by RupertGeorge » Wed Jun 25, 2025 6:18 am
tim wrote: Mon Jun 16, 2025 6:10 am
Navigator wrote: Fri Jun 13, 2025 2:14 pm
Unfortunately, I see zero hope in the short term of Iran becoming an ally of the west, let alone reproachment with Israel.
First off, let me congratulate the Israeli's on what seems to be a very successful initial strike on Iran. Such action has been needed for DECADES.
The US has technically been in a state of war with Iran since the Embassy takeover in 1978. The fanatical nut jobs (first Khomeini and now his son) will NEVER give up the path that they are pursuing as per their interpretation of Shia Islam. They are doing this to the utter detriment of their population, and while the majority of Iranians have no love of their regime, they are powerless to affect any kind of change. As was seen years ago during small scale demonstrations, any dissent is brutally and bloodily crushed by the quasi-militia forces that hold substantial power over the broad population.
The Iranians were NEVER going to give up their quest for atomic weapons. This had to be done. It should have been done to the North Koreans in the late 1980s or early 1990s, but no US President had the guts to do it. And now look at the nightmare in northern Asia that resulted.
It seems to me that the Trump administration understood this, and we were playing along with the Iranians in "negotiations" while the Israelis finished their plans and preparations. Israel had already done quite a bit of damage to the Iranian infrastructure last year. They should finish that job along with taking out any kind of technological industry or wherewithal that the Iranians have.
However, when a foreign country (Israel) bombs your country (Iran), the response is generally increased support for the local regime. This means that Iranians, out of their own national pride, will, at least in the short term, most likely rally to the flag of the Ayatollahs.
The next potential nightmare is that the Ayatollahs, out of desperation, take military measures to close the Straights of Hormuz, blocking oil tanker traffic in/out of the Persian Gulf. Yes, the Iranians are very dependent on their own oil revenue, but if they feel that their "back is against the wall", they may do this. This would mean that the US would become involved militarily, and would most likely require occupation of coastal areas (to stop the launching of anti ship missiles and deployment of mines into the Gulf. This is because the Gulf is so critical to the world economy.
Such a scenario would drag the US into yet another middle east war, which obviously would be highly unpopular in the US, and even more so in Europe. And if you think the anti-ICE riots are bad, just wait for this.
Iran is in a generational awakening era.
The Iran-Iraq War in 1980 (where chemical weapons were used on civilians) was Iran's last generational crisis war. Not enough time has passed since the end of that war. It takes roughly 80 years for the cycle to reset so Iran won't be facing another Crisis War/Fourth Turning until around 2060.
The most basic teachings of Generational Dynamics contradicts what you're saying here.
In dozens of articles in the last few years, I've stated and restated the core principle of Generational Dynamics that, even in a dictatorship, major decisions are made by masses of people, by generations of people. The attitudes of politicians are irrelevant, except insofar as they represent the attitudes of the people.
Since Iraq's last Crisis War was with Iran in 1980, the same analysis can be used towards Iran.
https://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg ... 040409.htm
What Iraqi Civil War?
Early in 2003, I predicted that there would be no popular uprising against the Americans, and that there would be no civil war. After the overthrow of Saddam, I said that an Iraqi civil war was impossible. Despite the constant near-hysteria of the politicians, journalists and high-priced analysts,
I've been right so far. Here's why. (09-Apr-04)Summary
Iraq is in a generational "awakening" period, like America in the 1960s. During the 60s, we had assassinations, riots, looting, radical rhetoric, and low-level violence, but no civil war. Similarly, a popular civil war in Iraq today is impossible, despite the warnings of politicians, journalists, and high-priced analysts
Why no civil war in Iraq?
The short answer is: Because only one generation has passed since the Iran/Iraq war of the 1980s, and a popular civil war is impossible so soon after a crisis war.
Let's take a moment to compare Iran today to America in the 1960s, because the equivalence is precise.
Iraq today is one generation past its last crisis war, the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s.
America in the 1960s was one generation past its last crisis war, World War II. You have to understand 1960s America if you want to understand Iraq today.
If you're reading this and you're under 65-70 years old, then you probably have no idea how horrible WW II was for most Americans. Rumors of German bombers on the east coast and Japanese bombers on the west coast abounded, and terrorized Americans formed watch groups to watch for incoming bombers. Body bags with American soldiers were coming in by the boatloads from Europe and the Pacific. Everyone was affected by the war, had lost friends and family in the war, and feared for the American way of life and even the nation's survival. If you were traumatized by 9/11, then imagine the 9/11 attacks ten times a day for a couple of years and you'll begin to understand World War II.
When WW II ended, those who survived vowed that nothing like that must ever be allowed to happen again. Society reorganized itself to fight the new menace, the Communists, who would have to be stopped before they were allowed to start World War III.
By the 1960s, kids born after WW II came of age, and that's when the American awakening began. There was a well-known "generation gap," as college kids rebelled against the austere rules imposed by those who had survived WW II.
Look what happened in America in the 60s and early 70s: President Kennedy was assassinated; Martin Luther King was assassinated; Robert Kennedy was assassinated; there was a series of "hot summers," with racial rebellions in many cities, the most well known being the Watts riots in L.A. in 1965; there were huge riots and demonstrations in Washington D.C., and in other large cities; many of these riots degenerated into violence.
In all, three different presidencies ended in ruin in one way or another: President Kennedy's by assassination, President Johnson by being forced not to run again; and President Nixon by forced resignation.
But there was NO CIVIL WAR.
This is EXACTLY what's happening in Iraq today.
The Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s was a horrific crisis war, where even poison gas was used to kill people. Those who survived that war want no part of another one.
That's the context in which you have to understand the riots and demonstrations by Shi'ite Muslim cleric Moktada al-Sadr's private militia. Al-Sadr himself is 30 years old, and his followers are in their teens and 20s. These are kids with little or no personal memory of the 1980s war. They don't really care that much one way or the other about the American-led Coalition; they're just kids, and they're rebelling against their own parents more than anything else. In most cases, they have no strong convictions except to have fun.
That's why I've been saying for over a year that a popular civil war is impossible. There's no one who wants a war like that. The older generation will do anything to prevent such a war, and the younger generation really doesn't give a f--k. There's no fuel for a civil war.
I've looked at dozens, perhaps hundreds, of crisis wars throughout history, and there's never been a popular civil war just one generation past a crisis war. It's impossible.
Iran. Iran is also in a generational awakening period. Since 1999, there have been large pro-American college student demonstrations. Some analysts, apparently including some in the Bush administration, are advocating a policy of encouraging the students to overthrow the Iranian mullahs. Such a policy would almost certainly fail: There is no more chance of a civil war in Iran than there is in Iraq.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. From a generational dynamics perspective, Iran is in an "awakening" era, similar to the U.S. in the 1960s after WWII. Like the unrest led by young voices such as Martin Luther King Jr., Iran’s current protests reflect generational shifts, not a readiness for regime collapse or war. Real change comes later, once the post-war generation passes. You can see a brief context of that era
here.
[quote=tim post_id=91265 time=1750068637 user_id=2211]
[quote=Navigator post_id=91258 time=1749838460 user_id=2754]
Unfortunately, I see zero hope in the short term of Iran becoming an ally of the west, let alone reproachment with Israel.
First off, let me congratulate the Israeli's on what seems to be a very successful initial strike on Iran. Such action has been needed for DECADES.
The US has technically been in a state of war with Iran since the Embassy takeover in 1978. The fanatical nut jobs (first Khomeini and now his son) will NEVER give up the path that they are pursuing as per their interpretation of Shia Islam. They are doing this to the utter detriment of their population, and while the majority of Iranians have no love of their regime, they are powerless to affect any kind of change. As was seen years ago during small scale demonstrations, any dissent is brutally and bloodily crushed by the quasi-militia forces that hold substantial power over the broad population.
The Iranians were NEVER going to give up their quest for atomic weapons. This had to be done. It should have been done to the North Koreans in the late 1980s or early 1990s, but no US President had the guts to do it. And now look at the nightmare in northern Asia that resulted.
It seems to me that the Trump administration understood this, and we were playing along with the Iranians in "negotiations" while the Israelis finished their plans and preparations. Israel had already done quite a bit of damage to the Iranian infrastructure last year. They should finish that job along with taking out any kind of technological industry or wherewithal that the Iranians have.
However, when a foreign country (Israel) bombs your country (Iran), the response is generally increased support for the local regime. This means that Iranians, out of their own national pride, will, at least in the short term, most likely rally to the flag of the Ayatollahs.
The next potential nightmare is that the Ayatollahs, out of desperation, take military measures to close the Straights of Hormuz, blocking oil tanker traffic in/out of the Persian Gulf. Yes, the Iranians are very dependent on their own oil revenue, but if they feel that their "back is against the wall", they may do this. This would mean that the US would become involved militarily, and would most likely require occupation of coastal areas (to stop the launching of anti ship missiles and deployment of mines into the Gulf. This is because the Gulf is so critical to the world economy.
Such a scenario would drag the US into yet another middle east war, which obviously would be highly unpopular in the US, and even more so in Europe. And if you think the anti-ICE riots are bad, just wait for this.
[/quote]
Iran is in a generational awakening era.
The Iran-Iraq War in 1980 (where chemical weapons were used on civilians) was Iran's last generational crisis war. Not enough time has passed since the end of that war. It takes roughly 80 years for the cycle to reset so Iran won't be facing another Crisis War/Fourth Turning until around 2060.
The most basic teachings of Generational Dynamics contradicts what you're saying here.
[quote]In dozens of articles in the last few years, I've stated and restated the core principle of Generational Dynamics that, even in a dictatorship, major decisions are made by masses of people, by generations of people. The attitudes of politicians are irrelevant, except insofar as they represent the attitudes of the people.[/quote]
Since Iraq's last Crisis War was with Iran in 1980, the same analysis can be used towards Iran.
[url]https://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ww2010.i.iraq040409.htm[/url]
[quote]What Iraqi Civil War?
Early in 2003, I predicted that there would be no popular uprising against the Americans, and that there would be no civil war. After the overthrow of Saddam, I said that an Iraqi civil war was impossible. Despite the constant near-hysteria of the politicians, journalists and high-priced analysts,
I've been right so far. Here's why. (09-Apr-04)Summary
Iraq is in a generational "awakening" period, like America in the 1960s. During the 60s, we had assassinations, riots, looting, radical rhetoric, and low-level violence, but no civil war. Similarly, a popular civil war in Iraq today is impossible, despite the warnings of politicians, journalists, and high-priced analysts
Why no civil war in Iraq?
The short answer is: Because only one generation has passed since the Iran/Iraq war of the 1980s, and a popular civil war is impossible so soon after a crisis war.[/quote]
[quote]Let's take a moment to compare Iran today to America in the 1960s, because the equivalence is precise.
Iraq today is one generation past its last crisis war, the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s.
America in the 1960s was one generation past its last crisis war, World War II. You have to understand 1960s America if you want to understand Iraq today.
If you're reading this and you're under 65-70 years old, then you probably have no idea how horrible WW II was for most Americans. Rumors of German bombers on the east coast and Japanese bombers on the west coast abounded, and terrorized Americans formed watch groups to watch for incoming bombers. Body bags with American soldiers were coming in by the boatloads from Europe and the Pacific. Everyone was affected by the war, had lost friends and family in the war, and feared for the American way of life and even the nation's survival. If you were traumatized by 9/11, then imagine the 9/11 attacks ten times a day for a couple of years and you'll begin to understand World War II.
When WW II ended, those who survived vowed that nothing like that must ever be allowed to happen again. Society reorganized itself to fight the new menace, the Communists, who would have to be stopped before they were allowed to start World War III.
By the 1960s, kids born after WW II came of age, and that's when the American awakening began. There was a well-known "generation gap," as college kids rebelled against the austere rules imposed by those who had survived WW II.
Look what happened in America in the 60s and early 70s: President Kennedy was assassinated; Martin Luther King was assassinated; Robert Kennedy was assassinated; there was a series of "hot summers," with racial rebellions in many cities, the most well known being the Watts riots in L.A. in 1965; there were huge riots and demonstrations in Washington D.C., and in other large cities; many of these riots degenerated into violence.
In all, three different presidencies ended in ruin in one way or another: President Kennedy's by assassination, President Johnson by being forced not to run again; and President Nixon by forced resignation.
But there was NO CIVIL WAR.[/quote]
[quote]This is EXACTLY what's happening in Iraq today.
The Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s was a horrific crisis war, where even poison gas was used to kill people. Those who survived that war want no part of another one.
That's the context in which you have to understand the riots and demonstrations by Shi'ite Muslim cleric Moktada al-Sadr's private militia. Al-Sadr himself is 30 years old, and his followers are in their teens and 20s. These are kids with little or no personal memory of the 1980s war. They don't really care that much one way or the other about the American-led Coalition; they're just kids, and they're rebelling against their own parents more than anything else. In most cases, they have no strong convictions except to have fun.
That's why I've been saying for over a year that a popular civil war is impossible. There's no one who wants a war like that. The older generation will do anything to prevent such a war, and the younger generation really doesn't give a f--k. There's no fuel for a civil war.
I've looked at dozens, perhaps hundreds, of crisis wars throughout history, and there's never been a popular civil war just one generation past a crisis war. It's impossible.[/quote]
[quote]Iran. Iran is also in a generational awakening period. Since 1999, there have been large pro-American college student demonstrations. Some analysts, apparently including some in the Bush administration, are advocating a policy of encouraging the students to overthrow the Iranian mullahs. Such a policy would almost certainly fail: There is no more chance of a civil war in Iran than there is in Iraq.[/quote]
[/quote]
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. From a generational dynamics perspective, Iran is in an "awakening" era, similar to the U.S. in the 1960s after WWII. Like the unrest led by young voices such as Martin Luther King Jr., Iran’s current protests reflect generational shifts, not a readiness for regime collapse or war. Real change comes later, once the post-war generation passes. You can see a brief context of that era [url=https://www.aroundrobin.com/martin-luther-king-jr-summary/]here[/url].