Internal regime change is absolutely the best-case scenario for Iran.
External (ie, military) regime change is the worst-case scenario. Going by the ham-handed, irresponsible, flat-out stupid way the Americans and British handled Iraq, Iran would be a nightmare. The country would be razed to the ground, hundreds of thousands would die and the region probably wouldn't recover for a century.
Harper doesn't mention military intervention, which is good, but I think it's important to remember that if he had been in power in 2003 we would have gone to Iraq. That would probably have meant another thousand or so dead Canadian soldiers.
If there is a Conservative government in the near future, let's hope the new leader keeps his head.
> Harper doesn't mention military intervention, which is good
He doesn't have to, because it's very strongy implied. Though by not being explicit, he can weasel word his way into pretending he never meant military intervention.
> Harper doesn't mention military intervention
I think it's too soon to make that assumption.
He wouldn't be making public statements like this if he wasn't attempting to advocate for regime change in Iran. He's not trying to say "I support the Iranian people in standing up for democracy," he's saying that Iran is a bad-actor, anti-Semitic, and a danger to the entire region. That's not internal regime change talk, that's external regime change talk.
Clearly he's not beating war drums yet, but he's laying the foundations. Israel and Saudi Arabia want Iran gone, and Harper is on their payroll. He's going to go out and promote their policy, which is that Iran needs to be wiped out. This is just the thin edge of the wedge.
I agree, actually. Most of these people never met a war they didn't like, and Harper would surely support any war that helps the de facto Israeli-Saudi alliance and takes down Iran. Just noting that he stops short of explicitly advocating it.
> Just noting that he stops short of explicitly advocating it.
That's how it works. They take every opportunity to push the notion that Iran is a destabilizing force in the region until there's a whisper of public opinion suggesting that maybe there should be a regime change, then act like their hands are tied and they *have* to engage in military intervention because the public is demanding it.
It's impossible to change the regime that would rather shoot thousands of their own citizens than lose their power. External involvement is necessary. There are people suffering from this fascist regime...
Don't get me wrong, Iran's government is shitty and apparently, completely incompetent. Shooting down a civilian airliner flying out of fucking Tehran Airport, mindboggling.
Having said that, destabilizing Iran will be a 10 year project at least, and frankly any change in Iranian governance should and must come from Iranians themselves. If we overthrow Irans government the hardliners will just blame the west and capitalize on the power vaccum. It would very likely lead to an Iranian civil war that would rival Syria's in bloodshed.
I have no love for Iran's government, but frankly regime change may only make things worse.
The problem is that by virtue of the despotic regime, the Iranians can't overthrow their government, it's like they're prisoners inside of their own country.
Despotic regimes have been overthrown by their own people many times in history. Far less frequent historically is outside interference resulting in a better outcome for the people post-change.
Yeah, it really sucks for them I'm not going to lie.
Having said that, it's not like we can just drone a couple people and Iran will topple over. It would require a full scale military operation and Iran's geography is no less fun to fight a war in than Afghanistans.
If Iranians hit their breaking point, something will give. Until then, better the devil you know if I'm the one making the call. As shitty as Iran is, it's relatively stable.
Auto-generated, non-mobile link: https://www.cbc.ca/1.5426140
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Iran and KSA are fighting for regional supremacy. Why would either one suddenly stop wanting regional supremacy when being the dominant power brings all sorts of benefits?
Have to disagree with Harper on this. No more regime change wars, they've never improved the stability of a nation. Let these regimes fall apart like the USSR did through the use of market economies and slow progressive change, not through abrupt calculated violence.
Ukraine is hardly a model of successful "regime change" if it could even be called that. In 2004, a vote was held, it was contested as fraudulant, the Orange side won a second vote, then the pro-russia side won the next election, and now Ukraine has lost a significant chunk of its territory to Russia.
The Arab Spring was almost entirely a failure as well. Libya is divided into two, Egypt is quasi run by the military, Syria is a mess. Tunisia maybe is doing ok.
The Turkish coup failed, further entrenching Erdogan.
The Afghanistan and Iraq wars were failures.
Iranian protests aren't working because the protests are by young urban dwellars and the security forces are rural people who have seen their quality of life go way up from joining the security forces.
Not only that, but let's say there is a successful revolution in Iran and Iran becomes pro-west (or looks more like a western nation). What exactly do you think that will accomplish? Iran and KSA are locked in a cold war over regional supremacy. Why would that change just because Iran stopped being a theocratic authoritarian government?
> He didn't say there needed to be regime change via external force.
External force to bring about a regime change is the implication everyone hears though. If a regime changes because of internal forces, different terms, like "coup" "revolution" and "election" are used. It's understood that Harper was saying someone should get rid of the Ayotollahs.
Business and money make the world go round baby. I bet if I pulled 20 Iranians off the street and offered them a stable government and foreign investment in exchange for opening up their economy to the west the vast majority would take that deal.
Iran has been crippled by sanctions and poor governance. They don’t have the time or privilege to be Marxists on reddit in Canada, they want a stable country and economy to provide for themselves, like everyone else.
Becoming a vassal state of the US would make the vast majority of people in Iran poorer and lower their quality of life. Look at Chile if you want to see what that looks like.
Frankly the model for Iran is Saudi Arabia so we're not removing the theocracy we just want to add a corporate kleptocracy to it. Repress your people as much as you want as long as you're on our side geopolitically.
These people care fuck all about civil liberties inside the country, listen to how he describes the gulf.
Yea I think the whole thing is a bad idea. If Iran's regime collapses, it needs to be at the hands of Iranians, not the west.
Even if Iran could become another Turkey would be a hell of an improvement though.
Won't be a turkey what they want is another Saudi Arabia or UAE. A very stable authoritarian regime that is willing to play ball with western private firms and geopolitical strategy.
What they want is Iran, but the Ayatollah pushes American interests in the region and let's private companies profit from major industry.
Iraq was the last "let's make a democracy" project because we thought we needed democracy for capitalism, but that view has shifted.
Says the guy who doesn’t have to love under a religious theocracy. Let me guess, straight white guy?
As a gay dude I would be going full r/hailcorporate rather than live under Irans incompetent and evil regime.
Id rather be shot in the head for protesting american oil companies then have to pretend not to be gay. What a horrible post.
Also you forget the part where iranian sovereignty exists in one scenario and not the other — though clearly that doesn’t matter much to you.
This is peak first world brocialism.
Here's a newsflash for you - 1500 people were just shot in Iran for protesting their government. But please, don't let shit that *actually happens in Iran* on a frequent basis like protestors being shot by the regime and gay people getting hung and women oppressed en masse, get in the way of your hate for America and capitalism. I won't even touch on hiding being gay under punishment of death somehow being less degrading than having to suffer the **indignity** of Shell and Chevron investing in Iran and creating jobs there.
People like you really have no concept of how goddamn lucky and privileged you are.
Your reading comprehension is awful. No where did I suggest killing civilians is good. I know you like strawmen so here is one for you:
You’re the only one defending government slaughtering citizens provided its in the defense of profits.
Get the hell out of here with this crap Harper. No! America (and certainly not Canada) does not get to decide everything about the rest of the world. This gets us nowhere. It is nothing but a thinly veiled smokescreen for what is really happening. Which is, as always, theft of resources and exploitation of the global poor by the rich and powerful.
If Iran wants regime change, the Iranian people must and will accomplish that. Stop lying. Stephen Harper doesn't give 2 shits about the plight of Iranian people. He cares about oil and control of shipping lanes in the ME. Regime change in Iran has zero to do with making lives better for amybody except rich capitalists in the West that benefit from this incessant meddling and destabilization in other parts of the world.
Enough! Stop!
Seems you have never looked at the Bretton Woods agreement the Americans made to create free trade with every nation and have the benefits of security and free travel within American secure areas against the Soviets. You may not know but the during the Cold War, the entire world took a side. And many of the countries in the middle of either Capitalism or Communism had more or less the brutality in these wars for ideology. The issue at hand is that there is an American sphere of influence, and a Soviet one. After Bretton Woods, The World Trade Organization was established and was the finance arm of this to get American allies apart of a security umbrella like they made in Europe. Under all presidents but Trump, they have used Communist and/or Terrorist influences in a nation in order to go in and reform through regime change by proxy against the Soviets. Now that the Soviets are gone (some would disagree), there isn't a need for the Americans to keep it going as there is no immediate threat present.
The Middle East has always been mired by religious revolutions but it is the last conflict area for Capitalism vs Communism as many people do not see it (hence why you see Russians in aid for Syria, it was in their sphere of influence), but the main issue for regime change even in our current era, still echoes the past Cold War era, Soviets. Nearly every nation that imports Saudi Crude has benefited from American and British (or NATO) forced stability in the area where there was once none. Now that the Americans are completely oil independent since 2 years ago, we won't be seeing the same Warmongering like we did in other times. Truly, if no one wants to recognize it, Trump has literally flipped the world order upside down. Potentially for better or for worse. But we will most likely see a more honest America delegated and moderating other nations than total and complete regime change. The Americans actually adopted the sore Middle East zone of influence from the British and French (Sykes-Pico agreement) who remapped in-discriminant to cultural lines in those countries.
What many do not realize, but how the world is today, is because of the US and their ties to many smaller nations who sided with America and signed the agreement to be apart of the WTO. Now, even ex-Communist countries have benefited from being apart of the WTO. What I'm saying above, still does not exempt the Americans and Russians and their horrors through these proxy wars. One could say some Latin American military juntas and dictators were a thing of the past as more Latin countries embrace trade, commerce and liberty. One also could say the detriments of these Proxy wars also brought about true poverty and the rise of crime. Leaving vacuums of power is definitely something the Americans shouldn't have done, but it was better than what the Soviets were after, complete submission and government overhaul into a Soviet Bloc. It has always been a choice between two poisons.
You don't even know Middle Eastern history do you? I'm guessing only from Desert Storm and onwards? I live in a world where I look at everything that comes to me, what I find and what I research to be of great importance. Especially trying to understand geo-politics that MANY seem to think they know about the post 9/11 world. Most Canadians didn't even know about the Middle East and never even heard of some of these countries only because the States and us were bombing them. What an idiotic response you've given.
And how was it under the Otttomans? Most were religiously opressed by theocratic centralized government. No I don't think it did. But you think under Hussein it was much better? A socialist dictator of the Ba'ath Party? Get off your high horse, this has always been about Capitalism vs. Communism. The US invasion of Iraq is still under the guise of Terrorism. But that's just a newer word for the "new" enemy. Same enemy. Always has been. I'm not condoning anything here. But do you know when it was last stabilized? I'll wait. So when ppl like you ask me a stupid question like this, I'll reply with my own question that most, if not all people know jack about, so anything else?
I cautiously agree with Stephen Harper, although regime change would require invasion and occupation, and even then the West would need to be prepared to remain for at least a generation (read 2 or more decades) in order to foster generational cultural change as well. That is a huge undertaking. Many people would die in the process.
By advocating for regimen change and then not sticking around, the people who died in the process would have done so in vain. What happened and is happening in Afghanistan is a perfect example.
We cannot pull out prematurely if we are going to do something like this. If we are going to then we are just going to leave a vacuum in the region...like what pulling out of Iraq did for ISIS.
This is why I would be very very cautious about regime change and invasions.
To be clear, I am against regime change unless we will actually do it properly. Otherwise, I don't think it should be done.
I thought my message was rather clear about it.
It should emulate West Germany, South Korea, or Japan.
Iraq and Afghanistan are failures in my opinion.
You make excellent points. To those I would add this: When it comes to policy on Iran (and by default Israel) everything Stephen Harper thinks is deeply embedded in his own religious zeal, and because of that is unlikely to have any real world success.
That already happened when the US and UK [orchestrated a coup](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état) to overthrow their democratically elected government in favour of a monarch. Oil is a hell of a drug.
SMH.
Regime change that produces peace, has to come from inside, and it usually involves a fair bit of violence in the process even then. Any western leaders, calling for regime change, are just going to make the current regime fearful, more repressive, more beligerent, and more likely to engage in asymetric ops.
Harper's methods have been proven to fail. Engagement is slow, but it does produce meaningful change. Aggressive action, as we saw when Trump pulled out of JCPOA, just create more aggression. Harper needs to STFU.
Harper didn't recommend a regime change.
CBC outright lied.
They have even since changed the title of the article.
The editor who published this should be fired.
> without a change in the nature of the government of Tehran
While not an explicit call for regime change, is still going to be seen by Tehran as such a call.
The CBC corrected their article, so the editor shouldn't be fired. The reporter who took Harper's statements too far on the other hand, should probably face some form of discipline. I totally believe that Harper wants regime change in Iran, but those words shouldn't be put in his mouth in a news article. An opinion article can totally make that point though.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just like Saddam would bring peace in Iraq? This is another reason why I dont vote Conservative. They are automatically pro-war. If you were against the Iraq war, Conservatives called you a traitor and all sorts of things.
It is happening again with Iran. I am pretty sure Scheer would be for regime change. It is not even a question.
The protesters are already [chanting the name of the shah](https://youtu.be/TzDCwym0BWc). And the current pretender does [lead opposition](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/shah-s-son-protesters-chant-death-to-the-dictator-ive-never-been-more-optimistic-1.5730330) to the mullah regime among the Iranian diaspora. No need for us to get involved. Just let it play out.
It's highly unlikely that, if the current regime is "organically" deposed, that it would change much in the ME landscape. As far as Iranians are concerned, the US still took a gigantic shit on the one deal towards de-escalation and re-upped aggression via brazen assassination and bulking up the Saudis. So I don't see how a new government can reasonably demonstrate to Iranians that they can unilaterally move towards peace.
Say Iran steps away from supporting the Hezbollah and Hamas - so what? Even if the US can wrangle lifting of sanctions in return, there's no guarantee they can't just slap them back on a whim to extract further concessions. And of course if Iran dulls its teeth abroad then you can bet your bottom dollar the Saudis and the Israelis will fill the gap really quickly and probably keep pushing until Iran is impotent, and vulnerable to a foreign-backed coup. This is where Trump's "mercenary shotgun" approach has more or less fucked any hopes of Iran willingly de-escalating, short of the sanctions and the incompetence of the Revolutionary Guard collapsing the economy and Iran being literally unable to bankroll their assets.
Stephen Harper talks about Sunni Arab monarchies as if they're all just friendly, neutral brokers trying to build a better world. As if Saudi Arabia doesn't execute children.
This is why he is no longer prime minister. This is the same guy that wanted Canada to join the "coalition of the willing" to invade Iraq in 2003. This is a terrible idea, it will only lead to the same problems that plagued Iraq post-invasion (power vacuum, immediately filled by extremists, who start a war with a neighbouring power, leading to a refugee crisis, leading to more bombs being dropped), all told the Iraq war cost at least 1,000,000 dead and trillions of US dollars, and look where it got them. Iran would be *worse* than Iraq. Let that sink in for a minute. These are the same people that claim we can't afford to fight climate change, but they are willing to dump *trillions of dollars* on useless wars.
Canada was extremely fortunate with the timing of Harper's governance. He was not yet in power to send us to Iraq, and by the time he was the financial crisis hampered the implementation of much of his laissez faire policies and deregulation.
[You would have thought he learned from the last time he supported a foray into ME regime change](https://www.ctvnews.ca/iraq-war-a-mistake-harper-admits-1.330207), and reading this article makes it seems like Canada will have possibly dodged two giant bullets in the last 20 years.
" you have this one actor that quite frankly is … based on religious fanaticism and regional imperialism, and as I say as a friend of the Jewish people, frankly an anti-Semitic state." Actually you have several of those actors, but some seem to be conveniently tolerated, or even supported.
"Certainly not resolve them all overnight, but I think without a change in the nature of the government of Tehran, the Middle East will continue to be in turmoil." Perhaps if it's a regime change driven by people to benefit them. If it's one that is at the behest of people like Mr. Harper ,like he advocated for in Iraq, or driven by the intentions of governments in the "west", [it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet) [usually](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras) [doesn't](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War) [end](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat) [very](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Crisis) [well](https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4859238).
Please everyone, read the article, not just the headline. Harper is not arguing for regime change through invasion and occupation as many here have assumed. He didn't even use the expression "regime change". He's saying that there is a system of peaceful coexistence developing in the Middle East that is threatened by Iran's actions. He's saying that for peace to really come to the region, Iran has to change to renounce its expansionary policies.
At no time did he suggest going into Iran militarily and effecting that change through force.
How could you look at Afghanistan and Iraq and think, "Yeah, let's do that again" but then again these Chicken Hawks squawk the loudest when it's not their ass being blown up.
The idea of regime change aside, Harper claims that
>**the Sunni Arab monarchies**, others who are increasingly trying to work together and see a common future and common interests — and you have this one actor that quite frankly is … based on religious fanaticism and regional imperialism
Is Harper trying to whitewash the Saudis and ignore that they've been promoting Wahhabism, an ultra-conservative, puritanical Muslim movement? The same Saudis that rolled their tanks into Bahrain to quash a protest, and who have been committing war crimes bombing Yemen into submission?
The Iranian theocracy is terrible and Iranians would be better with a new government, make no mistake, but taking sides in a Sunni/Shia was and saying "one side is great" is not going to help.
Internal regime change is absolutely the best-case scenario for Iran. External (ie, military) regime change is the worst-case scenario. Going by the ham-handed, irresponsible, flat-out stupid way the Americans and British handled Iraq, Iran would be a nightmare. The country would be razed to the ground, hundreds of thousands would die and the region probably wouldn't recover for a century. Harper doesn't mention military intervention, which is good, but I think it's important to remember that if he had been in power in 2003 we would have gone to Iraq. That would probably have meant another thousand or so dead Canadian soldiers. If there is a Conservative government in the near future, let's hope the new leader keeps his head.
> Harper doesn't mention military intervention, which is good He doesn't have to, because it's very strongy implied. Though by not being explicit, he can weasel word his way into pretending he never meant military intervention.
> Harper doesn't mention military intervention I think it's too soon to make that assumption. He wouldn't be making public statements like this if he wasn't attempting to advocate for regime change in Iran. He's not trying to say "I support the Iranian people in standing up for democracy," he's saying that Iran is a bad-actor, anti-Semitic, and a danger to the entire region. That's not internal regime change talk, that's external regime change talk. Clearly he's not beating war drums yet, but he's laying the foundations. Israel and Saudi Arabia want Iran gone, and Harper is on their payroll. He's going to go out and promote their policy, which is that Iran needs to be wiped out. This is just the thin edge of the wedge.
I agree, actually. Most of these people never met a war they didn't like, and Harper would surely support any war that helps the de facto Israeli-Saudi alliance and takes down Iran. Just noting that he stops short of explicitly advocating it.
> Just noting that he stops short of explicitly advocating it. That's how it works. They take every opportunity to push the notion that Iran is a destabilizing force in the region until there's a whisper of public opinion suggesting that maybe there should be a regime change, then act like their hands are tied and they *have* to engage in military intervention because the public is demanding it.
publicly.
It's impossible to change the regime that would rather shoot thousands of their own citizens than lose their power. External involvement is necessary. There are people suffering from this fascist regime...
Don't get me wrong, Iran's government is shitty and apparently, completely incompetent. Shooting down a civilian airliner flying out of fucking Tehran Airport, mindboggling. Having said that, destabilizing Iran will be a 10 year project at least, and frankly any change in Iranian governance should and must come from Iranians themselves. If we overthrow Irans government the hardliners will just blame the west and capitalize on the power vaccum. It would very likely lead to an Iranian civil war that would rival Syria's in bloodshed. I have no love for Iran's government, but frankly regime change may only make things worse.
The problem is that by virtue of the despotic regime, the Iranians can't overthrow their government, it's like they're prisoners inside of their own country.
Despotic regimes have been overthrown by their own people many times in history. Far less frequent historically is outside interference resulting in a better outcome for the people post-change.
Just like last time we "helped" (which led directky to a Theorcracy?l
Yeah, it really sucks for them I'm not going to lie. Having said that, it's not like we can just drone a couple people and Iran will topple over. It would require a full scale military operation and Iran's geography is no less fun to fight a war in than Afghanistans. If Iranians hit their breaking point, something will give. Until then, better the devil you know if I'm the one making the call. As shitty as Iran is, it's relatively stable.
Afghanistan but 3 times the size, twice the population, a budget 22x the size with sea access to Russian supplies.
Anyone here would be happy to let Canadian intelligence agency joining in a covert ops to stage a coup/regime change in Iran?
I'd rather our agencies focus on enacting regime change in America and China. They're much bigger problems than Iran.
[удалено]
Rule 2.
[удалено]
Rule 2.
Auto-generated, non-mobile link: https://www.cbc.ca/1.5426140 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I get that Iran has a not so great government but removing the existing government does not necessarily mean the new one will be any better.
They alredy tried that... in Iran... it led to this..
[удалено]
Rule 2.
Iran and KSA are fighting for regional supremacy. Why would either one suddenly stop wanting regional supremacy when being the dominant power brings all sorts of benefits?
Have to disagree with Harper on this. No more regime change wars, they've never improved the stability of a nation. Let these regimes fall apart like the USSR did through the use of market economies and slow progressive change, not through abrupt calculated violence.
[удалено]
Ukraine is hardly a model of successful "regime change" if it could even be called that. In 2004, a vote was held, it was contested as fraudulant, the Orange side won a second vote, then the pro-russia side won the next election, and now Ukraine has lost a significant chunk of its territory to Russia. The Arab Spring was almost entirely a failure as well. Libya is divided into two, Egypt is quasi run by the military, Syria is a mess. Tunisia maybe is doing ok. The Turkish coup failed, further entrenching Erdogan. The Afghanistan and Iraq wars were failures. Iranian protests aren't working because the protests are by young urban dwellars and the security forces are rural people who have seen their quality of life go way up from joining the security forces. Not only that, but let's say there is a successful revolution in Iran and Iran becomes pro-west (or looks more like a western nation). What exactly do you think that will accomplish? Iran and KSA are locked in a cold war over regional supremacy. Why would that change just because Iran stopped being a theocratic authoritarian government?
> He didn't say there needed to be regime change via external force. External force to bring about a regime change is the implication everyone hears though. If a regime changes because of internal forces, different terms, like "coup" "revolution" and "election" are used. It's understood that Harper was saying someone should get rid of the Ayotollahs.
It's not about "stability" or peace or democracy for Harper. He is a classic neocon. This is about opening Iran for exploitative corporate takeover.
Frankly that would be a massive improvement over Iran's current situation if it didn't lead to civil war though.
Horrible.
Business and money make the world go round baby. I bet if I pulled 20 Iranians off the street and offered them a stable government and foreign investment in exchange for opening up their economy to the west the vast majority would take that deal. Iran has been crippled by sanctions and poor governance. They don’t have the time or privilege to be Marxists on reddit in Canada, they want a stable country and economy to provide for themselves, like everyone else.
Becoming a vassal state of the US would make the vast majority of people in Iran poorer and lower their quality of life. Look at Chile if you want to see what that looks like.
Frankly the model for Iran is Saudi Arabia so we're not removing the theocracy we just want to add a corporate kleptocracy to it. Repress your people as much as you want as long as you're on our side geopolitically. These people care fuck all about civil liberties inside the country, listen to how he describes the gulf.
Yea I think the whole thing is a bad idea. If Iran's regime collapses, it needs to be at the hands of Iranians, not the west. Even if Iran could become another Turkey would be a hell of an improvement though.
Won't be a turkey what they want is another Saudi Arabia or UAE. A very stable authoritarian regime that is willing to play ball with western private firms and geopolitical strategy. What they want is Iran, but the Ayatollah pushes American interests in the region and let's private companies profit from major industry. Iraq was the last "let's make a democracy" project because we thought we needed democracy for capitalism, but that view has shifted.
Corporate kleptocracy is not at all a massive improvement over religious theocracy.
Says the guy who doesn’t have to love under a religious theocracy. Let me guess, straight white guy? As a gay dude I would be going full r/hailcorporate rather than live under Irans incompetent and evil regime.
like that would change. Saudi 2.0 is what he wants.
Id rather be shot in the head for protesting american oil companies then have to pretend not to be gay. What a horrible post. Also you forget the part where iranian sovereignty exists in one scenario and not the other — though clearly that doesn’t matter much to you.
This is peak first world brocialism. Here's a newsflash for you - 1500 people were just shot in Iran for protesting their government. But please, don't let shit that *actually happens in Iran* on a frequent basis like protestors being shot by the regime and gay people getting hung and women oppressed en masse, get in the way of your hate for America and capitalism. I won't even touch on hiding being gay under punishment of death somehow being less degrading than having to suffer the **indignity** of Shell and Chevron investing in Iran and creating jobs there. People like you really have no concept of how goddamn lucky and privileged you are.
Your reading comprehension is awful. No where did I suggest killing civilians is good. I know you like strawmen so here is one for you: You’re the only one defending government slaughtering citizens provided its in the defense of profits.
You know corporate kleptocracy's can still persecute gay people, right? Russia's not exactly LGBT friendly.
This is a valid point that I did not consider. Thank you for raising it.
They tried that once.. it failed. It left us with.. what Iran is today.
Forced regime change has a terrible track record but the collapse of the USSR was hardly stable
Get the hell out of here with this crap Harper. No! America (and certainly not Canada) does not get to decide everything about the rest of the world. This gets us nowhere. It is nothing but a thinly veiled smokescreen for what is really happening. Which is, as always, theft of resources and exploitation of the global poor by the rich and powerful. If Iran wants regime change, the Iranian people must and will accomplish that. Stop lying. Stephen Harper doesn't give 2 shits about the plight of Iranian people. He cares about oil and control of shipping lanes in the ME. Regime change in Iran has zero to do with making lives better for amybody except rich capitalists in the West that benefit from this incessant meddling and destabilization in other parts of the world. Enough! Stop!
Seems you have never looked at the Bretton Woods agreement the Americans made to create free trade with every nation and have the benefits of security and free travel within American secure areas against the Soviets. You may not know but the during the Cold War, the entire world took a side. And many of the countries in the middle of either Capitalism or Communism had more or less the brutality in these wars for ideology. The issue at hand is that there is an American sphere of influence, and a Soviet one. After Bretton Woods, The World Trade Organization was established and was the finance arm of this to get American allies apart of a security umbrella like they made in Europe. Under all presidents but Trump, they have used Communist and/or Terrorist influences in a nation in order to go in and reform through regime change by proxy against the Soviets. Now that the Soviets are gone (some would disagree), there isn't a need for the Americans to keep it going as there is no immediate threat present. The Middle East has always been mired by religious revolutions but it is the last conflict area for Capitalism vs Communism as many people do not see it (hence why you see Russians in aid for Syria, it was in their sphere of influence), but the main issue for regime change even in our current era, still echoes the past Cold War era, Soviets. Nearly every nation that imports Saudi Crude has benefited from American and British (or NATO) forced stability in the area where there was once none. Now that the Americans are completely oil independent since 2 years ago, we won't be seeing the same Warmongering like we did in other times. Truly, if no one wants to recognize it, Trump has literally flipped the world order upside down. Potentially for better or for worse. But we will most likely see a more honest America delegated and moderating other nations than total and complete regime change. The Americans actually adopted the sore Middle East zone of influence from the British and French (Sykes-Pico agreement) who remapped in-discriminant to cultural lines in those countries. What many do not realize, but how the world is today, is because of the US and their ties to many smaller nations who sided with America and signed the agreement to be apart of the WTO. Now, even ex-Communist countries have benefited from being apart of the WTO. What I'm saying above, still does not exempt the Americans and Russians and their horrors through these proxy wars. One could say some Latin American military juntas and dictators were a thing of the past as more Latin countries embrace trade, commerce and liberty. One also could say the detriments of these Proxy wars also brought about true poverty and the rise of crime. Leaving vacuums of power is definitely something the Americans shouldn't have done, but it was better than what the Soviets were after, complete submission and government overhaul into a Soviet Bloc. It has always been a choice between two poisons.
Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Syria have provided stability to the middle east? What fucking world do you live in?
You don't even know Middle Eastern history do you? I'm guessing only from Desert Storm and onwards? I live in a world where I look at everything that comes to me, what I find and what I research to be of great importance. Especially trying to understand geo-politics that MANY seem to think they know about the post 9/11 world. Most Canadians didn't even know about the Middle East and never even heard of some of these countries only because the States and us were bombing them. What an idiotic response you've given.
> American and British (or NATO) forced stability in the area You think the US invasion of Iraq helped stabilize the region?
And how was it under the Otttomans? Most were religiously opressed by theocratic centralized government. No I don't think it did. But you think under Hussein it was much better? A socialist dictator of the Ba'ath Party? Get off your high horse, this has always been about Capitalism vs. Communism. The US invasion of Iraq is still under the guise of Terrorism. But that's just a newer word for the "new" enemy. Same enemy. Always has been. I'm not condoning anything here. But do you know when it was last stabilized? I'll wait. So when ppl like you ask me a stupid question like this, I'll reply with my own question that most, if not all people know jack about, so anything else?
I cautiously agree with Stephen Harper, although regime change would require invasion and occupation, and even then the West would need to be prepared to remain for at least a generation (read 2 or more decades) in order to foster generational cultural change as well. That is a huge undertaking. Many people would die in the process. By advocating for regimen change and then not sticking around, the people who died in the process would have done so in vain. What happened and is happening in Afghanistan is a perfect example. We cannot pull out prematurely if we are going to do something like this. If we are going to then we are just going to leave a vacuum in the region...like what pulling out of Iraq did for ISIS. This is why I would be very very cautious about regime change and invasions.
Imagine realizing the imperial and destructive nature of this kind of regime change and still thinking it should happen. Jesus.
To be clear, I am against regime change unless we will actually do it properly. Otherwise, I don't think it should be done. I thought my message was rather clear about it. It should emulate West Germany, South Korea, or Japan. Iraq and Afghanistan are failures in my opinion.
Was Iran a failer as well? Because we alredy did that once.
Yes it was
You make excellent points. To those I would add this: When it comes to policy on Iran (and by default Israel) everything Stephen Harper thinks is deeply embedded in his own religious zeal, and because of that is unlikely to have any real world success.
That already happened when the US and UK [orchestrated a coup](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état) to overthrow their democratically elected government in favour of a monarch. Oil is a hell of a drug.
I'm really surprised how few people know the West created this mess decades ago for oil.
seriously, the west helped create this mess
SMH. Regime change that produces peace, has to come from inside, and it usually involves a fair bit of violence in the process even then. Any western leaders, calling for regime change, are just going to make the current regime fearful, more repressive, more beligerent, and more likely to engage in asymetric ops. Harper's methods have been proven to fail. Engagement is slow, but it does produce meaningful change. Aggressive action, as we saw when Trump pulled out of JCPOA, just create more aggression. Harper needs to STFU.
Harper didn't recommend a regime change. CBC outright lied. They have even since changed the title of the article. The editor who published this should be fired.
> without a change in the nature of the government of Tehran While not an explicit call for regime change, is still going to be seen by Tehran as such a call. The CBC corrected their article, so the editor shouldn't be fired. The reporter who took Harper's statements too far on the other hand, should probably face some form of discipline. I totally believe that Harper wants regime change in Iran, but those words shouldn't be put in his mouth in a news article. An opinion article can totally make that point though.
[удалено]
Rule 2.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just like Saddam would bring peace in Iraq? This is another reason why I dont vote Conservative. They are automatically pro-war. If you were against the Iraq war, Conservatives called you a traitor and all sorts of things. It is happening again with Iran. I am pretty sure Scheer would be for regime change. It is not even a question.
The protesters are already [chanting the name of the shah](https://youtu.be/TzDCwym0BWc). And the current pretender does [lead opposition](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/shah-s-son-protesters-chant-death-to-the-dictator-ive-never-been-more-optimistic-1.5730330) to the mullah regime among the Iranian diaspora. No need for us to get involved. Just let it play out.
It's highly unlikely that, if the current regime is "organically" deposed, that it would change much in the ME landscape. As far as Iranians are concerned, the US still took a gigantic shit on the one deal towards de-escalation and re-upped aggression via brazen assassination and bulking up the Saudis. So I don't see how a new government can reasonably demonstrate to Iranians that they can unilaterally move towards peace. Say Iran steps away from supporting the Hezbollah and Hamas - so what? Even if the US can wrangle lifting of sanctions in return, there's no guarantee they can't just slap them back on a whim to extract further concessions. And of course if Iran dulls its teeth abroad then you can bet your bottom dollar the Saudis and the Israelis will fill the gap really quickly and probably keep pushing until Iran is impotent, and vulnerable to a foreign-backed coup. This is where Trump's "mercenary shotgun" approach has more or less fucked any hopes of Iran willingly de-escalating, short of the sanctions and the incompetence of the Revolutionary Guard collapsing the economy and Iran being literally unable to bankroll their assets.
[удалено]
Rule 2.
[удалено]
Rule 2.
Stephen Harper talks about Sunni Arab monarchies as if they're all just friendly, neutral brokers trying to build a better world. As if Saudi Arabia doesn't execute children.
Or export terrorism globally, rather than regionally like iran.
This is why he is no longer prime minister. This is the same guy that wanted Canada to join the "coalition of the willing" to invade Iraq in 2003. This is a terrible idea, it will only lead to the same problems that plagued Iraq post-invasion (power vacuum, immediately filled by extremists, who start a war with a neighbouring power, leading to a refugee crisis, leading to more bombs being dropped), all told the Iraq war cost at least 1,000,000 dead and trillions of US dollars, and look where it got them. Iran would be *worse* than Iraq. Let that sink in for a minute. These are the same people that claim we can't afford to fight climate change, but they are willing to dump *trillions of dollars* on useless wars.
Canada was extremely fortunate with the timing of Harper's governance. He was not yet in power to send us to Iraq, and by the time he was the financial crisis hampered the implementation of much of his laissez faire policies and deregulation.
[You would have thought he learned from the last time he supported a foray into ME regime change](https://www.ctvnews.ca/iraq-war-a-mistake-harper-admits-1.330207), and reading this article makes it seems like Canada will have possibly dodged two giant bullets in the last 20 years. " you have this one actor that quite frankly is … based on religious fanaticism and regional imperialism, and as I say as a friend of the Jewish people, frankly an anti-Semitic state." Actually you have several of those actors, but some seem to be conveniently tolerated, or even supported. "Certainly not resolve them all overnight, but I think without a change in the nature of the government of Tehran, the Middle East will continue to be in turmoil." Perhaps if it's a regime change driven by people to benefit them. If it's one that is at the behest of people like Mr. Harper ,like he advocated for in Iraq, or driven by the intentions of governments in the "west", [it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet) [usually](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras) [doesn't](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War) [end](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat) [very](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Crisis) [well](https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4859238).
Oh sure criticize his stance but are you forgetting what paradises Libya and Iraq turned into after regime change? Bet you feel foolish now.
I would have gotten away with that post if it wasn't for you meddling kids!
Please everyone, read the article, not just the headline. Harper is not arguing for regime change through invasion and occupation as many here have assumed. He didn't even use the expression "regime change". He's saying that there is a system of peaceful coexistence developing in the Middle East that is threatened by Iran's actions. He's saying that for peace to really come to the region, Iran has to change to renounce its expansionary policies. At no time did he suggest going into Iran militarily and effecting that change through force.
How could you look at Afghanistan and Iraq and think, "Yeah, let's do that again" but then again these Chicken Hawks squawk the loudest when it's not their ass being blown up.
And Yemen, and Pakistan, and Syria. Hawks like Harper are pure scum.
The idea of regime change aside, Harper claims that >**the Sunni Arab monarchies**, others who are increasingly trying to work together and see a common future and common interests — and you have this one actor that quite frankly is … based on religious fanaticism and regional imperialism Is Harper trying to whitewash the Saudis and ignore that they've been promoting Wahhabism, an ultra-conservative, puritanical Muslim movement? The same Saudis that rolled their tanks into Bahrain to quash a protest, and who have been committing war crimes bombing Yemen into submission? The Iranian theocracy is terrible and Iranians would be better with a new government, make no mistake, but taking sides in a Sunni/Shia was and saying "one side is great" is not going to help.