[cup]

Change must come from within though. You can bet your bottom dollar that those youthful, liberal Iranians will be the first to join the resistance movement in the event of an invasion just like I'm sure many HN users and other young Americans would swell to defend their homeland if they were attacked by an equally imperialistic and foreign entity, say China or

[mooki]

Yeah, I'm absolutely not advocating an invasion. Best thing that can happen is a successful revolution. It seems to have been close last time so there's still hope.

[yummyfajitas]

I think a revolution is unlikely. I've spoken to many Iranians and had an Iranian girlfriend for a few years.

One thing I realized is that they are completely brainwashed to believe that a revolution is the worst thing ever. They all take the attitude that it's better to stagnate forever with rape victims being regularly stoned than to risk a few deaths trying to change things. I think it's because they perceive the revolution and Iraq war during their childhood as horrible in a not normal way, whereas the stuff that happens currently is horrible in a normal way.

Combine this with a huge amount of nationalism, and you also realize they won't work with those who should be natural allies. For example, Iran's long oppressed Kurds/Balochs might join in a revolution if they get independence, but the Persian nationalists (read: those freedom-seeking youths you see in the media) would never consider this.

So no, I don't see a revolution happening.

[nextparadigms]

That's the saddest part about the dictatorships, and it's actually the reason they work in the first place. They make people believe that the benefits of that system is a lot better than the alternatives, and any dissent would be terrible for the society. Hitler did this, too. Rise of Evil is a good movie about it, showing how people actually started believing in his "ideals" and they were very passionate about it.

Ultimately, all types of dictatorships are done by promoting the idea of "collectivism". That "group rights" are more important than individual rights, which can also be read that you can discount individual rights, as long as it's "for the greater good". It's also when some group rights become more important than other group rights, and lead to racism, anti-semitism, and so on, "because our group is better!".

It's no coincidence that USA, which is probably the most individualistic country ever, has also been the freest country, and with the most liberties. But I fear collectivism influences are starting to creep in there, too. Even most of the Republican party wants it now. It's only that their idea of collectivism is a little different than that of Democrats. For example, they want to "unite" people behind another war. But they both want Big Government and more Government intervention and control over people, even if some still pay lip service to the idea of "limited government", but only for minor issues, so they can keep appearances and pretend they offer real choice and alternative. And this is why a third of the country is Independent now, because they don't buy it anymore.

[epscylonb]

The hypocrisy of republicans (and some democrats) amazes, they boast about freedom but they hate liberalism. They want everyone to believe in the same religion and are happy to use authoritarian tactics to achieve it.

[astine]

Republicans don't hate liberalism, they hate democrats and "liberals" is just another word for democrats in American politics. It's just a case of factionalism and the democrats can be just as bad.

[jbooth]

I agree that democrats can be just as bad but regarding hate for "liberalism", sometimes you have to take people at their word when they say they hate something. Saying the words "I don't necessarily hate all liberalism" would sink any of the Republican presidential candidates. It's gotten so bad with the Republican party that all you have to do is call an idea they support "liberal" and they'll do a 180 and hate it.

[jbooth]

I dunno if I'd call that brainwashed so much as a completely rational "well here's what happened last time".

I agree though, although I'd note that the same held true for Egypt right up until the second that it didn't.

[yummyfajitas]

If it were a completely rational "here's what happened last time", they would extrapolate "last time", compare it to the current situation extended for 50 years, and see which is worse.

I've never spoken with a single Iranian who actually did that. It's all just talk of vague negative childhood memories.

[jbooth]

Well, I'm just spitballing here, you probably know more Iranians than I do, but there might be something to the immediacy factor. Another revolution probably holds more immediate danger for their family than the current situation extended for 50 years, which is just another 50 years of relatively low risk. It's hard to take the long-term average outcome viewpoint when you're talking about family members' lives, and there's no guarantee a replacement government would be substantially better (the mullahs were talking about freedom from the shah when they started off).