SalarHaqq
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2019
- Messages
- 4,569
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
Mentioned it before and will have to repeat: in the absence of central state control, "people" as such will not shape the events when faced with tightly organized armed groups that enjoy overwhelming support from major outside powers bent on imposing a defined agenda.
Simply put, "millions of Iranians" lacking institutional power can do zilch against a minority of militarized separatist organizations directly backed by the zionists, the USA, the EU and every one of their regional client regimes.
What's more, the non-"ethnicist" opposition (Reza Pahlavi, MKO, etc) is firmly sold on the separatist program of federalism already, because their imperial patrons required them to be. Worse, a non-negligible portion of the Iranian population itself, influenced by western-based satellite broadcasters as well as by domestic liberal rhetoric in promotion of "ethnicization" of national politics, won't offer the slightest opposition to such a development.
Last but not least, if the Islamic Revolution were to fall, it'd be over the dead bodies of millions upon millions of dedicated Iranians loyal to its cause. Revolutionaries do not capitulate in the face of riots and terror attacks, they stand their ground and their determination is stronger than their opponents'. Which implies that in order to do away with the Revolution, oppositionists will have to wage numerous years of bloody and highly destructive war, the kind of which would make Syria look like a harmless street brawl. Under such conditions and with high intensity firefights raging in every corner of Iran, non-"ethnicist" oppositionist groups are bound to take separatists as allies, united as they are in their hatred for the Islamic Revolution; and in the extremely unlikely event that some token, isolated oppositionist formation were to turn its guns on the separatists, it'd have no resources and manpower left to stop them.
In 1946, it was not "millions of Iranians" who prevented the separation of Azarbaijan and Kordestan either, but USA president Truman by directing an ultimatum to Stalin to withdraw Soviet troops from Iran. Unlike the USA, the USSR was not in possession of nuclear weapons yet, so Moscow obliged, enabling the Iranian military to defeat a group of separatists who had lost the military backing of a major power. Iran got very lucky back then. It won't today, not least because there's no comparable counterweight to zio-American imperialism. In the event of a structural power vacuum, Iran will be torn into pieces for good.
The reality of this threat was acknowledged and underscored by people such as Dariush Homayun and Ardeshir Zahedi, former dignitaries of the shah regime. They were not repeating a narrative coined by the Islamic Republic, but coldly assessing the facts.
Simply put, "millions of Iranians" lacking institutional power can do zilch against a minority of militarized separatist organizations directly backed by the zionists, the USA, the EU and every one of their regional client regimes.
What's more, the non-"ethnicist" opposition (Reza Pahlavi, MKO, etc) is firmly sold on the separatist program of federalism already, because their imperial patrons required them to be. Worse, a non-negligible portion of the Iranian population itself, influenced by western-based satellite broadcasters as well as by domestic liberal rhetoric in promotion of "ethnicization" of national politics, won't offer the slightest opposition to such a development.
Last but not least, if the Islamic Revolution were to fall, it'd be over the dead bodies of millions upon millions of dedicated Iranians loyal to its cause. Revolutionaries do not capitulate in the face of riots and terror attacks, they stand their ground and their determination is stronger than their opponents'. Which implies that in order to do away with the Revolution, oppositionists will have to wage numerous years of bloody and highly destructive war, the kind of which would make Syria look like a harmless street brawl. Under such conditions and with high intensity firefights raging in every corner of Iran, non-"ethnicist" oppositionist groups are bound to take separatists as allies, united as they are in their hatred for the Islamic Revolution; and in the extremely unlikely event that some token, isolated oppositionist formation were to turn its guns on the separatists, it'd have no resources and manpower left to stop them.
In 1946, it was not "millions of Iranians" who prevented the separation of Azarbaijan and Kordestan either, but USA president Truman by directing an ultimatum to Stalin to withdraw Soviet troops from Iran. Unlike the USA, the USSR was not in possession of nuclear weapons yet, so Moscow obliged, enabling the Iranian military to defeat a group of separatists who had lost the military backing of a major power. Iran got very lucky back then. It won't today, not least because there's no comparable counterweight to zio-American imperialism. In the event of a structural power vacuum, Iran will be torn into pieces for good.
The reality of this threat was acknowledged and underscored by people such as Dariush Homayun and Ardeshir Zahedi, former dignitaries of the shah regime. They were not repeating a narrative coined by the Islamic Republic, but coldly assessing the facts.
Last edited:
