A Revolution Could Soon Be Under Way in Iran

[lionking]

Without commenting on the detail of this thread, I was very excited by the Arab Spring, in particular the removal of Egypt’s Mubarak. What has been the lasting legacy? Nothing. What will be the outcome of these protests in Iran? Sadly, much the same.

 

[angrysoba]

Without commenting on the detail of this thread, I was very excited by the Arab Spring, in particular the removal of Egypt’s Mubarak. What has been the lasting legacy? Nothing. What will be the outcome of these protests in Iran? Sadly, much the same.

I think, sadly, the main lessons with revolutions is that they end up with the kind of chaotic violence that only those most prepared to resort to brutal means become the ultimate beneficiaries of. Of course, that relates to the Iranian revolution, the Arab Spring and also the French and Russian revolutions. They are often begun by people with moderate, understandable demands and then radicalize the longer they drag on.

 

[smartcooky]

A caliphate, for many years. That's not a monarchy.

Wrong again.

The Persian caiphates were Theocratic Monarchies. They were based upon older Persian monarchies such as the Achaemenids I mentioned earlier. They adpoted the concept of "divine kingship" with a political bureaucracy, and Persian cultural traditions, using Persian models for governance.

The caliph was a divinely sanctioned, absolute ruler, mirroring the Persian concept of the "Shahanshah"..... The King of Kings.

Try again... I understand this stuff, and as a well known member of this forum sometimes says.. "You can Google for infomation, but you cannot Google for understanding."

 

[Darat]

Without commenting on the detail of this thread, I was very excited by the Arab Spring, in particular the removal of Egypt’s Mubarak. What has been the lasting legacy? Nothing. What will be the outcome of these protests in Iran? Sadly, much the same.

It started in Tunisia and so far it has led to more representative governance there so that should be considered a success in my view.

 

[angrysoba]

Wrong again.

The Persian caiphates were Theocratic Monarchies.

The Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates were Arab rulers, as I have already told you, not Persian!!!

Try again... I understand this stuff, and as a well known member of this forum sometimes says.. "You can Google for infomation, but you cannot Google for understanding."

I don't believe you understand this at all. Even the reference to Googling implies that that is how YOU get your information.

On the other hand, I have read a number of books about Iran, such as this one...



And what do we find on page 71 at the beginning of the chapter on Islam and Invasions: The Arabs, Turks and Mongols....




Look at the bit I have underlined where it says that the monarchy and Zoroastrian religion were swept away, while the language and Persian poetry survived.

On page 78-79, we read that Iran was ruled over by foreign rulers under the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates...



So why not stop with this posturing BS about how learned you are. I very much doubt anyone is taking your claims to expertise very seriously.

I don't claim to be any kind of expert either, but I obviously know more than you do, which is not difficult at all, to be fair.

 

[lionking]

It started in Tunisia and so far it has led to more representative governance there so that should be considered a success in my view.

The exception that pretty much proves the rule. Egypt swapped an autocrat with another one, as did many others.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The exception that pretty much proves the rule. L

Not what that expression means

 

[lionking]

Not what that expression means

Look it up. Yes it does. If someone says that “every nation is damaged by inflation” and someone pipes up “but Uganda (or whatever) doesn’t”, this is the exception that proves the rule.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

you don't understand what "exception that proves the rule" means.
"proves" means "tests", i.e. the fact that there is an exception from what your rule expected means that your rule is deficient and needs revising, not that it becomes somehow more correct by being proven false.

 

[icerat]

you don't understand what "exception that proves the rule" means.
"proves" means "tests", i.e. the fact that there is an exception from what your rule expected means that your rule is deficient and needs revising, not that it becomes somehow more correct by being proven false.

Huh. Had to go research that. Thanks for the education! Guilty to using that one incorrectly myself.

 

[rjh01]

Huh. Had to go research that. Thanks for the education! Guilty to using that one incorrectly myself.

Lots of people use it incorrectly. Having an exception to the rule requires explanation. Inflation could be going up in most countries but Uganda has taken measures to keep it down. Or maybe inflation is going up only in USA and not other countries. But then they do not count.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

You say that, but at that time there was no comparison to know what would happen.

Most of the middle east was still in the grip of arabic nationalist governments which paid mostly lip service to Islam.
The only nation truly under Islamic rule at the time was Saudi Arabia and even then that was firmly sub ordained to the Royal house of Saud.
Khomeini used the same tricks the Christian nationalist use in the US at the moment and thus was able to mobilize the less educated but religious and conservative part of the population that otherwise might have kept supporting the Shah.
And like the German conservatives earlier, the more liberal part of the revolutionists assumed they'd be able to control him and keep things going on the right path.

But every Islamist fundamentalist revolution since has been based on the Iranian example, so to claim they should have known is assuming time travel.

A large part of why Khomeni was so successful in Iran is that the US and the UK had spent so much time, money and effort in the preceeding decades stamping out democratic and secular nationalist movements in the Islamic world that religious nationalism was the only alternative to the western backed puppets.

 

[dudalb]

Yes, yes yes, I know about 1953, and 1905, and 1921 and 1963.

None if those incidents broke the 2,500 year run of Imperial statehood Go back and ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ well READ what I actually said...

"1979 was the first time in its history that Imperial rule was overthrown, AND A REPUBLIC PUT IN ITS PLACE"

Now pay attention, you might learn something.

Iran/Persia had an unbroken monarchy for over 2,500 years, at least as far back as the founding of the Achaemenid Empire (c. 550) by Cyrus the Great. Some have argued that the Median Dynasty preceded them, but there is some dispute about this (that is why I said "at least").

Monarchism in Iran - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you want to learn something, check this out of you local library

Persians: The Age of The Great Kings : Llewellyn-Jones, Lloyd: Amazon.com.au: Books

Persians: The Age of The Great Kings : Llewellyn-Jones, Lloyd: Amazon.com.au: Books

www.amazon.com.au

I did, you're wrong.
It doesn't matter how much you try playing some kind of stupid, real-life game of twister, it remains a historical fact that at no stage from the 7th century BCE until 1979 was it governed by anything other than monarchy.

Actually there was a period in the in the late BCE period when Iran was in a state of more or less anarcy,, the Selucids had gone down and no one was able to replace them. Eventually the Parthians moved in from the hills and established a effective Monarchy. They were in state of cold and hot war with Rome until Rome collpased.

 

[dudalb]

If Trump is considering sending troops to Iran, then he crazier then he is even crazier then I though.One possibilty; the Teheran govement is drivenout of Tehrnan, abut is still able to rally troops in the Iranian provinces that are strongly Fundementalist, and a long Civil War ensues.

 

[dudalb]

The exception that pretty much proves the rule. Egypt swapped an autocrat with another one, as did many others.

Number one example; Russia in 1917. They got rid of the Tsar, but got Lenin. who , despite what some lefties will tell you, was a brutal bloody dictator. All Stalin did was much the machintry that Lenin built into high gear.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Number one example; Russia in 1917. They got rid of the Tsar, but got Lenin. who , despite what some lefties will tell you, was a brutal bloody dictator.

Just stop that, please.

All Stalin did was much put? the machinery that Lenin built into high gear.

And all Lenin did was continue the Romanov Tsarist era repression mechanisms but on different targets.

 

[smartcooky]

Actually there was a period in the in the late BCE period when Iran was in a state of more or less anarcy,, the Selucids had gone down and no one was able to replace them. Eventually the Parthians moved in from the hills and established a effective Monarchy. They were in state of cold and hot war with Rome until Rome collpased.

Still not a Republic until 1979, which was the point I was making.

If Trump is considering sending troops to Iran, then he crazier then he is even crazier then I though.One possibilty; the Teheran govement is drivenout of Tehrnan, abut is still able to rally troops in the Iranian provinces that are strongly Fundementalist, and a long Civil War ensues.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard will be a force to be reckoned with if The Fat Orange Turd is stupid enough to put US troops on the streets of Tehran.

 

[dudalb]

Still not a Republic until 1979, which was the point I was making.


The Islamic Revolutionary Guard will be a force to be reckoned with if The Fat Orange Turd is stupid enough to put US troops on the streets of Tehran.

Hell a lot of oridnaly Iranians, who might really dislike the current goverment, would dislike Americana trying to take over even less.
The idea of US Ground troops in fighting in Tehran gives me nightmares. I guess Donnie never heard of Stalingrad, Berlin or Hue. Nothing eats up Troops..infantry in particular...like urban combat. It is a meatgrinder like no other.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Hell a lot of oridnaly Iranians, who might really dislike the current goverment, would dislike Americana trying to take over even less.
The idea of US Ground troops in fighting in Tehran gives me nightmares. I guess Donnie never heard of Stalingrad, Berlin or Hue. Nothing eats up Troops..infantry in particular...like urban combat. It is a meatgrinder like no other.

He has seen Stallone in Rocky movies. They'll be fine!

 

[Chanakya]

Cool thread! Got to learn a great deal about the whats and wherefores or Iran's politics, and its history as it ties in with the present. Shout out to both @smartcooky and @angrysoba for their very informative posts.

(For what that's worth, given I've zero idea about Iran's politics other than what I've seen here: as far as I'm concerned, the Caliphate argument completely nixes any notion that the Islamic nutjobs in charge there came in out of the blue, clearly they've been a force there since forever. ...That's the price you pay for democracy, is my view: if the people are fools, and themselves choose to let in a bunch of crazies in their seat of power, then they get ◊◊◊◊◊◊ in the backside, there's no helping that. That's what's happening in Iran, and, hell, that's what's happening, very conspicuously, in the US itself.)