> None of the Arab Spring revolutions have gone well
None of the Arab-Spring populations had democratic rule since, arguably, Carthage. Iran is different [1].
More importantly, Iran was recently a secular society. It has memory of education and freedom. Many Arab countries have been fundamentalist for their entire modern eras.
(To be clear, every first democracy arose from the ashes of a string of fallen autocrats. I'm arguing for Iran being different from Egypt, Tunisia or Gaza.)
Iran had a parliament until they wanted Iran to control its own oil, whence the US and UK overthrew Mossadegh. They had ayatollah Borujerdi wreck the democracy. Also Kashani who helped oust Mossadegh, and then later supported Khomeini.
The US recently worked to oust the secular leader of Syria to replace him with an ISIS leader. Actually al-Sharaa was on the US wanted terrorist list, only removed three months ago. Many such stories.
According to the book "A Convergence of Civilizations" from Youssef Courbage and Emmanuel Todd [1], the Iran revolution actually happened at the end of the 70s. And indeed, the political situation is not stable yet. The authors argue in the book that historically, it can take from 30 to more than 100 years before a country gets a stable democracy after a revolution.
Notably, the book was written before the Arab Spring revolutions, and yet, it predicted them rather accurately. The main thesis of the book is that a revolution arises when most of the men and most of the women in a country can read.
maybe the fact that Persians != Arabs will improve their odds. Recent uprisings had more luck (i.e. Bangladesh), even if it’s too early to fully assess their success
Bangladesh hasn't become a "democracy" in any manner. Remember that a whole host of leaders were arrested, and the most popular political party banned from participating in the recent elections! You can claim that if they were popular there wouldn't have been any "revolutions" when they were ruling. But note that this is a country that has struggled with violence throughout its history, has seen many military coups, and struggled to be a democracy. If they weren't popular, why were these so-called revolutionaries so hell-bent in not allowing them to participate in the "first free and fair" elections organised by them? You don't become a democracy by deliberately excluding a political party that was instrumental in the founding of Bangladesh, and is supported by half the country - that's how you weaken your country's unity and lay the grounds for a civil war.
JumpCrisscross|7 days ago
None of the Arab-Spring populations had democratic rule since, arguably, Carthage. Iran is different [1].
More importantly, Iran was recently a secular society. It has memory of education and freedom. Many Arab countries have been fundamentalist for their entire modern eras.
(To be clear, every first democracy arose from the ashes of a string of fallen autocrats. I'm arguing for Iran being different from Egypt, Tunisia or Gaza.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_classical_Iran
regularization|7 days ago
The US recently worked to oust the secular leader of Syria to replace him with an ISIS leader. Actually al-Sharaa was on the US wanted terrorist list, only removed three months ago. Many such stories.
clot27|7 days ago
[deleted]
guyomes|7 days ago
Notably, the book was written before the Arab Spring revolutions, and yet, it predicted them rather accurately. The main thesis of the book is that a revolution arises when most of the men and most of the women in a country can read.
[1]: https://cup.columbia.edu/book/a-convergence-of-civilizations...
mmasu|7 days ago
thisislife2|7 days ago
nickff|7 days ago
throwaway27448|7 days ago
we could always stop punishing the people of Iran for their government...
logicchains|7 days ago