Jahanshah Javid

VPK Jaan, let's put this hypothetical situation/option

hypothetical situation/option before the generation of young Iranians:

a) One Iran under IRR or even softer/modified IRR but miserable as hell, versus

b) Several parts of Iran under various systems of governance with potentially some being much better and comfortable to live in than others!

I conjecture that the law of self-interest and self-preservation will eventually prevail over national boundaries, territorial integrity, and frankly patriotism for many to chose option (b)!

I mean these are not foreign concepts and have happened to others before and have happened to Iran as well.

How big was larger Iran 200 hundred years ago!?

Regarding partition

Yes there are people who advocate it for rhe region. The problem will be that it will be much more difficult to manage. If they do it there will be to central government to keep order.

You get all kinds of fighting. Non stop attacks on both locals and Western interests. If America is to learn one thing is partitioning is bad for business. One central government is a lot simpler to deal with than a dozen warring gangs.

But wisdom was never the driving force of policies. Therefore I would not be surprised if they do push for it. Regarding momentum yes for now Iranian have lost their will. But things do change and one permanent thing is change. Specially in ME.

All those consequences enumerated above although valid, alarming

All those consequences enumerated above although valid, alarming, and to be worried about are of secondary and tertiary issues!

What should be of the primary concern to Iranians is the long term Western strategy in partitioning of sluggish and unmanageable states such as IRR in that part of the world!

We are seeing this in north Africa as a consequence of the recent events in Libya and the surrounding states. The probability of this model in becoming a pattern for the rest of the states in MD is even higher specially in the face of a lack of collective wisdom, desire, and action on the part of Iranians to take control of their destiny!

Here are some facts:

1) The system of IRR/Akhoonds is a distributed (e.g., no central controller like the during the late Shah's era or other similar countries) system therefore much harder to vector them toward a particular direction! Not easy to even to bring down by internal uprising!

2) IRR/Akhoonds have not left any friends or allies for themselves around the world! Even their staunchest allies (e.g., Syrians, Hezbollah, Palestinians, etc.) are in trouble themselves. Hence, no place for Akhoonds to flee!

3) Iranian people have lost their momentum and have no energy left to catapulting themselves into a combating state of mind let alone physical to gain back their country from IRR thugs.

4) America/West is gone effectively bankrupt, tired, and frankly impatient with the lack of desire of the people in that region to take control of their fate and destiny.

5) Control over the amount of pumping, pricing, and distribution of oil, gas, and energy in general is the driving force behind the West's being in and concerned about MD in the first place.

6) Any US military action on IRR will be different than Iraq and Afghanistan and more like Yugoslavia/Serbia and it will be massive on the IRR's (not necessarily civilians).

So, bringing all these variables into a single equation, it appears plausible and likely for the Iranian situation to be more of a partitioning one than just a simple military attack and regime change one!

And, once Iran goes, the rest of the region becomes mush easier to be partitioned and hopefully (on their part) better managed!

PS - Disclaimer, no scientific data or proof behind the assertions here!

Mammad:

It is unfortunate that you find it necessary to resort to false arguments in order to prove your points. You know well the historical enmity that is widespread among Arabs has influenced the Arab mind much more deeply than Pan-Arabism which is, in fact, an empty slogan. In Iran of post-revolution, Islamists have made every effort to substitute their religious ideology for patriotism that was prevalent in the pre-revolutionary era. Their failure is due to what they have done since coming to power and Iranians' deeply-rooted patriotism. As others have suggested on this thread, the regime will not be able to benefit from a war, anymore. Unfortunately for the mullahs and their goons times have changed and Iranians will not allow the regime to use their patriotism for its own survival. Even during the Iran-Iraq war many reluctant Iranians were forced to go to the fronts. Your argument with regards to nationalism does not hold water. Helping the regime to survive yet another provoked war is not nationalism, but downright treason. The regime is desperate to start a war hoping to use it in order to suppress Iranians even further. You may know that towards the end of the 8-year-long Iran-Iraq war many, including the devout Muslims, refused to send their children to the fronts. More than two decades have passed since the termination of the hostilities and the regime is hated by more Iranians. The tens of millions of Iranians who showed their resentment vis-a-vis the regime in June of 2009 demonstrated the fact that it is only through force and oppressive measure that the regime can ensure the prolongation of its murderous existence. The fear-mongering rhetoric employed by some Iranians such as yourself only proves the shallowness of your understanding of the situation in Iran. Right or wrong millions of Iranians will even welcome targeted bombing of IR's military bases and other sensitive locations. Not that they are unpatriotic or hate their country, but simply because they want the regime gone. If Iranians could bring down the regime on their own, they would have done so a long time ago. Their willingness to accept a military attack by foreign forces, should be entirely blamed on the ruthlessness of the Islamist regime in Tehran. Iranians in general hate wars because they know what wars entail. They are not warmongers by any means, but they are fed up with the brutalities perpetrated by the regime added to the lack of democratic freedoms and absence of basic human rights. They are tired of saying they are used to the situation. They have said so for more than three decades now. What you saw in June of 2009 had much less to do with the fraudulent presidential election than with Iranians venting their long-repressed anger on a regime that has taken away Iranian citizens' every social and political rights. There had been talks of such uprisings by people before the summer of two years ago. Some were even talking about autumn of 2008. The rigged elections only gave people the needed excuse to take to the streets and shout their slogans against the regime. Even the so-called, green leaders were taken by surprise only because they had no idea how hated the regime was. So, instead of writing the same tired old comments about how bad a war or sanctions are, start writing how Iranians should get rid of the criminals in power in Iran. Attacking Iranians who don't agree with you, on this site, and trying to scare them of an "imminent war," will not get you anywhere. If the US government decides to unleash a war against IR, no Iranian organization will be able to stop it.

Professor

Oh, yeah, Libyan branch of Al-Qaeda with the help of NATO's bombs is proudly holding the flag. 

The Libyans who fought Qaddafi were all al-Qaeda. The huge crowds in Benghazi and the people of Misrata are all al-Qaeda. Whatever you say, Professor.

And, yeah, the Iraqis who fought the filthy Persians are now kicking out Americans and allying themselves with the same filthy!!

Once again, you are being dishonest. What I stated was, "because they saw that the opponent was a filthy murderous tyrant no better than their own leader." I'm clearly referring to Khomeini as the "filthy murdeous tyrant" (the same Khomeini that the Islamists on whose behalf who spout propaganda still consider their idol and Emam). And the Iraqis "allying themselves" with the IRI are the SCIRI and al-Dawa who were residing in Iraq's enemies, the IRI and Syria, at the time. They sure weren't fighting for Iraq at the time (quite the opposite, they were supporting its adversaries). Nice try though, Professor.

Rhetorician

Oh, yeah, Libyan branch of Al-Qaeda with the help of NATO's bombs is proudly holding the flag. In a couple of years, when the whole thing blows up in NATO's face, we will come back to the issue. And, yeah, the Iraqis who fought the filthy Persians are now kicking out Americans and allying themselves with the same filthy!!

The "idea" that nationalism - or lack thereof - in Iran, Iraq and Libya is similar, and that true nationalism actually distinguishes between invasion by one foreign country from invasion by another foreign country, is a shining example of your hollow, without-substance rhetoric. Of course, nationalism of turncoats like you does distinguish the two. But, that is of the bogus type, like your rhetoric!

Patent your idea about nationalism! It will endear you to U.S. warmongers and war planners!

Mammad

To the Professor who makes personal attacks...

The hollow "rhetorician" - as opposed to theoretician - compares Iran with Iraq and Libya without knowing the first word about history. You're comparing artificial nations that are creatures of the British empire with Iran? 

Talk about not "knowing the first word about history"! The main European colonizer in Libya was Italy not Britain. But more importantly, who are you to say what nations are "artificial" and which are not "artificial"? Tell the Libyans who proudly display their pre-Qaddafi flags and who love their country that their nation is "artificial". They are Libyan patriots AND they supported NATO's effort to help them get rid of a mass murdering tyrant who had been in power for 42 years. You are in no position to say that they are members of an "artificial" nation. 

Iraq was created only in 1932. 

Wow, what depth! So what? The U.S. was created only in 1776. Now, go tell Americans that their nation and nationalism is "artificial". The Iraqis had no problem fighting and dying for their country in the 8-year war with Khomeini's regime. In that case, they rallied around their leader Saddam, because they saw that the opponent was a filthy murderous tyrant no better than their own leader. But, they didn't rally around Saddam when they fought the U.S. in 2003. Got that, Professor? Who their opponent was made the difference. Are you able to process such facts, Professor?

Joins U.S./Israel armed forces

I suggest to those who cannot wait for military attacks on Iran to join the U.S. armed forces - better yet, Israel's because some people here are willing to die for Israel but not for their motherland - to participate in the attacks on Iran. Alternatively, they can go back to Iran to be there for "celebration" of downfall of the VF regime the day after the attack, in a vast, disintegrated-into-pieces wasteland formerly called Iran.

The hollow "rhetorician" - as opposed to theoretician - compares Iran with Iraq and Libya without knowing the first word about history. You're comparing artificial nations that are creatures of the British empire with Iran? Let see:

Iraq was created only in 1932. Its monarchy was toppled in 1958 by the leftist general Abdulkarim Qassem. From 1958-2003 every Iraqi leader always advocated Pan-Arabism, not Iraqi nationalism, and since 2003 the Iraqi regimes are have close to Iran. Even at the height of Iran-Iraq war, Saddam Hussein presented himself as a defender of Arabs against Persians, not Iraq. So, nationalism in Iraq has always been very weak.

Likewise, Libya, a tribal land even today, was created only after WW II.

Compare that with Iran that has existed for thousands of years as an independent nation with a glorious and illustrious history, and extremely strong sense of prise and nationalism.

Yup, Iraqi and Libyan people did not resist the West, and neither will Iranians! That is the depth of understanding of such "experts."

Stick to your "Islamist terrorists," your area of "expertise." Do not get involved in issues that you neither know nor understand!

Mammad

Yes Mehrdad

Assassination of American citizens by the Obama administration, extra-ordinary rendition of many innocent people who were sent by the U.S. to countries like Egypt to be tortured during the Clinton and Bush administrations, the illegal and criminal invasion of Iraq that caused the death of hundreds of thousands, invasion and occupation of Afghanistan for a decade, threatening Pakistan to fall in line or else, supporting Saudi Arabia's intervention in Bahrain and Yemen - "those people" do not deserve democracy, I suppose - supporting some of the worst regimes such as SA, and blind and one-sided support of Israel to kill, assassinate and imprison Palestinbians, occupy their land, and steal their resources - all state-sponsored terrorism at the highest level - are simply forgotten by some here on this thread. Their hollow without-substance rhetoric is concerned only with "Islamist terrorists."

Let's face it: These people believe that there are two types of terrorism: Those that are committed by the "Islamists" - which of course must be condemned and used as a tool to demonize all Muslims - and those that are committed by the U.S. and its allies - to which we should close our eyes. There are also two sets of human rights: Those that can be violated by the VF regime, in which case these people scream, and those that can ignored by the U.S. and its allies, to which we turn a blind eye.

How many innocent people have been killed by the "Islamist terrorists" since the WW II and how many by the U.S. and its allies?

Mammad

Depends on

...who attacks Iran! What Khamenei is hoping for, is an Israeli attack which would do some damage to the nuclear sites, yet justifying his overt pursuit of nuclear weapons, while stirring anti-Israeli fervours in favour of IRI throughout the region! That would turn the table from IRI being shunned by the public opinion in ME in search of more secular, democratic alternatives to an atmosphere of anti-Western, Islamic euphoria!

However, should it come to a NATO or American-led invasion, IRI would not be as enthusiastic, for such an invasion would entail full scale military confrontation. While IRI has been toying with that notion, it has always (so far) been swift to defuse any situation that could be seen as a prelude to such a confrontation! On the other hand, U.S. is equally aware of the consequences and ramifications of such a venture, especially at a time of economic and financial uncertainties (considering the size and resourcefulness of Iran compared to that of Iraq or Afghanistan)! Moreover, timing is not ripe for an American invovlvement, for such campaigns rely on constrictive sanction to come to fruition before the U.S. can muster the confidence in order to commence a full scale attack! And so far, the existing sanstions have failed to generate such confidence!  

I love how...

... all the people (notice I'm not using any names like "cowards", "traitors", or any such otherwise well-deserved descriptors) who have supported the lowly ruling class through their proxies --and who will actually be part of those responsible for bringing about a war, if there is one-- are fretting over the thought that their kase-kooze might get broken by an eventual conflict.

No, you people don't really worry about the "loss of innocent lives", as you have proved that you don't actually care much for that by sending the youth outside without a real plan or leadership so they get killed, imprisoned and/or tortured; you people just want to lay the blame elsewhere now that your miserable plans for all of us have failed AND you still want to make yourselves look good! Well I'd say stand up and take it like a man now.

Not likely to happen

None of the above scenarios are likely to happen in the foreseeable future, and a U.S. attack on the Islamist terrorist regime is not forthcoming (at least not in the near term). The only thing that could make it happen is if the IRI really overplays its hand (which is possible). That being said, Libyans didn't rally to Qaddafi, Iraqis didn't raly to Saddam, and Afghans didn't rally to Mollah Omar. The Mideast did not explode after either of the Gulf Wars (despite similar predictions to the contrary); the price of oil didn't hit $200 a barrel either. I'm not aware of a war causing the world to go into an economic depression, but I am aware of a war helping to bring a world out of the biggest economic depression in its history. AND LET ME STATE FURTHER, I DO NOT WISH FOR THE U.S. TO INVADE IRAN.

P.S. Radical Islamist terrorists don't need an "excuse" to blow themselves and others up, and the IRI doesn't need an "excuse" to murder, rape, torture, and imprison Iranians. They do it perfectly well on their own, "excuse" or no excuse.

P.P.S. What "opposition" are we talking about? Mousavi's "Green Movement"? The only places quieter than Tehran these days (except for the filthy noise and air pollution) are Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, and Oman. Oil states do not fall without major outside pressure (e.g. Iraq and Libya). The Iranian revolution was a one time deal, and will not be repeated -- least of all to the IRI, so put away your dreams of another domestic oil embargo, etc. by the "opposition".

.

.

Thanks Bavafa jan for your explanation

I like what you wrote:"If the West was truly interested in toppling the IRI, a boycott of its oil and oil embargo with the same fashion as its sanction would be the greatest and easiest way to bring IRI to its demise ..".

Anahid jaan: It was not suggested by any means…

That if you disagree with JJ’s point, then you are automatically a pro-war advocate.   I believe I am familiar with your views enough to know you are not of a war advocacy.

  It was a general statement and it says so 

'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 

Mehrdad

.

.

Dear Bavafa, just because some of us

don't agree with scenario detailed by JJ, does not mean that we are pro war. Some of us, including me, all we said was that the picture will not be as JJ painted.

You forgot the nuclear fall out

from the reactor sites. Tens of thousands of people will suffer a prolonged and painful death by breathing the airborne radioactive dust.

Let's Screw the Greeks ! ... ;0)

It's their fault anyway !

LOL 

One thing JJ forgot to add to his list....

The massive profit by the military industrial complex.

And just to make a note of Parham’s comment which I usually read and respect, is how some view any attack on the West’ interest/military as “Islamic terrorism”, yet seemingly accept and welcome a war on our home-land which undoubtedly will kill many innocent civilians.

 In general, this is how I view the conflict and relation with Iran:

-          If the West was truly interested in toppling the IRI, a boycott of its oil and oil embargo with the same fashion as its sanction would be the greatest and easiest way to bring IRI to its demise

 -          Those  of Iranian back ground who are pro-war with Iran, are nothing but a traitor and a coward, if they are not willing to do the fighting themselves FIRST and then possibly look for outside help and only for support.

'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 

Mehrdad

You want to know how this regime needs to be toppled?

It's a bitter pill to swallow, but it is the ONLY way.  All this nonsense about the "Greens" and holding a Green Dance in northern California to get rid of this brutal regime is hogwash.  This regime will only be toppled with outside help.  Not Israel's, because it doesn't have the capability or the will to topple its favorite regime.  But the West and NATO.  This is how it needs to be done:

There should be mass closures of IR's "embassies" (more like terrorist supply houses) throughout the world.  In countries where they are suspected of having assisted terrorist acts (such as Mexico recently) their "diplomats" should be arrested and delivered to the International Criminal Court for prosecution.  There should then be total economic sanctions against the IR followed by a naval blockade, so that it cannot export oil.  Russia and China need to be bribed to stop loopholes.  Putin's gang can probably be bribed directly and individually, since they are essentially a mafia system anyway.  

The next step is to threaten the IR with direct military action and give its goons 72 hours to leave the country.  Knowing what happened to Qaddafi and Saddam, I will bet you a million bucks that at least 80% of them will take off and head for their pre-arranged hiding places in Gaza and South Lebanon.  But about 20% will remain in a chaotic Iran, where people will slowly begin to take control of cities, probably starting in Azarbaijan.  

NATO should then establish total air supriority and start attacking IRGC and Basij bases where some of the hardliners and dead-enders will be killed, probably 7-10% of them.  They should then start landing troops in Persian Gulf islands, such as Qeshm, to show the dead enders that they are coming for them.  This will cause another 5-10% to shave their beards and surrender, or just abandon their posts.  The remainder will then be dealt with by the people.  

Leaders will emerge from the within.  This could be accomplished without an invasion of Iran and without mass casualties and destruction.  And it is the ONLY way to get rid of the IR.  It's a bitter pill that we all have to swallow IF we are serious about getting rid of the IR in this century. 

What if the regime is overthrown ...

As the result of a military attack, be it Iraq or Lybia style? What would replace the regime? Would it represent the will of Iranian nation? How could it?

Otherwise, in the scenario when the regime is simply "punished", per blog,  I actually agree with some of stuff that JJ is saying here, in particular the mass execution of Jews, bahais, even sunnies (in kurdestan and baloochestan), and even "green activists", using excuse of "collaboration with enemy" 

I have said it before and I say it again, if the world democracies are truely concerned about the true menace the islamist regime is presenting to world's peace and security, they can "overthrow" this fascist entity by simply implementing a complete embargo on life line of regime, it's oil export. A scenario to which I'd say: "Bring it on"!!

"Personal business must yield to collective interest."

Has engagement been successful?

Sanctions have failed.

//www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/03/iran-nuclear-ambitions-secret-war

Despite the millions spent, stalled machines and deaths of leading scientists, Iran has steadily built up its stockpile of enriched uranium to 4.5 tonnes – enough for four nuclear bombs if it was further refined to weapons-grade purity. At most, the covert war has slowed the rate of progress, but it has not stopped it. 

JJ

WHAT PLANET DO YOU COME FROM, THIS IS THE IDEA,

ALL JUST ONE EXCUSE AFTER ANOTHER.

Anahid

Exactly.

I don't think war will be positive for regime

War will be hard on people of Iran but at this junction, I don't believe it will be a positive for regime. It is a different world. many of th epoints that you outlined, belong to world of 1980s, it will not be the same.

I think you're wrong, actually

That's the diet Islamic faction's rhetoric, that has been echoed by so many either naively or on purpose. And they spread that because they're oh-so-scared of any sort of conflict despite their war-mongering posture. Let's see what will actually happen - whether Iranians will rally behind the establishment's side or the other (or, whether they will rather take a neutral position, because that's possible too).

On the fact that Islamic terrorism will heighten, if the strikes are not heavy and effective enough to make the arseholes-in-charge shut the f..k up (IF there are strikes), you're probably right though.

Khamanei has been doubling down.

In the past few weeks Khamanei has been doubling down in his speeches about the fall of dictators in the middle east and the occupy wall street movement and basically "boasting" that everybody is falling apart except Iran!

Now in reality people couldn't be in worse shape.  Inflation is as high as ever and people are really worried that things could get far worse.

In the midst of all these Ahmadi is "promising" bull crap which is making people fed up with his now imfamous nonsense denials.

Syria is following Libya's model, while again our regime is doubling down by saying Assad has promised "reforms" whereas we don't need it ourselves!

So bottom line Iran is on the verge of something happening from within and I don't know when the next spark may come from but once it happens it then depends on a whole host of issues to see where it may lead, from how people will react this time with the Arab Spring and occupy wall street experiences in front of them to how the West and the rest of the world will react ala Libya.

I don't think the West would risk opening a war front now because of what has already happened elsewhere in the middle east and sooner or later Iran will be next.

Everything is sacred