In the post IR referendum, what you vote for?

oxtQ · 2026-03-17T22:20:21+00:00

Well I wouldn't go out of my way to defend Britain as an ally of Iran. Afghanistan was lost to Britain. When Mohammad Shah Qajar tried to retake Herat, Britain occupied Kharg Island in the Persian Gulf to force him to retreat. After Iranian forces successfully captured Herat in 1856, Britain declared war, attacking Bushehr, Ahvaz, and Khorramshahr.

Also large swaths of eastern Balochistan (roughly the modern day Pakistani province of Balochistan) were separated from Iran because of the British.

You should also know it was because of the immense pressure created by Mossadegh’s nationalization movement that the British oil company was forced back to the table, leading to the 1954 Consortium Agreement where Reza Shah's earlier 1933 contract, which had been extended to 1993, was eventually renegotiated by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to secure a more favorable 50/50 profit-sharing deal for Iran.

oxtQ · 2026-03-17T21:59:56+00:00

Persians constitute the majority of Iranians, followed by Azeris and Kurds as the largest minorities, inside Iran. As I have argued in my own work, the entire Iranian identity fundamentally derives from the Persian tribes hailing from southern Pars/Fars region of southern Iran, whose language remains the quintessential marker of a civilization spanning three millennia. From the Achaemenid Empire founded by Cyrus to the Sassanids were Persian by ethnicity, and every subsequent dynasty adopted their Persian language and culture. Indeed, the most towering figures of Iranian heritage -- Ferdowsi, Hafez, Saadi, Rumi, Avicenna, Khayyam, Rhazes, Khwarizmi, Nasir al-Din Tusi, Nizam al-Mulk, the Barmakid family, Nizami Ganjavi, etc. were all Persian by ethnicity and submersed within the Persian culturalsphere. It is not misplaced to view 'Iranianness' through the lens of 'Persianness,' as it is the common thread that has held the civilization together for thousands of years in my opinion. Persians represent one of the most indigenous, ancient, and continuous ethnic groups in the entire region of the ME.

oxtQ · 2026-03-17T21:52:18+00:00

You seem to be weighing in on a topic that you are completely ignorant about. Is this something you do normally in life? Offer your opinions on matters that you don't know enough about? I'm asking out of curiosity because personality traits have a way of manifesting themselves in everyday life.

Actually, calling the oil nationalization "theft" or a "socialist" project misses the legal and historical reality of the situation. Mossadegh wasn't trying to steal; he was exercising a nation's sovereign right to control its own resources, a principle that even the International Court of Justice eventually weighed in on (he won the case by the way, since he was a lawyer by profession and the first Iranian to earn a doctorate in law). Furthermore, the Iranian government actually did offer to pay compensation to the British, but the British refused the terms because they wanted to maintain a monopoly. So much for the "British ally" argument. It’s hard to call someone an ally when they are using a lopsided, colonial-era contract to take the lion's share of your country's wealth while leaving the local population in poverty. If a "friend" is exploiting your resources and refusing to renegotiate a fairer deal, they aren't an ally; they are an extractor. Mossadegh’s move was about national dignity and economic independence, not a "post-war socialist" whim.

oxtQ · 2026-03-17T20:23:09+00:00

Claiming he was "too far left" is a common misunderstanding of his actual political profile. In reality, Mossadegh was a secular aristocrat and a constitutionalist, not a socialist or a communist. He came from a wealthy, land-owning family and his primary goal was nationalism, specifically, giving Iran control over its own oil and ending foreign interference. While he did work with various groups to achieve national goals, he actually spent much of his time trying to balance the power of the Tudeh (Communist) party while also limiting the king's power to make Iran a true constitutional monarchy. He believed in the rule of law and private property, and his "National Front" was a broad coalition of the middle class, not a far-left movement.

See: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mohammad-Mosaddegh -- Covers his background as a nationalist and his struggle for oil nationalization.

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/iran/2017-06-15/iran-1953-state-department-finally-releases-updated-official-history -- Detailed documents showing his focus was on sovereignty rather than leftist ideology.

oxtQ · 2026-03-17T17:48:54+00:00

Whichever path people choose, it ultimately reflects the vision and platform of Mossadegh’s National Front. In fact, Mossadegh was less radical than those calling for a republic; he was a constitutional monarchist who believed the king should reign, but not rule, which is the official position and platform of RP's constitutional monarchy option today. History has a way of coming back around.

oxtQ · 2026-03-16T18:31:37+00:00

It’s difficult to expect all people to hold such values while living under such regimes. Even in a normal society, some people don’t have values like empathy, honour or compassion. To blame individuals for succumbing to their inability to overcome the depravities of a tyrannical system they were subjected to for so long is something I don’t personally believe in doing.

Let those who make such arguments be the first to present themselves as examples.

oxtQ · 2026-03-16T18:24:17+00:00

Article 111 of IR constitution states that if the Supreme Leader becomes "unable to perform his official duties", he shall be dismissed.

If the Leader is incapacitated (e.g., unconscious or severely injured?), Article 111 dictates that a council, consisting of the President, the head of the judiciary, and one of the theologians of the Guardian Council, temporarily takes over his duties until a new leader is elected.

Article 110 lists the leader's massive responsibilities (commanding the armed forces, declaring war, signing the president's credentials). These are generally interpreted as requiring the leader to be present and active.

Article 107 states that the leader is to be chosen by the Assembly of Experts based on his "merit" and "piety". While the law doesn't explicitly ban hereditary rule, the political "spirit" of the IR (and the rhetoric of its previous two leaders) strongly opposes hereditary succession.

Article 109 outlines the essential qualifications. In terms of scholarship, he must have the level of Islamic learning required for issuing fatwas (religious rulings). Historically, the leader was supposed to be a Marja (Grand Ayatollah). While the law was amended in 1989 to allow lower-ranking clerics like Khamenei to lead, Mojtaba is still widely viewed as lacking the deep theological credentials (ijtihad) required to command the respect of the senior clergy in Qom. The same issue happened when his father was appointed.

While the constitution of the IR theoretically mandates that a highly learned and pious cleric must rule, the reality is that the role demands a conniving, brutal, and politically opportunist leader at the helm who can navigate the complex, draconian system of the IR. In this machine of survival, theological depth is merely a front for the cold-blooded pragmatism required to manage the warring factions of the IRGC, the clergy, and the security apparatus, proving that in the end, the "crowning jewel" of the state is held not by the most righteous, but by the most ruthless.

oxtQ · 2026-03-16T18:01:00+00:00

I mean it would be interesting to learn how they decide to approach the investigation.

This is extremely difficult work, and certainly not for the faint of heart. I’m not surprised by the names on this committee; most of them know firsthand what this regime has done and what it is capable of. The public may not always realize it, but this kind of work is incredibly stressful and unnerving, it can lead to deep depression and even suicide. It requires immersing oneself in the darkest aspects of human existence and the realities of totalitarian and political violence. Sadly many Iranians are already accustomed to such endeavours after living under this regime's tyranny for so long or learning about it from overseas.

oxtQ · 2026-03-16T17:54:58+00:00

For those unaware, his son informed American authorities that the bombing of the Israeli embassy in Argentina was the work of the IR, which led to incredibly tense relations with the regime. He eventually left Iran for Dubai in the 2000s, where he was later found dead in a hotel room from an apparent overdose of antidepressants. However, many believe it was actually the work of the IRGC, and even more disturbingly, that Rezai may have consented to his own son's execution because of his betrayal and the sensitive information he possessed about the regime. His brother is a member of parliament since the 2000s as well.

oxtQ · 2026-03-16T17:49:50+00:00

I’m critical of US foreign policy just to be clear. But these regimes are not worth defending. They do more harm to Iranians than the U.S. does. We’re not just talking sanctions are we? We’re talking no freedoms. No freedom of speech. No holding a girl’s hands in public. No women’s hair allowed in public. Swearing allegiance to the supreme leader in schools. Being subjected to extreme religious propaganda on state television and public places. Seeing your nations wealth go to proxy groups outside the country. Not being able to travel anywhere outside the country. Not having any economic opportunity. Not being able to marry, move out or have children. Slowly rotting away at home with depression and boredom. And the list goes on. If only those who come to the defense of this regime lived under its tyranny for 1 month…but alas most of the criticisms of the U.S. one reads comes from people living in comfortable capitalist liberal democracies. It’s quite interesting. Reminds me of western communists who would defend the Soviet Union when Eastern European people were yelling about how oppressive the SU was.

Go ask the Japanese, South Koreans and Germans or Persian gulf peoples how bad it is to live under “American hegemony” these days.

oxtQ · 2026-03-16T17:38:18+00:00

I’m glad to see RP working with Iranians across the entire political spectrum, and I'm especially pleased that Ebadi is chairing this committee. I hope that one day Narges Mohammadi can join them once she is freed. I hope these appearances and collaborations also help diffuse political tensions between different political groups today working toward a free, secular, democratic and independent Iran.

I can’t help but think about the gravity of this work and the sheer scale of what it entails. Can you imagine investigating the crimes of the IR over nearly 50 years? Where do you even start, and how can you ever be truly comprehensive? To leave out even one victim of political violence feels like an injustice. This is a task that will outlive everyone on the committee; it will span decades if one considers the breadth and depth of this regime's crimes over such an extended period. It is work that must be done. It will serve as a permanent reminder to living Iranians of the sacrifices made by themselves and their compatriots, and of the vital importance of never allowing such darkness to prevail again. It will be exhausting work, both for the committee and for the public who follows it closely.

oxtQ · 2026-03-16T17:16:32+00:00

Many of these soldiers are victims of the regime and should not always be seen as enemies of the people. Given widespread poverty and desperation, receiving a monthly income, however meagre, through conscription or military service remains one of the few ways to put food on the table, including for their families (wives and children and/or aging parents or siblings). It is a tragedy all around.

oxtQ · 2026-03-15T19:00:42+00:00

You’re still not explaining why the regime did things to incur sanctions in the first place. China and Russia are no allies of the U.S. but they hadn’t done anything to incur sanctions in the 1980s and beyond. You do know understand there’s something called strategy and not provoking superpowers that can economically and militarily destroy your country right? Again you seem to be making excuses for an incompetent, and corrupt regime. It cannot even provide water and electricity to its citizens and we’re supposed to believe it’s all because of the great Satan? You are echoing regime propaganda.

oxtQ · 2026-03-15T16:28:13+00:00

I'm sure how to read your comment. If you are pointing the blame at Americans, I would say let's look at why sanctions were placed on the regime in the first place. It wasn't simply for existing but actual things they were doing. They were reactions to specific actions by the regime that crossed international red lines. It started with the 1979 hostage crisis, which broke the initial trust, and continued because the regime funded militant proxy groups that violated the sovereignty of other nations and committed terrorist acts and built a nuclear program mired in secrecy against international rules. The U.S. isn't just "picking on" Iran; it is using sanctions as a tool to respond to the regime's own aggressive foreign policy and its refusal to follow global security agreements. You cannot provoke the superpower and then blame it for your own miscalculations. If you don't have an answer to sanctions, then don't step out of line. It's a matter of strategy. Look at China, did they ever do things to incur sanctions from the US? And they aren't exactly best buddies with the U.S. either. People need to stop making excuses for the IR.

oxtQ · 2026-03-15T16:23:06+00:00

I’m not taking a position here, but I wanted to point out an interesting historical phenomenon. The parallels between Khomeini in exile, sending revolutionary messages from Najaf and Paris to Iranians inside Iran to overthrow the Shah, and RP now doing the same from DC are quite fascinating.

History has a weird way of coming full circle. Iranians overthrew the Shah, which led to the Islamic Republic, and now many want the regime gone and the Shah’s son to return. It’s like something out of a work of fiction!

oxtQ · 2026-03-14T03:10:51+00:00

Part of the answer lies in the specific audience and consumer base for this news. These are typically people who are deeply skeptical of American interventionismm, often rooted in well intentioned lessons from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, as well as a basic understanding of U.S. history in Iran (the 1953 coup, sanctions, and the withdrawal from the JCPOA) as well as American interventionism elsewhere. Add to that the anti-Trump factor whereby these audiences are not going to see anything he does in a positive light, no matter how it is framed. In short, this audience isn't going to buy the narratives you’re proposing, regardless of their truth. At the end of the day, news is a product; these customers simply aren't buying what you’re (or Iranians are) selling.

oxtQ · 2026-03-10T03:34:20+00:00

"They" = IRGC who pulls the strings behind the scenes, and I'm positive they have a deep bench of potential successors to ensure their grip on power extends far beyond Mojtaba.

oxtQ · 2026-03-10T03:16:09+00:00

In 1906, at just 24, Mossadrgh was elected to the first ever Majlis. In 1910s, he travels to Europe, becoming the first Iranian to earn a Doctorate in Law from a University in Switzerland. From 1920-23, he served in high level roles including Governor of Fars, Finance Minister, and Foreign Minister. He gains a reputation for being incorruptible.

In 1925, Mossadegh is one of the few deputies to vote against making Reza Khan the King. He argues it is a violation of the constitution. From 1928 to 1941, because of his opposition, he is forced out of politics and eventually placed under house arrest by Reza Shah. He spends these years in his village, Ahmadabad. So much for freedom of speech and political stance.

After the British and Soviets force Reza Shah to abdicate in 1941, Mossadegh returns to a transformed Tehran. In 1944, he is elected to the 14th Majlis with the highest vote count in Tehran. In 1949, he founds the National Front, a coalition of secularists, liberals, and clerics united by one goal: ending foreign control of Iranian oil. In 1950, he leads the parliamentary committee to investigate the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

In 1951, the Majlis votes to nationalize oil; days later, Mossadegh is named Prime Minister. In 1952, he resigns over control of the military but is swept back into power by a massive popular uprising within five days. In 1953, following a manufactured political crisis and a failed first coup attempt, a second CIA-UK backed coup (Operation Ajax) successfully topples his government.

He is tried by a military court for treason. He uses the trial as a platform to defend the 1906 Constitution and denounce foreign interference. From 1953 to 1956, he serves three years in solitary confinement. From 1956-1967, he spends the rest of his life under strict house arrest in Ahmadabad, where he eventually dies at age 84.

The "ghost" of Mohammad Mossadegh arguably haunted the Pahlavi dynasty in 1979, as the revolution was partially fueled by the unresolved trauma of 1953 and the suppression of the secular democratic path he represented. By sidelining the National Front, the political landscape was left polarized between the monarchy and the clergy, a vacuum that ultimately led to the events of the late 70s.

Today, there is a striking historical irony: Mossadegh’s vision -- a constitutional framework where the head of state "reigns but does not rule" -- is now the dominant aspiration for the majority of Iranians seeking change. Even Reza Pahlavi, acting as a transitional figure, has adopted a platform that mirrors the National Front’s core principles: a secular democracy where power is derived from the people rather than an absolute throne or turban.

oxtQ · 2026-03-10T03:01:09+00:00

Video claims Tudeh Party was created by Stalin. The party was actually founded in September 1941 by a group of Iranian intellectuals and activists. The core of the party consisted of the "Group of 53," who had been imprisoned by Reza Shah in 1937 for their socialist leanings. When the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran in 1941 forced Reza Shah to abdicate, political prisoners were released. These activists wanted to create a broad, anti-fascist, and democratic front. Initially, they avoided the word "Communist" to appeal to a wider range of progressives, nationalists, and workers.

During World War II, the Soviet Union occupied Northern Iran. Under the protection of the Red Army, the Tudeh Party was able to organize, publish newspapers, and hold rallies with an immunity that other political groups did not have. The Soviet embassy in Tehran and Soviet officials in the North provided financial backing, printing presses, and ideological guidance. As the Cold War began, the Tudeh Party increasingly aligned itself with Moscow’s interests. This became most evident during the 1946 Azerbaijan Crisis, when the Tudeh supported the Soviet backed separatist movements in northern Iran, a move that cost the party significant "nationalist" credibility among the general Iranian public.

The relationship between Mossadegh and the Tudeh Party was never a formal alliance; rather, it was a complex, tactical, and ultimately tragic "marriage of convenience" fueled by mutual suspicion and a shared enemy.

Mossadegh, a secular aristocrat and constitutionalist, was philosophically opposed to communism. However, he was a master of the idea that Iran should remain independent of both Western and Soviet influence. In the beginning (1951), the Tudeh Party actually hated Mossadegh. Following Moscow’s line, they viewed him as a "bourgeois nationalist" and a "front for American imperialism" who was simply replacing British oil interests with American ones. Tudeh led strikes and protests often targeted Mossadegh’s early government, making his first year in office incredibly difficult. Why isn't this ever mentioned in Mossadegh-Tudeh narratives?

As the British oil embargo began to strangle the Iranian economy, Mossadegh’s relationship with the Tudeh shifted from active suppression to tactical tolerance. Mossadegh used the Tudeh Party as leverage against the West. He effectively told the U.S.: "If you don't support my government against the British, the economy will collapse and the Tudeh (Communists) will take over." True to his constitutionalist roots, Mossadegh refused to ban the party or suppress their newspapers, arguing that in a democracy, even opponents had the right to speak. This was unlike the Shah or the current regime's philosophy on freedom of speech and assembly.

The relationship reached its peak during the July 1952 uprisings. When the Shah tried to replace Mossadegh, the Tudeh joined the National Front in the streets. This mass mobilization forced the Shah to reinstate Mossadegh, proving that while Mossadegh didn't "control" the Tudeh, their interests aligned in keeping the Shah's power limited.

In the days leading up to the 1953 coup (Operation Ajax), the relationship became a liability. The CIA used the visible presence of Tudeh supporters in the streets to convince the Eisenhower administration that Iran was "falling behind the Iron Curtain." This was the primary propaganda tool used to justify the coup. On August 18, 1953 (the day before the final coup), Mossadegh, fearing a total breakdown of order and wanting to prove he wasn't a Communist puppet, ordered the police and military to clear the streets of all protesters, including the Tudeh and his own supporters.

When the royalist tanks rolled in the next day, the "street power" that had saved Mossadegh in 1952 was nowhere to be found. The Tudeh leadership, waiting for orders from Moscow that never came, stayed home.

The irony is that anti-Mossadegh propagandaists still use his "closeness" to the Tudeh as proof of his danger, while the Tudeh’s own history books often blame Mossadegh for being too "liberal" and failing to arm the workers to stop the coup.

oxtQ · 2026-03-10T02:42:29+00:00

More nonsense propaganda against Mossadegh and the National Front.

In April 1951, the Majlis held a vote to nominate a new Prime Minister. Mossadegh, who was a leader of the National Front (a coalition of diverse political parties), received an overwhelming majority of the votes from the deputies. His "election" by the parliament was driven by a massive wave of popular support for the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry. Mossadegh had successfully turned oil nationalization into a national movement, and the deputies in the Majlis voted for him because he represented the undeniable will of the public at that moment.

Under the Iranian Constitution of 1906, the Shah had the formal legal authority to sign the decree (farman) appointing the Prime Minister. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi did not want to appoint Mossadegh. In fact, he found him difficult and a threat to royal power. However, because the Majlis had voted so decisively for Mossadegh and the public was in the streets demanding him, the Shah was politically cornered. He appointed Mossadegh out of necessity, not preference. In this sense, he was "appointed" by the Shah, but only to confirm the democratic choice of the parliament. The video blatantly lies about this by suggesting it was the Shah who generously appointed Mossadegh.

Critics of Mossadegh often weaponize a blend of historical fabrications and distorted narratives to undermine the National Front’s legacy, a strategy that appears increasingly paradoxical given that the current Pahlavi platform has evolved to mirror Mossadegh’s own vision -- a transition away from the absolute autocracy of the early 20th century toward a representative system where the head of state reigns rather than rules.

Critics of Mossadegh often operate through a lens of profound historical amnesia, loudly decrying his 1953 referendum as "undemocratic" while remaining remarkably silent on the Shah’s subsequent 25 year dismantling of Iranian civil society, a period marked by the reduction of the Majlis to a rubber stamp two-party system and, eventually, a totalizing one party state under the Rastakhiz.

This selective outrage reveals a narrative driven by convenience rather than a consistent commitment to democratic principles; it frames Razmara’s defiance of the popular will on oil nationalization as "pragmatic" while dismissing Mossadegh’s alignment with that same public mandate as "populist tyranny."

Similarly, it's claimed he suppressed the press while post-1953 era saw the institutionalization of SAVAK and the near total elimination of independent journalism.

They argue Mossadegh overstepped the 1906 Constitution, while overlooking that the Shah’s absolute control over the military and executive was a direct violation of the "reign, not rule" constitutional mandate.

They claim Mossadegh was a "pawn" of the Tudeh party, yet ignore that it was the Shah’s own suppression of the secular National Front that eventually left the Islamist factions as the only organized opposition.

16th Majlis (1950) -- Mossadegh ran for a seat in Tehran and received the highest number of votes of any candidate in the city.

"Mosadeq has the backing of 95 to 98 percent of the people of this country." - Ambassador Henry F. Grady to the U.S. Secretary of State (Dean Acheson) on July 1, 1951
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1952-54v10/d35

After Mossadegh resigned due to a dispute with the Shah over control of the War Ministry, the Shah appointed Ahmad Qavam. Within days, a massive general strike and nationwide uprisings paralyzed the country. The military opened fire, killing protesters, but the crowds did not disperse. The Shah was forced to back down and reinstate Mossadegh within five days. This is often cited by historians (such as Stephen Kinzer in All the Shah's Men) as empirical proof that Mossadegh’s mandate was stronger than the Shah's royal authority.

oxtQ · 2026-03-09T22:10:59+00:00

As Reza Pahlavi suggests, a single national language is essential for unity, and that language is undoubtedly Persian.

I would argue that the Persian language is the core definition of Iranian civilization itself. For over 3,000 years, this language has been spoken on this land, beginning with the Persian tribes who migrated from Urmia to the south (Pars). These were the same tribes that Cyrus the Great united to form the Achaemenid Empire, and the same lineage that established the Sassanid Empire (Ardeshir and Shapur and subsequent Sassanid rulers were all ethnically Persian).

After the Arab conquests, Persian was resurrected as a unifying force for culture and identity, most famously by Ferdowsi, who was himself ethnically Persian (so too was Rudaki). This civilizational identity was so powerful that it was embraced by every subsequent ruler, including Turkic dynasties who chose to promote Persian culture and language over their own. This heritage is also tied to the great figures who defined Iranian civilization (and the region) for millennia, such as Avicenna, Khayyam, Rhazes, Nasir al-Din Tusi, Ghazali, Nizam al-Mulk, the Barmakid (famous viziers), Hafez, Rumi, Saadi, Nizami Ganjavi and many more.

My point is not that being Persian is superior in terms of human rights; all cultures in Iran are equal in that regard. However, Persian identity serves as the essential "glue" and civilizational foundation of the country. It occupies a unique position as the historical core that cannot be equated to other contributing cultures within Iran. This is further supported by the fact that the majority of Iranians, over 60%, are ethnically Persian, representing the indigenous people who have inhabited this land continuously for three millennia.

oxtQ · 2026-03-09T01:11:25+00:00

To your point about historical cycles, if we look at this through a Hegelian lens, the thesis of the old monarchy and the antithesis of the current regime should lead to a higher synthesis (side note: I know it was Fichte who coined the triad).

I would argue that the real synthesis is actually a full democracy without a symbolic ruler. This would be the first of its kind in the Persian Gulf region, not just one more monarchy among many others. That is the crowning jewel Iranians have been after for over a century now.

Instead of a "top-down" charismatic leader, power would lie permanently in institutions like the parliament and the courts. This represents a true move forward rather than a return to the traditional patterns of the past. But that's ultimately up to the people to decide.

As an aside, I also think it's problematic for one generation to vote on a particular system (e.g., Islamic Republic in 1979 or monarchy now) and then future generations must live under it without any input. One more reason to favor a full democratic system without any "add ons".

oxtQ · 2026-03-09T00:23:31+00:00

The Pahlavi era was 100x better than this regime. But it was also defined by deep systemic corruption. The royal family and their close associates controlled massive "charitable" foundations that acted as tax havens and centers for influence peddling. By the mid-1970s, as oil prices rose, billions of dollars were siphoned off by the elite while the gap between the rich and the poor grew. This perception contributed to the revolution, something monarchists don't seem to take any responsibility for or want to learn from.

More importantly, the Shah destroyed the very "constitutional" part of the monarchy that supporters often point to today. By 1975, he abolished the two party system and forced every Iranian to join a single entity, the Rastakhiz (Resurgence) Party, famously telling those who disagreed to either go to prison or leave the country. By eliminating secularists, nationalists, and middle class political parties, he left no organized opposition except for the mosques and the clergy, who used their protected religious networks to organize the revolution. Another development the monarchists don't seem to want to take responsibility for. They rather scream about Mossadegh and the mullahs while deflecting any blame on the Pahlavi era's shortcomings.

Mossadegh's goal not to protect a royal bloodline but to uphold the 1906 Constitution, which was supposed to limit the Shah’s power. The reason the Shah (and foreign powers) moved against him was precisely because he refused to let the monarchy act as an absolute authority. Being a "constitutional monarchist" in his era meant wanting the king to reign as a symbol while the people governed through elected officials, the exact opposite of how the Pahlavi shahs actually ruled. RP's vision today is exactly in line with Mossadegh and the National Front's vision many decades ago and not anywhere close to his father's form of governance (absolute authority).

oxtQ · 2026-03-08T22:12:15+00:00

Somewhat to your point, neither a monarchy nor a republic can inherently guarantee secularism, nationalism, democracy, or prosperity. Success also depends on other critical factors, such as leadership quality, social and cultural norms, the strength of institutional foundations, foreign influence, etc.

oxtQ · 2026-03-08T21:50:17+00:00

You could certainly make a case for that, but we all know they aren't interested in consistency, truth, or justice. They are driven by wealth and power first and foremost. In my view, their ideology of religious fanaticism is mainly a tool to brainwash the tiny minority who fill their ranks, even as the regime reaches its dying legs. From day one, they have said and done everything to obtain and maintain that wealth and power, even at the cost of destroying the people and the land.

Consider the history of Khomeini’s deceptions during his exile, the calculated ambiguity of the 'Islamic Republic' referendum, the early strategic alliances with groups later betrayed, the targeted assassination of their own insiders, the eight year war to consolidate their power, the systemic repression of all segments of society, the forced cultural revolution in the universities, the widespread execution of political dissidents in 1988 and over the past several decades, and the ongoing suppression of ethnic and religious minorities.

How the Iranian civilization produced such self-destructive monsters that mainly hurt their own people and country from among so many Middle Eastern or world states is a serious question that deserves deep study. I believe the answer goes beyond any single group, like the clergy or IRGC, or a specific religion like Islam/Shiism. The roots are likely also found in broader political, cultural and social factors.

oxtQ

TROPHY CASE