Is Iran under an evil repressive regime?

Monty Burnz

I would like to posit that the government of Iran is an evil, repressive theocracy - rather than a benign government of the people as it would claim.

First piece of evidence - the death in custody of a blogger who criticised the regime:

Iranian prosecutors say the death of blogger Sattar Beheshti in police custody may have been due to "excessive psychological stress".

Mr Beheshti died after being held on charges of "actions against national security on social networks".

Following his arrest on 30 October, he was handed to police for interrogation and died on 3 November.

The exact circumstances of his death remain unclear. Some reports have suggested he was tortured.

Mr Beheshti's mother has been forbidden to speak to the press. But an opposition website quoted her as saying she had been offered "blood money" in compensation.

She added: "I said I didn't want any. What I want is for the world to know that they killed my son. They killed Sattar."

It is thought Mr Beheshti was targeted for his writings on political and social issues on his blog and on Facebook.

Brown Bomber

I'd say yes, but no more than some of the friends of the west, or indeed some nations of the west in terms of foriegn policy.

It would have been interesting to see how Iran would have developed under the secular Mossadeq had the British and US not overthrown the democratically elected leader of Iran in a coup to steal Iran's oil.

If there was no Shah then it's highly likely there would be no Khomeini/Ahmadenijad. When should history start?

Run_to_da_hills

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I would like to posit that the government of Iran is an evil, repressive theocracy - rather than a benign government of the people as it would claim.

First piece of evidence - the death in custody of a blogger who criticised the regime:

No more than the United States or North Korea. .

Undergod

Lots more than the United States. Probably less than Korea.

Jonny7

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

No more than the United States or North Korea. .

Iran has been rapidly receding behind the US in terms of human rights, equality, rights, censorship and freedom of press, political freedom, virtually every aspect.

North Korea is an order of magnitudes worse than Iran. Leadership cult and severe consequences for any individual or family seen to openly in any way disagree with the Kim dynasty. Including real gulags and Stalinesque labour camps, not imaginary ones.

Brown Bomber

Undergod wrote: »

Lots more than the United States. Probably less than Korea.

On what basis?

If it's imprisoning somebody for nothing and then they die in custody under extremely suspicious circumstances then the US are equally evil.

Take the case of Adnan Latif the latest to have died in Guantanamo in September. He was never charged with any crime and was cleared for release as far back as 06.

These were his thoughts:
http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2012/09/13/a-premonition-of-death-at-guantanamo-adnan-latifs-hunger-strike-poem/

Hunger Strike Poem
By Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif

They are criminals, increasing their crimes.
They are criminals, claiming to be peace-loving.
They are criminals, torturing the hunger strikers.


They are artists of torture,
They are artists of pain and fatigue,
They are artists of insults and humiliation.


They are faithless — traitors and cowards –
They have surpassed devils with their criminal acts.


They do not respect the law,
They do not respect men,
They do not spare the elderly
They do not spare the baby-toothed child.


They leave us in prison for years, uncharged,
Because we are Muslims.


Where is the world to save us from torture?
Where is the world to save us from the fire and sadness?
Where is the world to save the hunger strikers?


But we are content, on the side of justice and right,
Worshipping the Almighty.


And our motto on this island is, salaam.

Monty Burnz

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

No more than the United States or North Korea. .

Could you supply a list of American journalists and bloggers who have been arrested for expressing their views, imprisoned, and tortured to death in custody?

thiarfearr

The hanging of teenage girls and homosexuals for adultry and sodomy suggests Iran is far worse than the US

Brown Bomber

thiarfearr wrote: »

The hanging of teenage girls and homosexuals suggests Iran is far worse than the US

On the other hand...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbIX1CP9qr4

The unfolding human catastrophe in Iran
Sanctions imposed on Iran's banks and financial institutions could lead to a humanitarian crisis.

Last Modified: 28 Oct 2012 09:06


http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/10/20121023101710641121.html

Monty Burnz

thiarfearr wrote: »

The hanging of teenage girls and homosexuals for adultry and sodomy suggests Iran is far worse than the US

I'm pretty confident some of the more religiously fundamentalist posters here will shed no tears at the deaths of sodomites or young harlots. Love thy neighbour, what?

The Bishop!

Yes, it's under a repressive government that commits human rights abuses; as are a good few other countries in the region like Saudi, Bahrain, Israel etc.

Of all these, apparently Iran seems to have the unique attributes that allow it entry into that most exclusive of clubs; 'the axis of evil'.
The price they pay for this membership is the ongoing sanctions that are crippling the economy and already denying cancer patients their medicine, putting millions of lives at risk of death either by lack of medicine or by eventual starvation from the food supply collapsing.

So, as bad as the regime is, i think there are some bigger issues on the horizon for the Iranian people just now.

Brown Bomber

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Could you supply a list of American journalists and bloggers who have been arrested for expressing their views, imprisoned, and tortured to death in custody?

Keeping your own backyard clean doesn't give you any moral superiority. The US has backed death squads all over the place that have tortured, killed and dissappeared journalists. Only this week Obama was supporting Israel's targetting of journalistst in Gaza, even killing the 11-month-old son of a BBC employee when the IDF bombed his home.

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Keeping your own backyard clean doesn't give you any moral superiority. The US has backed death squads all over the place that have tortured, killed and dissappeared journalists. Only this week Obama was supporting Israel's targetting of journalistst in Gaza, even killing the 11-month-old son of a BBC employee when the IDF bombed his home.

This isn't a thread about moral superiority, it's a thread about repressive domestic regimes. I am postulating that one exists in Iran, in spite of the regime's own representation of itself. There appears to be a remarkable contrast between the freedoms one enjoys in the USA compared to those that one 'enjoys' in Iran.

Jonny7

The Bishop! wrote: »

The price they pay for this membership is the ongoing sanctions that are crippling the economy and already denying cancer patients their medicine, putting millions of lives at risk of death either by lack of medicine or by eventual starvation from the food supply collapsing.

As a signatory of the NPT Iran should be cooperating with the IAEA, yet the regime is not, hence the sanctions.

Monty Burnz

Jonny7 wrote: »

As a signatory of the NPT Iran should be cooperating with the IAEA, yet the regime is not, hence the sanctions.

You'd think they'd just duck out of the NPT - easier all round, but I guess they'd probably still face sanctions as nobody is too keen on a theocratic dicatatorship having nukes.

Although the fact that they persist with their current drive towards nuclear power (regardless of whether or not they have a right to do it) at the expense of the ordinary people seems to be further evidence that they are not as concerned about the well-being of the Iranian people as perhaps they claim. The benefits of nuclear power seem to be substantially outweighed by the misery their pursuit is inflicting on the people.

Brown Bomber

Monty Burnz wrote: »

This isn't a thread about moral superiority, it's a thread about repressive domestic regimes. I am postulating that one exists in Iran, in spite of the regime's own representation of itself. There appears to be a remarkable contrast between the freedoms one enjoys in the USA compared to those that one 'enjoys' in Iran.

To be fair you opened up the discussion to questions of morality by including "evil" in the thread title and morality/evil is relative imo. My point was that the beacons of "freedom" such as the UK and the US are also evil repressive regimes that also crush dissent and freedom of expression through direct force - just not within their own borders but away from prying eyes. This leads me to believe that this crushing of dissent dished out to "them" and not "us" is not based on any principle other than they could not get away with it.

There seems to be a gradual shift towards this however, such as Brandon Raub's arrest and detention for his facebook comments on 9/11.

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

To be fair you opened up the discussion to questions of morality by including "evil" in the thread title and morality/evil is relative imo. My point was that the beacons of "freedom" such as the UK and the US are also evil repressive regimes that also crush dissent and freedom of expression through direct force - just not within their own borders but away from prying eyes. This leads me to believe that this crushing of dissent dished out to "them" and not "us" is not based on any principle other than they could not get away with it.

There seems to be a gradual shift towards this however, such as Brandon Raub's arrest and detention for his facebook comments on 9/11.

Yeah, apologies for trying to limit the thread 'domain' there - I hate it when people do that. I was just hoping to focus the thread on the clear disparity between the Iran the leadership tries to project and the actuality of Iran for the ordinary people.

With regard to Raub:

Brandon J. Raub, 26, has been in custody since FBI, Secret Service agents and police in Virginia's Chesterfield County questioned him Thursday evening about what they said were ominous posts talking about a coming revolution. In one message earlier this month according to authorities, Raub wrote: "Sharpen my axe; I'm here to sever heads."

Police – acting under a state law that allows emergency, temporary psychiatric commitments upon the recommendation of a mental health professional – took Raub to the John Randolph Medical Center in Hopewell. He was not charged with any crime.

If the authorities did nothing and this guy went on a rampage, they would rightly be condemned for ignoring clear signs that he was a potential threat to innocent people. And of course people like Frank on this forum would suggest that 'they' programmed him to commit that atrocity, and the posts were just planted 'evidence' to give the attack plausibility.

Run_to_da_hills

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Could you supply a list of American journalists and bloggers who have been arrested for expressing their views, imprisoned, and tortured to death in custody?

America is heading that direction.

16-Year-Old Questioned by FBI Over You Tube Video

Former Marine Detained for ‘Ominous’ Facebook Posts Speaks Out for the First Time: ‘It Made Me Scared for My Country’

It will only be a matter of time before NDAA ill be enacted and examples like those mentioned above will be interned indefinably in holding camps and possibly silenced without trial.

The Bishop!

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Although the fact that they persist with their current drive towards nuclear power (regardless of whether or not they have a right to do it) at the expense of the ordinary people seems to be further evidence that they are not as concerned about the well-being of the Iranian people as perhaps they claim.

Of course they have a right to nuclear power. Why shouldn't they?

And one can equally argue that developing that industry for an arid country of 70 million people that currently depends heavily on diminishing fossil is evidence that they are concerned about the well-being of the nation.
The one's that are definitely not too concerned about the well-being of the people of Iran are the cheerleaders for continuing sanctions and war in spite of the lack of evidence that there is a threat.

The benefits of nuclear power seem to be substantially outweighed by the misery their pursuit is inflicting on the people.

The benefits of regional power is what the issue is here and is the real reason for the sanctions and threats of war.

Monty Burnz

The Bishop! wrote: »

Of course they have a right to nuclear power. Why shouldn't they?

That's not relevant to the point I'm making though, which is why I put that bit in brackets - its a whole other debate. The point is about the consequences of the regime's pursuit of nuclear technology.

The Bishop! wrote: »

And one can equally argue that developing that industry for an arid country of 70 million people that currently depends heavily on diminishing fossil is evidence that they are concerned about the well-being of the nation.
The one's that are definitely not too concerned about the well-being of the people of Iran are the cheerleaders for continuing sanctions and war in spite of the lack of evidence that there is a threat.

Perhaps the leadership of earthquake-prone Iran haven't noticed that advanced countries like Japan and Germany are abandoning nuclear power where possible as current technology simply isn't safe should things go wrong? And I'm not entirely sure why oil-rich Iran would suddenly feel the need for new energy sources - have they been making the move to green/renewable energy too? (If not, it would seem to undermine the idea that hey are concerned about their oil running out)

The Bishop! wrote: »

The benefits of regional power is what the issue is here and is the real reason for the sanctions and threats of war.

You are quite possibly right here - the regime wants to be a nuclear superpower in the region like Israel, with the ability to push around its neighbours.

weisses

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You are quite possibly right here - the regime wants to be a nuclear superpower in the region like Israel, with the ability to push around its neighbours.

I believe Israel is afraid because it can no longer push around their (distant) neighbors the way its doing now
I think we as a world should focus more on north Korea then Iran

Torakx

Such an awkward situation.
On one hand you have a country that should be allowed create power,but hasnt the best reputation.
On the other hand you have a bunch of paranoid Israelites(?) next door who already have a nuclear bomb and dont want the other kids to have the same toys.
If countries dont want someone to have nukes, they should get rid of their own first and use the UN to enforce the "law" as they pretend to go by.

Im sure theres other economical and social issues involved, but the fact that America and Israel have nukes and Iran doesnt, tells me who the bullies and aggressors are really.
We all know America has a history of using nukes and war is pretty much what they are all about, so logically they should be disarmed of nuclear weapons at least, asap.

The religious influence in all these countries mentioned is another issue.
All three of them have insane beliefs that effect public policy or public opinion, combined with the media spin of course.

I think all countries who are beholded to a foreign as yet not proven to even exist, entity, or percieved one, should definitely not have any weapons capable of mass damage.

ps, I do realise Iran have alot of missiles that may compensate for the lack of a nuke regarding their neighbour.

Monty Burnz

Torakx wrote: »

Such an awkward situation.
On one hand you have a country that should be allowed create power,but hasnt the best reputation.
On the other hand you have a bunch of paranoid Israelites(?) next door who already have a nuclear bomb and dont want the other kids to have the same toys.

It should also be noted that none of Iran's muslim neighbours particularly want to see them with nuclear weapons either for obvious reasons.

weisses

Monty Burnz wrote: »

It should also be noted that none of Iran's muslim neighbours particularly want to see them with nuclear weapons either for obvious reasons.

Of course not .. the balance of power is shifting and no regime would like that i think

On the other hand what would have happened when Pakistan didn't had the bomb in relation to their dispute with India (Kashmir)

Torakx

Honestly i dont blame people for that view.
Im just a stickler for being fair to all regarding rights.
Its obviously a complex issue.But at the foundations of the Israel/American arguement against Iran having nuclear power,is a glaring contradiction in terms as i see it.

I would welcome more info on Iran now that were on that subject with this thread.
Like how the current political enviornment came about and how credible the threats are regarding Irans religious beliefs and prejudices.
I dont know alot about Islam either for that matter.
So not sure how fanatical the countries leaders are, if they are even representing Iran underneath all this.
For all i know it could just be another Iraq politically speaking.

Monty Burnz

weisses wrote: »

Of course not .. the balance of power is shifting and no regime would like that i think

On the other hand what would have happened when Pakistan didn't had the bomb in relation to their dispute with India (Kashmir)

Fair point - in the short term, that may well have saved lives. But the comparison falls down on two grounds - firstly, only Israel of Iran's neighbours has nukes. There is no balance between Iran and its non-nuclear neighbours. Secondly, there is considerable fear that Pakistan's nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of Muslim extremists due to the growing instability there. Religious fanatics (of all stripes) are very dangerous and they already have their hands on the levers of power in Iran...

weisses

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Fair point - in the short term, that may well have saved lives. But the comparison falls down on two grounds - firstly, only Israel of Iran's neighbours has nukes. There is no balance between Iran and its non-nuclear neighbours. Secondly, there is considerable fear that Pakistan's nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of Muslim extremists due to the growing instability there. Religious fanatics (of all stripes) are very dangerous and they already have their hands on the levers of power in Iran...

Correct that's my biggest fear as well that nuclear material falls into the wrong hands ... that fear is there for years already after the collapse of the soviet union imo .. Its a very delicate balancing game and open to a lot of speculation

Monty Burnz

Torakx wrote: »

So not sure how fanatical the countries leaders are, if they are even representing Iran underneath all this.

Their actions (and their words) suggest they are pretty fanatical. Iran was a very progressive and wealthy country before the Islamic Revolution, women had the sort of freedom that European women enjoyed with regard to education, clothing, and so forth. As well as executing children and homosexuals, the regime appears determined to remove whatever vestiges remained of the more free and progressive Iran of the past:

A 2005 United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation survey found that a higher percentage of girls than boys were in primary school in Iran, making it one of the most successful countries promoting access to girls' education. The majority of girls went on to secondary school and college. In fact, by 2007 when much of the world was still discussing how to get girls into so-called non-traditional careers – more than 70 per cent of students on science and engineering courses in Iran were women.

But as Iran's academic year began on September 22, students at several public universities across Iran faced seemingly arbitrary new restrictions on their fields of study - based solely on their gender. A month earlier - the Science and Technology Ministry, which is responsible for higher education, announced new restrictions to limit the numbers of places for women in a large number of academic institutions. A manual published annually by the ministry lists the major fields of study available to applicants sitting that year for the national entrance exam for public universities, which is held in June. This year's edition revealed that 36 public universities across the country have banned female enrollment in 77 academic fields.

That's just one example of their fanaticism. It's a tragedy really - the ordinary Iranian people I've met in real life were very nice people.

Be like Nutella

There's nothing simple about Iran or any other country for that matter, they're all complex and usually involve a history of outside forces and various people to blame. You need to know your history to make any sort of definitive comment on Iran, end of story. The Op asked ' Is Iran under an evil repressive regime?

Repressive? Yes deffo if you compare it to Ireland or the US (and yes I know and agree the US does all sorts of bad evil sh1t like Guantanamo and basically eavesdropping on their entire population through Stellar Wind and shuts up prying Journalists like James Risen etc etc yes it is a fuked up country no doubt about that) but it is certainly nothing anything like Iran and in comparison Iran is certainly under a repressive regime and they have locked up bloggers and used force upon its own population when it protested. It also puts national pride ahead of its own population's wellbeing in the case of quitin that nuclear sh1t to 'allow' the 'evil' sanctions to stop but that's sort of 6 of one half a dozen of the other. And don't forget that you or I or anyone on this forum (lest there be somebody who lived in Iran for years here) don't have one bleeding clue what Life in Iran is truly like nor do we (lest there is an Islamic person here who has lived under Shariah law or a society close to Shariah law like Iran) know what life the average Iranian would LIKE? As far as I can tell from learning about life in Iran the Iranians do not want what we like to think they want and that's important to understand. In fact IF the average Iranian on the street could have their boxes ticked by the Iranian government and prices for everyday goods went back to something normal and their daily lives were not affected by the government and education continued to improve in Iran and opportunities that education brings and elections were fair-er and more representative and they were allowed to go ahead and develop nuclear energy and so forth... we would STILL think their society backward and repressive because of their religious lifestyles which govern their daily lives faaaar more than the government does.

This is a HUGE quasi western/shariah/modern/ancient/democratic/theocratic mashup of a country full of resentment of the west namely Britain and the US for having fuked with their country for a hundred years. There's no way we on this forum can sum up any of that in bullsh1t arguments about whether WE think they should have the right to develop nuclear tech or not.

Ahmadinejad is a dick but he never ran Iran, the supreme leader (I hate that title) is the god of Iran, what he says goes end of story. Leadership comes out of Friday prayers and most Iranians just want to live peaceful productive lives with the benefits of the modern world and to have a relationship with the west on an equal footing where Iran is treated like every other nation, not as secondary citizens of the world. What is EVIL or REPRESSIVE to us here, has no resemblance to how Iranians feel. A whole other set of values. This is what is wrong in so many arguments about different countries. We love to think we have the correct perspective. We have our heads up our arses if you ask me! Compared to Ireland and the US Iran is most definitely living under a repressive regime. Evil? I won't even dignify that sort of bullsh1t binary anymore. Most of what we like to label as evil is just based on pure ignorance and laziness on our part, and that's not a shot at the op, I do know what he meant by the thread.

Here's an insight if anyone's interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D61uriEGsIM

Monty Burnz

Be like Nutella wrote: »

What is EVIL or REPRESSIVE to us here, has no resemblance to how Iranians feel. A whole other set of values. This is what is wrong in so many arguments about different countries. We love to think we have the correct perspective. We have our heads up our arses if you ask me! Compared to Ireland and the US Iran is most definitely living under a repressive regime. Evil? I won't even dignify that sort of bullsh1t binary anymore. Most of what we like to label as evil is just based on pure ignorance and laziness on our part, and that's not a shot at the op, I do know what he meant by the thread.

Interesting post BLN. I guess in my head 'repressive' is synonymous with 'evil' - anything that curtails your (reasonable) freedom involuntarily seems to me to be a self-evidently bad thing. My impression of the current situation in Iran is that you have (or had) a progressive, educated population who largely wanted the types of freedoms we take for granted here. On the other hand, you hand a smaller part of that population plus a large part of the rural, uneducated poor who were in favour of (and still support) the Islamic Revolution. A bit like in Nazi Germany - you actually don't need that much support to bring in a dictatorship if you are willing to kill your opponents. I'd say that if you had only 20% of the population behind you but a willingness to murder, you'd usually succeed.

Be like Nutella

Monty Burnz wrote: »

you actually don't need that much support to bring in a dictatorship if you are willing to kill your opponents. I'd say that if you had only 20% of the population behind you but a willingness to murder, you'd usually succeed.

Absolutely agree and we've seen it happen so many times, from the RIRA to the Congo, those that will bomb and kill end up OWNING the agenda. Real pure righteous revolution is a rare thing. Regimes (although I hate that word because it tends to be abused selectively by 'the West') know how to keep things teetering on the cusp of revolution without p1ssing off too many of their people and know how to swell nationalist opinion against outside powers to deflect from the crap they do to their people. 'Iran' is a pro at this since the revolution as is many regimes around that region (who need an ass kicking from their people). When you have money like the Saudi's you can just pay off your population and keep'em down but the internet is the ultimate wave of freedom when you think about it. All of the oppressed people in the greater middle east, and other places, once they find a way to retain their access to the uncensored internet will continue to learn basically what they're missing, freedoms they will aspire to have in their lives and there is nothing that can stop 'the people'.... not in the end. Either those regimes will give their people what they want or they will all eventually fall and burn like the ones we've seen so far. But there is a huge religious side to this awakening. Muslims in these countries are not going to just switch to a 'more acceptable to us'-type of Islamic lifestyle/belief structure. There are many millions of Muslims who actually want to keep their women down (from OUR perspective 'down' is less or UNeducated and powerless in society and subordinate to men) and live by Shariah law as dictated by the Qur'an.

045.018
YUSUFALI: Then We put thee on the (right) Way of Religion: so follow thou that (Way), and follow not the desires of those who know not.

This has been their way for centuries and no amount of CNN coverage is going to change that overnight. I would like it to change but it's a complex and gradual process pushed from the inside by people like the ultimate Heroine and hopefully the next Nobel Peace Prize winner - Malala Yousafzai.

anyone interested they can sign this petition, how cool would it be for her to win the Peace Prize ! That country is rightly fuked up they need a light like her.

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/uk-party-leaders-and-foreign-secretary-nominate-malala-for-the-nobel-peace-prize-nobel4malala-2

BuilderPlumber

While there is a lot wrong in Iran, is such cliched talk of evil regime justified? Yes and no? Maybe?

On one hand, there is a paradox: a supposedly anti-Western regime surviving 34 years. A record in itself. Iran did all types of things to the West like the 1980s hostage crisis but no one died in any of them! West and Iran shared many common enemies like Taliban and Saddam Hussein. The West and Iran were friends before 1979 and the regime had no reason to fall out! Ditto with Iran and Israel. So, I think Iran is a closet Western ally or at least a regime the West find useful.

The regime has definitely prevented Iran's potential development. It is repressive and has abused religion. It does not enjoy popular support among much of the population. Yet, it fares positively moderate compared to other so-called Islamic dictatorships as the 1996-2001 Afghanistan Taliban/al Qaeda regime, current Saudi Arabia, current Kuwait or the 1970s Zia dictatorship in Pakistan. Compared to todays Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, Iran is peaceful and safe. It does not suffer much from the ethnic divisions and hatred seen in other countries apart from its SE Sistan-Baluchistan province (Baluchistan is a region and wannabe nation state that straddles Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan).

Iran's elections are often rigged, choice is limited, the president does not have much power? True. BUT that it has elections at all is a blessing in this region! Other problems in Iran include inflation/rip off prices, unemployment, corruption, bureaucracy, government infighting, incompetence, cronyism, adverse after effects of a building boom, smog in Tehran, and emigration. All familiar problems to us Irish.

Unlike Saddam's Iraq or Israel, Iran has not attacked or invaded anyone. It has however unleashed force on its own people in a tough but restrained way. It has no qualms of executing dissidents (often on trumped up - or maybe not? a lot of rebel groups get funding from drug dealing - drugs charges) to make examples of them.

The death penalty exists in Iran and is used most regularly for drugs offences and dissidents. Echoing the Wild West, it is usually done by hanging. However, America, Japan and other democracies also have it! It is not just the recognised African and Arab dictators that have it.

There have been unfortunate events that stalled and diluted democracy in Iran. Khomeini was too old and weak to reign in extremists? Saddam's invasion gave the Revolutionary Guards a popular importance that allowed them consolidate power? A greedy younger set of politicians got in behind Khomeini to succeed him? Western treatment of Iran remains poor and Iran is not allowed develop? Yes, is the answer to all of these. BUT here in Ireland we have austerity (forced unemployment, tax increases, paying more earning less) and we can vote but policies remain unchanged despite being unpopular with the people. We don't have a theocracy or a death penalty but a lot of both our countries' problems are one and the same.

Hoop66

Bear in mind that the majority of what we in the west hear about Iran is coming through the filter of a media with an agenda - "Iran is the big, bad, evil Islamic empire".

I lived in Iran until 1979 and have a number of Iranian friends; some in the UK/US, some still living in Iran. I speak regularly with them, and some people who are still living there tell me that day-to-day life, especially for what might be called the middle-class, goes on much as it always did. Although, since sanctions were levied against its people, the country has suffered more from shortages which is a "new" thing to a lot of people.

BuilderPlumber

Hoop66 wrote: »

Bear in mind that the majority of what we in the west hear about Iran is coming through the filter of a media with an agenda - "Iran is the big, bad, evil Islamic empire".

I lived in Iran until 1979 and have a number of Iranian friends; some in the UK/US, some still living in Iran. I speak regularly with them, and some people who are still living there tell me that day-to-day life, especially for what might be called the middle-class, goes on much as it always did. Although, since sanctions were levied against its people, the country has suffered more from shortages which is a "new" thing to a lot of people.

This is very true. And not just with Iran but with every single topic they cover: they have an agenda. Stereotypes that are usually negative are concocted to suit the agenda of powerful vested interests.

Iran has elected a new moderate president and he will normalise things. But will Israel be happy to see this? A man who can steer Iran to be the rich country it deserves to be?

Corkfeen

Except the Ayatollah hasn't changed and he has far greater influence than the president.

BuilderPlumber

Corkfeen wrote: »

Except the Ayatollah hasn't changed and he has far greater influence than the president.

The fact that Ayatollah Khamenei recognised Hassan Rowhani as the president (the mass media assumed it would be a rigged vote in favour of perhaps Jalili) shows that even he wants to change things even if he does not admit it. The Revolutionary Guards also recognise Rowhani as president. The unelected regime members recognise that a rigged election would not do them any good and this shows that the people's (who want reform) demands are recognised by the regime to an extent.