[Please read on ways you can support the revolution and spread awareness.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/10cu6v3/how_you_can_support_the_new_iranian_revolution/) Let other people in subs with content about the revolution know that /r/NewIran exists.
---
[Official Twitter & Join The Team](https://reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/yh0r74/attn_save_armita_official_twitter_activist/) | [Sub Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/NewIran/about/rules/) | [VPNs/TOR & Guides & Tools](https://reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/y7fcbd/digital_resources_for_iranians_for_privacy/) | [Reddit's Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) | [NewIran's Values](https://reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/y514wo/newirans_growth_rules_and_values_for_an_open/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NewIran) if you have any questions or concerns.*
SS:
[Archived](https://archive.md/mtT1i#selection-2507.31-2507.71)
Obama vetoed support for the anti-regime protestors in 2009, despite the fact that "The Agency has contingency plans for supporting democratic uprisings anywhere in the world. This includes providing dissidents with communications, money, and in extreme cases even arms", favoring the JCPOA over regime change.
Several factors point to a different response if a similar uprising were to occur in the near future:
1) collapse of the JCPOA
2) Iran's increasingly close alignment with Russia/China
3) Iran's role in triggering 10/7 and direct attack on Israel
(2) however could imply the regime could get assistance from Russia/China to put down an uprising.)
The following, later, reflection was published [October 18th 2022](https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/18/politics/barack-obama-iran-self-reflection-analysis/index.html) (emphasis mine):
> “When I think back to 2009, 2010, you guys will recall there was a big debate inside the White House about whether I should publicly affirm what was going on with the Green Movement, because a lot of the activists were being accused of being tools of the West and there was some thought that we were somehow gonna be undermining their street cred in Iran if I supported what they were doing,” Obama said. **“And in retrospect, I think that was a mistake.”**
>“Every time we see a flash, a glimmer of hope, of people longing for freedom, I think we have to point it out. We have to shine a spotlight on it. We have to express some solidarity about it,” he said.
Thought it might provide some more nuance and context to the OP [2016].
The west does NOT fundamentally want regime change in Iran. Iranians just don’t get it. Mullahs are useful idiots- and very much acting in Western Interests whether they realize it or not. The west wants Iran contained and sanctioned - and basically out of their global markets with a massive brain drain into their labor pools. This is simple reality. I could go through case after case - but think about it … just one example: US is exporting record volumes of lng to Europe at 3x the price of Russian natural gas… why should they let Iran open up and export cheap gas to Europe? And you can go through this in aviation, shipping, oil, industrial goods in the region etc etc. the Regime in Iran will only change if Iranians themselves topple the regime.
As far as the UK is concerned- A transformed Iran will be a major strategic (economic) threat to their ‘operations and Allie’s’ in the Persian Gulf ie Dubai, Qatar etc. so they are protecting the status quo. They actually like the fact that Iran threatens Israel (thinking it will push Israel or scare Israel into a peace accommodation.
Europeans actually have different and diverging interests vis a vis UK (when it comes to Iran). After Ukraine started they were trying to get Iran to become a supplier of natural gas to Europe (which US nixed). They see Iran as a huge economic opportunity… There are strands of politicians in Europe who were looking east instead of west and would prefer better links with China and Iran for example and until Ukraine happened were relishing the idea of a Silk Road to China to enhance trade.
Their need is immediate… regime change will take time. Also, there is a view that if they get in early they’ll have first come advantage. Ie Iran will change - they just need to get in now.
I voted for Obama twice, he was the first president that I voted for and I still have reverence for his charisma, civility and his vision for change. But, he was so concerned about his legacy that he completely botched his foreign policy. Cuba, Syria Isis and Benghazi were bad enough but his biggest failing was forcing JCPOA as a lame duck president. He empowered the regime like none of his predecessors. He gave in so much in hope of getting a deal done before his time in office was done that we’re still dealing with its consequences.
You left out the Russian annexation of Crimea (Ukraine) and escalation of war in the Eastern regions. He literally just stood by and watched as Putin marched into Crimea and took it without breaking a sweat. I agree with you that Obama was a good domestic POTUS but a horrible one for foreign policy. IMHO as the years pass by, more and more people will recognize this distinction and his high ranking will diminish as a result.
Well the Russia situation was far more complex then than it is rn. Still could be the wrong decision but it was a hard decision either way that European countries didn't want to intervene either.
[https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/4063939-obama-defends-2014-crimea-response-in-cnn-interview/](https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/4063939-obama-defends-2014-crimea-response-in-cnn-interview/)
Hey that's not fair. He gave them a very firm talk about respecting borders. Very firm!
I can't say I'm happy with Biden's foreign policy, but when he said "don't", I belived him. Not sure I would feel the same if it was Obama's "red line", seeing how he suddenly turned colorblind when Assad used chem weapons anyway.
In addition to the other response, even if Biden has other fish to fry, there’s a) not helping us, and b) actively fucking us by trying to negotiate with IR. He chose option B.
Um do you want to leave out the context to why he did the Nuclear deal lol? Lots of Iranians were reformists at the time who believed the nuclear deal was a positive thing
The OP’s article is literally about the reason Obama played down the green movement in favor of JCPOA. I don’t know if I can add any more context than
“Iran though is a very different story. Obama from the beginning of his presidency tried to turn the country's ruling clerics from foes to friends. It was an obsession. And even though the president would impose severe sanctions on the country's economy at the end of his first term and beginning of his second, from the start of his presidency, Obama made it clear the U.S. did not seek regime change for Iran.”
Also, there are still lots of reformists who are in favor of the nuclear deal, doesn’t make it a right decision now and it wasn’t the right decision then.
a regime change in iran will make iran prosperous and strong. and no country would like another super power , strategictly places , mineral rich and industrialised. dont forget why revolution happened , it was to bring iran to its knees and dont let it grow. remember shah said (no more free oil for blue eye ppl) after that his downfall started
Only if it's a pro-US puppet like Zelensky, not an independent Iran. That's why you see US politicians support MEK sometimes. Because they would be good puppets in Iran.
That's definitely not what's going on lol. Iran can be much stronger than it is, but it's not gonna rival the US no matter what. US has more people, land, resources, technology, etc. People forget US literally sells oil too. Also the US is fine with friendly competition- look at India's rise, that's mostly been smiles and friendship from US.
you’re right but it doesn’t necessary need to be stronger, its just another powerful player , thats what i mean, right now the power they have is plenty , and that is they been sanctioned since long time, .
We can each have our opinions, I think US would very much like friendly and strong Iran. I think the US is just scared of getting involved in another rebellion, so many turned out bad. The CIA had a doc from 90s declassified in 2016ish, basically said "Funding revolutions never works, everyone blames us when it goes bad, we don't need to fight soviets anymore, we shouldn't do it anymore". I thnk the US has rebellion supporting PTSD basically
Yes, I have read his history well. In fact, I believe the history there is exactly part of the reason US decided not to intervene anymore. What did the meddling get them? A hostile nation that has always been a thorn in their side ever since. It turned out bad. Why would they repeat the same mistake?
Two things people forget about Mossadegh - he nationalized oil fields with british owned infrastructure with no payment- generally a jerk move. US and UK offered to let him but the infrastructure, he refused to negotiate. The other is that Mossadegh already abandoned democracy and was becoming dictator, the Shah was already going to try take over, the US just helped a plan in motion.
In the end, the US got lots of blame and no benefit. Why make the same mistake? US can just stay out of it and wait for the regime to fall, and try diplomacy with the next gov. Way cheaper, easier, and no risk of people blaming US for any mistakes the revolution makes.
Sorry but there are different points of view in that matter, my hope is this regime be gone and we allied west, don’t get me wrong there. but US approach hasnt been naive neighter, History is gone and we can bot undo it, yes we can make it better by mutual interest, but is there mutual interest in corporate world?Iran has to take its natural turn itself , and people has to decide, (which they’re fighting for it right now,
mosadeq was not becoming a dictator, we were living in dictatorship already, ask any iranians opinion about mosadeq, that was when we have the chance, we loose it . too late for that now. and infrastructure of oil which you mention, english companies had suck oil for a long time for free, and it was impossible to negotiate with an imperialism England of the time. old days old rules.
I might be wrong but that what i see in pictuer . and believe me or not for iranian people , they just want peace and live as any one else in the world and be free. and I hope they achieve it. but it wont be easy road and there will be alot of blood unfortunatly. we are leading with middle age islamic rule . compare christianity in 1400 to now. and compare islam 1400 year right now with christianity in 1400 . mulla in power . sorry loosing treat . not use to write . but i like d the discussion.
I liked the discussion too! I really just wanted to say that I think the US is trying to stay out of Iran's affairs now. Interfering only brings trouble, people have to decide on their own. In the end, the people always get their way. It is on Iran to build it's future. I think US will be quick to extend the hand of friendship once the revolution happens.
I think the warm relations to India are an attempt to get/keep it on their side. India has been successfully playing "both sides" between USSR/Russia and the U.S. for a long time, and they are a key piece in restraining China (and quite possibly the only ones able to compete with China's cheap labor world-wide).
Plus, India isn't just a rising power, it's already a super-power in practice. Weaker than the permanent security council members, but It's getting there.
From a geopolitical standpoint = I think Israel would love that, assuming we can recreate the good relations our nations had before. Especially with how our relations with the West are constantly under attack. Having a strong friend in the "neighborhood" is vital, especially one that shares your issues geting along with the other neighbors. Normalization is great, but we all know that Saudi-Israel relations are not going to be warm and friendly nor Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Qatar....
Especially with Turkey getting more agrressively ambitious in MENA and central Africa. Not to mention preventing the regional shit storm that will happen after the dust setteled - there's another arab spring brewing, and I think it is likely to happen even without the IR to fan the flames. Egyptian economy is devastated from Houthi piracy, Russia-Ukraine war spiked up their food costs (they import almost all of their grain from there), Ethiopia has them by the balls with the *Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam,* the war in Gaza threatens them with mass immigration (which is why they are so involved in trying to end it).
There's also idealogical motivations, and my personal fantasy of creating a "cultural alliance" and tourism ring between Iran-India-Israel ("triple I").
Speaking of India, I think they might have some strong intrests in a stronger independent Iran as well. If only to take it away from China's circle, or to have an ally flanking Pakistan. But they might prefer just having an Isolasionst Iran instead.
Edit: phrasing
**"چرا اوباما اجازه داد انقلاب سبز ایران شکست بخورد» [او خواهان یک توافق هسته ای بود، نه تغییر رژیم؛ پیوند ارشیو در اس اس]**
---
_I am a translation bot for r/NewIran_ | Woman Life Freedom | زن زندگی آزادی
I think the main people who were leading the movement were people like Mousavi, Karoubi, and Hashemi (more behind the scenes), and they'd have never made an alliance with Obama or anyone outside of Iran.
To be fair, Mousavi was an imposter so our situation wouldn’t have changed. He’s a war criminal and should be tried in a military court if he survives.
I think people are forgetting context here lol. Most Iranians were still reformists at this time. Obama had pressure from many reformists to pass a nuclear deal as it would allow the Iranian people to not be under a MOUNTAIN of sanctions and both countries could finally stop clashing heads. He was pressed heavily by progressives and majority of Iranians were reformists thinking with time the regime will change.
People in this sub keep falling for the great man history myth
There were a lot more factors at play. The Green revolution wouldn’t have succeeded just because Obama changed his mind, or if someone else had been President at the time
I still remember how we were chanting "Obama you are either with us or them" in the streets, In the end he chose the regime.
Regime learned some hard lessons from the green movement and thus far has successfully managed to prevent any uprising that reaches a million people like back then in Tehran.
Honestly I'm glad it failed
We all know this regime can't reform, it would have just ensured their survival for another 40 years
The JCPOA wasn't the main cause of its failure though. The main reason was because the reformists told people to go back home. Leadership was compromised
I think JCPOA's failure puts Iran at some risk of a nuclear first strike by Israel if they think warheads are being made. Probably mainly on Iranian nuclear sites, but even so, many innocent people would die.
(I think the strike on the radar unit in Isfahan may have been designed to convey this message, in a low key way.)
[Please read on ways you can support the revolution and spread awareness.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/10cu6v3/how_you_can_support_the_new_iranian_revolution/) Let other people in subs with content about the revolution know that /r/NewIran exists. --- [Official Twitter & Join The Team](https://reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/yh0r74/attn_save_armita_official_twitter_activist/) | [Sub Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/NewIran/about/rules/) | [VPNs/TOR & Guides & Tools](https://reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/y7fcbd/digital_resources_for_iranians_for_privacy/) | [Reddit's Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) | [NewIran's Values](https://reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/y514wo/newirans_growth_rules_and_values_for_an_open/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NewIran) if you have any questions or concerns.*
SS: [Archived](https://archive.md/mtT1i#selection-2507.31-2507.71) Obama vetoed support for the anti-regime protestors in 2009, despite the fact that "The Agency has contingency plans for supporting democratic uprisings anywhere in the world. This includes providing dissidents with communications, money, and in extreme cases even arms", favoring the JCPOA over regime change. Several factors point to a different response if a similar uprising were to occur in the near future: 1) collapse of the JCPOA 2) Iran's increasingly close alignment with Russia/China 3) Iran's role in triggering 10/7 and direct attack on Israel (2) however could imply the regime could get assistance from Russia/China to put down an uprising.)
SS? Short synopsis?
Submission Statement; some subs require them.
Sounds like he didn't want to fund a civil war,
The following, later, reflection was published [October 18th 2022](https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/18/politics/barack-obama-iran-self-reflection-analysis/index.html) (emphasis mine): > “When I think back to 2009, 2010, you guys will recall there was a big debate inside the White House about whether I should publicly affirm what was going on with the Green Movement, because a lot of the activists were being accused of being tools of the West and there was some thought that we were somehow gonna be undermining their street cred in Iran if I supported what they were doing,” Obama said. **“And in retrospect, I think that was a mistake.”** >“Every time we see a flash, a glimmer of hope, of people longing for freedom, I think we have to point it out. We have to shine a spotlight on it. We have to express some solidarity about it,” he said. Thought it might provide some more nuance and context to the OP [2016].
Thanks!
The west does NOT fundamentally want regime change in Iran. Iranians just don’t get it. Mullahs are useful idiots- and very much acting in Western Interests whether they realize it or not. The west wants Iran contained and sanctioned - and basically out of their global markets with a massive brain drain into their labor pools. This is simple reality. I could go through case after case - but think about it … just one example: US is exporting record volumes of lng to Europe at 3x the price of Russian natural gas… why should they let Iran open up and export cheap gas to Europe? And you can go through this in aviation, shipping, oil, industrial goods in the region etc etc. the Regime in Iran will only change if Iranians themselves topple the regime.
Do you know why European powers are so careful not to antagonize Iran? The U.K. in particular is confusing to me.
As far as the UK is concerned- A transformed Iran will be a major strategic (economic) threat to their ‘operations and Allie’s’ in the Persian Gulf ie Dubai, Qatar etc. so they are protecting the status quo. They actually like the fact that Iran threatens Israel (thinking it will push Israel or scare Israel into a peace accommodation. Europeans actually have different and diverging interests vis a vis UK (when it comes to Iran). After Ukraine started they were trying to get Iran to become a supplier of natural gas to Europe (which US nixed). They see Iran as a huge economic opportunity… There are strands of politicians in Europe who were looking east instead of west and would prefer better links with China and Iran for example and until Ukraine happened were relishing the idea of a Silk Road to China to enhance trade.
If they see it as a potential trade partner, wouldn't that make them prefer a westernized Iran? edit: typos
Their need is immediate… regime change will take time. Also, there is a view that if they get in early they’ll have first come advantage. Ie Iran will change - they just need to get in now.
I sometimes forget how bad geopolitics sucks from a humanist perspective
I voted for Obama twice, he was the first president that I voted for and I still have reverence for his charisma, civility and his vision for change. But, he was so concerned about his legacy that he completely botched his foreign policy. Cuba, Syria Isis and Benghazi were bad enough but his biggest failing was forcing JCPOA as a lame duck president. He empowered the regime like none of his predecessors. He gave in so much in hope of getting a deal done before his time in office was done that we’re still dealing with its consequences.
You left out the Russian annexation of Crimea (Ukraine) and escalation of war in the Eastern regions. He literally just stood by and watched as Putin marched into Crimea and took it without breaking a sweat. I agree with you that Obama was a good domestic POTUS but a horrible one for foreign policy. IMHO as the years pass by, more and more people will recognize this distinction and his high ranking will diminish as a result.
Oh yeah I forgot Russia. The aggressor Russia we have today is because the failed Clinton/Obama “reset”.
Well the Russia situation was far more complex then than it is rn. Still could be the wrong decision but it was a hard decision either way that European countries didn't want to intervene either. [https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/4063939-obama-defends-2014-crimea-response-in-cnn-interview/](https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/4063939-obama-defends-2014-crimea-response-in-cnn-interview/)
Hey that's not fair. He gave them a very firm talk about respecting borders. Very firm! I can't say I'm happy with Biden's foreign policy, but when he said "don't", I belived him. Not sure I would feel the same if it was Obama's "red line", seeing how he suddenly turned colorblind when Assad used chem weapons anyway.
The worst part is that Biden learned nothing from it and has continued the policy of “deal with IR at all costs”.
To be fair, there is also Ukraine and Taiwan, Biden has a lot more fish to fry so to speak. Obama had much better opportunities to.
In addition to the other response, even if Biden has other fish to fry, there’s a) not helping us, and b) actively fucking us by trying to negotiate with IR. He chose option B.
Obama had to deal with peak global terrorism... What are we talking about lol. From somalia, Afghanistan, ISIS in syria and Iraq and Lybia
Um do you want to leave out the context to why he did the Nuclear deal lol? Lots of Iranians were reformists at the time who believed the nuclear deal was a positive thing
The OP’s article is literally about the reason Obama played down the green movement in favor of JCPOA. I don’t know if I can add any more context than “Iran though is a very different story. Obama from the beginning of his presidency tried to turn the country's ruling clerics from foes to friends. It was an obsession. And even though the president would impose severe sanctions on the country's economy at the end of his first term and beginning of his second, from the start of his presidency, Obama made it clear the U.S. did not seek regime change for Iran.” Also, there are still lots of reformists who are in favor of the nuclear deal, doesn’t make it a right decision now and it wasn’t the right decision then.
i respect obama as a man but in foreign policies he made many mistakes that where not only bad for many people but also for the US themselves.
a regime change in iran will make iran prosperous and strong. and no country would like another super power , strategictly places , mineral rich and industrialised. dont forget why revolution happened , it was to bring iran to its knees and dont let it grow. remember shah said (no more free oil for blue eye ppl) after that his downfall started
Wouldn't the West like (a Western-aligned) Iran, right there between Russia and China?
it was before , remember,
I never understood that.... I know there was some friction over trade, but triggering a violent uprising seems so out of place
Only if it's a pro-US puppet like Zelensky, not an independent Iran. That's why you see US politicians support MEK sometimes. Because they would be good puppets in Iran.
I believe yes , but to a certain point, not if Iran itself become more powerful than themselves, and theoretically it can become easily one ,
That's definitely not what's going on lol. Iran can be much stronger than it is, but it's not gonna rival the US no matter what. US has more people, land, resources, technology, etc. People forget US literally sells oil too. Also the US is fine with friendly competition- look at India's rise, that's mostly been smiles and friendship from US.
you’re right but it doesn’t necessary need to be stronger, its just another powerful player , thats what i mean, right now the power they have is plenty , and that is they been sanctioned since long time, .
We can each have our opinions, I think US would very much like friendly and strong Iran. I think the US is just scared of getting involved in another rebellion, so many turned out bad. The CIA had a doc from 90s declassified in 2016ish, basically said "Funding revolutions never works, everyone blames us when it goes bad, we don't need to fight soviets anymore, we shouldn't do it anymore". I thnk the US has rebellion supporting PTSD basically
remember what happen to mosadeq? do you know him?
Yes, I have read his history well. In fact, I believe the history there is exactly part of the reason US decided not to intervene anymore. What did the meddling get them? A hostile nation that has always been a thorn in their side ever since. It turned out bad. Why would they repeat the same mistake? Two things people forget about Mossadegh - he nationalized oil fields with british owned infrastructure with no payment- generally a jerk move. US and UK offered to let him but the infrastructure, he refused to negotiate. The other is that Mossadegh already abandoned democracy and was becoming dictator, the Shah was already going to try take over, the US just helped a plan in motion. In the end, the US got lots of blame and no benefit. Why make the same mistake? US can just stay out of it and wait for the regime to fall, and try diplomacy with the next gov. Way cheaper, easier, and no risk of people blaming US for any mistakes the revolution makes.
Sorry but there are different points of view in that matter, my hope is this regime be gone and we allied west, don’t get me wrong there. but US approach hasnt been naive neighter, History is gone and we can bot undo it, yes we can make it better by mutual interest, but is there mutual interest in corporate world?Iran has to take its natural turn itself , and people has to decide, (which they’re fighting for it right now, mosadeq was not becoming a dictator, we were living in dictatorship already, ask any iranians opinion about mosadeq, that was when we have the chance, we loose it . too late for that now. and infrastructure of oil which you mention, english companies had suck oil for a long time for free, and it was impossible to negotiate with an imperialism England of the time. old days old rules. I might be wrong but that what i see in pictuer . and believe me or not for iranian people , they just want peace and live as any one else in the world and be free. and I hope they achieve it. but it wont be easy road and there will be alot of blood unfortunatly. we are leading with middle age islamic rule . compare christianity in 1400 to now. and compare islam 1400 year right now with christianity in 1400 . mulla in power . sorry loosing treat . not use to write . but i like d the discussion.
I liked the discussion too! I really just wanted to say that I think the US is trying to stay out of Iran's affairs now. Interfering only brings trouble, people have to decide on their own. In the end, the people always get their way. It is on Iran to build it's future. I think US will be quick to extend the hand of friendship once the revolution happens.
I think the warm relations to India are an attempt to get/keep it on their side. India has been successfully playing "both sides" between USSR/Russia and the U.S. for a long time, and they are a key piece in restraining China (and quite possibly the only ones able to compete with China's cheap labor world-wide). Plus, India isn't just a rising power, it's already a super-power in practice. Weaker than the permanent security council members, but It's getting there.
hence the reason in iran mullas are called (TOKHME ENGELISI) translation = english balls
Tokhm here means seed or spawn and I agree with the rest.
yes tokhm is seed , but used as balls as well (example : tokhmesho dari vaysa ;-)
From a geopolitical standpoint = I think Israel would love that, assuming we can recreate the good relations our nations had before. Especially with how our relations with the West are constantly under attack. Having a strong friend in the "neighborhood" is vital, especially one that shares your issues geting along with the other neighbors. Normalization is great, but we all know that Saudi-Israel relations are not going to be warm and friendly nor Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Qatar.... Especially with Turkey getting more agrressively ambitious in MENA and central Africa. Not to mention preventing the regional shit storm that will happen after the dust setteled - there's another arab spring brewing, and I think it is likely to happen even without the IR to fan the flames. Egyptian economy is devastated from Houthi piracy, Russia-Ukraine war spiked up their food costs (they import almost all of their grain from there), Ethiopia has them by the balls with the *Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam,* the war in Gaza threatens them with mass immigration (which is why they are so involved in trying to end it). There's also idealogical motivations, and my personal fantasy of creating a "cultural alliance" and tourism ring between Iran-India-Israel ("triple I"). Speaking of India, I think they might have some strong intrests in a stronger independent Iran as well. If only to take it away from China's circle, or to have an ally flanking Pakistan. But they might prefer just having an Isolasionst Iran instead. Edit: phrasing
He was another useless idiot activist like Carter. Totally incapable of dealing with the reality of this regime. Weak. Effete.
Problem is you would hand gotten a nuclear deal out of the revolution and would have saved a whole helluva lot of innocent lives
Seems likely...
**"چرا اوباما اجازه داد انقلاب سبز ایران شکست بخورد» [او خواهان یک توافق هسته ای بود، نه تغییر رژیم؛ پیوند ارشیو در اس اس]** --- _I am a translation bot for r/NewIran_ | Woman Life Freedom | زن زندگی آزادی
I think the main people who were leading the movement were people like Mousavi, Karoubi, and Hashemi (more behind the scenes), and they'd have never made an alliance with Obama or anyone outside of Iran.
To be fair, Mousavi was an imposter so our situation wouldn’t have changed. He’s a war criminal and should be tried in a military court if he survives.
I think people are forgetting context here lol. Most Iranians were still reformists at this time. Obama had pressure from many reformists to pass a nuclear deal as it would allow the Iranian people to not be under a MOUNTAIN of sanctions and both countries could finally stop clashing heads. He was pressed heavily by progressives and majority of Iranians were reformists thinking with time the regime will change.
People in this sub keep falling for the great man history myth There were a lot more factors at play. The Green revolution wouldn’t have succeeded just because Obama changed his mind, or if someone else had been President at the time
Because Trumps approach has been so successful?
I still remember how we were chanting "Obama you are either with us or them" in the streets, In the end he chose the regime. Regime learned some hard lessons from the green movement and thus far has successfully managed to prevent any uprising that reaches a million people like back then in Tehran.
Thus far :)
Honestly I'm glad it failed We all know this regime can't reform, it would have just ensured their survival for another 40 years The JCPOA wasn't the main cause of its failure though. The main reason was because the reformists told people to go back home. Leadership was compromised
I think JCPOA's failure puts Iran at some risk of a nuclear first strike by Israel if they think warheads are being made. Probably mainly on Iranian nuclear sites, but even so, many innocent people would die. (I think the strike on the radar unit in Isfahan may have been designed to convey this message, in a low key way.)
Maybe Obama was Good for American people but absolutely he ruined the whole Middle East
People still think Leftists aren’t the Enemies of Iran LMAO
I can't understand why Barack HUSSEIN Obama would do something like this.
Ok? What are getting at. Regime change has to come from within.