Game On in Iraq: Iranian Quds and Militias Suffer a, um, Setback

I don't see you telling me I am wrong.

Wouldn't it be something if this airliner incident is what sparks the Iranian people to finally overthrow their government?

This is not even remotely accurate. Iranian society is much closer to day the US in terms of education, information access, freedom of movement etc than it is to North Korea.
North Korea is called the Hermit Kingdom for a reason.

That's what I was thinking. Trump making foreign policy look so easy that a fucking moron can do it.

I can't get over how wrong you are on this. I mean, protests like we are seeing in Iran wouldn't be remotely possible in North Korea.

I mean first off, the incident that sparked it off would never happen b/c almost no one flies into or out of North Korea. Only two airlines fly into North Korea in the first place, and only to two counties. Daily flights are in the single digits. On the other hand over 30 airlines fly into Tehran with daily flights in the hundreds.

Secondly, in North Korea there is no way for folks to know when/if any kind of incident occurs. What access to information the North Koreans have comes in over smuggled thumbdrives so the 'news' a small portion of the population gets is weeks old. On the other hand every house in an urban area of Iran will have at least one satellite dish on the roof. That's why the government was forced to backtrack. International news was showing the video of the missile hitting the plane and had analysts showing how the wreckage had signs of a missile attack.

Next you have the government apologizing for the coverup. When have you ever heard of the North Korean government admitting anything to their people?

Next you have protests mobilizing over social media. No social media in North Korea. No way for any dissidents to organize.

Then you have the fact that protests are even allowed in Iran. No protests allowed in North Korea.

In almost every way possible Iran is distinct from North Korea. Now the world isn't some single axis scale where you have 'bad' and 'good' counties and so by saying Iran is different from North Korea it is therefore good. It certainly has problems. But to say it is even close to North Korea is a profoundly stupid/ignorant statement.

so that said Anc....in your opinion could they conceivably make a good ally in the future? They seem to "have their shit together" in areas that normally lead to long term success on a world stage.
So assuming a home grown regime change and no more state sanctioned mandatory "death to America!" shit would it be smart to partner up with them rather than consider then hostile? It would seem that if handled right it could work out to mutually benefit everybody.

Yes. Iran is very interesting case study. It is basically a semi-mature parliamentary democracy with an autocratic theocracy spliced onto the top. The Supreme Leader, the clerics and the IRGC ultimately control the system, but more subtly than most Americans understand. Through the Council of Guardians the Supreme Leader does get to restrict who can and can't run for president but the guy he personally backs within those folks doesn't always win. There are multiple parties and regular transitions of power after elections. So in other words this wouldn't a situation where once you kick out the 'bad guys' everything goes to shit because the people have no experience with democracy and civic/political life in general.

Their economy is also reasonably diversified. Especially compared to the other Gulf States. While Iran certainly has a lot of oil, it isn't a petrokingdom like many of its neighbors. It even has some pretty high tech manufacturing. I mean it is now building knock off versions (with upgrades) of 1960's era US jets. That might not sound like much but right now the only other countries capable of that kind of stuff are NATO countries, Russia, China, Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan and Brazil.

It has a fairly young, educated population. As mentioned the public is techsavy and plugged into the world. Also fairly pro-American (the American people more than government).

So yeah, once they shed the Islamists from their Republic they will likely make a good ally in the region. Again.

If the people of Iran managed to get rid of the autocratic theocracy I think they would experience an economic boom the likes of which have never been seen in that part of the world. Even Israels success would look small compared to Iran. Iran would quickly become a much stronger and wealthier country than it is. They would be more than an ally. They would be a shining beacon to the rest of the Middle East that the autocratic theocracy type people are the ones holding down everyone. Not America, Israel, Europe, or whatever other boogeyman the autocrats claim is at fault.

I would love for the people of Iran to be free of their theocratic government, and have whatever system they desire that would allow for self-government so that all Iranians could prosper. Those poor folks have been through decades of this shit. I think some of them taste the opportunity for freedom. Let's hope a lot of people are hungry for something better and will fight for it.

Oh good, another regime change then.

I sincerely hope not. These people deserve to be free to live their own lives, and the U.S. should stay the hell out of it both in front and behind the camera. Let the people of Iran decide what they want.

Regime change in Iran done by the people of Iran is a bad thing?

Because I don't see in my post where I said America should lift a finger to regime change anything in Iran.

I can't think of a reasonable person who wouldn't support regime change in Iran, so long as it's done by the Iranians themselves and not outsiders.

That's also how I feel about regime change in America.

We have regime change every 4 to 8 years.

Ehhhh... kind of. What we have are rich guys in white suits wearing blue ties going up against rich guys in white suits wearing red ties. There is *some* variation in crucial areas, but aside from some standouts like Bernie Sanders, most of them are fighting over a very tiny patch of political change on the center/right side of the aisle, and almost always in such a way that the super wealthy are best represented. The rest of us? Not so much.

I disagree.

Regime change usually changes not just the leaders but almost the entire apparatus of government as well. Government employees and military leaders. People like that.

Fair enough, but what about what @Ancalagon said about Iran's government? Specifically, that at it's heart, it's a democracy, but with a theocratic venier. If you remove the venier, couldn't the rest would still function?

I've thought for a long time that the Mullahs might have sowed the seeds of their own destruction. A "little bit" of democracy strikes me as the old joke about being a "little bit" pregnant. The forms are there and the warning signs have gone up before where the outcome of some elections haven't gone exactly according to the script the Mullahs tried to write. As far as "regime change" is concerned, I would like nothing better than for the Iranian people to rise up (on their own) and install a legitimate, representative government. I am absolutely against a violent overthrow fomented by the CIA. Let them handle it. The idea of a puppet government that will slavishly align itself with our interest is the dream of Bolton & Company, but we're still reaping the bitter fruit of kicking out a freely elected Iranian government in 1953 because they dared act more in their interest than in ours. Freely elected governments don't always see eye to eye on everything, as Jeanne Kirkpatrick noted, they don't make war on each other.

no, just another layer of the regime change. The hard core religious layer/influence needs to be scaled back to what it was prior to 1978 (start of the Islamic revolution). Betting they don't make that mistake again!

It is really quite interesting the system they put in place. The mullahs wanted to be as a-political as possible so 95% of the running of the state has nothing to do with them. They don't even have a party (although some parties are quite supportive/sympathetic) much less is Iran some kind of one party state. The religious layer of government could dissappear tomorrow and practically speaking nothing would need immediate action. Only real things to do would be to select justices for a new Supreme/Constitutional Court and some kind of election commission to replace the Guardians Council. Scrap the Chamber of Experts and have the Majlis (parliament) be a unicameral legislature (already a defacto one since the Chamber of Experts only selects/dismisses the Supreme Leader).

Now practically speaking it wouldn't be that easy as the Supreme Leader/Islamic System does have its supporters, including some large political parties. Also, over the last 15 years or so the IRGC has increased its control over large segments of the economy. So even if you got them to lay down arms, they would still have significant influence. And considering their role is to safeguard the revolution, not the country/people or government (that is the regular Armed Forces' role, of which the IRGC is separate from) I don't see them going away without a fight. I don't expect the next revolution to be as (relatively) bloodless as the last. Will probably require some regular Armed Forces v IRGC confrontations.

Speaking of Iran and elections. I see the next elections are supposed to be held next month. Shit could get real dicey if they are delayed or could be a blowout for the reformists if public sentiment is turning against the principalists (islamists/conservatives).

Oh, don't get me wrong, if they can replace the current regime with a universally accepted democratic system without years of chaos, internal strife, civil war, breakdown of law and order and complete economic chaos caused by the power vacuum and competing factions which invariably comes along with such events I'm all for it.

Iran is not Iraq. Or Egypt. Or Syria.

Read up on their system.

The mullahs could vanish tonight and there would be no practical impact on the running of the state tomorrow.

Looks like she just won a new event: the 5000 kilometer dash.

Seriously?

You imagine there wouldn't be internal conflict between their supporters and their detractors?

You imagine that wouldn't lead to a breakdown of infrastructure or law and order?

You imagine organised crime wouldn't sky rocket?

Their system is irrelevant. Regime change, whether externally or internally driven, is always chaotic, bloody and vicious.

That doesn't mean it's always a bed thing overall, but let's not kid ourselves it'll be straightforward and bloodless.

I would say she can forget about ever competing in the Olympics again but can she compete for her new country once she immigrates there? I'm not sure how that works, just wondering.

Yes I am serious. And no, regime change isn’t always bloody and chaotic. In recent decades Greece, Spain, Portugal, the DDR, Central Europe, Eastern Europe, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Peru, Mexico, Colombia, S. Africa, S. Korea, Thailand, Peru and other nations have all had relatively peaceful transitions to multiparty democracy.

True, some had bloodier paths leading up to regime change but the regime change itself was relatively bloodless/orderly.

It is important to recognize this as by studying the how and why we can notice patterns to help predict and even smooth the transitions.

And to state that the system (starting point) is irrelevant is as stupid as oldfella claiming Iran was like N. Korea.

To riff off of that, do you honestly think N. Korea will have the same transition that S. Korea did? If not then why, their people are the same and had a shared history until the late 1940s. If not the differences in systems what will cause the different outcomes?