Iran Protests

[United Muscovite Nations]

because it has to be the jews, that is the way anti-antisemitism works

No, I mean, I'm not saying MOSSAD, or the CIA is completely off the table. The Iranian regime is demonstrably hostile against Israel and the United States, and it could be very well within the agendas of either agency to at least destabilise the current Iranian government.

However, people generally don't rise up for no reason - especially if they are economically comfortable. Generally speaking - and this is by no means meant to be an expert opinion - people who are economically comfortable don't tend to go out on the streets and potentially risk their lives. The very rich will lobby, or otherwise throw their economic weight around, as opposed to protesting in the streets, while the rich generally tend to evade the regime, as the enforcers of said regime are easily bribed by this social class. It's the middle-class and the lower-class which goes out to the streets, and these people are usually triggered by economic downturn, not some perceived ideological problem.

Ideology is, quite frankly, the work of those who aren't thinking about how they will feed themselves the next day.

Largely true, but there are also times in history where improving economy didn't prevent uprising, such as the Carnation Revolution in Portugal.

[Vistulange]

No, I mean, I'm not saying MOSSAD, or the CIA is completely off the table. The Iranian regime is demonstrably hostile against Israel and the United States, and it could be very well within the agendas of either agency to at least destabilise the current Iranian government.

However, people generally don't rise up for no reason - especially if they are economically comfortable. Generally speaking - and this is by no means meant to be an expert opinion - people who are economically comfortable don't tend to go out on the streets and potentially risk their lives. The very rich will lobby, or otherwise throw their economic weight around, as opposed to protesting in the streets, while the rich generally tend to evade the regime, as the enforcers of said regime are easily bribed by this social class. It's the middle-class and the lower-class which goes out to the streets, and these people are usually triggered by economic downturn, not some perceived ideological problem.

Ideology is, quite frankly, the work of those who aren't thinking about how they will feed themselves the next day.

Largely true, but there are also times in history where improving economy didn't prevent uprising, such as the Carnation Revolution in Portugal.

Of course. I'm not saying that successful economies will lead to political stability - I never made that reverse correlation. I did, however, tentatively make the correlation between poor economic performance, and political instability. Putting it that way, it actually sounds like a no-brainer, but some things have to be stated in this fashion.

[Dooom35796821595]

Wow, a Wikipedia page.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-42531165

Some quotes from the above source:

"There is widespread and seething discontent in Iran where repression is pervasive and economic hardship is getting worse - one BBC Persian investigation has found that on average Iranians have become 15% poorer in the past 10 years."

"The protests began in the north-east as an outcry against economic hardship and rising prices,"

"He acknowledged grievances over the economic situation, a lack of transparency and corruption but defended his record."

Inflation has been going down over the last year, and the economy growing rapidly for the last two years, so, I have to dispute parts of that. There are undoubtedly problems, but there are problems in every economy.

Such economic problems don't get solved overnight, not without massive stimulus, and it clearly isn't getting better for most people considering the current situation.

[Ethel mermania]

because it has to be the jews, that is the way anti-antisemitism works

No, I mean, I'm not saying MOSSAD, or the CIA is completely off the table. The Iranian regime is demonstrably hostile against Israel and the United States, and it could be very well within the agendas of either agency to at least destabilise the current Iranian government.

However, people generally don't rise up for no reason - especially if they are economically comfortable. Generally speaking - and this is by no means meant to be an expert opinion - people who are economically comfortable don't tend to go out on the streets and potentially risk their lives. The very rich will lobby, or otherwise throw their economic weight around, as opposed to protesting in the streets, while the rich generally tend to evade the regime, as the enforcers of said regime are easily bribed by this social class. It's the middle-class and the lower-class which goes out to the streets, and these people are usually triggered by economic downturn, not some perceived ideological problem.

Ideology is, quite frankly, the work of those who aren't thinking about how they will feed themselves the next day.

nah, i think we are good with the antisemitism

[MERIZoC]

Not really

Wow, a Wikipedia page.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-42531165

Some quotes from the above source:

"There is widespread and seething discontent in Iran where repression is pervasive and economic hardship is getting worse - one BBC Persian investigation has found that on average Iranians have become 15% poorer in the past 10 years."

"The protests began in the north-east as an outcry against economic hardship and rising prices,"

"He acknowledged grievances over the economic situation, a lack of transparency and corruption but defended his record."

If only we could point to something that was actively harming the Iranian economy....

[Eibenland]

Wow, a Wikipedia page.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-42531165

Some quotes from the above source:

"There is widespread and seething discontent in Iran where repression is pervasive and economic hardship is getting worse - one BBC Persian investigation has found that on average Iranians have become 15% poorer in the past 10 years."

"The protests began in the north-east as an outcry against economic hardship and rising prices,"

"He acknowledged grievances over the economic situation, a lack of transparency and corruption but defended his record."

If only we could point to something that was actively harming the Iranian economy....

From the Wikipedia article:

After removal of most sanctions in 2016 inflation decreased and unemployment was reduced. Many Iranians returned and Iranian tourism industry was significantly improved.[41][28][42][43][44]

I know what you're thinking, but it is not a reason. The problem is that poorer Iranians haven't benefited, the middle class has.

[San Marlindo]

The Iranian government has been throttling its own economy mercilessly and then blaming US sanctions for all their own failed domestic policies. The result has been rising unemployment and commodities prices. The fact that they force women to wear veils and outlawed freedom of assembly is just icing on the cake. Most Iranians aside from the university students are protesting because they're unemployed and can't buy enough food to feed their families any longer.

The minute the regime in Tehran starts becoming more friendly and open to foreigners and come to grips with the fact that Iran is now part of a global market, the sooner the Iranian people won't be so pissed off at them.

[Bakery Hill]

Has anyone heard about the rush of planes without callsigns or destinations throughout Iran as of last night?

[-Ocelot-]

The Iranian government has been throttling its own economy mercilessly and then blaming US sanctions for all their own failed domestic policies. The result has been rising unemployment and commodities prices. The fact that they force women to wear veils and outlawed freedom of assembly is just icing on the cake. Most Iranians aside from the university students are protesting because they're unemployed and can't buy enough food to feed their families any longer.

The minute the regime in Tehran starts becoming more friendly and open to foreigners and come to grips with the fact that Iran is now part of a global market, the sooner the Iranian people won't be so pissed off at them.

So it's like Russia, then? They blame others for their self-destructive policies?

[Irona]

The Iranian government has been throttling its own economy mercilessly and then blaming US sanctions for all their own failed domestic policies. The result has been rising unemployment and commodities prices. The fact that they force women to wear veils and outlawed freedom of assembly is just icing on the cake. Most Iranians aside from the university students are protesting because they're unemployed and can't buy enough food to feed their families any longer.

The minute the regime in Tehran starts becoming more friendly and open to foreigners and come to grips with the fact that Iran is now part of a global market, the sooner the Iranian people won't be so pissed off at them.

So it's like Russia, then? They blame others for their self-destructive policies?

That's the problem with sanctions. They give the government something to blame for their own mistakes. And they usually work as a really good excuse.

[Bakery Hill]

From what I'm hearing on social media things are moving very quickly. As of an hour ago Iranian state TV was reporting armed confrontations at police stations and military bases and at least one officer has already seemed to defected towards the protesters. If this trend continues we might see something like the opening days of Syria.

[Saihosk]

And just when Iran's foreign policy has had such a succesful year...guess that the situation at home will always trump the situation abroad.

Succesful? The US just threatened scrapping their nuclear arms deal, and the war in Yemen they have been supporting has been damaging to say the least.

[Bakery Hill]

And just when Iran's foreign policy has had such a succesful year...guess that the situation at home will always trump the situation abroad.

Succesful? The US just threatened scrapping their nuclear arms deal, and the war in Yemen they have been supporting has been damaging to say the least.

It's been far more damaging to the Gulf States than to Iran. And Syria and Iraq have gone swimmingly for them.

[Saihosk]

Succesful? The US just threatened scrapping their nuclear arms deal, and the war in Yemen they have been supporting has been damaging to say the least.

It's been far more damaging to the Gulf States than to Iran. And Syria and Iraq have gone swimmingly for them.

I doubt either the US or Saudi Arabia will just give up without a fight.
Iran is going to be hit the hardest in the rest of the war.

[Rangila]

While this may be the case, why do people never, ever think that it just might be because the regime is crap, and the economy is down the shitter, resulting in poor living conditions?

because it has to be the jews, that is the way anti-antisemitism works

Did i say "Perhaps the Jews have something to do with this unrest" or "Perhaps Mossad has something to do with this unrest"?

[Saihosk]

because it has to be the jews, that is the way anti-antisemitism works

Did i say "Perhaps the Jews have something to do with this unrest" or "Perhaps Mossad has something to do with this unrest"?

And what evidence is there for this, sure, Mossad may not have the greatest reputation, but I wouldn't suggest jumping to conclusions just because you're anti-israel.

[Saihosk]

It's time for Khamenei to go, ever since the 1979 revolution overthrew the Shah, the country became an absolute mess.
I may not like the Shah, but at least Iran was actually stable then.

[Yanitza]

It's time for Khamenei to go, ever since the 1979 revolution overthrew the Shah, the country became an absolute mess.
I may not like the Shah, but at least Iran was actually stable then.

So stable he got thrown out in a revolution.

[Trumptonium]

It's time for Khamenei to go, ever since the 1979 revolution overthrew the Shah, the country became an absolute mess.
I may not like the Shah, but at least Iran was actually stable then.

So stable he got thrown out in a revolution.

Stability has nothing to do with being thrown out in a revolution.

Take example from Brazil in 1880s, one of the most stable and prosperous countries in the world.
Switzerland in 1830s.

[Vistulange]

So stable he got thrown out in a revolution.

Stability has nothing to do with being thrown out in a revolution.

Take example from Brazil in 1880s, one of the most stable and prosperous countries in the world.
Switzerland in 1830s.

Er, really? Stability has nothing to do with revolution, which is, by definition, people revolting and changing their government? I mean, you could argue and debate about just how much the Shah's regime itself contributed to its own downfall, but to say "nothing" is really disingenuous. Political stability does have an effect on public opinion, alongside many, many other factors.

[Janszoonia]

Stability has nothing to do with being thrown out in a revolution.

Take example from Brazil in 1880s, one of the most stable and prosperous countries in the world.
Switzerland in 1830s.

Er, really? Stability has nothing to do with revolution, which is, by definition, people revolting and changing their government? I mean, you could argue and debate about just how much the Shah's regime itself contributed to its own downfall, but to say "nothing" is really disingenuous. Political stability does have an effect on public opinion, alongside many, many other factors.

The 1979 revolution was because the Iranian people had felt that the Shah was a tool of the Anglo-American oil companies.

[Vistulange]

Er, really? Stability has nothing to do with revolution, which is, by definition, people revolting and changing their government? I mean, you could argue and debate about just how much the Shah's regime itself contributed to its own downfall, but to say "nothing" is really disingenuous. Political stability does have an effect on public opinion, alongside many, many other factors.

The 1979 revolution was because the Iranian people had felt that the Shah was a tool of the Anglo-American oil companies.

That is an undeniable factor, yes. However, I do not believe that we can say it was the only factor. Notably, the lack of rights and political freedoms was an important grievance for the Iranian people.

[Trumptonium]

Stability has nothing to do with being thrown out in a revolution.

Take example from Brazil in 1880s, one of the most stable and prosperous countries in the world.
Switzerland in 1830s.

Er, really? Stability has nothing to do with revolution, which is, by definition, people revolting and changing their government? I mean, you could argue and debate about just how much the Shah's regime itself contributed to its own downfall, but to say "nothing" is really disingenuous. Political stability does have an effect on public opinion, alongside many, many other factors.

Ok let's put it this way: Stability for 40 years before instability for 6 hours.

Fine?

[Vistulange]

Er, really? Stability has nothing to do with revolution, which is, by definition, people revolting and changing their government? I mean, you could argue and debate about just how much the Shah's regime itself contributed to its own downfall, but to say "nothing" is really disingenuous. Political stability does have an effect on public opinion, alongside many, many other factors.

Ok let's put it this way: Stability for 40 years before instability for 6 hours.

Fine?

Better, yes.

Six hours, for now. The Syrian Civil War started like this, as well. I'm not saying that we're about to see the Iranian Civil War, but revolutions and uprisings have a tendency to start small. Also, how do you define "stability"? Lack of political change? Lack of political turmoil?

[Trumptonium]

Ok let's put it this way: Stability for 40 years before instability for 6 hours.

Fine?

Better, yes.

Six hours, for now. The Syrian Civil War started like this, as well. I'm not saying that we're about to see the Iranian Civil War, but things have a tendency to start small. Also, how do you define "stability"? Lack of political change? Lack of political turmoil?

Both. As well as security and consistency in policy. Occasionally, rather than zero dissent (Rather impossible), then resistance to disagreement, i.e. not being prone to populism, elitism or foreign pressure.

I mean, Brazil is probably the best example of this, as Iran pre-79 is a little sketchy. It was a semi-monarchial state, prosperous and stable by all above definitions with high popular support for the monarch for over 50 years until the late 80s. A foreign trip by the Emperor allowed a few rogue opportunist military colonels to seize power and declare a coup.

Not really unstable in any way .. in fact the coup itself was 'stable'... but nevertheless the political change, in all possible manners, could not be foreseen.

So foreseeing turmoil is a fairly good non-objective measurement of stability. If there is no reasonable way to predict turmoil other than pure speculative chance, then I'd say a country is stable.

I mean all of us can predict turmoil in Turkey, Argentina, Zimbabwe, Spain and others.