Iran, is it good to invoke an intervention from a foreign power to depose the ayatollah? Probably not. It might seem cynical, but revolutions claim their toll, even in terms of blood, to last.

Regimes often enjoy complicities in significant portions of the population, be they the ones who helped them to take power or portions of the society lured over the years.

In every country, there’s a quota of people that evaluates stability over everything else. A quota of people who has adapeted to the muted conditions, and prefers not to indulge in phantasies of further change.

For as strange as it may sound, freedom is not everyone’s priority: and that’s why normallstreets are taken by the students, because they have a cultural basis, the thirst for knowledge and are not compromised with the political authorities, who – for example – might have spread favours, jobs, power roles to co-opt supporters among their fathers.

So, to replace a regime with what? An American intervention, recalling back the Shah Reza Pahlavi, is likely not going to succeed. The Shah was very tightly bound to the Us even when it was in power, and he was ousted. Iran, moreover, is impossible to invade for a foreign cuntry due to its geography, even for the US.

A tribute in terms of blood is necessary for reaching the compromises needed to bring a new constitution, renewed institutions, and to overcome deep internal fights. Everywhere. One last thing: who presses for an American or Western intervention in Iran, should consider if he would accept every independent outcome coming from free elections: democracy is not the preferred form of government for all the world.

Yes, it’s impossible not to empathize with the Iranian, and not so support them morally: but every country must do its own revolution on his own.