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? 🫤

[vinapu]

3 hours ago, mauRICE said:

Old colonial chestnut - all of them are the same, makes it easier to stereotype and dehumanise them.

 

it's not colonial, it's cultural. 

In reality we all humas first, Christian (or insert other religion , add atheists) second, nationals third and only locals last.  It's broadly speaking , culture which placed it all upside down and we , stupid people place in  those allegiances  other way around. 

I remember from my childhood case when unmarried girl from my grandparent village got pregnant bringing shame on all family. Shame  not because she got impregnated while unmarried but because guy was from other  village, not her own. For me sounded unreal then and still sounds now. By the way 60 odd years later, they are still together. 

what was colonial fault it was splitting, yes the same people of Africa or Middle East ,  by artificial borders  decided in Berlin, London or Paris  not in Kampala, Beirut  or Bamako.

[PeterRS]

8 hours ago, mauRICE said:

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.

So true. To label Arabs as one people is ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as naming the British as one people formed from the same ethnic stock. Present day Britons were made up of a host of different tribes. And not only those who inhabited the islands many millennia ago. They are a mix of the Picts, a host of more than 20 settled tribes and ancient kingdoms, Neolithic farmers from the Near East, Celtic Druids, Germanic settlers, Roman, French, Viking and probably more. Throughout a long, long history, the country has settled into four bascially separate parts of one union.

You might wish to look a bit more closely at the history of the United States where there were more than 1,000 distinct civilizations in the pre-Columbian era alone.  

7 hours ago, unicorn said:

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? 🫤

The name Persia derives from the region in south western Iran that was home to the Persian Empire's founders. It was essentially the Greeks who promulgated the name to cover the entire country. It was never a name used by the Iranian peoples themselves. Those we named Persians actually called themselves "Airyan" (Irani). It is a term deeply rooted in Iranian culture and history, in ancient texts and Zoroastrian scriptures. It is a far more accurate name to depict the country as a whole rather than a small part of it. Hence iran. Raza Shah changed the name to symbolise a deliberate reconnection with the country's past and a pointer to a future away from colonial influence.

[PeterRS]

7 hours ago, unicorn said:

Speak for yourself. I was decades away from being born.🫤

So you question the legitimacy of whatever happened before you were born!! You never rescinded your comment about elections in Iran. Oh, I know! You will now comment that there is no present day indication if they were "fair". You have to look to history - before you were born - to answer that.

[PeterRS]

Returning to the topic, as I flew out of BKK to HKG on Tuesday there were two El Al jets and one Qatar jet in parking spaces off the taxiways. When I returned yetsrerday afternoon, the israeli jets were still there and the single Qatar jet had been joined by two more.

[mauRICE]

On 3/2/2026 at 3:21 PM, unicorn said:

On a personal note, I'd sure like to be able to safely visit Iran one of these days. Hopefully it won't remain a theocracy until the day I die.

Who's that lady in red? Satan?

I read from several credible sources that US soldiers, many of whom are from the Bible Belt and are not very highly educated, are psyched into thinking that attacking Iran and destroying Palestine would bring about the end of times and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

 

 

 

Oh wait, it's the Bible and Christian pastors that guide US foreign policy (and, of course, Netanyahu and AIPAC), not common sense, compassion or their much touted constitution. Who needs the UN when you've got God whispering in one ear and Satan in the other.

 

[unicorn]

4 hours ago, PeterRS said:

So you question the legitimacy of whatever happened before you were born!! You never rescinded your comment about elections in Iran. Oh, I know! You will now comment that there is no present day indication if they were "fair". You have to look to history - before you were born - to answer that.

So like you to change the emoji I wrote from a laughing one to a quizzical one, to completely change the meaning of my statement, from an obvious joke, to one suggesting a lack of understanding. Lying by data manipulation. Moses must be proud of you. Are you like Trump, who likes meaningless "awards" based on deception? OK, here's your Golden Weasel Award:

 

[PeterRS]

Never mind emojis! You have never responded to my answer about the change of name from Persia to Iran. You gave the impression I was around at that time - and you made it seem like a joke. Your posts too often are like jokes rather than serious responses to serious questions you have actually asked!

[floridarob]

14 hours ago, mauRICE said:

many of whom are from the Bible Belt and are not very highly educated

Which this confirms your statement:

https://www.businessinsider.com/most-and-least-educated-states-us-2026

[unicorn]

15 hours ago, PeterRS said:

Never mind emojis! You have never responded to my answer about the change of name from Persia to Iran. You gave the impression I was around at that time - and you made it seem like a joke...

I was a joke--an obvious one. Everybody understood this (including yourself, since you went to the trouble of switching the emojis I used from a laughing one to a quizzical one). Obviously, almost no one is alive today who can remember events from the mid 1940s, so I obviously didn't think you were in your late 90s or 100s. Thank you for your response about the name change from Persia to Iran, although if it really has Zoroastrian roots, you'd think Iranian officials would want to scrub it, since the Iranian government has harassed the Zoroastrian minority (although that religion, but not Islam, has its roots in Persia). FWIW, I personally find Zoroastrianism one of the least stupid religions on the planet. For the most part the newer a religion, the dumber I find it (with Scientology and Mormonism/Moronism being so incredibly stupid I can't believe anyone would fall for that). 

[PeterRS]

3 hours ago, unicorn said:

Obviously, almost no one is alive today who can remember events from the mid 1940s, so I obviously didn't think you were in your late 90s or 100s. 

And you never thought of checking on any of the search engines about the change of name from Persa to iran before you made your inaccurate assessment.

3 hours ago, unicorn said:

Thank you for your response about the name change from Persia to Iran, although if it really has Zoroastrian roots, you'd think Iranian officials would want to scrub it, since the Iranian government has harassed the Zoroastrian minority (although that religion, but not Islam, has its roots in Persia). 

Why would they scrub it? Zoroastrianism is one of Iran's official religions.

Armenian Christians are also part of an official religion. Vank Cathedral in Isfahan has a glorious interior.

[unicorn]

4 hours ago, PeterRS said:

And you never thought of checking on any of the search engines about the change of name from Persa to iran before you made your inaccurate assessment.

Why would they scrub it? Zoroastrianism is one of Iran's official religions.

...

Zoroastrianism is NOT "one of Iran's official religions." It is a recognized minority religion, but non-Shias, and especially non-Muslims have been persecuted by the Iranian government.

https://2001-2009.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71421.htm

"The constitution declares the "official religion of Iran is Islam, and the doctrine followed is that of Ja'fari (Twelver) Shi'ism." The Government restricts freedom of religion. There was a further deterioration of the extremely poor status of respect for religious freedom during the reporting period, most notably for Baha'is and Sufi Muslims. The country's religious minorities include Sunni and Sufi Muslims, Baha'is, Zoroastrians, Jews, and Christians. There were reports of imprisonment, harassment, intimidation, and discrimination based on religious beliefs.

Government actions and rhetoric created a threatening atmosphere for nearly all religious minorities, especially Baha'is and Sufi Muslims. To a lesser extent, Zoroastrians, evangelical Christians, and the small Jewish community were also targets of government harassment. Government-controlled media, including broadcasting and print, intensified negative campaigns against religious minorities – particularly the Baha'is – following the June 2005 election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The U.S. government makes clear its objections to the Government's harsh and oppressive treatment of religious minorities through public statements, support for relevant U.N. and nongovernmental organization (NGO) efforts, as well as diplomatic initiatives towards states where religious freedom is a concern. Since 1999 the Secretary of State has designated Iran as a "Country of Particular Concern" (CPC) under the International Religious Freedom Act for its particularly egregious violations of religious freedom.

In 2003, the U.N. General Assembly passed Resolution 58/195 on the human rights situation in the country; it expressed serious concern about the continued discrimination against religious minorities by the Government. In 2004, the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution condemning the human rights situation in Iran. In March 2006 the U.N. General Assembly adopted Resolution 60/171 expressing serious concern about the continued discrimination and human rights violations against religious minorities by the Government. Also in March 2006, the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief issued a statement of concern about the treatment of the Baha'i community in the country. The Special Rapporteur's statement claimed that Supreme Leader Khamene'i has instructed security officials to identify and compile information on Baha'is..."