The Chances of Restoration of Monarchy in Iran

[wyevale]

They want seven centuries back?

They want pre-'theocratic absolutism' by the Mullahs back..A state where Hijabs are optional, where one can be highly religious if one wants to be, but where it is not rigidly imposed and ruthlessly enforced...

 

[Nico]

That last is true. The Pahlavis suddenly became the disease anyone tried to avoid. The world is a cynical place. During their reign the Pahlavis were met with all égards. But it was all just superficiality and pure calculation.

The documentary Decadence and Downfall: The Shah of Iran's Ultimate Party about Persepolis also changed my look on the monarchy. It is clear states (and monarchs) have no friends. Only interests. Look at them, sitting there, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Princess Anne in their palace-like tents at Persepolis. Look at them, in their most glittering diamonds: the Danish and the Belgians. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands playing old chum and old pal with Mohammed Reza. See Don Juan Carlos and Doña Sofía popping their eyes out. In the documentary it became clear the royals did not take it all very au sérieux and it was mainly the sweltering heat in that artical oasis in the desert which sticked in their memories.

When Mohammed Reza was desposed, he travelled from country to country seeking for asylum. Where once the doors of the White House, the Élysée or Europe´s royal palaces swept wide open for him, everything remained firmly shut.

Instead of this rather bad and biased documentary, may i suggest you to take a look at the book "the fall of Heaven, the Pahlavis and the finals days of imperial Iran", you'll learn a thing or two : for instance that Farah herself was appalled by the Persepolis celebrations, made without the Iranian people. You'll see that the Pahlavis were taken very seriously by the other royals as well : in 1979 they received personnal support from the Belgians, the Dutch, the Greeks... Hassan II offered them a place to live and Rainier wanted to welcome all the family in Monaco.
The proof of this lifelong respect ? Farah is still invited to the various royal celebrations around the globe. Do you see such deference for the Bokassas for exemple ? Hell no !
Imperial Iran and the Pahlavis is a complicated case. But it would be way too easy to sweep them under the carpet. What a simplistic vision of History !

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Instead of this rather bad and biased documentary, may i suggest you to take a look at the book "the fall of Heaven, the Pahlavis and the finals days of imperial Iran", you'll learn a thing or two : for instance that Farah herself was appalled by the Persepolis celebrations, made without the Iranian people. You'll see that the Pahlavis were taken very seriously by the other royals as well : in 1979 they received personnal support from the Belgians, the Dutch, the Greeks... Hassan II offered them a place to live and Rainier wanted to welcome all the family in Monaco.
The proof of this lifelong respect ? Farah is still invited to the various royal celebrations around the globe. Do you see such deference for the Bokassas for exemple ? Hell no !
Imperial Iran and the Pahlavis is a complicated case. But it would be way too easy to sweep them under the carpet. What a simplistic vision of History !

There is a book. Written by an author. And there are programs in which you see Farah herself, in her own person, with her own mouth, forming vowels and consonants by her own lips, teeth and tongue, simply denying what went wrong, denying there was excess, denying Mohammed Reza was an authoritarian and relentlessly philandering husband.

Farah even criticized all who complained about political oppression in Iran under her husband. In her mind, such attacks on Mohammed Reza were "quite unjustified" and did not take into consideration the "legitimate reasons" behind what she called "his firmness".

I saw a lady whom placed the responsibility for the revolution outside the palaces. She blamed the Iranians who "failed to appreciate all her husband did for them", she blamed the Western powers who failed to support Mohammed Reza and she blamed the media for being "partial" and wrongly accusing her husband of human rights abuses.

In your post you see palace doors swinging open for the exiled Pahlavis. I see they were homeless pariahs, hunted by Islamic gunmen, haunted by hungry lawyers, shunned by "friends", betrayed by allies and skimmed by profiteers and parasites.

But everyone has the right on his/her own view. You have your view on the Pahlavis. I have mine. That Farah sometimes still is invited possibly is just humanity. After all she once was (or still is) seen a sort of "colleague" to them, the double-faced specimen called "royals".

 

[Nico]

There is a book. Written by an author. And there are programs in which you see Farah herself, in her own person, with her own mouth, forming vowels and consonants by her own lips, teeth and tongue, simply denying what went wrong, denying there was excess, denying Mohammed Reza was an authoritarian and relentlessly philandering husband.

Farah even criticized all who complained about political oppression in Iran under her husband. In her mind, such attacks on Mohammed Reza were "quite unjustified" and did not take into consideration the "legitimate reasons" behind what she called "his firmness".

I saw a lady whom placed the responsibility for the revolution outside the palaces. She blamed the Iranians who "failed to appreciate all her husband did for them", she blamed the Western powers who failed to support Mohammed Reza and she blamed the media for being "partial" and wrongly accusing her husband of human rights abuses.

In your post you see palace doors swinging open for the exiled Pahlavis. I see they were homeless pariahs, hunted by Islamic gunmen, haunted by hungry lawyers, shunned by "friends", betrayed by allies and skimmed by profiteers and parasites.

But everyone has the right on his/her own view. You have your view on the Pahlavis. I have mine. That Farah sometimes still is invited possibly is just humanity. After all she once was (or still is) seen a sort of "colleague" to them, the double-faced specimen called "royals".

It's a thing to have a view and to be able to express it. It's another to be frankly offensive and injurious toward someone.
Everyone can appreciate your elegance with the "That Farah".
Merci Monsieur !

 

[Gaudete]

There is a book. Written by an author. And there are programs in which you see Farah herself, in her own person, with her own mouth, forming vowels and consonants by her own lips, teeth and tongue, simply denying what went wrong, denying there was excess, denying Mohammed Reza was an authoritarian and relentlessly philandering husband.

Farah even criticized all who complained about political oppression in Iran under her husband. In her mind, such attacks on Mohammed Reza were "quite unjustified" and did not take into consideration the "legitimate reasons" behind what she called "his firmness".

I saw a lady whom placed the responsibility for the revolution outside the palaces. She blamed the Iranians who "failed to appreciate all her husband did for them", she blamed the Western powers who failed to support Mohammed Reza and she blamed the media for being "partial" and wrongly accusing her husband of human rights abuses.

Despite your series of nasty attacks on Farah, I think it’s quite obvious from your posts that you haven’t actually read Her Majesty’s memoir...

 

[wyevale]

Certainly the Windsors regard any 'once crowned head' as 'still a crowned head' , even if they have been deposed ... the invitation extended to several deposed Monarch's during HMQs Diamond Jubilee is proof of this.Altho' the lady herself wasn't present [being a Consort rather than Monarch herself].
So Empress Farah remains HIM the Shahbanou of Iran...

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Despite your series of nasty attacks on Farah, I think it’s quite obvious from your posts that you haven’t actually read Her Majesty’s memoir...

Memoirs can be VERY selective as it describes a history from a person's point of view. Undoubtedly the memoirs of President Trump will describe his greatness.

Countering these memoirs are Farahs own words. In interviews. No there was no oppression, oh no. No there was no excess, what do you mean? Philandering, my late husband? Human rights trampled? No, way, he just acted "firm" and the rest is exaggerated by Western media. The august Mohammed Reza was good, was firm, was righteous.

I am okay with it. This is a free world. You see Farah as god knows what. I see her as an intrigante, a chameleon which uses the colour palette what fits best in the spin of the day. Opinions differ. Can happen.

Anyway, to get back on track: no the monarchy will nog be restored. Iranians are not that deluded to get that Pahlavi exploitation back.

 

[Gaudete]

You can’t just change the subject because your view was challenged. Your initial post said that her memoir painted the regime of her husband as perfect and completely innocent of any wrongdoing. Which is false. Had you actually read her memoir, you’d know that. You’d also know that her interviews often taken the same balanced tone as appeared in her memoir. How can you base criticism of Farah in your view of a book you haven’t actually read?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

You are defending her with books. I criticize her by the very own words she uttered be her very own lips in various interviews in the 30 years since the Iranians overthrew Pahlavi's regime.

I don't rob you from your heroine. You have your favourable opinion on Farah. I have no favourable opinon on her. Soit. **** happens and life goes on.

 

[Gaudete]

No no, address the point I’m making.

You began by saying that part of the reason you didn’t like her was because her memoir presented a distorted view of Iranian history and that she denied there were any failings in her husband’s regime. You went on to say that her interviews were also based in this position.

However, you’ve now admitted that you’ve never read her memoir. I haven’t given an opinion on Her Majesty either way yet but as someone who has read her memoir and who has watched interviews she given, I can say that you’re actually misrepresenting fact.

You’re free to dislike her all you want, that’s not my issue. But don’t claim you dislike her because of things she’s said or written when you haven’t actually read anything she’s written or provided any example of an interview where she has contradicted what she wrote in that memoir.

You’re entitled to your view, however you get there. But don’t make up stories about a book you haven’t actually read. That’s pointless for all concerned.

 

[Nico]

You are defending her with books. I criticize her by the very own words she uttered be her very own lips in various interviews in the 30 years since the Iranians overthrew Pahlavi's regime.

I don't rob you from your heroine. You have your favourable opinion on Farah. I have no favourable opinon on her. Soit. **** happens and life goes on.

Funny how you're VERY selective about her words. Again take a look at the following programs, both made by Iranians not particularly fan of the Shah's regime.
You could be surprised ...

 

[Gaudete]

I would be really interested to see interviews where HIM has ever suggested that her husband was the perfect ruler or that his regime didn’t have its major problems. Certainly her book doesn’t say that and I’ve never seen any interview (including the ones Nico has kindly linked to) that suggests the Empress has ever felt that way.

 

[LadyRohan]

Anyway, to get back on track: no the monarchy will nog be restored. Iranians are not that deluded to get that Pahlavi exploitation back.

Since that is your default position in 172 daily posts in every single restoration thread on TRF (where do you find the time?), maybe we could be allowed just one day, or one thread, where other views can be expressed, on topic, without the constant, repetitive anti-monarchist restoration sentiment being touted?

Not every Iranian sees the monarchy and the Pahlavis as exploiters and tyrants, as it may appear from your quite propaganda-like posts on this issue. Quite far from it, the monarchy is seen by most of my Iranian friends and family as the historic norm for Iran, and a system of governance in many ways preferable to the one they have today.
That being said, I think Her Majesty said it best in an interview in the film 'The Queen and I', when she said (paraphrased): 'Most regimes come and go, but the one that follows another, should preferably be an improvement on the one it replaced.'

You'd be lucky if you found an ordinary Iranian who would describe the regime of today as an improvement on the last monarchical one. That's the situation, and that's what creates a longing for the one they lost in 1979, and that's what ultimately could lead to a change in the system of governance in Iran.

God willing.

 

[Cory]

I would be really interested to see interviews where HIM has ever suggested that her husband was the perfect ruler or that his regime didn’t have its major problems. Certainly her book doesn’t say that and I’ve never seen any interview (including the ones Nico has kindly linked to) that suggests the Empress has ever felt that way.

She certainly knew that her husband's reign was not perfect but she like what's the best for her country and her people.

 

[LadyRohan]

I would be really interested to see interviews where HIM has ever suggested that her husband was the perfect ruler or that his regime didn’t have its major problems. Certainly her book doesn’t say that and I’ve never seen any interview (including the ones Nico has kindly linked to) that suggests the Empress has ever felt that way.

The Shah himself admitted many mistakes in his last television speech to his people before his overthrow, so I think we can put a pin in any debate about the Pahlavi regime being perfect. Everyone knows it wasn't, but I'd challenge anyone to find a regime that is or has been that, and to judge the Pahlavi regime in the context of its time and circumstances, and not with the perspective of today.

H.I.M said it so well in the documentary 'the Queen and I', when she stated clearly that with hindsight, it would had been better if people were allowed more freedom of speech etc, but that because of massive internal opposition from those who wished to see Iran remain as it was and not progress in a modern direction (the same forces that won in 1979) and external pressure from superpowers who wished to have access to Irans resources and passage through its vast lands and the Gulf, one can easily see that it was a near impossible job for the Shah to find the right balance, domestically and internationally.

In the end, it was just too hard for one man, but Iran of today is different, the world is different, and a monarch is a far better choice than random, powerhungry men who tend to grow their own powerbase at the detriment of the people who once thought they would be their saviours. Whether it be a Pahlavi or someone else in future, the history of Iran is a rich, monarchical one, and I certainly hope that is the future as well, for this incredibly beautiful culture and country.

 

[JR76]

The above mentioned documentary "The Queen and I" was made by Nahid Persson, now living in Sweden, with a background in the left wing opposition who helped start the protests that brought down the rule of the Shah. She had no reason to paint the Empress in a favourable light but ended up showing a lady that was conscious of the bad aspects of her husband's regime but also adamant in her refusal to see how what came after had any positives. She understandably sees l'ancien regime through a bit of a rosy lense but also seems to have the, maybe naive, view that it was a transition to a true constitutional monarchy. The two women became friends during the filming, remains in contact and Farah has said that she likes the way she's portrayed.

 

[wyevale]

I'm with the Empess.. I CANNOT see a single positive in the rigid theocracy that has mismanaged Iran since the revolution. Yes, education levels ARE high [even for Women], but their education leads them NOWHERE except abroad [so limited are their liberties].As a consequence Heroin addiction [amongst young graduates, and the young generally, is incredibly high].
Just last week the Mullahs banned the teaching of English, hoping thus to reduce the desirability of 'all things western' and isolate Iranians from the wider world. Elections are rigged wholesale.The economy is dire and living standards are plummeting.

Unsurprisingly it is a tinderbox, and MANY young people born [after 1979] look favourably on the days of [relative] liberty and prosperity their parents knew under the Shah.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Oh. Everyone his hobby. Yes, the Islamic Republic of Iran will be overturned. Yes, Farah will return in triumph to see Reza as "King-of-Kings". Putin and Xi-Ping will allow that Iran, and it's strategic position to the Persian Gulf, and it's nuclear arsenal, and it's tentacles into Syria and Lebanon, will come under a Western-oriented Government. Oh yes, that will happen. Amen and hallelujah!

Read my lips: this will never happen. At university I learned a couple of Iranians. Bright, young, intelligent. Their parents left because of Khomeini. These folks could barely hide their disgust for the Pahlavis. In one breath was made clear that they did not understand the Dutch still tolerated their monarchy (I found the word "tolerate" pretty accurate to describe the Dutch attitude, I must say) and they made clear that -in that aspect- the Dutch should follow Iran's example and end the operetta.

But no. This board is not for reality it seems: wear pink glasses and we will rejoice the day that Iran will see a dude on that Peacock thing again. Forget it. Just daily reality. Geopolitics. Note that in no any country during the Arab Spring the exiled monarch was restored. Not in Afghanistan. Not in Iraq. Not in Egypt. Not in Libya. There is no reason the exiled monarchy will return in Iran, let alone that Russia or China would allow this.

Sleep well and have nice dreams. Shahs and Shahbanous and the whole bam.

 

[wyevale]

You do not refute my points regarding the current parlous state of Iranian Society, you do what you invariably do ,lecture from some Olympian height [in the most insulting manner]..
My sister-in law is Iranian, and her family still live there. I know from her just how unhappy they, and their compatriots are with the Mullahs, the lack of freedom,of opportunity and democracy.
They are DESPERATE for change, and whatever your 'chats' with a "few" Iranians 'when you were at University' may have told you, YOUNG Iranians [born post 1979] find much to admire about the Monarchy, and MANY seek its return.

 

[Frozen Royalist]

Well if there is going to be a restoration at all, the ayatollah and the Islamic Republic need to go otherwise everything is just going to be theoretical or hypothetical at best. Until that barbaric authoritarian republican theocracy is gone we are not going to see another Shah regardless of what dynasty he is from. I've pretty much got nothing here besides that, I am hopeful of a restoration and it is good to see support but like I said the ayatollah and his rotten republic NEED TO GO ASAP. I understand it may take a while and the opposition has a ways to go but the government needs to understand that is becoming increasingly unpopular and the usual nationalism, anti-americanism and theocratic rhetoric isn't working as well as it did almost forty years ago, most of the youth would care less about the revolution, they want to be secular like what Ataturk envisioned for Turkey, they want to do business with the west and probably even meet people from the west, and they want a more democratic and responsible government and it is nice to see that a lot of the youth see the last Shah's oldest son, Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, as a viable option.

-Frozen Royalist

P.S. Truth be told I'm starting to see the Iranian Restoration forum as semi-pointless while the Islamic Republic is still around. No movement or attempt at turning the nation from a single-party theocratic republic into a constitutional monarchy is going to happen while there is still an ayatollah and an Islamic Republic to help him. My apologies for my opinion but what's the point of discussing it period as long as the regime is still firmly in power?

 

[Frozen Royalist]

To a certain Dutch member of this Forum,

Look I know I said some things regarding China and Russia about the potential of an Iranian restoration and for that I have this to say; yes we are all aware that Moscow and Beijing would not want Iran to leave their little club the SCO, and the two nuclear powers certainly have the teeth to enforce that. But we forget that both the PRC and the RF have their own problems with Russia still dealing with the fallout of the annexation of Crimea, the failed attempt at gaining Eastern Ukraine, an aging and troubled population, the countless economic sanctions and the increasing isolation as a result.

China on the other hand has one of the most inexperienced militaries (in terms of foreign conflict, the People's Liberation Army has been used for domestic shenanigans and what not in the past couple of decades), absurd amounts of pollution, unpopularity amongst most of its neighbors meaning few allies, drying up water and many other environmental problems that will only worsen in the years to come (I still say China's position as the world's largest economy is only temporary).

What I'm getting at is that Russia and China would probably have their hands full with their own domestic problems in the future and might not be in a capacity to do much once the Islamic Republic goes down the toilet. I know I said China and Russia would interfere in one of my previous posts but that was because I thought we were talking about an immediate end to the regime because of the protests and what nots.

-Frozen Royalist

 

[Katrianna]

China must not be that inexperienced in foreign conflicts, they have several elite forces units that were sent to fight along Russian units at the request of the Syrian Govt. This was reported by the BBC's Middle East Service in Nov. The US and the UN made the mistake of underestimating the Chinese military forces in the Korean War and Chinese troops fought US troops in Vietnam at the request of Le Duc Tho, the North Vietnamese Premier in the late 60's-70's. They're not inexperienced, to assume that would be a dangerous mistake. Both Russia and China spend billions on the military at the expense of their people. If both were called upon to defend the Iranian govt. at it's request, believe me, it would happen. I have a feeling it would not be an easy fight for either military because despite differences Iranians are fierce nationalists and will create a hornet's nest for any foreign military invading their country. Iran, like Afghanistan, has never been conquered by a foreign country in modern history.
Look, there will be a regime change eventually, and when it happens, I don't know. It has to be an Iranian solution to a Iranian problem. If the US is not called upon to assist, so be it. As Pres. Harry Truman once stated, "The United States cannot be the policeman of the world." I might further add the US cannot impose our form of govt. on every country we help out. If the Iranian people eventually choose a Constitutional Monarchy, that's fine, but any other govt. is up to them.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

As earlier said: not one desposed royal family returned in this Arab Spring. Not in Egypt, not in Iraq, not in Libya, not in Afghanistan, in no one an exiled royal family has returned. It fails me to see -apart from the immense geopolitical complications- that the fallen throne of Iran would be an exception.

On the contrary: the unrest is still creeping under the current thrones. We will sooner see the collapse of the monarchy in Jordan than the restoration of the throne in Iran.

 

[Frozen Royalist]

As earlier said: not one desposed royal family returned in this Arab Spring. Not in Egypt, not in Iraq, not in Libya, not in Afghanistan, in no one an exiled royal family has returned. It fails me to see -apart from the immense geopolitical complications- that the fallen throne of Iran would be an exception.

On the contrary: the unrest is still creeping under the current thrones. We will sooner see the collapse of the monarchy in Jordan than the restoration of the throne in Iran.

Jordan seems rather stable to me, and from I've heard lately the royal family over there isn't really in much danger other then a few spats here and there with "good old" Saudi Arabia. From what I understand the King of Jordan enjoys one of the highest approval ratings in any of the Middle Eastern states. So what the heck with all the "we will sooner see the collapse of the Jordanian Monarchy than a restoration of Iran".

As for Iraq; the nation is so divided that no government would work in I what I like to call the Middle Eastern Yugoslavia.

Libya; there are attempts being made at restoration but problem is there is no real dominant force in the divided nation so no duh there.

Afghanistan; the Second Middle Eastern Yugoslavia.

Egypt; "You never know what's going to happen in the future"-Karl von Habsburg

I know you're rather pessimistic but all I can say you'll never know if Iran is going to be any different until the regime falls, who knows restoration may actually work this time.

-Frozen Royalist

 

[Frozen Royalist]

China must not be that inexperienced in foreign conflicts, they have several elite forces units that were sent to fight along Russian units at the request of the Syrian Govt. This was reported by the BBC's Middle East Service in Nov. The US and the UN made the mistake of underestimating the Chinese military forces in the Korean War and Chinese troops fought US troops in Vietnam at the request of Le Duc Tho, the North Vietnamese Premier in the late 60's-70's. They're not inexperienced, to assume that would be a dangerous mistake. Both Russia and China spend billions on the military at the expense of their people. If both were called upon to defend the Iranian govt. at it's request, believe me, it would happen. I have a feeling it would not be an easy fight for either military because despite differences Iranians are fierce nationalists and will create a hornet's nest for any foreign military invading their country. Iran, like Afghanistan, has never been conquered by a foreign country in modern history.
Look, there will be a regime change eventually, and when it happens, I don't know. It has to be an Iranian solution to a Iranian problem. If the US is not called upon to assist, so be it. As Pres. Harry Truman once stated, "The United States cannot be the policeman of the world." I might further add the US cannot impose our form of govt. on every country we help out. If the Iranian people eventually choose a Constitutional Monarchy, that's fine, but any other govt. is up to them.

Well what I mean is the past twenty years, you don't hear on the news about the Chinese Army being in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria or *insert name of unstable nation state here*. Basically the wars of today aren't the same as they were during the Vietnam War and from what I understand the Liberation Army doesn't really have much experience with next-gen weapons like drones, they just have experience as being a heavily armed police in their own country really.

As for their hardware, its rather outdated to say the least. China only really has one active aircraft carrier at the moment (yes I know they have one being fitted, one under construction and another being planned) and they got that one from Ukraine which was "built" (it was only 68% complete when China bought it) in 1983. A good chunk of the Chinese equipment is outdated and rather clunky and a good portion of spending is towards refurbishing said equipment.

Also there is no joint command, basically you have generals and admirals all communicating with each other and from what I understand this is not the case for China. Also the Chinese military spends a large portion of their training studying communist ideology and they use roughly $4,500 worth of equipment while we hear stories of US soldiers being outfitted with $50,000 worth of gear and what not. I'm not saying China is weak but what I'm saying is that they wouldn't really be able to do much against the US and NATO forces in my opinion.

-Frozen Royalist

 

[Katrianna]

No, see, I was responding to the statement that China has has one of the most inexperienced militaries in term of foreign conflict, you didn't write in the last two decades, it was read as, they've never participated in any foreign conflict. As far as the PLA used only for domestic issues, they're not solely used for such duties. Many times in Western China/Tibet local militia and police are used to quell any unrest.
As for old military equipment, the US military is still using B-52 bombers that are over 60 yr. old and the computers were last updated in the 80's. Recon aircraft and air tankers are still old military versions of the Boeing 707.
We may equip our service people with $50,000 of gear, but it didn't help win in Afghanistan or Iraq and we still spent a fortune in gear in Vietnam in proportion to the era and still lost to a much poorer North Vietnam as well as the Viet Cong who were using old Russian and Chinese equipment. As far as the Navy, right now the US is down, what, 2-3 destroyers due to collisions that have seriously damaged them and are out of commission.
The link below discusses China's military budget which in 2015 and 2016 ranked second below the US and ahead of the UK and even the Russian Federation and is expected to grow even more in the coming years. There are comments from analysts from Jane's Defense Weekly included in the article.
So all in all when the possibility arises of a China being called in to assist in Iran with a possible revolution/civil war, the country is more than capable and not the backward, joke of a military that many in the US still believe exist in China. It's not like the China of 1950's Mao's Great Leap Forward.
You also missed the statement that China has elite armed troops in Syria at present fighting with the Russians. They were sent at the request of the Syrian Govt., it was first reported on the BBC in Nov. and confirmed by Syrian rebels.







IHS Jane's: China's defense budget may skyrocket in 2020 - China Military

 

[Katrianna]

Link to a story of the Chinese in Syria. If Syria can request the Chinese to assist in it's conflict, China would be more than capable in an Iranian conflict if it's assistance was requested.






https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20171128-china-to-deploy-troops-to-fight-alongside-assad-in-syria/

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[...]

From what I understand the King of Jordan enjoys one of the highest approval ratings in any of the Middle Eastern states. So what the heck with all the "we will sooner see the collapse of the Jordanian Monarchy than a restoration of Iran".

[...]

-Frozen Royalist

How is that approval rating of King Abdullah measured? Various Western NGO's in Jordan reported cases of arbitrary arrests, torture, prolonged detentions, deprivation of life, poor prison conditions, limited freedoms of speech and press as well government interference in the media.

Jordan's secret police is under more and more under criticism and in between the lines (said secret police has ears...) the royal family is often denounced for taking excessive privileges.

And has the King learned anything from the Arab Spring? I doubt it. He only adds more dicatorial powers to him. (See link). This is the beginning of the end. The more power is held by one man, who else is to blame for the country's immense problems as precisely that one man? In the meantime his spouse Rania is the same Western-oriented clothing horse as Farah once was in Iran: l'histoire se répète.

On base of this I stand with my calculation: we will sooner see a downfall of the Jordan monarchy than a restoration of the Iranian monarchy. I am sorry for being sceptical but I believe that is more realistic than other scenarios.

 

[Frozen Royalist]

No, see, I was responding to the statement that China has has one of the most inexperienced militaries in term of foreign conflict, you didn't write in the last two decades, it was read as, they've never participated in any foreign conflict. As far as the PLA used only for domestic issues, they're not solely used for such duties. Many times in Western China/Tibet local militia and police are used to quell any unrest.
As for old military equipment, the US military is still using B-52 bombers that are over 60 yr. old and the computers were last updated in the 80's. Recon aircraft and air tankers are still old military versions of the Boeing 707.
We may equip our service people with $50,000 of gear, but it didn't help win in Afghanistan or Iraq and we still spent a fortune in gear in Vietnam in proportion to the era and still lost to a much poorer North Vietnam as well as the Viet Cong who were using old Russian and Chinese equipment. As far as the Navy, right now the US is down, what, 2-3 destroyers due to collisions that have seriously damaged them and are out of commission.
The link below discusses China's military budget which in 2015 and 2016 ranked second below the US and ahead of the UK and even the Russian Federation and is expected to grow even more in the coming years. There are comments from analysts from Jane's Defense Weekly included in the article.
So all in all when the possibility arises of a China being called in to assist in Iran with a possible revolution/civil war, the country is more than capable and not the backward, joke of a military that many in the US still believe exist in China. It's not like the China of 1950's Mao's Great Leap Forward.
You also missed the statement that China has elite armed troops in Syria at present fighting with the Russians. They were sent at the request of the Syrian Govt., it was first reported on the BBC in Nov. and confirmed by Syrian rebels.







IHS Jane's: China's defense budget may skyrocket in 2020 - China Military

My Apologies

-Frozen Royalist

 

[Katrianna]

No apology needed. ;-)