What is Iran; is it IR


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan


I have read arguments on both side of this. A number of people say IRI is Iran. Then have used that to blame Iranian people for actions of IRI. In my opinion a government is never the same as the people. This is specially true when there is no democracy. Or when there is a nominal machinery for democracy but it is broken. The only time a government may really reflect  WILL OF "the people" is in a direct democracy likte Swiss have.

But the government is never the same as a people. Governments come and go but great nations remain. Iran has gone from Curus the gresat to Arab invasion through good like Karim Khan and evil like Khomeini and many others. Therefore Iran is far greater than its government. The government is simply the people who at any given time have the reins of the nation in their hands who may or may not have peoples best interest in mind.

Of course a government greatly impacts the nation.  An incompetet or selfish evil government harms people a great deal. We have seen it from Monghols to IR. But that is like saying a bad bus driver hurts the passengers. The bus driver is not the same as the passengers or the bus. 

We may use the same argument for the USA. I do not even think that the US government is the same as its people. As NP reminds us USA government has done lots of bad thing. I can tell you most Americans are fine nice people who would not hurt anyone.

I want to know peoples opinions. Please be civil and respectful. No need to start throwing instulas around.

Let us learn from each other and work together.


There is also the issue of what is really Iran? Many of us believe in "Greater Iran". Parts of Iran: Central Asia: Afghanistan; Eastern Iraq; Azarbayjan; Bahrain; were forcefully taken from us. I would love to talk about how the Iranic people could reunite. But that is not the focus of this discussion. I plan to write another blog to discuss this.




Recently by Veiled Prophet of KhorasanCommentsDate
Threats of violence
Feb 14, 2012
Please bring back SamSam to IC
Jan 29, 2012
Regime change; democracy and high horse
Dec 26, 2011
more from Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

VPK, be honest for a second,

by Q on

how long do you really think you can avoid this basic contradiction?



by afshinazad on

IRI Agents defending dead meat regime which can't trust own shadow, and some of them attacking like wounded wolfs and trying convince me and you why is that IRI Regime massacring own people, it is shameful for these people whether they are true Iranian or half or quarter or whatever they are, willing to defend criminals for their crimes and trying justify their criminal action. I say to you whether you like it or not your lease is expired and you have to move and that would be arranged either peacefully or by force, so you are obsolete and have no place in our society. Iranian are sick and tired of bullshit of Islamic laws and tired of Islam period. Every year over 150000 people move out of country, is there any rich country in the world has a so much migration, are they leaving country because they want to or they can’t bare these criminals and their actions anymore. Iranian want regime that protect and respect their citizens and national interest and want to have regime who doesn’t dictate what to wear and where to go and wants have the right to speak and vote for someone who is going to defend his or her rights. So please those of you still getting paid to defend criminals don’t waist you time no longer because your time will be over sooner that you think. Long live Iran and our brave nation and Javid shah.       

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan


by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


NP: Thank you for actually getting to the main part of my post. Governments are not same as people. What gives legitimacy? We can debate that for years! Some say it is "democracy" by that definition we NEVER had a legitimate Iranian government! Some say it should have the best interest of Iranian people in mind. That would mean (other than Pahlavi which we can argue about) we have to go back to Karim Khah Zand before finding such a benevolent ruler of Iran.

Q: You did finally call me a racist! I am glad to see things are back to normal. I would not have it any other way :-)



VPK, you have a long way to go before you can be taken seriously

by Q on

 I agree nationalists are the only real solution. The guaranteed cure for Islamism and backwardness.

 No beating up people for their religion.

Let me explain to you, the central conflict of your arguments (possibly your whole life):

You have generally the right approach when it comes to sovereignty and foreign intervention, sanctions and military attack against Iran. That's fine, but your attempts at unity are constantly underminded by a deep-seeded, elitist, biggoted and patronizing hatred for Islam. I know you think if you put "ism" in front of Islam, it makes it all OK, but like all racist code words, people see right through them. You have said things about Islam and muslims that are so offensive, even the worst Islamophobic Americans wouldn't say in public. Your hatred for one group (huge huge group) is a complete contradiction with any aspiration for 'democracy' you may have. 

This is the legacy of the crony-capitalist way in which Iran was modernized and obviously influenced your upbringing.

Let me give you a dose of reality:

Islam is the religion of Iranians. Your protestations and historical fantasies are irrelevant and illogical. According to Ervand Abrahamian, as much as 35% of Iranians are so religious, they are considered "evangelical". The majority of the rest are also religious to a lesser degree.

The reality is that Islam is and has been a major force in Iranian lives and politics for over a millenia. You can't change it. You can't wish it away and your constant Islamophobia, will only marginalize yourself and so-called "nationalists" like you.

I'm not sure if there will be a government change in Iran in the near future. But if there is a democratic one in your life time, whatever the next government is will necessarily be 100% pro-Islamic. Anybody who insults the religion of the majority of Iranians (or any religion) will not have a place in that future. That is a guarantee.

If you seek unity, the greatest potential of which is among Iranian democracy seekers who are against foreign interference, you have to set aside your Islamophobia.


stop being such a cry-baby Simorgh,

by Q on

Dear resident of greater Londonistan,

You have nothing. As a debator and/or researcher, you are nothing, but a cry baby with a bruised ego, not even man enough to admit when you have nothing. You have stumbled upon something while googling and you are trying hard to pass it off as something else. Pathetic, but unsurprising.

Just as I said, the Hart-Fuller debate is irrelevant. This is not about the laws (Nazi laws) after the Nazi takeoever. This is about the laws of the Weimar Republic, before Hitler assumed dictatorial powers. The law that is in question is the German constitution before Hitler's rise to power. It had specific provisions that would prevent a take-over like Hitler's (the post of the President, the seperation of powers, the limits on decree laws), so in order for Hitler to do the take-over they had to resort to a coup and then violate the constitution with illegal acts. It's very simple really, I'm surprised you insist on making yourself look this ignorant!

Fuller says nothing about this, and would not dispute it either. The discussion on if Nazi laws were "Natural law" or "morally inclined" is completely irrelevant. The case of the wife of the soldier is irrelevant.

The German constitution was democratic and not "Nazi law", and I have shown you it was violated.

You are trying to sound like a grown-up, putting your own words on this texts you don't even understand when they are completely irrelevant.

In no way does Fuller once remark that Hitler's rise to power was a democratic one which was the basis of your argument.

Huh? I'm the one saying Nazis had no popular support and Hitler's rise was not democratic. Confused yourself again?

Again, I'm forced to pose the question: How lame can you get? It has to be about your ego, you have neither argument, nor facts, nor "legal scholars" of any kind. Total waste of time!

But at least people can be entertained by the public spanking of a cry baby.

Niloufar Parsi


by Niloufar Parsi on

i see we have yet another detour into angst and conflict in response to a fairly straightforward question! what a surprise on IC :)

actually, i agree with your main point. government and people of a nation are not the same. well, to be more precise, one is a tiny subset of another.

however, it is one thing to distinguish between the different parts of the same body, but it's another to claim that a part should be excised and removed like a cancer.

the best analogy that comes to mind is the mafia. regimes and the mafia work similarly. different governments and gangs come and go but the system remains. they tax, set the rules, provide 'security', punish, bribe, set up 'police' and militias and dominate, but they are still a part of society. the part where power is concentrated. and many people from within get attracted and/or succumb to their power and wealth.

it is not so much this basic truth that we have been arguing about, but its implications. the central issue is that of legitimacy. you are trying to demonstrate that the iri has no legitimacy. you may be right, but the reason is not connected to the question of whether governments and people are the same. either way the answer would not confer legitimacy to any particular government because it would apply to all governments equally anyhow.

the hard question is: what gives legitimacy to a ruling group or system?


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan


by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

Iran should be ruled by nationalists, Period!

Yes, by people who care about Iran. I agree nationalists are the only real solution. The guaranteed cure for Islamism and backwardness. That would be a government that will be closest to people. Not Islam; not Palestine; not America; not Israel; not Hizbollah. Focus on getting our house in order and fixing our problems. If people feel strongly about serving in the US; Israel or Hizbollah they are welcome to go. However an Iranian government should be nationalist and for Iran.


This is not unusual as most successful nations are  based on nationalism.  That means it does not matter if you are Shia or Sunni. Or Jew or Bahai. if you are Iranian and put Iran first then that is all that matters No beating up people for their religion.

Sargord Pirouz


by Sargord Pirouz on



"subsidies from the IR..."


You know your argument is a weak one when you have to resort to such typical applications of name calling and personal accusations, not to mention the mundane comparisons referenced in Godwin's Law.


And you people wonder why you're the perpetual loser in any serious discussion, let alone the political discourse of the country of which you no longer belong.



by Simorgh5555 on

Qummars the hack from the 'central Los Angeles' area does not give up. You also are guilty of selective reading and fully demonstrate your ignorance which your sorry counter response. What makes you a particularly bad hack is not your vile propaganda masquerading as freedom of speach but is your lazinessto read.

I gave you two legal theorirsts: Hart and Fuller on the Nazi Grudge debate (look this up yoursel, you lazy Hack)published inthe Hardward law review in the 1950's. You can get the full publication on Heine Onlin, if you are eligible to get an account. 

Hart makes it clear in his debate with Fuller that Nazi Law no matter how wrong was still good law. The central argument between the two legal theorirsts surrounded the acts passed by Hitler after he abolished the post of Chancellor and became the Furer of Germany.

Neither of them debate the fact that Hitler assumed post as Chancellor through a democtatic way which is why they do not discuss it but the central argument is on the Nazi regime 

I know it is a common characteristic of Islamists such as yourself to misinform and propogate Islamist propaganda but all I ask is that you give up your Islamist sentiments for one second. 

The central point as to whether the Nazis law was legal or illegal did not  focus on Hitler's democratic election.

A  goodsummary of Fuller's position is as follows for mentally challenegd Islamists of 17 years can be foudn here: 


These rules are morally internal to the legal system and based on
natural law. Fuller does not embrace natural law in the religious sense,
but treats its morality as on a par with international law. Therefore,
any enforcement of Nazi laws was a breach of natural law and could lead
to prosecutions and convictions. The reasoning of Fuller was that strong
moral reasons to disobey the law can outweigh the morality of fidelity.
Where law is immoral it loses its legitimacy and provides strong
reasons for not enforcing it. Fuller’s notion of morality is linked to
the technical law-making process. For laws to be legitimate, they must
be made in accordance with ‘natural law’ principles such as being
expressed in generality (not directed to individuals), transparent and
consistent and operating prospectively. Nazi laws did not conform to
these principles. As such, Fuller suggests that the laws under which
grudge informers were operating are likely not to have been valid law in
this moral sense. Therefore, it was not a system of law, but rather a
system of terror

So Fuller's position, as I have always said, was that Nazi Law was wrong because it was procedurally immoral and has nothing to do with whether he was popular or not. In no way does Fuller once remark that Hitler's rise to power was a democratic one which was the basis of your argument. It was the'inenr morality' of the regime which bothered him and led to him to declare Nazi Law (for the same reason the IR) to be immoral. 

Hart arrgues the following: 

Hart argued from a positivist position that moral issues should not be
considered within a legal system. A law should not be invalidated on the
basis of a moral judgement. However, Hart believed certain principles
should underpin laws, including clearly recognisable rules with
recognisable consequences and discernable mechanisms for changing rules.
Hart observed that the Nazi law was legitimately enacted and enforced.
Therefore, the wife could not be punished for following the law.


Again, I pose the question: Who should I believe HLA Hart, Lon Fuller or the unknwon Hack from the central Los Angeles area who is receiving subsidies from the IR on a regular basis to make ends meet and buy a hamburger. A two dollar hack you were and a two dolalr hack you will remain for the rest of your life.


I Wish

by iroooni on

All those who support IRI no this site get one their brothers rolled over by a car, get their other brother raped in Kahrizak, get one of their sisters thrown over a bridge. I hope their parents have to camp outside Evin every day and night to hear a word from their children.


Iran should be ruled by nationalists, Period!

by Parthianshot91 on

Iran should be ruled by people who care about it and it's people and seek to benefit it, period! No buts or ifs. we're talking about benefiting a nation here, not your islam or any othe foreign ideology or any kind of religion infact.

 Mixing religion with politics has got to be one of the biggest mistakes of humanity.


"They are not afraid of the ideology alone, but of the detemination and will of the men behind it"


If islamists had any shame

by Parthianshot91 on

They would admit to theirselves that the Iranian people want nothing to do with their pathetic islamic extremist ideology and let the true Iranians rule it, but they wont and this will end violently for all of them.


All the walls are closing in on them, reminds me of the last days of the nazis. They're all going crazy those islamist leaches.


"They are not afraid of the ideology alone, but of the detemination and will of the men behind it"

Sargord Pirouz

What's it to you, anyway?

by Sargord Pirouz on

That's my question. If you don't vote and you wish for the country to fail, why even bother with this?

The people inside Iran aren't deluded like some of you people. They know their country is the Islamic republic of Iran. 85% of them vote. 60% of them voted Ahmadinejad.

I voted. My candidate didn't win. But you don't see me in a temper tantrum over the result. That's how elections work: you have to accept the result, the majority carries the day.

But hey, most of you couldn't deal with the 98.2% that voted in favor of the Islamic Republic referendum, so you did the cut and run out of Iran. That's how you people behave when you don't like an election result. So how can we expect anything different from you now? So yeah, sit back and do your Iran-bashing and eat your bowl full of sour grapes for what looks like the rest of your lives. You earned it.


Q: We are just going to have to agree to disagree

by Bavafa on

First, those numbers you provided, is not what I remember hearing but then again I don't have a reliable source to counter them. Although the numbers in US have been very reliable and low, yet the intention/support of Americans towards their system is unmistakanable.  Likewise, I personally believe there are many reasons for a high turn out in Iran and few of them are based on their total belief/agreement in the system.

I remember when I lived in Iran some 200 years ago, if our card wasn't stamped for voting, then getting food coupons or even a job was much more difficult if not impossible. This is based on personal experience and not hearsay.


Mola Nasredeen

Iran is not IR,

by Mola Nasredeen on


According to this Johnny Comes Lately crowd on IC

Iran is

the Jundolah followers killing hundreds indiscriminately,

Iran is the Mossad terrorists who kidnap and kill Iranian scientists,

Iran is the monarchists who've been waiting for an attack by U.S.A to change the regime for the last 30 years while their future king goes on procreating and laughing all the way to the bank.

Iran is the followers of Mojahedins who helped Saddam Hossein to 'save' Iranians from IR

Iran is the  followers of  the terrorist separatist kurds blowing up people in the stadiums

Iran is 'the Iranian hating Iranians' who are here on this website doning what they do best, Hating Iran'.

Iran is junior Zionist activists on this website looking for recruits to defend the Greater Israel

Iran is... 



by Q on

in Iraq, Egypt or Afghanistan where participation has been fairly high...

The turnout numbers in Iraq were completely fabricated. Nobody believed them, and independent polls (the kind that aren't all of a sudden trustworthy with Iran) were confirming that 70-90% were against Saddam. Even with all the rigging and the fear, Saddam was the only candidate running.

The 2009 post-Saddam elections, I believe were pretty fair. The turnout was a healthy 60%, not as high as Iran, but at least it was evenly distributed and voting patterns almost directy reflect the demographics (Shia, Sunni, Kurd) which is a great second check on their integrity. Iraqi system has many other problems but its clear it has the support of the majority of Iraqis now. Perhaps there is something to be said for a parliamentary system where you bring in all factions.

Egyptian elections are monitored by some international groups, so they can't get away with completely fabricating the results. The turnout there was about 20% last time Mubarad "won". Same with the last Afghan election where turnout was "estimated" by "western sources" to be about 35%, which is surely inflated.

These prove my point that turnout is a great indicator of how much people support the system. I agree with you, however, that it is not the only indicator.



آم میرزا، دمت گرم واقعا که گل گفتی‌


Although, I still dream of one day to go back to Iran and see a system that provides its citizen with social and political freedom, prosperity and independence.



Q: participation is not necessary an indication of approval

by Bavafa on

I agree that it is an indicator in participation in the political system, but it is hardly a definitive indicator for support of a system. Again case in point, in Iraq, Egypt or Afghanistan where participation has been fairly high, it is hard to believe or imagine they are supportive of their system. Likewise, in America where participation is relatively low yet no one believes Americans are about to have a revolution to change their system or constitution.


Shazde Asdola Mirza

ایران را تعریف کرده، از آن تمجید کنید

Shazde Asdola Mirza

من بجای اینکه بگم ایران برام چی‌ هست، سعی‌ می‌کنم بنویسم که ایران در نظر من چی‌ نیست.

۱. ایران ارث بابام نیست و من بهش به چشم مایملکی از دست رفته، نگاه نمیکنم؛

۲. ایران در حال حاضر حکومتی مردمی و معقول نداره - شاید هیچوقت هم نداشته؛

۳. ایران جایی نیست که من درش احساس آزادی و آرامش کنم؛

۴. ایران جایی نیست که من بخوام فرزندانم یا بچه‌های اونها توش بزرگ بشند؛

۵. ایران دولتی نداره که من بتونم بهش اعتماد کنم، به خصوص در مورد سلاح هسته ای؛

۶. ولی‌ ایران جأیی نیست که من بتونم شاهد رنج کشیدن مردمش، پاره پاره شدن مملکتش و دیوانگی اسلامیش باشم، و دم نزنم.

Bad Stories for Bad Kids


LOL Simorgh!

by Q on

Oh how desperately you must have combed the bottom of the Internet barrell and still got nothing!

Hitler's regime was illegal beause he usurped power after a coup-de-tat and gave himself unconstitutional powers. The enabling act, as well as subsequent laws were against the constitution, which had carefully seperated the powers and created checks and balances. He destroyed the Presidency which had the power to dismiss him.

No historian will dispute this, including Fuller. You are simply lying and your stupid link (of course) does not say what you claim. Is it that important to you to "appear" to be right for about 5 seconds before people read your own "evidence" ? That is pathetic!

It was obvious you had nothing, since you didn't quote anything from any historian (means you couldn't find any). I didn't even have to waste time finding out reading your BS links.

Having failed at this, you of course conviniently forget the bigger point which was that the IR analogy is wrong. IR had the support of the overwhelming majority of the people while Nazis never did. That's a fact, no amount of your BS can cover up! Not even irrelevant distractions like Mossadegh. But your welcome to entertain us by your tortured logic.

Your disdain for Iranian people and the concept of democracy is made clear here:

EVEN IF the majority of Iranians preferred to stick with the Islamic Republc should we accept it? The old the greatest happiness for the greatest number argument? I still say no.

Let's face facts my stalking friend:

1. You don't believe in democracy.  

2. You support attacking Iran.

Others may play nice with you, but let me do you a solid and tell you in honesty, these two facts make you a complete extremist. You will find no room in any coalition or any future of Iran. No one would waste time even burping in your general direction. You are exactly as relevant as Rajavi or Shaban bimokh. If I blieved those 2 things, I would want to hide behind fake personas too. How could I ever be proud of my own words in that situation? Truth hurts, I know and I'm sorry for you.

Also, (in reply to your other persona),

No, I think you really are the same. No one else would be so charitable as to mistake the crap spewed here by Simorgh as "debating". You gave yourself away when you made the same "who has ever heard of you?" argument the stalker used to make. As if you're anybody to judge my influence! Even multiple fake personalities can't hide how much of a sore loser you are.

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Well I was

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

hoping to have a decent debate on the difference of government and people. It was not to be for various reasons. Now we are back to "Zionist" bable that I am used to getting from Jew hating crowd.

Simorgh Jaan, do not waste your time giving these people logic. They either do not understand or chose to ignore it. They will use that 30+ years ago "referendum" to claim legitimacy for IR. As if one vote 30 years ago give carte-blanche for rape and murder. Besides as you see from Mola & Q their interest is not in Iran. It is in South Lebanon and Palestine. 

They will fight to the last drop of other people {Iranians} blood for Palestine. Then pack up and run away to asylum to whichever Western nation takes them. When there instead of saying "thank you" then go protesting and being bad citizens. One of these days the Western nations will get sick of them and give them the boot. 



by Simorgh5555 on

Is it true that the Prohet Mohammed ate camel meat and that eating this meat is Halall in Islam?

What a cruel God you have in your Allah. Do you agree? 


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Very funny Mola

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


Are you in a cold freezing wooden bunk in Iran? No, you are in the West like the rest of us. You obviously did not understand my question. I made a point that:

  • No government regardless of being democratic is the same as a nation. 
  • IR is not a democratic system and has not even got that.

Now you tun on the "jew! jew! Zionist" tape again. You are obviously more interested in hating Jews and promoting your country "Palestine". So why don't you be a good boy. Go to palestinian.com or hizbollah.com and be among your "ham vatans". Leave IC to Iranians.


On the subject of...

by comrade on

IRI's Constitution.

Never increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.



Why the IR has no legitimacy

by Simorgh5555 on

What surprises me is that Q, who often labels Israel as an apartheid state wants us to believe that the IR is the epitome of a democratic country.

The entire democratic system is a fraud. You have an unelected  Supreme Leader who appoints an unelected Council of Guardian whose task is to vet any candidates for election to ensure they are good Islamists; veto any proposed legislation whuch fall foul of the Islamic constitution and appoint members of the Council of Experts who oversee the the Supreme Leader. This farcical system of checks and balances is far from democratic in the sense which would allow people to directly participate in the election of their leaders. The entire monopoly of power resides in the hands of a Mullahs and the pedarasts from Qom. 

There is no transparency in laws, laws are often conflicting and contradicotry and have retropsective validity. One day Khomeini says Chess and usurry is banned and then issues a fatwa declaring it to be Halall.  After the revolution many Iranians were arrested and punished  for laws relating to drinking, political views, sexual offences, gambling and usury which were legal during the previous regime. 

There is no accountability to the public. There is no confidence in the judicial system where people are arrested arbitarily on the basis of sprious evidence. there is no equivalent of habeus corpus. The murder of Shahla Jahed, Arash Rahmanpour and Ali Zamini all forced into giving bogus confessions and hanged with no appeal and recourse to a higher judicial authority and their families being informed of their hanging only hours before. 

If people overwhelmingly approve of the IR, why does it need to coerce Islamic values in the schools and on the street? Why are women being arressted for flouting the dress code? Why would there be any need for censorship the media or the fear which drives  journalists to censor themselves?  Why are newspapers being shut down? Why are there political arrests? Even in a less than perfect democratic system none of these situations should arise.

The regime is both flawed in the system of government and its human right record which we all know about  makes it illegitimate and entitles Iranians to use force of arms to remove it. 

EVEN IF the majority of Iranians preferred to stick with the Islamic Republc should we accept it? The old the greatest happiness for the greatest number argument? I still say no. If the IR decides to stone women, if it decides to kill Salman Rushdie or enact a law punishing all blue eyed and blonde hair babies does this make it legitimate? 



Mola Nasredeen

VPK, Iran is not IR,

by Mola Nasredeen on

Iran is You and people like you who go to sleep and wake up every morning thinking of Iran

On your warm beds and nice homes in 'Dar Farang'.  

Iran is S5555 the junior Zionist activist who thinks and breaths about Iran, imagining its bombardment by National Israeli air force jets.

Iran is ...

Iraneh Azad

No Q! Simorgh is a much better debator than me

by Iraneh Azad on

You yourself should stop posting under multiple names and concentrate on figuring out a way to explain your quotes from below.



by Simorgh5555 on

Christmas present:


Two renowned  jurisprudence theorirstswho disagree as to whether Hitler's rregime was legitimate or not. Fuller said that Hitler's regime was illegal  not for the reasons which you mention and not because of the indisputable fact that Hitler was elected legitimately through a democratic process before turning dictaror.

Who should I believe two heavy weight legal theoriests or Qumars 'whatever his name is' in Central Los Angeles? 


oh.... you are also the stalker, Simorgh?

by Q on

should have known! Makes perfect sense.

what a sad waste of time you are.

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

What is a democracy

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


Where there is no VF aka dictator.

Where talking your opinion does not get your rear end raped.

Where candidates are not pre-determined by a bunch of Mollahs.

If I need to say these things some people are really in need of knowledge. For crying out loud what kind of "democracy" do you people think IR has? I have news! Stop yawning; wakeup and watch the farce this "Democracy{ is.


You forgot to call me racist! Getting rusty a bit huh?