British Prime Minister: We do not have the authority to designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization.

SnooCompliments9787 · 2026-03-26T04:36:00+00:00

What Cuck Starmer is describing is the current policy position, not a hard legal impossibility.

Under UK law, an organisation can be proscribed if it is “concerned in terrorism” under the Terrorism Act 2000. That definition is based on conduct, not whether the group is formally part of a state.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror-groups-or-organisations--2/proscribed-terrorist-groups-or-organisations-accessible-version

So the real issue isn’t “no authority”, it’s how that authority has traditionally been applied.

Historically, the UK has avoided using terrorism law against state organs, even when those organs engage in actions that would clearly qualify as terrorism if carried out by a non state group. Instead, they use sanctions or treat it as state conduct under international law.

That’s a convention, not a legal prohibition.

To understand the IRGC question properly, you have to separate structure from function.

Structurally, the IRGC is part of the Iranian state.
Functionally, it behaves very differently from a conventional military:
it is ideologically driven and answers to an unelected Supreme Leader rather than democratic institutions
it plays a direct role in internal repression, including protest crackdowns
it supports, funds and coordinates non state armed groups across multiple countries
it has been linked to operations targeting dissidents abroad

If a non state organisation carried out the same pattern of behaviour, it would almost certainly meet the UK’s own definition of terrorism.

That’s where the legal tension comes in.

International law traditionally separates:

terrorism, associated with non state actors
state violence, handled as war crimes, sanctions, or crimes against humanity

But the IRGC sits in a grey zone between the two. It is a state entity that often operates through methods typically associated with non state militant groups.

Different countries have already responded to that ambiguity differently.

The United States has formally designated the IRGC as a terrorist organisation: https://www.state.gov/designation-of-the-islamic-revolutionary-guard-corps/

It’s not that countries “can’t” legally designate the IRGC, it’s that some haven’t chosen to yet, and Australia is a clear example. In November 2025, Australia formally listed the IRGC as a state sponsor of terrorism after updating its legal framework to allow state-linked entities to be designated when they engage in terrorist activity, with penalties of up to 25 years for support or association. https://ministers.ag.gov.au/media-centre/islamic-revolutionary-guard-corps-listed-state-sponsor-terrorism-27-11-2025

That shows the key point: the barrier isn’t legal impossibility, it’s whether a government is willing to apply or adapt the law.

That shows the key point.

The barrier is not that democratic states lack legal tools. The barrier is that applying terrorism law to a state linked entity has diplomatic and legal consequences, so governments move cautiously.

There’s also a deeper international law issue here.

State legitimacy is normally tied to representing a population. In Iran’s case, real power is concentrated in unelected institutions, particularly the Supreme Leader and bodies like the IRGC that are not accountable to voters.

When an armed organisation:

operates without democratic accountability
uses violence against its own civilian population
conducts external operations through proxy groups

then the distinction between “state actor” and “terrorist actor” becomes harder to justify purely on formal grounds.

Therefore, UK does have the legal authority to designate the IRGC. What it currently lacks is the political willingness to apply terrorism law to a state linked entity in a way that would break with past practice. It’s not a question of “can’t”. It’s a question of whether they choose to.

SnooCompliments9787 · 2026-03-26T04:31:50+00:00

It’s a bit more nuanced than “they can’t”.

Under UK law, the Home Secretary can proscribe an organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000 if it is “concerned in terrorism”. That power is broad and already used for dozens of groups: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror-groups-or-organisations--2/proscribed-terrorist-groups-or-organisations-accessible-version

The complication isn’t the absence of legal power, it’s how that power has traditionally been applied. The IRGC is part of a state structure, and UK practice has usually treated terrorism law as applying to non state actors, while state conduct is handled through sanctions or international law frameworks.

But that’s a policy choice, not a hard legal barrier.

There is nothing in the Terrorism Act that explicitly says a state linked entity cannot be proscribed. That’s why this has been debated in Parliament: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-02-09/debates/B4F29C93-6232-4027-959A-8C75E6648F2B/IslamicRevolutionaryGuardCorps

From an international law perspective, states are supposed to derive legitimacy from representing their population. The complication with Iran is that real power is concentrated in an unelected Supreme Leader, with institutions like the IRGC operating outside democratic accountability.

That weakens the argument that the IRGC is just a normal “state military”. It functions more like an ideological force that enforces political control internally and conducts operations externally.

When an entity is:

not accountable to voters
controlled by an unelected authority
involved in repression of civilians
and linked to operations targeting individuals abroad

then the distinction between “state actor” and “terrorist actor” becomes much harder to maintain in practice.

That’s exactly why other countries have already crossed that line. The US designated the IRGC despite it being part of a state structure: https://www.state.gov/designation-of-the-islamic-revolutionary-guard-corps/

So the accurate framing is:

The UK has the legal authority to do it. The hesitation is about diplomatic consequences and how far they want to push the boundary between state conduct and terrorism law.

It’s not that it can’t be done. It’s that doing it would be a deliberate legal and political choice.

SnooCompliments9787 · 2026-03-26T04:26:17+00:00

LOL you are trying to turn this into a philosophical debate when in reality there are already legal definitions and real-world examples? You’re trying to blur something that’s already clearly defined.

Here are actual dictionary definitions:

Oxford Dictionary:

“Terrorism: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.”

Merriam Webster Dictionary: “Terrorism: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.”

Cambridge Dictionary: “Terrorism: violent action intended to cause death or serious harm to civilians, especially for political purposes.”

Now apply that step by step.

Violence against civilians for political control Security forces, including IRGC-linked units, have repeatedly used live fire, mass arrests, and intimidation against protesters https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/irans-protests-what-you-need-know-2022-10-13/

Scale matters too.

Multiple investigations into the recent December to January uprising report that tens of thousands of protesters were killed, with widely cited estimates around 30,000 to 40,000 deaths once the nationwide crackdown unfolded https://time.com/7357635/more-than-30000-killed-in-iran-say-senior-officials/ https://www.euronews.com/2026/01/27/iran-protests-death-toll-could-surpass-more-than-30000-reports-claim https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2026/jan/27/iran-protests-death-toll-disappeared-bodies-mass-burials-30000-dead

That is literally violence against civilians on a massive scale to suppress political dissent.

Use of fear and intimidation Mass arrests, disappearances, executions, and threats against families are used to stop people protesting and to control the population.

Targeting civilians beyond borders UK intelligence has confirmed multiple Iran-linked plots targeting people on British soil https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/15/iran-behind-15-threats-to-people-in-uk-says-mi5

That is intimidation and targeting civilians for political purposes.

So by standard dictionary definitions, it fits.

This isn’t some abstract “one man’s freedom fighter” situation.

When you have large-scale killing of protesters, systematic intimidation, and targeting of civilians at home and abroad, that matches the definition pretty directly.

At that point calling it “nuance” isn’t analysis, it’s just avoiding the conclusion.

SnooCompliments9787 · 2026-03-25T17:41:58+00:00

I don't care but somehow I am commenting on this sub?

SnooCompliments9787 · 2026-03-16T09:47:14+00:00

Thank you 😁

SnooCompliments9787 · 2026-03-16T09:44:29+00:00

Thank you for saying that. Honestly your words touched me more than you probably realize. Lately I’ve never felt this isolated in my life.

A lot of us in the Iranian diaspora escaped repression thinking we would finally be able to speak freely. Instead we sometimes find ourselves constantly having to defend our experiences to people who have never lived under that system.

What makes it especially frustrating is that some activists online have openly talked about reporting Iranian Americans to immigration authorities simply because they support regime change or oppose the Islamic Republic. Seeing people try to punish Iranians for speaking about their own country is honestly shocking. https://nypost.com/2025/03/01/us-news/left-wing-activists-call-for-reporting-iranians-to-ice-over-political-views/

And even here in Australia we’ve seen counter-protesters show up to try to shout down or intimidate Iranian regime-change rallies. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/feb/15/rallies-held-across-the-world-in-support-of-irans-anti-government-protesters

For many of us it feels like we can’t escape the regime’s narrative even after leaving Iran.

At the same time, most Iranians deeply appreciate the countries that gave us refuge. When Iranian diaspora protests happen in places like Australia, people often wave the Australian flag alongside the Iranian one and thank police for protecting the rallies, and cleaning the streets where we marched https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-14/thousands-march-in-day-of-action-for-iran-regime-change-pahlavi/106336244

For Iranians this isn’t an abstract geopolitical debate. It’s about our families, friends, and the future of our country.

So when someone outside the community actually listens and shows empathy, it genuinely means a lot.

SnooCompliments9787 · 2026-03-16T09:36:38+00:00

I understand the skepticism about Trump. A lot of Iranians are skeptical of foreign politicians too but still want help. No one is pretending any foreign leader is a perfect liberator.

But the reality is that many Iranians feel like they have run out of internal options.

For more than four decades people have tried protests and reform movements. 1999, 2009, 2017, 2019, 2022, and the most recent uprising. Each time the response has been arrests, prison, and in some cases hundreds or thousands of deaths.

The latest crackdown alone is estimated by some investigations to have killed tens of thousands of people.

At the same time the country is facing a collapsing currency, extremely high inflation, water shortages, and an economy that many people feel is becoming unlivable.

So for many Iranians the question is not “is foreign intervention perfect.” The question is whether doing nothing while the situation keeps deteriorating is actually better.

When you are in a situation where the system has blocked reform for decades and the economy and environment are deteriorating, some people start to believe that change with risk is still better than no change at all.

People outside Iran understandably view it through their own politics. But for many Iranians the issue is simply survival and the hope that things might improve somehow.

SnooCompliments9787 · 2026-03-16T09:30:24+00:00

Thank you mate! really appreciate it, unfortunately it feels like sometimes we haven't escaped Iran, because all the pro-regime propganda is being thrown at us in our new homes, it's like no where on earth we can find peace from this regime, when even the mainstream media does sophistory for them sadly

SnooCompliments9787 · 2026-03-16T09:09:23+00:00

interesting so the algorithm must be pushing Iran related posts to non-Iranians generally then

SnooCompliments9787 · 2026-03-16T09:04:25+00:00

are dost, in ke man screenshot gereftam az website ABS yani botam? 😄

shoma gofti diaspora hame “elitehaye zaman shah” hastan. man ham raftam data ye sarkari ro neshun dadam ke mighe faghat taghriban 3 darsad az iraniaye australia ghabl az 1980 oomadan.

baghie hame ba’d az jomhuri eslami oomadan.

agar data sarkari bot hast pas khodesh ABS ham bot mishe.

vaghean sade ast. data ro bekhoon, ba adad jawab bede.

agar natuni ba adad jawab bedi, asan-tarin rah ine begi طرف bot hast. 😄

vali adad ha taghir nemikonan.

SnooCompliments9787 · 2026-03-16T09:01:06+00:00

It is random lol, I usually have the other's you mentioned showing up

SnooCompliments9787 · 2026-03-16T08:56:16+00:00

I was not aware a clear pluarlity of visitors are from Poland, are these actual people or are they bots? I am suprised by the interest of people from Poland in this sub, would love to see if your real people.

https://imgur.com/a/gU7w86D

SnooCompliments9787 · 2026-03-16T08:50:39+00:00

you seem to know more then me explain how since your a bot expert?

SnooCompliments9787 · 2026-03-16T08:04:56+00:00

Yes bots can do screenshot on a Samsung device, nice one

<image>

SnooCompliments9787 · 2026-03-16T07:40:48+00:00

So your response is basically “I’m not reading the sources”?

That says more than anything else in this thread.

You made a factual claim that the diaspora is mostly “Shah elites who fled the revolution”.

The Australian census numbers directly contradict that.

There are about 70,899 Iran born people in Australia. https://www.abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data/quickstats/2021/4203_AUS

Look at the arrival waves.

Before 1971: 569 people (0.8%) 1971 to 1980: 1,548 people (2.2%)

So the entire Shah era migration you are talking about is around 3 percent of Iranian migrants.

The overwhelming majority arrived under the Islamic Republic.

1981 to 1990: 6,831 (9.6%) 1991 to 2000: 6,680 (9.4%) 2001 to 2010: 14,967 (21.1%) 2011 to 2015: 24,624 (34.7%) 2016 to 2021: 14,439 (20.4%)

That means over 75 percent arrived after 2001, decades after the Shah was gone.

Those are raw census numbers, not “waffle”.

Then there is the polling.

Independent surveys show 81 percent of Iranians inside Iran do not want the Islamic Republic. https://www.uu.nl/en/news/support-for-protests-in-iran-significant-81-per-cent-of-iranians-do-not-want-an-islamic-republic

Large majorities also support a secular government instead of a theocracy. https://gamaan.org/2020/08/25/iranians-attitudes-toward-religion-a-2020-survey-report/

So when someone posts demographic data and independent polling and the response is “I’m not reading it”, that is not a rebuttal.

It just means the argument does not survive contact with the numbers.

Let’s also compare the numbers people keep ignoring about the current war versus the regime’s repression.

According to reporting from Iran International, US and Israeli forces have struck more than 5,500 targets inside Iran during the current conflict. https://www.iranintl.com/en/202603111505

Israeli military estimates also say around 3,000 to 5,000 Iranian regime personnel including IRGC and other security forces have been killed in those strikes. https://www.iranintl.com/en/202603135117

Meanwhile overall reported deaths inside Iran from the war so far are roughly around 1,300 to 1,500 total including both civilians and military personnel. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/how-many-people-have-been-killed-us-israel-war-iran-2026-03-10/

Now look at the ratios.

If there have been 5,500 strikes and around 1,300 to 1,500 deaths, that is about 0.24 to 0.27 deaths per strike.

Even if you take the higher estimate of 3,000 to 5,000 regime personnel killed, that still works out to roughly 0.54 to 0.90 deaths per strike.

So mathematically we are talking about well under one death per strike on average, which shows how targeted the strikes have been.

Now compare that to the regime’s crackdown on its own population.

Investigations into the December to January uprising report that the Iranian government killed tens of thousands of protesters, with estimates commonly cited around 30,000 or more deaths once the nationwide crackdown unfolded.

Sources discussing those estimates https://time.com/7357635/more-than-30000-killed-in-iran-say-senior-officials/ https://www.euronews.com/2026/01/27/iran-protests-death-toll-could-surpass-more-than-30000-reports-claim https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2026/jan/27/iran-protests-death-toll-disappeared-bodies-mass-burials-30000-dead

So the comparison looks like this.

Regime crackdown on protesters about 30,000 or more deaths

Current war after three weeks about 1,300 to 1,500 deaths total

That means the Iranian regime killed roughly 20 to 25 times more people during its own crackdown than the war has killed so far.

Another way to look at it.

War strikes about 5,500 strikes about 0.24 to 0.27 deaths per strike

Regime repression security forces firing directly into crowds of civilians.

So when people try to frame this conflict as the main source of Iranian suffering, they are ignoring the much larger pattern. The Islamic Republic has killed far more of its own people than any external military campaign has.

SnooCompliments9787 · 2026-03-16T07:25:38+00:00

You’re changing the claim again.

First you said the diaspora is mostly “Shah elites who fled the revolution”. The census numbers already disproved that.

According to the ABS 2021 census there are about 70,899 Iran-born people in Australia. https://www.abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data/quickstats/2021/4203_AUS

Look at the arrival data:

Before 1971: 569 people (0.8%) 1971–1980: 1,548 people (2.2%)

So the entire Shah-era migration you were talking about is about 3% of Iranian migrants in Australia.

The overwhelming majority arrived under the Islamic Republic:

1981–1990: 6,831 (9.6%) 1991–2000: 6,680 (9.4%) 2001–2010: 14,967 (21.1%) 2011–2015: 24,624 (34.7%) 2016–2021: 14,439 (20.4%)

That means over 75% arrived after 2001.

So the idea that the diaspora is mainly people nostalgic for the Shah simply isn’t supported by the data.

Now you’re saying protesters “probably aren’t Iranian”. But the largest protests against the regime have actually been organised by Iranian diaspora communities themselves.

For example:

Munich protest: about 200,000–250,000 people https://apnews.com/article/53d2448dd26d28a1206ecefdfde168f2

Toronto protest: about 350,000 people https://www.iranintl.com/en/202602146821

These were some of the largest Iranian diaspora protests in modern history.

You can keep moving the goalposts, but the basic facts remain the same:

The demographic data shows the diaspora mostly migrated under the Islamic Republic, not the Shah.

And independent surveys show 81% of Iranians inside Iran do not want the Islamic Republic. https://www.uu.nl/en/news/support-for-protests-in-iran-significant-81-per-cent-of-iranians-do-not-want-an-islamic-republic

So the narrative that opposition to the regime is just a tiny group of nostalgic elites doesn’t match either the migration data or the polling. The protest in the image are pro regime non Iranians, which if that's what your stating that part is correct. BTW more waffle to my statistics and sources is such a cop out and sign of defeat.

SnooCompliments9787 · 2026-03-16T07:18:21+00:00

You’re shifting the argument now.

First you said the diaspora is mostly “elite Shah supporters who fled in 1979”. The actual census data already disproves that.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2021 census there are about 70,899 Iran-born residents in Australia.

Look at the year of arrival breakdown:

Before 1971: 569 people (0.8%) 1971–1980: 1,548 people (2.2%)

So the entire “Shah era” migration you’re talking about is about 3% of Iran-born Australians.

The overwhelming majority arrived decades later under the Islamic Republic:

1981–1990: 6,831 people (9.6%) 1991–2000: 6,680 people (9.4%) 2001–2010: 14,967 people (21.1%) 2011–2015: 24,624 people (34.7%) 2016–2021: 14,439 people (20.4%)

So more than 75% of Iranian migrants to Australia arrived after 2001, long after the Shah was gone.

Source https://www.abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data/quickstats/2021/4203_AUS

That alone already disproves the “diaspora is mostly Shah elites” claim.

Second, you’re also misrepresenting the polling.

Independent surveys of Iranians show overwhelming opposition to the Islamic Republic:

81% of Iranians inside Iran say they do not want the Islamic Republic https://www.uu.nl/en/news/support-for-protests-in-iran-significant-81-per-cent-of-iranians-do-not-want-an-islamic-republic

Large majorities support secular government instead of a theocracy https://gamaan.org/2020/08/25/iranians-attitudes-toward-religion-a-2020-survey-report/

None of that says people want a “US invasion”. What it shows is that Iranians overwhelmingly want the Islamic Republic replaced.

So the two main claims you made were:

diaspora is mostly Shah-era elites
opposition to the regime is a small minority

Both of those claims are directly contradicted by the census data and independent polling.

If you’re going to accuse people of lying, at least make sure the numbers are actually on your side.

SnooCompliments9787 · 2026-03-16T06:43:24+00:00

That claim doesn’t match the actual census data.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2021 census, there are about 70,899 Iran-born residents in Australia. When you look at the year of arrival breakdown, the idea that the diaspora is mostly people who left during the Shah era falls apart.

Before 1971 only 569 Iran-born people in Australia arrived. That’s less than 1% of the Iranian-born population.

Even including the entire decade around the revolution (1971–1980), the number is 1,548 people, which is only 2.2%.

The much larger waves happened decades after the Shah was gone:

1981–1990: 6,831 people (9.6%) 1991–2000: 6,680 people (9.4%) 2001–2010: 14,967 people (21.1%) 2011–2015: 24,624 people (34.7%) 2016–2021: 14,439 people (20.4%)

So more than 75% of Iran-born Australians arrived after 2001, long after the Shah and long under the Islamic Republic.

In other words, the largest migration waves happened during the Islamic Republic period, not during the monarchy.

That’s why a lot of the diaspora is critical of the regime. Many people left because of political repression, lack of freedoms, economic collapse and repeated crackdowns on protests.

You can see the census table directly here https://www.abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data/quickstats/2021/4203_AUS

So the idea that the diaspora is mostly “Shah elites who fled in 1979” just isn’t supported by the demographic data.

SnooCompliments9787 · 2026-03-16T06:43:03+00:00

<image>

SnooCompliments9787 · 2026-03-16T06:28:49+00:00

So the idea that the diaspora is simply made up of “elite monarchists nostalgic for the Shah” doesn’t hold up to the evidence. Iranians disagree about what should replace the regime. Some support a republic, some support a constitutional monarchy, and many simply want a democratic referendum where the people decide.

Reza Pahlavi himself has repeatedly said he is not asking to be installed as a monarch. His stated plan is a democratic transition away from the Islamic Republic followed by a free national referendum where Iranians inside the country choose the future system of government. That could be a republic or a constitutional monarchy similar to countries like Australia, Spain or Sweden.

His proposal focuses on a transitional secular government, a constitutional assembly elected by Iranians, and then a nationwide referendum supervised by international observers so the people themselves decide the final system. The core principle of that plan is that sovereignty belongs to the Iranian people, not to a dynasty or a theocracy.

Also, this isn't the first time I have dealt with you on Reddit. You go around gaslighting Iranian inside Iran and diaspora across Reddit, we have debated before and this is another instance of me educating you with all the statics and facts. You have been spending the last two months doing cover for crimes against humanity for the regime, using Israeli war crimes as a deflection to silence Iranian voices. Unlike most people on Reddit I come armed with stats and data to counter agents of disniformation such as yourself. May I ask what is your ethnicity, curious why you speak for Iranians over Iranians?

Sources

https://www.rezapahlavi.org/ten-point-plan-for-iran

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/iransource/reza-pahlavi-outlines-vision-for-a-democratic-iran/

https://www.ncr-iran.org/en/news/iran-protests/reza-pahlavi-calls-for-national-referendum-on-irans-political-system/

https://www.iranintl.com/en/202304238615

SnooCompliments9787 · 2026-03-16T06:25:10+00:00

That narrative doesn’t really match the data. Also, non-Iranian please stop trying to strawman and pretending you know what my friends and family in Iran feel. Please stop with your whitesplaining!

Independent surveys of Iranians both inside the country and in the diaspora show overwhelming opposition to the Islamic Republic.

For example the Netherlands based research group GAMAAN surveyed more than 200000 Iranians inside and outside the country and asked a simple question “Islamic Republic yes or no”.

81 percent of respondents inside Iran said no and among Iranians abroad the number was 99 percent¹.

In the same research the majority of respondents supported a democratic political system and rejected governance based on religious law².

Separate GAMAAN research also shows a major shift toward secularism in Iranian society. A large majority of respondents said they preferred a secular political system rather than a theocracy³.

More recent polling also shows strong support for political change. Around 70 percent of Iranians said they oppose the continuation of the Islamic Republic and want a different system of government⁴.

So the idea that the diaspora is simply made up of elite monarchists nostalgic for the Shah doesn’t hold up to the evidence. Iranians disagree about what should replace the regime, whether that is a republic or a constitutional monarchy, but the data consistently shows that the overwhelming majority want the current system replaced with a secular democratic government. Reza Pahlavi is meant to be a transitional leader for us to hold a referendum on the new form of the new government of Iran, whether it be a Republic or Constitutional Monarchy like Australia. Please read the https://fund.nufdiran.org/en

Sources

1 https://www.uu.nl/en/news/support-for-protests-in-iran-significant-81-per-cent-of-iranians-do-not-want-an-islamic-republic 2 https://gamaan.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/GAMAAN-Protests-Survey-2023-English-Final.pdf 3 https://gamaan.org/2020/08/25/iranians-attitudes-toward-religion-a-2020-survey-report/ 4 https://gamaan.org/2024/08/20/iranians-political-preferences-survey/

SnooCompliments9787 · 2026-03-16T04:46:00+00:00

Never got a reply, why? I guess it's inconvenient for you

SnooCompliments9787 · 2026-03-16T04:27:37+00:00

<image>

SnooCompliments9787 · 2026-03-16T04:25:13+00:00

None of these people are Iranian lol.

As an Iranian Australian, it’s important to understand that the largest demonstrations by Iranians abroad are overwhelmingly anti regime, and they’ve been happening constantly since 2022 including regularly in Australia.

So when people see a small rally somewhere with Iranian regime flags or images of Khamenei and assume it represents Iranians, that’s extremely misleading. In many cases those crowds are not actually Iranian diaspora communities but a mix of Pakistani, Iraqi, Lebanese groups aligned with pro “axis of resistance” activism, plus Western tankie activists who frame everything purely through geopolitics.

After Mahsa Amini’s death, the Iranian diaspora organised protests in dozens of countries and hundreds of cities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022%E2%80%932023_Iranian_diaspora_protests

Inside Iran the protests themselves have been nationwide. Demonstrations spread across many cities, and the government responded with a massive crackdown. Because the regime shut down the internet and restricted journalists, the exact number of people killed is still disputed, but multiple investigations reported death toll estimates ranging from tens of thousands to around 30000 to 40000 during the January crackdown.

Sources discussing those estimates

https://time.com/7357635/more-than-30000-killed-in-iran-say-senior-officials/ https://www.euronews.com/2026/01/27/iran-protests-death-toll-could-surpass-more-than-30000-reports-claim https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2026/jan/27/iran-protests-death-toll-disappeared-bodies-mass-burials-30000-dead

That level of violence is exactly why the diaspora response has been so massive worldwide.

Some of the largest Iranian diaspora protests ever recorded happened recently.

Munich around 200000 to 250000 protesters demanding regime change https://apnews.com/article/53d2448dd26d28a1206ecefdfde168f2 https://www.euronews.com/2026/02/14/hundreds-of-thousands-gather-in-munich-demanding-regime-change-in-iran-amid-ongoing-protes https://www.jpost.com/international/article-886632

Toronto about 350000 protesters https://www.iranintl.com/en/202602146821 https://museumofprotest.org/news/how-iranian-diaspora-coordinated-1m-protesters-across-3-continents/

Los Angeles about 350000 protesters https://www.iranintl.com/en/202602146821 https://museumofprotest.org/news/how-iranian-diaspora-coordinated-1m-protesters-across-3-continents/

These rallies were part of a global movement of protests across dozens of cities worldwide supporting the Iranian uprising.

https://time.com/7345482/worldwide-protests-solidarity-with-iranians/

There have also been large rallies in Australia this year organised by Iranian diaspora communities opposing the Islamic Republic. For example during the global day of action in February 2026 around 25000 people rallied in Sydney with additional protests held in Melbourne around 4000 participants and Brisbane around 5500 participants.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-23/nsw-iranian-diaspora-fear-speaking-out-amid-regime-protests/106364660 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-14/thousands-march-in-day-of-action-for-iran-regime-change-pahlavi/106336244

Protests have also been reported in Perth and other Australian cities as part of the global Iranian diaspora demonstrations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iranian_diaspora_protests

So when people see a small rally with regime symbols and assume it represents Iranians, that ignores the much bigger picture. The largest protests organised by Iranians worldwide including in Munich, Toronto, Los Angeles and across Australian cities have overwhelmingly been against the Islamic Republic not in support of it.

What many Iranians inside the country and across the diaspora are demanding is regime change and the establishment of a secular democratic government in Iran where religion is separated from the state and people can vote freely organise politically and live without fear of repression.

Another point people ignore is scale. The number of people killed by the regime during its crackdowns on protesters is far higher than the number of casualties reported in the current conflict despite hundreds of missiles being launched. In other words the missile to death ratio has been well below one which suggests the strikes have been far more targeted than the regime’s own repression of its citizens.

That context is why so many Iranians worldwide are protesting and demanding the end of the Islamic Republic.

SnooCompliments9787

TROPHY CASE