[Politics] Revolution in Iran

[Swansman]

Remember the peace and quiet of the covid days eh..?

Anyway, this would be the major news item if there wasn't... five different types of chaos happening at once.

Today the Iran national team played against Senegal in a friendly - and during the national anthem they wore jackets covering their crests and emblems, supporting the protests.



You could argue a couple of footballers doing this is brave but not really something to take note of... I believe it is, because it shows the size of these (strangely underrepoted) protests and that they're quite convinced there will a regime change - otherwise they wouldnt probably not have dared to do this.

Will be interesting to see where this ends up.

 

[SeagullinExile]

My question would be, how many of them live in Iran?

Probably easier to do this if you live abroad tbh.

Pretty bold move though.

 

[Swansman]

My question would be, how many of them live in Iran?

Probably easier to do this if you live abroad tbh.

Pretty bold move though.

Yeah I immediately started to check that and only two of those in the starting eleven (Milad Sarlak and Hossein Hosseini) are based in Iran. Still though. Most of them likely have relatives over there.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

I think it's brave. It's a very public show of support for the protests and a statement against the regime. The repercussions could be very real against them or their families. They are maybe somewhat protected by their higher profile?

I'm in awe of the people on the streets protesting, especially the women. What they're doing must take incredible bravery. When a country has morality police and you go out on the streets and do a massive **** you in their faces then that takes, for want of a better description, balls of steel.

I hope it ends well for the protesters.

 

[Hotchilidog]

Make no mistake, that statement is huge. Football is massive in Iran and these players are high profile figures. Absolutely superb to see this solidarity with the women of Iran and the protests.

 

[Swansman]

Not much support from the West: limited media coverage, very weak condemnations from Western politicians against the Iran government for their harsh actions.

You'd have to imagine it is because the Kurds are the ones in the centre of it - a people whose political movements are classed as terrorism by the EU and NATO, simply because they've proven themselves unwilling to be Western puppets.

If the Kurds manages to overthow the Iran government, they won't be easier to control than Khamenei has been. Iran is one of the ten richest countries in the world when it comes to natural resources - and the Kurds won't give them away for free: they'll belong to the people of Iran. They can expect absolutely zero support from the West, who has been patiently waiting for Khomeini to drop dead so that they can finally make Iran yet another western colony in the Middle East. Hence why the West is now urging the Iran government to "ensure basic rights" rather than to "**** off and die", as was the case in the West-funded Arab Spring.

This is what a real, non-profit uprising looks like, making both the cruel Iran government and the western powers sad. Love it.

 

[Bakero]

Not much support from the West: limited media coverage, very weak condemnations from Western politicians against the Iran government for their harsh actions.

You'd have to imagine it is because the Kurds are the ones in the centre of it - a people whose political movements are classed as terrorism by the EU and NATO, simply because they've proven themselves unwilling to be Western puppets.

If the Kurds manages to overthow the Iran government, they won't be easier to control than Khamenei has been. Iran is one of the ten richest countries in the world when it comes to natural resources - and the Kurds won't give them away for free: they'll belong to the people of Iran. They can expect absolutely zero support from the West, who has been patiently waiting for Khomeini to drop dead so that they can finally make Iran yet another western colony in the Middle East. Hence why the West is now urging the Iran government to "ensure basic rights" rather than to "**** off and die", as was the case in the West-funded Arab Spring.

This is what a real, non-profit uprising looks like, making both the cruel Iran government and the western powers sad. Love it.

The lack of media coverage does seem odd but I don't see why Kurdish involvement should be the cause of that.

The UK may well designate the PKK a terrorist group but, on the other hand, maintains close ties with other Kurdish leaders. Kurds make up a small part of the Iranian population anyway.

 

[Jesus Gul]

Outside tip for them to finish top of the group in Qatar - beat USA, Wales and draw/lose v Eng

 

[Guinness Boy]

Not much support from the West: limited media coverage, very weak condemnations from Western politicians against the Iran government for their harsh actions.

You'd have to imagine it is because the Kurds are the ones in the centre of it - a people whose political movements are classed as terrorism by the EU and NATO, simply because they've proven themselves unwilling to be Western puppets.

If the Kurds manages to overthow the Iran government, they won't be easier to control than Khamenei has been. Iran is one of the ten richest countries in the world when it comes to natural resources - and the Kurds won't give them away for free: they'll belong to the people of Iran. They can expect absolutely zero support from the West, who has been patiently waiting for Khomeini to drop dead so that they can finally make Iran yet another western colony in the Middle East. Hence why the West is now urging the Iran government to "ensure basic rights" rather than to "**** off and die", as was the case in the West-funded Arab Spring.

This is what a real, non-profit uprising looks like, making both the cruel Iran government and the western powers sad. Love it.

Nothing to do with the Kurds. Western media is insular at the best of times and at the moment we have (in no particular order) the UK economy crashing, war that could end up nuclear and two new far right governments close to home, not to mention strikes and the possibility of a high covid and flu winter.

Nevertheless the BBC have covered this but it's in their World News. John Simpson (ex BBC World Affairs Editor) managed to get himself on a plane full of dodgy characters to Tehran when the Shah was overthrown to report on it but, today, there is simply too much other shit going on.

Respect to those players though - agree it is a brave move.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Well done the football players of Iran.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Not much support from the West: limited media coverage, very weak condemnations from Western politicians against the Iran government for their harsh actions.

You'd have to imagine it is because the Kurds are the ones in the centre of it - a people whose political movements are classed as terrorism by the EU and NATO, simply because they've proven themselves unwilling to be Western puppets.

If the Kurds manages to overthow the Iran government, they won't be easier to control than Khamenei has been. Iran is one of the ten richest countries in the world when it comes to natural resources - and the Kurds won't give them away for free: they'll belong to the people of Iran. They can expect absolutely zero support from the West, who has been patiently waiting for Khomeini to drop dead so that they can finally make Iran yet another western colony in the Middle East. Hence why the West is now urging the Iran government to "ensure basic rights" rather than to "**** off and die", as was the case in the West-funded Arab Spring.

This is what a real, non-profit uprising looks like, making both the cruel Iran government and the western powers sad. Love it.

I was with you up to a point.

But if the West is going to sit idly by, and inevitably the protesters will be crushed, raped and killed, why do you love it?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The lack of media coverage does seem odd but I don't see why Kurdish involvement should be the cause of that.

The UK may well designate the PKK a terrorist group but, on the other hand, maintains close ties with other Kurdish leaders. Kurds make up a small part of the Iranian population anyway.

You are quite right. Unfortunately Swanny has taken basic events (important events) and woven them into his own particular narrative. Again

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

But if the West is going to sit idly by, and inevitably the protesters will be crushed, raped and killed, why do you love it?

The 'West' will do nothing but impose the interests of Western Imperialism if they get involved in Iran - just like they did in 1979 when they sabotaged a popular left-leaning revolution and brought the Mullahs to power.

The mass of the population of Iran do not need 'Western' help - they need to be left alone to find their own course - and it is far from inevitable that the regime (which is in deep crisis) will be able to act against this mass movement.

You are correct to question Swansman's use of words - but you solution is one that has brought more than two centuries of misery to the mass of the poor in the Middle and far-East.

 

[Swansman]

I was with you up to a point.

But if the West is going to sit idly by, and inevitably the protesters will be crushed, raped and killed, why do you love it?

The people can't win if the West comes and hijack the power.

 

[Machiavelli]

Nothing to do with the Kurds. Western media is insular at the best of times and at the moment we have (in no particular order) the UK economy crashing, war that could end up nuclear and two new far right governments close to home, not to mention strikes and the possibility of a high covid and flu winter.

Nevertheless the BBC have covered this but it's in their World News. John Simpson (ex BBC World Affairs Editor) managed to get himself on a plane full of dodgy characters to Tehran when the Shah was overthrown to report on it but, today, there is simply too much other shit going on.

Respect to those players though - agree it is a brave move.

Agree UK media is insular, but C4 News and the FT less so (the latter completely understandable given its content and readership). Have I missed a (prominent) media organisation out?

 

[Machiavelli]

The people can't win if the West comes and hijack the power.

This isn't the first time there have been activities/protests/revolts (not so sure I'd go so far as revolution, and this isn't one yet either) in Iran this millennium.
Worth remembering the extraordinary wave that was once known as 'the Arab Spring', and how it swept through the Middle East and North Africa. Not much stuck unfortunately, and it led to devastation in Syria at the very least. Fingers crossed this time. I'm not so sure about the West and hijacking then or now, but I'm sure that some boring Trot will come along and invoke the notion of imperialism.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The people can't win if the West comes and hijack the power.

I think I understand what you mean; they need to do it for themselves. Unfortunately this rarely happens. My guess is the Islamist 'government' will crush the protesters.

 

[Machiavelli]

The people can't win if the West comes and hijack the power.

To add, this makes the same point both HWT and I were making, although more fully and eloquently:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...e-but-false-optimism-may-be-clouding-our-eyes

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

To add, this makes the same point both HWT and I were making, although more fully and eloquently:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...e-but-false-optimism-may-be-clouding-our-eyes

I agree with the content of the article.

The protests are welcome and promising, but from what I’ve seen nowhere near on the scale to change an authoritarian regime.

Changing these regimes by force requires millions on the street, enough to overwhelm armies. It’s not like the European revolutions 250 years ago, when it was typically person with pitchfork, v person with musket, where something like a 4:1 ratio would be enough. In the days of machine guns and heavy surveillance by secret military police, you probably need more like 30:1.

At best it might force a concession or two, at worst we might see another bloodbath.

 

[GT49er]

I agree with the content of the article.

The protests are welcome and promising, but from what I’ve seen nowhere near on the scale to change an authoritarian regime.

Changing these regimes by force requires millions on the street, enough to overwhelm armies. It’s not like the European revolutions 250 years ago, when it was typically person with pitchfork, v person with musket, where something like a 4:1 ratio would be enough. In the days of machine guns and heavy surveillance by secret military police, you probably need more like 30:1.

At best it might force a concession or two, at worst we might see another bloodbath.

Yes, maybe - but the critical factor is whether there is a turning point at which the police/army/secret service or whatever come over to the other side.

A classic case in point would be the East German guards, armed with machine guns and alsatian dogs to protect the Berlin Wall, downed tools and effectively said (but in German, I presume), 'F*** it, if you really want to pull the f***ing thing down, go ahead - I'm off to the pub'.
Other examples in history are available.