Dervish! I have been awaiting your visit to this thread
Just wanted to get the opinion of someone who might actually know a thing or two about Iran and Iranians to answer a few questions...
First of all, there are some here at CFC (who shall remain nameless!) who beleive that the Iranian gov't is completely out of touch with its citizens in the order of, say, pre-invasion Iraq, and that should the US invade, most Iranians would rejoice and warm right up to a US (or US-coalition) sponsored democracy. How true do you think that is? Is Iran acheing for a complete regime change, or just reforms? Is the current government just held up by fear and anti-american chanting, or does it have some ligitimacy in the eyes of Iranians?
I know they might be some heavy questions, but Id love to hear whatever thoughts you might have!
Hah, thanks Che, I've been busy lately
It's a tough question to give 100% assurance to either way. There are a lot of Iranians who are sick of the government and become weary even at the thought of another revolution, so you'd think a US takeover would be welcomed with open arms, like Bush said regarding Iraq. One problem with that idea is two words; Operation Ajax.
When one bring this up, it sometimes conjures up controversy, especially when some people assert that Mossadeq just wanted power for himself and not a secular democratic reform of Iran. I personally believe he wanted a secular democracy regardless, but I can understand where the other school of thought is coming from, because prior to 1979, people saw Khomeini as a Gandhi of Iran. Some believed he would be a spiritual father figure of all opposition movements in the Shah's Iran, and would merely offer guidance. People make promises to make ends meet. IIRC, even the late Shah's son made some promise to become a practicing Muslim if he ever returned to Iran in his royal viseage.
So while a US invasion might be welcomed by some young people who are sick and tired of having to go to underground parties at the risk of arrest, memories and history of western interference in their politics may make Iranians instantly mistrust the US.
I think most Iranians have accepted the government burden as their lot in life, weary and quite unwilling to go through another revolution. I also do not see the government poking the majority of the people too much, and that is a good sign for the region IMO since this signifies some self-preservation. The people would be happy with major reforms, but I don't personally see how that would be possible, unless unelected leaders suddenly changed their minds about fundamental ideals. And even then, from a certain point of view, it would be a regime change in all but name.
it all depends on who you talk to. personally i have not met any of the shah's people, don't care to really. they are out of touch with their people, they were before they left. the children of middle class iranians i have met in this country (usa) mainly think they are a joke.
i have met many iranian/american bourgeois, and frankly they disgust me.
i have met many iranians at the mosque, and whatever grievances or gripes they have about their government, it has never come out as anything more than a desire for reform, especially in the economic realm. never has it been grievances so dire that they want regime change. i think they are sick of their nation being looked at as a pariah nation, some of that can be blamed on actions of the IRI, some of that on the actions of other governments.
the point i was trying to make is that security for iran has been in question ever since the inception of the islamic republic. so the reality is we don't know what will happen in Iran if it were to find itself in a prolonged period of relative security. the international conditioning forces, both historical and in the present, that have helped shape the current regime have been such that the government has learned to error on the side of caution. My personal opinion, considering what took place under the leadership of Khatami, is that reforms can and will happen given the right conditions. the main concern for the mujtahids is ensuring the viability of the Islamic state, because according to their view the Islamic state is the only modern force capable of defending Islam in todays world. Secure the state and that will allow for the deidealization of Islam. Islam has a long history of tolerance for other ideas, however that tolerance is not so viable when Islam itself is under threat.
There were some encouraging signs during Khatami's tenure, but any major reforms were stopped dead in their tracks by the conservatives who are truly in charge.
The Iranian Student Protests of July 1999 also took place relatively early in Khatami's term, and while the participants were not quite quashed with Tienman efficiency, it's not what we'd expect from a real democracy, or even a nation trying to reform.
I would expect those in a mosque to have primarily economic complaints, since the Islamization of Iranian society (mandatory hijab, etc.) would likely not exceed their comfort level too much if at all. I too am hoping that economic and
environmental problems will be solved ASAP if the human rights issues 100% cannot be. On a sidenote, I think this is a good a reason as any to curb fossil fuel emissions;
But there are many religious minorities and secular Iranians who simply do not want religion thrust upon them. I question whether the process of Khomeini's ascension was really democratic, and if not, how can you have a real democracy on that foundation? How can you avoid being a pariah, even if certain countries merely "have it in" for you?
The USA never apologized for Operation Ajax or Iran Air Flight 655, so of course this is not a black and white issue. Both sides have committed acts unconducive to human rights. On the day when leaders in both countries can swallow their pride and own up to their mistakes, that will be sweet indeed. I'm hoping we all see this day in our lifetime.
I think the best way to fight radicalism in Iran is to get MTV in there. Get McDonald's in there. Give them an apple store. We have it pretty good here in the west. They'll never see that, though, if all they see is our bombs and our spite for all things middle eastern... and our high divorce rates, obesity, and rampant mindless celebrity worship.
Access to so-called American culture is already there via illegal satillite dishes. I was able to see many popular American films while in Iran. I also noticed that all the Star Wars movies were on sale via bootleg DVD's when I visited a Tehran bazaar. So it's in demand.
Regarding big name franchises; no oversaturation. Although the rich Iranian kids nowadays just fly to Dubai and buy things at the Apple Store, etc. Limiting franchises would increase profit per shop, and it would, to some degree, please various special interest groups that will have power regardless of who's in charge in the future (bazaar merchants, Islamic clergy, etc.). I hope I never see a McDonalds in Iran.
Finally, a disclaimer; I may know a bit about the subject, but I don't consider myself to be a politico and 100% NOT a revolutionary of any kind. I'm just a quasi beach bum that wants to see world peace.
You know muslims don't eat bacon or drink alcohol. 
