Talk:Iran

No mention of Mossadeq/operation Ajax?
Now I'm not one to blame the state of Iran or anything on the west, but I will say I think a big reason, and many historians/former CIA operatives agree, that the Islamic revolution gained support was popular opposition to the Shah, but that the whole reason the Shah had so much power was the limiting of democracy after fears around control of the oil resource, you can research operation Ajax if you want more info, but it's historically well documented, and even government officials have acknowledged it was a bad idea since. I think it's an important question to if the whole revolution could have been avoided by not having a powerful monarch instead of just a figurehead monarch and a democratic prime minister in charge like it did in the 50's.
 * It's a wiki. add it if you like. Bicycle  wheel silverbrain.png 18:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

ok, I'll do my best to write a section up, I'll post it here first so people can check for neutrality and edit it if they want before I put it up.
 * Ok, thanks. Bicycle  wheel silverbrain.png 15:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Theocratic Democracy
Candidates are filtered by the "Guardian Council", Not Supreme leader.

Pres. Rajaie and Banisadr were actually "civilians", before Ahmadinejad.

No reference for dogs ban, especially for the quoted phrase. 21:55, 20 July 2015

about the "Iran sentences to death and hanged a 19-year old who allegedly committed rape and gay sex aged 17. He was denied a lawyer so we have no means of assessing the evidence. International law forbids the death penalty for rape and for any crime committed before the accused is 18.[16] Does anyone expect Iran to respect International law?" part? The US did that in 2003 as well. We execute people who were minors at the time of the crime. Arawn Emrys (talk)

Meanwhile in Iran...
...'cause Mona and Chris are apparently away or something, I'm getting bored and linked that:

'Israel should be annihilated,' senior Iran aide says | The Times of Israel

If that's too pro-Israel for your tastebuds, here's directly from the horse's mouth ass:

Parliament Advisor: No Change in Iran's Policy on Israel | Farsnews English Edition

dandy, eh?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Well to anybody even dimly aware what the Islamic Republic is or does, this is equivalent to "Dog bites man" or rather "Rabid dog bites man who provoked him". Iran hates Israel and wants it gone. No news there. And that won't change until and unless the whole Mullahcracy is destroyed... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and politicians trash-talking Israel is not the worst part, it is the support of the Hezbollah, Hamas and the Islamic Jihad.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Duh? Iran is shit and should not be supported on its human rights record, nor its foreign policy record.  The problem you have is that you think anyone is doing that.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Didn't this one guy recently sign some minor treaty or other with the Mullahs? I can't remember the name, but I think it was in the news recently... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (this edit conflict is dedicated to all my fans and followers; thank you) That's the problem about antisemitic (or if you wish anti-Zionist) talk: It hardly ever stays talk. It almost always turns to action. Let's hope Israel is and stays well armed and alert enough to eliminate those threats before they become serious enough to threaten the existence of Israel Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Treaties are a method of resolving international disputes not some kind of unconditional support like a childhood "I'll be your best friend" promise. An arbitrarily selected set of other countries with abysmal human rights records with whom the US has standing treaties: Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, Somalia.  None of these come with an implicit or explicit endorsement of their activities.  Ugh.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be - to say the very least - tactically unwise to sign a treaty with a country whose government and / or system of government you expect to undergo a huge transformation shortly. After all, the new rulers are likely to hate the old rulers and their "friends" and will most likely have little regard for the treaties they signed. Hence those treaties are at least tacit acknowledgment that said regimes are here to stay (which in the case of Somalia is rather optimistic). I think no country in their right mind should enable the continued existence of the Saudi or Iranian dictatorships that are not only oppressive towards their own people but dangerous for the world. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your definition of enabling seems extremely broad. 21:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you sign a treaty with a government that will be gone soon? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Brest-Litovsk leaps to mind as a good idea on Germany's part. 21:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Imperial Germany installed that government for crying out loud. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ...holy shit I blipped up the timing there. I thought it was signed in the face of the revolution, not after. Well, would you say Sevres enabled the Porte? If anything, if seems to have done the opposite. 22:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * (oh ISIS and OSIRIS this is an edit conflict!) Well I don't know what the intention of that treaty was - though I doubt it was losing most of the occupied territory to some bloke with a funny hat a couple of years later - but it sure as hell was dependent on the Sultan staying in power at least in a nominal de jure sense... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But again, it sure as hell didn't enable the sultan, which makes me question why you think that treating with any given power acts to "enable the[ir] continued existence," especially when the intent is often the opposite. 22:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe that wording is problematic. But nobody in their right mind enters into treaty negotiations, thinking "the other side will be nonexistent in a couple of years anyway" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And how would you propose Iran or Saudi Arabia is to cease existing in the near future? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:08, 26 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * Well as for Saudi Arabia: from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates, and from the Sea of Reeds in the south to... somewhere. :P (I'm kidding, by the way, Avenger) 23:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

(c'est ne est pas un edit conflict) Well up to this point, US policy on Iran was based on the line of thought "This ain't gonna last, this ain't gonna last". Signing a treaty with the Mullahs ought to be huge news, as it in essence means either the acknowledgment or the desire that the Iranian regime not go away. This was however not even raised by those senators against the treaty. And Saudi Arabia will have a major regime change once Saudi Aramco goes broke. Saudi Arabia isn't a country. It's a corporation that happens to own a bunch of land. The problem is: There is too much oil under this land. The US should not have abandoned the Iranian movement for democracy in 2009. And I am still of the opinion that the bombing of Iran is a horrible outcome, but still preferable to the Iranian bomb. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I like that this whole latter half of this argument hinges on your sharing Avenger's fantasy of an inevitable collapse in Iran. This doesn't warrant debate.  AotB is being inane.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 12:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The whole US policy with regards to Iran up to this point only makes sense if it is understood from the assumption (on the part of the US) that the Iranian regime will inevitably collapse and that such a collapse is desirable . Otherwise the US would have sought some way to arrange themselves with said regime years ago just like they did with the Saudis. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And how long does this plan need, exactly? We've been waiting almost a half century, many of which had severe economic sanctions.  Leveraging those sanctions to achieve a core geopolitical goal with respect to Iran is what this treaty was about.  We didn't have another 50 years for sanctions to "work" at undermining what is impossibly one of the most stable and democratic governments(mind you without fully open elections) in the region.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You know Israel is still in the region and without any shred of a doubt more democratic and more stable thaen Iran. And Iran is founded on the idea of destroying Israel (which if you recall got this whole discussion started). So yeah, either Iran is going to accept the existence of Israel and do so publicly and furthermore renounce all connections to terrorist organizations. None of this is part of the deal. And the US is giving up almost all leverage they ever had on Iran. Maybe in the current climate of Europe Russia and China cozying up to Iran, the "deal" really was the best way of preventing Iran from becoming nuclear, but that doesn't mean I like the inherent "acceptance" of Iran in it one bit. The Iranian regime as well as the Saudi regime cannot last. They must not last. And we should do all things for them to not last. Beginning with a boycott of their oil by driving less and eschewing flying, especially on short routes Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, we need some kind of barrier of separation here.  We're not talking about the stability of Israel because no part of this conversation hinges on the assumption of its inevitable collapse.  Israel is a red herring.  Please restate your case without that point.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The short of it: The deal is a sign of a big loss in American foreign policy. As the Europeans and Russia and China don't like to put sanctions on Iran, the US had hardly any choice but to either leverage the little power it still had or go to war (or at least use a credible threat of it). That does not mean I like it one bit and it is the last straw in the betrayal of the Iranian movement for democracy in 2009. And as I am not allowed to mention Israel, I won't. Even though, it is related to the whole Iran mess. The point is, the Iranian regime has to go away. The Mullahs have to be eliminated as a political force. However, the US have ostensibly given upon that and no other country is currently willing or able to remove the Mullahs from power. This "deal" weakens the democratic opposition to the Mullahs, it strengthens the Mullahs, it further tilts the regional balance in favor of the Mullahs, and yet it may have been the only way to buy the world time before a nuclear Iran happens short of going to war. Now the Iranian movement for democracy has to fight one of the most horrible regimes in the world, a regime where rape is part of criminal proceedings by law, without any outside help. I hope the courageous men and women of Persia who believe in a better future for them and their children yet to come pull it off, but if I were Iranian, I wouldn't like my chances. And quite frankly, I would feel betrayed. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The Mossad says Iran isn't pursuing activities necessary for a bomb. Moreover, the former head of the Israel Atomic Energy Commission also says Netanyahu is totally fear-mongering. As for Avenger's paean to the "courageous men and women of Persia," if their views actually matter, they seem deliriously happy at the thought of the end of sanctions. As with the U.S. and Israel, there are hardliners in Iran who oppose the deal, but most Iranians are hopeful for economic relief from brutal sanctions: "Hooshang Amirahmadi, an Iranian-American professor of international relations at Rutgers University (who was one of the individuals targeted for NSA spying), has devoted most of his career to advocating for a normalization of U.S./Iran relations and the lifting of the sanctions regime. To the extent this deal accomplishes that, he said today in an interview with The Intercept, he supports it, though if it ends up confined only to nuclear issues, “then it will be very bad for both countries.” Amirahmadi added that the mood in Tehran is, in general, “very happy.” Ordinary Iranians, he said, “obviously like what has happened” primarily because “they expect money to arrive, which will help the economy and create jobs.”"---Mona- (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Avenger amuses with: "And Iran is founded on the idea of destroying Israel" Um, when do you think Iran was founded?---Mona- (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Mona, that was a total Non sequitur.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh be the fuck serious. The current Iranian state that was founded in 1979. Besides the name and the general outlines of the borders it has next to nothing in common with the Shah-Iran pre 1979. And - well we should not mention Israel - but just google "Al Quds Day" or "Al Quds Brigades" or all the various other things which the Islamic Republic does to show its foreign policy agenda to the world. And as for Iran becoming nuclear: Well one of the chief negotiators of the deal that was supposed to keep North Korea from becoming nuclear was also involved in a high position on the Iran deal. Let's hope they learned their mistake the first time around. When it comes to the mad regime of Tehran acquiring the bomb, we as the civilized world where reason trumps religion cannot afford to be wrong. Oh and a further thing, during Apartheid the ANC openly called for sanctions in full knowledge that it would hurt the people of South Africa, but it would also hurt the regime. If one looks at the development of politics and economics in Iran in the last half decade or so, I am quite convinced sanctions could have put enough pressure on the pot to finally topple the rotten regime. But the fine business people of China, Russia, Austria and other parts could not wait. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * inb4 completely different analysis of BDS - from both sides 14:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope there is consensus that a nuclear Iran is not a desirable outcome. I think the only disagreement is to how to best achieve that. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "The current Iranian state that was founded in 1979. Besides the name and the general outlines of the borders it has next to nothing in common with the Shah-Iran pre 1979." Nor with the democratically elected government of Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh, whom the U.S. and UK overthrew in 1953. Iran has hated us -- with good cause -- ever since. In any event, Iran was NOT founded in 1979. To claim otherwise is absurd. Moreover, the Iranian people, contrary to your concern trolling, do not appear to be unhappy about the Iran Deal and the prospect of easing up on the brutal sanctions. Finally, and again, there is no reason to believe the jeremiads coming out of Tel Aviv and certain neocon quarters in the U.S., for reasons I've documented and could continue to document. And P.S. to Arisboch : Unfortunately for the Zionist narrative on the Iran Deal, my arguments, as usual, are on point.---Mona- (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh please distract us with the Mossadegh thing. Yes overthrowing him was a mistake. A mistake perpetrated by the way by the British and a certain Eisenhower that this here site seems to have a man-crush on even though he was one of the worst Presidents in recent memory in many respects. And yes the "Islamic Republic of Iran" was founded in 1979. Just like the Federal Republic of Germany was founded in 1949 and significantly enlarged twice since (once in the 1950s and once in 1990). While we may argue to no end whether these entities constitute the "same state" as the entity before that, the fact remains that something was founded in Iran in 1979. And this something is founded on one especially nasty type of Shia-Islam and has had a couple of ideological tenets that have never been questioned by anybody within the regime. One of said tenets is that the "Mahdi" will come back and the current governments are only "caretakers", "guardians" if you wish, for the "inevitable" return of the Mahdi. And as for foreign policy; well that was addressed on the top of this page. And once again User:-Mona- fails to address the main points: Is the current Iranian regime desirable? If yes, how come? If no, what is the best way to get rid of it without much bloodshed? And thaen the rather tricky question: Do you wish a nuclear Iran and if not, what shall we (as in "the West") do to keep that from happening? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "And once again User:-Mona- fails to address the main points: Is the current Iranian regime desirable?" That's not the topic, main or otherwise. This section began with uninteresting twaddle from The Times of Israel about Iran and the totally unsurprising fact that many there continue to detest Israel. Then the discussion turned to the Iran Deal. Israel's government and AIPAC hate the Iran Deal with the heat of a thousand suns. That, however, is insufficient reason for the United States or anyone else to reject the agreement.---Mona- (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for learning to calm down a bit mona, it hasn't gone unnoticed. And yeah, I hate how arguments turn into completely different arguments, when the original debate was actually about content.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait, which debate about content? And for the record, User:-Mona- the "many people" who hate Israel inside of Iran are mostly the regime and its supporters. And Mona has still not answered the questions I asked. Which is of course par for the course when it comes to her... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Thank you for learning to calm down a bit mona, it hasn't gone unnoticed."Um, ok. Yes, I was pretty outraged -- and still am -- over the control a handful of people exert here over anything related to the topics of Israel and Zionism. Early on someone snarled at me that any edits that do not "satisfy those who think Israel is great" will never stand. I've accepted that this is the way of it, for now. I guess that constitutes "calming down." [shrug]---Mona- (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why oh why Mona is it so difficult to answer a simple question? You don't even say something along the lines of "I don't want to answer that, because (blank)". You know, your habit of not answering questions - or worse yet replying with a question or a total no sequitur - is getting really fookin' annoying Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Avenger, what gives you the idea that Mona is under any obligation to indulge your ceaseless questioning? If anything, your coarse insistence is a reason to disregard your questions. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:54, 28 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * A tone argument? Well to address your point, I think what each of us thinks about the Iranian regime does matter to the issue at hand, and as I have already at length volunteered my opinion on that matter, it might enlighten us if other participants of the debate were to share their viewpoints as well. As a matter of fact, I initially addressed my question to all in a generalized statement that was more of a rhetorical question, as I assumed nobody would come to the defense of the horrid Iranian regime. But with User:-Mona- I was not quite sure, hence the direct question. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

What is the subject again? If it's Iran human rights record, then I'm sure you'll find unanimous consent that nobody really likes the policies of the Iranian government. Theocracies are not desirable forms of government and you can probably go through Amnesty and HRW for citations on this manner. If the subject is Iranian foreign policy, there's also some deserved criticism, especially for supporting Assad while he butchers his own people. But on the subject of Iranian-US or Iranian-Israel relations on say the nuclear deal and/or sanctions, I'm more sympathetic to Iran here. That does not make me pro-Iran in its entirety, so I want that distinction to be clear. I don't like the kind of posturing on the pro-war "left" who insists that any opposition to Iran requires a war or neoconservative intervention. ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Here was the reply I was going to send on the TOI article: I'm aware of the use of the phrase "annihilated" among Iranian rhetoric, but I disagree here on how to evaluate this response. First, any cursory glance of Khameini's twitter page with use of the phrase annihilation in regards to Israel is usually in reference to the "wolf like" regime in his words. This has been the same for Ahmadinejad, who did not call for Israel to be wiped off the map, but for the regime to fade away. In other words, use of the word annihilation towards Israel is most likely a reference for regime change. This would not be any different from coservative think tanks that believe in a regime change in Iranor Syria. Talk about Israel in any political context and most people refer to the actions and politics of its government rather than the actual people themselves. Second, the statement came after Hammond said Iran was taking a more nuanced stance, which tells me that the statement was done to appease radical right-wingers in an attempt to boost nationalist woo. Third, even if I were to argue that Iran really does want Israel to go away, that hasn't stopped them for voting for the two state solution as part of the UNGA resolution on peaceful settlement of the Palestine question. ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * (there was an edit conflict) The question as I originally raised is was whether - regardless of the practicability of different avenues towards said goal - the Iranian regime and system of government as it currently is should be removed from power within the foreseeable future. As I am quite sure most would in essence say "Yeah, kick the mullahs out", the question of "how?" has to be addressed. I think the crux is that the sanctions would have worked if only Russia, China and at least most of Europe could have been kept in line. Unfortunately it seems as if that was not possible. Hence the deal (which inevitably will lend credibility and stability to the regime both domestically and abroad) may be the lesser of many evils, though still an evil. War would also be an evil and if the only three alternatives are the current deal , a nuclear Iran or another mid-east quagmire on the scale of Iraq, I guess the deal is still the "least horrible option". TL;DR: I don't like the deal, but I fear "there is no alternative". Still keeping Iran from getting the nuke should be the top priority of US policy in the region. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it is not entirely "out there" to assume the UNGA resolution is a "tactical move" at best. And as for semantics: Iran continues to hold its al Quds day. There's still a ton of saber-rattling towards Israel and to a lesser extent the US. One of the "elite" units of the Iranian armed forces is named "al Quds brigades". In short anti-Israel rhetoric of the ugliest kind is so common in Iran it should be common knowledge by now. We can argue to no end about the "seriousness" of said rhetoric, but in most situations taking threats dead serious does less harm when you're wrong thaen the opposite. And it is of course the opposite of desirable for the US that such a regime as Iran acquire nuclear weapons, given their rhetoric. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have LSATs to study for, so I'll reply to this at some point later. ChrisAmiss (talk) 01:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The deal wasn't really about stabilizing the regime as much as it was trying to secure the best possible way to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon coupled with inspections and without recourse for war. Some sanctions could be lifted, but only if Iran complies, so there's a balancing act of Iran moderating itself and complying with the deal before it can be seen as a fully stable regime. The US will still very much like to retain its hegemony in the area and curb Iran's regional desires, i.e. support of Hezbollah, Assad and allegedly the Houthis in Yemen. In some respects, even before the deal, Iran was seen as a stable force in that it offered to help the US in Afghanistan to root out the Taliban and fight ISIS currently. I don't think I disagree about China and Russia's influence on the matter, so I won't press further about that.
 * I don't agree here. Iran agrees with some 160 countries on the matter (the international community), with only 7 countries voting against (US, Israel, Canada, and some south Pacific islands). If they wanted to be ambiguous about it, they could've abstained. The Al-Quds day is meant to refer to Jerusalem rather than Israel itself. I would disagree here. Rhetoric can be of importance, but one also has to evaluate the situation on the ground, and that pertains to history (has a country had a prior history of attacking other countries for example or annexing their territory?), military capabilities (is this country really powerful or is it just blowing smoke out its ass to make itself look tough?), willingness to comply with ceasefires/peace deals/international law, what a self-critical statement from one side says (for example, the Mossad officials who come out in support of the detail and who argue that Iran would not have the capacity to develop a nuclear weapon), among others. And that's not even including the rhetoric of Israeli officials, Western politicians (think Religious Right like Huckabee who says he'd strike Iran) which gives hard-liners in Iran an unnecessary justification for warlike rhetoric. ChrisAmiss (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Nazi influence over naming Iran (again)
The section about nazi influence over naming Iran is only speculation. The source also presents it as speculation and even this article presents it as speculation (is said to have) so I don't see a need for an entire section about what basically amounts to rumors. I tried to remove it as the header suggest that whatever is not credible should be removed, but it doesn't allow it for some reason and says I should contact administrators.
 * The section doesn't deny that it's speculation. It is referenced (although I think a better reference could be found). I don't see any need to remove the section. Spud (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * My assertion is that speculations inherently lack credibility. The speculation is referenced, to another article, which is also presenting an speculation. The article notes "The suggestion for the name change from Persia to Iran is said to have come from the Persian ambassador to Germany, who was a Nazi sympathizer.". Is said by whom? Why is it important? I would say if some prominent figure claimed it, you could've factually stated something along the lines of "This prominent figure believes this name change to have come due to this reason". In the present form, the section lacks any sort of factuality, and the referenced article doesn't point to any evidence that supports these assertions.


 * In regards to your point regarding the section not denying the speculative nature of the presented assertions, my question is why does that warrant notability? Are any speculations notable? If I find an article on the internet that says "It is said that Iranians are all secretly lizard people", would that merit a presence of that assertion in this article? Otherwise, what is it that makes this particular speculation be more important than any other speculation, to warrant such prominent presence?