New libertarian talking point: “actually, only a minority of Iranians oppose the regime”

If it saves just one.

Yes, yes...it there's anything we libertarians love, it's making excuses for authoritarian regimes.

Congrats on your new found bromance w/ Lindsay Graham, though.

If Trump was assassinated, many people would be dancing in the streets. Does that mean America in general supports this? No.

Same with Iran.

quote:

---

I don't think that's a factually incorrect assessment. And all the online polling is skewed towards the young/urban.

---

Nearly 80% of the population lives in urban areas. It may be that rural Iranians support the regime, but that is not a majority.

quote:

---

SFP is an Iranian polling expert now

---

As a general rule of thumb, just replace "Iranian polling" with... just whatever topic is being discussed.

quote:

---

It may be that rural Iranians support the regime, but that is not a majority.

---

The words I quoted did not include the word "majority" FWIW

You misspelled liebertarian

Baloney

It’s at best a 20/80 split for the regime

quote:

---

I am seeing many libertarians argue that the protests only reflect urban sentiments and that in rural areas of Iran, the people are very happy and supportive of the regime.

---

this is actually true, though... but the urban people might be the majority of the population.

The revolution that ousted the Shah was middle-class urban Iranians who lived like secular Westerners and just wanted Democracy instead of a Monarchy (and they'd already deposed the Shah a couple of decades earlier...). Khomeini had been chased out of the country by the Shah, who opposed fundamentalist Islam but also didn't want anybody with a bunch of loyal followers in his turf. Khomeini and his followers then preached this "Democracy and freedom for all" ethos and co-opted the Democracy movement a bit. They watched the Democracy movement win and drive out the Shah, and how it happened... the turning point in any revolution is the point when the Police/military/security forces have to face their friends, neighbors and relatives in the streets... and they turn, and that sends defections up the command chain until the military either just steps aside or seizes control, itself. In Iran, it stood aside or fled. And once that happened, Khomeini bused in all of the people from out in the countryside who were more aligned with fundamentalist Islam (they live like they're in the 9th Century, anyway) and lots of poor males who bought the Islamicist pitch of Western secularism being evil and women stealing their natural places in society and just laid siege to the country.

There's been a constant protest ever since, and when it builds too much momentum the regime just buses in those people from the countryside to beat up and kill the protestors until it dies down, again. I lots of cities in the past few weeks, the police did step aside... but the regime's forces just murdered more and more people.

There's also ethnic and tribal divisions in Iran most people don't think about.

Unlike Syria or Iraq, where the regimes were actually minority groups within the country, Khomeini and his cadre represent the religious portion of the Persian majority.

The wrinkle in this is Iranians suspecting the U.S. wants to reinstate the Pahlavi monarchy... and that might fracture those opposed to the Khomeini regime. The Shah operated like a brutal dictator, so a lot of people do not welcome a return of his family as rulers.