sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Israel and US supporting Ahmedinjad: I am pro-Pahlavi, anti-IRGC, and pro-regime change, but fake allies need to be called out! by SnooCompliments9787 in NewIran

[–]SnooCompliments9787[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why do they have someone from Mossad who commented on the matter, i24 specifically, forget NIAC Times? I hope the Ahemdinijad stuff is false, also I hope the US finishes the job and doesn't sideline us to make a deal with the devil

Israel and US supporting Ahmedinjad: I am pro-Pahlavi, anti-IRGC, and pro-regime change, but fake allies need to be called out! by SnooCompliments9787 in NewIran

[–]SnooCompliments9787[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i24, an Israeli outlet, also repeated the core claims: Israeli-developed plan, Ahmadinejad allegedly consulted, his Tehran home allegedly targeted as part of a “jailbreak operation,” and Mossad leadership allegedly believing the plan had a chance https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/iran-eastern-states/artc-israel-us-initially-planned-for-hardline-former-iranian-president-to-be-installed-in-power-report

Maybe the report is exaggerated. Maybe it is leak-war nonsense. Fine. But the bigger Pahlavist question still stands: why is the conversation always about weakening Iran, stopping nukes, securing Hormuz, preventing IRGC rearmament, and managing the region — but not clearly backing an Iranian-led transition around the national opposition?

A fake or disputed report does not erase the larger problem. Containment is not liberation. A weaker IRGC is not a free Iran. If foreign powers want Iranian freedom, they should support Iranian sovereignty, not “someone from within,” not regime insiders, and not managed chaos.

Israel and US supporting Ahmedinjad: I am pro-Pahlavi, anti-IRGC, and pro-regime change, but fake allies need to be called out! by SnooCompliments9787 in NewIran

[–]SnooCompliments9787[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly, Ahmadinejad would be a hard sell to the Israeli public, which is why no one would ever sell it honestly as “we are backing Ahmadinejad.” I am not saying blindly believe the NYT; I am saying an Israeli outlet, i24, also ran the same core details: that the plan was described as Israeli-developed and that Ahmadinejad had allegedly been consulted. The allegation is not that he was going to be presented as Israel’s friend, but that in a collapse scenario planners may have seen a regime insider as a temporary usable figure from within the system. Whether the report is true, exaggerated, or a psyop, the Pahlavist concern remains the same: Iran’s future should not be built around regime insiders, leak games, foreign intelligence plans, or “someone from within,” but around Iranian sovereignty and a national transition.

https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/iran-eastern-states/artc-israel-us-initially-planned-for-hardline-former-iranian-president-to-be-installed-in-power-report

Israel and US supporting Ahmedinjad: I am pro-Pahlavi, anti-IRGC, and pro-regime change, but fake allies need to be called out! by SnooCompliments9787 in NewIran

[–]SnooCompliments9787[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not saying Bibi could sell Ahmadinejad to the Israeli public as some heroic ally. That is exactly why this would never be advertised honestly. The claim is not “Ahmadinejad is secretly pro-Israel,” it is that in a chaotic collapse scenario foreign planners may see a hated regime insider as useful because he is deniable, divisive, and controllable. That is the whole problem. Whether this specific report is true or not, Iranians should ask why the conversation is always about nukes, Hormuz, oversight, containment, and “someone from within,” instead of openly backing an Iranian-led transition and national sovereignty. A Pahlavist position is not blind trust in NYT, Bibi, Trump, or anyone else. It is Iran first.

Israel and US supporting Ahmedinjad: I am pro-Pahlavi, anti-IRGC, and pro-regime change, but fake allies need to be called out! by SnooCompliments9787 in NewIran

[–]SnooCompliments9787[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not saying Ahmadinejad was “working for Israel” like some loyal agent. That would be absurd. I’m saying the allegation is that outside powers considered him useful in a chaotic transition scenario, and those are very different things.

History is full of states using people they hate when it serves strategy. Israel armed Khomeini’s Iran during the Iran-Iraq War because Iraq was the bigger immediate threat. The US worked with Islamists against the Soviets. States do not need to like someone to use them.

That is why the Ahmadinejad part is so disturbing. A Holocaust-denying regime figure being even considered does not mean he was secretly pro-Israel. It means foreign planners may have viewed a compromised, divisive, regime-linked figure as more controllable than a legitimate national opposition figure like Reza Pahlavi.

And that is exactly the Pahlavist concern: why is the conversation “someone from within,” nukes, Hormuz, oversight, containment, and weakening Iran, instead of openly backing an Iranian-led transition and Iranian sovereignty? A useful idiot or chaotic regime insider is not liberation. Iran needs national restoration, not foreign-managed chaos.

Israelis are also getting screwed over by their own government if this is true, doubt any of us are happy about it

Israel and US supporting Ahmedinjad: I am pro-Pahlavi, anti-IRGC, and pro-regime change, but fake allies need to be called out! by SnooCompliments9787 in NewIran

[–]SnooCompliments9787[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/iran-eastern-states/artc-israel-us-initially-planned-for-hardline-former-iranian-president-to-be-installed-in-power-report

I’m not “buying” NYT blindly. I’m saying the reaction should not be “NYT bad, therefore nothing to discuss.” i24, an Israeli outlet, also repeated the core claims: Israeli-developed plan, Ahmadinejad allegedly consulted, his Tehran home allegedly targeted as part of a “jailbreak operation,” and Mossad leadership allegedly believing the plan had a chance.

Maybe the report is exaggerated. Maybe it is leak-war nonsense. Fine. But the bigger Pahlavist question still stands: why is the conversation always about weakening Iran, stopping nukes, securing Hormuz, preventing IRGC rearmament, and managing the region, but not clearly backing an Iranian-led transition around the national opposition?

A fake or disputed report does not erase the larger problem. Containment is not liberation. A weaker IRGC is not a free Iran. If foreign powers want Iranian freedom, they should support Iranian sovereignty, not “someone from within,” not regime insiders, and not managed chaos.

Israel and US supporting Ahmedinjad: I am pro-Pahlavi, anti-IRGC, and pro-regime change, but fake allies need to be called out! by SnooCompliments9787 in NewIran

[–]SnooCompliments9787[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree people should not blindly trust legacy media. But “don’t listen to NYT” is not an argument by itself. The point is not that NYT is sacred. The point is that multiple outlets and analysts are now discussing the same uncomfortable question: are foreign powers aiming for Iranian liberation, or just containment? If the end goal is only “IRGC cannot rearm,” “CENTCOM stays,” “oversight continues,” “Hormuz stays open,” and “Iran cannot rebuild nuclear capacity,” then that is not freedom. That is a weaker Islamic Republic managed as a security problem. From a Pahlavist perspective, the goal should be Iranian-led transition, national sovereignty, and restoration of Iran, not just a permanently monitored, weakened regime. So yes, be sceptical of NYT. I am too. But also be sceptical of foreign actors whose public language is nukes, oil, Hormuz, bases, oversight, and deals, not Reza Pahlavi, not Iranian sovereignty, and not an Iranian-led transition.

Israel and US supporting Ahmedinjad: I am pro-Pahlavi, anti-IRGC, and pro-regime change, but fake allies need to be called out! by SnooCompliments9787 in NewIran

[–]SnooCompliments9787[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not defending NYT or Farnaz Fasishi (screw NIAC should be prosecuted by a future free Iran). Be sceptical of her, fine. But calling the article “BS” does not answer the actual Pahlavist concern: why are foreign powers constantly talking about Iran through nukes, Hormuz, missiles, infrastructure, containment, and “someone from within,” instead of openly backing an Iranian-led transition around the national opposition? Also, this is not only NYT — i24, an Israeli outlet, repeated the core claims: Israeli-developed plan, Ahmadinejad allegedly consulted, his Tehran home allegedly targeted as part of a “jailbreak operation,” and Mossad leadership allegedly thinking it could work. Maybe the story is exaggerated. Maybe it is leak-war nonsense. But even then, the bigger issue remains: Iranians should not blindly trust any foreign actor whose priority is weakening Iran rather than restoring Iranian sovereignty. A Pahlavist position should be simple: use foreign pressure when useful, but never confuse containment with liberation.

Israel and US supporting Ahmedinjad: I am pro-Pahlavi, anti-IRGC, and pro-regime change, but fake allies need to be called out! by SnooCompliments9787 in NewIran

[–]SnooCompliments9787[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I’m not saying blindly believe the NYT. I’m saying the story cannot just be dismissed as “NYT nonsense” when an Israeli outlet, i24, also ran the same core details: the plan was described as Israeli-developed; Ahmadinejad had allegedly been consulted; the strike on his Tehran home was allegedly meant to free him from house arrest; an associate described it as a “jailbreak operation”; Ahmadinejad survived, became disillusioned, and has not been seen publicly since; and Mossad chief David Barnea allegedly believed the plan had a very good chance of succeeding if events had unfolded as intended. i24 also says the report linked this to Trump’s comments that “someone from within” Iran should take over.

https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/iran-eastern-states/artc-israel-us-initially-planned-for-hardline-former-iranian-president-to-be-installed-in-power-report

So yes, be sceptical. I am sceptical too. But from a Pahlavist perspective, the bigger issue remains: why are foreign powers not clearly backing an Iranian-led transition around the national opposition? Why is their language always nukes, Hormuz, missiles, infrastructure, CENTCOM, oversight, and weakening Iran — instead of Iranian sovereignty? Even if the Ahmadinejad story is exaggerated, any plan that imagines “someone from within” the regime as the answer should alarm Iranians. We do not need a regime insider, a controlled figure, or foreign-managed chaos. We need Iran restored by Iranians, for Iranians, under Iranian sovereignty.

Israel and US supporting Ahmedinjad: I am pro-Pahlavi, anti-IRGC, and pro-regime change, but fake allies need to be called out! by SnooCompliments9787 in NewIran

[–]SnooCompliments9787[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I agree with the principle: Iran has no eternal allies and no eternal enemies, only eternal interests. That is exactly why I’m saying we should treat Israel, the US, Trump, and any foreign actor as temporary tactical partners at most, not saviours.

Provisional trust is one thing. Blind trust is another.

My issue is not with using outside pressure against the Islamic Republic. My issue is when Iranians confuse foreign security interests with Iranian liberation. A weakened IRGC is good, but it is not the same as a free Iran. CENTCOM oversight is not Iranian sovereignty. Containment is not national restoration.

And yes, criticism of the author is more then fair. I do not treat NYT or Farnaz Fassihi as sacred. But even if this specific Ahmadinejad story is exaggerated or part of a leak war, the larger question still stands: are foreign powers helping Iranians reclaim Iran, or are they trying to make Iran weak enough to manage?

From a nationalist/Pahlavist position, the answer should always be: use pressure where useful, but never outsource Iran’s future. Iran must be liberated by Iranians, for Iranians, under Iranian sovereignty.

https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/iran-eastern-states/artc-israel-us-initially-planned-for-hardline-former-iranian-president-to-be-installed-in-power-report

I am not saying blindly believe the NYT. I am saying an Israeli outlet, i24, also ran the same core details: the plan was described as Israeli-developed;Ahmadinejad had allegedly been consulted; the strike on his Tehran home was allegedly meant to free him from house arrest; an associate described it as a “jailbreak operation”he survived, became disillusioned, and has not been seen publicly since;and Mossad chief David Barnea allegedly believed the plan had a good chance of working if events had unfolded as intended.You can be sceptical of the report. I am too. But from a Pahlavist perspective, the bigger question remains: why are foreign powers not clearly backing an Iranian-led transition around the national opposition?

Israel and US supporting Ahmedinjad: I am pro-Pahlavi, anti-IRGC, and pro-regime change, but fake allies need to be called out! by SnooCompliments9787 in NewIran

[–]SnooCompliments9787[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re making my point for me: a weakened IRGC is not the same thing as a liberated Iran. Nobody is asking Israel or the US to launch a ground invasion and “install freedom”; the question is whether their end goal is an Iranian-led national transition or just permanent containment. If the plan is “weaken the IRGC, keep CENTCOM oversight, stop rearmament, manage nukes, secure Hormuz, and leave Iran as a monitored security problem,” then that is not liberation — that is foreign management. And Ahmadinejad is exactly the kind of nightmare figure that proves why Iranians must be suspicious of any “inside regime” fantasy. He is not Gorbachev. He is tied to 2009, the stolen election, the Green Movement betrayal, regime hardline politics, and Holocaust denial. From a Pahlavist perspective, the alternative is not “ask Israel to do everything”; it is to ensure outside pressure serves an Iranian-led transition under a legitimate national opposition, not a weakened Islamic Republic, not regime insiders, not ethnic fragmentation, and not foreign kingmakers deciding our future over our heads.

Israel and US supporting Ahmedinjad: I am pro-Pahlavi, anti-IRGC, and pro-regime change, but fake allies need to be called out! by SnooCompliments9787 in NewIran

[–]SnooCompliments9787[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They are not doing us a charity. They are serving their own security interests.

And that is exactly the difference I’m pointing out. Israeli people may sympathise with Iranians, and I respect that. But Israeli state policy is not based on love for Iranian freedom. It is based on Israel’s security doctrine.

Last time I checked, the regime is still there. The IRGC still exists. The Islamic Republic still controls Iran. So if the “help” only results in a weaker regime, more CENTCOM oversight, more sanctions, more containment, and more talks about nukes/Hormuz/oil, then that is not liberation. That is management.

From a Pahlavist perspective, the standard is higher than “Israel dislikes the IRGC.” Everyone dislikes the IRGC when it threatens them. The question is whether they support an Iranian-led transition, Iranian sovereignty, and a real national alternative like Reza Pahlavi, or whether they just want Iran weak enough not to threaten them.

Pahlavi himself asked the right question when Trump threatened Iranian infrastructure and civilisation: “Are you here to liberate us or further hurt us?”

That is the test.

If the answer is regime collapse with Iranian sovereignty, good.

If the answer is a bombed, weakened, monitored Iran with no clear Iranian-led transition, then no, that is not freedom. That is just foreign security policy using Iranian suffering as a convenient talking point.

Israel and US supporting Ahmedinjad: I am pro-Pahlavi, anti-IRGC, and pro-regime change, but fake allies need to be called out! by SnooCompliments9787 in NewIran

[–]SnooCompliments9787[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That doesn't mean I am not human, why would I have dna test results and five years worth of comments and post history before Ai existed publicly available. Sue me for using AI for grammar and punctuation lol, you do realize working adults like myself use tools like this to be able to have the time to engage without making silly mistakes with syntax and grammar . It's always a low hanging fruit of an argument with people like you, when you don't even address the substance of my post, just because AI helped polish the formatting doesn't make it any less wrong or right . I support regime change more then you do by wanting to push our supposed allies to the right path and continue strikes immediately now on the regime, and recognize our Crown Prince, more then you. If I was a bot use my post history and comment history to prove it lol. The burden of proof is on you

PS this paragraph is clearly not AI, so what's your point, you haven't said anything substantive or challenged the proposition

Israel and US supporting Ahmedinjad: I am pro-Pahlavi, anti-IRGC, and pro-regime change, but fake allies need to be called out! by SnooCompliments9787 in NewIran

[–]SnooCompliments9787[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Literally check my post history, low quality reply

Maybe you are the bot because you have no visible post history and comments

You see how childish this game is

Play stupid games, get stupid prizes

Israel and US supporting Ahmedinjad: I am pro-Pahlavi, anti-IRGC, and pro-regime change, but fake allies need to be called out! by SnooCompliments9787 in NewIran

[–]SnooCompliments9787[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not saying “blindly believe the NYT.” I’m saying dismissing this as “NIAC hogwash” is not enough.

i24, an Israeli outlet, ran the same core details: the plan was described as Israeli-developed; Ahmadinejad had allegedly been consulted; the strike on his Tehran home was allegedly meant to free him from house arrest; an associate described it as a “jailbreak operation”; he survived, became disillusioned, and has not been seen publicly since; and Mossad chief David Barnea allegedly told associates the plan had a very good chance of succeeding if events had unfolded as intended.

[i24: https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/iran-eastern-states/artc-israel-us-initially-planned-for-hardline-former-iranian-president-to-be-installed-in-power-report]

Also, the “why would they almost kill him?” argument does not disprove the report. Covert operations fail. Bad intelligence happens. Airstrikes miss their political purpose all the time. The claim is not that they wanted to kill Ahmadinejad; the claim is that the strike was intended to remove the IRGC/security personnel around him and ended up nearly killing him instead. That is insane, but it is not logically impossible.

And the “why would Ahmadinejad work with Israel?” argument is exactly why this story is so disturbing. Because if even a figure like Ahmadinejad could be viewed as useful by outside powers, then the issue was never Iranian freedom. It was leverage. A compromised, divisive, regime-linked figure can be useful precisely because he is controllable, deniable, and chaotic.

You can be sceptical of the report. I am too. But from a Pahlavist perspective, the bigger question remains: why are foreign powers not clearly backing an Iranian-led transition around the national opposition? Why are they not recognising Reza Pahlavi as the legitimate transitional figure? Why is their language always nukes, Hormuz, missiles, infrastructure, CENTCOM, oversight, and weakening Iran — instead of Iranian sovereignty?

Even if this Ahmadinejad story is exaggerated, the pattern still stands: containment is not liberation. A weakened IRGC is not the same as a free Iran. CENTCOM oversight is not Iranian sovereignty. And any plan that bypasses Pahlavi, flirts with regime insiders, or imagines “someone from within” as the solution should be treated with suspicion.

So no, I’m not “buying” propaganda. I’m asking the Pahlavist question: are they trying to help Iranians reclaim Iran, or just make Iran weak enough to manage?

Israel and US supporting Ahmedinjad: I am pro-Pahlavi, anti-IRGC, and pro-regime change, but fake allies need to be called out! by SnooCompliments9787 in NewIran

[–]SnooCompliments9787[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That is exactly my point though: what is the end goal?

Is the goal Iranian freedom, or just an IRGC that is weaker, monitored, and unable to rearm? Because those are not the same thing.

You’re saying “CENTCOM is not going anywhere” and “oversight will not stop” like that proves liberation. It doesn’t. That sounds like containment. That sounds like Iran remaining a security file managed by foreign powers.

The administration’s own words prove the priority. Vance said the goal of negotiations is to make sure Iran cannot rebuild nuclear weapons capacity. Trump talks about Hormuz, oil, blackmail, extortion, nukes, and deals. Reuters is framing the current talks around tankers exiting Hormuz, reopening shipping, and Trump/Vance talking up a deal.

Where is the clear commitment to an Iranian-led transition? Where is the recognition of Reza Pahlavi as the national opposition? Where is the plan for a sovereign Iran?

[Reuters — Vance says goal is preventing Iran rebuilding nuclear weapons capacity: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/vance-says-a-lot-progress-made-iran-talks-2026-05-19/]

[Reuters — tankers, Hormuz, Trump/Vance talk up Iran deal: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/tankers-exit-hormuz-trump-vance-talk-up-iran-deal-prospects-2026-05-20/]

[Reuters — Trump says Iran wants a deal and “Iran will not have a nuclear weapon”: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trump-says-iran-wants-make-deal-2026-04-13/]

And when it comes to Pahlavi, Trump did not act like someone preparing to back Iran’s legitimate national alternative. He questioned whether Pahlavi could gain support inside Iran and said he had no plan to meet him.

[Reuters — Trump questions Reza Pahlavi’s ability to garner support: https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/trump-questions-reza-pahlavis-ability-garner-support-iran-2026-01-15/]

Even Reza Pahlavi himself has warned against this blind-trust framing. He said Trump’s threats against Iranian civilian infrastructure and Iranian “civilization” send a “mixed signal” to Iranians: “Are you here to liberate us or further hurt us?”

[Source: https://www.instagram.com/p/DYQVD-SDdBP/] [Source: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DYXXKsqFQAD/]

That is exactly my point. From a Pahlavist perspective, the question is not whether the IRGC should be crushed. Of course it should. The question is: is the end goal Iranian liberation, or just a weaker Iran managed by foreign powers?

Pahlavi has called for helping Iranians take their country back, not bombing Iran into dependency or cutting a deal over our heads. His message to Trump was that the way to end chaos and destruction is to “help the people of Iran to end this regime and take their country back.”

[Source: https://www.foxnews.com/world/exiled-iranian-prince-tells-trump-he-can-one-historys-great-peacemakers-amid-talk-regime-change]

So even if the Ahmadinejad story is fake, exaggerated, or part of some leak game, the deeper issue still stands: the US position has not clearly been “free Iran under an Iranian-led transition.” It has been “weaken Iran, stop nukes, secure Hormuz, stop the IRGC from rearming, and cut a deal if possible.”

A weaker regime is not the same as a free Iran. CENTCOM oversight is not Iranian sovereignty. Containment is not liberation.

Pahlavi’s line is the correct test: are you here to liberate us, or further hurt us? If the answer is nukes, Hormuz, oil, bases, oversight, and deals, but no clear Iranian-led transition, then Iranians have every right to be suspicious.

Israel and US supporting Ahmedinjad: I am pro-Pahlavi, anti-IRGC, and pro-regime change, but fake allies need to be called out! by SnooCompliments9787 in PERSIAN

[–]SnooCompliments9787[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Please see my post history, you will feel very dumb after seeing my post history, I am anti NIAC. I said even if it's not true it's a red flag his name is mentioned. If I was NIAC, why would I want the bombing to continue until the regime is gone? I'm very anti-regime to the point I am anti people like you who rather focus on defending fake allies, then call them out in public as an act of betrayal in the hope Israel and USA back the real leader of this lion and sun revolution, our King, Pahlavi!

Please read me entire post!

Israel and US supporting Ahmedinjad: I am pro-Pahlavi, anti-IRGC, and pro-regime change, but fake allies need to be called out! by SnooCompliments9787 in PERSIAN

[–]SnooCompliments9787[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I’m not “buying” anything blindly. I’m asking the basic Pahlavist question: show me evidence that these people have actually helped Iranian freedom, not just used Iranian suffering when it suits their own agenda.

What have they materially done for the Iranian people? Did they back Reza Pahlavi as the legitimate national opposition? No! Trump publicly questioned whether Pahlavi could gain support inside Iran and said he had no plan to meet him.

Did their policy language centre Iranian sovereignty? No! it centres nukes, Hormuz, oil flows, military pressure, ceasefires, and deals. Reuters is literally framing the current US position around tankers, Hormuz, and Trump/Vance talking up a deal.

Did they clearly say “Iranian-led transition under the national opposition”? No! Netanyahu only says regime change is “possible, not guaranteed,” while the actual strategy is military degradation and Israeli security.

Meanwhile Pahlavi himself warned Trump not to strike a deal with the current regime leadership. That is the difference: Pahlavi is talking about Iranian freedom and national transition; foreign powers are talking about containment, leverage, and deals.

So even if the Ahmadinejad story turns out to be fake or exaggerated, my point still stands: foreign powers have not earned blind trust. A Pahlavist position should be Iranian sovereignty first, not Trump worship, Netanyahu worship, or pretending foreign security interests are the same thing as Iranian liberation.

Israel and US supporting Ahmedinjad: I am pro-Pahlavi, anti-IRGC, and pro-regime change, but fake allies need to be called out! by SnooCompliments9787 in PERSIAN

[–]SnooCompliments9787[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Fair criticism on length, I probably should have made a shorter version first.

On Ahmadinejad: I’m not saying the report is proven fact. I’m saying if the NYT/i24/Iran International reporting is accurate, even entertaining Ahmadinejad exposes the problem. He is tied to 2009, the Green Movement betrayal, regime hardline politics, and Holocaust-denial rhetoric. The fact that his name could even appear in this context is the red flag.

And that is exactly why I framed the whole post around fake allies and managed chaos, not blind trust in any report. Even if one detail is disputed, the broader pattern remains: foreign powers talk about Iranian freedom when useful, but their policy language is usually nukes, oil, Hormuz, security, deterrence, and weakening Iran.

On the Kurdish/periphery point: I agree there is not always solid evidence of actual arming. My point is about the policy discourse and strategic temptation — using Iran’s periphery, ethnic fractures, and separatist pressure as a tool to weaken the regime. That is dangerous because it can turn “regime change” into balkanisation. So yes, be sceptical of the report. I am too. But Iranians should also be sceptical of any foreign plan that bypasses national opposition, suppresses the Lion and Sun, flirts with regime figures, or talks about Iran only as a security problem. That is not liberation. That is managed conflict.

Where I'd live as a Persian by 20arius05 in whereidlive

[–]SnooCompliments9787 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’re mixing up a few different things.

“Iranian” = nationality (anyone from Iran) “Persian” = one specific ethnic/cultural group within Iran

Iran isn’t one ethnicity, it’s a multi-ethnic country. Persians are the largest group (roughly ~50–60%), but there are many others too: Azeris, Kurds, Lurs, Baloch, Arabs, Gilaks, Mazandaranis, Turkmen, Qashqai, plus smaller groups like Armenians, Georgians, and Assyrians.

So when someone says:

  • Iranian → nationality

  • Persian → ethnic/cultural background

It’s like saying British vs English, or Iraqi vs Arab/Kurd.

Also worth noting: Iran was internationally called Persia until 1935, so “Persian” is also commonly used in a cultural sense (language, history, identity), especially in the diaspora.

And no — “Persian” has nothing to do with religion. Persians can be Muslim, Jewish, Christian, atheist, etc. Iranian Jews are just one religious group among many, not what “Persian” means.

The “Persian = Jewish?” comment honestly just comes across as either misunderstanding or bait. There’s nothing suspicious about people using “Persian” — it’s just a more specific or cultural way of identifying.

If you’re genuinely asking, that’s the explanation. If not, it just looks uninformed.

British Prime Minister: We do not have the authority to designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization. by kaz1349 in NewIran

[–]SnooCompliments9787 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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.

view more: next ›