That is very interesting, especially since the oldest son of the Shah spoke about the US helping the people of Iran to revolt. Here's some of Time Magazine's interview (this month):

How can the opposition defeat the regime? A campaign of civil disobedience is the only way to force the regime to retreat — national strikes, demonstrations, a refusal to cooperate. What [Supreme Leader Ayatullah Ali] Khamenei fears most is not economic sanctions or military strikes. It's people on the streets.

But just a year ago, many voted for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? When you have a Robin Hood message, you can fool people. But at some point they get it. Don't forget the West was mesmerized by this smiling [defeated reformist President Mohammed] Khatami talking about dialogue, while there were journalists and students in prison and newspapers were shut down.

What's your role in this opposition? To be above the fray. Often I've witnessed cases where [opposition] people were not talking to each other, and they would come to me and I would somehow get them to talk. My modern role today is a national function.

What do you want the U.S. and Europe to do? If there was a first item on the shopping list, it would be communication to bypass the regime's blocking of weblogs and so on. This could change the whole dynamic of what can evolve inside Iran. Communication has been very restricted. That explains why many movements like the labor strike, student protests and acts of civil disobedience have been limited and sectarian. If you can communicate with people, they can organize on a much more mass scale.

Do the U.S. and its allies have any good military options? I cannot foresee any military action which could be feasible. The thought of foreign tanks rolling into Tehran is beyond imagination. No Iranian could tolerate an invasion. It would be an attack on our homeland. Even limited air strikes: if you want to alienate people, strike the first blow.

How wide is the disaffection in the military inside Iran? A lot of people are stuck in the system and would love to find an exit. Of course the regime has goons, an army who are practically thugs who may go and hit people. But can they face millions on the streets? That, no.

Kimberly,

Good points - for now, I just want to note that our leftwing friends haven't shown up here...they have been on the blog today, but none of them have seen fit to comment on this major bit of news...must be that it doesn't fit the leftwing meme.

Kimberly,

Good points. I am interested though in your views as to why this course of action is correct for Iran while the opposite is true for Iraq. Why is "The thought of foreign tanks rolling into Tehran is beyond imagination", yet The thought of foreign tanks rolling into Baghdad is a reality.

I'm not advocating war with Iran, nor am I arguing against the war in Iraq here. I'm just curious as to why you suggest opposite approaches towards the threats posed to us by these two countries.

Parker,

Allow me to offer my two cents. The dynamic in the two countries is different. In Iraq, Saddam's base was a minority contingent in the country, the Sunnis. In Iran it is the majority, the Shia. Opposition to Saddam came from the Shia and Kurd populations. Opposition to the government in Iran comes from all corners, including the Shia. Thus, unlike Iraq, Iran is in situation where internal dissent is more likely to topple the regime if conditions are right.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq there was a growing democratic movement in Iran. It had expanded off the college campuses and into the broader blue collar and white collar communities, particularly in the cities. Had the invasion of Iraq not happened it would have been interesting to see what would have happened there. My opinion is things would have been very different.

The invasion of Iraq caused a wave of nationalism in Iran. Not only were they next door to Iraq and anti-American sentiment still ran rather deep, but they were also grouped into the same "Axis of Evil" category. Threats from outside do tend to make internal disputes less important. It thus stands to reason that a reduction in the threat of outside invasion would allow the internal tensions to come to the fore again.

I suppose you could say that it is fortunate for us that Ahmadinejad has done a poor job as president. He came to power because he was seen as a populist who was going to cure the rampant corruption in government and improve the lives of the simple folk. That turned out to be a pile of bull. The change in administrations merely changed whose pockets got lined. Consequently, he has lost considerable support among the simple folk as well as the faction previously in power.

Much of Ahmadinejad's fiery rhetoric is designed to fan the flames of nationalism, and much of that is designed to distract the population from the failures of his government. I suspect another purpose is to cause divisions among the international community. I think it's interesting that as soon as the US, GB, Russia, China, France, and Germany started coming to a concensus on how to deal with Iran, suddenly Ahmadinejad's rhetoric wasn't so fiery. And now, suddenly, the opposition elements (at least those outside the country) are getting more vocal. I don't think that's a coincidence either.

Excellent News! We've known that Iran was a country divided and now here is more proof of that. That wacko shouldn't be around too much longer.

Mark, everything doesn't revolve around the left. By mentioning them in every single post you make ,no matter how outlandish your statements, doesn't help. Don't get me wrong, some of the things you say about the lefties is accurate, some things are totally wrong and inaccurate. I lean more to the left then to the right but this is good news for the world.

What a great moment to reestablish full diplomatic relations with Iran. Peace

Mark, that doesn't surprise me at all. They didn't make any comments on the Ohio Vote or the Lieberman thread either. Hmmmm.

Parker: I'd much rather assist the people (opposition) in overthrowing their regime as Reza suggested above. Not only because it would save US lives and money, but mainly because Iran WANTS to start a war with the US. If we go in with tanks or bomb them, it will give them an excuse to bomb our troops in Iraq.

Ricorun, you made some good points in your post. However, I believe the opposition elements are very vocal inside Iran, and there are still many demonstrations going on. We just don't hear about it. They recently had a women's demonstration and from what I'm hearing on the Iranian blogs, the women are all being arrested (which won't set too well with the opposition).

The problem with their demonstrations is they are not large enough. Reza (the eldest son of the disposed Shah) also said the Iranian Republican Guard would be toppled if a large demonstration lasted longer than six hours. (I read somewhere an Iranian Guard said the same thing.)

Of Iran's 71 million residents, 50 million are under the age of 30, according to Pahlavi. The new generation of Iranians' desire for freedom, coupled with friction already building between the government and the Iranian people, will one day ignite in a second revolution - one which will forge a new, free society.

Can you imagine 50 million people protesting? The guard wouldn't last ten minutes!

You know, Hossein has made some points to which we all agree ... however, his advocating US military intervention tends to make me distrust him. Iran is looking for an excuse to go to war with the US, and as the recent captured documents from Iraq suggest, the terrorists concur. I'd much rather go the peaceful route and let the opposition take down the current regime.

"I'd much rather go the peaceful route and let the opposition take down the current regime."

I think that's what most of us want too, Kimberly.

Just want to make one point. While I agree with most of what Kimberly stated, I disagree on her point of limited air strikes.

Limited air strikes on specific pre-determined nuclear designated sites would in no way alienate the Iranian people. Tanks and boots on the ground (which will not happen)would be counter productive, but limited air strikes would give the Iranian people a catalyst to be more aggressive in their push for freedom and reform.

The Iranian's are the few people in the middle east that actually love America. They are iching for the opportunity to take the next step. Believe it or not I just had a couple beers with some Iranian coutnerparts while watching the world cup. They despise the current government and love freedom and democracy.

Just want to make one point. While I agree with most of what Kimberly stated, I disagree on her point of limited air strikes.

Limited air strikes on specific pre-determined nuclear designated sites would in no way alienate the Iranian people. Tanks and boots on the ground (which will not happen)would be counter productive, but limited air strikes would give the Iranian people a catalyst to be more aggressive in their push for freedom and reform.

The Iranian's are the few people in the middle east that actually love America. They are iching for the opportunity to take the next step. Believe it or not I just had a couple beers with some Iranian coutnerparts while watching the world cup. They despise the current government and love freedom and democracy.

Mark and Kimberly, sittin in a tree:

You guys kill me, first you tell me to go spend more time with my family, and stop laying in wait for more of your stupid comments, then you complain when no one comments on the article.

I can't win with you folks, can I?

kimberly said: "The problem with their demonstrations is they are not large enough."

To tell you the truth, except for the demonstrations centered around the Azeri (Azerbaijani) insult, which I considered a different issue than the broader based, pre-2003 pro-democracy movement, I haven't been paying attention to what has been happening internally in Iran (I've been on the road for much of the last month, so maybe I could be forgiven? lol!). But upon closer examination I think perhaps you are right. There are other things going on, and the number of protests have spiked dramatically in the last month or so. And though (at first glance at least) the various demonstrations seem to be directed at more specific issues than a general pro-democracy cause, most of them bear upon that broader question in one form or another. Then again, maybe not. I really don't have much of a feel for the internal dynamics of Iran at this point. So it is hard to say how likely the various disparate issues will coalesce into a general opposition once again or, alternatively, how effective the central powers will be in keeping the various elements divided. Time will tell, I guess. In the mean time Iran is getting to be a very interesting place.

I believe that the idea of regime change to liberate Iran is flawed. They are a very proud and nationalistic people. The war with Iraq shows how much they are willing to fight. And the government is more or less popularly elected.

We would find that loyalty would gel behind the government with the first shot we fired. Change there will require the total and utter destruction of the nations ability to fight - just like it did with Germany and Japan. This idea that there will be a popular uprising throwing flowers at American tanks is insane.

If we decide that Iran needs to be stopped then it will require a full no holds barred war. By the way, we've known for years that’s what it will take to defeat North Korea also.

preposterous. ahmadenajad won the last election by a bigger margin than Bush did here and with a higher percentage turnout. There is a small progressive movement in the major cities, but the red state iran is antiamerican to the core.

If we attacked Iran not only would the shia in Iraq retaliate against our troops, but every terror cell in the world would probably activate themsleves of their own volition. oil would go up to 200 dollars a barrel, crippling the world economy. The only people who want us to attack iran are al queda, who said as much in the "safe house documents" found on zarqawi.

Thank you, Kimberly and Rico---this is why I come to this blog. To me, the idea of a blog like this is to have a chance to be exposed to information, and to be able to discuss and learn. It has been hijacked to some extent by the neorads who seem intent on derailing it so we can't use it the way we want to, and I am so glad you did get a chance to present some very intelligent perspectives.

Kahn, Colin Powell made a public statement not long before he stepped down that if there was a revolution in Iran, we would support it. I thought that was not only pretty bold, it had to have been based on solid information that such an internal revolution was a good possibility.

While a surprise attack on Iran might mobilize people as you suggested, if it were coordinated with, and supportive of, an internal uprising, it would have the opposite effect. Not long ago I read that something like 70% of Iran is under the age of 30, and leaning much more strongly toward a secular government than toward the existing type of theocracy. This population has been described as very pro-Western, and as a young educated population with their whole lives ahead of them, they are not likely to support a leader whose only real goal is to kill them all off so they can realize their religious destiny as soon as possible.

This population has also seen how quickly a rigid and oppressive regime can be replaced by one in which women can vote and drive and work, by one which celebrates freedom. No matter who initiated this change, or how individuals might feel about the country that brought it about, the real issue is that Iraq has leapfrogged over most of the Middle East, and stands as a symbol of what can happen. That alone has energized much of the Middle East,particularly the young, and that alone may be what ends up tipping the scales. Because freedom in a Muslim land is no longer an abstraction or a fantasy---it is there, as a beacon to those who want it for their own countries.

Almiranta,

While I don't agree with lester (I don't think we need to do anything to piss-off the Islamowackos), I think that underestimating Iranian nationalism is wrong.

This idea that the government is separate from the people is wrong. During the Iran-Iraq war the religious caste there raised a large force of (young) troops to fight Sadaam. They would overrun Iraqi positions by shear numbers (much as my father's 155mm long toms were over-run by Chinese). Often, they were not even armed. He ended up gassing them to keep them in check. Sadaam was actually suing for peace and Iran wasn't interested - they wanted to take this new potent (and winning) force and spread Islam all over the world. That's when we got involved - gave Sadaam information and satellite photos and helped him target the Iranians.

Then, the Iranians declared the Gulf a war zone and threatened to sink anything in it. They decided to mine the gulf - and made the mistake of attacking a U.S. Navy frigate. The result was that we sank half their Navy. Together, this support for Sadaam (clearly the lesser of two evils) and the destruction of half their Navy is what turned the tide in that war.

This idea that a regime is separate from the people of a nation is new. It wasn't true of the repressive regimes in Japan or Germany, or Viet Nam, or Korea or China. It is a false premise. Don't get me wrong - I'm for stopping Iran. But, I think that overwhelming force must be planned and if necessary used. Just because their government is messed up does not mean that it cannot fight. Nor does it mean that the people won't support it. Hitler made that same mistake with Stalin.

Almiranta said: "the real issue is that Iraq has leapfrogged over most of the Middle East, and stands as a symbol of what can happen."

You're being a tad premature, don't you think? At this point I doubt anyone in the Middle East looks upon Iraq as any kind of shining beacon. Sadly, even the majority of Iraqis now think their country is headed in the wrong direction (check out pg 42 of the June Iraq Index. That's a dramatic reversal, and essentially a first. The poll was conducted at the end of March, so it's not up-to-the-minute. But it is the first (and only) poll after the Samarrah bombings. And if Khalilzad's recent memo is right (and I have no reason to question it), things have gotten progressively worse since. It almost makes you hope they don't run another poll.