I see that the secularism disease has already infected some in Iran.
It's far from representing a new phenomenon though - nor is it characteristic of Iran in particular, as you correctly observed. The difference is that Iran got rid of the secularist and liberal poison, as opposed to other nations affected. Modern western-inspired secularist ideology in Iran is at least as old as the infiltration of the 1906 Constitutional Revolution by British-linked freemasons, followed by the heavily influential masonic presence within the regimes of Reza Khan Pahlavi and Mohammad-Reza Shah Pahlavi. The monarchy was finally overthrown by the 1979 Islamic Revolution, after which Imam Khomeini ordered a complete ban on freemasonry and their lodges, while secularism was abolished for good.
In other words, like everywhere in the developing world, there's a tradition of westernization among certain segments of Iranian society. These segments view the west as their role model and have little belief in their own nation's traditions, culture and civilization. Some of them would even invite western imperialist aggressors to bomb their homeland in order to overthrow an independent, traditionalist government such as the Islamic Republic.
A caricatural example being the Reza Shah-era politician Hassan Taghizadeh, an adept of western so-called "Enlightenment", who openly and explicitly advocated a full fledged cultural westernization of Iranians, including and especially in their outer appearance (clothing etc), as well as an abandonment of national traditions as the only way to achieve so-called "progress" and "modernization".
Numerous activists and authors however reacted to and denounced this line of thought, from Jalal Ale Ahmad (whose publication by the name of "Westoxification" / "Gharbzadegi" is considered as an influential classic, even if some historians point to Ale Ahmad's paradoxical early sympathies for zionism) to Ali Shariati, shahid Morteza Motahari, Imam Ruhollah Khomeini or more recently the late ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi.
Thank God the Islamic Republic removed from power these adepts of alien western modernity.
From the point of view of an Iranian dedicated muslim, secularism is poison, and from a purely objective point of view, religion binds the different ethnicities of Iran together in a common identity, should the glue be removed with no proper alternative, the structure will fall...
As it happened in Iraq.
As it happened in Lebanon.
As it happened in Syria.
Iran is no different.
Indeed, and it is quite ironic how westernized Iranian proponents of secularism, who wish to see the Islamic Republic overthrown, are oblivious to plain historic reality, which decisively conflicts with their claims about secularism making a government immune to outside influence...
It is enough to consider the ousted shah regime, which used to be a secularist one. Nonetheless, that regime was a textbook US vassal. Zionist, Haifan Bahai and freemason networks loyal to foreign entities and powers were exerting wide control over the state apparatus, over the economy, over the media, over culture and society. Iran had practically been deprived of her sovereignty. In no way was the secularist nature of the shah's rule shielding Iran from infiltration by outside powers, quite on the contrary.
Then, we have the examples which you cited: was Gaddafi's Libya not secular? Saddam's Iraq? Even president Assad's Syria? What happened to these countries, as compared to the Islamic Republic of Iran? Not only did the former prove much more vulnerable to the hostile machinations and interventions of imperial powers, but they have been de facto divided into separate "ethno"-confessional entities. Islamic Iran on the other hand, while being theocratic and non-secular, is still standing strong after 40+ years of staunch Resistance against these same imperialist powers.
Now advocates of western-type secular "democracy" will argue that Libya, Iraq and Syria might have been secular states but they were not democratic ones. Well, the example of Lebanon instantly annuls this objection. So does the case of the democratically elected administration of Dr. Mohammad Mosadegh in Iran: after few of months only, it was overthrown in August of 1953 by a CIA-sponsored military coup for daring to stand up to Anlo-Saxon imperial powers, given that it had nationalized the Iranian oil industry. It is with such ease that the US regime got rid of a government in Iran which was both secular and democratic in every sense of the term.
- - - - - - - - - -
Western societies believe in humanity and democracy and secularism, and they made such a huge progress upon these values that millions of Muslims want to leaver their Islamic countries and migrate to the western countries.
These emigrants are mainly motivated by economic rather than ideological considerations. And one of the main reasons why they migrate, is because the western-dominated global order is sucking dry the resources of their native countries. Imperialist exploitation of the global south, endless wars and millions of dead is what material wealth accumulation in the west has been based upon.
None was able to exploit it in case of Western Democracies, while their democratic and humanity based secular system made them so much stronger from "inside", that no outside power was able to exploit them.
Their conventional power and their material prosperity, which translate into more efficient security services and more stringent social control (be it through non-coercive means such as social engineering, propaganda, etc), are the causes behind the apparent resilience of western so-called "democracies". It has nothing much to do with their secularist or liberal nature.
On the contrary, a non-secular and non-liberal democracy such as the Islamic Republic of Iran has managed to fend off 42 years of uninterrupted imperial onslaught in spite of its comparatively extremely limited resources. It is therefore the popular and theocratic nature of Iran's current political system which acts as a key factor in ensuring the Iranian nation's safety from predatory outside influence.
Also, as indicated above, the examples of Lebanon, and of Iran in the early 1950's, when a US-orchestrated coup ended the secularist and democratic government of Dr. Mosadegh, provide ample evidence against the idea that secular liberalism strengthens a country against foreign intervention.
But even more significantly, western liberal and secularist regimes themselves are far from being exempt from influence and exploitation at the hands of the main hegemonic powers to be. As a matter of fact, US allies including western ones are vassal states to Washington and lack actual independence and national sovereignty. In a country such as Germany, the US regime's NSA intelligence agency is happily spying on chancellor Merkel's phone calls and there's nothing Berlin can do about it, even when the affair is made public.
Moreover, EU member states are subjected to the supranational authority of Brussels, another impediment to their sovereignty. Last but not least, all western nations governed by secular liberal systems, are being exploited by globalist oligarchs, by international zionism and by multinational corporations such as the agro-industrial and pharmaceutical industries (which, in complete impunity, are poisoning their populations with toxins).
So nothing could be further from the truth than the contention that secular liberal regimes provide increased guarantees against influence and profiteering schemes of foreign powers.
The most powerful element of religion is it's destruction. Thus, all religions bring destruction along with them. Some less, some more.
The greatest butchery in human history, WW2, was brought about by secular regimes.
Religion works on the bases of ALL or NONE. It needs Dictatorship in order to work. It is a polarizing force only.
While only Secular values are the one, who have the ability to "unite" all the people.
One of the biggest political scams of (post-)modernity is the hollow pretense by secular liberal regimes that western-style "democracy" is ideologically or axiologically neutral.
This is completely untrue, as these regimes are relentlessly pursuing ideologically-defined political goals, and even messianic, esoteric and metaphysical ones. Moreover, they are seeking to impose these designs on the entirety of mankind. Western so-called "democracies", in concert with powerful corporate mafias which nobody ever elected, are constantly and consistently acting to mold society in a targeted manner and according to precise long-term ideological agendas. These agendas are as far reaching as to include anthropological transformations of human nature (see transhumanism etc) - which is the very definition of totalitarianism.
The tools liberal so-called "democracies" resort to in this regard are massive propaganda, psy-ops and collective mental conditioning, as well as social engineering and systemic economic coercion.
As a matter of fact, every type of government seeks to channel its constituency into a given direction. The term "government" itself stems from the Old French "governement", which translates into "control,
direction, administration". Significantly, the French word for rudder, i.e. "gouvernail", is of the same stem. Therefore liberal secular regimes of the west are no exception, in spite of their claims to the contrary. It's just that unlike other forms of governance, their goals are totalitarian in nature, and the means they employ to this effect are among the most perfidious, underhanded and deceitful ever witnessed in history.
Western judicial system ensures it that father and mother take part in upbringing of the child, even if they have been divorced. Even if father does not want to take part in the upbringing, still he has to pay for the child expenses.
Or two adoptive fathers / mothers... This is how crazy family law under western regimes has become.
Let's not forget the numerous children born out of wedlock in the west, whose fathers are actually unknown and therefore never meet their offspring.
And let's not even get into the cases of children de facto abducted from their homes by western regimes and placed under the custody of social institutions under the most flimsy pretexts. Institutions where sexual and other types of abuse against children aren't uncommon.
It's enough for parents to try and discourage their children from becoming homosexual, and the latter can forcibly be placed under the custody of state authorities. Or to protect one's children from the traumatizing effects of contemporary sexual education classes in public schools of the west, where kids as young as 10 are exposed to pornographic material among other things, as happened in Germany - the regime then threatened coercive administrative measures against parents who allowed their children not to partcipiate in these classes.
Here's Omid Dana interviewing Iranian mothers (and fathers) recounting nightmarish, kafkaesque experiences of how the Danish regime took away their chlidren:
And psychologists agree that single parent is completely able to do proper upbringing of a child and to make him/her a useful member of the society.
It is better to have divorce as compared to the one sided Islamic system where woman had to constantly live under the black-mailing of the husbands, while Islamic society made women helpless that they could not even support themselves at their own.
Whenever woman will become financially stronger even in Islamic countries, the rate of Divorce will go up. Like we have above 60% divorce rate in Kuwait and UAE while women are rich and able to support themselves without their husbands.
In fact, scientific findings show superior suicide rates in multiple European countries (France, Ireand, Belgium, Sweden, Finland, Iceland and the whole of Eastern Europe), the US, as well as Japan, south Korea, India, Argentina and Chile (other secular and liberal so-called "democracies").
False.
True democracy and secularism will make Iran only stronger.
We could look at Japan and Germany, who both made a lot of success (even without oil) after becoming true democracies and after introducing true secular system. They fear no one from outside to exploit their system.
Neither Germany nor Japan are sovereign, independent nations. Both happen to be US vassals, and both regimes are at the service of overlords, namely international zionism and the global corporate-financial oligarchy.
Also, the historic and geopolitical contexts in which these two countries evolved, are very specific ones. In 1945 Washington decided to maintain Germany and Japan as relatively stable and economically prosperous vassals, in order to counter Soviet expansion, and because both Germany and Japan had had developed economies in the first place.
US policy towards nations of the south, and particularly West Asian and North African ones however is entirely different. For a glimpse of what the zio-American strategy towards these nations consists in, one only needs to look at Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia or Sudan: all countries and societies that have been wrecked, de facto balkanized, utterly destroyed at the hands of the US and its allies.
future is bright as Room without lights and no windows 
