Forbes Article claims inevitable war

[rmalik]

What do you think?

Last week, Iran's opposition leaders Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi canceled anti-government demonstrations timed to commemorate the anniversary of last year's disputed presidential election. Secretary of the State Hillary Clinton called the cancellation "regrettable," but missed the larger point. The reform these two men offer is not what the majority of Iranians want: They want an end to the current Islamic regime.

One year ago, the Obama administration missed an opportunity to support Iran's uprising. They mistakenly calculated that back-door negotiations with Iran's clerics and promises made by its rulers would bring cooperation on the nuclear issue. The Americans were duped and now find themselves grasping for another chance to support an Iranian uprising.
Source: http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/21/iran-nuclear-israel-war-opinions-reza-kahlili.html

 

[BobG]

The first problem I have is with the idea that the majority of Iranians want regime change.

Even if one believes that Ahmadinejad won last year's election by fraud, that still doesn't equate to a desire for regime change. It might not even equate for a desire to have Ahmadinejad replaced as Iran's President. And even if a majority didn't support him in the election, his support was at least a very strong minority.

In actuality, a large majority of the population supports their current government system, even if their opinion of how well each is performing can go up and down. (Currently, all of Iran's government institutions have higher approval ratings than the US Congress, yet a majority of Americans wouldn't support the overthrow of our government.)

Even more problematic is the fact Iran seeking nuclear power is one of the major sticking points in relations between Iran and the Western powers - and the majority of Iranians support Iran seeking nuclear power. I'm not sure replacing just Ahmadinejad, or replacing the entire regime would resolve one of the major issues in relations - except for the fact that regime change would probably cause enough internal disruption that Iran would be less capable of successfully pursuing nuclear power for many years.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/652.php (I have to admit I have a hard time judging which international polls might be more legitimate than others, so I'm open to a poll from a better source.)

I think the fear of a nuclear Iran makes war feasible; but I think it's unlikely - not inevitable.

 

[Proton Soup]

i think a nuclear iran is inevitable. they're simply too sharp not to. the sticking point, of course, is all the destroying israel rhetoric. and a lot of that rhetoric is probably just aimed at the fundy bumpkins (not so different from here, really). i think they do it mostly for local politics, but it will be their undoing. if it weren't for that, I'm not sure we'd care so much. they'd be like India, we'd just accept it as fact, and probably start opening customer service call centers there.

 

[Werg22]

i think a nuclear iran is inevitable. they're simply too sharp not to. the sticking point, of course, is all the destroying israel rhetoric. and a lot of that rhetoric is probably just aimed at the fundy bumpkins (not so different from here, really). i think they do it mostly for local politics, but it will be their undoing. if it weren't for that, I'm not sure we'd care so much. they'd be like India, we'd just accept it as fact, and probably start opening customer service call centers there.

Not too many people speak English in Iran... wait that didn't keep them from opening call centers in India, nevermind.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Hey, guys, remember what happened last time Iran tried to be progressive?