Change in Iran?? Is it necessary??


by iranvataneman

Regarding Iran, many people today complain about the current govt. The majority of these being Europeans, Iranian diaspora that don't live in Iran, and a minority that lives in Iran. Many of these individuals who complain, are people that take no part in positive contribution of the system, to make the lives of people better. They tend to fixate themselves on their own material aspects of their lives and greed in general. Based on their rhetoric and misbeliefs, had Iran been a failed state, its current govt. would have fallen by now. In Iran, the theme of change, is nothing surprising, in fact, change lives up to its meaning.

Iran has had about 40 different dynasties in its entire history. After one civilization or dynasty would become weak, it would be replaced with a new one. Now one must ask themselves, if this was the case with Iran today, why hasn't it fallen?? The answer is simply, because the time hasn't come for Iran's Islamic theocracy to fall, simply because "it works". The country has provided stability, it has supported the poor as much as it can, it has unified the nation (ethnic groups) through Islamic brotherhood. It provides freedom for minorities i.e. Jews and Christians, while many so called "Islamic states" have failed. Language is a regional right for all the minorities. These are among a few strengths.

One wonders why the Sassanids fell to a bunch of Arabs. Well let us take a look at the reason. Khosrau the 2nd, had wasted many of Iran's wealth and resources within the empire. The populatin within the empire was heavily taxed, to keep the empire going. Social unrest, a corrupt hierarchy, economic decline, exhausted resources and wealth, religious tensions, were among the main reasons which lead to the decline of the Sassanids. This made Islam an attractive force, to those who seeked "change". 

After 5 years of warfare, the Muslims lead by Omar were able to take over the Persian Empire. The Umayyads arrive, establish their caliphate. With the Umayyadds their biggest flaw was integrating the Iranian majority with the Arab ruling minority. The hierarchy of Arab rulers over Iranian native people, was a big mistake, and subsequently the Umayyads were replaced with the Abbasids. Under this dynasty, the Arabs and their Iranian neighbors, mixed at times, and got a lot more better, with many Iranians having the oppurtunity to integrate and achieve better positions. It was no longer an Arab Empire, but a transition that developed into becoming a Muslim Empire.The empires that came after, while they Islamicized Iran, they did not Arabize it. The integration of Islam and Persian and other Iranic culture, proved to be a time of prosperity, with advancements in literature, music, medicine, technology, and more.

To speed things up, we go to the first Turkic rulers. Under the first arrival of the Turkic rulers (Ghaznavid), the revitalization of Persian culture and language, was brought back to life, to integrate it within the empire much like the last few dyansties before it. Unfortunately, the early Turkic rulers were invaded and overthrown by the Mongols, that destroyed the Islamic foundations that had been built over time and replaced some destroyed and wrecked mosques, with Buddhist temples. Massive famine, starvation, disease, and destruction had taken place during the arrival of the Mongols. After a period of instability, the Mongols slowly and finally had adapted to Iran's culture as well as its major religion, Islam. Agriculture and irrigation systems were rebuilt, and improved. Artisans and specific professions had less taxes than others. The trade routes, which were one major factor in economic progress, became stabilized and were made safer than the previous dynasties that had managed them before.

During these dynasties, Islam was dominant under the form of Sunnism. According to many scholars and sources, as many as 90% of the Iranian population practiced Sunnism, with a very small minority observing Shiitism. When the Mongols invaded Iran, Iran did not have an official religion recognized, because of a period of instability, however, the invasion ironically had no impact on the Shiite Islam.

Shah Ismail becomes king after some dynasties later, and the first one in making Shiite Islam, the official religion of Iran.This period of time involves many who are forced to accept this school of thought, others convert out of a modeling effect (look up to the words of the king and rulers), while many others accept it out of interest.

After many wars, and many dynasties later, we look to the end of the Qajar reign. During this time, the concept of monarchy as a force was falling. The Qajars were known for corruption, instability, modernization, an unfortunate series of losses especially through warfare with Russia and the United Kingdom. Bahaism, is known to be a tool created by the British, and transferred down by the Russians to Iranian Azerbaijan, to create religious tensions and instability, to deal as a weapon of division within the Qajar monarchy.

The Qajars and their Ottoman neighbors, both had been punished, through revolts and revolutions, that lead to their downfall. It was during this time, where Islam was misused and seen as a tool to control large populations of people, and to create a hierarchy based on the innocent religion. 

Ataturk had been the successor of the Ottoman Empire, and had influenced the citizens of the modern Turkish Republic, to look forward to a new system, that would not follow the ways of the Ottoman Empire, and in turn create a new republic based on his own school of thought known as Kemalism. In Iran, the constitutional revolution had taken place, to create a new society and govt. that would not represent monarchy, and give more rights and oppurtunities to its citizens. Unfortunately, with the betrayal of Yeprem Khan assassinating Sattar Khan, with the aid of Armenian and Bakhtiari tribesman, Iran was still at a period of instability. The remaining monarch forces had also killed Sheikh Khiabani some years later. Reza Shah whohad once been a defense minister during the Qajar empire, took advantage of the constitutional revolution along with Tabatabaee and launched a coup, to rule the empire.

Reza Shah brings many changes, he opens up schools in Iran, builds new roads, cracks down hard on corruption, these were among many of his strengths. Iran had transformed from a monarchy to a military dictatorship. An admirant of Ataturk, Reza Shah launched many reforms in attempts to imitate Ataturk's kemalism and reforms, but in turn failed miserably and many of the reforms were not ready yet and created a lot of economic difficulties. His modernization of Iran was too fast as many would say. His crack down on mosques, and observant Muslims, did not garner him many supporters. After a fall out in personal differences, and the direction of where Iran was going. The British and Soviet Union, deposed Reza Shah in favor of his son. Some even say that Reza Shah was poisoned to death, for refusing to give up some of his power during the time he ruled Iran, and not following the British or Russian interests in every specific matter they had demanded of him.

Mohammad Pahlavi, was no different from his father. If anything, he was even worse. Pahlavi attempted to bring a so called "white revolution" which was supposed to be a series of agrarian, economic, and social reforms, to improve the miserable situation of the country. During this time, many Iranian locals, referred to the white revolution, as the black revolution, since the effect of these reforms took for worse. Farmers had such little land divided among them, that they couldn't manage to grow enough crops to survive and keep their lives going. Profits from farming was not lucrative at all. Unemployment had gone up to 40% during his reign. Brothels were opened, and supporters of the shah were many who worked in his govt. and those that supported complete westernization and opportunism. The death of wrestler Gholamreza Takhti, journalist Khosrow Golsorkhi and famous writer Sammad Behrang,were among many signs of challenges to his rule and oppression. 

Islam, Communism, Socialism, and many other schools of thought, were among ideas that attracted many of the youth and civilians alike, as an answer to their problem. Ethnic separatist movements were on the rise as many of Iran's ethnic minorities, created movements to rebel against the shah's brutal authority. With all the problems present, change was needed. Finally in 1979, the Islamic Revolution had taken place. A revolution neither western (capitalist) nor eastern (communist), first of its kind in the modern era had taken place. Up until this day, the current government the Islamic Republic of Iran, has survived for 31 years, and has an unemployment rate of approximately 13-15%, half that of the Shah's. The nation has rebuilt many homes. Electricity, water, and gas have been distributed in many areas that were left unintended to. Ethnic separatism was cracked down upon, and unity was brought through identity as Muslim Iranians. Infrastructure, science, sports, and technology have taken great leaps in making Iran a modern force. The nuclear energy program, is among the most recent contribution in making Iran a stronger and progressive nation with great achievements. 

The question remains, will Iran continue progressing under theocracy and play a major role in the world, or will it fall and become replaced with a new form of govt. or ideology. Until then, the IRI is here to stay, and contribute to Iran, and bring new days of glory and struggle, to make Iran a better place, and make it a name to never forget and always remember.


more from iranvataneman
Veiled Prophet of Khorasan


by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

It doesn't matter now why it didn't work. Would it work now? Only a donkey falls in the same hole twice.

The movement to get rid of IRI has not failed. There were high and unrealistic expectations; it did not live up to them. But it has not failed any more than the Mossadegh movement failed to remove the Shah. It takes time but mark my words: IRI is a goner and will be written as the worst period of Iranian modern history. Along with the arch vampire Khomeini.

What you may call a donkey falling in a hole is called perseverance by others. 


Abarmard jan

by KouroshS on

The whole objective is that Regardless of what we do or tell each other on these pages or anywhere else , People are tired of living under the banner of JOmhorie Islami. No matter which way you slice and dice it.


Dear KouroshS

by Abarmard on

It doesn't matter now why it didn't work. Would it work now? Only a donkey falls in the same hole twice.

What I believe is simple: Put an objective up front that would result in benefiting the Iranian people.

Define benefit as economic then rights challenges. work to smooth the landscape to do just that.

Create road maps that targets specific US policies that help Iranians directly, based on those defined benefits. 

Focus on each step without political concerns. Our objective is clear to help Iranians better their lives. Our best capabilities living in capitalistic society is to use capital/trade or anti sanction acts. Gradually the word empowering Iranians will begin to make sense and rights becomes the focus. Trust between Iranians will form now, because it is not my class vs yours, my ideologies vs another that matters. 

This simple idea makes some people here distrustful to me. That distrust doesn't bother me but shows me that we are not in a position to subscribe solution for Iran, since we do not care/know/trust one another. Reason? Objective is not defined. Overthrow is not an objective. It must be specific. 

Here are the pro IRI as some call it here, in a gathering. Let them do their work while we help. Note that most Iranian groups inside declare loudly that they do not want any "help" from the outside:


I think this should be clear enough and don't want to take all your time with this issue. 





by KouroshS on



It proves that the

by vildemose on

It proves that the Revolution of 79 was not merely about democracy but simply a rejection of Western Values ( including Democracy)

DK Jan: Too true.

VPK: I hope your are right and I'm dead wrong. Thanks for an insightful comment.

Mehraban jan: IRI apologists have perfected the art of putting lipstick on a pig. What IRI and their gutless supporters don't realize is that noone is buying their bogus mumbo jumbo. Abdicating rationality and distorting facts with fiction is almost  mandatory  if one wants to keep lining their pockets at Khamenis trough.


VPK jaan

by Mehrban on

Hmm,  thank you for your comment.

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Mehrban Jan

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


The truth is that Abarmad supports the IRI. So he is not being contradictory. He supported the revolution that brought it into power. But opposes a possible revolution or movement that would remove it from power. Those who support IRI will say listen to people (inside or outside) when they are for IRI. Ignore people or call them misguided when they oppose the IRI. That's it no real mystery or contradiction as such.

IRI supporters do not support democracy. They support theocracy. Not what people want but what they *think* god wants.



DK jaan ;-)

by Mehrban on

That may just be the answer to the riddle that is Abarmard jaan :-).   


Abarmard jaan,

by Mehrban on

I have never promoted revolution, and have not asked for anyone to go in front of bullets  so please do not put words in my mouth.   I am an Iranian and regardless of where I live I have aspirations for my country so please forego this outside inside tired old argument too. 

You keep saying that we should listen to the people in Iran but at the same time you belittle two of the most recent uprisings they have had to claim their freedom as misguided.  Isn't that a little contradictory. 

Darius Kadivar

Mehrban Jaan That's Abarmard Jaan's Jacobinism taking over ;0)

by Darius Kadivar on

No Offense To Abarmard here But simply reminding him and You that he attempted a similar comparison in regard to Torture under the Shah Vs Torture under the IRI in the following thread :


As I reminded him, Jacobinism is the common denominator of all revolutionary radicals when they try and justify the Reign of Terror ... 

Watch the video below from those early days of the revolution:

Quelques semaines après le retour de l'ayatollah Khomeiny, 1979 :


In the above video go to ~20 : 16 the fellow who appears speaks about the Oriental Jacobins (see Jacobinism ) of the IRI revolutionaries added to their hatred of Western Democracies and their wish to reinvent the word to islamic standards ...

It proves that the Revolution of 79 was not merely about democracy but simply a rejection of Western Values ( including Democracy)



Older piece reference

by Abarmard on

Dear Mehraban, the issue is not as simple as you have put it. if interested this is my background for that comment in regard to this topic:


I am not sure how to say this in English so it comes across correctly. Iranians should decide their faith and any help from us outside the borders should be focused on bettering the life of Iranians. Let them decide. What are the best way to make life easier for Iranians today? Have we not run around for thirty years to topple the system? and see the green movement rise from Iran? it was Iran not US that did that. Trust that people will find the way, we must work to empower them. It seems hard to digest this concept and many think that their opposition to the system from commenting in would do anything. It doesn't. But if we unite to lift sanctions, promote peace and dialogue, regardless of our party affiliation, then we can help. Really help.

Revolution is a heavy price that if you are willing to pay for it, you should promote it. Otherwise if one subscribes to it and is not willing to participate when the bullets fly around, then one is a hypocrite. That's a tough position to take if one is serious. However, we all can participate and unite as we did during the green demonstrations to promote peace and dialogue. 

Dictating ideology from far for the sake of democracy makes no sense. helping citizens by empowering them by promoting free trade and exchange of cultures and thoughts makes sense. Follow thirty years failed plan or rethink and take another position. That's the choice today. 

Happy Monday. 

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

vildemose Jan

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


I am not convinced that the Mullahs are very smart at all. They are making exactly the same mistakes the Shah made. I still remember the way Shah repressed his opponents. The Mullahs are doing the same thing. The difference is that with millions of Iranians in the West and  internet it is impossible. Tha attempt at silencing critics is failing and there are people all over including this site who are continually speaking against them.

Regarding Islam's relevance yes Khomeini managed to get Ilam a new lease on life. But he made a huge mistake. His version of fundamentalist savage Islam has ruined the name of Islam in the world. Most civilized people do not want to be associated with a religion that beheads and stones people. Islam is not longer untouchable. While 30 years ago people never spoke against Islam they do it all the time now. 

IRI cannot kill or intimidate millions of people out of its reach. Inside many people have lost faith in Islam. We don't live in the days of Safavis anymore. No one is able to dictate what people should think because there is too much information. The mullahs are very bad at propaganda. Their lies are obvious to all. They should take lessons from Fox if they want to get good.

No matter, a major change is gonna come and Mullahs are powerless to stop it. The smart ones if there are any will adapt. The dumb ones will perish or go become irrelevant.


Vildemose jaan

by Mehrban on

At this point it is not important if the monarchy under Mohammad Reza Shah was reformable or not, although I have my own opinion about it.   My problem with this line of presentation that oh see how mistaken Iranians were about the regime of the Shah can translate into how mistaken they can be about getting rid of IRI too.  That is what my problem is with this line of thinking and logic.

It was not for nothing that millions of Iranians took to the streets to protest the corrupt rule of the King and it was not for nothing that last year millions of Iranians took to the streets to protest the corrupt rule of the mullahs.   


Mehraban jan: I'm not sure

by vildemose on

Mehraban jan: I'm not sure if 'reform' under the Shah was Impossible given the passage of time. The Shah was not as "smart" and "effective" as the mullahs in art of propaganda and all out supression of dissent inside and abroad. Shah did not have the wide network of spies and informants. He did not have large swath of population as  paramilitary groups like basijee, ansar,abadgaran and so on under welfare and complete dependence on the largess of the government. (one out of 7 Iranians is a basijee)

Reform under the mullahs is an impossibility because the mullahs have learned from the Shah's mistake and have strategically and tactically have placed mechanism within the system to make sure "reform" will never materialize. Reform means the death of fundamentlist Islam, which only arose to save "Islam" from becoming irrelevant in an age of modernity. If you recall Khomeini's main concern was Islam, his quote, "Islam is in danger". In a way, Islam was in mortal danger of  irrelevance in the society. He smelled the death of Islam as an  industry and the entire clergiy strata in danger of  "unemployment."  He did not really care about Islam but the Islamic Dokan/industry where mullahs made a living without really working or producing anything. The same concerns apply today and the mullah corporate CEOs are fully aware of that. Reform spells their eventual irrelevance and unemployment because they have no other qualifications and no where to go. Therefore, they will never relinquish power to 'reformers'. Unless, they are retrained in some other profession with same amount of income, power, and


Abarmard and VPK

by Mehrban on

 Abarmard jaan, I did not say that Shah was "that bad" (your word).  I said change was impossible under that system as it is now.  You are right, Democracy is not a perfect system like nothing else is but at the minimum all political cards are not stacked against the people.  

Prophet jaan, maybe I should have said -"Reform" is impossible under tyranny- instead of "change" in order to stay with the complicated lexicon of the Iranian politics. Your comment speaks to my point however I am not fully convinced that regime change has to be violent (I am saying I am not sure).  


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan


by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


Change is not impossible under a tyranny. It is just very radical and may turn into a revolution. We got it in the Soviet Union and in fact under the Shah. It problem is that change becomes very violent and difficult.

It is a real shame that Shah closed all venues of discourse. If he had not it would not have got to IRI. He screwed up big time. Now Khamenei is following in Shah's path. No political discourse will sooner or later lead to another fight.


It's hard to prove Mehrban

by Abarmard on

We never know what would have happened if Shah remained but we can make an educated guess. I can't fully agree that Shah was that bad. True we had no political freedom but that could have changed, gradually. I can't imagine that if thirty years had passed, we would be living under the same rules. Just think about Turkey then and today. But in some sense you could be right too. I tend to lean towards the fact that change during the Shah, and currently was/is very much possible. 

That system that you are speaking about, is almost non existent. Although some countries handle it better than others, and I am speaking technically. In the surface of things, I do agree that if we had a secular system, even something similar to Turkey, people would have been happier. But we don't. At the end I what I would do is to promote ideas and policies that help the people of Iran, and that's great if we can do this together. Hopefully people will find their ways and live better.


Not true Abarmard

by Mehrban on

At the end of the Shah's reign there was a political stand still he had closed all Democratic venues for change.   Change is impossible under tyrany.  It was impossible under Shah as it is impossible under IRI.  

It is not about another group coming to power, it is about structural change in our political system.  A system where the people can vote out a corrupt politician.  A system that people can vote and decide their own fate as citizens and not have to rely on the good will of a king or a mollah to throw them a bone.


About Shah

by Abarmard on

Shah created a class that was progressive, hopeful, intelligent, and worldly. Iranians owe this to Shah at the minimum. We are speaking about the time that many countries in the region did not have the growing percentage of that class. The class was not an economic class but social class. For example, growing up in a lower middle class family, we had everything and more. And things were only going to get better. 

However, people in general were simple minded when it came to international politics. They thought that reforms are not possible and baby steps take too long while our youth were being tortured in the prisons and political freedom were non existent. What has changed today? 

If people that studied in the US cared about the life of citizens of Iran, they would think about life and opportunities as a whole rather than emotional reaction to ideologies that had failed before. What has changed?

The job of those who produce ideas (out of Iran) should be based on democratic mind set, meaning to work to produce thoughts that better the life of people and give hope. The rest should be given to the people to handle. Circling change without social evolution and modernity is taking a group and exchanging them with another group. Both groups will fill their pockets and are there to protect their interests along with their own specific class. We all know this well and history is there to prove it. Moving to modernity and civil society will help the people to gain power and move in to the system, or make the system responsive. That's irrelevant of the existing system. It would have worked well during Shah, and it will work well today.


Unfair and untrue simplification of Bahai faith!

by Tahirih on

Your unfair and untrue simplification of origins of Bahai faith is a symptom of the problem with IRI, which is deep ignorance and tunnel vision.

Bahai faith ,my faith the faith that I choose with open eyes and years of investigation as a Muslim woman is a young, valid, true and growing faith.How could you just write it off in one short uneducated sentence. many of my friends have lost their lives because of resisting to recant their faith in IRI prisons! How easy it would have been to recant a man made faith and be free???

I have no problem with you as an IRI supporter voicing your opinion but , Please wake up and see around you , try to understand the world outside your tunnel vision. Bahai faith is withstanding all these wrong accusations  through being embraced by people with different ethnic , racial and national back grounds. 

There was a time that fanatics like you could use this conspiracy theory against Bahais ,but Iranians are catching up with this tired tactic. It has been over used to accuse too many groups inside Iran, pretty soon it will knock at your door too:))))



as divaneh said: this article has many flaws, but .....

by MM on

Just two main facts to consider:

* During the Pahlavi dynasty, the Pahlavi Shahs modernized the infrastructure bringing it out of the middle ages.  The ruling Shahs gave us many social freedoms, freed the rai'at in the villages out of practical slavery, industry, science..........but did not make any strides towards political freedoms

In 1979, Iran rose to secure the freedoms it lacked, but unfortunately, the mullahs destroyed the coalition that brought on the revolution, legitimized only one party, namely Hezbollah and not only did not give us political freedoms, but took away many social freedoms that Irianias enjoyed under the Shahs (cf. dress codes, etc.).

* Some may say that Iran has freedom/democarcy since there are elections for presidency, majlis and etc. and have an 85% turnout in elections.   I have to disagree since a few selected mullahs (one in particular) control the key decisions-making positions in Iran.  The mullahs also tightly screen the candidates for governmental offices and make sure that they do not deviate in ideology and that they are elected in their image, in particular for the office of the presidency.  Some even go as far as to say that the Iranians vote to elect the one(s) they dislike less. 

Need I say more about nepotism, corruption, beatings, torture and murders in the Islamic Republic of Iran, all under the auspices of the party of God? 


Dear Q

by Abarmard on

Wonderful comment and right on target. 


To Q

by ali_UK on

A very well put contribution.

I am surprised that you have not been attacked by pack here!!

Anonymous Observer

This is surreal

by Anonymous Observer on

it's kind of like reading an old soviet propaganda release.  Wait, did you mention "glorious" anywhere in this drivel?  Never mind...I neither have a time nor the desire to look through this Farsnews advertising statement.  

Word of advice: you may want to get rid of the contradictions in your "blog" before you post it.  Here, let me give you an example.  First you say:

 One wonders why the Sassanids fell to a bunch of Arabs. Well let us take a look at the reason. Khosrau the 2nd, had wasted many of Iran's wealth and resources within the empire. The populatin within the empire was heavily taxed, to keep the empire going. Social unrest, a corrupt hierarchy, economic decline, exhausted resources and wealth, religious tensions, were among the main reasons which lead to the decline of the Sassanids. This made Islam an attractive force, to those who seeked "change". 

But immediately following that fantasy, you (surprisingly) come up with this historically documented fact:

After 5 years of warfare, the Muslims lead by Omar were able to take over the Persian Empire."

So, tell us something: how could have Iranians been so eager to embrace Islam, and then at the same time fight the Muslim invaders for FIVE YEARS?!!!!!!  I guess you would call that a love / hate relationship to the Nth degree? :-))))  Or perhaps they were just confused.  They really wanted Islam, but they didn't want their heads to be chopped off if they changed their minds, or their women raped and their children sold as concubines in Mecca and Medina when they "accepted" Islam.  :-)))

Boro een arajeef ra to telvision-e jomhoori islami benevis.

BTW, I liked it better when you wrote under "aryansorna". 





by Fatollah on

by the way, do you have any reference to backup your claims?

Mardom Mazloom

I agree with Q on:

by Mardom Mazloom on

Yes, that's what "theocratic dictatorships" do, try to change your mind with essays! What does it say about you if you are frightened this might actually work?

I know that you try to push people reacting on the no-sense that you have been paid to write. And, that with an ultimate aim of having your no-sense as a most discussed "blog" on this site. That's why I stoped reading your no-sense at the second paragraph.

If, other compatriots try to do the same - making IRI's paid blogs all empty from comments - Mullahs will stop in trying to fool us with void essays.

Genghis Khan

Matter of time, only

by Genghis Khan on

A well-planned, comprehensive, and precise military action, against IRI will take care of what has occupied your devoted mind.

If my body dies, let my body die, but do not let my country die.


Change in this blog? Is it necessary?

by divaneh on

Yes some facts would be nice. This article is full of biased assumptions and misinformation and tackling all of them requires a hell of a lot of time to get into shouting match.

Anyone who tries to give a complete course in Iran history must be a very simple person indeed. Otherwise all paragraphs preceding the last two could have been summarised in "Iran has been ruled by different dynasties during its history". Interestingly Iran history starts at the end of the Sassanid period. All that Soghra and Kobra was to deliver the last two paragraphs of IRI fantasy.


Don't spoil my read of "The

by benross on

Don't spoil my read of "The Persians" by Homa Kaouzian. I'm just at the beginning of it.

Enjoy your freedom of expression btw. 


What I wrote on the "Rules, Moderation and Civility" article

by Q on

strangely appropriate here and elsewhere

Unfortunately many Iranians have not yet learned to seperate a person from an idea or argument. Instead of finding logical flaws or counter evidence, they attack the person because they simply fantacize about fighting a demon (be it IRI or "Islam" or whatever...) in their heads and the writer becomes that demon. So it get nasty real fast. The most deluded ones don't even realize that's what they are doing. In a comical way, they think attacking or slandering the writer with made-up accusations is actually a valid "answer" to the points raised in the piece.

This is an age-old problem. People who thrive on accusations and character assassinations really should take a deep breath and look deep within themselves to see if they are even ready for any kind of democracy that they are supposedly fighting for. The behavior does not suggest it.

I disagree with this article's main point. It depends who one is talking about when one says it's "working". It's not working for a huge portion of the people.

I do see the undeniable reality that IRI is part of the Iranian historical experience and not outside it. It does represent a progression compared to the previous dictatorship and historical Monarchism in general. This is the reason nobody wants to go back to Monarchy. I grant the author has a valid point there.

But having read the comments, I am glad this point of view is getting some publicity on IC. It is a popular view and has significant following inside Iran. Anybody who doesn't see that, is realy deluding themselves.

For a long time, there were no actual "pro IRI" voices on IC or any western/English forum on the Internet. The usual fanatic self-righteous mob, however, didn't care. They just attacked the closest thing they could find, i.e. anybody who didn't approve of the upcoming revolution that was supposed to occur "any day now", since '83. (often myself, or anybody with an anti-Monarchist or Muslim point of view), and call them "IRI agents" in various forms.

I'm sure by now the conspiracies have swelled up to fantastic levels with IRI surely spending $Millions on English language websites already banned in Iran just to change the minds of a few Iranians living in the West!

Yes, that's what "theocratic dictatorships" do, try to change your mind with essays! What does it say about you if you are frightened this might actually work? What does it say about your opinion of Iranians in general? What does it say about your opinion of Iranians living in the west, if you think so many of them can so easily and willingly be recruited into some elaborate intelligence scheme?

These attitudes betray a deep mistrust, not only of Iranians but also of the very notion of democracy in general.