Quote:
Originally Posted by octothorp
I don't view a destabilized Iran as a positive thing for western interests in the region. Regardless of whether the US and Britain were involved, they will blamed by a portion of the Muslim world. There would also be the potential that what emerges after the civil war is even less of a theocracy and more of a military dictatorship. It would also cause other semi-theocracies throughout the region to clamp down on their own citizens to make sure that civil unrest doesn't spread. The benefit is that it would probably draw Iran's operatives in Iraq out of there, and put their nuke program on hold, but there is the potential that it increases the likelihood of nuclear technology getting leaked to other nations.
If, on the other hand, you can secretly work to help west-friendly moderate clerics get into positions of power, there's every reason to expect the country to grow increasingly democratized and west-friendly.
|
One idea is that a destabilized government with protesters lead by youth was bound to happen in the Middle East. We are supremely fortunate it happened in Iran - I would go as far as to say that other than the Iranians that are hurt or dead, Iranians are also fortunate in some way. Still, would you rather the example come from Iran, with protests against hardline rule, or from Egypt, where it would be protests FOR hardliners.
It's rough to watch, but in the end this is a positive, even if it fails.