| ▲ | nine_k 12 hours ago |
| Realistically, a secular Iran would be the only real ally of Israel in the region. This is how it was under the shah, until 1979. Israel is set to benefit enormously from an economically functional Iran, with sanctions lifted, and a sane, non-fanatical, non-oppressive government. Iran used to be a pretty cool and developed country in 1960s, and could be now. (Edit: typo) |
|
| ▲ | dttze 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| You’re like the gusanos that say Cuba was so much better before the revolution. Without mentioning it was only great for the landowning slavers. Why do you think there was a revolution? |
| |
| ▲ | HK-NC 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Well I'd argue 50% of the population got a raw deal in the revolution at least. | |
| ▲ | 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | nine_k 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Cubans kept massively supporting Fidel for quite some time, and quite explicitly, even through the disastrous Communist economic policies. Iranians keep protesting; last few years have seen several large protests, involving hundreds of thousands, and continuing for months. The popularity just isn't there. Regarding revolutions, it's quite often that a relatively small group of like-minded people capture the control, and the majority is weakly supporting them, or is even weakly opposed but complies. The French revolution was mostly about some nobility wanting to remove the monarchy that oppressed them, along with the rest; most of the population wasn't overtly anti-monarchy, and not even covertly so, but it did not like the monarchy's pressure either. The Russian revolution was "communist" and "proletarian", but even by their own Marxist accounting, proletarians were less than 10% of Russian population, and communists, much fewer still. Nevertheless, they subdued most of the Russian empire. The Iranian revolution was also done by a group of highly religious people who were fed up with the shah's secularization reforms. The shah, AFAICT, was a guy a bit like Putin, or Saudi kings: efficient and geared towards prosperity of the country, but quite authoritarian. The fact that e.g. the educated urban population in Iran wasn't happy about authoritarianism does not imply that the same people were (or are) huge fans of theocracy. Actually, the theocracy ended up even more oppressive. | |
| ▲ | inglor_cz 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The Cuban revolution was more of a coup than a widespread national uprising. It was a blind alley anyway. Zero countries that embraced Marxism-Leninism were able to reach prosperity on that ideology. Meanwhile, a lot of desperately poor countries of the 1950s are nowadays reasonably well of, on the basis of a normal, regulated market economy. | | |
| ▲ | LtWorf 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Do you have sources for all of this fantasy spin on history? | | |
| ▲ | inglor_cz 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | AFAIK Castro had never more than 3 thousand armed men at his side, and often much fewer, down to lower hundreds, spending much of the protracted conflict hiding in the countryside. A revolution is something in which a significant part of a nation actively participates, not something that almost the entire population sits out passively. Of course we can debate what is the necessary fraction, but 3000 militants isn't a big deal in a country of several million. Every Iraqi cleric in 2010 was able to put together a bigger militia than that. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | lostlogin 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > This is how it was under the shah, until 1979. Sort of? The US played a role in that shit show and it wasn’t all happy days under the Shah. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution |
| |
| ▲ | nine_k 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not "happy", but Iran was quite a bit more sober, not hostile towards Israel, and relatively secular. (Similarly, China under Deng Xiaoping was not a paragon of political freedom at all, but it was quite a bit more sober than under Mao Zedong. The US administration had tons of shortcomings under president Biden, but it was in quite a bit less of disarray than under president Trump.) |
|
|
| ▲ | praptak 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Shah was a dictator propped up by US. There's no going back to these times. |
| |
|
| ▲ | throw310822 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Israel is set to benefit enormously from an economically functional Iran, Israel is currently engaged in genocide, how would it be good for it to benefit enormously? |
| |
| ▲ | foxglacier 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | People keep saying genocide but has it been established objectively? I seem to remember the ICJ deciding they weren't, but that was some time ago. | | |
| ▲ | tdeck 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > ? I seem to remember the ICJ deciding they weren't Is this some reality distortion field? This never happened. Instead the ICJ issued multiple explicit orders to Israel that Israel has violated and the genocide case is still ongoing. | |
| ▲ | Krasnol 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Who cares about ICJ or any International Law these days anymore? Yeah, I mean we can still use it (or it's slowness and uselessness) to hide behind it but the facts are on the table. Gaza looks like post-war Germany at this point. People ARE starving. Meanwhile Israel expands to the east. Also illegally. | |
| ▲ | qwery 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | People keep questioning the definition of genocide, as if finding some technical distinction will absolve the perpetrators. If you actually care about international law, you might be interested to know that the ICC has issued (standing) arrest warrants for Netanyahu and the former Israeli Minister for Defense for various crimes against humanity and the use of starvation in warfare. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Tylkwvld 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |
