If the us invades iran...?

[SixSigma1978]

india has great relations w/ both iran and US - this tug of war would mean only one thing - neutrality!!
its the safest recourse. Reality would be more empathy with US/Israel keeping in mind India strategic trajectory is slowly aligning with them - but it will morally have Iran's back - its a weak argument in Irans favor - but in this awkward situation - a 2-3000 year old relationship cannot be wished away!!

 

[Vassnti]

The invasion has already started.



One mini skirt and uncovered head at a time

What they fail to consider is Khamenei's deep-seated conviction that U.S. designs to overthrow the Islamic Republic hinge not on military invasion but on cultural and political subversion intended to foment a "velvet" revolution from within. Consider this revealing address on Iranian state TV in 2005:

More than Iran's enemies need artillery, guns, and so forth, they need to spread cultural values that lead to moral corruption.… I recently read in the news that a senior official in an important American political center said: "Instead of bombs, send them miniskirts." He is right. If they arouse sexual desires in any given country, if they spread unrestrained mixing of men and women, and if they lead youth to behavior to which they are naturally inclined by instincts, there will no longer be any need for artillery and guns against that nation.

Khamenei's vast collection of writings and speeches makes clear that the weapons of mass destruction he fears most are cultural -- more Kim Kardashian and Lady Gaga than bunker busters and aircraft carriers. In other words, Tehran is threatened not only by what America does, but by what America is: a depraved, postmodern colonial power bent on achieving global cultural hegemony. America's "strategic policy," Khamenei has said, "is seeking female promiscuity

The Ayatollah Under the Bed(sheets) - By Karim Sadjadpour | Foreign Policy

There is a a reason Golshifteh Farahani is goggled way more than Khamenei's speeches

 

[Abii]

I read that, but one thing was in my mind the entire time. The author has a major hole in his analysis: Iranians have always been more liberal and secular than their Middle Eastern neighbors, even Turks (I'm talking in the past century only), so why did the revolution happen?

Look at us Iranians on this forum. All of us are nationalists to the bone, but most of us either don't consider ourselves muslim or are very liberal and secular. The revolution happened not because Iranians wanted to be more like Saudi Arabia, but it happened because Iranians wanted to be independent and free of Western Imperialism.

So if the very liberal and secular minded Iranians of the 70's revolted, so will the new generation of "liberal" Iranians once they go back under the thumb of Uncle Sam.

Miniskirts and Western ideas might be dangerous to the regime in its current form, but these things will never bring us closer to Western countries to the point that we consider them as our friends and allies. The Iranian regime also needs to understand this and reform. Iranians aren't Saudis, there will come a point where people can't take dress codes and moral police anymore. If the regime wants support, it must reform and it will get support. Iranians want a strong leadership that works for the people, but our values must also be respected. The Iranian regime would get my unconditional support once it starts to accept the fact that we Iranians are not okay with political Islam.