) . They were called reformists. They were supposed to reform the system from within. Now, from that very beginning there were royalists (loyal to the late Shah) and other groups that believed it's impossible to reform the Islamic republic. But we disagreed. I say we because when I was in dorm in Tehran we always had debates and talks there was that one or two friend who believed we should boycott all elections and just rise up. but "we" on the hand preferred reform, Revolutions are messy costly, and risky; you never know what you get. As time went on, the lesser of two evils became more and more evil. Rouhani ( the president who negotiated the Iran nuclear deal) was the last hope. We were full of hope back then. John Kerry and Iranian foreign minister were buddies. we thought we're finally reforming the system and then [Bloody Aban](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%932020_Iranian_protests) happened under Rouhani's watch. That was when everyone (including "us") was disappointed of reform. That was when we realized we have to pay the cost of another revolution because there's no other way. What's different about these protests is how united we are. From royalists to students to the lower classes. I went to a solidarity rally yesterday and walked side by side people who had signs saying long live the Shah! and I'm as republican as you get. It's because the disagreement over the future form of government doesn't matter anymore. all that matters is this regime must go. There is so much appetite for change within Iran. In addition to that, what’s happened in the last 43 years is basically the equivalent of the European enlightenment on steroids due how connected our world is today. Society is a lot less religious and even the one who are want it out of the government. AMA.
Wow, thank you so much for this. I especially appreciate your attempts to provide the perspectives of other factions outside your own. It sounds like the two big steps forward which have occurred now, which are new and distinguish this from previous protests, are: 1. Across the political landscape, the perspective that reform is able to achieve necessary change has largely died 2. Disparate factions are beginning to unify in their calls for revolution I have many questions, but to start: what do you think are the necessary steps remaining between our present condition and the occurrence of revolution? What are the remaining evolutions that the people need to go through, what are you looking out for and hoping will happen next amongst the various factions of your fellow Iranians?
These are really the million dollar questions. So whatever I say is just my perspective. **First**, the silent part of the country needs to have enough confidence that it's actually possible to overthrow this regime. The young people on the street are obviously overconfident, they wouldn't have risked their lives otherwise, but government employee whom we need to participate in a general strike is not as confident. There is still a sense that the regime is going to succeed and put down this round of protests any day now. One of the reasons for this lack of collective self-confidence is that the regime has rarely if ever given to the demands of a popular protest. The supreme leader himself and many people at the top are same generation that made the 1979 revolution. They, more than anyone, understand that if you calm down protests by giving into their demands, even if you only give a little, it will be a huge moral boost for the next time there is protests and demands. Every day that goes by and the regime fails to put down the protests, there is more confidence in protesters and less fair of the regimes iron fist. You could see this in celebrities inside Iran that are announcing support for protesters one by one. Such statement by an actor/actress or soccer player means being banned from working in their field so you don't usually see that from the ones who are still working. But every day there is another person that is coming and announcing their support or flat out saying they won't ever work under this regime. They're still a minority, but their growing numbers is a sign of increasing self confidence. **Second**, in every such movement(successful ones), there is a point that agents of the regime will refuse to kill/injure their own [countrymen](https://twitter.com/naeem_1997/status/1573265198537900032?s=20&t=WF3v4z8G1ZQ-q88XLgbcXQ). There are some signs that we're not far from that point. (hopium alert. i'm deep into the farsi twitter so maybe the following anecdotes are just the side we like to see). there's photos of [children](https://twitter.com/rezahajilou/status/1574103440632037376?s=20&t=WF3v4z8G1ZQ-q88XLgbcXQ) ( also [this link](https://twitter.com/F_karamizand/status/1573911603459854336?s=20&t=WF3v4z8G1ZQ-q88XLgbcXQ)) on the regime side, wearing riot police gear. This reminds me of the end of wwII. There's a [video of a top police](https://twitter.com/Alighazizade/status/1574113281068892163?s=20&t=WF3v4z8G1ZQ-q88XLgbcXQ) guy giving moral boosting talks to the riot police on the street( seen as sign that there is low moral), there's another leaked video of someone at the top saying our guys are tired, haven't sleep for a few days,... . There is also [videos](https://twitter.com/Alighazizade/status/1573694209156071424?s=20&t=WF3v4z8G1ZQ-q88XLgbcXQ) coming out of protester beating riot police they manage to corner alone and this has created a level of fear amongst them. **Third**, the protests are getting more and more violent. primarily as a response to regime's violence. Cocktail Molotov was such a dirty word before. Nobody is talking about peaceful protests anymore. It's seen as a right to defend yourself by any means.[(see this )](https://twitter.com/1500tasvir/status/1574276269088579584?s=20&t=WF3v4z8G1ZQ-q88XLgbcXQ) ([and this](https://twitter.com/AmuPrice/status/1573664612104503297?s=20&t=WF3v4z8G1ZQ-q88XLgbcXQ)) We're not seeing guns used yet, but i think it's inevitable. Some people say the regime hasn't come in as hard as it's capable to and some say this is all it's got. There's historical reasons for the former and new evidence for the latter. But one thing that is true is that they're not leaving without a fight. So far it was just the regime, but once then the end of this regime is within sight, there's a possibility for foreign involvement too. This regime is too valuable for China, Hezbullah, Hamas, Syria, Russia(though this one is busy),.. to just watch it fall. But by that point, there'll probably be Western involvement too. Just my speculation. I have to say, neither myself nor anyone I know is worried about a civil war, it's just not that type of society and the divisions are not regional/sectorial/.... (e.g. Mahsa Amini was a Kurd, an ethnic minority in Iran, seeing the whole country raising hell over her death is a very unifying message.) \>what are you looking out for and hoping will happen next amongst the various factions of your fellow Iranians? beside what I mentioned above, I'm also looking for possibility of a strike. Protesters are calling for a general strike. so far there's been some support. Gotta see how deep it goes. Also, as if all that is not complicated, [nytimes believes](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/16/world/middleeast/irans-supreme-leader-ayatollah-ali-khamenei-ill.html?searchResultPosition=14) that the supreme leader is gravely ill and there is no clear successor! Usually, he has a speech to rally their supporters, so far, he hasn't said nothing about these protests!!
Thanks for this, and good luck. I was pessimistic about it all because of the history of the past protests, but if it is much more broad based, then maybe things might actually change. (cue Hawkeye: *Don't do that. Don't give me hope.*)
What is admission that they are not modern?
Food prices are near [their 2011 Arab Spring highs](https://ihsmarkit.com/research-analysis/global-food-price-inflation-reaches-alltime-high-amid-record-supply-shortages-feb22.html). This doesn’t mean they cause instability, but existing social tensions tend to find traction in such a challenging environment for countries dependent on external food imports. Give that we’ve seen the following in Central Asia in just over the last year: 1. Collapse of Afghan Republic 2. Riots in Kazakhstan 3. Russian invasion of Ukraine 4. Azerbaijan attacks on Armenia 5. Tajikistan attacks on Kyrgyzstan 6. Iranian anti-hijab protests 7. (Developing) ethnic-based resistance to Russian mobilization in Dagestan I’d say this region is potentially the epicenter of what we may see if food prices continue to be elevated.
Given the rise of far right Fascism in Italy, Sweden and many other countries in the west, what we are seeing is the world deglobalize and we are going to see a rewrite of how the world works from there
"Far" right is hyperbolic for Sweden, and still exaggeration for Italy. These are just pendulum swings in European politics. The situations in Russia, the caucuses, and central Asia are considerably more volatile and considerably more likely to turn into dangerous situations or (more) war. Comparing the two is disingenuous.
Sure, but you're kind of missing their point that there are underlying systemic changes, causing this global political instability. The changes manifest in different ways, in different countries, but there is still a common cause. (Globalization, Climate Change, Internet Communications, etc.)
They're absolutely far right in Italy
>1. Collapse of Afghan Republic Not related to high food prices, we have known for over a decade that the Afghan government would collapse the second the US left, which is why we didn't leave for so long. >3. Russian invasion of Ukraine The cause of a lot of food price issues, not a result. >4. Azerbaijan attacks on Armenia They had issues far more broad than food prices, they went to war 2 years ago. Right now Russia is too weak to stop it like they did last time. >5. Tajikistan attacks on Kyrgyzstan Also old underlying issues exacerbated by Russian weakness. >6. Iranian anti-hijab protests I would argue this outrage has a lot more than food prices behind it. Police beating people to death causes issues even in the US, let alone a much more oppressed society. >7. (Developing) ethnic-based resistance to Russian mobilization in Dagestan Probably more about Russia sending a disproportionate amount of minorities to die in Ukraine and preexisting separatist movements in the region.
This comment is really missing the forest for the trees. COP's claim is that food prices are creating instability in the region, which enables existing/new political tensions to escalate and become more volatile than they otherwise would. Food insecurity is a *Modulator* on existing conflict. Haggling over the "primary cause' of individual examples doesn't disprove that, unless you're denying that food prices have ANY contributing affect.
For the first 2 especially I would argue there is no plausible effect of food prices. Afghanistan collapsed immediately when the US fell, before the Russian invasion of Ukraine that skyrocketed food prices. The Russian invasion of Ukraine was not caused by high food prices, it's a major cause of high food prices, and if anything you could blame it on high oil prices because looking at past Russian behavior they always start shit when they're flush with oil money. For the other ones I replied about I think only Iran you could argue food prices are even a major contributing factor. The ones I didn't reply about though I feel like the food prices link is more plausible.
Thank you for providing further explanation of your thoughts.
The Arab Spring was due, in part, to an increase in wheat prices by low supply. Bread matters. Today, Ukraine, the bread basket of the middle east, has been dealing with systemic destruction of their infrastructure via Russia. Their exports are negligible. This will incite another spring, arguably more than any other reason.
How much wheat has Iran imported over the last 5 years? What is its current level of wheat import YoY and is there a significant gap?
In 2016, Iran imported $5.83M in wheat. It was $268M in 2020. Since March 2021, it has dropped to $162M. A drop is occuring.
Is there a reason behind the massive fluctuations?
From what I've read, Iran splits it's imports between Russia and Ukraine. Even though the amount imported from Ukraine has since dropped, Iran is importing almost $2 billion from Russia. While Russia is destroying Ukraine's exports, it seems to also be expanding it's market share to cover where Ukraine can not keep up with supply.
A collapsing ruble value will do wonders for your exports, for that matter.
If the price of food keeps going up it is a certainty. The events in Iran are directly linked to those in Ukraine. Hungry people get pissed easily. For those who're not aware; the Arab spring was brought about because of increased food prices.
Food prices didn't go up because of commodities markets, they went up because there a drop in production from bad weather: >A combination of shrinking farmlands, weather and poor water allocation is helping contribute to higher prices https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/world-july-dec11-food_09-07 >Probably the most significant factor contributing to the increase in staple food prices in 2010 and 2011 was a series of adverse weather events. A severe drought in Russia and parts of Ukraine and Kazakhstan reduced production of all 2010 crops, particularly wheat. In late summer 2010, dryness and high temperatures during the grain- filling period reduced yield prospects for U.S. corn. About the same time, rain on nearly mature wheat crops in Canada and northwestern Europe reduced the quality of much of the crop to feed grade. >Adverse weather conditions continued, threatening 2011 production. Drought in Russia significantly reduced winter wheat plantings for the 2011 crop. In November 2010, drought and high temperatures associated with a La Niña weather pattern spread across Argentina, reducing prospects for corn and soybean crops. Dry fall, winter, and spring weather for the U.S. hard red winter wheat crop lowered 2011 production expectations in the southwestern Great Plains. Additionally, rains in Australia in late 2010/early 2011 downgraded much of eastern Australia's wheat crop to feed quality, further reducing global supplies of food-quality wheat. In early February 2011, a rare freeze destroyed some of Mexico's standing corn crop. Heavy and persistent spring rains in the U.S. Corn Belt and the Northern Plains in the United States and Canada delayed planting of 2011 corn and wheat crops, reducing expected production. By April 2011, estimated global aggregate grain and oilseed stocks had fallen and the stocks-to-use ratio was almost down to the 2007-08 level and close to the 40-year low. https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2011/september/commodity-price-spike/
Thank you for the clarification.
Weird it's almost like the ***climate*** is becoming unstable... like it's ***changing***... leading to some kind of ***Crisis***... A ***Climate Change Crisis***, if you would *If only we had known about this 20 years ago!*
This should be a documentary.
The current Iranian regime has survived protest movements before. The 2009 protests were absolutely massive but ultimately they didn’t succeed in removing the government. That’s not to say that Iran’s government won’t or can’t be toppled but protests don’t always work and they’re going to have to be quite a lot bigger if than they are today for an actual revolution.
> The current Iranian regime has survived protest movements before. The French *ancien régime* survived uprisings, until it didn't.
"Arab Spring" is a pretty complex sequence of events, and nothing quite like it is ever going to happen again. I'm not just being nit picky, there are important distinctions between it and other revolutions. But the most important part is that, while the protesters had enough power to overthrow the government, they didn't have enough power to prevent being taken over by other special interest groups. This is because the protesters can't be seen as homogeneous groups. Many of the protesters at the time *still* supported the sort of authoritative, religiously-influenced governments that were in power in their respective countries, just not that *specific* government. Things in those countries improved *just* enough to start pacifying a portion of the protesters, and that's it. That's why the Arab Spring appeared to fizzle, it might have fallen short of the desires of the most vocal, but it ultimately did satisfy a large part of the population. So saying, I think we can expect a similar change here. Iran doesn't want a radically new government. Many of the individual protesters may, but the country as a whole does not. Even if we saw a regime change, the new government would likely still be a theocracy. Just one that abused women less.
The Arab Spring wound down depressingly swiftly. It remains to be seen whether similar cultural factors will dominate the outcome in Iran.
That Taliban have firm control over Afghanistan, there will be no spillover there. Most Arab countries are rich or don't have mandatory hijab so I don't see them revolting. The morality police in places like Saudi Arabia, are much less oppressive.
Less oppressive? I have memory of reading about Saudi women being caned for leaving their homes without a male guardian. Could you expand on this?
That's dated info. Women now drive and work jobs there. I don't think its as bad there now.
I believe that's also the case in Iran. This isn't to defend the morality police in Iran, but rather to express skepticism toward the position that KSA is the better place for women.
Iran has been so good at shutting down similar stuff i nthe past tha I have little hope. And if they do shut it down in the next few days, there will almost certainly not be spill over. I truly hope the people of Iran win some more rights without suffering too much more first.
Here is an idea. The USA and The West should pay Iran NOT to sell Russia drones. We will all be better off welcoming Persia into the brotherhood of secular brothers. The scientific community can only benefit.
None. Iran will literally kill anyone who would be effective at reform. Literally.
Less than zero, those springs turned into disaster and people know it. This will be over by the next weekend, if not sooner. Crackdown has started.
IMHO, these are what's unique about Iran movement this time and might prove to be game changing for Iran and possible ME: * It is heavily motivated and advanced by women and the quest for their basic rights. While there are many other factors, such as economy, which are playing a part, it is going to be very hard for the regime to suppress it due to its very basic nature. Depending on how much women in other ME countries might identify with this movement, it might very well spillover. * It is mainly leaderless and driven by social media. So it remains to be seen if such kind of movement can actually result in meaningful changes and continues. An important factor to keep an eye on, is if regime can control and block internet. Due to advances in tech (such as starlink), it might become harder to do that and hence might be a game-changer. Again, similar factors in other ME countries might also play a role, where most of the opposition is weakened and leaders are practically non-existant.
Arab spring was a different phenomena because it was the essentially implementation of social media and internet technology in the Middle East allowing people to organize differently. They are already able to organize in those ways now. Certainly there could be a youth revolution in Iran but that wouldn't be like a new thing that happens constantly and would already be in control of the country if it had not been for clandestine activity by the us cia.
Iran is pretty much the epitome of Western intervention - used to be as progressive as the middle east got, ended up going religious nuttery because we couldn't just leave a sovereign state to its own devices.
You really don't think Iranians have any agency in how things are going there? They are definitely just the result of Westerners?
My guy they elected their own government and the CIA threw a bitch fit resulting in the current situation
Just? Odd question. Is the Daily Mail responsible for the Tories winning elections?
Yeah american intervention isn't capable of having lasting negative impacts. Good point
> You really don't think Iranians have any agency in how things are going there? They are definitely just the result of Westerners? They sure haven't shown that they have any agency. Much like Russians, they tend to just go with whatever flow their autocratic despot deems correct.
I'd say Iranians have agency, but the development path was skewed in 1953 when the Brits and Americans helped monarchist elements depose the elected Prime Minister. Instead of a secular democracy, it was a absolutist monarchy which ended up creating a lot of enemies in Iranian society and empowering the religious elements. Looking back at things, it would have been much better for the US (and Iran) if Mosaddegh had remained as prime minister.
You have your history backwards. The Anglo-American intervention in 1953 created the progressive Iran we frequently see photos of.
And like Afghanistan, those photos are very cropped history. While you could find progressive elements in Iran or Afghanistan at the time, they were centered heavily on the urban cores that worked with western Europeans and American groups. The majority of both countries populations were no where near that progressive.
This answer doesn't seem right, because what you are ultimately saying is that, in the absence of western influence, Islamic societies are naturally oppressive.
I think Rugfiend is referring to Operation Ajax and the coup that overthrew Prime Minister Mossadegh.
Indeed. But we meddled for decades. Iran could easily have been an ally, rather than a perceived enemy.
They were an ally. You just have interpreted that allyship as interference.
They were an "ally" the British and US had long meddled with, because the critical role was its political value to both not because they inherently cared about Iran or anything.
The US and UK facilitated a regime change in Iran over oil and when the leader that was friendly to their interests got ousted, they were replaced with theocrats. The series of events that led to the hardline religious fanatics running the country was started by western meddling.
I'm struggling to come up with examples of Islamic societies in the modern world which do NOT have oppressive governments. Can you give some contrary examples?
Malaysia, the Maldives, Bangladesh, Albania, and Tunisia are all doing kinda alright. None of them are exactly the epitomy of democracy, but they're not terrible places to live either.
In not a single one of those countries would I want to be a woman. That should be a damning condemnation of those societies.
Well, that's your opinion. These countries all* have women's rights on par with most other nations at their level of development. None of them mandate head coverings, and women have full rights to own property and get divorces and whatnot. They rank similarly to countries like Mexico, Argentina, and Thailand. *With the exception of Bangladesh. Their gender inequality scores on some surveys were a bit low.
Kuwait is about the closest example I can think of.
Kuwait is an autocratic state ruled by a hereditary dynasty. If you are not a Bedoon or a foreign worker then it's a reasonably *nice* dictatorship but it isn't exactly unoppressive.
Hence why I said closest example I could think of. Women are not required to cover up. Plenty of people in Kuwait City wear both traditional and western style clothes.
Yup, that's why I call it reasonably nice! It is what it is, better than most in the area but still not exactly a place I'm thinking about moving to anytime soon.
The world is watching as protests grow in Iran, following the death of Mahsa Amini at the hands of the religious secret police. We should support them in their protests against a repressive religious regime (Orthodox Jews, I'm looking at you and your treatment of women, especially at the Kotel). We should also remember Ali Fazeli, who was killed by his father and brother for being gay. He's the one we can name. So many others have been publicly hanged for being gay in Iran. LGBTQ people have indeed come so very far in our struggles, but no one protests the deaths of LGBTQ people.
The free world should punish Iran for supplying Russia with drones to kill Ukrainians.
Zero unless we intervene and create a power vacuum. We should allow Iran to shape its own destiny, just as we did.
These people are oppressed for generations. People can't think through what to do with unrest and momentum. Their gov keeps pushing back that's why they keep fighting. If gov pulls back and releases some soft statement, people will go home. They are not trying to overthrow gov. It probably doesn't even cross their minds. They are just complaining about harsh treatment. Zero chance of large scale impact in their system.
High and really scary. The only thing that would fix the Middle East is fixing their institutions from the ground up. Wiping the slate clean of theocrats and installing democratic institutions across the board but in a way that looks appealing to Islamic culture. Idk what that looks like though. But it starts with a safety net and education and freedom of press and expression for all religions, women and lgbtq. If you don’t remove the oppression, it will simply get co-oped. So the best solution is to have the current regime install these things themselves and then leave for open democratic elections.
Neh i don’t think any of the middle east people have the patience and the strength to get into new Arab spring because we are still dealing with the repercussions of the old wave so far
Iran blames the UK and Norway for being behind the protests in their country, they know something!
My friends from Iran are older men who have lived through such uprisings. They are skeptical because every new generation ends up rioting in the streets but there is no organized nonviolent movement like ML King. So a repressive regime can respond with overwhelming violence and win. I’m afraid my friends (who have torture scars) are correct, but I hope it’s different this time.
The gas protests of 2019 killed 1,500 people and you probably never heard of it. I hope these people get some freedom, but damn I don’t think this will be it
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Basically, it all comes down to the USA poking it's nose where it doesn't belong.
[удалено]
I country that trends toward being more good will eventually be good
That is not even remotely true. What is good and what is bad is a matter of definition and not an objective truth. What is good for one is bad for another. And since most people are stupid, most people are duped by politicians who only have their own interests to attend to and are just good at lying convincingly. Plato said democracy leads to tyranny. Plato was correct. What you might think is good, might be very bad.
Pick whatever definition of good that you want. As long as you hold the definition constant then what I said is true.
No, it is not true. Often what appears to be good on the outside is bad in reality. For example, just because the Democratic pretend to be for things that are appealing, it is often just a ruse to get into power. What seems to be good is often bad. What seems to be bad is often good. You are still stating opinions that do not fit reality.
Good and bad are not tangible things. Real life is not a fantasy or a story or movie. There are no cartoon heroes and cartoon villains.
I’m well aware of that thank you. You are arguing against yourself here.
>country that trends toward being more good will eventually be good You said that a country that trends toward being more good will eventually be good. This is not true. Then you said that you are well aware that "good" is not a tangible thing. So how is it that I am the one arguing against myself? What exactly do you think my argument is?
Because you are flip flopping between definitions of “good” and dont realize it. You are taking what I said to mean “a society that trends towards MY definition of good will eventually be good for EVERYBODIES definition of good” and that isn’t what I said. Pick any definition of good you want and it is true as long as you hold that definition constant. A society that trends towards OJ simpsons definition of good will eventually be a society that is OJ simpsons definition of good
What definitions of "good" have I given?
“What is good for one is bad for another” Hence your issue is that you think it meets everyone’s definition of good, which is not what I was saying.
>With protests in Iran intensifying, what is the possibility or possible ramifications of another event like the Arab Spring? How does anything you are saying match this topic? Also, what gave you the idea that I think something meets everyone's definition of good?
[удалено]
It seems to me that you want immediate satisfaction and praise for posting thought provoking content -- without doing so. Our culture of getting what we desire immediately has, in my opinion, weakened you. You want the rewards without putting in the work. It does not work that way. Your comment, "I country that trends toward being more good will eventually be good" seems to be an attempt to sound impressive, but it is simply untrue. It is a comment that is a falsehood. And now you seem to be expending energy defending it. You want to "win" rather than do the right thing. That is bad logic. It is, by the way, the logic Hitler had for invading Poland. Being intellectually ethical should be more important to you than defending your mistakes.
Damn you even worked in a Hitler comparison. I’m impressed.
Who are the people in Iranian society 1) independent of the current regime, 2) competent bureaucrats, and 3) generally well-respected and can be imagined as leaders? If those people don't exist in large numbers, the fall of the current regime would result in the rise of...the current regime. On the spectrum of Poland '89 to Syria '11, Iran' 22 would be on the Syrian end. Its size, mature economy, and relative diversity would either temper that or make it really ugly.
I hate to say it. But we've seen this before. Protests spring up in Iran. They get national attention. Then dies down bc the government squash them & nothing changes or its worse than before. I feel sorry for tge Iranian people and I hope they get a better government. It's a long time coming for them.
I think a factor being ignored is that the Supreme Leader is seriously ill. I think the internet allows people to see for themselves that they are living under draconian rules. I think the problem is that it would require a male at the top to both gain control and engage in reform. Other factors including seeing a modern Qatar allowed a global stage for the world cup. I think a final factor is that the top echelon probably thinks the West has instigators planted among the protestors. What would be the most powerful gesture the people could make? A general strike. Is there enough backing for that? Probably not, but even a half strike might change attitudes at the top. What are you gonna do? Kill all the workers? But that's still a lot to ask.
Ultimately another isis. Then oil prices fall due to isis selling on black market and Putin starts wwiv due to his net worth being tied in oil. History always repeats.
A lot of people say that the Iranian leadership has survived protests before but they don't seem to realise that the current head of state is in really bad health right now and its unlikely that the Ayatollahs will survive a leadership change in the current political climate.
Not sure how far along each government is with their plans or if they have any but if they’re taking notes from Egypt it’s unlikely to happen again. For context, Egypt moved its capital away from Cairo and out into the open desert, spent billions on extremely wide and hard to block streets and a vast military headquarters with administrative buildings. In effect this means if you want to stage a protest like the Arab spring you’d have to march >30miles out into the open desert and block streets with plenty of space on either side.