IRAN: SHIT'S GETTIN' REAL

i'm not. idk maybe only I find the ayatollahs fairly humourous. :(

Yep. Someone should do something about this shit. *leans back in recliner on other side of the ocean*

Ah, now that is the question that when looking at Iran, you can't tell if anyone has found the right answer to.

new war plz

author=kentona link=topic=4003.msg80936#msg80936 date=1245162639
Don't all countries go through a civil war at some point or another? This is not a western concern.

The world is smaller than you can think--this is a global concern. We're talking about a country on the verge of nuclear power in an unstable region sitting atop the world's most important natural resource. Nobody is saying the west needs to invade or whatever (at least nobody whose opinion carries any weight), but pressure needs to be applied.

author=Fallen-Griever link=topic=4003.msg80944#msg80944 date=1245165972
A country in civil war doesn't randomly start attacking other countries too. A country in civil war has enough on its hands to try and organise an assault or nuclear attack on another country. Other nations should keep an eye on who comes to power if a civil war does actually happen, but only to see who comes out as the victor. There is no need for other nations to try and actively stop a civil war or try and intervene in one if one starts, that just makes things worse.

This is very short-sighted. A civil war wouldn't just be Iran A versus Iran B. You'll have a flood of insurgents from the region trying to make their own power grabs. Weapons will be proliferated, perhaps even nuclear materials. Surrounding nations will be affected.

bahleted

author=kentona link=topic=4003.msg80950#msg80950 date=1245167425
So what supposed to happen? Is a country with a bigger stick supposed to invade then?

You don't understand Iran very well, and I pretty explicit said we shouldn't invade. Iran will fold to international and internal pressure, because both its leaders and people want their nation to be an important player in the world, and actively seek to become such. On one side you have the theocratic Ahmadinejad/clerics/Supreme Leader who act out to garner international attention, and on the other the more moderate Mousavi/reformists/Khatami who choose a more diplomatic course. The people themselves, particularly the younger generations, have rejected the stylings of A-jad not so differently from Americans who lashed out against GWB for making them look bad.

The vote was rigged--there's no question about that. Mousavi was dominating polls a week earlier and a landslide victory was almost inevitable if voter turnout was high. But instead the impossible happened, with 40 million votes in the first two hours for Ahmadinejad, hand counted (yeah, right). Our election machine in the USA isn't even close to that fast. So the clerics have chosen Ahmadinejad to spite the west, not anticipating the massive backlash they would receive from the populace. As much as they want the incumbent to stick around, they themselves want to stick around even more.

The Supreme Leader has all ready called for a recount to try and tame the population and keep Tehran from burning, the results of which may be interesting. To keep Ahmadinejad is the likely outcome, except with more believable odds than 2:1. They don't want to appear weak by completely overturning the results. A-jad's base is strong enough that he could've won given low turn out. Some predicted as much as a 70% turn out would be needed to secure Mousavi's victory. This would go a long way to settling things down.

The west is all ready doing what needs to be done, with media coverage, condemning the violence against Iranian citizens, and by emboldening protesters with words like "the world is inspired by your rallies." Washington just recently booted the current Iran adviser, who often served to incite animosity between nation states with his perspective.

What remains to be seen is whether or not the Guardian Council (six clerics, six lawyers) has the balls to admit Mousavi won and declare him the new president. If civil war does erupt, which I don't expect, you can bet more involvement from the west in the form of tighter Iraq/Afghan border controls and a stronger naval presence in the Straight of Hormuz to blockade weapons trafficking. Don't be surprised if we supply reformists in some capacity either.