Middle East Air Travel Severely Disrupted

[caeron]

 

While I think a great number of Iranians want change, there is no organized opposition in Iran. Change to who? There isn't anybody there to take the reins away.

I think the only realistic hope is that we get a new version of the supreme leader who will capitulate on Trump's asks. (no nukes, no regional  meddling, no missiles.)

I think even that unlikely.

[Keithambrose]

2 hours ago, caeron said:

 

While I think a great number of Iranians want change, there is no organized opposition in Iran. Change to who? There isn't anybody there to take the reins away.

I think the only realistic hope is that we get a new version of the supreme leader who will capitulate on Trump's asks. (no nukes, no regional  meddling, no missiles.)

I think even that unlikely.

I read that the front runner is one of the sons of Khamenei, so no change there.

[vinapu]

8 hours ago, caeron said:

 

(no nukes, no regional  meddling, no missiles.)

 

sometimes I think people of Middle East , all of them , can't live without meddling in their neighbours affairs , may be is something in  the scarce water

[PeterRS]

On 3/4/2026 at 8:53 AM, unicorn said:

I would think that without ensuring fair elections with UN monitors, it's going to be same old-same old. At least I think that unlike the Afghanis, who are split into tribal factions and know only of "might makes right," I have a sense that Iranians are ready for democracy. I could be wrong. Just killing one leader after another doesn't solve any long-term problems. It just kicks the can down the road. 

Sadly we tend to foget that Iran did have fair elections for the Majlis (parliament) following WWII. Mohamad Mosaddegh had first been elected to parliament as far back as 1923. Having been in favour of Reza Khan as the Prime Minister in the 1920s, he turned against him after a coup in 1925 when the British deposed the then Shah and installed Reza Khan in the post. Whereas Britain had discovered oil in Iran, following its own revolution Russia wanted and took part of Iran. In Britain's eyes, this was less for oil than the threat it posed to the British Raj in India and beyond.

In 1941, the British forced Reza Khan's abdication in favour of his son, even though as Shah he had helped modernise Iran. A secularist, he even prayed in a Jewish synagogue and changed the name of Persia to Iran. In 1951, the Majlis voted 79 to 12 to elect Mosaddegh as the country's next Prime Minister. Mosaddegh introduced a lot of social reforms in the country. But Britain and the USA loathed the fact that he introduced legislation to nationalise the country's oil production. As Britain had discovered the oil, it regarded the income from it as its own, paying Iran a pittance for the rights. In the 1920s, Britain was supposed to pay 5% of net profits, but Britain never permitted any inspection of the Anglo Iranian Oil Company's books. In fact, although there were formal agreements, Britain often did not pay Iran anything. Mosaddegh then made life difficult for the British by, for example, instituting a blockade of the Gulf so oil could not be transported. There was also some bad blood between Mosaddegh and the Shah when parliament cut the Shah's personal budget.

The end result was that Britain and the USA through the CIA helped get rid of Mossadegh through a variety of means that the CIA has used regularly since then, including paying tribesmen and mobs to demonstrate openly against Mosaddegh. The Shah initially fled to Rome. In Iran Britain, still recovering from its WWII efforts, could not carry out Mosaddegh's ouster on its own. Initially the USA was reluctant to join Britain's Iran advanture. But when Eisenhower came to power, everything changed. The two countries then arranged for Mosaddegh's ouster and far greater powers provided to the Shah. The USA then basically became the Shah's paymaster until he was forced from power in the 1979 Revolution. 

So Iran did have elections that were at least basically fair long before Britain and the USA took it upon themselves to destabilise the country. And everything since has to go back to the duly elected Mosaddegh's ouster in 1953.

 

[mauRICE]

On 3/4/2026 at 10:12 PM, vinapu said:

sometimes I think people of Middle East , all of them , can't live without meddling in their neighbours affairs , may be is something in  the scarce water

Were the Romans, the Brits, the Dutch and the Portuguese short of water too when they went about to colonise and create havoc in various parts of the world over thousands of years cumulatively? Were they Middle Eastern too?

[Keithambrose]

7 minutes ago, mauRICE said:

Were the Romans, the Brits, the Dutch and the Portuguese short of water too when they went about to colonise various parts of the world over thousands of years cumulatively? Were they Middle Eastern too?

Mongols, Phoenicians, Ottomans, Macedonians, Greeks, Muslims, Vikings, Normans,  the list goes on.....

[vinapu]

3 hours ago, mauRICE said:

Were the Romans, the Brits, the Dutch and the Portuguese short of water too when they went about to colonise and create havoc in various parts of the world over thousands of years cumulatively? Were they Middle Eastern too?

they all were different people , while people of the Middle East are more or less the same , sharing the same  culture ( ok,  Iran and Turkey partially excepted), language,  religion, history  and unfortunately and  ultimately  , tribalism.  One may find reason for in enmity between say Saudis and Israelis, but between  Saudis and Bahrainis or Emiratis?

And link between colonizing far away lands and temptation to meddle in neighbours affairs is unclear to me 

[vinapu]

2 hours ago, Keithambrose said:

Mongols, Phoenicians, Ottomans, Macedonians, Greeks, Muslims, Vikings, Normans,  the list goes on.....

again , I was not talking about conquer but temptation to meddle in neighbours affairs, neighbours of the same blood, religion and custom

[mauRICE]

1 hour ago, vinapu said:

they all were different people , while people of the Middle East are more or less the same , sharing the same  culture ( ok,  Iran and Turkey partially excepted), language,  religion, history  

Old colonial chestnut - all of them are the same, makes it easier to stereotype and dehumanise them. It's the same argument that Zionists and Westerners put foward when they say, "Why don't the Arab countries take in the Palestinians; they're all the same anyway." In fact, the Zionists and the genocidal Israeli regime conveniently say there is no such thing as a Palestinian - only Arabs - as they seek to erase any semblance of Palestinian identity and sovereignity.

What else? Black people are all the same, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese are all the same...oops, sorry, "Orientals".

1 hour ago, vinapu said:

One may find reason for in enmity between say Saudis and Israelis, but between  Saudis and Bahrainis or Emiratis?

Saudis are Sunni while the majority of native Bahrainis are Shia but their leadership is Sunni. I think Kuwait has got a 65-35 Sunni-Shia split with, again, Sunni rulers. They're not all the same. Even within each country there are different sub cultures and groups with differing rates of development and literacy and different perspectives on religion and modernity. And as far as I know, KSA and Ummarat get along.

Thailand, Cambodia, Laos and parts of  Myanmar share geographical borders, religious and ethno traits yet they have skirmishes from time to time. Could they be said to meddling in each other's affairs too despite their "sameness" in many respects? And why is that? Surprised you missed this one.

The issue therefore is not whether they're the same ethnically, culturally and/or religiously but whether they have compatible geo-political and socio-economic interests. Each country wants to project and protect its sovereignity. I know it can be hard for some people but try not to view everything through a racial or ethnic lens.

 

[floridarob]

47 minutes ago, mauRICE said:

Each country wants to project and protect its sovereignity.

Sounds like various neighbors I've had over the years, didn't matter if it was Boston or Houston....living right next to them or an acre between us, maybe it's just human nature 🤷‍♂️

[mauRICE]

19 minutes ago, floridarob said:

Sounds like various neighbors I've had over the years, didn't matter if it was Boston or Houston....living right next to them or an acre between us, maybe it's just human nature 🤷‍♂️

Yup. Neighbours quarrel, even those in homogeneous neighbourhoods, as each household seeks to protect and advance its own interests.

[unicorn]

6 hours ago, PeterRS said:

Sadly we tend to foget that Iran did have fair elections for the Majlis (parliament) following WWII...

Speak for yourself. I was decades away from being born. 😄 That reminds me of the time Queen Elizabeth II was visiting Jamestown, Virginia (in 2007, at its 400th anniversary), and her guide said "You'll recall that Jamestown was England's first settlement in North America...". She gave that speaker a dirty look. I suppose he should have said "You'll recall from history books...". 😉

6 hours ago, PeterRS said:

...A secularist, he even prayed in a Jewish synagogue and changed the name of Persia to Iran....

You may need to explain to us hoi polloi why Iran is a more secular name than Persia. If it's so secular, why didn't the ayatollahs change it back to Persia? 🫤