[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/11/17/feedback.jpg caption="Christiane – all ears for the feedback."]
On Monday, AMANPOUR. viewers commented on the situation in Iran. It was felt by some that “what comes next” in Iran is just as important as “getting the current regime out of power.” It was believed that a secular government could be just as bad as or worse than a religious one. It was also felt that the question of the current regime being done away with was pretty much a foregone conclusion, but what was up in the air was “how much blood would be spilled?” Others bemoaned the loss of any life, and said that peaceful discussions and negotiations were the key to true long term change, not violence. A number of viewers sharply disagreed with the comments of Mohammad Marandi. It was also felt by some that the number of pro-regime demonstrators that had come out last week was lower than what the regime claimed.
What do you think about the unrest in Iran and what may lie ahead in 2010? Please share your thoughts with us! In addition, if you missed the show go to http://www.cnn.com/amanpour/ for more information.
Below, you will see some opinions from viewers like yourself. We would love to hear what you think.
Whenever I tune to CNN and watch what’s happening in Iran, I shake my head in disapproval and remorse over the outcomes. I pray that this ends soon. Blood isn't the solution to anything. People need to embrace the power of persuasive dialogue and tolerance for diversified individual thought and ideas.
Bringing this regime down wont be easy. The big question is if the regime does go down, who will take over?? Some want a monarchy, some want a democracy, etc... There is no real leader for the movement....and I sure as hell don’t want Mousavi or Rafsanjani to [rule] over Iran.......it just be more of the same....
Mona K. Sanden
I think the movement in Iran has already gone too far to be stopped. More blood will be shed, but I believe during this year we will see system-change in Iran. It is not dependent on Moussavi's fate. They will have to find another stronger leader who can unify all the groups into one strong force.
I think one of the biggest issues is lack of credible reporting from Iran. There is A LOT of false information our there that tend to get over sensationalized. So it is great to have some news from you and your sources, Christiane. From what I gather the young Iranians who have been taking to the streets (at least most of them), want democracy. I don't think people are looking to boot the regime out, like it happened with Shah. But they are looking for true democracy under a modified version of the current system. Elections that reflects people's will, freedom of speech, human rights and women rights. I also think one factor that will really hurt this regime is the economy. Inflation is extremely high, jobless rates are high, price of oil is not high enough for the government to sustain all the subsidies... all these will add to the overall sentiment.
This government in Iran is finished, the question is how long it takes and how much blood will spill before they go. Bigger question is what will replace it. Same religious government run by other mullahs, essentially same regime different color turban on top? And Khamenaie and his $33B stolen money in England retired. Or a secular government? Or a torn in peaces country like Iraq today, with each part playing a different tune and British with Americans smiling at their bank accounts? What?
I'm with Shervin Nooshin in thinking that "what's next" is the biggest issue in Iran. The people saying "don't worry about that, the ONLY important thing is to get the regime out." are fooling themselves because it can ALWAYS get worse. The citizens of the soviet block countries thought it was going to be rosy when the soviet collapsed, but because authority and facilities were immediately stolen by oligarchic thugs, things got much worse instead for several years. Iran could well find themselves with a secular dictatorship rather than an ecclesiastical one, and to say that a non-Islamic military dictator would be less repressive is an assumption I'm not willing to make. It would be very useful for the U.N. to have a few divisions of "poll-watchers" standing by to certify the legitimacy of any new leadership.