What's new

From honeymoon to hangover, are Persian Monarchists the most terrible diaspora ever?

Are Persians Monarchists the worst diaspora ever?

  • Yes, they are

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No, there are other worst lot available (Mention in comments)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

The Bald Eagle

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 25, 2023
Runs
24,868
And now they have no leg to stand on, the idiots have made Iran the epicenter of hyperinflation mirroring the conditions of Germany Post WW1

They start celebrating the demise of Iranian leaders like some agitated Indians in May but later events reminded them that indeed Israel as a regime was always their enemy

===


'They lie just like the regime': Iranian opposition anger grows over US, Israel strikes on civilian infrastructure​


'They lie just like the regime': Iranian opposition anger grows over US, Israel strikes on civilian infrastructure

Many Iranians who once hoped foreign intervention would topple the regime now voice anger and fear after weeks of strikes, saying attacks on infrastructure and civilian areas risk leaving a ruined country

Opponents of Iran’s regime who once placed their hopes in U.S. intervention are now voicing anger at both Washington and Israel, saying the ongoing war and strikes on infrastructure are deepening their fears about the country’s future.

During mass protests in Iran earlier this year, U.S. President Donald Trump told demonstrators that “help is on the way,” raising expectations among some activists that outside intervention could eventually help bring down the Islamic Republic after years of mass arrests and violent crackdowns on protesters.

Celebrating the death of Ali Khamenei

Several cited strikes on civilian infrastructure, particularly the attack on fuel depots in Tehran last weekend, as the moment their perception of the conflict changed.

Outrage in Jerusalem over pro-Israel German president who came out against Iran war: 'Ayatollah's dream'
news

‘He came out slowly and said don't shoot’: IDF officer recounts capture of Radwan operatives
news

“They are liars too, just like the regime lies to us,” Amir, a student in Tehran, told The Guardian. “Each of you is worse than the other,” he said of the United States and Israel.

“Now I really believe that the U.S. and Israel had no plan,” he added. “I still hope I’m wrong, but the attack on Shahran changed the way I see this war.”

Shahran, one of Tehran’s major fuel storage facilities, was among the sites hit in the strikes, sending thick black smoke into the sky above the Iranian capital.

“If you want to hurt the regime, even if you believe these facilities serve it, where do you draw the line?” Amir asked.

“What about us, ordinary Iranians? We depend on civilian infrastructure. Why take away our ability to control our own future? Who will rebuild the ruins?”

Some regime critics also fear Iran could follow the path of Iraq after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, which promised freedom but eventually led to years of violence and civil war.

“I have no tears, only anger,” Amir said. “Anger at this regime, and at them,” referring to the United States and Israel.

Other Iranians expressed outrage over damage to historical sites and cultural landmarks reported in cities such as Tehran and Isfahan. “Is the message from outside Iran that because the regime doesn’t care, the world shouldn’t care either?” another student from Tehran asked. “Is the goal to erase our culture and history?”

Opponents of the regime say they are also closely following reports of civilian casualties from Israeli and U.S. strikes, including the deaths of children.

“Many people I spoke to changed their view about military intervention after seeing civilians killed,” one protester from Tehran said.

Mandana, a Tehran resident who spoke to the Financial Times, said she once believed foreign military intervention could bring down the regime after protests were violently suppressed in January.

When Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was killed alongside several family members in the opening strike of the war, she said she initially believed historic change might be underway.

But the experience of living through weeks of airstrikes has shattered that optimism.

“They weren’t supposed to bomb us,” she said, her voice shaking after a powerful explosion near her home in Tehran.

Before the war, many Iranians hoped that outside military intervention could help end the rule of the clerical establishment. Now some say the conflict is creating new fears about what would come next.

“If they wanted to eliminate the supreme leader, why are they fighting a full-scale war?” one Iranian woman asked the Financial Times.

Mahboubeh, a translator interviewed by the newspaper, said the war could leave the country worse off than before.

“If things continue like this, we will be in a worse situation than before the war,” she said. “A destroyed country, and Khamenei replaced by another Khamenei who is 30 years younger.”

Another woman, a housewife named Marjan, said she once hoped the regime would collapse after Khamenei’s death.
“Now I wonder,” she said, “even if the Islamic Republic falls, what will we inherit? A ruined country?”

War unites the public

Images of destruction in Tehran, including damaged schools, desalination facilities, passenger aircraft and historic sites, have shocked many Iranians.

According to a sociologist in Tehran, the war may be producing the opposite of what some outside observers expected.
Instead of fueling rebellion, the conflict is strengthening a sense of national unity.

“There is growing evidence of rising nationalism driven by the war,” the sociologist said, comparing it to earlier conflicts when Iranians rallied around the state despite internal dissatisfaction.

“The fear of Iran’s destruction is uniting more and more people who are worried about the consequences of a large-scale conflict,” he added.

Residents in Tehran told the BBC that the city suffered heavy damage in overnight strikes.

“Something exploded next to me and it shook my house,” a young woman said. “It has never been like this before. My heart was shaking.”

Another resident said he woke to the sound of explosions.

“I tried to sleep and woke up to a blast,” he said.

A man in his 30s told the broadcaster he had not left his home.

“It feels like a very dangerous day,” he said.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Iran under the Shah was basically handing over all of Iran's assets to the USA and Britain, they were giving up their oil and gas for free while their own public lived lives of poverty and servitude.

There was a reason for the Islamic revolution, Iran for all it's fault is now a sovereign nation which can defend itself. Compare that to the gulf nations which are dependent on USA for protection, and even that is worthless if a country like Iran goes after them seriously.

All these Bollywood "Persians" living abroad have no idea what Iranians had to go through to break from from servitude. If they were representative of Iran, then Iran would be a US client state today.
 
Iran under the Shah was basically handing over all of Iran's assets to the USA and Britain, they were giving up their oil and gas for free while their own public lived lives of poverty and servitude.

There was a reason for the Islamic revolution, Iran for all it's fault is now a sovereign nation which can defend itself. Compare that to the gulf nations which are dependent on USA for protection, and even that is worthless if a country like Iran goes after them seriously.

All these Bollywood "Persians" living abroad have no idea what Iranians had to go through to break from from servitude. If they were representative of Iran, then Iran would be a US client state today.
Yes, it's so dumb of some Indians to paint current regime as oppressive. Bearing in mind the Pahlavi dynasty was just an extension of imperialism. I wish they get the taste of same then they will even hail Rahul Gandhi as their cherished master.
 
All these Bollywood "Persians" living abroad have no idea what Iranians had to go through to break from from servitude. If they were representative of Iran, then Iran would be a US client state today.

What does a US client state of Iran look like ? Like Saudi Arabia ? Who would lose out from Iran being a client state ?
 
Iran under the Shah was basically handing over all of Iran's assets to the USA and Britain, they were giving up their oil and gas for free while their own public lived lives of poverty and servitude.

There was a reason for the Islamic revolution, Iran for all it's fault is now a sovereign nation which can defend itself. Compare that to the gulf nations which are dependent on USA for protection, and even that is worthless if a country like Iran goes after them seriously.

All these Bollywood "Persians" living abroad have no idea what Iranians had to go through to break from from servitude. If they were representative of Iran, then Iran would be a US client state today.
By no means do I intend to defend the Shah but the reality was more nuanced than the popular narrative.

Undoubtedly the Shah had the Americans and British to thank for his reinstatement in 1953 (along with mullahs like Kashani who hated the secular Mossadegh) and was sore about being labelled a western stooge as we see here in a testy interview with Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes. However he renationalised the oil industry in 1973.

By the standards of a Middle East autocrat he was fairly enlightened and was committed to using the oil revenues towards development. Iran transformed from an agrarian to an industralised economy and saw major improvements in infrastructure, health and education. University and college enrolment increased sixfold. From 1963 to the mid-1970s, GDP per capita increased tenfold.

Crucially, the Shah invested in the airforce (a personal obsession being an avid pilot) and bought F14s from the US (Iran was the only other country besides the US to use them). This proved vital in resisting Saddam Hussein's invasion during the Iran-Iraq War. Despite popular conceptions about the ideological rigidity of the Islamic regime, they were pragmatic enough to support the airforce who they distrusted due to their pro-Shah sympathies.

On the flipside, as Michael Axworthy explained in his superb book Revolutionary Iran, his land reform enabled 2 million peasants to become first-time landowners but for many, their holdings were "too small" to be economically viable. Massive population growth (which ironically Ayatollah Khameini curbed - take note Pakistani mullahs) cancelled out many of the advances in living standards and inequality spiked, especially between urban and rural.

Corruption became normalised and promises of democracy never came to pass. Again to quote Axworthy, by 1975 his only solution to dissent was propaganda and repression. He never recognised the political aspirations of many Iranians, thinking material benefits would suffice.

As for the Iranian diaspora, many of them left post-1979 so typically are the most fervent regime opponents and yes some of them are crazy. However Iranian society itself is a polarised and fragmented patchwork of Persians, Arabs, Azeris, Baluchis, liberals, conservatives, pro-govt, anti-govt etc so it's difficult to confidently state where the centre ground is.
 
By no means do I intend to defend the Shah but the reality was more nuanced than the popular narrative.

Undoubtedly the Shah had the Americans and British to thank for his reinstatement in 1953 (along with mullahs like Kashani who hated the secular Mossadegh) and was sore about being labelled a western stooge as we see here in a testy interview with Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes. However he renationalised the oil industry in 1973.

By the standards of a Middle East autocrat he was fairly enlightened and was committed to using the oil revenues towards development. Iran transformed from an agrarian to an industralised economy and saw major improvements in infrastructure, health and education. University and college enrolment increased sixfold. From 1963 to the mid-1970s, GDP per capita increased tenfold.

Crucially, the Shah invested in the airforce (a personal obsession being an avid pilot) and bought F14s from the US (Iran was the only other country besides the US to use them). This proved vital in resisting Saddam Hussein's invasion during the Iran-Iraq War. Despite popular conceptions about the ideological rigidity of the Islamic regime, they were pragmatic enough to support the airforce who they distrusted due to their pro-Shah sympathies.

On the flipside, as Michael Axworthy explained in his superb book Revolutionary Iran, his land reform enabled 2 million peasants to become first-time landowners but for many, their holdings were "too small" to be economically viable. Massive population growth (which ironically Ayatollah Khameini curbed - take note Pakistani mullahs) cancelled out many of the advances in living standards and inequality spiked, especially between urban and rural.

Corruption became normalised and promises of democracy never came to pass. Again to quote Axworthy, by 1975 his only solution to dissent was propaganda and repression. He never recognised the political aspirations of many Iranians, thinking material benefits would suffice.

As for the Iranian diaspora, many of them left post-1979 so typically are the most fervent regime opponents and yes some of them are crazy. However Iranian society itself is a polarised and fragmented patchwork of Persians, Arabs, Azeris, Baluchis, liberals, conservatives, pro-govt, anti-govt etc so it's difficult to confidently state where the centre ground is.


For someone who didn't intend to defend the Shah, you did a pretty good job of it. 😄
 
For someone who didn't intend to defend the Shah, you did a pretty good job of it. 😄
Haha perhaps the best way to summarise is that he wasn't the second coming of Cyrus the Great as his supporters claimed him to be, nor the ineffectual puppet his detractors denounced him as.

The closest Pakistani parallel would be Ayub Khan.

His son is another matter. He has none of his father's personality or standing within the country. I just read he attended the annual American conservative get together CPAC. He'll probably buy Trump's crypto coin next.
 
By no means do I intend to defend the Shah but the reality was more nuanced than the popular narrative.

Undoubtedly the Shah had the Americans and British to thank for his reinstatement in 1953 (along with mullahs like Kashani who hated the secular Mossadegh) and was sore about being labelled a western stooge as we see here in a testy interview with Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes. However he renationalised the oil industry in 1973.

By the standards of a Middle East autocrat he was fairly enlightened and was committed to using the oil revenues towards development. Iran transformed from an agrarian to an industralised economy and saw major improvements in infrastructure, health and education. University and college enrolment increased sixfold. From 1963 to the mid-1970s, GDP per capita increased tenfold.

Crucially, the Shah invested in the airforce (a personal obsession being an avid pilot) and bought F14s from the US (Iran was the only other country besides the US to use them). This proved vital in resisting Saddam Hussein's invasion during the Iran-Iraq War. Despite popular conceptions about the ideological rigidity of the Islamic regime, they were pragmatic enough to support the airforce who they distrusted due to their pro-Shah sympathies.

On the flipside, as Michael Axworthy explained in his superb book Revolutionary Iran, his land reform enabled 2 million peasants to become first-time landowners but for many, their holdings were "too small" to be economically viable. Massive population growth (which ironically Ayatollah Khameini curbed - take note Pakistani mullahs) cancelled out many of the advances in living standards and inequality spiked, especially between urban and rural.

Corruption became normalised and promises of democracy never came to pass. Again to quote Axworthy, by 1975 his only solution to dissent was propaganda and repression. He never recognised the political aspirations of many Iranians, thinking material benefits would suffice.

As for the Iranian diaspora, many of them left post-1979 so typically are the most fervent regime opponents and yes some of them are crazy. However Iranian society itself is a polarised and fragmented patchwork of Persians, Arabs, Azeris, Baluchis, liberals, conservatives, pro-govt, anti-govt etc so it's difficult to confidently state where the centre ground is.

Or in other words, Iran was pretty developed too but had a much larger population than other modernising monarchies of that time like Saudi arabia and UAE. Cpt's point about most iranian assets under Shah being sold off to West is incorrect.
 
Back
Top