Helping Iranians create a post Islamic Republic regime.

[j brown's body]

Is this a change in mindset over the past few decades? They wanted this theocracy in the first place so I am wondering what has changed.

The revolutionaries have gotten old and died.

The revolution itself has gotten old and stale.

 

[multivita-man]

The Islamic Republic of Iran has been a source of great instability and conflict, not just in the Middle East, but around the world. They have been the number one state sponsor of terrorism in the world.

Iran's a pain in the ass, but statements like these are always biased. I have no love for the Islamic Republic's regime at all, but Iran is hardly the only regime that uses violent proxies to project power.

In the meanwhile, there is every evidence that this regime is deeply unpopular with its own people there. There have been repeated large protests all over the country, which has only been able to be put down with brutal and violent repression.

They're likely unpopular because sanctions are biting and facing other pressures, such as water shortages. That doesn't mean they want Israel and the United States to come bomb them and destroy their infrastructure.

She said Iranians, with enough support from the international community, are ready and willing to build their own new government, and "we want a democratic Iran. We want a secular Iran."”

Question: who's we?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

The revolutionaries have gotten old and died.

The revolution itself has gotten old and stale.

Doesn't change the probability that Iran's large rural population likely supports the regime and that it is the smaller younger urban population that is against it. The same group that is unlikely to fight against it

 

[j brown's body]

The Islamic Republic of Iran has been a source of great instability and conflict, not just in the Middle East, but around the world. They have been the number one state sponsor of terrorism in the world.

In the meanwhile, there is every evidence that this regime is deeply unpopular with its own people there. There have been repeated large protests all over the country, which has only been able to be put down with brutal and violent repression.

The time may be ripe for this rotten fruit to fall. The US is understandably wary of intervention- after poor consequences to prior interventions in the past, both in Iran, Iraq, and many other developing nations around the world. But this may not be a matter of forcing anything down another country‘s throat. It may be just a matter of creating coalitions to get rid of a handful of brutal dictators.

“Due to the war, the "Iranian regime have lost their control to suppress people, because a lot the leadership of IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] have been killed," she said. "Now the power of suppression are weakening inside Iran, so it can lead people to come street again."

But Fattahi told CBS News that Iranians do not want Israel, or the U.S., to engineer regime change in Tehran. She said that while American airstrikes might help further weaken the government, Iranians want to topple their leaders — and decide who replaces them — on their own.

"We do not want their boots on the ground, obviously," she said. "We don't want [a] made-up state."

“"Don't compromise with the regime, because they are killing people," she said. "World would be a better place without the Iranian regime, for all of us."

She said Iranians, with enough support from the international community, are ready and willing to build their own new government, and "we want a democratic Iran. We want a secular Iran."”

This looks like a win-win situation for all, except a handful of brutal mullahs. I hope this perspective is being considered in Washington.

Exiled Iranians say regime's grip on power "weakening day by day," and they're ready to build a new future

An Iranian opposition group based in Iraq is ready to help build a new Iran, and their message to the U.S. is clear: "Don't compromise with the regime, because they are killing people."

www.cbsnews.com

It might be better to take a more subtle approach to Iran so when the regime falls, it doesn't have our fingerprints on it - we can't be made into an enemy by a more secular hard-liner.

I'm not sure Netanyahu agrees.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

The US has been able to successfully support the installation of democratic governments in W. Germany, Japan, Taiwan, S Korea, Eastern Europe, Panama, etc...

It hasn't been THAT bad.

↑​

THIS​

​

is EXACTLY the argument the neocons made about Iraq.​

Funny story, though, turns out, Iraq was not those other places.

Maybe Iran is one of those other places.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Helping Iranians create a post Islamic Republic regime

would involve letting investments into the country and generally improving the quality of life for the people there

w/o interfering in their internal affairs


.

 

[Variant]

Is this a change in mindset over the past few decades? They wanted this theocracy in the first place so I am wondering what has changed.

It doesn't take an overwhelming majority to do an autocratic regime. Dropping bombs on them is however unlikely to result in a democratic overthrow of the current government.

 

[Rexedgar]

They’ll totally greet us as liberators this time guys. They definitely want a secular western democracy.

Where have I heard that before?

 

[ataraxia]

Where have I heard that before?

I asked Chat GPT:

“1. West Germany (Post-WWII)
Context: After WWII, the U.S. led efforts to demilitarize, denazify, and rebuild Germany.
Method: Military occupation followed by economic aid (Marshall Plan), institution building, and integration into Western alliances (NATO, EU).
Outcome: West Germany became a stable, prosperous democracy, eventually leading to a unified democratic Germany after 1990.

2. Japan (Post-WWII)
Context: U.S. occupied Japan from 1945 to 1952 under General Douglas MacArthur.
Method: New constitution (including Article 9’s renunciation of war), land reform, education overhaul, women’s suffrage.
Outcome: Japan emerged as a democratic state with a pacifist orientation and strong economic growth.

3. South Korea (Long-Term U.S. Support)
Context: Initially a U.S.-backed dictatorship after the Korean War (1950s–1980s).
Method: Economic and military support; democratic reform occurred more from internal movements.
Outcome: By the late 1980s, South Korea transitioned to democracy and is now one of Asia’s most vibrant democracies. U.S. support helped stabilize the country and deter North Korean aggression during that transition.

4. Taiwan (Indirect Support)
Context: U.S. backed Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalists after they fled to Taiwan in 1949.
Method: Military protection and economic ties; democracy emerged through internal reforms in the 1980s–90s.
Outcome: A robust democracy today, though the U.S. didn’t create it directly, ongoing U.S. support played a stabilizing role.

5. Eastern Europe (Post-Cold War)
Context: U.S. supported democratic transitions after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Method: Economic aid, NATO and EU integration support.
Outcome: Countries like Poland, Czech Republic, and the Baltics have had democratic success. Others (e.g., Hungary) have seen democratic backsliding.

6. Panama (1989 U.S. Invasion)
Context: U.S. invaded to remove Manuel Noriega.
Outcome: Panama transitioned to democracy afterward and has remained relatively stable since—though the legitimacy and legality of the invasion were contested internationally.

7. Grenada
Outcome: The military regime was quickly overthrown.
A new government was installed with U.S. and Caribbean support.
Democratic elections were held in 1984, and democratic governance has continued since.
Grenada today is considered a stable parliamentary democracy and one of the safest of the Caribbean islands.
The U.S. helped transition Grenada from military rule to electoral democracy.
There has been no return to authoritarianism.
The country has remained politically stable, despite the controversy around the invasion itself.
———————
As you can see, lots of successful precedents. It hasn’t always been a failure or THAT bad.

 

[multivita-man]

The US has been able to successfully support the installation of democratic governments in W. Germany, Japan,

1. They actually had some experience with democracy prior to WW2
2. They were completely and totally annihilated and we had hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground in both countries.
3. We had a multi-lateral post-war plan and we were a creditor nation and we had energy dominance.

None of that is true now.

Taiwan, S Korea,

For several decades after the end of WW2, Taiwan and South Korea were NOT democracies. They were authoritarian regimes, which the US supported. In fact, this is something that a generation of South Koreans remembered and why we're not as popular there as many Americans would assume we are. They're grateful we kicked imperial Japan out of their country and they are also grateful we defend them against North Korea, but it's a complicated relationship.

 

[multivita-man]

I asked Chat GPT:

Stop.

ChatGPT is not a source.

 

[ataraxia]

Stop.

ChatGPT is not a source.

Why not? Tell us what there is inaccurate?

 

[multivita-man]

“1. West Germany (Post-WWII)
Context: After WWII, the U.S. led efforts to demilitarize, denazify, and rebuild Germany.
Method: Military occupation followed by economic aid (Marshall Plan), institution building, and integration into Western alliances (NATO, EU).
Outcome: West Germany became a stable, prosperous democracy, eventually leading to a unified democratic Germany after 1990.

With hundreds of thousands of *allied* troops on the ground -- did ChatGPT tell you that?

2. Japan (Post-WWII)
Context: U.S. occupied Japan from 1945 to 1952 under General Douglas MacArthur.
Method: New constitution (including Article 9’s renunciation of war), land reform, education overhaul, women’s suffrage.
Outcome: Japan emerged as a democratic state with a pacifist orientation and strong economic growth.

With hundreds of thousands of *allied* (mostly US) troops on the ground -- did ChatGPT tell you that?

3. South Korea (Long-Term U.S. Support)
Context: Initially a U.S.-backed dictatorship after the Korean War (1950s–1980s).
Method: Economic and military support; democratic reform occurred more from internal movements.
Outcome: By the late 1980s, South Korea transitioned to democracy and is now one of Asia’s most vibrant democracies. U.S. support helped stabilize the country and deter North Korean aggression during that transition.

The bold -- people lived through that. They didn't just forget that. Did ChatGPT tell you that?

Please. Do NOT use ChatGPT as a cite. It's not a source.

If you use AI as a source, my default assumption is that you don't know what you're talking about and can't think for yourself.

 

[multivita-man]

Why not? Tell us what there is inaccurate?

No, I can already tell this conversation is going to go south and I'm not going to pick up points for it. My next post explains my thoughts on AI.

 

[ataraxia]

1. They actually had some experience with democracy prior to WW2
2. They were completely and totally annihilated and we had hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground in both countries.
3. We had a multi-lateral post-war plan and we were a creditor nation and we had energy dominance.

None of that is true now.



For several decades after the end of WW2, Taiwan and South Korea were NOT democracies. They were authoritarian regimes, which the US supported. In fact, this is something that a generation of South Koreans remembered and why we're not as popular there as many Americans would assume we are. They're grateful we kicked imperial Japan out of their country and they are also grateful we defend them against North Korea, but it's a complicated relationship.

Yes. Often the history has not been very straightforward and complicated. See post #34 for the histories. But eventually the US did at least play some role in an eventual successful transition to democracy in those countries.

 

[multivita-man]

Yes. Often the history has not been very straightforward and complicated. See post #34 for the histories. But eventually the US did at least play some role in an eventual successful transition to democracy in those countries.

"Playing a role"

We're talking about regime change in a country that numbers 90 million people. Many more people than in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That country is, what, 7000 miles from US shores?

Did you not see how Afghanistan ended?

Were you not alive from 2003 - 2015 to see what happened in Iraq?

When we started our PNAC/neo-con wars in 2002, we had a debt-GDP ratio of maybe 40-50%. Now we're over 100% with no end in sight. It's not gonna work, dude.

 

[Pyrite]

Why not? Tell us what there is inaccurate?

So far as I can ascertain, AI has not yet been determined to be credible re facts and re context. And, has been pointed out, AI can omit pertinent facts.

 

[ataraxia]

With hundreds of thousands of *allied* troops on the ground -- did ChatGPT tell you that?



With hundreds of thousands of *allied* (mostly US) troops on the ground -- did ChatGPT tell you that?



The bold -- people lived through that. They didn't just forget that. Did ChatGPT tell you that?

Please. Do NOT use ChatGPT as a cite. It's not a source.

If you use AI as a source, my default assumption is that you don't know what you're talking about and can't think for yourself.

In some examples, yes; in some, no. If you disagree with some point the AI is stating, address it and we can talk about it. But dismissing the whole thing out of hand seems a bit strange and unwarranted. It can be an extremely helpful and powerful tool.

There are numerous contingencies and variables in each of the examples give. It’s true that there is no cookie cutter recipe that works everywhere, every time. But with that being said, this idea that it has never worked for the US is also clearly not correct.

One contingency in the Iran case, for example, is that it has a historical precedent and some experience with democracy, and a large, relatively educated percentage of the populace that has grown to hate theocracy.

So Iran is not Iraq- and we can go into all the different reasons if you wish. Also, Iraq was not a complete failure. It has at least moved towards democracy and is doing much better than under Saddam. So I’m not sure why that’s being help up as some example of horrible US failure.

 

[Pyrite]

In some examples, yes; in some, no. If you disagree with some point the AI is stating, address it and we can talk about it. But dismissing the whole thing out of hand seems a bit strange and unwarranted. It can be an extremely helpful and powerful tool.

Sure, AI can be a helpful and powerful tool. But we're talking about its credibility as a source - which has not yet been established, so far as I am concerned.

<snipped>

Post #43

 

[ataraxia]

So far as I can ascertain, AI has not yet been determined to be credible re facts and re context. And, has been pointed out, AI can omit pertinent facts.

Agree it is not perfect- but it is often amazingly good. I agree one has to remain vigilante and critical of its responses- but by the same token, dismissing anything it says out-of-hand also does not seem warranted.

If you see mistakes and omissions in what it is saying, point them out and we can discuss.

 

[Pyrite]

Agree it is not perfect- but it is often amazingly good. I agree one has to remain vigilante and critical of its responses- but by the same token, dismissing anything it says out-of-hand also does not seem warranted.

If you see mistakes and omissions in what it is saying, point them out and we can discuss.

I'm not dismissing anything and everything AI says.

I'm saying I don't accept it yet as a credible source.

As for my "pointing out AI's mistakes"....the point of credible sources is that there's a history of few mistakes' being made, and that those mistakes that are made are quickly acknowledged and corrected.

AI simply hasn't been around long enough to have established the former. As for the latter: how would mistakes be acknowledged? And corrected?

 

[multivita-man]

So Iran is not Iraq- and we can go into all the different reasons if you wish. Also, Iraq was not a complete failure. It has at least moved towards democracy and is doing much better than under Saddam. So I’m not sure why that’s being help up as some example of horrible US failure.

For all the money and thousands of dead and injured US service personnel the we invested in Iraq, it is barely a democracy, and it is - wait for it - much more closely allied with Iran, not the United States.

I was right. You don't know what you're talking about, and AI is doing your 'thinking' for you. AI is word-prediction. It is not a substitute for human research and thought.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Is this a change in mindset over the past few decades? They wanted this theocracy in the first place so I am wondering what has changed.

Iran had a democratic government in the 1950's. That government was overthrown by the UK and the USA because the country wanted to nationalize it's oil resources. Western countries also for several decades failed to reverse their policies and help Iran back to democracy. So you had a popular uprising against the corrupt and ruthless Western back regime. While as happening many times was ruthless and authoritarian forces able to gain control and outmaneuver more moderate forces after the revolution.

1953 coup in Iran | Coup D’etat, Description & Facts | Britannica

The coup that occurred in Iran in August 1953, which resulted in the deaths of some 300 people during fighting in Tehran, removed Mohammad Mosaddegh and restored Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi as Iran’s leader.

www.britannica.com