Iran and Saudi Arabia

Let me put it in simple terms you can understand: American support = Iranian regime propaganda victory. Because support was not given, it took the regime a longer time to shut down the initial protests and with that, the Dinner Jacket used up his favors with Khamanaei, who he is now at loggerheads with.

There are times when intervention is necessary and there are times when its Leeroy Jenkins idiocy. Sure, WE wouldn't get hurt by it, but the Iranians would have suffered far worse than they did.

American inaction = Iranian regime propaganda victory.

There's no winning the propaganda war in Iran. Best to look out for our principles and not give a shit about the Iranian theocratic government.

Principles! I mean, pragmatism!

No, Obama did the right thing in mostly keeping his mouth shut about Iran.

While Tom probably doesn't care about this, the Iranian people have no interest whatever in being the next Iraq. It would have taken American invasion (which we do not, at present, have the boots available to put on the ground for) to stop the Revolutionary Guards from squashing the Green Revolution. As for the propaganda angle, Tom put it pretty succinctly; there's no way to win that one. In fact, propaganda didn't matter in the Iranian protests, since the anti-regime people are students, intellectuals and the Arab street, not Berber tribes like in Libya or militias like in Yemen; they're good for sparking a Velvet Revolution, but not a violent insurgency, and a Velvet Revolution only works if the armed forces hold their fire.

If our forces weren't already committed and our public's willingness to fight wars and our credibility with the Arab street essentially spent over the preceding eight years, we might have been able to send in intervention forces to protect the protestors, but there's no way we could have done that in 2009 as it happened.

Iran is not Arab.

Also, propaganda did matter in this, because its one thing to kill a few demonstrators as part of anti-riot actions, but the regime did not have enough public support to go on a total rampage a la Syria against the people...unless they had undeniable proof that they were American backed and thus could be spun as foreign usurpers rather than legit protesters. The Green Movement in Iran is still extant now BECAUSE they had no American public support. Yeah sure, Iran would have said as much regardless, but the Iranians aren't hermits and could easily doublecheck via satellite tv (which are nigh impossible to censor by the government), which are ubiquitous in Iranians households. If the Americans had backed the protestors (American backing in Iran is looked down VERY badly for historical reasons, nevermind the regime's anti-Americanism), most of he population would have turned against them. As it was, without said American support, a little over half of the population supports the movement.

Then we just needed a plausibly deniable way to funnel weapons to the secularist kids, so they could go toe-to-toe with the Basiji and win.

edited 9th Oct '11 1:11:38 PM by SavageHeathen

Plausible deniability: the age-old Holy Grail of international politics...

So sought after, and yet, never found...

Meh, unless you could convincingly make it look like they looted an Iranian armory, the very idea that the protesters would get weapons would scream foreign conspiracy...

"Why no, Iranian Government, we didn't give your angry rioting revolutionaries weapons!"

"Really, then why are they currently blowing up our tanks with rockets and shooting our soldiers with guns that they shouldn't have?"

"Uh... China did it."

The world has plenty of gun runners: Protests can turn into a bonafide insurgency if they get access to good arms dealers and a line of credit... Especially when the protesters are being shot at and presumably want to shoot back very badly.

edited 9th Oct '11 3:00:36 PM by SavageHeathen

Getting them the weapons is trivial, in the grand scheme of things.

Doing it without getting caught, on the other hand... is not.

If I had to set up such an op, I'd probably make a straw company, buy a bazillion late Soviet guns and explosives for pennies on the dollar, and funnel them into Iran, ostensibly through gun runners in, say, Azerbaijan, which shares a nice border with Iran. Y'know, give these kids as many AK 74 Ms, bullpup Dragunovs, PK machineguns and RPG 29s as they fancy.

It'd cost a pretty penny, but knowing that Turban Haji and Dinner Jacket are going to get shot at with RPG fire whenever they rear their ugly heads out of their bunkers would make it worth the cost.

edited 9th Oct '11 3:07:42 PM by SavageHeathen

A straw company that DEFINETLY wouldn't get found out? And that the gun runners WOULDN@T know who they were really working for at any level? And the huge costs involved? Or the supply situation, or if you accidentally end up replacing the Supreme leader with a power mad autocrat who doesn't know where all these guns are from and decides to invade everyone surrounding him?

Or that it might fail because the revolutionary gaurd are better equipped and so you've effectivly sent the entirety of Iran's kids who might have wanted change to an early grave?

No, I really don't think the Green movement would benefit from American involvement at all. The same people rallying against Ahmadinejad at the time, are also vehemently anti-US over perceived slights against their country (not the least of which being American forces encroaching or passing through Iranian territory without permission). Try to talk to some of those guys, the last thing they'd want is American assistance.

Now that Rouhani is in charge of Iran, I can say that Saud is worse.

Epic Necro!

Yeah, though I'd request this be kept open, it looks like a good topic.

What is Rouhani like, anyway? He sounds reasonable when dealing with the US, but how is he with the Sauds?

Well the Saudi's are cautiously endorsing the nuclear deal that was stuck recently, so I'd say he's managing something when it comes to them.

The guy seems like the second coming of Khatami, which bodes well. Then again, just about anyone is better than the dinner jacket....

Rouhani is neither moderate nor the actual ruler. The only change he brought is some pretty words.

Where is the evidence of his insincerity? Also if the actual rulers didn't want him around, they'd not give him the space to consort with the US.

And yet that he produces these "pretty words" as you call them instead of belligerent rantings is already a distinct difference from his predecessor. Token or not, motions towards rapprochement are still progress of a sort.

A primary concern of Iran these days is a heavily-damaged economy, coupled with a large educated portion of the populace. Such concerns threaten Revolutionary hold on government power. Therefore, change to a different, less hostile status quo is ideal.

Rouhani is more moderate and reasonable than Benjamin "I will drop nukes in Iran even if a deal is made and I will sabotage the negotiations to make sure I can continue bleeding out the civilians, not the leaders, of Iran" Netanyahu.

The Rouhani:Ahmadinejad::Obama:Bush parallel explains a lot, really.