What would you do with Iran in 1979?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Even though I like Jimmy Carter I'll admit that even he screwed up here, he took the worst possible stance, half-assedly supporting the Shah, which isn't enough to keep him in power but was enough to increase anti-Americanism.

Here's what I would do:

-Pull out all support from the Shah. Announce that the Shah, nor any members of his regime, will be able to seek asylum in the US. Obviously this means the Shah can't come here for medical treatment either. This means no hostage crisis.
-Once the Shah was deposed, start up contacts with the non-Khomeini elements of the revolution. Especially Muhajedin-e-Khalq.
-Start arming the other elements while Khomeini is establishing his theocracy, and give them aid to help destabalize the government by assasinating mullahs and bombing offices and mosques of groups affiliated with Khoemini.
-Then help orchestrate a military coup to seize power, sent up a 1-2 year transitional junta, and then hold free elections afterwords with Islamist parties banned and Khomeini in jail.

[Emsworth]

Nothing. Other countries should sort out their own problems; there was no reason for the United States to intervene.

[MODU]

I would have gotten the UN to denouce the actions of Iran, and call it an act of violence towards the US.  With that, I would have threatened Iran, demanding that it was in their best interest to see that the US citizens were released immediately.  If they were not released in 14 days, the major Iranian military bases would be bombed, leaving the nation defenseless against her neighbors as well as internal rebels.  To back up the threat, I would have two carrier squadrons underway within 24 hours as a show of force. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I would have gotten the UN to denouce the actions of Iran, and call it an act of violence towards the US.  With that, I would have threatened Iran, demanding that it was in their best interest to see that the US citizens were released immediately.  If they were not released in 14 days, the major Iranian military bases would be bombed, leaving the nation defenseless against her neighbors as well as internal rebels.  To back up the threat, I would have two carrier squadrons underway within 24 hours as a show of force. 

That's basically waiting till the cat's out of the bag, and there's already an Islamist dictatorship in Iran, which you can't get rid of even if you get the hostages out.

Under my plan, there never would be any hostage crisis, nor any Islamist regime.

[MODU]

I would have gotten the UN to denouce the actions of Iran, and call it an act of violence towards the US.  With that, I would have threatened Iran, demanding that it was in their best interest to see that the US citizens were released immediately.  If they were not released in 14 days, the major Iranian military bases would be bombed, leaving the nation defenseless against her neighbors as well as internal rebels.  To back up the threat, I would have two carrier squadrons underway within 24 hours as a show of force. 

That's basically waiting till the cat's out of the bag, and there's already an Islamist dictatorship in Iran, which you can't get rid of even if you get the hostages out.

Under my plan, there never would be any hostage crisis, nor any Islamist regime.

There wasn't much we could do back then.  Our influence in the Middle East was very low, so getting pro-US allies/parties would have been very tough.  We would most likely end up with a similar government with different faces. 

Besides, you can't have free elections while banning certain parties at the same time. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I would have gotten the UN to denouce the actions of Iran, and call it an act of violence towards the US.  With that, I would have threatened Iran, demanding that it was in their best interest to see that the US citizens were released immediately.  If they were not released in 14 days, the major Iranian military bases would be bombed, leaving the nation defenseless against her neighbors as well as internal rebels.  To back up the threat, I would have two carrier squadrons underway within 24 hours as a show of force. 

That's basically waiting till the cat's out of the bag, and there's already an Islamist dictatorship in Iran, which you can't get rid of even if you get the hostages out.

Under my plan, there never would be any hostage crisis, nor any Islamist regime.

There wasn't much we could do back then.  Our influence in the Middle East was very low, so getting pro-US allies/parties would have been very tough.  We would most likely end up with a similar government with different faces. 

Besides, you can't have free elections while banning certain parties at the same time. 

You don't need a pro-US government, just a non-Islamist one.

[MODU]

You don't need a pro-US government, just a non-Islamist one.

Nothing wrong with an Islamist government.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You don't need a pro-US government, just a non-Islamist one.

Nothing wrong with an Islamist government.

Nothing wrong with the current government in Iran? Um, no.

[Beet]

You don't need a pro-US government, just a non-Islamist one.

Nothing wrong with an Islamist government.

Nothing wrong with the current government in Iran? Um, no.

The problem is Islamist governments are fundamentally opposed to US influence in the long term, even if we ally with them in the short term. Non-Islamist governments are not.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Iran had a pretty strong socialist/leftist/communist movement before Khoemini purged them all. That's who I'd like to see take over.

[MODU]

Nations are allowed to be opposed to US influence.  

And, is the current government of Iran the same as all the other Islamic governments?  Nope.  Again, it's not the type of government that is distatesful, but rather the leaders behind the government.  The same holds true for Democracies and Republics.  

[Beet]

Nations are allowed to be opposed to US influence.  

And, is the current government of Iran the same as all the other Islamic governments?  Nope.  Again, it's not the type of government that is distatesful, but rather the leaders behind the government.  The same holds true for Democracies and Republics.  

You wouldn't say that about a communist government though-- so clearly you need to modify your statement.

Islamist governments are ideological governments and clearly distasteful from the perspective of both US interests and domestic liberties.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Nations are allowed to be opposed to US influence. 

And, is the current government of Iran the same as all the other Islamic governments?  Nope.  Again, it's not the type of government that is distatesful, but rather the leaders behind the government.  The same holds true for Democracies and Republics. 

That's like saying you could possibly have a good Nazi government.

Islamism is the ideology that calls for an Islamic theocracy. I can't see in any way how that could not be horrible.

BTW, about how you can't have free elections with certain parties banned, then you would consider the Iraqi elections unfree, as the Baath Party is banned.

[MODU]

Nations are allowed to be opposed to US influence.  

And, is the current government of Iran the same as all the other Islamic governments?  Nope.  Again, it's not the type of government that is distatesful, but rather the leaders behind the government.  The same holds true for Democracies and Republics.  

You wouldn't say that about a communist government though-- so clearly you need to modify your statement.

Sure I would.  I hate generalities, especially when cast in the worst light.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Democracies are also ideological.  Let's not forget that.  And just because something doesn't agree with our point of view means it has to be changed, especially in regards to "US interests."

That's like saying you could possibly have a good Nazi government.

Technically, you could.  The Nazi party did a lot to bring Germany together, especially in regards to their industry.  It just went south once Hitler thought he could rule the world and began to invade other nations and kill off their citizens just because of ideological/religious differences.  (Hmmm . . . that sounds familiar.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Islam is not a bad thing, neither is a theocracy.  Again, it's what the leaders in their positions do with the power provided to them by the people, and in return, the inaction of the people if the leaders go too far.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By the pure definition of "free," yes.  Of course, the same is true in the US when states bar certain parties from running a ticket (and not just because they didn't get enough petitions to make the ballot).  Would it be a free election in the US if only Republican's were allowed to run for office?

[Beet]

Nations are allowed to be opposed to US influence.  

And, is the current government of Iran the same as all the other Islamic governments?  Nope.  Again, it's not the type of government that is distatesful, but rather the leaders behind the government.  The same holds true for Democracies and Republics.  

You wouldn't say that about a communist government though-- so clearly you need to modify your statement.

Sure I would.  I hate generalities, especially when cast in the worst light.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Democracies are also ideological.  Let's not forget that.  And just because something doesn't agree with our point of view means it has to be changed, especially in regards to "US interests."

Ok, I misread you. In this case we simply have a disagreement in values. IMO, theocratic Islamist governments are a problem for the US, as shown by the experiences of Iran and Afghanistan.

[MODU]

True, but why would you oppose communism as a form of government but not theocracy?

All forms of government, including Democracies, have traits about them which make them open for abuse and repression.  The type of controls each specific nation makes within their laws dictate how easily the leaders can abuse their power as well as limit the power of the people to force change.  Even dictatorships can be more free and open than puppet democracies.  To oppose a type of government in general is merely a sign of ignorance and intollerance. 

[Beet]

True, but why would you oppose communism as a form of government but not theocracy?

All forms of government, including Democracies, have traits about them which make them open for abuse and repression.  The type of controls each specific nation makes within their laws dictate how easily the leaders can abuse their power as well as limit the power of the people to force change.  Even dictatorships can be more free and open than puppet democracies.  To oppose a type of government in general is merely a sign of ignorance and intollerance. 

As you see I deleted my post and replaced it.

But the problem with ideological governments is that they have a tendency towards certain types of abuse and repression as a function of their ideologies. For example, Hong Kong is run by the "communist party" but only in a nominal sense-- the leaders there are not ideological, clearly. In this case I can see your argument.

However, in a truly ideological government, such as Khomeini's Iran, Taliban Afghanistan, or the de facto-independent tribal regions of Pakistan, the issue is not merely the form of government and the manner through which decisions are reached but the preexisting values that guide those actions. Those values necessarily lead to repression and violence against the US, or support for those who intend to do violence against the secular world. And unless you believe that any kind of repression is legitimate, then one must oppose those governments.

[MODU]

However, in a truly ideological government, such as Khomeini's Iran, Taliban Afghanistan, or the de facto-independent tribal regions of Pakistan, the issue is not merely the form of government and the manner through which decisions are reached but the preexisting values that guide those actions. Those values necessarily lead to repression and violence against the US, or support for those who intend to do violence against the secular world. And unless you believe that any kind of repression is legitimate, then one must oppose those governments.

"And unless you believe that any kind of repression is legitimate, then one must oppose those individual governments."

You forgot a word.

Again, at the sake of repeating myself, it's not the government type that is bad, but rather the individual leaders and the failure of the citizens to do anything about it that make a nation bad.

[Beet]

However, in a truly ideological government, such as Khomeini's Iran, Taliban Afghanistan, or the de facto-independent tribal regions of Pakistan, the issue is not merely the form of government and the manner through which decisions are reached but the preexisting values that guide those actions. Those values necessarily lead to repression and violence against the US, or support for those who intend to do violence against the secular world. And unless you believe that any kind of repression is legitimate, then one must oppose those governments.

"And unless you believe that any kind of repression is legitimate, then one must oppose those individual governments."

You forgot a word.

Again, at the sake of repeating myself, it's not the government type that is bad, but rather the individual leaders and the failure of the citizens to do anything about it that make a nation bad.

I'm not saying government types are bad, I'm saying ideological governments are bad, for ideology usually leads them into repression, and yes, even democratic ideology, which was undoutably one of the main reasons for our current misadventure in Iraq. While non-ideological governments often commit abuses, their abuses will be limited to that which is necessary for them to survive. Ideological governments on the other hand, will always go out of the way to commit abuses, as long as there are people in the world who do not accept their ideology-- and there always are. That is my problem with ideological governments. Note it has nothing to do with type of government.