| > widely popular Shah 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. |
Sure if you watch #AyatollahBBC or Democrat media who created the beast in the first place under Carter.
--
The rest I will just let you wait and see... There may be some success on the Kurdish/Azeri separationist fronts, but there is less than zero chance Pakistan and Iraq could take over the rest of the country.
The majority of Iranians hate Pakistan and Arabs. The whole undercurrent of the protest is a nationalist movement to kick Islam and Arab culture out. You take a province here a province there; what to do with the rest?