You gotta be kidding me. All the scientific progress was made due to your scientist not due to the Ayatollahs. Most of the reforms that were put in place by the Shah took time so by the time the Ayatollahs took over they were getting benefits of those policies.
This is a specious argument. Policies conducted prior to 1979 no longer have any bearing on whatever progress is being made forty years after the Revolution!
Also, scientists don't just spring up from nothing. State policy in the field of public education as well as research and development (especially if these sectors aren't privatized) is what generates a scientific workforce. And in this department, the Islamic Republic has done a tremendously better job than the ousted monarchy. A simple look at the number of universities and research centers opened prior to the Revolution and afterwards will speak for itself.
In some 58 years of Pahlavi monarchy, 16 universities were opened. When Iran's first modern university opened in Tehran, Kabul (Afghanistan) already had its own.
Today, after 40 years of governance by the Islamic Republic, the number has jumped to:
* 92 universities. That is, 76 of them inaugurated after 1979 - versus 16 over 58 years of Pahlavi rule (38 years of which under the last shah Mohammad-Reza Pahlavi).
* At least 512 branches of Payame Noor University accross Iran.
* More than 500 branches of Islamic Azad University all over the country.
The latter two instutions have by the way allowed for a huge democratization of higher education in Iran, which is now offered in the remotest corners and towns of the country (including all those inhabited by linguistic or religious minorities), whereas prior to the Islamic Revolution, universities were mostly an elite affair to which only a tiny segment of society had de facto access.
Today 5 million Iranians are enrolled in universities. Prior to the Revolution, that number was only in the tens of thousands.
So whatever way one looks at it, the comparison is decisively and by a large margin in favor of the Islamic Republic.
It's noteworthy how you would consider public policy as a key factor in scientific growth during the shah era, but would deny it when it comes to the Islamic Republic. That contradiction in your statements is apparent.
Iran would be the Japan of the middle east had it not been for its theocracy.
Iran would most likely resemble other oil-dependent US client states, much rather than Japan.
No one cares for Israel when arabs are to busy backstabbing one another and Iran is in the middle backstabbing any muslim nation they can find to backstab.
Islamic Iran hasn't been "backstabbing" any Muslim country, specially not those that have had no enmity towards her.
Also, no Muslim nation has sacrificed as much for the sake of Islamic causes as Iran: from Tehran's assistance to the Palestinian and Lebanese Resistance against zionist occupation (which requires a mighty dose of courage, given that resisting the zionist regime is extremely costly in terms of sanctions, international pressures, being exposed to destabilization and regime change attempts and so on), to its unparalleled support for Bosnian Muslims (who are of Sunni confession, by the way), to its key role in ending the ISIS fitna, to its sponsorship of a myriad of Islamic movements (Shia and Sunni) accross the world since 1979, etc.
well , you must ask yourself , how much of our history before Islam is reached us . all of our history that have survived is through our enemies or stories and they were only intrested about kings and military . even today if you look at the history book of our children you can see how much the writers are interested in kings and wars and how they are interested in scholar and artists and philosophers . just recall the history book you were taught at school , you had to memorize the must insignificant and corrupt degenerate called king of one of the insignificant dynasties in our worst times , but atthe time tens of tens of schoolar and scientist that were living at the the time were not even mentioned .
If so little of what pre-Islamic Iranian scholars and scientists produced was inherited by later generations, then the scientific progress made after the advent of Islam owes more to Iran's Muslim scholars.
well let be honest after 40 year of revolution still best of our student in industrial universities are planning to go west , just go and look at institute like Goethe institute and see when is the first open space to learn German language
Of course hostile western regimes never ceased their propaganda, in fact they intensified it a lot after 1979. Which is bound to affect numerous young Iranians who are led to believe in this idealized, out of touch image of the west as some sort of a "paradise" which they contrast with Iran. However compared to prevailing conditions under the previous regime, Iranian universities produce many more brilliant graduates.
just think about it how much of our Brain drain problem will be fixed if we make some advance in that field. and how much that can be translated in to scientific and social advancement . how much that can improve our economy . and how that can help us if some body want to sanction something here . how it can improve our management ecosysystem
The "brain drain" issue is much exaggerated by anti-Iranian media.
To begin with, Iran probably produces more high level graduates than her economy can absorb. The number of Iranian students is considerable, compared to other developing countries.
Then, even developed nations have lots of emigrants, many of them with higher education degrees - and unlike Iran, they are not subjected to the same kind of psy-ops and propaganda war.
For instance, 7.5 million south Koreans, 5.5 million Britons, 4 million Germans and nearly 2 million Frenchmen live outside their respective countries. In the case of the French, the percentage is comparable to Iranians, in the case of the Germans and British, it is higher, in the case of south Koreans it is considerably higher.
So yes, ideally those graduates who emigrate could have contributed to the country's advancement if they staid, true, but it's a rather common phenomenon not restricted to Iran.
What about you while you sported America in Iraq and Afghanistan to topple the Sadam and against Taliban Muslim regime Sporting non Muslim against Muslim and above all that was our strategy to fight America in Afghanistan and we did it successfully you always worked against Muslims this is the history
This is patently false: Iran did not extend any support whatsoever to Washington in its illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Especially since US president Bush jr. had held his infamous "axis of evil" speech in January 2002, whereby he classified Iran as a potential upcoming target of his so-called "war on terror".
In fact, Iran was the only country in the region which loudly and clearly condemned the US regime's attack and subsequent occupation of Iraq. Invading US forces weren't aided by Iran, but by the Arab monarchies of the Persian Gulf (Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar etc). The US military conducted all its strikes from bases located in those Arab states. Invading forces entered Iraq from Kuwait, not from Iran.
So this notion that Iran somehow helped the US topple Saddam is a myth that is often repeated by those inadequately informed, including on this forum unfortunately. Pretty much to the contrary, Iran was helpful to Iraq in the latter years of brutal US-imposed sanctions, when much of the smuggling of urgently needed goods (including drugs and food) into Iraq was came in from Iran.
Also, no Muslim country has sacrificed as much for the sake of Islamic causes as Iran: from Tehran's assistance to the Palestinian and Lebanese Resistance against zionist occupation (which requires a mighty lot of courage, given that resisting the zionist regime is extremely costly in terms of sanctions, international pressure, being exposed to destabilization and regime change attempts and so on), to its unparalleled support for Bosnian Muslims (who are of Sunni confession, by the way), to its key role in ending the ISIS fitna, to its sponsorship of a myriad of Islamic movements (Shia and Sunni) accross the world since 1979, etc.
By the way, the Iranian user above who replied to you, expressed his personal opinion. What he wrote about Saddam and the Taliban's attacks on Iran remain true and are aknowledged by the IR as well, however his conclusion regarding the Muslim umma does not reflect the view of Islamic Republic authorities.
SADDAM isnt even a human being, let alone a muslim.
Brother, please don't make takfir, even on a despicable tyrant like Saddam (whom I dislike as much as you). This could be sinful, therefore I'd suggest to make tawba. We are ordered to leave God and then the ulema (if they reach a universally shared consensus) decide whether someone is a Muslim or not. A Muslim too can commit horrible acts, unfortunately the history of Islam isn't entirely exempt of such examples.
