If you want to abide by your traditions, what are you doing abroad? If you can live abroad and keep your national identity, then tourism shouldn't have an effect on national identity either.
Potential possibilities do not define the norm. Many things are possible, but these things aren't bound to accurately reflect probabilities. A traditionalist government has a responsibility to minimize the risks of subversion against Tradition, not to invite or encourage such risks.
Turkey has a much more patriotic population than ours, which adhere to their national identity and traditions strongly. A country where people sell their nuclear scientists and confidential documents for money or immigrating abroad has some serious issues in the national identity department.
Problem is that there's nothing traditional about modern secular nationalism. Secularism is in a fact a modernist subversion par excellence, a first step towards the "Universal Republic" devised by global zionism and masonry.
As for religious Turks, they're being led by the nose by their NATO- and zionist-allied, Dönme- and freemason-founded regime. No more and no less.
If you consider Istanbul with its cosmopolitan ambience, the many branches of multinational corporations present there, its gay pride events, night clubs and liquor shops as an example of Tradition in action, then further discussion will be futile. Same with the Mediterranean Turkish beach resorts, where hordes of tattooed British and German drunkards pollute the visual and social environment.
Iran has a population growth that is comparable to Scandinavian countries. It's lower than all other countries in the region.
We've had this discussion before and I sustained my point with hard evidence already. Iran is doing better than Scandinavian countries.
Turkey isn't really better off than Iran either. In other terms, secularization and development of tourism as per the Turkish model are not going to drive up Iran's birth rate.
It's very simple. The constitution of Iran recognizes referendums. Hold a referendum over whether Iran wants to be like Turkey or the UAE, or like it is today, and then we will talk. Until then, the Islamic Republic remains a dictatorship.
The Islamic Republic is probably the single most pluralistic, or democratic if you will, political system in the world.
Also, no political system anywhere holds referenda on its fundamental constitutional order. Referenda destined to determine the nature of a political system (unless held right after a major shift such as a revolution etc) are unheard of in the real world. Such talking points are typical of the exiled Iranian opposition (shahis, secular liberals etc). They are however misleading and detached from reality. So I would advise against echoing them.
And the JCPOA had nothing to do with the opinion of the people.
Sure it did. One would have to be either misinformed or dishonest to state that a large percentage of Iranians was not and is not misguided by the propaganda of the west and its domestic fifth column apologists.
Owing to the most comprehensive intoxication and mental manipulation campaign to have ever been imposed on a nation. In mankind's entire history, one will find no equivalent to this propaganda campaign targeting the Iranian people, both in volume and intensity as well as in sophistication and underhandedness. And it is precisely the popular mood generated by said propaganda which strengthened the hand of the domestic liberal faction within the IR and thus allowed them to impose the JCPoA on the Supreme Leader.
The regime feared for its own existence, and hence they signed a deal that has been one of the most one sided deals made by Iran in the last 100 years ago. It's a treasonous deal to say the least, and your favorite Supreme Leader approved it and have supported it since then.
1) The term "regime" with its negative connotations doesn't apply to Iran. Regimes, totalitarian ones at that, exist in the west however.
2) For more than 8 years, it had survived almost daily acute threats of military aggression under the criminal Bush jr. regime of Washington, when its deterrence power was not even a fraction of what it is today. Then the direct threat level diminished. So the IR was not driven by fear.
3) The Supreme Leader was coerced by domestic liberals, who not unlike you tend towards secularism and advocate globalist-compatible models of development - although unlike you, they also advocate submission to the west. The Supreme Leader has a responsibility to preserve civil peace, to strike a balance between political currents and is not really keen on implementing North Korean-style authoritarianism. Hence his approval of the JCPoA, out of lack of a better choice.
Plus, the Leader believes in the pedagogic virtues of 'mardom-salari', i.e. like a pragmatic father, he prefers to let the people experience first hand the fact that the US regime cannot be trusted and then draw the necessary lessons by themselves. And so, rather than resorting to dictatorial measures, he allowed the JCPoA to materialize, knowing perfectly well from the first day that it was not going to bring about the prosperity liberals promised it would.
From your comments it stems that you advocate democracy, as opposed to dictatorship. Well if that is so, then please harbor no illusion as to how a considerable percentage of your compatriots think, conditioned as they are by day-in day-out zio-American psy-ops and propaganda beamed into Iran by the likes of the globalist BBC Farsi: that segment of the population isn't interested in power projection whatsoever and would be more than happy to sell Iran's national sovereignty for a handful of breadcrumbs (or rather the superficial delusion thereof). That's the context in which the revolutionary, sovereignist factions of the IR have to operate.
