what is next*???
what is next*???
"Sovereignty is not given, it is taken." ATATÜRK
I'm pretty sure that if there would be an uprising, it will go the way of the other ones... and have the tendency to develop into radical, fundamentalist islamic revolutions.
I hope there won't be such an uprising simply because I don't want the christians, hindu and jewish communities in Iran to be persecutted for their religious beliefs. Now, they enjoy equal freedoms from the government. If it falls... well.. we'll see a do-over of what happened in egypt... of what is going on in Libya and Syria. Christians and other minorities (whatever jewish minorities are left) are being killed and systematically destroyed by the "arab spring" rebels. A religious genocide.
This shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. Iran is much more cosmopolitan than any of those other countries you mentioned. And unlike those other countries, it's already tried a religious fundamentalist government and the people don't like it. And unlike those other countries, it's Shiite and Persian rather than Sunni and Arab. Frankly it's pretty stupid to assume that Iran and Egypt are going to develop the same way just because most people are Muslims...just as it would be stupid to say that the United States and Colombia are basically the same because most people in both countries are nominally Christian.I hope there won't be such an uprising simply because I don't want the christians, hindu and jewish communities in Iran to be persecutted for their religious beliefs. Now, they enjoy equal freedoms from the government. If it falls... well.. we'll see a do-over of what happened in egypt... of what is going on in Libya and Syria. Christians and other minorities (whatever jewish minorities are left) are being killed and systematically destroyed by the "arab spring" rebels. A religious genocide.
Last edited by Kandahar; 10-04-12 at 07:53 PM.
Are you coming to bed?
I can't. This is important.
Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD
I'm less hopeful about the outcome of a revolution in Iran than others on here seem to be. It's what has made me worried about the Arab Spring, we have become relatively spoiled in terms of how we perceive the power and stability of autocratic regimes, and the tools that are often needed to topple them. We look to Egypt and marvel at the apparent strength of 'people power' but we neglect to remember the role that SCAF played. What would have happened if the military had not been afraid to use violence against the protesters, what would have happened if they had had a rank and file ready and willing to carry out those commands? The revolution would have been crushed and tanks not protesters would have occupied Tahrir Square.
In Libya what stopped the protesters from being crushed? The inherent weakness of the Libyan military and their ability to draw from large defector formations and seize military equipment. Even then this was barely enough, and before NATO intervened Libyan troops were advancing on Benghazi. In Syria what happened? The protest movement was repeatedly put down with violence, and so was forced to react with violence against a regime willing to use every weapon in its arsenal commensurate with the threat. The result is a dead peoples revolution and a still smoldering civil war.
My point is that all an autocracy needs to retain power is a security force, and one that is willing to act against the populace. This is why almost every revolution requires some sort of defection or unconscious acquiescence and cooperation with the security forces. This can either take the form of actual military defections and the creation of a revolutionary nucleus to defend the demonstrators (or if need be engage in pitched battle a la Syria), or a security apparatus that chooses not to fight the civilians and allows the government to fall (a la Egypt).
What do you have in Iran? There is a very strong security apparatus that is ideologically and often geographically separate from the liberal urban population. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and the Baseej are frequently drawn from the more conservative countryside and are seen as being ideologically and politically close to the regime. Especially those battalions that have had a surplus of religious indoctrination. Then you have the Interior Ministry and its associated police organs which for obvious reasons are very close to the regime and have a personal stake in preventing a new potentially vengeful regime from coming to power. Your X factors are the Iranian conventional forces (again often drawn from conservative parts of the country but not as much) but these have diminished in size and scope. For example much of the naval, rocket, and aerial programs have been subsumed into the IRGC, and frequently IRGC field formations have replaced conventional forces.
The last time demonstrations broke out I didn't see any qualms on the part of security forces to fire into crowds or send suppression teams into the streets. Did anyone else? I think the only way a revolution in Iran succeeds is if the base expands to include the conservative smaller cities, the countryside, and the merchant class. Then you have a chance of peeling away some military or security assets in the regime, who will see their demographic base of support thinning dramatically and may choose to cut out while they still can.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40095.pdfSince 1996, the United States has sent over 2.2 million MT of food assistance worth nearly $800 million to North Korea. Over 90% of U.S. food assistance to Pyongyang has been channeled through the U.N. World Food Programme (WFP). The United States has been by far the largest cumulative contributor to the WFP’s North Korea appeals.
(And thats only food aid, we provide other kinds of aid as well)
China's biggest support for North Korea comes from buying its goods, which is probably the biggest source of funds for the North Korean regime.
Also, it isn't just Persian. It is 60%+ persian while the rest 40% of the country is kurds, turks, arabs and what naught.
I ma not saying Egypt and Syria and Libya are becoming more islamic radical because they are muslims... I am saying it because the major forces behind the "revolutions" is a radical islamic group.
That being said the revolutions in Iran are also, in part, due to radical islamic groups. The theocracy in Iran, well, part of it, wants ahmadinejad out of the way. The pro-democracy protests in the street are partially fueled by the desire for religious rulership. Just like in Egypt right? The people wanted democracy and with said democracy, they elected a guy whose main platform was jihad and shari'a. Way to go!
Libya is far more cosmopolitan in the West than in Benghazi, Marsa Brega and Derna where there are still tribal rivalries. But, over all.. the Libyans want peace and prosperity.. That is impossible in a war zone.. Impossible for everyone.
While there are pockets of hardline radicals everywhere, the ME is changing.. for the better, I think because of a consensus among the people.. Not to say that there won't be "bumps in the road"... but look at this week's news out of Saudi Arabia.. which is very conservative. The SAG with the approval of the clerics, the merchant class, the technocrats etc have radically curbed the powers of the religious police.