Preferable Option for Iran Is a Popular Revolution


Aug 24, 2007
In my mind , there is third option for crisis of middle east , it's change Mullas' Regim in Iran by support Iranian people and their resistance, more than %90 of iranian people hate this regime and opposite them and want to change them, but this regime is on power just with execution , torture , public hanging and press the people with anyway that they can, in iran you can wear or eat or ... anything that you want
This regim export their crisis from Iran to all of the world with terror.
so I choose this group because you believe democrasi and freedom too

Preferable Option for Iran Is a Popular Revolution

In an article the Washington Times on Sep. 5, highlighted the best solution for Iran to confront atomic threat by its regime is a popular revolt.
The article states: “Washington seemingly has three main options for stopping Tehran’s efforts:
1) hoping a popular revolution would drive the current regime from power before it develops atomic weapons;
2) persuading Europe and Japan to deny credit to the Iranian government and support sustained economic sanctions against the government;
3) using military force to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities and/or remove the current regime from power.”

”There are huge problems with each of these alternatives. For U.S. policy-makers, the preferable alternative would be a popular revolution, in which the Iranians overthrew a despotic regime. But for that regime change to actually serve larger U.S. geopolitical interests, it has to take place before Iran develops a nuclear weapon… To be sure, there is plenty of popular dissatisfaction with the regime. Public-opinion polls and random, discreet interviews with Iranians on the street conducted suggest that most of them want to be rid of the clerical dictatorship. Whether this can be translated into regime change before Iran obtains an A-bomb is anyone’s guess.
As for sanctions and economic pressure, they too have a role to play in pressuring the regime to change its policies. But international economic sanctions have a spotty record in this regard, and even if they do manage to force the regime to change its policies, how do we determine whether it stopped Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons?”


best regards
I bet the majority of Americans haven't been convinced by our "free press" that we should go to war against Iran.
Of course it is the best option. It is a matter of how practical that option is. We have been waiting for regime change of any sort in Cuba, North Korea and other places for decades. Plus in many ways, having the current leaders in Iran is that the US knows them and what to expect of them. Just keep in mind the first time the Palestinians were able to vote for thier leaders. Who did they choose...Hamas. I dont have a good answer to what should be done about Iran. I wish I did, and waiting for a popular revolt is a great idea. The questions are, when would that happen and what would replace the current system.
Have we ever considered leaving Iran alone? We could even try being civil and become friends with them. Wow, what a concept. Of course it won't generate as much business as conflict does.
You couldn't be more right. The benefits from the arms industry and resources if the US attacked Iran would be too good to pass up. If we actually at least became truely neutral with Iran at least (because the leader is a prick), then things would be a whole lot better.
It depends if you want Iran to have a nuke a not. I am all for leaving countries alone who want to be. But Id rather not have any new members of the atomic club, our allies or not.