A Revolution Could Soon Be Under Way in Iran

[angrysoba]

I just wonder if any individual (whether the son of the late Shah or not) or group has enough widespread support to be capable of running the country if the current regime falls.

FWIW, I doubt that the Shah's son has that kind of popular support within Iran itself. Of course, much of the Iranian diaspora is a different story as many of those who fled the Islamic Revolution did well under the Shah.

That certainly seems to be the view of a couple of Iranian experts such as Vali Nasr, who thinks that Pahlavi does not have an appeal across all sectors of sociey. Similarly, this writer for Time says Pahlavi is fundamentally disconnected from Iran as he grew up outside the country, and compares his potential return to that of Ahmed Chalabi in Iraq who had no support at all when he went back after the US coalition overthrew Saddam Hussein.

Interestingly, Yascha Mounck spoke to someone who wrote a recent book largely about the Shah and his fall, and he says that he was very surprised that some protesters in Iran itself are calling for Pahlavi. He does not really think the Shah has so much support either but admits he could be wrong.

 

[Blank]

When everything is turning to ◊◊◊◊ and the population is turning on you it would be really useful if you could provoke a foreign power to attack and give people a common cause to fight against. One that isn't you.

Never interrupt an enemy when they are making a mistake.

Even a best case scenario where a moderately democratic governance is established quickly into the region will probably mean a horribly repressive and cruel governance and/or continuous Islamic terror attacks. Any outsider deploying ground troops there is just tossing a clear target for all the crazies from all sides to target

Like it or not the Islamic ideology in Iran is widespread and uprooting those ideas/de-brainwashing the masses supporting those ideals won't happen peacefully.

 

[jt512]

Like it or not the Islamic ideology in Iran is widespread and uprooting those ideas/de-brainwashing the masses supporting those ideals won't happen peacefully.

According to multiple surveys, only a minority—on the order of 20 to 30 percent—of Iranians support "Islamic ideology." I would not characterize that as "widespread."

 

[angrysoba]

Never interrupt an enemy when they are making a mistake.

Even a best case scenario where a moderately democratic governance is established quickly into the region will probably mean a horribly repressive and cruel governance and/or continuous Islamic terror attacks. Any outsider deploying ground troops there is just tossing a clear target for all the crazies from all sides to target

Like it or not the Islamic ideology in Iran is widespread and uprooting those ideas/de-brainwashing the masses supporting those ideals won't happen peacefully.

The author in that podcast, Scott Alexander, says that regardless of what happens to the Supreme Leader, the power that matters is the IRGC, and they could simply end up as a military dictatorship with or without extreme religious overtones.

 

[angrysoba]

According to multiple surveys, only a minority—on the order of 20 to 30 percent—of Iranians support "Islamic ideology." I would not characterize that as "widespread."

I think it depends what “Islamic ideology” means. I doubt that only 20-30 percent are Muslim. I think the majority still are, but many are secular.

Could you provide some of these surveys?

 

[jt512]

N.M.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Omid Djalili has been giving regular updates

They’re still going strong. Black outs, no internet, shot at and killed. The people, seemingly indefatigable and unstoppable, are totally clear about what they want. They have one sole aim - with or without foreign intervention - of ending this regime for good.

Some outside the country, sitting comfortably at home, are telling us online what they think the people of Iran want and need. And I can tell you it is totally at odds with the wishes of the people.

As an Iranian, I am intensely invested in this unfolding story of incredible heroism. For 12 days straight I’m seeing the same thing on the streets. They’re not calling for the Communists. They’re not calling for the MEK. They’re not even calling to be saved. They’re chanting “Pahlavi bar migardeh” (Pahlavi will return). It’s not controversial. It’s undeniable.

When they say “listen to the people”, this is it. #IranianRevolution2026

https://twitter.com/x/status/2010115164905853188

 

[commandlinegamer]

With the support of the military, of course. This is the way of the Middle East.

It would be a bit difficult for anyone, anywhere to govern without such.

There's a world of difference between maintaining some semblance of order, and active, bloody repression.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I believe what most Iranian want (I might be totally wrong) is a purely technocratic government that addresses the existential problems of the country caused by climate change, bad agricultural planning and urbanization.
Everything else can wait.

 

[smartcooky]

Can someone explain how bringing back the Shah will improve the future of Iran? Because that seems to be what the protesters are calling for.

Well for a start, the general population of Iran was a LOT better off finacially and from the standpoint of rights and secuirity, than they are under the current totalitarian Islamic regime. This is especially so for women. Someone will be along soon to tell us all about how the Shah was totaliarian as well, but at least under his rule, you didnt get the death mark for apostasy, or if you were a woman, forced to cover your face or be stoned to death (or beheaded) if you didn't.

The world will be better off as well because Iran in its current form is by far the biggest sponsor and financier of terrorism world wide. Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, Boko Haram, The Muslim Brotherhood and Palestine Action all get financial support fron Iran... its one if the reasons why the Iranian people are so poor - Iran's GDP doesn't go to services and infrastructure for its people, its used to finance global terrorism.

 

[angrysoba]

Well for a start, the general population of Iran was a LOT better off finacially and from the standpoint of rights and secuirity, than they are under the current totalitarian Islamic regime. This is especially so for women.
Someone will be along soon to tell us all about how the Shah was totaliarian as well, but at least under his rule, you didnt get the death mark for apostasy, or if you were a woman, forced to cover your face or be stoned to death (or beheaded) if you didn't.

Heh heh! You've probably been taking sneaky peeks at my posts.

But no, I don't think the Shah was totalitarian. The Islamic State was far more that way inclined.

I actually think that the Shah's regime could probably be thought of as similar to South Korea's dictatorship following the Korean War. Repressive and brutal in many ways, an undeniable dictatorship, but one that was on its way to modernization, and one that could certainly have moderated if it hadn't ballsed up the economy itself and alienated many of the people it relied on for support. Whether the Shah really was the lackey of the US, he did very little to downplay the appearance that he was.

As for the Islamic State, they are losing their legitimacy and authority for sure. But I also think you do not know a lot about Iran if you think women were forced to "cover their face or be stoned to death", this is just not true. They don't wear a veil, although until very recently they were expected to wear some kind of head covering. Iran's theocracy is bad, but it isn't Taliban level.

The world will be better off as well because Iran in its current form is by far the biggest sponsor and financier of terrorism world wide. Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, Boko Haram, The Muslim Brotherhood and Palestine Action all get financial support fron Iran... its one if the reasons why the Iranian people are so poor - Iran's GDP doesn't go to services and infrastructure for its people, its used to finance global terrorism.

True they are big funders of Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis, but I think the claim that "Palestine Action" is funded by Iran is bollocks, and either way, holding up a sign saying you support them should not be an arrestable offence in the UK.

 

[angrysoba]

 

[theprestige]

Heh heh! You've probably been taking sneaky peeks at my posts.

But no, I don't think the Shah was totalitarian. The Islamic State was far more that way inclined.

I actually think that the Shah's regime could probably be thought of as similar to South Korea's dictatorship following the Korean War. Repressive and brutal in many ways, an undeniable dictatorship, but one that was on its way to modernization, and one that could certainly have moderated if it hadn't ballsed up the economy itself and alienated many of the people it relied on for support. Whether the Shah really was the lackey of the US, he did very little to downplay the appearance that he was.

As for the Islamic State, they are losing their legitimacy and authority for sure. But I also think you do not know a lot about Iran if you think women were forced to "cover their face or be stoned to death", this is just not true. They don't wear a veil, although until very recently they were expected to wear some kind of head covering. Iran's theocracy is bad, but it isn't Taliban level.

True they are big funders of Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis, but I think the claim that "Palestine Action" is funded by Iran is bollocks, and either way, holding up a sign saying you support them should not be an arrestable offence in the UK.

Palestine Action is an avowed criminal organization. That's a good enough reason to make supporting an arrestable offense.

And as such, I wouldn't be surprised if they are getting money from Iran.

 

[angrysoba]

Palestine Action is an avowed criminal organization. That's a good enough reason to make supporting an arrestable offense.

No, it is not! You may as well say that anyone wearing a MAGA hat or calling for the release of January 6th insurrectionists should be arrested. What an utterly ridiculous standard you are applying.

 

[Andy_Ross]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2010290903022293174

 

[lionking]

Well for a start, the general population of Iran was a LOT better off finacially and from the standpoint of rights and secuirity, than they are under the current totalitarian Islamic regime. This is especially so for women. Someone will be along soon to tell us all about how the Shah was totaliarian as well, but at least under his rule, you didnt get the death mark for apostasy, or if you were a woman, forced to cover your face or be stoned to death (or beheaded) if you didn't.

The world will be better off as well because Iran in its current form is by far the biggest sponsor and financier of terrorism world wide. Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, Boko Haram, The Muslim Brotherhood and Palestine Action all get financial support fron Iran... its one if the reasons why the Iranian people are so poor - Iran's GDP doesn't go to services and infrastructure for its people, its used to finance global terrorism.

Wow. You really missed my point. I am not arguing for continuation of the current theocracy, but am puzzled why the protesters are not calling for a proper democracy.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Omid Djalili
@omid9
Persian Spider-Man beats Keystone Cops to change Iranian flag at Iranian Embassy in London.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2010126310614679767

 

[smartcooky]

Posting this here and in the "BBC News Reorting" thread as its relevant to both.


Someone will be along soon to tell us all that this is GB News so the former BBC presenter being interviewed is a lying far-right extremist thug

 

[angrysoba]

Posting this here and in the "BBC News Reorting" thread as its relevant to both.


Someone will be along soon to tell us all that this is GB News so the former BBC presenter being interviewed is a lying far-right extremist thug

It’s Talk TV, smartcooky, not GB News, and not everyone is going to instantly start using overheated rhetoric.

Instead, given the videos apparent lack of relevance to the topic, YT;DW.

 

[theprestige]

Wow. You really missed my point. I am not arguing for continuation of the current theocracy, but am puzzled why the protesters are not calling for a proper democracy.

They've never really had one, probably aren't clear on what it entails or why it's so obviously superior, and think they know best what they're looking for.

It's not a complicated puzzle. There's not a lot pieces and they only fit together so many ways.