Large scale protests like this are frequently externally influenced. I really wouldn't be surprised if in 50 years time when top secret documents are released to archives we don't find that these protests are being financially supported or organised by USA/Israel/the west.
yeah like an example from centuries ago a world away is relevant. Situation in Syria or "democratic" Iraq is probably more illustrative of what's in store for them.
> yeah like an example from centuries ago a world away is relevant.
"I don't like where this is going so I'll just arbitrarily disqualify the line of argument even though it's logically valid."
> Situation in Syria or "democratic" Iraq is probably more illustrative
Cynicism is a hinder to progress. Reality is messy, but if we tell people to stop aspiring, things can only get worse. Tunisia after the revolution has had its problems but it's still freer than it was, for example; same for Algeria. Chances are even going from a theocracy to a secular dictatorship on the Egyptian model, for example, would be a significant step forward.
USA isn't a democracy, it's a republic. And "the people" was defined to exclude native Americans, people with dark skin, poors, etc. Altogether a very weak flavor of "democracy".
> There is some truth to this insistence. But it is mostly disingenuous. The Constitution was meant to foster a complex form of majority rule, not enable minority rule.
Forming the United States also took a lot of compromise. If nobody was willing to budge on these archaic issues we wouldn't be here today. It doesn't change the vision that all men are created equal and entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
> Large scale protests like this are frequently externally influenced
They are often externally helped, but considering the casus "belli" in this case was an extremely natural one (a popular reaction against a brutal abuse of power that resulted in the violent murder of a woman for not properly wearing the mandated veil), it's very doubtful the protests were started by foreign-affiliated/financed parties.
Uh, wut? "Agency" isn't magical omnipotence. There are always people in every country with interests and views that align with some foreign interest that is capable of bankrolling or otherwise supporting and making possible what previously was not.
You frame it like its a bad thing when it very much isn't; the Iranian people deserve to be freed of the current tyranny under which they struggle. A more western-aligned Iran would be best for its people and for the entire Middle East. It also doesn't negate the brave efforts of the people there protesting the regime.
You forget that the Iranian revolution of the 70s was a direct result of the Iraninan government and the shah being a western puppet state, and that the people actually overthrew that government in support of their own religious government, no external politics involved. In fact the West pretty much stood helpless as they really didnt want that happening, hence why the hostilities now. Since ancient times, Persia always went their own way, even after the Arab domination in the 8th century they emerged as a reshaped Islamic Persia, rather than just a province.
The problem is that the previous regime (which was more or less installed by the US in 1953) was tyrannical in its own way. It's not an endorsement of the current regime to say that the 1979 revolution was founded on a lot of legitimate grievances.
The govt of Iran has savvy foreign policy, and it's remarkable that it had stayed afloat despite being targeted by monstrous crimes like Stuxnet and assassinations.
Why would it be doomed? What reasons do you see for this to happen?
Unlike Iraq or Afghanistan, Iran has a long and recent history of being a highly orderly society.
How democratic it would be is another question, but very likely it at least is not going to be as oppressive. Even if the resulting state were closer to Singapore than to Switzerland, it would still be a serious relief for the population.
Iraq is not Afghanistan, it had similar conditions to Iran and ended up a disaster. In fact, can you name even one thriving democracy in the Middle East? Except Israel of course, which has history and culture that is very different for that region.
As much as I can tell, Iraq as a powerful independent state was destroyed by Mongols in 1300s, and never restored.
Since then, Iraq was controlled by various foreign powers, as a colony: partly Persian, partly Ottoman / Turkish; since late 19th century, it was increasingly under British control, and since 1970s, under Saddam Hussein: independent but rather undemocratic.
Iran was independent and powerful since 1500s, and it even converted the previous waves of invaders to its culture (somehow similar how the Manchu invaders gradually converted to the Chinese culture). While obviously not democratic, Iran was not a cultural backwater, up until the Islamic revolution in 1979. Even under the power of ayatollahs Iran's urban societies feature strong citizen movements demanding more liberty and equality, e.g. women equality: women had much more rights under the last Shah regime, and people remember that.
In general, I suppose that Iran, had the current theocratic regime been overthrown, would not turn into a failed state, much like Russia hasn't become a failed state after the Communist regime fell. (Regarding perspectives of EU / US-style liberal democracy there, I'm much less certain, though chances are.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021%E2%80%932022_Iranian_prot...