Iran: Regime Change? Possible?

[August1991]

In 1979, it happened.

In Iraq and Libya, it also happened. It recently happened in Syria.

====

I am a Canadian.

If you Americans tried to change my complicated Protestant/Catholic/French/English/Alberta/Quebec Canadian regime, you would make a mess of it.

Please don't.

[August1991]

In these 2020s, Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly seem to think that America must confront/oppose Russia, China, Putin, Islam.

I disagree.

======

I fear that we are closer to the 1910s.

As then, we understand everything. Technology will solve our problems. The Titanic will not sink. The war will be short.

  

Edited June 21 by August1991

[CITIZEN_2015]

6 hours ago, August1991 said:

In 1979, it happened.

In Iraq and Libya, it also happened. It recently happened in Syria.

====

I am a Canadian.

If you Americans tried to change my complicated Protestant/Catholic/French/English/Alberta/Quebec Canadian regime, you would make a mess of it.

Please don't.

Terror regime of Islamic Republic must change at any cost and by all available means

They are a serious danger to Israel and the the world as they are bunch of murderous terrorists who have taken the nation of Iran hostage. These f*cking mullahs (Shiite Islamic clergy) believe in same principals that Nazi Germany did with the exception that they not only wish to destroy the whole world and Jewish state, even they are killing thousands of their own people.

Regime change must come even if thousands of Iranian civilian regretfully lose their lives as this regime kills far more Iranians if they are allowed to stay in power. Past 6 months they have executed 1700 people alone. They feed on hate (of Israe and US and Christians and Bahais) and rule by fear and terror and executions and torture and threat of rape and arrests.

If Israelis that now have the chance to remove this cancer from the world miss the opportunity, this is a defeat for the whole world and the regime will go on revenge against their own people executing thousands suspected of helping or even supporting Israel.

 

If you support the survival of this murderous regime of terror by any means including a post asking for it to stay in power then you will be responsible for all deaths and suffering in any future date commited by this regime. Your hand will be on the blood of innocent people.

Edited June 21 by CITIZEN_2015

[CITIZEN_2015]

8 hours ago, August1991 said:

In 1979, it happened.

In Iraq and Libya, it also happened. It recently happened in Syria.

====

I am a Canadian.

If you Americans tried to change my complicated Protestant/Catholic/French/English/Alberta/Quebec Canadian regime, you would make a mess of it.

Please don't.

You got it all wrong (as well the one who thanked you without understanding what you said).

Nobody wants to change any religion or culture in Iran, They aim at removing the Nazi Islamists who have taken over a country which no longer is a religious country and is taken a nation hostage and is a danger to the whole world and are killing Iranians. Did the West have the right to remove Hitler? If yes then they have same rights in Iran now. 

Remove this cancerous murderous regime by all available means abd at any cost. It pays off big time,

Edited June 21 by CITIZEN_2015

[August1991]

On 6/21/2025 at 3:49 PM, CITIZEN_2015 said:

....

Nobody wants to change any religion or culture in Iran, They aim at removing the Nazi Islamists who have taken over a country which no longer is a religious country and is taken a nation hostage and is a danger to the whole world and are killing Iranians. Did the West have the right to remove Hitler? If yes then they have same rights in Iran now. 

Remove this cancerous murderous regime

.....

Whatever.

You try that, you are putting boots on the ground.

Soviet soldiers in Berlin. Coulter-style rape.

====

Adam Smith and Lee Quan Yew won. We need a new structure of peace. 

Edited Sunday at 02:37 AM by August1991

[Army Guy]

And yet today berlin is flourishing, as is the rest of germany, the german people are reunited under one flag and the soviets have gone home....we could go on with other countries that had boots on the ground if you like... This is how humans solve difficult problems with violence...

[SpankyMcFarland]

Generally speaking, a foreign bombing campaign rallies people around the flag and whatever regime is in charge, eg Britain, the Soviet Union, Vietnam. When foreign forces tried to end the French Revolution they made Napoleon a hero. 

[User]

12 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Generally speaking, a foreign bombing campaign rallies people around the flag and whatever regime is in charge, eg Britain, the Soviet Union, Vietnam. When foreign forces tried to end the French Revolution they made Napoleon a hero. 

And yet... Napoleon was eventually defeated. Napoleon came to power through a military coup... he was not merely held up as hero, but thus became the ruler. 

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

4 hours ago, User said:

And yet... Napoleon was eventually defeated. Napoleon came to power through a military coup... he was not merely held up as hero, but thus became the ruler. 

 

He was defeated eventually because he became a despot himself and also because the emperors of Europe hated the dangerously meritocratic example he offered their oppressed subjects, especially their ethnic and religious minorities, thus conspiring against him for years with the British who didn’t care one whit about absolutism on the European mainland. The ideas of the French Revolution lived on. 

The point I’m making is we are all tribal creatures first. France was divided by the Revolution but rallied around the flag once foreigners invaded the country. The same thing happened in both Iran after Saddam’s invasion and the USSR during Barbarossa. Uncle Joe may have been a tyrant but he was their tyrant. 

Edited Tuesday at 06:27 PM by SpankyMcFarland

[User]

4 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

He was defeated because the emperors of Europe hated the dangerously meritocratic example he offered their oppressed subjects, especially their ethnic and religious minorities, and conspired against him for years with the British who didn’t care one whit about absolutism on the European mainland. 

LOL, yeah, sure, I bet his attempts to conquer all of Europe and Russia, to isolate and weaken Britain, didn't have anything to do with folks trying to defeat him... 

Nope, not that!

In your backwards history revisionism, poor little France hoisted up their hero and they were just minding their own business in their newfound utopia. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

14 minutes ago, User said:

LOL, yeah, sure, I bet his attempts to conquer all of Europe and Russia, to isolate and weaken Britain, didn't have anything to do with folks trying to defeat him... 

Nope, not that!

In your backwards history revisionism, poor little France hoisted up their hero and they were just minding their own business in their newfound utopia. 

We are getting a little off track here. Unfortunately, English speakers have generally received a lopsided education in Napoloeon through a British lens of yesteryear that equated him crudely with the likes of Hitler and ignored the way in which he transformed France, and European law. One example would be the emancipation of Jews in his empire and what happened to many of them after he fell from power, eg in the original ghetto of Venice. Needless to say, there were wars in Europe involving the great empires before and after Napoleon.

That’s another day’s work. My initial point was that a young French corporal was given an opportunity to seize power in France because of a foreign invasion of the country. 

To reiterate: foreign ‘liberations’ rarely work because they are usually not aligned with the interests of the invaded nation. 
 

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 06:40 PM by SpankyMcFarland

[SpankyMcFarland]

Trump’s own campaigns for the presidency criticized the forever wars in the Middle East that his country embroiled itself in which is why some of his supporters were disappointed by this new development.  

[herbie]

Regime change? Keep it up and Iran may cause regime change in the USA.

[User]

46 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Trump’s own campaigns for the presidency criticized the forever wars in the Middle East that his country embroiled itself in which is why some of his supporters were disappointed by this new development.  

What forever war are we now engaged in?

 

[User]

56 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

That’s another day’s work. My initial point was that a young French corporal was given an opportunity to seize power in France because of a foreign invasion of the country. 

Except... there was no foreign invasion of the country at the time he seized power...

58 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

To reiterate: foreign ‘liberations’ rarely work because they are usually not aligned with the interests of the invaded nation. 

Well, you started off talking about bombing, not about a "liberation"

Either way, Iran leaders hold power through fierce dictatorial control over their people, not because the people love their leaders. 



 

[SpankyMcFarland]

15 hours ago, User said:

Either way, Iran leaders hold power through fierce dictatorial control over their people, not because the people love their leaders. 
 

Who is denying that? I took examples where many people clearly didn’t love their leaders and still fought for their country, eg Iran itself in 1980 when the ‘Shah’s pilots’ helped halt Saddam’s invasion.

 

Quote

Despite the organizational collapse of the Iranian military and the departure of American military advisors at the onset of the revolution, the Islamic Republic Iranian Air Force (IRIAF) displayed remarkable performance during the first year of the war. In fact, the IRIAF managed to quickly respond to Iraqi attacks on Iranian air bases on the same day of the Iraqi invasion of Iran. The Third and Sixth TABs launched Operation Revenge within a few hours of the Iraqi attack. Accordingly, eight Iranian F-4 Phantoms from Hamedan and Bushehr attacked two air bases in Iraq. Iran lost one Phantom, marking the first Iranian combat casualties. Brigadier General (Ret.) Rouholdin Aboutalebi, then a junior officer in Shiraz Seventh TAB, remembers: “I put on my flight suit as I was running in the street, wearing my boots.” He hailed a colleague and he was airborne in less than six hours for a Combat Air Patrol (CAP) mission. Similarly, General Namaki recalls that, “When the war started, we all became united in defending our motherland.”

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/iransource/how-the-iranian-air-force-turned-the-tide-of-the-iran-iraq-war-in-1980/

Or 1941 when the Soviet Army, still reeling from Stalin’s murderous purges, stopped the mighty Wehrmacht in front of Moscow. I’m sure many Vietnamese weren’t too keen on communism either but people will naturally unite to fight foreigners who attack their country whatever the state of internal politics. 

One of many mistakes America made in its constitutional order was to combine the roles of head of state with head of government. The executive du jour and the nation should always be clearly distinguished. 

 

Edited Wednesday at 10:36 AM by SpankyMcFarland

[SpankyMcFarland]

How much support the mullahs still have is completely open to debate but it’s probably significant among blue collar, traditional Iranians with limited education. I’d be surprised if it’s less than 20%. Maybe 30% are willing to actively and openly campaign against the regime. That leaves 50% who might like to see change but are more focused on getting by. 

[User]

6 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Who is denying that? I took examples where many people clearly didn’t love their leaders and still fought for their country, eg Iran itself in 1980 when the ‘Shah’s pilots’ helped halt Saddam’s invasion.

Saddam was not coming there to liberate them... Saddam was just as bad if not worse. 

6 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Or 1941 when the Soviet Army, still reeling from Stalin’s murderous purges, stopped the mighty Wehrmacht in front of Moscow.

Yeah... those soldiers were not fighting for love of country, they were fighting because they stood a better chance fighting the germans than they did otherwise. 

Russians were literally forcing their men to charge the front lines at gunpoint and shooting their own people. They employed blocking units behind their men to catch anyone that ran.

Stopping the mighty Wehmacht was just as much a matter of poor logistics on the Germans part as any military might on the Soviets.

Also, yet again... the Germans were not coming as liberators.
 

6 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

One of many mistakes America made in its constitutional order was to combine the roles of head of state with head of government. The executive du jour and the nation should always be clearly distinguished. 

Random thought of the day... 

[User]

6 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

How much support the mullahs still have is completely open to debate but it’s probably significant among blue collar, traditional Iranians with limited education. I’d be surprised if it’s less than 20%. Maybe 30% are willing to actively and openly campaign against the regime. That leaves 50% who might like to see change but are more focused on getting by. 

Yeah, I am sure the fear of being hauled away and killed by the Republican Guard plays absolutely no role in people just putting their heads down to get by... 

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

50 minutes ago, User said:

Saddam was not coming there to liberate them... Saddam was just as bad if not worse. 

Yeah... those soldiers were not fighting for love of country, they were fighting because they stood a better chance fighting the germans than they did otherwise. 

Russians were literally forcing their men to charge the front lines at gunpoint and shooting their own people. They employed blocking units behind their men to catch anyone that ran.

Stopping the mighty Wehmacht was just as much a matter of poor logistics on the Germans part as any military might on the Soviets.

Also, yet again... the Germans were not coming as liberators.
 

Random thought of the day... 

 

50 minutes ago, User said:

Saddam was not coming there to liberate them... Saddam was just as bad if not worse. 

Yeah... those soldiers were not fighting for love of country, they were fighting because they stood a better chance fighting the germans than they did otherwise. 

Russians were literally forcing their men to charge the front lines at gunpoint and shooting their own people. They employed blocking units behind their men to catch anyone that ran.

Stopping the mighty Wehmacht was just as much a matter of poor logistics on the Germans part as any military might on the Soviets.

Also, yet again... the Germans were not coming as liberators.
 

Random thought of the day... 

In history, foreigners are rarely seen as liberators because they very rarely are. In Vietnam the Americans naively thought they would be seen that way, failing to understand how despised, sectarian and corrupt the South Vietnamese regime actually was. 

And as to my random thought…which I would regard as obvious, do you really believe countries that combine the roles of head of state and government are in general more free than those that do not? 
 

 

 

 

[User]

Just now, SpankyMcFarland said:

In history, foreigners are rarely seen as liberators because they very rarely are. In Vietnam the Americans naively thought they would be seen that way, failing to understand how despised, sectarian and corrupt the South Vietnamese regime actually was. 

WTF are you talking about?

The Americans were fighting the North Vietnamese in South Vietnam, and the North Vietnamese were engaging in guerrilla warfare there. 

It was not the people of South Vietnam who were standing up to the Americans. It was the people of South Vietnam fleeing by the millions as the North fully invaded after the Americans left, and it was the people of the South being killed in droves as the North Vietnamese purged anyone in any position of authority or anyone who might dare dissent. 


 

2 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

And as to my random thought…which I would regard as obvious, do you really believe countries that combine the roles of head of state and government are in general more free than those that do not? 

I think this has little to do with freedom. 

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

14 minutes ago, User said:

WTF are you talking about?

The Americans were fighting the North Vietnamese in South Vietnam, and the North Vietnamese were engaging in guerrilla warfare there. 

It was not the people of South Vietnam who were standing up to the Americans. It was the people of South Vietnam fleeing by the millions as the North fully invaded after the Americans left, and it was the people of the South being killed in droves as the North Vietnamese purged anyone in any position of authority or anyone who might dare dissent.

You think this guy was from North Vietnam?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thích_Quảng_Đức

 

Or all these guys?

https://www.thoughtco.com/the-viet-cong-the-vietnam-war-195432#:~:text=The Viet Cong were South Vietnamese supporters of the communist,unified%2C communist state of Vietnam.

 

 

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 06:20 PM by SpankyMcFarland

[User]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

You think this guy was from North Vietnam?

No, I think the division-size forces of North Vietnamese regular army units pouring across the DMZ were from North Vietnam. 

Anecdotal examples of a handful of folks in the South were not what lost South Vietnam. 

I used to think it was just ignorance, now I am pretty sure you know what you are doing is dishonest.