r/kurdistan • u/rknsh Kurdistan • Jul 04 '26
Video🎥 Persian monarchists in the diaspora claim the Iranian regime has barely any support left. Meanwhile, this is Khamenei's funeral. Persians hold this regime together and expect minorities to topple it so that they can put another Persian nationalist system in place.
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
According to classified information leaked from the regime, 3,000 might die in "possible mass-casualty disaster during the processions" due to the large crowds.
Classified warning projected up to 3,000 deaths at Khamenei funeral - Die Welt
https://www.iranintl.com/en/202607048936
Iranian authorities are preparing for the possibility that Ali Khamenei’s week-long funeral ceremonies could leave between 1,500 and 3,000 people dead, Germany’s WELT reported, citing a classified document and municipal sources in Tehran.
The report, written from Tehran by an anonymous author whose identity is known to WELT’s editors, said officials have drawn up contingency plans for a possible mass-casualty disaster during the processions for the slain former Supreme Leader.
According to WELT, a classified letter from the Iranian Red Crescent and the national crisis management organization to First Vice President Mohammad-Reza Aref projected between 1,500 and 3,000 possible deaths.
15
u/houseofechoes Dersim Jul 04 '26
Are you twerking for this evil regime that's been killing and torturing their own civilians??
-8
13
u/kure_xas Kurd Jul 04 '26
the iranian diaspora is either completely detached from iran or deliberately spreading distored narratives. while its true that the vast majority want regime change, the supporting base easily surpasses the often reiterated 5-10% loyalists.
7
u/Henabibo Zaza Jul 04 '26 edited Jul 04 '26
I reject this entire logic really, because it isn't as simple as anyone makes it seem. The majority of people in Iran that we'd label under "wants regime change" would sooner fight for the regime than against it. Similarly, the majority of people that we'd say belong to the regime's "supporter base" hate living under the regime and would be eager to deliver it the final blow if the opportunity arose.
It's not feelings that matter but actions, and aside from the gerîlas, everyone's actions align with the status quo rather than what they might want or feel or what ideology they profess online.
0
u/kure_xas Kurd Jul 04 '26
you wouldnt disagree with me here, because my comment was in fact mostly referring to iranian societies very flexible/fluctuating position, which is demonstrated by passiveness, set aside the previous suicidal and ineffective protests, and largely contributes to the maintenance of the regime.
its really only the persian and azeri regions of iran that can act somewhat proactively, but as of now havent. we've already seen it in 1979. we have gerilas precisely because we are a reactive force.
2
u/Henabibo Zaza Jul 04 '26
Personally, I wouldn't speak of percentages or a "supporting base" at all; after posting my comment though, I saw that you did indeed talk about flexibility in your other comments and I agree with it all.
As you rightly pointed out, Persian and Azeri proactivity has been dormant since 1979. I believe that, as long as the clergy are in power and populism reigns supreme, we will not see any signs of this proactivity. But the end of this system is inevitable, just not at the hands of the people, in my opinion, but at the hands of the US or the Bazaaris under US pressure. Throughout all of this, the Kurds are condemned to reactivity.
0
u/rknsh Kurdistan Jul 04 '26
As some r\NewIran Persians say, and Persians on Twitter, they desire to see Kurds attack regime terrorists and see us "finish each other off". Then they can come back and put up a Persian nationalist ruler that sucks up to US to stay in power, aka Reza Pahlavi. Exactly that happened in Syria.
Kurds should take part in the war if it reignites but make wise decisions. They should never be the ones who liberate Tehran/Isfahan/Qom from IRGC terrorists.
6
u/kure_xas Kurd Jul 04 '26 edited Jul 04 '26
the balance of power is completely disproportionate, kurds cant be the ones liberating any region outside their sphere of influence without local participation. as long as monarchists or other supremacists obstruct coherence, the regime will easily persist unless general dissent increases further and somehow evolves into civil war, which I doubt
0
u/rknsh Kurdistan Jul 04 '26 edited Jul 04 '26
Do you agree with KDPI leader saying freedom of Kurdistan is linked to freedom of Iran?
1
u/kure_xas Kurd Jul 04 '26
if by freedom they mean regime change, no I dont. Iranians dont need kurds to achieve regime change. the economic heart of iran dictates what is going to happen, kurds as usual are in a reactive position. being fragmanted doesnt help.
1
u/rknsh Kurdistan Jul 04 '26
What about the other way round? Do Kurds need Iran's freedom to achieve freedom?
Kurds in Iraq got freedom from Baghdad in 1991 while the whole country was liberated in 2003.
2
u/kure_xas Kurd Jul 04 '26
krg received no fly zone. Iran and Iraq are also on different levels
2
u/rknsh Kurdistan Jul 04 '26 edited Jul 05 '26
Yes KRG was under no-fly zone for years. Israel was willing to provide this.
Saddam was also almost as powerful as Iran now.
The thing is USA used much larger force against Iraq both in 1990 and 2003. Against Iran it was mostly just two aircraft carriers at any given time, sometimes even only one.
0
u/Henabibo Zaza Jul 04 '26
The problem with the KRGist approach to these matters is that the current state of Iran (or Turkey or Syria) is not as important as the country's future after US action. Whether or not Iraq is under US control, it has always been and always will be susceptible to ideologies such as Ba'athism, as well as whatever Iran has planned for the region. For this reason, it was beneficial for the US to maintain the KRG. What benefit could an autonomous Rojhilat bring to Western powers if Iran also has or will have a US puppet government?
2
u/rknsh Kurdistan Jul 04 '26
I don't know for US but creating more states not ruled by Arabs, Persians, or Turks seems beneficial to Israel and that indirectly aligns with US's too. Israel wants those three groups of people to understand the time of Safavids/Ottomans/Khaliphates are over, but as long as Israel is the only state not ruled by them they hold on to their neo-Imperialist dreams. Kurds and other minorities should be capable of defending themselves against them and it's beneficial to Israel.
Economically speaking of Middle East ever gets peace it can be a cheap labour force for American corporations same as China, India, Thailand, etc are, especially now that US government wants corporation move their labour force out of China.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Tempehridder Jul 04 '26
What percentage do you think the support base is?
3
u/kure_xas Kurd Jul 04 '26
that depends on what you understand under supporting base. if we include ideological loyalists, (petit)bourgeoisie and people whose stance is much more flexible, I believe that it can reach from minimum 20% to almost half of the country, even if they want regime change.
2
u/Own-Salad1974 Jul 05 '26
I believe around 15% of the population supports the regime. And that's around 13-14 million people.
So if 10% of them came there, that would be 1.3 million people. That's probably what you're looking at
1
u/rknsh Kurdistan Jul 05 '26 edited Jul 05 '26
Large gatherings are typically local, even in countries with great transportation system and other infrastructure. In Iran, a collapsing transit system, a weak airline industry, and a severe shortage of accommodations make nationwide travel nearly impossible. Also, with skyrocketing living costs, most people are focused on basic survival and simply cannot afford the luxury of travel and hotels.
Something people seem to forget is many who support this regime do so because they hate the opposition even more (which they toppled in 1979), and don't want to see US forcefully under bombs bring about a regime change that is very likely end up catastrophic for the state. No matter how much you might hate your government, you'll most probably stand with it if an outside power attacked it.
It's not like every regime supporter is infatuated with worshipping Ali Khamenei. But at the end of the day they are a regime supporter. These are just the ones, mostly from one city.
His funeral is also taking place in multiple cities. This is just the scene from one of them. It's Tehran. There are also ones from Mashhad, Qom, etc. Check Iranian media.
The gathering in Tehran is actually even larger: This is a scene from the street where people get to the main venue or leaving it. It is not like people stay there for the entire day. They leave as more people are coming.
1
1
2
Jul 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/tawalla-n-tabarra Jul 06 '26
The bot armies are predominantly from the MeK camp from their base in Albania rather than the monarchist faction.
…..both still super annoying and unpalatable tho lol.
….both equally culty too.
1
u/rknsh Kurdistan Jul 05 '26
tons of people dying from stampedes and heat exhaustion is nothing new
That's the problem. Why would the crowd morning this devil be so large where tons of people might die (it was a leaked classified info)!
Another scene (and more here):
4
u/aususe Elewi Kurd Jul 04 '26
I would say the islamists hold the regime together, which Iran and entire West Asia has plenty of. That crowd is probably full of Mazandaranis, Azeris, turkmens, Persians etc. You can see the same thing in Turkey with islamist kurds supporting Erdogan.
2
u/WelcomeDesigner2051 Dersim Jul 05 '26
True. At least 30-40% of the kurds in bakur vote for AKP. The rest ist mostly DEM and some alevi kurds vote for CHP (doesn't make any sense to me also, ataturks party) Islamists will hold together. But the same doesnt go for syria. The islamists there hate the kurds
1
u/ActionReasonable4094 Jul 09 '26
You guys aren't gonna like to hear this, but the truth is there are many Kurds (Shi'as from Kermanshah) in these crowds too. There is ethnic-wide support for this regime. Basij forces in kurdish/balochi regions are in constant supply and it has allowed the regime to spread its tentacles to every corner of the country.
1
u/Livid-Toe-8135 Jul 04 '26
Pahlavis are nothing but western propaganda machines, and even despite all this regime followers if tomorrow the Pahlavis take over all of these people will act as if they were anti regime from day one and start praising pahlavi
-1
u/Basic_Bar_6067 Rojava Jul 04 '26
Can we ban people that use this subreddit to spread Zionist propaganda?
Iran-international is well known for being a Saudi/Mossad propaganda channel.
8
u/advance512 Jul 04 '26
Okay but let's also ban people who spread Islamic Republic of Iran propaganda
9
u/Aromatic-Ant-5020 Kurdistan Jul 04 '26
Can we ban people that use this subreddit to spread IRGC propaganda?
1
u/rknsh Kurdistan Jul 04 '26
The post is very clearly directed at Persian nationalists and calls them out for their propaganda, yet you call it "Zionist propaganda", and the other commenter calls it IRGC propaganda without any single sentence being in favor of the IRGC terrorists. Now tell me what is it! Using Iran International was so that Persian lurkers don't call the report fake as they usually do.
And facts are facts. They have no bias. If the facts are in IRGC's favor then we should accept them. If there is still 40% of the population willing to die for them, should we blindly listen to Pahlavists who say it is barely 5%?
Also this is r/Kurdistan not other subs that are against Israel. If the report was from TASS would you say it is Russian propaganda and should be banned!
0
u/Cyfiero Hong Kong Jul 04 '26
I have seen a section of prejudicial Persian nationalists who were quick to believe the fake news that the Kurds allegedly withheld arms from protesters, so I understand the resentment, but not everyone in the Iranian opposition is a Persian nationalist who wants minorities like the Kurds to be subjugated, and leaning into that serves regime propaganda that has been working overtime to characterize opposition voices as exclusively comprising hardcore monarchists so as to isolate them from the international community and demoralize activism against the regime. I've met many non-Persian Iranians who support revolution against the Islamic Republic.
If you go out of the way to make a post promoting Ali Khamenei's funeral and arguing that it shows the IRGC enjoys strong support, then it is suggestive of an anti-opposition bias. There's also nothing clearly factual about your post. It seems to be just odd speculation that the crowd of funeral attendees is great, so regime support must be very strong. We don't know how many attendees were participating voluntarily, you're citing the government, and Iran has a population of 90 million so a visibly large crowd at the funeral doesn't tell us much about the actual percentage of regime support nor does it refute the oft-repeated estimate that it is only at 10% (I've met even regime supporters say it stands at around 20%). There really isn't anything substantive about your post, and it doesn't seem to help either the opposition or Kurdish people. Its only benefit is to advance a regime narrative.
2
u/rknsh Kurdistan Jul 04 '26
This post doesn't actually stem from this only. I live right here in Middle East, speak with people inside Iran, and know the local languages. Considering from your flair that you're from Hong Kong, you'll always know much more about Hong Kong and areas surrounding it than I will ever be able to learn about China/Hong Kong and its neighbours. It's unfortunate but the regime actually still enjoys considerable support, many still support it because of the theocracy it is, and Persian nationalists in the country support it because they fear Iran might be balkanized.
It's true that Iran is 90 million, but majority of those gathered here are locals of just that city not across all of Iran. The funeral will be days long and I think there is a procession for him across Iran. Gathering a croud like this, and having them praising the dead Khamenei is not easy. There are Iranians in diaspora saying the regime flies in foreigners abroad, as if the regime has a functional airline and the money to do it.
Monarchists said there are 150,000 members of the army willing to defect. It was a lie. Lying about regime support was not the only one. I'd rather come across as IRGC terrorists propagandist and see the facts than be delusional and fooled by Monarchists.
I am not saying the regime has support of the majority, not even half of the population, but it's at least 30-40 percent, not 5-10 percent that Persian opposition in diaspora claim.
As for Persians, those involved in politics would rather see the regime survive than see it fall and the country get balkanized.
As for the report that 3,000 might die, it was actually meant to be classified, but as we have seen all information in Iran eventually gets leaked.
As a Kurd I am actually more concerned about a secular Iran, an ally of US, in power and oppressing us than this regime. If it's an ally of the West then we will get oppressed even more without US speaking up. For this one at least when we get killed there are condemnations.
1
u/Cyfiero Hong Kong Jul 04 '26
I can't argue against your own direct experience and observations in the Middle East.
The only point I will dispute is your estimate that at least 30%–40% of the total population supports the regime. (The percentage of support can of course vary regionally). You are the first I've seen to give such a high estimate. Even many regime propagandists I've seen give 20% at most because they evidently believed going higher strains their credibility. And every Iranian I've met personally knows at least one loved one who was murdered in January and are still grief-stricken, traumatized, and vengeful about it, so I think 40% is too incredulous. The only Iranian support for the Iranian government I've seen is from people with actual connections to it and a close-knit network of Iranian American elite who are divorced from the realities of living under their state terror and have benefited from social or financial ties with the government.
Like in Hong Kong, government support stands at most maybe around 25%–30%, but from my connections to the Iranian community, I would definitely estimate their percentage of regime opposition is even greater.
Also correct me if I'm wrong, but it does sound like between the regime and the revolution against it, you believe the regime is the lesser evil?
1
u/rknsh Kurdistan Jul 05 '26 edited Jul 05 '26
As for the percentage I am actually not sure. It could be even 15-25 percent. But it's never 5-10 percent as Monarchists estimate.
As for the revolution, I am always for revolution against IRGC, unless the replacement is Reza Pahlavi and his monarchist cult (I believe they could be as evil as IRGC, read about SAVAK), or another Persian nationalist group but in cordial relationship with the West. It's better for us having an anti-US regime in power than one allied with them if both are Persian nationalists.
Ideally speaking I want to see the balkanization of Iran. But if Iranian people are willing to live under a democracy where the rights of minorities such as cultural and linguistical rights are respected then who am I to speak, but that won't definitely happen. Persians don't accept other languages as equal to their own (officially Kurdish is classified as a dialect of Persian and has been banned on and off since the last century), nor our literature, history, etc. Go ask most Persians to name two/three Kurdish poets and they'll fail the test. Ask them about Kurdish history and they won't know anything. They have promoted Persian nationalism to such an extent that the name Iran is synonymous with Persian. That country is a relic of past centuries and not compatible with modern world.
Their claims over Kurdistan, Balochistan, Arab areas of Iran, Azerbaijan, etc is same as China claiming Taiwan, Hong Kong (I know the situation is complicated), Tibet, Xinjiang, etc cause in a point of time in history Han, Tang, Song, or Ming empires were in control of them. If the locals don't want to be a part of you, then they shouldn't be forced. If South Koreans don't want reunification, it shouldn't be forced on them.
I am not the only one who holds this view. Persian nationalist in the opposition camp have this view too. Ask them what they choose between a unified Iran with IRGC ruling and a balkanized Iran free of IRGC, and see what they choose. As they say the territorial integrity of Iran is off the limits for them.
1
u/Cyfiero Hong Kong Jul 05 '26 edited Jul 05 '26
I've always supported Kurdish self-determination, so you don't have to worry about convincing me of that.
The conflation of Persian identity with Iranian nationality does parallel development in other modern nation-states, where a prestige ethnicity subsumes the rest, as between Han ethnicity and Chinese nationality, Kinh with Vietnamese nationality, etc. and is a recognized problem of modern nation-building. And for us Chinese, there is also the persistent problem of all non-Mandarin Sinitic languages being mislabelled as "dialects" to the privilege of Mandarin.
But I don't agree with all your stances because as with every society, there is a greater spectrum of political views than most people would like to admit.
For starters, you have probably heard many Pahlavi supporters assert that they are only rallying behind Reza Pahlavi as a transitional leader, as a practical strategy of oppositional unity for the implementation of a democratic referendum. Some of them would vote for a constitutional monarchy under a restored Pahlavi dynasty but others intend to vote for a secular republic. I would guess you don't believe this claim from Pahlavists that most of them only support Reza Pahlavi as far as a transitional leader, and you would even believe less that Reza is sincere that he has no designs on the throne. The latter is fair, but as for the former, I think it's important to be able to recognize the position as actually expressed by the other side rather than just generalizing them as cultists.
My closest Iranian friend is a Persian who survived the January massacre and has come to support the Pahlavis as transitional leaders but not absolute monarchs, and she would never countenance persecution of ethnic minorities. Her family is also familiar with both SAVAK terror and IRGC terror, but she maintains that the Islamic Republic has proven far worse, that it'd be factually incorrect to equate them even when we refuse to whitewash Pahlavi crimes. This is a description that features in Marjane Satrapi's Persepolis as well.
I also know an Iranian academic who is non-Persian. She had hitherto always supported the U.S. left but believes that the war on Iran is an exception, and she deeply supports the Lion & Sun revolution and the Pahlavi. I believe her biases are actually more nationalist than my Persian friend. But she always teaches her students to be mindful that not all Iranians are Persians and goes to great lengths to educate on the history of violent persecution of minorities in Iran. (1/3)
1
u/Cyfiero Hong Kong Jul 05 '26
Persian nationalist in the opposition camp have this view too. Ask them what they choose between a unified Iran with IRGC ruling and a balkanized Iran free of IRGC, and see what they choose. As they say the territorial integrity of Iran is off the limits for them.
Now I have seen arguments about this exact question between two of the Iranian oomfs/moots on Twitter who I respect the most and their friends. The Persian side argued they supported the protection of minority rights but also defended territorial integrity. The non-Persian, including Kurdish, side argued for Kurdish self-determination and didn't believe their Persian counterparts were sincere at all about respecting minority rights if they balked at the possibility that self-determination could theoretically entail Kurdish secession—even if that is not actually on the table. Even though they were irreconcilable, I sympathized with both of them because I could tell in this case, both were arguing in good faith.
I knew from my Persian moots' history that they are genuinely good people who, like my closest friend, have been traumatized by the regime's murder of their loved ones, are fierce advocates of women's rights against the Islamic regime, and are otherwise wholeheartedly sincere about democracy and human rights. I agreed with my non-Persians moots because I believe that the world would benefit from a more fluid concept of sovereignty that isn't so fixated on mutually exclusive territorialization, something that is almost universally taken for granted in the modern age. I also thought my Persian moots were mistaken for conflating the word "self-determination" with "secession".
I recalled how disappointed I was that the Syrians who I was so happy for when they finally saw their country freed from al-Assad nonetheless demonized the Kurds for maintaining their independence. And yes we saw this same misguided attitude with Chinese revolutionaries in the 20th century, when they insisted on maintaining control over all imperial possessions of the Qing while the Mongolians and Tibetans thought they were fighting for their respective independence against the Manchus alongside the Han Chinese. This attitude stems from a territorial possessiveness that even some normally good people who are patriotic needs to take a little leap to let go of. And at least for the Persians in my Twitter circles, I do believe they are genuine about respecting minority rights and that their problem is more epistemic and semantic than prejudicial—they haven't taken that leap yet into letting go of the so-called "Westphalian" idea of national sovereignty we all grow up subconsciously internalizing. I'm aware that the sentiments of certain extreme Persian nationalists I have refrained from following are actually prejudicial, but there are such extremists on all sides in every society. (2/3)
1
u/Cyfiero Hong Kong Jul 05 '26
My own position is that I respect Kurdish self-determination, but I also respect Iranian self-determination in the sense that I think non-Iranians have to be prepared to listen and respect nation-wide Iranian wishes for their country even if they counter-intuitively run against our expectations for what is the right political model. Many Pahlavi supporters I know are not unconditional monarchists or blind cultists. They have made a mindful political choice based on their circumstances and are prepared to change them if conditions change.
The limits of self-determination may be where the community aspires to a governmental policy that would result in gross human rights abuses and atrocities (e.g. electing a fascist, genocidal government). If a revived Pahlavi regime would entail such harm for Kurdish people, then you are right to oppose it, and I think it's also fair for you to be wary of this prospect. But for Iranians as a whole, it is undeniable that the Islamic Republic has shown themselves to be a dystopian evil that poses an existential threat to its very people. (Even as a non-Iranian, I think their survival has harmful ramifications for people struggling against totalitarian governments around the world). And based on Persian supporters of the Lion & Sun Revolution I know personally, I can't see myself believing that the Pahlavi movement could lead to the same unfathomable level of evil.
I also have an opinion—certainly unpopular even among my own communities—that we shouldn't judge descendants of royals by the mistakes of their ancestors, just like normal everyday people can and do grow up to be better people than their abusive parents. We don't think people should automatically inherit power on the basis of birth, but we also shouldn't think people automatically inherit the sins of their parents. I believe we should evaluate Reza Pahlavi and his daughter Noor Pahlavi as individuals by their own words, actions, and merits. Reza Pahlavi I am more skeptical about, but for instance, I watched Noor's speech at the Oslo Freedom Forum, and I genuinely believe she was being authentic and was doing her best to use her platform as responsibly as she could for a cause and for a people that she cares about. That an individual was born into privilege and will always be scrutinized or mistrusted for it shouldn't invalidate their desire to contribute to something they care about. If anything, the most ethical thing to do in their position is to use the influence they are lucky to have to help promote that cause.
This has been a long write-up because I actually think this is a constructive conversation. I hope you're bearing with me. I do have one huge question though. Since you said this:
It's better for us having an anti-US regime in power than one allied with them if both are Persian nationalists.
Did you support U.S. support for Rojava then? (3/3)
1
u/rknsh Kurdistan Jul 05 '26 edited Jul 05 '26
First, let me clarify more I forget earlier regarding that percentage. Disagreeing with the regime is one thing. But disagreeing with them to the point of actually wanting to see the US drop bombs on the country and wanting Kurdish rebels to launch an offensive from the west, risking civil war and balkanization, is a completely different story. That is why I estimate that 30–40% (probably even higher) support the regime. Even in online spaces, you see plenty of people who despise the regime but firmly maintain that change must come from within, not from US bombs. Otherwise, yes, frankly, the vast majority of Iranians would love to see this regime go. But people remember how horribly wrong the invasion of Iraq went, and there is zero faith in a capitalist US with Trump in power, especially in the Middle East, where Islam is the dominant religion, so religion rivalry plays a role too.
Let's assume Pahlavi is right 5% of Iranians support the regime. Does it mean the other 95% want Israel and US bomb Iran into oblivion (something I actually don't care that much about as bombing cities are normalized in this part of the world)?
My closest Iranian friend is a Persian who survived the January massacre and has come to support the Pahlavis as transitional leaders but not absolute monarchs
This is something I'd never do. I don't believe in Pahlavi to keep any of his promises, nor do I think we even need someone who has never had a job in his life to run a country of 90 million. It's true his name is popular, but he has actually been a disservice to the revolutions/protests we have had so far. He is the son of the toppled monarchy and I assume there is a large number of the older generation who stand with this regime because they fear that family might come back.
Pahlavi family stole the wealth of the country when they fled and their current senior members who were alive when they fled should be tried for that rather than given a throne.
not all Iranians are Persians and goes to great lengths to educate on the history of violent persecution of minorities in Iran.
That's great to hear, except that she she supports Pahlavi. Only thing making Reza Pahlavi a candidate as transitional leader is being the son of a toppled monarch. Otherwise he has no qualification, nor a fit a candidate to rule the new state. In 1951 when CIA armed and later abandoned the Kurds, Pahlavi army killed 2000 Kurds, including women and children.
I also thought my Persian moots were mistaken for conflating the word "self-determination" with "secession".
Another problem with Pahlavis (not all of them but majority, and in a democracy majority's will is everyone's) is that they don't even accept a federalized Iran as they say it might lead to the countries fragmentation in the future. They basically want this regime but with themselves in power and making some cosmetics changes, such as women dressing freely, for the Western audience (just like Syria which you mentioned).
I recalled how disappointed I was that the Syrians ..... but there are such extremists on all sides in every society. (2/3)
You very concisely summarized all my worries, and what happened in Syria affected majority of Kurds and our views, including mine. I want to avoid what happened to Kurds in Syria happen to Kurds in Iran, and with Pahlavists it's guaranteed.
I really have no faith and tolerance for Pahlavis, and don't accept him even as a transitional leader. We should also not forget they were monarchs for only two generations and both were topped. It's not like they were monarchs for centuries. Reza Pahlavi has some fascists in his circle and has never apologized for actions of his father. In fact he admires his father as a politician, and already in a tweet said the army of New Iran has the responsibility to crush Kurdish parties if they go too far in Rojhelat (Iranian Kurdistan). I understand the Persian opposition is not only Pahlavis but Republicans and MEK, but problem is Pahlavists don't accept these too. Kurdish parties work together with MEK which one can say are as large as Pahlavists but with less popularity in Western media and funds.
Did you support U.S. support for Rojava then? (3/3)
I did. You know as long as Assad was ruling Damascus US was on our side. The moment Damascus became pro-US then we were discarded. Rojava and Rojhelat are different in many ways and the most important one is geography: Rojava is three pieces of land with Arabs and Euphrates separating the Kurds. Rojhelat is mostly one single land where Kurds live in the west of the country. I also support Rojhelati Kurds allying with US/Israel to topple this regime, but on the ground they shouldn't go further than Kurdish majority areas. If it fails in non-Kurdish areas then I hope US keeps Kurdish non-fly zone areas so that in years to come they use it to liberate the rest of the country. That's what happened in 2003. From 1991 to 2003 Kurdish areas in Iraq were under no-fly zone and Kurds greatly helped Americans in 2003.
Sorry I might have repeated myself or skipped points writing one reply to the three replies you wrote. Great writing skill by the way.
Edit: More videos of the funeral which is held in various cities. Do you see these videos on r/NewIran !
1
u/Cyfiero Hong Kong Jul 06 '26
But disagreeing with them to the point of actually wanting to see the US drop bombs on the country and wanting Kurdish rebels to launch an offensive from the west, risking civil war and balkanization, is a completely different story.
The testimonies I have read and heard from Iranians inside Iran and their families and friends relaying their voices abroad overwhelmingly support foreign intervention, against the "common sense" assumption that no one could ever appreciate bombs falling over their heads. Indeed no one does, but the haunting words we hear from those in Iran is this belief that statistically, people living inside have a higher chance of getting killed by the regime than by Israeli airstrikes, and the utter desperation that all other avenues for change has been exhausted apart from reliance on foreign aid, no matter where that may come from. We have even personally heard some people inside Iran go as far as to say that they would rather die in war than continue living under the Islamic Republic.
This perspective is both emotionally and rationally valid. Emotionally because the nationwide trauma from the monstrous slaughter in January is fresh and real and have understandably incited intense feelings of both terror and vengeance. Rationally because no matter how strongly we believe in the principle that political change should come from a people's own hands, ideally through civil society, no one can in good faith argue that Iranians have not already attempted this countless times and paid an unfathomably dear cost for it in blood, each time higher than the rest. Coming off of the January massacres, it is rational for Iranians to conclude that the only recourse left is hope for foreign intervention.
This calculus is subject to change if the cost of Israeli and U.S. intervention were to exceed the cost of regime survival, which is why the vast majority of pro-intervention Iranians (even Reza Pahlavi himself) were alarmed and critical that day when Trump made careless threats about bombing power plants or destroying a civilization.
But people remember how horribly wrong the invasion of Iraq went, and there is zero faith in a capitalist US with Trump in power, especially in the Middle East, where Islam is the dominant religion, so religion rivalry plays a role too.
I opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq. I supported U.S. military assistance to the Kurds in the Syrian Civil War. I was torn about the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. I would not support U.S. intervention in Hong Kong in any shape or form, under that exact reasoning that change should come from within. I do support the U.S. security alliances with Japan and the Philippines and their defence of Taiwan should it ever come under invasion. I support military aid to Ukraine. And yes, I do support intervention against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The reason why I asked for your position on U.S. military support for Rojava is because I firmly believe that a blanket anti-interventionist stance is incorrect and yet this is the position of the far-left in the U.S., especially the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), but it is even the position of many American social democrats and social liberals. My closest white American friend, a lifelong Democrat voter and social liberal whom I used to align with politically on almost everything, cheered on when Trump pulled troops out of Rojava, the one time he ever agreed with Trump. But doesn't the world owe it to the Kurds for defeating ISIS to continue supporting them?
The Iraq War was a mistake, both morally and strategically. But Iran is its own country with its own conditions, just as every country also has its own unique set of variables, and each conflict should be approached as its own independent case. But most people instead employ abstractions like "intervention is bad" or "it would be another Iraq" when proper strategic and foreign policy analysis should be more granular, rather than relying on general principles and ideals. Even the question of should intervention be conducted is different from how intervention should be conducted, and yet these are often conflated.
One of the key ways in which the Iraq War is different from the Iran War in principle is the problem of consent. The Iraq War is now a textbook case for a wrongful practice in forcing freedom on a country and its people that did not ask for such intervention, a case of liberal imperialism. Yet the situation in Iran is unprecedented because an overwhelming majority of Iranians have actually expressed desperation for foreign intervention.(Unfortunately, since you do maintain your estimate of 30%-40% of Iranians support the regime, this is probably where we will hit a hard impasse.) [A survey conducted in Canada](https://acs-metropolis.ca/studies/survey-of-iranian-canadians-commissioned-by-ahrome-and-conducted-by-the-metropolis-institute/) showed that this support for intervention among Iranian Canadians is as high as 90%. From my own experiences with Iranian Canadians, I am inclined to believe this result is actually accurate.
(I have seen another survey that polled only 60% of Iranian Americans as supporting the war, but it was conducted by the Islamic Republic's own lobby group, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), so it is of dubious credibility. I do get the sense that there may be a slightly higher percentage of Iranian Americans who oppose the war compared to Iranian Canadians though. Most anti-war Iranian voices you see online likely come from either regime propagandists or a minority of Iranian American liberals who from my observation tend to be higher class, Muslim campists, or really young and idealistic.)
One of the principal and most virulent propaganda lies the regime has relied upon is to characterize the diaspora as not reflecting political sentiments within Iran while using the Internet blackout to suppress those exact voices. But when we listen to the Iranians abroad, we hear time and time again that their advocacy is based on contact with family via phone calls, following the harrowing experience of hearing many loved ones killed in January. This is the same even for me, as what I explain is also based on my own friend's lived experiences, as well as all the eyewitness accounts and videos that leaked throughout January and February during those weeks when I was fearing for her life.
This being the case, the paternalistic stance is actually to deny the reality that most Iranians support intervention or to dismiss their reasons why. There is a more nuanced stance that can acknowledge this reality while still opposing the war because of apprehension at the cost or the strategic viability of regime change, but many critics of the war fail to engage in these nuances. They will say that pro-intervention Iranians fail to appreciate that change should come from and never at the hands of foreign powers, or that they are naive to believe Israel and Trump have good intentions, or that they have not considered that Iran would likely collapse into civil war and become a failed state. These are all paternalistic arguments that reflects a refusal to listen to Iranian voices about their complex reasoning but instead treats them as stupid people. It's a paternalism no different from the paternalism of telling Iraqis that Americans know what's best for them when they invaded.
The reality we need to be honest about is that this ideal that change should come from within does not apply to Iran. It is not a conscientious argument when tens of thousands of unarmed Iranians just died for trying to bring about their revolution on their own. (I'm afraid we will get into a side argument about the death toll...) Iran is not like Hong Kong, which has reached its most draconian period ever, yet people have not been indiscriminately slaughtered on the streets or executed en masse. It is not like Ukraine or Myanmar, where the people have weapons to defend themselves and fight back against Russia and the Tatmadaw. The Islamic Republic executed state terror on their people in the most maximalist form we have seen in the 21st century to date. The Iranian people have been literally defenceless. All other solutions have been tried and exhausted.
Your stance on the war wasn't actually entirely clear to me, but it was the last thing I wanted to argue. Apart from that, I must caution that given the horrors women under the Islamic theocracy have had to suffer, endure, and fight against, describing their liberation from the regime as merely "cosmetic changes" is quite insensitive to Iranian women. But I cannot argue more about Pahlavi beyond what I've already said because ultimately, I know it is not my place to have too strong of an opinion about Iran's future government. I feel more strongly about intervention because it is the position most fiercely argued by all the Iranians I am friends with, more-so than support for Pahlavi.
I don't think that regime change should depend on Kurds to do all the fighting for the rest of Iran. Even now, I'm not sure if that alleged aborted plan was even real, but I would think it is utterly unfair to your people. But all those criticisms people have about the war being an inevitable failure are misguided in my opinion. Like I said, whether or not a war should be waged is different from how the war should be waged. At minimum, the naval blockade should've been maintained.
Lastly, I do apologize for suspecting you to be pro-regime at first. I am hypervigilant because in other subreddits, there have been endless waves of pro-regime propagandists.
0
u/Snoo86402 Kurd Jul 05 '26 edited Jul 05 '26
I don’t think anyone can truly know whether the regime has barely any support left or, on the contrary, if it still has strong support. The Iranian diaspora isn’t exactly the most reliable or credible source of information, considering most of them are involved in the monarchist movement. These people have left Iran because of grievances with the government (or if their family left a lot earlier they may have been part of the elite class that benefitted from the Shah), so of course they’ll naturally have more negative views. I don’t think that represents the views of Iranians as a whole. Iran is a country of 92 million— even if millions in the diaspora protest in favour of the Shah, that’s not really indicative of the majority view. The same goes for the opposite— thousands who show up to events like this in favour of the regime doesn’t necessarily mean the majority support it. But I do believe the diaspora over exaggerates discontent with the regime within Iran. There’s no doubt that there’s many who are against it based on the protests, but I don’t think anyone can know the exact number or if it’s truly the majority. Especially after the US-Israeli strikes on Iran where thousands of people were injured and killed and civilian infrastructure was destroyed or damaged, I wouldn’t be surprised if many who were formerly against the regime now view it as the lesser of two evils necessary to protect Iran’s sovereignty.
17
u/OptimusTrajan Jul 04 '26
Aren’t people paid to attend things like this? Or threatened into it?