An Iranian’s perspective

[Anonymous]

With*

[Anonymous]

Dear OP, can you maybe offer some insight as to why many Iranians who live in Iran apply for U.S. visas and act entitled and think they should get a U.S. visa, for tourism or studying?
Iranian students rarely ever leave the U.S. once they get a visa.
Even those that have never traveled anywhere but to the country where there is a U.S. embassy, and hence have no qualifications for a visa, act outraged if they don't get a visa.

[Anonymous]

Tune into Iranian state media right now. It is playing nonstop calls to overthrow the Ayatollahs and implement regime change now.

The Iranian people are oppressed by their government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am Iranian. My parents, their parents, and their parents’ parents were born and raised in Iran. If you wish to test my Farsi, feel free - I will respond. I also consider myself to be politically progressive, to the extent that seems relevant to anyone reading.

A nuclear armed Iran would place the entire world in peril and enable the current regime to retain its stranglehold on power indefinitely. No one wants an Iran with nukes - not Israel, not the US, not Europe, not the surrounding Arab countries, not even the Iranian people. But only Israel has been willing to do anything about it (in an extremely targeted and largely bloodless way thus far, I might add). And instead of praise, it has received nothing but moral opprobrium. I can only attribute this to a myopic form of anti-Zionism that has become popular in left-wing circles recently and seems to subsume all else, including patriotism and self-interest.

To back off now would be to relinquish a historic opportunity (not likely to repeat itself) to hobble this regime permanently. Nothing else has worked in nearly five decades, and many things have been tried - popular protest movements, sanctions, negotiations. Of course I am terrified for the people of Iran. Whatever happens, the road ahead will be a scary and difficult one for them. But IMO, intervention is far preferable to the alternative.

Many people expressing opposition to Israel’s actions or the idea of any kind of US intervention are doing so from a place of genuine concern for the Iranian people/US troops. Their perception is colored by US failures in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will tell you that this is an entirely different scenario. The Iranian regime is extremely weak and unpopular. Its military power structure has already been largely decimated by Israel, and Khamenei is 86 years old. The people of Iran are increasingly young, educated, secular, and eager for political openness and contact with the rest of the world. This regime has been holding them hostage for 47 years, and if it obtains nukes, will do the same to the rest of the region and the world.

I’ve seen many posts claiming that Israel is dragging the US into a war to protect its own interests. No doubt, Israel will benefit greatly if Iran is de-fanged. But so will the rest of the world, including the United States and the Iranian people. Whatever one’s feelings are towards Israel/Netanyahu, I think it’s important to set those aside and look at objective reality. The choice here is not between intervention and the status quo. The choice is between intervention and a nuclear armed Iran. To the extent Israel prevents the latter, it will have done us ALL a great service.

This is a very intelligent, sober analysis of the situation, and sadly it's being skewered by people so myopic in their hatred of Israel, Jews, and Iranian women that they would prefer the Iranian regime to continue torturing it's own citizens. American progressives have lost the thread; Iran needs regime change now and Israel should push ahead and finish the job. Aside from fundamentalist Shia still drunk on anti-Israel KoolAid in Lebanon, Yemen, and Qatar, the rest of the Middle East Sunni regimes will likely welcome a neutralized Iran. And to all the young Americans expressing righteous indignation about potential military involvement, you need to talk to people who lived thorugh the 1979 hostage crisis, the 1983 bombing in Lebanon, dozens of hostage situations, and all the other nonsense that Iran has sponsored since the 1970s.

Yeah. We've heard all about these possibilities and probabilities before with Iraq and Afghanistan. All the years, resources and life wasted on the hope that the population will be strong enough to bring about real change when we exit. How did that work out?

Perhaps this time, the population should go first and show us that they are ready to die for change before we commit the lives of our sons and daughters to back them up. Let them take the lead.

Again, my point is that it is in the clear interest of AMERICA to prevent a nuclear armed Iran. I’m not sure what’s with all the comparisons to Iraq other than both countries happen to be in the Middle East. This is a completely different scenario. I don’t think any credible expert on the region doubts that Iran is dangerously close to acquiring nukes. This isn’t a WMD-style deception being perpetrated by US war hawks. This is a real and urgent threat.

And re: whether we’ll be welcomed as liberators - again, I’m not advocating that the US occupy the country and install a western puppet government. I’m saying that, based on my knowledge of the region, the Iranian people will bring about regime change all on their own if they are given a fighting chance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am Iranian. My parents, their parents, and their parents’ parents were born and raised in Iran. If you wish to test my Farsi, feel free - I will respond. I also consider myself to be politically progressive, to the extent that seems relevant to anyone reading.

A nuclear armed Iran would place the entire world in peril and enable the current regime to retain its stranglehold on power indefinitely. No one wants an Iran with nukes - not Israel, not the US, not Europe, not the surrounding Arab countries, not even the Iranian people. But only Israel has been willing to do anything about it (in an extremely targeted and largely bloodless way thus far, I might add). And instead of praise, it has received nothing but moral opprobrium. I can only attribute this to a myopic form of anti-Zionism that has become popular in left-wing circles recently and seems to subsume all else, including patriotism and self-interest.

To back off now would be to relinquish a historic opportunity (not likely to repeat itself) to hobble this regime permanently. Nothing else has worked in nearly five decades, and many things have been tried - popular protest movements, sanctions, negotiations. Of course I am terrified for the people of Iran. Whatever happens, the road ahead will be a scary and difficult one for them. But IMO, intervention is far preferable to the alternative.

Many people expressing opposition to Israel’s actions or the idea of any kind of US intervention are doing so from a place of genuine concern for the Iranian people/US troops. Their perception is colored by US failures in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will tell you that this is an entirely different scenario. The Iranian regime is extremely weak and unpopular. Its military power structure has already been largely decimated by Israel, and Khamenei is 86 years old. The people of Iran are increasingly young, educated, secular, and eager for political openness and contact with the rest of the world. This regime has been holding them hostage for 47 years, and if it obtains nukes, will do the same to the rest of the region and the world.

I’ve seen many posts claiming that Israel is dragging the US into a war to protect its own interests. No doubt, Israel will benefit greatly if Iran is de-fanged. But so will the rest of the world, including the United States and the Iranian people. Whatever one’s feelings are towards Israel/Netanyahu, I think it’s important to set those aside and look at objective reality. The choice here is not between intervention and the status quo. The choice is between intervention and a nuclear armed Iran. To the extent Israel prevents the latter, it will have done us ALL a great service.

This is a very intelligent, sober analysis of the situation, and sadly it's being skewered by people so myopic in their hatred of Israel, Jews, and Iranian women that they would prefer the Iranian regime to continue torturing it's own citizens. American progressives have lost the thread; Iran needs regime change now and Israel should push ahead and finish the job. Aside from fundamentalist Shia still drunk on anti-Israel KoolAid in Lebanon, Yemen, and Qatar, the rest of the Middle East Sunni regimes will likely welcome a neutralized Iran. And to all the young Americans expressing righteous indignation about potential military involvement, you need to talk to people who lived thorugh the 1979 hostage crisis, the 1983 bombing in Lebanon, dozens of hostage situations, and all the other nonsense that Iran has sponsored since the 1970s.

Yeah. We've heard all about these possibilities and probabilities before with Iraq and Afghanistan. All the years, resources and life wasted on the hope that the population will be strong enough to bring about real change when we exit. How did that work out?

Perhaps this time, the population should go first and show us that they are ready to die for change before we commit the lives of our sons and daughters to back them up. Let them take the lead.

Again, my point is that it is in the clear interest of AMERICA to prevent a nuclear armed Iran. I’m not sure what’s with all the comparisons to Iraq other than both countries happen to be in the Middle East. This is a completely different scenario. I don’t think any credible expert on the region doubts that Iran is dangerously close to acquiring nukes. This isn’t a WMD-style deception being perpetrated by US war hawks. This is a real and urgent threat.

And re: whether we’ll be welcomed as liberators - again, I’m not advocating that the US occupy the country and install a western puppet government. I’m saying that, based on my knowledge of the region, the Iranian people will bring about regime change all on their own if they are given a fighting chance.

Your knowledge of the region does not hold soothing our concerns. Several people with knowledge of those other regions believed as strongly as you do that the local populations would be able to bring/ maintain meaningful change after we invaded. They were wrong. This is a tale as old as time. Go to any region where outside nations toppled governments. In most cases, chaos ensued and no real change happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am Iranian. My parents, their parents, and their parents’ parents were born and raised in Iran. If you wish to test my Farsi, feel free - I will respond. I also consider myself to be politically progressive, to the extent that seems relevant to anyone reading.

A nuclear armed Iran would place the entire world in peril and enable the current regime to retain its stranglehold on power indefinitely. No one wants an Iran with nukes - not Israel, not the US, not Europe, not the surrounding Arab countries, not even the Iranian people. But only Israel has been willing to do anything about it (in an extremely targeted and largely bloodless way thus far, I might add). And instead of praise, it has received nothing but moral opprobrium. I can only attribute this to a myopic form of anti-Zionism that has become popular in left-wing circles recently and seems to subsume all else, including patriotism and self-interest.

To back off now would be to relinquish a historic opportunity (not likely to repeat itself) to hobble this regime permanently. Nothing else has worked in nearly five decades, and many things have been tried - popular protest movements, sanctions, negotiations. Of course I am terrified for the people of Iran. Whatever happens, the road ahead will be a scary and difficult one for them. But IMO, intervention is far preferable to the alternative.

Many people expressing opposition to Israel’s actions or the idea of any kind of US intervention are doing so from a place of genuine concern for the Iranian people/US troops. Their perception is colored by US failures in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will tell you that this is an entirely different scenario. The Iranian regime is extremely weak and unpopular. Its military power structure has already been largely decimated by Israel, and Khamenei is 86 years old. The people of Iran are increasingly young, educated, secular, and eager for political openness and contact with the rest of the world. This regime has been holding them hostage for 47 years, and if it obtains nukes, will do the same to the rest of the region and the world.

I’ve seen many posts claiming that Israel is dragging the US into a war to protect its own interests. No doubt, Israel will benefit greatly if Iran is de-fanged. But so will the rest of the world, including the United States and the Iranian people. Whatever one’s feelings are towards Israel/Netanyahu, I think it’s important to set those aside and look at objective reality. The choice here is not between intervention and the status quo. The choice is between intervention and a nuclear armed Iran. To the extent Israel prevents the latter, it will have done us ALL a great service.

This is a very intelligent, sober analysis of the situation, and sadly it's being skewered by people so myopic in their hatred of Israel, Jews, and Iranian women that they would prefer the Iranian regime to continue torturing it's own citizens. American progressives have lost the thread; Iran needs regime change now and Israel should push ahead and finish the job. Aside from fundamentalist Shia still drunk on anti-Israel KoolAid in Lebanon, Yemen, and Qatar, the rest of the Middle East Sunni regimes will likely welcome a neutralized Iran. And to all the young Americans expressing righteous indignation about potential military involvement, you need to talk to people who lived thorugh the 1979 hostage crisis, the 1983 bombing in Lebanon, dozens of hostage situations, and all the other nonsense that Iran has sponsored since the 1970s.

Yeah. We've heard all about these possibilities and probabilities before with Iraq and Afghanistan. All the years, resources and life wasted on the hope that the population will be strong enough to bring about real change when we exit. How did that work out?

Perhaps this time, the population should go first and show us that they are ready to die for change before we commit the lives of our sons and daughters to back them up. Let them take the lead.

Again, my point is that it is in the clear interest of AMERICA to prevent a nuclear armed Iran. I’m not sure what’s with all the comparisons to Iraq other than both countries happen to be in the Middle East. This is a completely different scenario. I don’t think any credible expert on the region doubts that Iran is dangerously close to acquiring nukes. This isn’t a WMD-style deception being perpetrated by US war hawks. This is a real and urgent threat.

And re: whether we’ll be welcomed as liberators - again, I’m not advocating that the US occupy the country and install a western puppet government. I’m saying that, based on my knowledge of the region, the Iranian people will bring about regime change all on their own if they are given a fighting chance.

We don't have a fighting chance sitting on a table to give away. We are talking about American lives being lost in a war. If we are not certain that Iranians will maintain real change, we are not interested in risking Anerican lives for a fighting chance.

[Anonymous]

Drop the bomb and take their oil. Their regime is despicable and if it was in power anywhere else in the world progressives would be in a full conniption fit. But Israel…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am Iranian. My parents, their parents, and their parents’ parents were born and raised in Iran. If you wish to test my Farsi, feel free - I will respond. I also consider myself to be politically progressive, to the extent that seems relevant to anyone reading.

A nuclear armed Iran would place the entire world in peril and enable the current regime to retain its stranglehold on power indefinitely. No one wants an Iran with nukes - not Israel, not the US, not Europe, not the surrounding Arab countries, not even the Iranian people. But only Israel has been willing to do anything about it (in an extremely targeted and largely bloodless way thus far, I might add). And instead of praise, it has received nothing but moral opprobrium. I can only attribute this to a myopic form of anti-Zionism that has become popular in left-wing circles recently and seems to subsume all else, including patriotism and self-interest.

To back off now would be to relinquish a historic opportunity (not likely to repeat itself) to hobble this regime permanently. Nothing else has worked in nearly five decades, and many things have been tried - popular protest movements, sanctions, negotiations. Of course I am terrified for the people of Iran. Whatever happens, the road ahead will be a scary and difficult one for them. But IMO, intervention is far preferable to the alternative.

Many people expressing opposition to Israel’s actions or the idea of any kind of US intervention are doing so from a place of genuine concern for the Iranian people/US troops. Their perception is colored by US failures in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will tell you that this is an entirely different scenario. The Iranian regime is extremely weak and unpopular. Its military power structure has already been largely decimated by Israel, and Khamenei is 86 years old. The people of Iran are increasingly young, educated, secular, and eager for political openness and contact with the rest of the world. This regime has been holding them hostage for 47 years, and if it obtains nukes, will do the same to the rest of the region and the world.

I’ve seen many posts claiming that Israel is dragging the US into a war to protect its own interests. No doubt, Israel will benefit greatly if Iran is de-fanged. But so will the rest of the world, including the United States and the Iranian people. Whatever one’s feelings are towards Israel/Netanyahu, I think it’s important to set those aside and look at objective reality. The choice here is not between intervention and the status quo. The choice is between intervention and a nuclear armed Iran. To the extent Israel prevents the latter, it will have done us ALL a great service.

This is a very intelligent, sober analysis of the situation, and sadly it's being skewered by people so myopic in their hatred of Israel, Jews, and Iranian women that they would prefer the Iranian regime to continue torturing it's own citizens. American progressives have lost the thread; Iran needs regime change now and Israel should push ahead and finish the job. Aside from fundamentalist Shia still drunk on anti-Israel KoolAid in Lebanon, Yemen, and Qatar, the rest of the Middle East Sunni regimes will likely welcome a neutralized Iran. And to all the young Americans expressing righteous indignation about potential military involvement, you need to talk to people who lived thorugh the 1979 hostage crisis, the 1983 bombing in Lebanon, dozens of hostage situations, and all the other nonsense that Iran has sponsored since the 1970s.

Yeah. We've heard all about these possibilities and probabilities before with Iraq and Afghanistan. All the years, resources and life wasted on the hope that the population will be strong enough to bring about real change when we exit. How did that work out?

Perhaps this time, the population should go first and show us that they are ready to die for change before we commit the lives of our sons and daughters to back them up. Let them take the lead.

Again, my point is that it is in the clear interest of AMERICA to prevent a nuclear armed Iran. I’m not sure what’s with all the comparisons to Iraq other than both countries happen to be in the Middle East. This is a completely different scenario. I don’t think any credible expert on the region doubts that Iran is dangerously close to acquiring nukes. This isn’t a WMD-style deception being perpetrated by US war hawks. This is a real and urgent threat.

And re: whether we’ll be welcomed as liberators - again, I’m not advocating that the US occupy the country and install a western puppet government. I’m saying that, based on my knowledge of the region, the Iranian people will bring about regime change all on their own if they are given a fighting chance.

We don't have a fighting chance sitting on a table to give away. We are talking about American lives being lost in a war. If we are not certain that Iranians will maintain real change, we are not interested in risking Anerican lives for a fighting chance.

Re-read the first sentence of the post you’re responding to. I’m not sure why this point is being lost. Not asking you to do the people of Iran any favors out of the goodness of your heart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, do you think the US government should get involved in regime change in another country? It’s going to be one of those “if you break it, you buy it” situations again, like with Iraq.

What people don’t understand about Iran is that there is no succession plan for Khamenei. There are no tribal or ethnic or religious factions waiting in the wings. The Iranian people are largely united in their hatred of the regime and their desire for freedom and democracy. None of these things were true of Iraq or Afghanistan. I believe that if the US or Israel clears the way, the Iranian people will take care of regime change all on their own. They are an incredibly brave and resilient people.

You should go back to Iran and start a resistance. Not our country, not our problem

My point is that it is your problem, as an American. A nuclear armed Iran does not benefit you. Iran is an unpredictable rogue state that sowed chaos and exported terror for decades, and that’s without nukes. Americans should not let a preference for isolationism, distaste for Israel, etc. blind them to this reality.

Actually maybe a nuclear armed Iran would be a good thing. Then the genocidal war mongering nation of Israel would back off and Iran wouldn't have face the fate of Iraq, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan etc that were the list of targets from Netanyahu’s 1996 plan. Throw in Gaza, and the list of casualties from the wars planned by Israel exceeds 2 million.

Thank you Adolf. In other news…

[Anonymous]

I hear the OP, but it's up to the Middle East to resolve Middle Eastern problems. We have sacrificed American lives, spent money that was needed domestically, and spent decades in the Middle East. So have other nations, not just the U.S. What were the end results of those efforts?

Need we belabor the point?

Very questionable how the American public is being "softened" across multiple social media with the "need" to go to war against Iran.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:America and Israel should be more concerned without our eroding freedoms and path to autocracy (Netanyahu, Trump). We cannot stand on the soapbox of freedom
And democracy from tyranny when we are on that path as well

No, kicking out millions of illegals who stormed our border isn’t Fascism, it’s law enforcement. If you guys don’t like it, you shouldn’t have left the border open for 4 years.

[Anonymous]

Thank you OP for sharing your perspective. I was speaking with a friend of mine whose family left years ago when the Shah was overthrown. Her perspective was nearly word for word the same as yours. The progressive talking points du jour is to be vehemently anti-Isreal without regard for the larger context of the threat of a nuclear capable Iran being horrific for the whole world. The Iranian regime only understands strength and view diplomacy as weak and, history has shown, led by those who are easily fooled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for sharing your perspective.

At the same time, do you really think a full-fledged US war on Iran will lead to a better outcome for the people who live there?

I think there’s a lot of doomerism going on and a “full-fledged war” is not going to go how people are imagining. A “full-fledged war” requires two sides and Israel has basically obliterated Iran’s capacity to fight back in like, a week. Without America’s help. They’ve also taken out all of Iran’s proxies is the region - Hamas, Hezbollah, the Assad regime. Russia is distracted and overextended. The Iranian people hate their government. No one is coming to save this regime. This is an easy win - Israel has already done all the dirty work. America should stop hand-wringing and worrying about another Iraq/Afghanistan/whatever other unrelated conflict and do what needs to be done to get this thing across finish line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is like the WMDs talk about Iraq. I’m just having a hard time falling for the “they’ll welcome us as liberators” idea.

Exactly. Exactly this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am Iranian. My parents, their parents, and their parents’ parents were born and raised in Iran. If you wish to test my Farsi, feel free - I will respond. I also consider myself to be politically progressive, to the extent that seems relevant to anyone reading.

A nuclear armed Iran would place the entire world in peril and enable the current regime to retain its stranglehold on power indefinitely. No one wants an Iran with nukes - not Israel, not the US, not Europe, not the surrounding Arab countries, not even the Iranian people. But only Israel has been willing to do anything about it (in an extremely targeted and largely bloodless way thus far, I might add). And instead of praise, it has received nothing but moral opprobrium. I can only attribute this to a myopic form of anti-Zionism that has become popular in left-wing circles recently and seems to subsume all else, including patriotism and self-interest.

To back off now would be to relinquish a historic opportunity (not likely to repeat itself) to hobble this regime permanently. Nothing else has worked in nearly five decades, and many things have been tried - popular protest movements, sanctions, negotiations. Of course I am terrified for the people of Iran. Whatever happens, the road ahead will be a scary and difficult one for them. But IMO, intervention is far preferable to the alternative.

Many people expressing opposition to Israel’s actions or the idea of any kind of US intervention are doing so from a place of genuine concern for the Iranian people/US troops. Their perception is colored by US failures in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will tell you that this is an entirely different scenario. The Iranian regime is extremely weak and unpopular. Its military power structure has already been largely decimated by Israel, and Khamenei is 86 years old. The people of Iran are increasingly young, educated, secular, and eager for political openness and contact with the rest of the world. This regime has been holding them hostage for 47 years, and if it obtains nukes, will do the same to the rest of the region and the world.

I’ve seen many posts claiming that Israel is dragging the US into a war to protect its own interests. No doubt, Israel will benefit greatly if Iran is de-fanged. But so will the rest of the world, including the United States and the Iranian people. Whatever one’s feelings are towards Israel/Netanyahu, I think it’s important to set those aside and look at objective reality. The choice here is not between intervention and the status quo. The choice is between intervention and a nuclear armed Iran. To the extent Israel prevents the latter, it will have done us ALL a great service.

This is a very intelligent, sober analysis of the situation, and sadly it's being skewered by people so myopic in their hatred of Israel, Jews, and Iranian women that they would prefer the Iranian regime to continue torturing it's own citizens. American progressives have lost the thread; Iran needs regime change now and Israel should push ahead and finish the job. Aside from fundamentalist Shia still drunk on anti-Israel KoolAid in Lebanon, Yemen, and Qatar, the rest of the Middle East Sunni regimes will likely welcome a neutralized Iran. And to all the young Americans expressing righteous indignation about potential military involvement, you need to talk to people who lived thorugh the 1979 hostage crisis, the 1983 bombing in Lebanon, dozens of hostage situations, and all the other nonsense that Iran has sponsored since the 1970s.

Yeah. We've heard all about these possibilities and probabilities before with Iraq and Afghanistan. All the years, resources and life wasted on the hope that the population will be strong enough to bring about real change when we exit. How did that work out?

Perhaps this time, the population should go first and show us that they are ready to die for change before we commit the lives of our sons and daughters to back them up. Let them take the lead.

Again, my point is that it is in the clear interest of AMERICA to prevent a nuclear armed Iran. I’m not sure what’s with all the comparisons to Iraq other than both countries happen to be in the Middle East. This is a completely different scenario. I don’t think any credible expert on the region doubts that Iran is dangerously close to acquiring nukes. This isn’t a WMD-style deception being perpetrated by US war hawks. This is a real and urgent threat.

And re: whether we’ll be welcomed as liberators - again, I’m not advocating that the US occupy the country and install a western puppet government. I’m saying that, based on my knowledge of the region, the Iranian people will bring about regime change all on their own if they are given a fighting chance.

We don't have a fighting chance sitting on a table to give away. We are talking about American lives being lost in a war. If we are not certain that Iranians will maintain real change, we are not interested in risking Anerican lives for a fighting chance.

Re-read the first sentence of the post you’re responding to. I’m not sure why this point is being lost. Not asking you to do the people of Iran any favors out of the goodness of your heart.

It was in the clear interest before Israel attacked, no? Yet we decided that negotiating a deal was the better option for us. If Israel has made the regime weaker, Iranians should step in and finish the job. We will sit back and hope to negotiate when things cool off/ get better.