Support NeoGAF

[JDB]

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/05/giuliani-trump-iran-regime-change-570744

"Rudy Giuliani pushed for regime change in Iran on Saturday, saying President Donald Trump is "as committed to regime change as we are."

It's "the only way to peace in the Middle East" and "more important than an Israeli-Palestinian deal," Trump's newest attorney in the ongoing Russia probe and former mayor of New York City told reporters after giving a speech to the Iran Freedom Convention for Democracy and Human Rights in Washington."

"During the December protests in the country, Trump tweeted that it was "TIME FOR CHANGE!," adding "the great Iranian people have been repressed for many years."

"Iran is failing at every level despite the terrible deal made with them by the Obama Administration," Trump wrote on Twitter on Jan. 1. "The great Iranian people have been repressed for many years. They are hungry for food & for freedom. Along with human rights, the wealth of Iran is being looted. TIME FOR CHANGE!""

 

[RokkanStoned]

Hmmm, I agree that a regime change would be the best (but it could go for the worse as well, depending on who), but I don't think pressuring on the Iran nuclear deal necessarily is it. It might just feed "us vs them" and consolidate support within the country. My knowledge of Iran is limited though, so someone else with more knowledge of Iran might give a better perspective on the options available.

 

[JORMBO]

Why is a Trump’s attorney even commenting on this?

 

[Ridcully]

Copying Hillary's policies again, I see. Regime change in Iran will only come about by force - there is no peaceful option - and if they decide to go that route, the Middle East is going to get a lot worse.

 

[TTOOLL]

Would you guys like some freedom?

 

[TheShadowLord]

wouldn't be the first time the US had a hand in Iran''s regime change. It even paved the way of Iran becoming a superpower. Hopefully the Trump administration doesn't try it.

 

[LordOfChaos]

Hard choice. Young Iranians are largely very nice and want a western life, it's just the government that sucks. But regime change as we've seen a lot of recently, can be a lot more bloody than it's worth.

And Iran would make Libya and the rest look like nothing, though maybe not Syria.

 

[DonJimbo]

I hope this happens the people in Iran deserve a democratic government and not some Mullahs who give no sh*t about the issues the people are dealing with

 

[NickFire]

I think the deal Obama made with them, replete with boatloads of cash, was a disaster. But that said, I do not want to see a single soldier lost trying to change their regime. No more US blood to create another power vacuum in the middle east.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

This is all about Iran shifting away from the dollar and towards the euro.

 

[TheShadowLord]

I hope this happens the people in Iran deserve a democratic government and not some Mullahs who give no sh*t about the issues the people are dealing with

When Obama made a deal with Iran, the economy of Iran got a little bit better but wasn't passed down to the people. Unless Trump plans to offer something that could benefit both the Iranian people and the US(aka oil). If he does, I'm okay with that but I'm not going to 100% take what he says at face value, just yet. Plus Iran is still part of his travel ban if my memory serves me right. Though I fully believe this has to do with Iran lying about its nuclear arsenal program.

 

[NickFire]

This is all about Iran shifting away from the dollar and towards the euro.

I don't think that is accurate at all. I think he probably feels cornered between Israel's claims and the general feeling of disgust regarding the Obama deal by most of his party, and the all out assault by the left which probably makes him believe acting strong is in his best interests to deflect from the background noise. In light of the progress with NK, I really wish the left would let up a bit because I really do think his Achilles Heel is what people say about him, and that this may be an area he acts rash and gets us into something no one really wants in significant numbers.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

Sorry but I don't believe it's a coincidence that every country in the middle east that has tried to move away from the petro-dollar has been targeted for regime change. I don't think it's all about Trump, it's about the military industrial complex and the petro-dollar that helps prop up the US economy.

Notice how certain european countries that are usually in lockstep with US foreign policy suddenly object to this. Thats not a coincidence either.

 

[DonJimbo]

When Obama made a deal with Iran, the economy of Iran got a little bit better but wasn't passed down to the people. Unless Trump plans to offer something that could benefit both the Iranian people and the US(aka oil). If he does, I'm okay with that but I'm not going to 100% take what he says at face value, just yet. Plus Iran is still part of his travel ban if my memory serves me right. Though I fully believe this has to do with Iran lying about its nuclear arsenal program.

When the Mullahs get overthrown Irans economy will breath fresh air and all the bans and Sanctions will be gone and Iran will get its glory again after 40 years of Mullahs rule

 

[TheShadowLord]

When the Mullahs get overthrown Irans economy will breath fresh air and all the bans and Sanctions will be gone and Iran will get its glory again after 40 years of Mullahs rule

That would be great but it's up to the people of Iran if they want to overthrow the Mullahs, not what a foreign country want. The end result might not be great, rather it leaves a power vacuum or something a lot worse

 

[Autoignition]

y'all realize that this has literally never worked, right? This is how you get ISIS.

 

[j_k_redtail]

Anyone else remember when Hillary was the "warmonger"?

 

[Texas Pride]

"Acta non verba" I'll wait until there's something of substance pointing to regime change to get worried about. Bcs I was told Trump is a Russian puppet. Iran is a staunch Ally of Russia so by that logic until we see Putin put his hand up Trump's ass telling him to attack Iran why worry right?

 

[Ridcully]

y'all realize that this has literally never worked, right? This is how you get ISIS.

And the last time America intervened in Iran - for the purpose of regime change - it brought down a democratically elected government to install a dictator. Iranians revolting against an American puppet is how the Mullahs got into power to begin with. People are so quick to forget.

 

[PerezDeCorcho]

"Acta non verba" I'll wait until there's something of substance pointing to regime change to get worried about. Bcs I was told Trump is a Russian puppet. Iran is a staunch Ally of Russia so by that logic until we see Putin put his hand up Trump's ass telling him to attack Iran why worry right?

Yep. That narrative almost reads like a joke at this point.

 

[KINGMOKU]

This is not a good idea. The only way I would support any kind of action in the middle east is if something actually goes down. A huge portion of the middle east is susceptible to a leader vacuum when governments get toppled and its never for the better. Either extreme religious zealots, or murderous bands of crazies.

Unless Iran just launches an outright assault on Israel, or Iran starts testing nuclear missiles, stay away from what will inevitably happen;

Long drawn out conflicts that cost us lives, and insane amounts of money.

 

[Tumle]

y'all realize that this has literally never worked, right? This is how you get ISIS.

Or the ayatollah..

 

[AaronB]

Actual war against Iran would be a terrible idea. The general public in Iran is more friendly to the West than their government, but an invasion would probably cause them to rally around their government and become more antagonistic to the West. That's even besides the blood and treasure it would cost the US, which we can't afford.

I hope (and think it's more likely) that Trump is posturing before negotiating, similar to what he did with North Korea.

 

[TarNaru33]

Hmmm, I agree that a regime change would be the best (but it could go for the worse as well, depending on who), but I don't think pressuring on the Iran nuclear deal necessarily is it. It might just feed "us vs them" and consolidate support within the country. My knowledge of Iran is limited though, so someone else with more knowledge of Iran might give a better perspective on the options available.

How the hell do you manage to say this while also saying you don't know much about Iran. Reminder, we are part of the reason religious nuts control Iran right now.

Regime change would be nothing short of disaster, especially when the country is cooperating. No, we shouldn't be trying to overthrow them.

 

[TarNaru33]

"Acta non verba" I'll wait until there's something of substance pointing to regime change to get worried about. Bcs I was told Trump is a Russian puppet. Iran is a staunch Ally of Russia so by that logic until we see Putin put his hand up Trump's ass telling him to attack Iran why worry right?

Yep. That narrative almost reads like a joke at this point.

You both seem confused. Bolton and Pompeo are extreme anti-Iran and they voice this to Trump every time they can I bet. Also, US attacking Iran actually helps, Russia as US degrades its world standing even further. Put US in another terrible occupation that would have catastrophic long term effects. Iran is not the Iraq of 2003, it may require an actual draft to properly occupy and if we do the regime change and leave I am sure this will taint any goodwill between west and Iranian people.

 

[PerezDeCorcho]

You both seem confused. Bolton and Pompeo are extreme anti-Iran and they voice this to Trump every time they can I bet. Also, US attacking Iran actually helps, Russia as US degrades its world standing even further. Put US in another terrible occupation that would have catastrophic long term effects. Iran is not the Iraq of 2003, it may require an actual draft to properly occupy and if we do the regime change and leave I am sure this will taint any goodwill between west and Iranian people.

So Putin wants Trump to attack Iran. I see...

 

[bucyou]

You both seem confused. Bolton and Pompeo are extreme anti-Iran and they voice this to Trump every time they can I bet. Also, US attacking Iran actually helps, Russia as US degrades its world standing even further. Put US in another terrible occupation that would have catastrophic long term effects. Iran is not the Iraq of 2003, it may require an actual draft to properly occupy and if we do the regime change and leave I am sure this will taint any goodwill between west and Iranian people.

Interesting...

Anyway, regime change would be a mistake and I'll also take anything rudy says with a grain of salt

 

[TarNaru33]

So Putin wants Trump to attack Iran. I see...

When people think of "attack Iran" regime change via military invasion isnt what comes to mind. Putin does not want US invading Iran in such a way, but an airstrike campaign is the likely option US will take if it does. It would leave Iran devastated, but functional and Russia and China would ride in as heroes to save them with aide. Iran will hurt, but so will US geopolitically.

Also it is important to know the goal of Russia in helping get Trump elected. Hillary was going for a no fly zone in Syria, which would turn the tide against Assad, she was also against Iran as well. Russia wanted to hurt US as best it can, I doubt they believed they could control every aspect of US foreign policy. The goal was to put someone in that could do just that. US is very against Iran and soldiers from Iraq War still remember Iranian interference.

There was no candidate except maybe Bernie who would have been different with dealing with Iran. Russia just knew it couldn't be Hillary at all costs.

Interesting...

Anyway, regime change would be a mistake and I'll also take anything rudy says with a grain of salt

I doubt regime change is going to happen, but Bolton and Pompeo makes it uncertain, especially since Trump could do so without Congress permission unless Congress reign the war powers from the executive branch.

Guess we will know what path we are headed today. The Iran nuclear deal is a good deal that gives us advanced warning of Iranian nuclear intentions, there is no reason at all to scrap it.

 

[llien]

Remind me how well that worked in Iraq, Libya and now Syria.

And, seriously, publicly announcing that kind of intent???

 

[RokkanStoned]

How the hell do you manage to say this while also saying you don't know much about Iran. Reminder, we are part of the reason religious nuts control Iran right now.

Regime change would be nothing short of disaster, especially when the country is cooperating. No, we shouldn't be trying to overthrow them.

First of all, the strategic benefits of a possible regime change is what I mentioned (which is why I always added that it could go the other way, depending on who took over), especially with impulses towards a more secular rule of law. As I'm not sure about the various factions' sizes and influence I added that I'm not well-versed within internal politics of Iran. Saying a regime change is prefered doesn't necessarily equal a forced regime change by the US.

Anyone thinking that Iran is co-operating long-term is profoundly naive. More so with the shitshow that's North-Korea. That said, I also don't believe that sanctions necessarily work effectively, as trade and economic freedom are better tools towards changing the relationships between countries in the long run.

 

[DonJimbo]

That would be great but it's up to the people of Iran if they want to overthrow the Mullahs, not what a foreign country want. The end result might not be great, rather it leaves a power vacuum or something a lot worse

The Iranians want to overthrow the Mullahs they are tired from religious nonsense and the vacuum they are facing since 1979
They want freedom democracy and the right to choose how they want to life

 

[TheShadowLord]

And the last time America intervened in Iran - for the purpose of regime change - it brought down a democratically elected government to install a dictator. Iranians revolting against an American puppet is how the Mullahs got into power to begin with. People are so quick to forget.

and I said, it can be done without the help of foreign countries whose primary concern is to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. If the people of Venezuelan could do it(which is still doing going on I believe), then the people of Iran could it. Where was Trump asking for a "regime change"?

 

[Unknown Quantity]

Intervention at Syria at the start or at any point before Russian involvement would have been the smarter option imo, would have hindered and possibly stopped isis, and limited the refugee crisis in that region.
Going after Iran in this manner is pretty stupid, they withstood the war against iraq and are pretty resiliant and have a veteran military in comparison to other states in the area.
This is where the diplomatic corps would have been useful had they not been cannibalised, and the Iranian people could have tried to change things for the better themselves.
The proxy war between Iran and Saudi will continue when it could have been stifled long ago.

 

[Phoenix RISING]

Ah, so that is why gas is almost $3/gal.

 

[Maedre]

Ah, so that is why gas is almost $3/gal.

3 Dollar a gal? Stupidly cheap.

 

[DasPenguin]

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/05/giuliani-trump-iran-regime-change-570744

"Rudy Giuliani pushed for regime change in Iran on Saturday, saying President Donald Trump is "as committed to regime change as we are."

It's "the only way to peace in the Middle East" and "more important than an Israeli-Palestinian deal," Trump's newest attorney in the ongoing Russia probe and former mayor of New York City told reporters after giving a speech to the Iran Freedom Convention for Democracy and Human Rights in Washington."

"During the December protests in the country, Trump tweeted that it was "TIME FOR CHANGE!," adding "the great Iranian people have been repressed for many years."

"Iran is failing at every level despite the terrible deal made with them by the Obama Administration," Trump wrote on Twitter on Jan. 1. "The great Iranian people have been repressed for many years. They are hungry for food & for freedom. Along with human rights, the wealth of Iran is being looted. TIME FOR CHANGE!""

Rudy and old Donnie should take a summer class together. History of Iran 101. I don't think America should worry about pushing regime changes in the Middle East ever again. That's like if Germany started to blame Jews for everything in 2018.

 

[TrainedRage]

RIP Obama legacy.

 

[KINGMOKU]

Well, it happened and I agree that the deal was bad;

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...reement-calls-pact-defective-at-its-core.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/world/middleeast/trump-iran-nuclear-deal.html

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-iran-nuclear-deal/index.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-44032008

I'm now sure if this is new thread worthy or not(probably is)but here's a few links for perspective.

 

[DonJimbo]

Good that trump left the nuclear deal this is the first step for a regime change in Iran

 

[JDB]

Good that trump left the nuclear deal this is the first step for a regime change in Iran

 

[Ke0]

Here comes more terrorist organizations. I like America but man your country has been nothing but a damn plague on the middle east. My country definitely has blood on it's hands too.

 

[bucyou]

That middle of the night $1.7billion cash drop to Iran sure went a long way to funding terrorism in the middle east as well

 

[TarNaru33]

First of all, the strategic benefits of a possible regime change is what I mentioned (which is why I always added that it could go the other way, depending on who took over), especially with impulses towards a more secular rule of law. As I'm not sure about the various factions' sizes and influence I added that I'm not well-versed within internal politics of Iran. Saying a regime change is prefered doesn't necessarily equal a forced regime change by the US.

Anyone thinking that Iran is co-operating long-term is profoundly naive. More so with the shitshow that's North-Korea. That said, I also don't believe that sanctions necessarily work effectively, as trade and economic freedom are better tools towards changing the relationships between countries in the long run.

It has a lot to do about advanced warning and keeping them in line. If they do not appease the Iran nuclear deal, then the sanctions will snap back on. North Korea is a different beast as Iran and NK are completely different in terms of economy and geopolitics. Iran wants to be a regional power, NK just wants to keep their regime from being overthrown. Iran can't be a competing power if it is sanctioned to hell.

Guess this doesn't matter since we did leave the Iran-deal though.

 

[RokkanStoned]

It has a lot to do about advanced warning and keeping them in line. If they do not appease the Iran nuclear deal, then the sanctions will snap back on. North Korea is a different beast as Iran and NK are completely different in terms of economy and geopolitics. Iran wants to be a regional power, NK just wants to keep their regime from being overthrown. Iran can't be a competing power if it is sanctioned to hell.

Guess this doesn't matter since we did leave the Iran-deal though.

It's the signals with the NK issue, in which nuclear proliferation will yield benefits in negotiations for denuclearization. More so, to be a regional power, securing the state is equally as important to Iran. That's why short-term it makes sense to at least on mostly large scale to accept the terms (meaning that they for most part are followed), but that's just a delay at best. To secure its position, Iran needs nuclear weapons as well, and it has in a bipolar systems options to use the struggle of power to secure support for it to accomplish so. The only hope was for trade and economic freedom to work its magic as a de-escalator. With how the US allies itself in the Middle East, it was pretty much doomed though.
The deal functioned mostly as a way to keep the nuclear proliferation in the Middle East at bay for a while. Realism is still a principle in international relations to be reckoned with and sanctions aren't something that'll just outright make it irrelevant to follow the principle of power.

 

[TTOOLL]

It's funny to see leftists that hate Trump to their guts freaking out over this deal with a country that, let's put it mildly, goes against EVERYTHING single thing they defend. Iran is much worse than Trump, but yet here we are.

 

[hammysaurusrex]

An inevitable outcome the moment the Bush-era warmongers began whispering in his ear.

 

[JordanN]

It's funny to see leftists that hate Trump to their guts freaking out over this deal with a country that, let's put it mildly, goes against EVERYTHING single thing they defend. Iran is much worse than Trump, but yet here we are.

To be fair, that's like saying Trump making peace with North Korea is wrong because Juche also goes against everything the right defends.

I think it's fair to be skeptical of avoiding war with nations, regardless of how terrible they are. If we went to war with every country our morals don't align with, then Saudi Arabia would also need to be bombed.

I'm of the opinion that a nuclear free Middle East would save more lives than one where a rival country is armed. But we need to be at a point where we can confirm 100% their nuclear program is actually producing bombs in order to authorize force/regime change. If they refuse nuclear weapons inspections, then start pushing hard with sanctions and if it further deteriorates, then a global call of action is needed.

 

[TTOOLL]

To be fair, that's like saying Trump making peace with North Korea is wrong because Juche also goes against everything the right defends.

I think it's fair to be skeptical of avoiding war with nations, regardless of how terrible they are. If we went to war with every country our morals don't align with, then Saudi Arabia would also need to be bombed.

I'm of the opinion that a nuclear free Middle East would save more lives than one where a rival country is armed. But we need to be at a point where we can confirm 100% their nuclear program is actually producing bombs. If they refuse nuclear weapons inspections, then start pushing hard with sanctions.

Fair enough, but did Trump start a war that I don't know of? Do you trust Iran? I don't. I don't trust NK either, but Trump didn't make any deals with them so far, did he?

I believe he has the same stance with both, the difference is that NK is a broken state, the regime is on its last legs and they pretty much gave up. They want a fucking McDonalds there.

I'm pretty sure and hope that with the influence of South Korea in a few years NK will be a much more free country than Iran.

 

[Red Crayon Aristocrat]

Oh boy, who's ready for Iraq War 2: Electric Boogaloo?

Except this time it's going to go even worse thanks to Iran's friend Russia, who don't forget is already a nuclear power.

Amazing the hubris on guys like Bolton, not learning a single lesson from the Iraq war, men like that will lead mankind to it's ruin.

 

[TheShadowLord]

To be fair, that's like saying Trump making peace with North Korea is wrong because Juche also goes against everything the right defends.

I think it's fair to be skeptical of avoiding war with nations, regardless of how terrible they are. If we went to war with every country our morals don't align with, then Saudi Arabia would also need to be bombed.

I'm of the opinion that a nuclear free Middle East would save more lives than one where a rival country is armed. But we need to be at a point where we can confirm 100% their nuclear program is actually producing bombs in order to authorize force/regime change. If they refuse nuclear weapons inspections, then start pushing hard with sanctions and if it further deteriorates, then a global call of action is needed.

I agree, we should have people inspecting Isreal's claim that Iran has nukes. If nukes are found Iran should be held accountable. If not, then Iran can't be held accountable. It's best to do that first.