Iran currently has elections which routinely elect pro-nuclear Presidents. Also, changing the government to remove clerical influence doesn’t resolve the Sunni-Shia split in regional politics.
Some people have, but I don’t assume Iran to have a monolithic political culture. It is like judging someone from San Francisco and Fresno as having the same political beliefs. Currently, the people from Fresno are in charge.
Using that analogy, I could see a leftist in San Francisco choosing an aggressive foreign policy after a school in their city was bombed by a foreign power while they were trying to make peace.
Of course it’s not unanimous. It’s hard to get a true complete consensus.
Had you been following the protests in Iran even before the attacks?
I’ve met many people from Iran. Every single one of them left due to the regime, or were children of parents who left because of the regime.
I’m not making this point out of pro-American imperialism. Not in the slightest. This is about what many people in Iran want, and what their government has been murdering them for wanting.
Had you been following the protests in Iran even before the attacks?
Yes, but I don’t see why that justifies bombing Iran.
And what I’m alluding to earlier, Israel isn’t bombing Iran because it cares about the freedoms of Iranian women. It is bombing Iran because Israel and Iran are regional rivals.
You’re saying “regime change is important” on a post about American attacks on Iran and the current administration is saying that regime change is the purpose of the attacks.
At the same time, I can’t help but feel the US is not doing this out of altruism, but out of opportunism.
And again, I’m speaking about regime change; the regime that was murdering the innocent citizens of Iran for the crime of conducting peaceful protests against said regime.
What’s regime change going to do in the long run?
Iran currently has elections which routinely elect pro-nuclear Presidents. Also, changing the government to remove clerical influence doesn’t resolve the Sunni-Shia split in regional politics.
The people of Iran have been fighting for regime change. I don’t think the issue is necessarily with the presidents, but with the “Supreme Leader”.
Some people have, but I don’t assume Iran to have a monolithic political culture. It is like judging someone from San Francisco and Fresno as having the same political beliefs. Currently, the people from Fresno are in charge.
Using that analogy, I could see a leftist in San Francisco choosing an aggressive foreign policy after a school in their city was bombed by a foreign power while they were trying to make peace.
Of course it’s not unanimous. It’s hard to get a true complete consensus.
Had you been following the protests in Iran even before the attacks?
I’ve met many people from Iran. Every single one of them left due to the regime, or were children of parents who left because of the regime.
I’m not making this point out of pro-American imperialism. Not in the slightest. This is about what many people in Iran want, and what their government has been murdering them for wanting.
Yes, but I don’t see why that justifies bombing Iran.
And what I’m alluding to earlier, Israel isn’t bombing Iran because it cares about the freedoms of Iranian women. It is bombing Iran because Israel and Iran are regional rivals.
That’s not what I said. What I said was,
You’re saying “regime change is important” on a post about American attacks on Iran and the current administration is saying that regime change is the purpose of the attacks.
That sounds like you support the attack on Iran.
And here’s the rest of my original comment:
And again, I’m speaking about regime change; the regime that was murdering the innocent citizens of Iran for the crime of conducting peaceful protests against said regime.