Iran protesters chanting ‘DEATH to Rouhani’ and raise slogans against Khamenei

[mike2000 is back]

The problem these people blame muslims for ending their persian empire and want to revenge from them for doing that . Under the regime of the shah conservative muslims were persecuted and killed by these utlra persian nationalists .

Unlike Turkish seculars who simply want to separate state and religion those persian nationaliststs want to revenge from Muslims for a stupid event that happened 1600 years ago .

I am not fan of Erdogan or any other islamic government but when it comes to Iran things are totally different

Interesting observation there.
However I disagree with some of your points. Even if Persian nationalists were to topple the iranian mullah led islamists regime(something I don't think will happen) , they will not intervene in Arab affairs like the current iranian Islamic government. These secular Persian nationalists will be more of a modern version of the Shah. During the secular Shah era Iran was not only more Liberal but the country had no major issues with other Arab states including Saudi Arabia. There was no real sectarian /proxy wars between Sunni led monarchy KSA and Shia led mullah Iran like there is today. Reason being that the former secular Shah regime was never a religious led regime and so they never used the Shia religious card to secure Shia militias and proxies in the region to further their interests.

So even if these Persian nationalists were to miraculously topple the current regime and seize power (I personally dont believe that is possible) I don't see why you think they will be worse than the current regime in carrying on with the sectarian proxy war between Iran and KSA in the region. Shia militias and proxies like Hezbollah in Lebanon , Houthis in Yemen, shia militias in PMF and Nujaba Movement in Iraq and many other poor shias recruited from Afghanistan and Pakistan to fight in the region for the country. All these elements won't be attracted to the iranian shia islamists narrative anymore if Iran ever ceased to be an Islamic Republic defending shias in the region and became a secular Persian Republic. The attraction won't be there anymore, and this will lead to a situation where Iran will have to cede alot of its influence and presence in these Arab states in the region.
So ironically a secular persian nationalist Iran will lead to an Iran that will be more like a Turkey(judging by the fact that Iranians seem to be more open and Liberal in their views than many Muslim countries) than a Pakistan for example. That's my opinion.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Why spend so much resources on Syria is the question. They are not Iranian citizens.

Sure, it's a disaster over there, but disasters are happening all over the world. One's own citizens should come first, in my opinion.

 

[bosanski vojnik]

I have a weird feeling about these protests. It seems to me that they may indeed be successful in overthrowing the Ayatollahs regime in favor of a more Secular/Nationalist one.

This has obviously been planned by outsiders for a while and Iranians are not as "Islamized" as people think they are.

Interesting observation there.
However I disagree with some of your points. Even if Persian nationalists were to topple the iranian mullah led islamists regime(something I don't think will happen) , they will not intervene in Arab affairs like the current iranian Islamic government. These secular Persian nationalists will be more of a modern version of the Shah. During the secular Shah era Iran was not only more Liberal but the country had no major issues with other Arab states including Saudi Arabia. There was no real sectarian /proxy wars between Sunni led monarchy KSA and Shia led mullah Iran like there is today. Reason being that the former secular Shah regime was never a religious led regime and so they never used the Shia religious card to secure Shia militias and proxies in the region to further their interests.

So even if these Persian nationalists were to miraculously topple the current regime and seize power (I personally dont believe that is possible) I don't see why you think they will be worse than the current regime in carrying on with the sectarian proxy war between Iran and KSA in the region. Shia militias and proxies like Hezbollah in Lebanon , Houthis in Yemen, shia militias in PMF and Nujaba Movement in Iraq and many other poor shias recruited from Afghanistan and Pakistan to fight in the region for the country. All these elements won't be attracted to the iranian shia islamists narrative anymore if Iran ever ceased to be an Islamic Republic defending shias in the region and became a secular Persian Republic. The attraction won't be there anymore, and this will lead to a situation where Iran will have to cede alot of its influence and presence in these Arab states in the region.
So ironically a secular persian nationalist Iran will lead to an Iran that will be more like a Turkey(judging by the fact that Iranians seem to be more open and Liberal in their views than many Muslim countries) than a Pakistan for example. That's my opinion.

Well it depends on how much Western Influence a new regime in Iran will have. An overly Nationalist Iranian regime would have problems with the countries large Kurdish, Baloch and Azeri communities. Obviously things depend on who takes over when the power vacuum is created..

In any case if revolt is successful It will most likely spell the end for hezbollah and the houthi in Yemen. Unless of course Russia is willing to become their patrons instead LOL! Assad will take a slight knock too.

However Iranian influence in Iraq, Afghanistan and Bahrain to some extent will stay.I doubt a new Iranian government would import Afghans and Iraqi shia into their security forces tho..

 

[mike2000 is back]

Now back to topic. You say u are against Iran involvement in Arab countries and in same time u say that nationalistic Iranians are worth than mullahs. But as I said that pure nonsense. Shah Iran was never meddling in Arab countries while Mullah Iran is spending hundreds of millions on terrorist militias in foreign countries and slaughtering hundreds of thousands.

True. However I think @mahatir is right on one point. From what I have noticed even here in Europe, Iranians (they are mostly Persian nationalists and proud of their Persian history) do hate their Islamic led regime alot, they do consider them as Arab invaders and will be happy to remove them if they could. They are for the most part quite educated, intelligent, young, proactive and they are far more open and Liberal(even more than the Turks) in their views compared to most people from the middle east or even south Asia(Muslim ones).

So if they were to ever take power in Iran, I think Iran will be a very different from the ones it is today. However contrary to what @mahatir said, I don't foresee any intensification of the current proxy war between Iran and KSA if they were to rule Iran.

However Iranian influence in Iraq, Afghanistan and Bahrain to some extent will stay.I doubt a new Iranian government would import Afghans and Iraqi shia into their security forces tho

Iran(a Persian nationalist ruled one or islamist ruled one) will always have some influence/involvement in Afghanistan judging by the fact that Afghanistan is a close neighbour of Iran and a poor/divided one at that (easy to influence) same with today's(not sure about the future) Iraq to a lesser extent. However, I'm not so sure about Bahrain. Since Bahrain is a stable, secured, peaceful and relatively wealthy country with high living standards and part of GCC union led by KSA, so iranian influence under a Persian rule will be minimal or non existent.

 

[Surenas]

I understand your concerns but the current terrorist Mullah regime supported the destruction/terrorisim in many Arab states and never regreted what they've done.
Since they came to power, they declare the diffusion of their Khominist revolution to the surrounding countries untill they succeed to make a fertile situation for an imaginary Mahdi to get out of an unknown cave in Khorasan.

How many innocent Syrians did the terrorist Mullah regime kill so far?
that alone convinces any sane person to stand againt Ayatollah regime.
When there's an opposition against a dying regime, then we shouldn't take the passenger seat and let the sickular figures alone to hijack the country.

The destruction of the Arab world has been the single greatest achievement of the Iranian clerical regime.

 

[500]

The Shah of Iran supported the Kurds in Iraq causing a civil war that lasted 2 decades he also built a sophisticated Army and was planning to take over Bahrain but this did not take place due to the Revolution in Iran .

The problem with iranian nationalists they blame Arabs for ending their persian empire and many of them supported Hitler and think they are part of the Aryan race.

Israel supported USA in taking down saddam hussein and things turned out worse , the same would happen if the iranian regime is taken down .

Iran should be kept under heavy sanction until it fixes its foreign policy at the same time iranian militias in Lebanon and Syria should be destroyed and dismantled.

Attacking Iran or supporting civil war their would be a disastour for Gulf states and the world economy . countries like Russia and China would also get involved if the USA intervenes directly there .

Iran is not a Bannana Republic that can be divided or taken down and the iranians are not stupid like us arabs to ruin their country.

Shah Iran supported Kurds in Iraq only when it had border conflict with Iraq. Once dispute was solved they stopped all kind of support. So Shah Iran was very pragmatic and thinking only about its own business.

Mullah Iran on the other hand is supporting terror groups and even directly intervenes in countries that have no any dispute with Iran.

You can also see it in the way they use oil money. Shah Iran was investing everything in own economy, Mullah Iran throws hundreds of billions around. Here the results:

GDP per capita, US $:

1978
Iran - 2,168
Turkey - 1,549

2016
Iran - 4,683
Turkey - 10,743

 

[Surenas]

Don't worry, we know very well how to deal with both Hezbollah and Iran. We successfully dealt before with way bigger threats.

Now back to topic. You say u are against Iran involvement in Arab countries and in same time u say that nationalistic Iranians are worth than mullahs. But as I said that pure nonsense. Shah Iran was never meddling in Arab countries while Mullah Iran is spending hundreds of millions on terrorist militias in foreign countries and slaughtering hundreds of thousands.

That is what you get if you don't have any knowledge of Iranian history. The claim that the Shah never meddled in Arab countries is utter laughable.

The Shah send thousands of Iranian soldiers to Oman in 1973 to help Sultan Qaboos suppress the Dhofar Rebellion:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omani_Civil_War_(1963–76)

Also, Iran's imperial navy seized several islands in the Persian Gulf when the British left, causing the anger of Arabs.

The idea that Iran will only look inwards when the Islamic Republic falls is nothing more than wishful thinking. Imperialism is very much a Iranian mindset. A free and democratic Iran without sanctions would dominate the entire region.

 

[KediKesenFare3]

I'm still not able to judge how serious these protests are but one thing is for sure: the current Iranian leadership is ready to hold on to power by any means necessary.

Two major events of the recent past are telling us that they could indeed succeed at the end of the day.

1. Syria. Even if you're only supported by 10 to 15 percent of the population...if you have decent support and wise allies you will gain the upper hand and survive. Assad is the living proof of this statement.

2. Turkey. Even if the whole Western world supports your protest like they did with Gezi wholeheartedly, you will still lose if you cannot win the hearts of the majority at home.

We should bear these facts in mind.

 

[bosanski vojnik]

I'm still not able to judge how serious these protests are but one thing is for sure: the current Iranian leadership is ready to hold on to power by any means necessary.

Two major events of the recent past are telling us that they could indeed succeed at the end of the day.

1. Syria. Even if you're only supported by 10 to 15 percent of the population...if you have decent support and wise allies you will gain the upper hand and survive. Assad is the living proof of this statement.

2. Turkey. Even if the whole Western world supports your protest like they did with Gezi wholeheartedly, you will still lose if you cannot win the hearts of the majority at home.

We should bear these facts in mind.

Yeah but this is different

Assad was supported by Russia, had large weapons caches and an officer class made up by loyalist Alawites with no qualms about shooting at innocent civilians. Then factor in Iranian and hezbollah volunteers who joined the Syrian goverment from the get go.

Also I don't think the Iranian police will be trigger happy to shoot at their own countrymen. Hezbollah, Iraqi and Afghan shia reinforcements have been worn out too thin to bail out the regime this time around.

 

[Thetigerforces]

Why spend so much resources on Syria is the question. They are not Iranian citizens.

Sure, it's a disaster over there, but disasters are happening all over the world. One's own citizens should come first, in my opinion.

Greater influence of course. If Syria had fallen to the jihadis then Iran would have lost a important ally.

 

[Arabi]

The WhiteHouse joins the State department and shows solidarity with #IranProtests

https://twitter.com/x/status/946906875462930432

 

[bosanski vojnik]

Iran(a Persian nationalist ruled one or islamist ruled one) will always have some influence/involvement in Afghanistan judging by the fact that Afghanistan is a close neighbour of Iran and a poor/divided one at that (easy to influence) same with today's(not sure about the future) Iraq to a lesser extent. However, I'm not so sure about Bahrain. Since Bahrain is a stable, secured, peaceful and relatively wealthy country with high living standards and part of GCC union led by KSA, so iranian influence under a Persian rule will be minimal or non existent.

Don't underestimate the power of Persian nationalism

I believe Iran has had territorial claims on parts of Iraq since the 60s and Bahrain was once declared a province of Iran. A new Iranian Republic or restored Monarchy might not be quick to help Islamic causes or Assad but they will certainly be invested in nationalist causes unless of course west will hold enough influence over them to give up such claims.

 

[Surenas]

Don't underestimate the power of Persian nationalism

I believe Iran has had territorial claims on parts of Iraq since the 60s and Bahrain was once declared a province of Iran. A new Iranian Republic or restored Monarchy might not be quick to help Islamic causes or Assad but they will certainly be invested in nationalist causes unless of course west will hold enough influence over them to give up such claims.

A future nationalistic government will not be a Persian one but a Iranian one. The difference is important because Iranian nationalism must be all inclusive. It would put strength out of Iran's long and prideful history, from the time of the Achaemenids to the Safavids. Iran has always been a multicultural nation. In fact, multiculturalism has been very much a Iranian product. Iran's diversity has always been its strenght, and through this strength Iran will again find its geopolitical position in the region.

 

[PeninsulaFalcon]

https://twitter.com/x/status/946758041294311424

 

[KediKesenFare3]

A future nationalistic government will not be a Persian one but a Iranian one. The difference is important because Iranian nationalism must be all inclusive. It would put strength out of Iran's long and prideful history, from the time of the Achaemenids to the Safavids. Iran has always been a multicultural nation. In fact, multiculturalism has been very much a Iranian product. Iran's diversity has always been its strenght, and through this strength Iran will again find its geopolitical position in the region.

I firmly believe that a secular state order is the best form of self governing for any nation. But what makes you believe secularism would work for a country like Iran with her unique and diverse demographic composition?
To make things even more complicated, you have many neighboring countries who would immediately take advantage of your mistakes and your resources.
Turks, Kurds, Arabs, Balooch - why would these groups prefere to live in a Persian secular state if they easily could join their siblings on the other side of the border?
Why do you think that the post Islamic order in Iran would be based on Iranian nationalism rather than Persian nationalism? Why should non-Iranian groups like Arabs, Turks and Balooch people accept a pan-Iranian nationalism in the first place? These are questions I always wanted to ask secular Iranians/Persians. It'll be great if you care to answer my questions. I would appreciate it very much.