|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Wishing for regime change?
« Back to club forum| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Wishing for regime change?But let's have a look at what happens when 'regime change' actually happens. History tells us to expect one of two outcomes. Examples of the first are:- 1. Assassinating Julius Caesar. Given that the Roman Republic needed to recover from decades of civil war, some emergency powers to restore the Republic were considered warranted. In the Roman Republic a 'Dictator' was not unusual as a way to get around political paralysis. Only thirty years earlier Sulla had been appointed Dictator, and resigned after two years once the shop was back in order. But Caesar had bullied the Senate into making him 'Dictator for life', which crossed a red line for the 'Liberatores'. They cut him down, doubtlessly muttering 'No King!' as they did so. But what it actually achieved was another civil war, ending in a dynasty of Emperors who would never resign after the emergency, and who wouldn't obey the Roman Constitution either. 2. English Civil War. This was because the King believed he had a Divine Right to Rule, and his wish was Law. Parliament's job was to pass the legislation and impose the taxes he demanded. After much bloodletting the Parliamentarians won the war. But who would be in charge? Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell had the backing of the Army, so nobody argued. He arranged for his son Richard to follow him. All that bother had merely exchanged a King in name for a Lord Protector as the head of a new dynasty. Eventually Young Cromwell proved himself to be useless and the monarchy was restored; the war had been all for nothing. 3. French Revolution. The absolutist monarch was deposed in the name of 'Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood'. And then began the Reign of Terror. Then Napoleon staged a coup of his own, to become Emperor. A quarter of a century of what was effectively a Europe-wide war followed, ending with - you guessed it! - a restored French monarchy. 4. The Russian Tsar was 'Patrouska'. The 'Little Father', one step down from God. And that's how he saw himself. World War 1 put huge strains on Russia, and eventually there was revolution and a few more years of civil war. A very ugly civil war. But this time the monarchy was not restored. Do you consider that 'progress'? Not if you look at what arose in its place! Seventy years of Bolshevism, including the never-to-be-repeated extravaganza of Stalin! But not all regime changes end up as bad as the beginning (or worse). Some have actually worked well. 1. America, 1776. The monarchy was kicked out and a genuinely free Republic was born! What made this successful? The answer is obvious; there was already in place a functioning government in each colony, with popular support to continue self-government. 2. Soviet Union, 1991. The Bolsheviks were booted, and Boris Yeltsin saw in a peaceful transition. The difference? Again, there were already functioning governments in all of the constituent Republics. Sorry, but not many more examples of revolutions that have worked, because not many have. The secret is that a successful 'regime change' requires that only the very top level be changed, and there are other layers of effective government already in place to hold the show together. You would not be far wrong if you called this a 'Deep State'; the day-to-day institutions that actually do the nuts-and-bolts of keeping society well-fed and at peace. So do we really want regime change in Iran? What will we get in its place? I suspect that the power vacuum will be filled NOT by existing provincial administrations or grass-roots democracy, but by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard enforcing their own rule as a military dictatorship, perhaps with a hint of Islam as a figleaf. Would that be an improvement? Or perhaps the son of the Shah might try to make a comeback. That would be explosive! Donald and Benjamin, be careful what you wish for! |
||
|
America has organised a 'Regime Change' in Iran before. Back in the 1950's Iran had a democratic, western-oriented government that was bringing Iran into the 20th century. It was also very popular, supported by the people generally and western-trained academics, professionals, virtually everyone except communists and hard-line Islamists. The government wanted to use the oil wealth of the country to fund the education and infrastructure needed to modernise Iran. American and British oil companies didn't like that idea, so the British and American governments staged a coup and installed the Shah. Not only the democratic modernisers that supported the former government were angered. The Communists and Islamists also objected. America and Britain had managed to enrage every element within the country. It cost the American tax-payer a fortune every year to keep him in power, but at least the oil company shareholders were happy. Think about that as you ponder Dubblya's famous sentence "I don't understand why they hate us." The Shah lasted for a generation before he was finally booted. But this time he wasn't replaced by western-oriented liberals. Thay had failed back in the 50's. This time in the 1970's it was the hard-line Islamists that took power. Despite brutal sanctions (as opposed to the huge subsidies given to the Shah), they have lasted twice as long as the Shah. So much for an imposed 'Regime Change' as a long-term solution. I expect the next attempt will be no more successful. But America doesn't learn. Now Trump is bombing the begollies, to force Iran to agree to abandon their nuclear programme, an agreement that Trump himself cancelled less than 10 years ago even though Iran was complying with it. It was another example (like Obamacare) where Trump wanted to prove that he could do a better deal than anyone else. He keeps on failing, but his followers don't seem to notice that. Anyway, Trump has said that these bombing raids have been spectacularly successful, and Iran's nuclear capacity has been 'totally destroyed'. Which means that there is no need to bomb again. If he does launch more raids, does that mean the first raid were NOT as successful as he has boasted? Again, his followers won't notice the contradiction. The truth of the matter is that the original agreement was working, but Trump 's pride wouldn't allow him to retain anything done by Obama. He reneged on the agreement out of spite. He has failed to replace it with anything even equal in effectiveness, much less 'better' as promised. So now he is simply kicking the table over, rather than simply re-instating the Obama-era agreement. When Trump loses, be makes sure everyone else does, too. |
||
|
Obama Agreement |
||
|
Shiva 18:23 That's because Trump has a unique way of looking on agreements. He doesn't see then as a basis for co-operation, but as a token of submission. This is shown by him demanding Iran not only make an agreement, but also 'unconditional surrender'. In Trump's mind, these two are the same thing. Zelensky in Ukraine also senses this when Trump urges him to 'make a deal' with Putin. In Trumpspeak, 'make a deal' means one side surrenders to the other side. So of course nobody will 'make a deal' with Trump, except as a ruse to buy time before reneging on that 'deal'. That's what the rest of the world has learned to do with Trump; they 'make a deal', they praise the man, they might even nominate him for a Peace Prize. All to stroke his ego and make him feel that he has 'won', and all the while they make alternative arrangements so they can back away at a time of their own choosing. Just think how many of the 'investment decisions' that Trump has announced to 'bring manufacturing back' involve long lead times that can be conveniently stretched out to allow 'unforeseen' cancellations at a later date. Yes, the world is learning how to play Trump like a one-string fiddle! Unfortunately for Iran, the leaders of the Islamic Republic have principles that make them reluctant to do that. |
||
|
www.abc.net.au |
||
|
Iran Deal Trump nixed the Iran Deal, putting Iran staunchly back into the nuclear arms business. “We basically have two countries that are fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the f*k they're doing.” President Groper on national TV. |
