this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2026
55 points (80.2% liked)
World News
40624 readers
272 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The problem is that the US/Israel isn't and will do everything they can to plot their own course instead
I'm sure USA and Israel will be happy to see the current system fall but it's not like that's going to make me hesitant to cheer if the Iranian people decide to overthrow it
They aren't simply 'happy to see' like some kind of observer, they are actively co-opting genuine protests for their own ends, at the expense of the Iranian people.
Imperial Germany sent Lenin back to Russia to destabilize it. Of course enemies of the current leadership/system are going to try and take advantage of the situation, happens probably every time there's protests or revolution or whatever. If the people want to take down the current leadership or system then isn't that still something to be cheered for?
This is so laughably bad. Whos the next lenin? Is he currently working for cia or mossad? Which prominent socialist circles does he come from?
Now dont get me wrong, north korean style iran i wouldnt mind, or say stalin like, most importantly they need self defense, nuclear weapons. Before that even if by divine action a socialist became the president after the us and israel backed coup(seriously i cant imagine how other than descending from heavens), he woyld be swiftly replaced. Socialism isnt tolerated.
I wasn't saying there was a Lenin here, just that outsiders always try to influence these things. Doesn't mean you should support the current regime imo, it being a theocracy and all.
Sure, we can expect socialism like they have in syria now. No one is supporting the current regime for the sake of it. Thats a strawman.
It just feels very defeatist and non-committal, aking to supporting the status quo since the protests can't promise socialism. I just find the mindset odd.
I've probbaly misunderstood the reasoning but nobody has really explained it either, just made quips about how these protests are run by USA or something.
Less defeatist than just mindlessly supporting regime change again even though the last two dozen times were horrific catastrophes.
Hey whats wrong with syrian socialism? And so what if mossad is involved as has been extensively reported and they even said it on their x account, that doesnt mean that they dont want the best socialism for iran. But to be clear, in magic land absolutely, then the whole world would be certainly not capitalist.
its interesting how many people are willing to disregard the israeli hand in this. You may have forgotten, but not so long ago iran almist had nuclear wmds, according to netanyahu, now do you remember last time what that looked like? Yeah the israelies we willingly trying to make that happen, and now they so much care for iranian people of course. They even held a protest, not against the genocide mind you, but against the cruel gvmt of iran.
I think you totally misunderstood. I'm saying of course Israel and USA, enemies of Iran's current leadership are going to help the protests and that in itself imo shouldn't be a reason to dismiss those protesting and defend the status quo. If the people want to take down the conservative government or the theocratic system then I'm all for it, it doesn't really matter imo who supports them in that effort. To me that doesn't taint the action of people taking down the system
Indeed, and thats a big if, given that the progovernment protests also against foreign interference were by orders of magnitude larger. Look its impossible to pretend to care for iranians, if you trust us and israel in their intentions. Thats simmilar to say if nazis helped russians overthrow their soviet gvmt. Now i wonder did some russian disident make such a claim?
And again noone is defending the gvmt for the sake of it. What the point is, that foreign backed coup, like the one in syria, would give horrendous results, and it would help far worse governments like the israels genociders. Also in no way would this get iran closer to good defense. After they get nukes, then they will be safe.
But dont get me wrong, under shah absolutely i would have supported the revolutionary gvmt. They are at least iranian, not foreign owned. And they were indeed revolutionary.
Who out there is trusting the US and Israel? I'm just saying them being on one side doesn't mean the other side is the right one. If Iranians want to take down their theocratic conservative government I'm all for it, no matter who decided to support it.
because replacing an internal semi dictatorial gvmt with foreign engineered collapse doesnt produce freedom, it produces Iraq, Syria, libya etc
its simmilar to argument that nazis offered russians a chance against stalin. technically true, catastrophically immoral, and lethal in practice
I agree if we ignore context then no issue. i mean you respond to none of my points, this is like talking at a wall. Reread my previous comment and respond to what i actually wrote. For example whats wrong with th syriam socialism? Why dont you appreciate that gvmt? Didnt syrians want it?
also your claim rests on some iranian people, yet the progvmt demonstrations were far larger. Can you explain this issue?
That sounds very much like the line the government is using to dismiss the protests. I'm not sure it is true, consider how real the grievances the people have are.
Also you constantly making up positions I have and attacking those, then being surprised that I ignore them. If you don't want to engage with what I'm saying and instead engage with something else, then what's the point of me replying to that?
which of my points did you react to? I cant see single one, are you unable or unwilling? Whats wrong with syrian socialism?
I quoted the part
Ok this isnt a serious debate
I had no idea you were trying to do a serious debate. You wrote so much weird irrelevant stuff that had nothing to do with what I had said that I just thought you wanted to just argue
lol, you compared mossad to lenin, bruv what position you have to say whats a weird claim
No I didn't. You could quote the part here where you think I sair that and you'd notice for yourself. This is exactly why I didn't think you were trying to be serious.
Yes you said that foreign infiltration brought people like lenin. Thats how this began, when you tried to use this to not see an issue with us and mossad infiltration.
You're already changing what you claimed I said. Like you seem to have realized, I said that all revolutions have foreign influence and as example imperial Germany sent Lenin home to destabilize Russia. The point being that do you really condemn the possible toppling of their regime because foreign countries are involved, since even Russian revolution had some very direct foreign involvement.
It would be so much easier if you'd just told me you didn't understand what I was saying and asked me to explained it...
Tell me when you address one of my points.
Now you just silently dropped your claim about what I said. And you were trying to have a serious debate in your mind. See why I didn't take you seriously?
If you genuinely want a second attempt at a serious debate, you might want to restate some of your more relevant points with actual quotes from me in parts where you are claiming I was arguing for a thing. Otherwise there's no much point since your prior stuff has been just one big misunderstanding of what I've actually said.
So not yet?
If you just want the last word without actually trying to actually debate anything, I can give you that. I don't mind.
But like said, I just genuinely didn't see any points that actually addressed what I said or were relevant. But if you rephrased or just repeated them in proper context we could get into it, if you want to.
Ah sorry, i was asking whats wrong with syrian socialism.
What about Syrian socialism? I don't understand what you mean
Well the governmemt there war overthrown with israeli and us support. So the syrian people are finally free no? I dont know, it doesnt seem socialist or even better for that matter to me.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. That people shouldn't try to overthrow their current government if that overthrow doesn't guarantee socialism?
No it just seems to me that you dont support the syrian govenment. Did you even support the previous overthrow?
I'm neutral on the current Syrian government. Haven't seen much from them so far tbh. If that was the people's will then I support the people's will. Do you mean with the previous overthrow the one that overthrew the Shah?
the overthrow in syria in my view didnt install a democratic or popular socialist, or in fact a democratic popular leader per say. President is a former islamist militia commander. Meanwhile while the state deals with secrarian violence between alawites christians kurds druze, israel has expanded settlements in golan and does now regular strikes even further into syrian territory. framing potential iran or syria as socialist is just marketing, it shows no connection to either of the situations there. thats why i asked. If this is the sort of freedom you are "neutral" on then we disagree. in syria the popularity cannot even be argued on the same grounds because it wasnt toppled through uprising.
in iran the protests were followed by orders larger pro gvmt anti foreign influence ones. I can give source its on craddle for example. Also notice how the revolution against shah is different, point me to significant backing of it by foreign power. That was grassroots, this one has mossad and cia all over it