|
|
|
|
|
|
by tgma
135 days ago
|
|
|
There's a widely popular Shah who is ready to take the helm, at least for a "transition" and that's what the majority seems to want in the protests. I'm certain given enough enticement from United States, we can easily find someone who is able and willing from the army or even an IRGC figure who would eagerly jump on the opportunity. Plus, you somehow think the Iranians would just roll with your whiteboard map? Even among the minorities--let alone the majority--you specified, it is not clear that separation is the predominant preference. Many of those plans may look attractive today to some simply because Islamic Republic has mismanaged the economy, not because there is no national bond. To boot, why would United States prefer to hand over such important region to arguably as bad or worse governing bodies like Pakistan, Taliban, or Iraq, and questionable partners like Turkey[1], rather than own Iran by installing its own preferred partner as an ally[1]? Are you delusional? [1]: I won't be surprised if regime change will be coming for Erdogan not too far from now, after Iran is done. [2]: If US really wants to shit on the region like that, there are various cards they could have played much easier: unleash groups like MEK/Kurds and start a civil war. So far, it does appear Israel/US behavior, like the way they conducted the 12 day war, is to keep Iran intact and does not mess with the balance of power in the region as much as possible. |
|
|
This is strongly contested.
> we can easily find someone who is able and willing from the army or even an IRGC figure who would eagerly jump on the opportunity
This is not the history of nation building.
> Even among the minorities--let alone the majority--you specified, it is not clear that separation is the predominant preference
They have insurgencies for a reason. Many of these groups were also promised some level of self governance, promises which have been trotted back.
> why would United States prefer to hand over such important region to arguably as bad or worse governing bodies like Pakistan, Taliban, or Iraq, and questionable partners like Turkey
Never said Taliban. We have influence over Iraq. And even Pakistan isn’t really fucking with American interests that much, and giving them Balochistan might help them with their anti-terror mission. (It would also piss off India. So maybe skip that, too.)
> to keep Iran intact and does not mess with the balance of power in the region as much as possible
I’m not suggesting this is currently U.S. strategy. I’m saying there are advantages to it over trying to do the Shah again. Namely, it shatters a regional problem more evenly and protects choke points around the Caspian and Strait of Hormuz.