Opinion of Iran?

[TheReckoning]

What’s your opinion of Iran?

[KaiserDave]

The country has a rich culture and fantastic history, the regime of course, is extremely evil.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

The country has a rich culture and fantastic history, the regime of course, is extremely evil.

[James Monroe]

The people residing are wonderful but the small percent who ruled are the tyrants of modern civilization. Just a bunch of superstitious rubes who care little for factual policy, rather a craving for authoritarianism for barbarism.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

The country has a rich culture and fantastic history, the regime of course, is extremely evil.

I second that,

but its evilness is a bit overstated. It still is evil but not to the extent some want us to believe.

[dead0man]

I agree with the consensus:fine people, evil leadership


Murder the Mullahs!

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Iran gave weapons to Hamas during the Arafat intifada yrs and a Palestinian killed Bobby Kennedy so Sirhan , Sirhan was paid off not by Iraqi whom Bush W said was theost dangerous man it's Iran, both were dangerous countries but it's clear Iran paid off Hamas to kill Bobby Kennedy, there was no threat from Saddam 8n the sixties but Iran and Iran is close to Russia whom the KGB trained Oswald

Iran still helps Terrorist all over the glove there is no more Iraq and Hamas is still bombing Israel

There was not that much investigation into Bobby Kennedy because he was killed by Hamas but it was very clear Russia KGB killed John Kennedy

[FT-02 Senator A.F.E. 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

The regime, of course, is bad, but Iran is most certainly a freedom country that has contributed immensely to humanity over the millennia.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A highly civilised and utterly fascinating country that has had the misfortune to be ruled for so long by a gang of ultra-reactionary lunatic murderers who hate everything about the country that has made it so great and for so very, very long.

[LBJer]

I voted FC, because while I certainly don't view Iran's government favorably, a country is more than its government, and I view Iranians as a whole favorably.  

[politicallefty]

A highly civilised and utterly fascinating country that has had the misfortune to be ruled for so long by a gang of ultra-reactionary lunatic murderers who hate everything about the country that has made it so great and for so very, very long.

I think this sums up my thoughts almost exactly. I think the current regime is one of the most evil, a word I do not generally use in this manner. I'm honestly saddened that they are ruled by some of the worst of the worst.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Ditto what Al, KaiserDave et al have said.

[All Along The Watchtower]

A highly civilised and utterly fascinating country that has had the misfortune to be ruled for so long by a gang of ultra-reactionary lunatic murderers who hate everything about the country that has made it so great and for so very, very long.

And one of the sadder and most infuriating aspects of this is that the country's current rulers co-opted a much broader popular uprising against the previous reactionary authoritarian regime as their own -- after murdering all of their rivals in that uprising, of course. I suppose this is an all-too common story in regard to revolutions.

[TheReckoning]

A highly civilised and utterly fascinating country that has had the misfortune to be ruled for so long by a gang of ultra-reactionary lunatic murderers who hate everything about the country that has made it so great and for so very, very long.

And one of the sadder and most infuriating aspects of this is that the country's current rulers co-opted a much broader popular uprising against the previous reactionary authoritarian regime as their own -- after murdering all of their rivals in that uprising, of course. I suppose this is an all-too common story in regard to revolutions.

The Shah was intensely modernizing Iran before he was overthrown. Calling him “reactionary” is unfair- in fact, many people thought that his modernizing efforts were too intense which is why there was such strong backlash, and how the revolutionaries managed to rise up and cause the current state of Iran- as revolutionaries tend to do.

[All Along The Watchtower]

A highly civilised and utterly fascinating country that has had the misfortune to be ruled for so long by a gang of ultra-reactionary lunatic murderers who hate everything about the country that has made it so great and for so very, very long.

And one of the sadder and most infuriating aspects of this is that the country's current rulers co-opted a much broader popular uprising against the previous reactionary authoritarian regime as their own -- after murdering all of their rivals in that uprising, of course. I suppose this is an all-too common story in regard to revolutions.

The Shah was intensely modernizing Iran before he was overthrown. Calling him “reactionary” is unfair- in fact, many people thought that his modernizing efforts were too intense which is why there was such strong backlash, and how the revolutionaries managed to rise up and cause the current state of Iran- as revolutionaries tend to do.

Who said that modernization can’t be reactionary? Have you heard of Dubai? Have you been been paying attention to Saudi Arabia recently?!

[TheReckoning]

A highly civilised and utterly fascinating country that has had the misfortune to be ruled for so long by a gang of ultra-reactionary lunatic murderers who hate everything about the country that has made it so great and for so very, very long.

And one of the sadder and most infuriating aspects of this is that the country's current rulers co-opted a much broader popular uprising against the previous reactionary authoritarian regime as their own -- after murdering all of their rivals in that uprising, of course. I suppose this is an all-too common story in regard to revolutions.

The Shah was intensely modernizing Iran before he was overthrown. Calling him “reactionary” is unfair- in fact, many people thought that his modernizing efforts were too intense which is why there was such strong backlash, and how the revolutionaries managed to rise up and cause the current state of Iran- as revolutionaries tend to do.

Who said that modernization can’t be reactionary? Have you heard of Dubai? Have you been been paying attention to Saudi Arabia recently?!

Dubai and Saudi Arabia are not “reactionary”, they are conservative. A very strong difference exists between those two philosophies.

[All Along The Watchtower]

If Dubai or NEOM represent “conservatism” then all hope is lost.

[PSOL]

A highly civilised and utterly fascinating country that has had the misfortune to be ruled for so long by a gang of ultra-reactionary lunatic murderers who hate everything about the country that has made it so great and for so very, very long.

And one of the sadder and most infuriating aspects of this is that the country's current rulers co-opted a much broader popular uprising against the previous reactionary authoritarian regime as their own -- after murdering all of their rivals in that uprising, of course. I suppose this is an all-too common story in regard to revolutions.

The Shah was intensely modernizing Iran before he was overthrown. Calling him “reactionary” is unfair- in fact, many people thought that his modernizing efforts were too intense which is why there was such strong backlash, and how the revolutionaries managed to rise up and cause the current state of Iran- as revolutionaries tend to do.

No, people hated the shah because he was a corrupt sleazebag who set up the state as a side project to peddle opium. He would not hire Iranian workers to engage in most of his work and outsourced it to western multinationals who acted like they owned the place.

I hate the current government, but to say Iran didn’t grow exponentially without the Shah and the old system of aristocratic nobles dragging the country to hell isn’t good governance. At least there is some trappings of democracy with how the current government was set up that allowed for more equitive treatment.

Saudi Arabia, and the gulf states more generally, are led more recognizably as the old patronage system of the Arabic clan system, which is inherently reactionary. This is why there is even more insane corruption over there than in Iran, which has some flimsy checks and balances.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Iranian government is mainly a threat to its own people, of course.

[Fuzzy Bear]

A highly civilised and utterly fascinating country that has had the misfortune to be ruled for so long by a gang of ultra-reactionary lunatic murderers who hate everything about the country that has made it so great and for so very, very long.

And one of the sadder and most infuriating aspects of this is that the country's current rulers co-opted a much broader popular uprising against the previous reactionary authoritarian regime as their own -- after murdering all of their rivals in that uprising, of course. I suppose this is an all-too common story in regard to revolutions.

The Shah was intensely modernizing Iran before he was overthrown. Calling him “reactionary” is unfair- in fact, many people thought that his modernizing efforts were too intense which is why there was such strong backlash, and how the revolutionaries managed to rise up and cause the current state of Iran- as revolutionaries tend to do.

Who said that modernization can’t be reactionary? Have you heard of Dubai? Have you been been paying attention to Saudi Arabia recently?!

Dubai and Saudi Arabia are not “reactionary”, they are conservative. A very strong difference exists between those two philosophies.

I was a college student in the last years of the Shah.  The Shah was considered to be a friend of Israel and America.  I also went to college with some Iranian students who were great people, but whom were very much afraid that their activities were being monitored by the Shah's Secret Police.  This was more of a concern, apparently, with Iranian students that were closer to New York Citiy than in more distant locations, but the ones I met believed that they were under some kind of surveillance and they were concerned for their families back home.

Our support for Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War during the 1980s was a huge mistake; we allowed partisan feelings to get in the way of practical politics.  I remember once I attended a Kiwanis Luncheon and the speaker was a retired military analyst for the Air Force.  This was about 1987 or 1988 and he stated that the War with Iraq was the only thing keeping the Ayatollah's regime in power, and that it would collapse if we allowed the war to run its course and not put our finger on the scale.  That didn't happen, of course. 

Having the Shah remain in power would have been far better for the World than what has transpired.  But I'm not going to whitewash the Shah; he was an authoritarian who sought to silence his opposition, and he certainly had his own stable of Political Prisoners.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The Iranian government is mainly a threat to its own people, of course.

Absolutely, but not only to them. A lot of the ongoing drama in Iraq relates to public irritation at Iranian influence over government.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The Iranian government is mainly a threat to its own people, of course.

Absolutely, but not only to them. A lot of the ongoing drama in Iraq relates to public irritation at Iranian influence over government.

Not to mention Lebanon and Syria. Iran has absolutely been a malevolent—dare I say, counterrevolutionary—actor in those countries too.

And let’s not forget where a lot of the funding for terrorist groups in that area between “the river and the sea” comes from.

[MATTROSE94]

Iran gave weapons to Hamas during the Arafat intifada yrs and a Palestinian killed Bobby Kennedy so Sirhan , Sirhan was paid off not by Iraqi whom Bush W said was theost dangerous man it's Iran, both were dangerous countries but it's clear Iran paid off Hamas to kill Bobby Kennedy, there was no threat from Saddam 8n the sixties but Iran and Iran is close to Russia whom the KGB trained Oswald

Iran still helps Terrorist all over the glove there is no more Iraq and Hamas is still bombing Israel

There was not that much investigation into Bobby Kennedy because he was killed by Hamas but it was very clear Russia KGB killed John Kennedy

Back when Bobby Kennedy was killed, Iran was still ruled by the Shah, who was strongly pro-Israel. No offense, but you have your history very wrong with this statement.

[MATTROSE94]

A highly civilised and utterly fascinating country that has had the misfortune to be ruled for so long by a gang of ultra-reactionary lunatic murderers who hate everything about the country that has made it so great and for so very, very long.

And one of the sadder and most infuriating aspects of this is that the country's current rulers co-opted a much broader popular uprising against the previous reactionary authoritarian regime as their own -- after murdering all of their rivals in that uprising, of course. I suppose this is an all-too common story in regard to revolutions.

The Shah was intensely modernizing Iran before he was overthrown. Calling him “reactionary” is unfair- in fact, many people thought that his modernizing efforts were too intense which is why there was such strong backlash, and how the revolutionaries managed to rise up and cause the current state of Iran- as revolutionaries tend to do.

Who said that modernization can’t be reactionary? Have you heard of Dubai? Have you been been paying attention to Saudi Arabia recently?!

Dubai and Saudi Arabia are not “reactionary”, they are conservative. A very strong difference exists between those two philosophies.

I was a college student in the last years of the Shah.  The Shah was considered to be a friend of Israel and America.  I also went to college with some Iranian students who were great people, but whom were very much afraid that their activities were being monitored by the Shah's Secret Police.  This was more of a concern, apparently, with Iranian students that were closer to New York Citiy than in more distant locations, but the ones I met believed that they were under some kind of surveillance and they were concerned for their families back home.

Our support for Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War during the 1980s was a huge mistake; we allowed partisan feelings to get in the way of practical politics.  I remember once I attended a Kiwanis Luncheon and the speaker was a retired military analyst for the Air Force.  This was about 1987 or 1988 and he stated that the War with Iraq was the only thing keeping the Ayatollah's regime in power, and that it would collapse if we allowed the war to run its course and not put our finger on the scale.  That didn't happen, of course. 

Having the Shah remain in power would have been far better for the World than what has transpired.  But I'm not going to whitewash the Shah; he was an authoritarian who sought to silence his opposition, and he certainly had his own stable of Political Prisoners.

I agree somewhat with your post. Even though Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi was a brutal autocrat who killed between 3,000 and 3 million innocent Iranians, things would have been slightly better off today in retrospect if the Pahlavi monarchy reminded in power. Iran would have transitioned to a true constitutional monarchy similar to the UK after Mohammed Reza Pahlavi died in 1980 and 9/11 might not have happened with Iran being a stable force in post-Soviet withdrawal Afghanistan. Also, it is possible that Putin might not have invaded Ukraine if the Pahlavi monarchy remained in power, as Iran would not have given Putin key military, logistical, and diplomatic support in favor of invading Ukraine.

[MATTROSE94]

A highly civilised and utterly fascinating country that has had the misfortune to be ruled for so long by a gang of ultra-reactionary lunatic murderers who hate everything about the country that has made it so great and for so very, very long.

And one of the sadder and most infuriating aspects of this is that the country's current rulers co-opted a much broader popular uprising against the previous reactionary authoritarian regime as their own -- after murdering all of their rivals in that uprising, of course. I suppose this is an all-too common story in regard to revolutions.

The Shah was intensely modernizing Iran before he was overthrown. Calling him “reactionary” is unfair- in fact, many people thought that his modernizing efforts were too intense which is why there was such strong backlash, and how the revolutionaries managed to rise up and cause the current state of Iran- as revolutionaries tend to do.

Iran under the Shah seemed to be similar to the US circa 1975 in social rights, but similar to Nazi Germany or medieval Europe in terms of political freedoms.