Iran

#2,328
#2,328
McDad said:
Iran has been a theocracy since the early 70s, I think. Do you think the regime change is a return to a secular government or just a different Ayotollah?
Click to expand...
I think they'd be OK with any government who would be more friendly to them. They may very well get it because all the Arab nations in the region (Saudi Arabia in particular) wouldn't mind regime change there too. Their interests are aligned. I think they'd be totally OK with a new Iranian regime, even if it was theocratic, who thought of Israel like how the Saudis currently do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#2,329
#2,329
05_never_again said:
I think they'd be OK with any government who would be more friendly to them. They may very well get it because all the Arab nations in the region (Saudi Arabia in particular) wouldn't mind regime change there too. Their interests are aligned. I think they'd be totally OK with a new Iranian regime, even if it was theocratic, who thought of Israel like how the Saudis currently do.
Click to expand...
That makes sense. Theocracy is ok in Israel's eyes but it needs to be more moderate than the current hard liners?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 05_never_again
#2,331
#2,331
I typically completely disagree with regime change. In this case however, it’s hard to imagine how a new Iranian government could be worse than the current. Nowhere to go but up. I still don’t want the US directly involved however. It needs to come from within.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VAVol85, Vol737 and tbh
#2,343
#2,343
KB5252 said:
Interesting he would go with Russia if report is true. Considering their checkered past.
Click to expand...

True, but I'd imagine the list of stable options which aren't openly or covertly hostile to the regime is pretty short at this point. I doubt China would be a compatible host(?)
 
#2,344
#2,344
Matt2496 said:
I typically completely disagree with regime change. In this case however, it’s hard to imagine how a new Iranian government could be worse than the current. Nowhere to go but up. I still don’t want the US directly involved however. It needs to come from within.
Click to expand...
thats what we thought with Saddam too. it was only hindsight that had us realizing how many issues he suppressed in the region.

No way you can take out the organization behind terrorists and not get chaos. yeah they might be weaker, but they aren't going to be under anyone's thumb, and they are going to be out looking to establish themselves.
 
#2,345
#2,345
I think China's involvement, or lack there of, will be telling. They rearm Iran, and I think that means Taiwan isn't on the immediate menu. If they take a wait and see approach, I think we need to do the same to make sure China isn't stretching us out.

Israel may well be the better ally for a longer period. But they aren't in critical danger. and the ME isn't as important as it has been recently.
Taiwan we still rely on for chips, and China is a much bigger enemy of the US than Iran ever will be. We lose Taiwan and we lose the best plug we have on an expansionist China.
 
#2,348
#2,348
McDad said:
Would you want the ability to inspect in perpetuity to prevent future efforts to become nuclear capable?
Click to expand...
Yes. I think the ask has to be that the IAEA can expect whenever it wants without notice. Any attempt to stop them or work around them would be an automatic violation of any cease fire agreement
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#2,349
#2,349
volfanhill said:
Yes. I think the ask has to be that the IAEA can expect whenever it wants without notice. Any attempt to stop them or work around them would be an automatic violation of any cease fire agreement
Click to expand...
Do you think the culture of hate changes without regime change?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top