IRANIANS WOULD NOT DEFEND THE REGIME AGAINST A FOREIGN ATTACK

IPS ^ | Friday, February 11, 2005 | Safa Haeri

[Bald Eagle777]

I see the potential for a lot of Stalingrad-esque house to house, CQB. Minus tanks (on the Iranian side) after we attempt to take out selected targets with PGM, etc; the whole country will have to be taken brick by brick, nail by nail. All soldiers should have a back up weapon, plenty of extra ammo, virtually a decade's supply of M-67 grenades and a K-Bar always at the ready. I would expect a long haul in Iran with a "forest fire" potentially rekindled in Iraq.

What many analysts may not foresee is that the insurgency in Iraq (and elsewhere) could in fact be fanned if we get bogged down in Iran. Insurgents and foreign fighters may be emboldened to come crawling out of the woodwork to a hitherto unforeseen extent (if we are perceived to be stretched too thin between Iraq and Iran). Hopefully all Iraqi security forces will stay the course.. We could have a modern day battle of the Teutoberg forest on our hands if we are not extremely careful.

Iran is no Romania/Nikolai Ceausescu. Finesse will not work, but brutal, sustained, up close in your face ops might, given enough men and materiel. PSYOPS will always be needed to help prepare the battle space and hopefully fan the internal opposition in Iran, but I am skeptical that they all want free, open democracy in Persia. I could be wrong and sincerely hope that I am if we have to go in.

[Bald Eagle777]

"..Invasion would alienate most Iranians .."

This is my assessment also.

[expat_panama]

IMHO, more and more Iranians, and others elsewhere for that matter, are getting plenty of outside news.  Human beings by nature are smart.  It may not seem that way, but that's because (exppan theory #42) the smarter ones tend to be quieter.

[F14 Pilot]

People of Iran are not brainwashed. It is not fair to compare such a bright nation with Cubans or Syrians.

President Bush does separate the Iranians from the regime though.

They don't watch the state run TV Channels.

Indeed, they watch western media and Iranian TVs which based in LA, California.

[Khashayar]

We are any thing but BRAIN WASHED and fortunately, we do not have leftist media who may brain wash some. ;-)

[familyop]

"Iranians would not rise in support of the present clerical regime in case it is attacked by a foreign power."

Then Persia it will be.

[familyop]

RightOnline wrote:
"the Shah was anything but perfect"

F14 Pilot replied:
"I disagree!"

Ahah! Old man!

[smile from an almost old man]

[F14 Pilot]

Was he not perfect?

;-)

[Veto!]

Question is, would democracy in Iran actually change the regime? Iranians brought the mullahs on themselves and quite gleefully with their '79 "revolution."

[F14 Pilot]

Yep!

Cause this current regime in Iran is totally anti-freedom, anti-democracy!

[familyop]

Forgive my lack of knowledge of Farci and some concepts of perfection. But if I remember correctly from study, "Shah" means "best." Some of the Shahs were described to have had perfect ceremonial behavior. But later, Khomeini described himself as being the perfect guide, somewhat ruining the concept for the sake of propaganda.

Correct me on whatever is erroneous above.

[familyop]

So, in a sense, did his title, itself (Shah) mean "perfect?"

[F14 Pilot]

Oh Okay!

Shah in PERSIAN language means KING!
The language of Iran is Persian (Not Farsi). Actually there is no difference between them but Persian is the name of their language in English language. Parsi is what the Iranians themselves call.

And you were right about that ba$tard, Khomeini, he claimed that he is the best leader and guide for the ummah (nation in Arabic) and he ruined Iran and its alliance with the western countries.

[F14 Pilot]

He has a title

HIM Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, SHAHANSHAH OF PERSIA.

He was the Shah of Pahlavi Dynasty!

[familyop]

Thank you.

[familyop]

Thanks again. The keywords you provided yield much history in English through the search engines, for any who want to learn.

[F14 Pilot]

You are welcome

[windchime]

Bump!

[sionnsar]

Question is, would democracy in Iran actually change the regime? Iranians brought the mullahs on themselves and quite gleefully with their '79 "revolution."

They don't have a democracy now, so on that basis the question is moot. However, there is a lot more behind your question so I hope you won't mind my bringing others more qualified to speak to this, able to correct my errors.

The first part "quite gleefully," glosses over a lot of history that led up to the revolution. I won't really go as far back as the installation of the Shah after Mossadegh (sp?) in the early 50s, when the latter was going to nationalize the oil industry. (The coup was, *IF* I understand right, engineered by British & CIA.)

But at least by the 60s there were factions who wanted the Shah out. (I'm relying on the autobiographical "The Hard Awakening" by Dehqani-Tafti, the first Iranian Anglican Archbishop of Iran.) There were at least the fanatic Muslims, and the socialists, and the Soviet Union was in there stirring the pot.

By the 70s the trouble-making was becoming more serious and the Shah started cracking down using SAVAK, the secret police. Matters escalated, unsurprisingly. Then Jimmy Carter pulled the rug out from under the Shah and the revolution got underway.

One of the Iranians on FR recently posted about that time, noting that what the self-professed "mainstream" media showed us was not an accurate image of the time, but what showed best on TV and what was most anti-American. (There being no Internet as we know it there, they had a virtual lock on the news.)

The revolution was achieved mainly by the leftists, the students, who wanted a socialist/communist country. (I knew some of them in college here, '77-'78, and that is definitely what they wanted!)

But that revolution was hijacked by the mullahs. (I do not know how; I hope someone can enlighten me.) Now it is my understanding that the mullahs, and certainly their "enforcer" thugs, are not Iranian but Arab. There's a long dislike of Arabs by the Iranians, I gather, and this just exacerbates the current situation. My Iranian friends tell me the almost all the people hate the mullahs.

There's another factor. Most of the Iranian population today is too young to remember the revolution; all they've ever known are the mullahs.

Look at a couple snapshots, cost of living and demographics (from FarsiNet News:

I think that if the Iranians are able to topple the mullahs, they will have no problem with maintaining a democracy. I suspect it will look a bit more like the Israeli democracy than the somewhat more sedate American practice, but I think they could make it work.