There's a huge difference - in previous protests, they were begging the regime to hear their voices, to do the right thing - to reform, or change policy.
This time, there's no calls for conciliation or change, it's outright "death to the tyrants" and an astonishing number of people hitting the streets. They're burning down mosques, tearing down statues, burning out police stations, lynching regime officials, going to officials houses and dragging them out, and so on.
Also, it's been going on for 16 days at this point, and for some reason, is noticeably absent from world media. That feels significant, somehow.
Well, where are you getting this information if the internet's been cut off in Iran? All sides are spreading their propaganda so it's hard to say what's actually happening.
There are reports of hospitals, banks and other institutional buildings being burned, even fire engines - but does it make sense for iranians to burn those?
The question remains - after everything is burned to the ground, what opposition or leader is going to take control, if not the IRGC or military?
> it's been going on for 16 days at this point, and for some reason, is noticeably absent from world media. That feels significant, somehow
somehow, yes, but in a good or bad way? what is the significance? maybe the US/israel was gearing up to bomb Iran and the revolts would endear Iranian people to the Western public in a way that powers that be don't want? just thinking out loud here
Edit: chanced on an article which kind of supports this idea
A national security expert said President Donald Trump may already be prepared to act against Iran, suggesting a widely reported upcoming briefing on U.S. options could be intentional "deception" as deadly protests intensify in the country.
Agreed, I’m saying the regime will pass reforms (or try to, given sanctions). I would love for the end of the regime, but who tell me who will take its place?
Realistic best case scenario right now is a situation like England where there is technically a monarch (who also heads the church) but they practically hold no power (less and less over time).
We're seeing what looks to be a full blown economic collapse. People don't have money to buy food right now.
I don't see what reforms they could implement that can quickly fix this as they need to radically alter trust in the government for currency reforms to work.
But who knows? Maybe they'll muddy their way through or rely on force to stay in power. Certainly large protests have happened before, but this is the first time in decades where all 5 conditions of a successful revolution are present at the same time.
It's from Jack's Goldstone's Revolutions: A Very Short Introduction.
Nicole Bauer did a better job paraphrasing than I can, so I'll just quote her:
> [Goldstone] notes that a revolution requires lack of support from or alienation of elites, a crisis such as a fiscal strain, mass mobilization and popular anger against perceived injustices, an ideology of resistance, and favorable international relations. Most important, Goldstone debunks the common misconception that revolutions spring from an excess of injustice and poverty leading to frustration and eventual resistance. Poverty and frustration are not enough to ignite a revolution as countless examples, such as the Irish Potato Famine, have shown. What is needed is widespread belief that change is both desirable and possible, as well as a convergence of the factors mentioned above.
I don't understand, how is your "We're seeing what looks to be a full blown economic collapse. People don't have money to buy food right now" compatible with "Goldstone debunks the common misconception that revolutions spring from an excess of injustice and poverty leading to frustration and eventual resistance"
All I'm saying is that I don't see the regime falling currently, and even if it does, there is no obvious replacement. which might mean civil war or something even worse than now. There is also no indication that a new regime, chosen by actual Iranian people (not the shah's son) would give up its nuclear ambitions (which were actually started by the shah). So what is even the point of doing regime change? My guess is regime change is not what the US and Israel are even trying for, but just chaos to weaken a local power and a source of fuel for China, etc..
This doesn’t seem very different than the 2008 and Mahsa protests.
Most likely there will be an internal reorganization towards economic reform and moderate social policies.