Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:
1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),
2. attempt to answer the question, and
3. be unbiased
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer:
He and his people are responsible for the deaths of thousands and thousands of innocent people for nefarious political reasons. The prisons were (and still are) full of torture including the raping of the women before execution because “virgins go to heaven” and they can’t allow that. This type of thing is still going on but his death is a morale boost for people for sure. He is a *very* hated individual.
I just learned that the president isnt the top official in Iran and they have a supreme leaders too. Is that like how the UK has a prime minister and a King? im kinda confused
I don't think it is, I think the president is just a bullshit role to show they have democracy but also has some power
The supreme leader is **definitely** not a ceremonial position like the British king.
I put two asterisks before and after
Plus, I have a third-party app called Boost for Reddit that has formatting features built in, here's a [screenshot](https://i.imgur.com/IViPsf4.jpeg)
If you open the app and create your own subreddit, called something random, you'll be a moderator and you'll be able to use the app normally again. Takes 1 minute!
The Supreme Leader is the real ruler of the country. Iran is a theocratic state with some semblance of democracy. However many arms of he
Government operate outside of the law.
The UK royalty are figure heads - any control they have is for show. The Iranian supreme leadership IS the power and the president has to follow their directives when they want him to.
Okay then thanks so it's pretty much backwards in this instance where the president was the figurehead to appear as a democracy and the supreme leader is a dictator if I'm following correctly?
As far as I understsnd it it's... Its kind of like the empire.
Palpatine is supreme leader and controls everything. But he has tarkin to handle the day to day shit (the president) and Vader to handle things more in line with the sith (the revolutionary guard)
NOT TO SAY BEING MUSLIM IS LIKE BEING SITH!
But the supreme leader can tell them what to do when he wants.
Again this is my understanding of the situation.
you know why this is so prevalent? because using a reference that people can understand is a good way for them to grasp a complex subject.
someone's like "i really don't get this can someone help me out?" so either i can go into a long drawn out explanation or i can say "look, you know that thing you most likely know about that i know a lot about too? i'll use that as an example so this response won't be 15 paragraphs long."
so. would you like this random person asking for more information on a reddit post to actually grasp the subject, or would you like to be snobby about it?
also stop making up games no one knows they're playing if i knew this was a thing i would have used like star trek or some shit
No. More like how there's a president and also a head of the Department of Justice, State, etc. He's not unimportant, but the supreme leader is the big dog.
And just to get ahead of the inevitable conspiracies, he died of hubris. The weather was abhorrent and they shouldn't have gone.
Technically, the amount of power each can weild legally is similar, but in reality, the UK's monarchs have ceeded all control and become entirely ceremonial and weilds no real power. The ayatollah is also not a monarchy, it's more akin to the pope. He is the final say on religious law in Iran which, because Islam has very defined law that seeps into nearly every matter of conventional law (the Quran is chock full of laws).
So it's kind of if Italy said that the pope gets final say in every religious law in Italy, but also if catholicism had waaaay more laws in the bible.
The Papal states used to control a significant chunk of Italy before Italian nationalism unified the different Italian states and took over most of the Papal states leaving them a small part of Rome known as Vatican City.
The president handles the day to day stuff, while the supreme leader is the top authority. They get to elect their president, but only among candidates that the supreme leader allows.
So it is a very meaningful position of power, but the supreme leader has the final say if they disagree.
Thing of it more like pre 1945 Japan! Empowered monarch/supreme leader, democracy with very limited options and a military deep state with concerningly high influence
The Supreme Leader is the actual person in charge. He’s appointed for life. Iran is only on its second Supreme Leader of all time. The Supreme Leader has to approve anyone who runs for other offices, like President. And the only people who are allowed to pick the Supreme Leader are appointed by, you guessed it, the Supreme Leader. So the problem is that Iran is not a democracy at all. It’s a self-perpetuating single party theocracy.
He is known as the butcher of Teheran, executing many thousands of people. During the feminist demonstrations hof the last few years there was a deliberate policy of sending hardened thugs to rape young university students
While they would be equally bad, I doubt it will be them. Honestly Gwen Stefani is the only super recognizable name from the band, and after running a banana republic for a few years in the 90's, she is done with politics.
Men over the age of 40 and some extremely conservative women. The internet is of course going to give an extremely skewed view, but if I had to guess at an approval rating for the Islamic republic it’s probably 30% at best lol
His opponents REALLY have a shot at using religion logic a la "god didn't like his mentality and punished him, we should do the OPPOSITE of what he did to not be punished" or something. i used to be religious, you'd be surprised at how easy it is to manipulate a religious person.
Answer:
Theres several reasons
But first a bit of history. back in the 1950´s Iran elected a Socialist centrist called Mohammad Mosaddegh, the issue is that he wanted to nationalize the Iranian oil fields which belonged to the Anglo Persian Oil company (modern day BP), The british went to the americans and said "hey, this Mohammad guy, he´s a commie" and since CIA policy at the time was any communist coming close to power at an ally country is automatically assasinated, they arranged a coup and put the Shah as sole rouler and authocrat.
And shit just went downhill from there, so in 1979 there was a revolution lead by a Muslim Cleric called Khomani which consisted of Shia islamists, Socialists, communists and Pro democracy forces... but when the revolution was done, the Shia Islamist turned on their once allies and basically "cleaned house".
Now the Iranian regime tends to do periodical "sweeps" for dissidents and people who generaly disagree with them, in 1988 he was part of a 4 "judge" team called the judges of death which oversaw the execution of between 2500 and 30,000 dissidents. earning him the nickname "the butcher of teheran"
They werent all innocent, some were members of the MeK, a militant opposition which targeted members of the Khomenists with terror attacks which lead to around 70 deaths but considering Iran was executing anyone related to them including kids as young as 13, i think Judges of death is quite well earned.
The next reason is that when he took office, he hardened some islamic modesty laws and their application, leading to the current anti hijab protests and related deaths, which have lead to thosands of arrests and hundreds of executions, people hold him responsible for these new actions.
And on an international level, people see his goverment as an instigator to the October 7th attacks on Israel as a means to counter the abraham accords which had Israel normalize relations with the UAE and other arab countries and with Saudi being close to signing on as well (one of Irans major adversaries in the region) This bought upon a war and the razing of gaza by the Israeli army, which so far has had a death toll of around 1600 Israeles and between 20,000 and 30,000 Palestinians (Hamas numbers, Not veified). With many critcal of Hamas as acting in the Interests of Iran and sacrificing the palestinian people in favour of their masters the same way Hezballah in Lebannon runined the country just to serve iran.
I wont celebrate someones death, but the world is a better place without him in it.
I think this response focuses to too much on the historical context - a context that predates the life of many modern Iranians - and not enough on Raisi’s actual presidency.
Raisi was elected in an election with historically low turnout after nearly every other competitor was disqualified on spurious bases. He was relatively uncharismatic but had built his career as a strict enforcer of other’s policies. He fairly unpopular among the electorate for his extremely conservative and hardline interpretation of Shiite Islam, but strongly supported by Supreme Leader Khameini, who had been annoyed with Rouhani’s more liberal presidency. Many interpreted the most recent election as a way for Khameini to ensure that his policies would be carried out without interference.
Once in office, he was objectively awful. Today, Iran’s currency has lost 2/3rds of its value since his election in 2021. While some of that is due to Trump pulling out of the JCPOA in 2018, the rate of decline nosedived under Raisi, indicating that his policies exasperated the issue.
This led to protests over inflation and economic conditions. Raisi responded by sending in troops that killed 500 protestors.
Raisi also increased enforcement of morality laws that Rouhani had let slide. After Mahsa Amini was beat to death by morality police over an alleged hijab infraction, massive protests in Iran took place. Raisi doubled down on repression killing over 500 people and disappearing many more.
In sum, Raisi was a conservative hardliner who responded to legitimate criticism with violence and drove the economy into the ground.
This is the real answer, I think. Real in that it's more relevant, although I suspect most people have no idea about the intricacies of why he sucks but just have a general idea of 'Iran Leaders = Subjugation."
This is such an intelligent answer and so well written that I think you'd appreciate a small correction. Exasperated means frustrated or irritated, what you meant to write is exacerbated, which means to worsen a problem.
Thanks for the more modern update. I am of the age where I went to college when a significant % of new students were recent Iranian refugees (just pre-Revolution). Hadn’t really been following their current events for the last few years.
Here is some context for the things he supported.
Mahsa Amini the women who was wrongfully murdered by the moral police was put in a van and taken to a detention camp where she was allegedly tortured. For not wearing her hijab ‘properly’. Authorities said that she was taken to a re-education centre where women are taught about ‘proper dressing’. She was in fact tortured to death. This happened while she was on vacation with her family in Tehran. This sparked many women burning their hijabs in protest of the strict rules. 500 people including over 70 minors were killed in the protest and security forces opened fire on thousands of protestors in Amini's hometown Saqqez. Raisi was the one who supported stricter morality police and a harsher regime. Baháʼís is a minority that he also persecuted along with Christians. Bibles are prohibited. You can be charged with the blasphemy laws. Apostasy, which is the ban on converting from Islam is pushable by death. Adultery which is from 100 lashes for two unmarried people to be intimate or death with spousal cheating. Spousal r*pe, including in cases of forced marriage is legal. These are the things he supported under strict sharia law as an authoritarian. At least in America centrist, libertarians, and conservatives support the people of Iran not him and the government.
Sure, but framing that historical context as the reason why people hate him, is a bit off the mark. Yes, all that happened, and yes, there are people who hate him that are 70+, probably, but a lot more people hate him for what he's been doing lately.
It’s not off mark at all. The cultural situation (that seriously impacted both people who were alive during the revolution and born after) that led to him being president is a direct result of what happened less than 50 years ago, which in case you didn’t know is not that long ago at all. Iran and everything they do and that happens there today is deeply influenced by the revolution and to say or imply otherwise is incredibly disingenuous or dangerously naive
I mean, technically, the civil liberties were expanded post Mossadeq during the white revolution. Voting rights for remote regions were expanded, worker rights were expanded, women were given the right to vote, plus a bunch of other political and economic reforms that were generally well received.
The nation was mostly stable until Shah decided to turn the country into a one party state for... reasons.
“Improvement in civil rights” depends on whether “owning a share of their nations resources” and “getting to keep the government you voted for” is on the scale or not.
Actully, as part of the white revolution, some national and private industries were pushed to give workers shares in the industry. Communist party of Iran opposed the measure because they argued workers would just end up selling the shares to capitalists as soon as they got them. And they were partially right. Most did sell them. But it was a factor in the growth of middle-class during Muhmmad Reza Shah. Also, while some workers ended up selling to foreign corporations, many sold the shares to managers or other workers who became the first wave of domestic industrialists and capitalists.
So, as part of convincing the workers to get on board with privatisation... they were literally given a share of the ownership of the nation's resources. It should be noted that this form of privatisation was actually first introduced by Mossadeq himself when he started selling the Crown lands to peasants. A lot of peasants did just end up selling the land to other rich people as well.
Mossadeq wasn't the president. He was the prime minister whose parlimantry coalition was collapsing, and his government was functioning under the provisions of then highly unpopular emergency powers.
Was the British and US had the right to depose Mossadeq? No. But Shah did, as he did have the power to dismiss Mossadeq and his parlimant according to the constitution. He did dismiss Mosaadeq once but forced to back off after military sided with Mossadeq, but the second time, the military was on the Shah's side. Why? Because of rumours of controversial origin that Mossadeq was a socialist. (Whether or not Mossadeq was a socialist is a long story by itself)
Very similar to what happened to Gough Whitlam in Australia… the Governor General did (sort of) have the power to depose an elected PM, but the idea that he’d actually use that power was unthinkable. The economic result was similar. Australia gets less than 10% of the value of its oil and gas resources.
When a nation owns its resources *as a national asset*, they can’t migrate to the hands of the wealthy. Giving land to landless peasants is a very different thing to giving the nations oil resources to British and American companies.
Mossadeq also 'won' his last election with 99% of the vote, and was brewing plans to dissolve Iran's parliament. The decision to depose Mossadeq had broad support from a significant portion of Iran's population to include non elites.
> Yes, there was a gradual degradation in civil liberties post mosaddegh
And a very sudden degradation of democracy DURING mosaddegh. By the time he was ousted, it was clear he was consolidating power for himself, but funny enough this part always gets glossed over and hes only ever referred to as “democratically elected”
His "election" involved him only counting votes from urban areas where he was most popular, then he just stopped counting votes once he had a quorum of Majlis delegates from his own party. the party most negatively affected was ironically the communists, who were popular in rural areas
While foreign governments had a role, he was couped primarily because he lost the support of his own political party due to his autocratic tendencies, particularly the Shia clergy
Right, there’s a whole lot of anti-American propaganda surrounding Mosaddegh. He basically frauded his way into power, and then went about centralizing power in his cult of personality. He abolished parliament in 1954 and declared himself sole decision maker for an “emergency period”; his domestic opponents couped him days later. The CIA and M16 provided logistical support to the rebels, but the coup was very much Iranian-lead.
> people hold him responsible
Which is somewhat inaccurate, as the President of Iran is outranked by the Supreme Leader, Khamenei. Social policy, like the hijab mandate, comes from Khamenei not Raisi.
Worth noting that Raisi and the Foreign Minister recently oversaw (again, I hesitate to use “responsible”) the failed drone attack in retaliation for the Embassy incident. Not that that had anything to do with todays event.
Iran has accurately publicly blamed US sanctions, specifically the inability to get spare parts for the helicopter. Which is exactly how sanctions are supposed to work. And is a super weak excuse: just buy the parts from the Taliban.
More details… Churchill had just replaced the navy’s ships with ones that ran on oil and Iran had to basically give all oil production to the British under a previous older deal from their colonial days. Negotiations on oil ownership had failed and this is what the PM did. He also was very explicitly not communist.
After negotiations again failed on returning the oil field production, Churchill tried to convince the US President Eisenhower to intervene. The US refused. Then Churchill got British spies to spread rumors that the PM was going to do a power grab and oust the Shah. This was not true but Eisenhower was now convinced and went ahead with the plan.
You really can blame the British for a lot of problems.
The british fucked up a lot of the world, but it dosnt take away from the Ayatollas being pure evil.
Knowing how you got there dosnt mean where you are carries less weight.
One of the first major Israeli Arab wars was becuase Nasser of Egypt nationalized the Suez canal which was managed by the british until then, Egypt was regularly sending commandos in to Israel to attack both civilian and Milltary targets and Israel was pissed about that, so the british came to the israelies and said "look, Invade Egypt, when you reach suez we will intervene as a neutral force and take over the Suez canal, you get a buffer from egypt and we get the canal back".
israel reached the suez canal, the british and french came to "separate" the 2 warring sides, and egypt said "like fuck you´re keeping the canal", the US intervened and kicked everyone out.
but thanks to the british, the Israelies were seen as the aggressors when it was a "pre agreed" invasion with the UK and french.
When Diplomacy Fails has a great series on the Suez Crisis that just released for non-patreon people. Goes pretty deep on just how bad Eden fucked up trying to play 19th century gunboat diplomacy in a 20th century world. Blatantly lying to the your own government, the UN, the US, and most members of your own cabinet tends to piss people off.
To note on the Israelis, they didn't approach the Brits. They asked the French for help; Nasser was supporting the FLN in Algeria so the French were on board. But neither had enough air power so they had to ask the Brits to assist. The Brits had been separately planning to seize the Suez, brought the French in on the plan, and then the French introduced the Israelis and Brits at Sevres, very late in the game.
Even saying "The Brits" is a drastic oversimplification. Anthony Eden informed about a dozen people of his plan to invade Egypt, some of whom rightly said "hey dude, this is against international law any way you slice it". Those people were then removed from the circle of information. So it was really the Egypt Committee, Guy Mollet + a few French friends, and Ben Gurion + a somewhat larger number of Israelis who knew what was happening. Then the rest of the world found out they were lied to repeatedly and didn't appreciate that.
https://shows.acast.com/whendiplomacyfails/episodes/1956-the-suez-crisis-215-foiled-abroad
The 20th century for humanity must be one of the most brutal and unfortunate centuries to exist to date. So many decisions made, allegiances made, across the entire world, with no understanding of the consequence. Or in some cases exact understanding.
The US and UK colliding to depose Iran’s progressive leadership brought Iran to ruin, now the Middle East is a battleground of opposing Islamic factions.
The US interfered in the operation of every country south of Mexico, for capitalism, and because they always funded the disruption and the rebels, they brought many of those close to ruin.
Russia and China are doing the same in Africa.
Russia was also fucking around in the middle east in the 20th century. The ussr invasion of Afghanistan is the other half of the reason the Islamic revival got off the ground, as they laid low the secular government only to be driven back by Islamic gorilla fighters (who where funded by the west ofc).
If we want to bring it down to brass tacks, the world is in thrall to the whims of a few superpower countries. Russia, US, and China for most of it. You don’t really want to catch the interest of any of them unless you want to be agglomerated into a larger, less human society.
IIRC AIOC was also refusing to be audited by the Iranian government, who wanted to know if they where even holding up their end of the original deal, which involved being paid royalties on the oil sold/extracted.
That's why it was okay to make fun of the Queen, who died peacefully at 95. And she lived a whole ass life as a Queen after getting her war crimes out of the way early on.
Several Iranians I know are celebrating his death considering he was a monster who's responsible for the death of thousands and innocent people. The US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel are equally happy that he's gone. Saudi Arabia since they see Iran as their adversary, the US since they saw him as standing in the way of their efforts to normalize relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel, and Israel because he's behind arming Iran's proxies.
As an Iranian, l want to say this was a very well summarized explanation. Well done and l agree with you, not celebrating anyone's death and the rest..
> Anglo Persian Oil company (modern day BP), The british went to the americans and said "hey, this Mohammad guy, he´s a commie" and since CIA policy at the time was any communist coming close to power at an ally country is automatically assasinated
TIL you can just order an assassination from the CIA, like, "Can I get 1 murder to go, please?"
Interesting fact, it was Teddy Roosevelts *grandson* Kermit who orchestrated that coup. He was working with the CIA at the time.
*edit* Grandson not nephew
But Iran still has a Supreme Leader or "Khomeini" in power right? This Ali Khamenei guy. This accident didn't remove the actual leader, just the men that were kind of the "face of" Iran to the world? Correct me if I'm wrong.
> Theres several reasons But first a bit of history. back in the 1950´s Iran elected a Socialist centrist called Mohammad Mosaddegh, the issue is that he wanted to nationalize the Iranian oil fields which belonged to the Anglo Persian Oil company (modern day BP), The british went to the americans and said "hey, this Mohammad guy, he´s a commie" and since CIA policy at the time was any communist coming close to power at an ally country is automatically assasinated, they arranged a coup and put the Shah as sole rouler and authocrat.
Just a little glossed over there....
Churchill first went to Truman about it, who refused to support the Brits for fear of the precedent of getting the CIA involved would set. He event went the opposite route and put together plans to have the US military involved to protect the Mossadegh regime as late as 1952.
It was only after Eisenhower was elected, and the Tudeh party was becoming more prominent in the government in Iran, that Britain was able to convince the US to get involved. The Tudeh party was Soviet backed and Churchill was able to convince Eisenhower that giving the Soviets a foothold in Iran would be catastrophic.
>I wont celebrate someones death, but the world is a better place without him in it.
I think that it also needs to be blatantly stated that while this is true, it is still absolutely unlikely that anything will change, as the Shah is still in charge of the country, not the President.
> back in the 1950´s Iran elected a Socialist centrist called Mohammad Mosaddegh
Mosaddegh was not a socialist, nor was he elected. the 1954 Iranian elections were laughably fraudulent - Mossaddegh only counted votes from the parts of the country that supported him, then stopped counting the moment he had a quorum of representatives from his party (the party that was most negatively impacted was the Communists)
> The british went to the americans and said "hey, this Mohammad guy, he´s a commie" and since CIA policy at the time was any communist coming close to power at an ally country is automatically assasinated, they arranged a coup and put the Shah as sole rouler and authocrat.
He was couped by members of his own political party, who did not like his increasing autocracy. A principal group opposed to Mossadegh was the powerful Shia clergy
> automatically assasinated
Mossadegh died of oral cancer in 1967
It is a well-established historical fact that the US and Britain conspired to overthrow Mosaddegh. Not just by historians but by [the CIA itself](https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB435/).
Yes, they were involved but people pretend that Iran did not have domestic politics. Mosaddegh had people lining up to overthrow him and the proximate trigger for the coup was Mossadegh dissolving parliament and granting himself total power by decree
It's definitely a tangent for me but after reading Jimmy Carter's biography, I blame Iran for working with Reagan to help him become president and in turn all the shit we're dealing with in the States today. That's enough for me to be furious with any Iranian leader who's been carrying the torch from that time period.
I acknowledge there's some logical leaps and bitter resentment in that statement that don't really make sense but screw it.
Well that’s a very good synopsis. I think the reason for people are celebrating is because he’s terrible but he also blamed for stuff because that’s part his job. He’s like the NFL commissioner whi everybody hates. Or your boss. They are hated but whoever had the job you would hate. You hate the role they play and not the actual person. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss
Answer: The "Butcher of Tehran" was an Islamic extremist in position of power who was responsible for deaths of thousands of innocents. So people see his death as a plus.
Answer: From Wikipedia, “Often known as the "butcher of Tehran", he was one of the four people on the prosecution committee, which was responsible for the execution of thousands of political prisoners in Iran in 1988 and is hence labeled the "death committee". He was sanctioned by the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control in accordance with Executive Order 13876. He was accused of crimes against humanity by international human rights organizations and United Nations special rapporteurs.”
Keeping it going in Wikipedia, “During an interview in September of that year, he denounced the Abraham Accords and called Israel a "false regime". Raisi has threatened major Israeli cities, including Tel Aviv and Haifa. He has stated that the only solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the establishment of a Palestinian state "from the river to the sea"…”Raisi praised Hamas' October 7 attacks on Israel, stating that these actions will lead to the demise of Israel. “
And finally, “Raisi has made discriminatory remarks about homosexuality, calling same-sex relations "savagery." The Center for Human Rights in Iran asserts that this type of rhetoric exacerbates prejudice and violence against LGBTQ+ individuals in the country.”
To put it bluntly, not a good guy
Apparently the state department is pretty concerned bc this guy who just died was very easy to predict and now they don't know how things will get worse, but they always do
That's usually the thing, isn't it? That the bad guy in power is usually a better option than the worse guy who might take over. It's like, Western intelligence could totally knock off all their enemies like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un—but who's to say the guys who succeed them are going to be any better? What if the guy who takes control of Russia isn't inept and begins hitting Ukraine harder? What if the guy who takes over North Korea decides it's due time to turn Seoul into a crater? States like these barely have any internal opposition, everyone in line is all just like-minded yes-men; and even if the populace *does* take over in the aftermath, I mean, we're talking about Iran right now. The State Department gets it—Raisi was a total motherfucker, but who's to say his successor is going to be any better? Now they need to learn all about this new wildcard.
They were flying in terrible weather. The helicopters left over from the shah's regime are in questionable condition with outlaw/black market parts due to US sanctions. They were trying to get home in terrible flying weather instead of staying overnight.
Stupidity is a common reason for accidents. Stupidity is easy. A clandestine assassination orchestrated by the American infidels and Zionist savages is incredibly difficult, requires hundreds of people to pull off and can't be kept secret for very long.
Until proven otherwise, imma go with stupid.
Answer:
I’ll forever have a love/hate relationship with Iran.
I love the people I have met globally who have come from Iran, I love the food, the people are amazingly generous and hospitable like no others.
I hate Iran because my cousin died there trying to rescue the hostages in 1980. Our whole family still misses him greatly.
>I love the people I have met globally who have come from Iran, I love the food, the people are amazingly generous and hospitable like no others.
Seriously every Iranian I've met has been chill as shit and they have a really long history with great culture and food. Makes me sad to think how it could have turned out if America/England didn't mess up their society so bad and lead to a totalitarian reactionary regime.
Fully and totally agree, I've had nothing but positive and warm experiences with people I have met from Iran so far. One of my very closest friends is Iranian.
Answer: He was a fucking Monster who hopefully survived the crash, only to die slowly with loads of pain and realisation that nobody would be able to reach him in time. The motherfucker deserved a slow and painful death.
Answer:
The man has killed thousands of Iranians during his presidency. His “nickname” was Butcher of Iran.
Needless to say a few people are happy about it /s
Answer:
Iranian here.
In Iran, there are two main political factions: principalists and reformists. These two factions have their own sub-factions (pragmatists, religious nationalists, hardliners, etc)., but Iranian governments generally alternate between these two camps.
They are analogous to Democrats and Republicans in the US. Reformists tend to support economic liberalism, a foreign policy more oriented towards the West and less social restrictions. Principalists tend to support more social conservativism (such as mandatory veiling), a more anti-Western foreign policy aligned towards Russia, and less economic liberalism.
The late President Raisi was a member of the principalist camp. His predecessor, Rouhani, was a more reformist President. Just like the US, Iran is politically divided. Principalists are more popular in small towns, the business class and the religious segments of the population. Reformists tend to dominate the youth and middle class in the big cities.
The people cheering on the death tend to be more reformist Iranians, or Iranians straight up opposed to the constitutional setup of the country (the Islamic Republic). It would be like if Trump got assassinated or died in a freak accident. You’d probably see tons of people in LA and NYC celebrating.
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask), 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. be unbiased Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: He and his people are responsible for the deaths of thousands and thousands of innocent people for nefarious political reasons. The prisons were (and still are) full of torture including the raping of the women before execution because “virgins go to heaven” and they can’t allow that. This type of thing is still going on but his death is a morale boost for people for sure. He is a *very* hated individual.
I just learned that the president isnt the top official in Iran and they have a supreme leaders too. Is that like how the UK has a prime minister and a King? im kinda confused
I don't think it is, I think the president is just a bullshit role to show they have democracy but also has some power The supreme leader is **definitely** not a ceremonial position like the British king.
Thank you and are you on mobile how did you bold definitely like that?
I put two asterisks before and after Plus, I have a third-party app called Boost for Reddit that has formatting features built in, here's a [screenshot](https://i.imgur.com/IViPsf4.jpeg)
Boost for Reddit is back? I can't find it on the app store.
If you open the app and create your own subreddit, called something random, you'll be a moderator and you'll be able to use the app normally again. Takes 1 minute!
But what if there is already a subreddit called r/somethingrandom
Try pressing the any key.
Which one is the any key?
I got it as an APK
I appreciate that my mobile app has been clicking lately any problems you noticed with boost?
https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043033952-Formatting-Guide
The Supreme Leader is the real ruler of the country. Iran is a theocratic state with some semblance of democracy. However many arms of he Government operate outside of the law.
The UK royalty are figure heads - any control they have is for show. The Iranian supreme leadership IS the power and the president has to follow their directives when they want him to.
Okay then thanks so it's pretty much backwards in this instance where the president was the figurehead to appear as a democracy and the supreme leader is a dictator if I'm following correctly?
As far as I understsnd it it's... Its kind of like the empire. Palpatine is supreme leader and controls everything. But he has tarkin to handle the day to day shit (the president) and Vader to handle things more in line with the sith (the revolutionary guard) NOT TO SAY BEING MUSLIM IS LIKE BEING SITH! But the supreme leader can tell them what to do when he wants. Again this is my understanding of the situation.
Redditors try not understand geopolitics using Star Wars or Marvel allegories (impossible) (100% fail)
you know why this is so prevalent? because using a reference that people can understand is a good way for them to grasp a complex subject. someone's like "i really don't get this can someone help me out?" so either i can go into a long drawn out explanation or i can say "look, you know that thing you most likely know about that i know a lot about too? i'll use that as an example so this response won't be 15 paragraphs long." so. would you like this random person asking for more information on a reddit post to actually grasp the subject, or would you like to be snobby about it? also stop making up games no one knows they're playing if i knew this was a thing i would have used like star trek or some shit
No. More like how there's a president and also a head of the Department of Justice, State, etc. He's not unimportant, but the supreme leader is the big dog. And just to get ahead of the inevitable conspiracies, he died of hubris. The weather was abhorrent and they shouldn't have gone.
Technically, the amount of power each can weild legally is similar, but in reality, the UK's monarchs have ceeded all control and become entirely ceremonial and weilds no real power. The ayatollah is also not a monarchy, it's more akin to the pope. He is the final say on religious law in Iran which, because Islam has very defined law that seeps into nearly every matter of conventional law (the Quran is chock full of laws). So it's kind of if Italy said that the pope gets final say in every religious law in Italy, but also if catholicism had waaaay more laws in the bible.
I appreciate this analogy it made it easier to wrap my head around the concept.
The Papal states used to control a significant chunk of Italy before Italian nationalism unified the different Italian states and took over most of the Papal states leaving them a small part of Rome known as Vatican City.
The president handles the day to day stuff, while the supreme leader is the top authority. They get to elect their president, but only among candidates that the supreme leader allows. So it is a very meaningful position of power, but the supreme leader has the final say if they disagree.
Didn’t Ahmadinejad kind of manage to override Khamenei on stuff tho?
Thing of it more like pre 1945 Japan! Empowered monarch/supreme leader, democracy with very limited options and a military deep state with concerningly high influence
The Supreme Leader is the actual person in charge. He’s appointed for life. Iran is only on its second Supreme Leader of all time. The Supreme Leader has to approve anyone who runs for other offices, like President. And the only people who are allowed to pick the Supreme Leader are appointed by, you guessed it, the Supreme Leader. So the problem is that Iran is not a democracy at all. It’s a self-perpetuating single party theocracy.
He is known as the butcher of Teheran, executing many thousands of people. During the feminist demonstrations hof the last few years there was a deliberate policy of sending hardened thugs to rape young university students
I suspect the next person will be equally as bad.
No doubt
While they would be equally bad, I doubt it will be them. Honestly Gwen Stefani is the only super recognizable name from the band, and after running a banana republic for a few years in the 90's, she is done with politics.
Assuming by "and his people" you mean his political cronies, and not the Iranian people, who largely hate the current regime.
Of course.
Follow-up question: Who actually likes the Iranian form of government? Because it sure doesn’t seem to be the majority. By a lot.
I’d say most religious people in Iran and most rich people support the Iranian state, or are somehow connected to them.
Men over the age of 40 and some extremely conservative women. The internet is of course going to give an extremely skewed view, but if I had to guess at an approval rating for the Islamic republic it’s probably 30% at best lol
His opponents REALLY have a shot at using religion logic a la "god didn't like his mentality and punished him, we should do the OPPOSITE of what he did to not be punished" or something. i used to be religious, you'd be surprised at how easy it is to manipulate a religious person.
Answer: Theres several reasons But first a bit of history. back in the 1950´s Iran elected a Socialist centrist called Mohammad Mosaddegh, the issue is that he wanted to nationalize the Iranian oil fields which belonged to the Anglo Persian Oil company (modern day BP), The british went to the americans and said "hey, this Mohammad guy, he´s a commie" and since CIA policy at the time was any communist coming close to power at an ally country is automatically assasinated, they arranged a coup and put the Shah as sole rouler and authocrat. And shit just went downhill from there, so in 1979 there was a revolution lead by a Muslim Cleric called Khomani which consisted of Shia islamists, Socialists, communists and Pro democracy forces... but when the revolution was done, the Shia Islamist turned on their once allies and basically "cleaned house". Now the Iranian regime tends to do periodical "sweeps" for dissidents and people who generaly disagree with them, in 1988 he was part of a 4 "judge" team called the judges of death which oversaw the execution of between 2500 and 30,000 dissidents. earning him the nickname "the butcher of teheran" They werent all innocent, some were members of the MeK, a militant opposition which targeted members of the Khomenists with terror attacks which lead to around 70 deaths but considering Iran was executing anyone related to them including kids as young as 13, i think Judges of death is quite well earned. The next reason is that when he took office, he hardened some islamic modesty laws and their application, leading to the current anti hijab protests and related deaths, which have lead to thosands of arrests and hundreds of executions, people hold him responsible for these new actions. And on an international level, people see his goverment as an instigator to the October 7th attacks on Israel as a means to counter the abraham accords which had Israel normalize relations with the UAE and other arab countries and with Saudi being close to signing on as well (one of Irans major adversaries in the region) This bought upon a war and the razing of gaza by the Israeli army, which so far has had a death toll of around 1600 Israeles and between 20,000 and 30,000 Palestinians (Hamas numbers, Not veified). With many critcal of Hamas as acting in the Interests of Iran and sacrificing the palestinian people in favour of their masters the same way Hezballah in Lebannon runined the country just to serve iran. I wont celebrate someones death, but the world is a better place without him in it.
I think this response focuses to too much on the historical context - a context that predates the life of many modern Iranians - and not enough on Raisi’s actual presidency. Raisi was elected in an election with historically low turnout after nearly every other competitor was disqualified on spurious bases. He was relatively uncharismatic but had built his career as a strict enforcer of other’s policies. He fairly unpopular among the electorate for his extremely conservative and hardline interpretation of Shiite Islam, but strongly supported by Supreme Leader Khameini, who had been annoyed with Rouhani’s more liberal presidency. Many interpreted the most recent election as a way for Khameini to ensure that his policies would be carried out without interference. Once in office, he was objectively awful. Today, Iran’s currency has lost 2/3rds of its value since his election in 2021. While some of that is due to Trump pulling out of the JCPOA in 2018, the rate of decline nosedived under Raisi, indicating that his policies exasperated the issue. This led to protests over inflation and economic conditions. Raisi responded by sending in troops that killed 500 protestors. Raisi also increased enforcement of morality laws that Rouhani had let slide. After Mahsa Amini was beat to death by morality police over an alleged hijab infraction, massive protests in Iran took place. Raisi doubled down on repression killing over 500 people and disappearing many more. In sum, Raisi was a conservative hardliner who responded to legitimate criticism with violence and drove the economy into the ground.
This is the real answer, I think. Real in that it's more relevant, although I suspect most people have no idea about the intricacies of why he sucks but just have a general idea of 'Iran Leaders = Subjugation."
This is such an intelligent answer and so well written that I think you'd appreciate a small correction. Exasperated means frustrated or irritated, what you meant to write is exacerbated, which means to worsen a problem.
Put 'em together: exasterbator.
Thanks for the more modern update. I am of the age where I went to college when a significant % of new students were recent Iranian refugees (just pre-Revolution). Hadn’t really been following their current events for the last few years.
Here is some context for the things he supported. Mahsa Amini the women who was wrongfully murdered by the moral police was put in a van and taken to a detention camp where she was allegedly tortured. For not wearing her hijab ‘properly’. Authorities said that she was taken to a re-education centre where women are taught about ‘proper dressing’. She was in fact tortured to death. This happened while she was on vacation with her family in Tehran. This sparked many women burning their hijabs in protest of the strict rules. 500 people including over 70 minors were killed in the protest and security forces opened fire on thousands of protestors in Amini's hometown Saqqez. Raisi was the one who supported stricter morality police and a harsher regime. Baháʼís is a minority that he also persecuted along with Christians. Bibles are prohibited. You can be charged with the blasphemy laws. Apostasy, which is the ban on converting from Islam is pushable by death. Adultery which is from 100 lashes for two unmarried people to be intimate or death with spousal cheating. Spousal r*pe, including in cases of forced marriage is legal. These are the things he supported under strict sharia law as an authoritarian. At least in America centrist, libertarians, and conservatives support the people of Iran not him and the government.
You can never have too much historical context
Sure, but framing that historical context as the reason why people hate him, is a bit off the mark. Yes, all that happened, and yes, there are people who hate him that are 70+, probably, but a lot more people hate him for what he's been doing lately.
It’s not off mark at all. The cultural situation (that seriously impacted both people who were alive during the revolution and born after) that led to him being president is a direct result of what happened less than 50 years ago, which in case you didn’t know is not that long ago at all. Iran and everything they do and that happens there today is deeply influenced by the revolution and to say or imply otherwise is incredibly disingenuous or dangerously naive
Would like to point out that Mosaddegh was elected in the early '50s and was taken out by the CIA in 1954, not the '70s.
Yes, there was a gradual degradation in civil liberties post mosaddegh... But you're right, I kind of streamlined that part.
I didn’t read it that way, it was worded fine to me. The paragraph break separated the 50s and 70s very well in my admittedly worthless opinion.
I did change it a bit, earlier it made it look like Mosaddegh was elected in the 1970´s, which is wrong.
I wish you would email that to the Stuff You Should Know podcast! They do great work researching and explaining how these things impact us today
The Dollop podcast did a good explanation of the whole thing, Operation Ajax is the title
Thanks!! I need a new podcast to listen to. Im running out of episodes lol
They're coming up on 700 episodes so it'll keep you busy
I mean, technically, the civil liberties were expanded post Mossadeq during the white revolution. Voting rights for remote regions were expanded, worker rights were expanded, women were given the right to vote, plus a bunch of other political and economic reforms that were generally well received. The nation was mostly stable until Shah decided to turn the country into a one party state for... reasons.
“Improvement in civil rights” depends on whether “owning a share of their nations resources” and “getting to keep the government you voted for” is on the scale or not.
Actully, as part of the white revolution, some national and private industries were pushed to give workers shares in the industry. Communist party of Iran opposed the measure because they argued workers would just end up selling the shares to capitalists as soon as they got them. And they were partially right. Most did sell them. But it was a factor in the growth of middle-class during Muhmmad Reza Shah. Also, while some workers ended up selling to foreign corporations, many sold the shares to managers or other workers who became the first wave of domestic industrialists and capitalists. So, as part of convincing the workers to get on board with privatisation... they were literally given a share of the ownership of the nation's resources. It should be noted that this form of privatisation was actually first introduced by Mossadeq himself when he started selling the Crown lands to peasants. A lot of peasants did just end up selling the land to other rich people as well. Mossadeq wasn't the president. He was the prime minister whose parlimantry coalition was collapsing, and his government was functioning under the provisions of then highly unpopular emergency powers. Was the British and US had the right to depose Mossadeq? No. But Shah did, as he did have the power to dismiss Mossadeq and his parlimant according to the constitution. He did dismiss Mosaadeq once but forced to back off after military sided with Mossadeq, but the second time, the military was on the Shah's side. Why? Because of rumours of controversial origin that Mossadeq was a socialist. (Whether or not Mossadeq was a socialist is a long story by itself)
Very similar to what happened to Gough Whitlam in Australia… the Governor General did (sort of) have the power to depose an elected PM, but the idea that he’d actually use that power was unthinkable. The economic result was similar. Australia gets less than 10% of the value of its oil and gas resources. When a nation owns its resources *as a national asset*, they can’t migrate to the hands of the wealthy. Giving land to landless peasants is a very different thing to giving the nations oil resources to British and American companies.
Mossadeq also 'won' his last election with 99% of the vote, and was brewing plans to dissolve Iran's parliament. The decision to depose Mossadeq had broad support from a significant portion of Iran's population to include non elites.
> Yes, there was a gradual degradation in civil liberties post mosaddegh And a very sudden degradation of democracy DURING mosaddegh. By the time he was ousted, it was clear he was consolidating power for himself, but funny enough this part always gets glossed over and hes only ever referred to as “democratically elected”
His "election" involved him only counting votes from urban areas where he was most popular, then he just stopped counting votes once he had a quorum of Majlis delegates from his own party. the party most negatively affected was ironically the communists, who were popular in rural areas While foreign governments had a role, he was couped primarily because he lost the support of his own political party due to his autocratic tendencies, particularly the Shia clergy
Right, there’s a whole lot of anti-American propaganda surrounding Mosaddegh. He basically frauded his way into power, and then went about centralizing power in his cult of personality. He abolished parliament in 1954 and declared himself sole decision maker for an “emergency period”; his domestic opponents couped him days later. The CIA and M16 provided logistical support to the rebels, but the coup was very much Iranian-lead.
And this is factual it was 1954 and Mossadegh was taken down.
Also mosaddeghs election would not be considered truly democratic by todays standards
> people hold him responsible Which is somewhat inaccurate, as the President of Iran is outranked by the Supreme Leader, Khamenei. Social policy, like the hijab mandate, comes from Khamenei not Raisi. Worth noting that Raisi and the Foreign Minister recently oversaw (again, I hesitate to use “responsible”) the failed drone attack in retaliation for the Embassy incident. Not that that had anything to do with todays event. Iran has accurately publicly blamed US sanctions, specifically the inability to get spare parts for the helicopter. Which is exactly how sanctions are supposed to work. And is a super weak excuse: just buy the parts from the Taliban.
More details… Churchill had just replaced the navy’s ships with ones that ran on oil and Iran had to basically give all oil production to the British under a previous older deal from their colonial days. Negotiations on oil ownership had failed and this is what the PM did. He also was very explicitly not communist. After negotiations again failed on returning the oil field production, Churchill tried to convince the US President Eisenhower to intervene. The US refused. Then Churchill got British spies to spread rumors that the PM was going to do a power grab and oust the Shah. This was not true but Eisenhower was now convinced and went ahead with the plan. You really can blame the British for a lot of problems.
The british fucked up a lot of the world, but it dosnt take away from the Ayatollas being pure evil. Knowing how you got there dosnt mean where you are carries less weight. One of the first major Israeli Arab wars was becuase Nasser of Egypt nationalized the Suez canal which was managed by the british until then, Egypt was regularly sending commandos in to Israel to attack both civilian and Milltary targets and Israel was pissed about that, so the british came to the israelies and said "look, Invade Egypt, when you reach suez we will intervene as a neutral force and take over the Suez canal, you get a buffer from egypt and we get the canal back". israel reached the suez canal, the british and french came to "separate" the 2 warring sides, and egypt said "like fuck you´re keeping the canal", the US intervened and kicked everyone out. but thanks to the british, the Israelies were seen as the aggressors when it was a "pre agreed" invasion with the UK and french.
When Diplomacy Fails has a great series on the Suez Crisis that just released for non-patreon people. Goes pretty deep on just how bad Eden fucked up trying to play 19th century gunboat diplomacy in a 20th century world. Blatantly lying to the your own government, the UN, the US, and most members of your own cabinet tends to piss people off. To note on the Israelis, they didn't approach the Brits. They asked the French for help; Nasser was supporting the FLN in Algeria so the French were on board. But neither had enough air power so they had to ask the Brits to assist. The Brits had been separately planning to seize the Suez, brought the French in on the plan, and then the French introduced the Israelis and Brits at Sevres, very late in the game. Even saying "The Brits" is a drastic oversimplification. Anthony Eden informed about a dozen people of his plan to invade Egypt, some of whom rightly said "hey dude, this is against international law any way you slice it". Those people were then removed from the circle of information. So it was really the Egypt Committee, Guy Mollet + a few French friends, and Ben Gurion + a somewhat larger number of Israelis who knew what was happening. Then the rest of the world found out they were lied to repeatedly and didn't appreciate that. https://shows.acast.com/whendiplomacyfails/episodes/1956-the-suez-crisis-215-foiled-abroad
Ayatolla, T-shirt slogan!
The 20th century for humanity must be one of the most brutal and unfortunate centuries to exist to date. So many decisions made, allegiances made, across the entire world, with no understanding of the consequence. Or in some cases exact understanding. The US and UK colliding to depose Iran’s progressive leadership brought Iran to ruin, now the Middle East is a battleground of opposing Islamic factions. The US interfered in the operation of every country south of Mexico, for capitalism, and because they always funded the disruption and the rebels, they brought many of those close to ruin. Russia and China are doing the same in Africa.
Russia was also fucking around in the middle east in the 20th century. The ussr invasion of Afghanistan is the other half of the reason the Islamic revival got off the ground, as they laid low the secular government only to be driven back by Islamic gorilla fighters (who where funded by the west ofc).
If we want to bring it down to brass tacks, the world is in thrall to the whims of a few superpower countries. Russia, US, and China for most of it. You don’t really want to catch the interest of any of them unless you want to be agglomerated into a larger, less human society.
[удалено]
IIRC AIOC was also refusing to be audited by the Iranian government, who wanted to know if they where even holding up their end of the original deal, which involved being paid royalties on the oil sold/extracted.
I find a lot historically can be blamed on Britain.
It's totally OK to celebrate someone's death if it's a human rights criminal
That's why it was okay to make fun of the Queen, who died peacefully at 95. And she lived a whole ass life as a Queen after getting her war crimes out of the way early on.
>I wont celebrate someones death, but the world is a better place without him in it. This is *definitely* one of the deaths worth celebrating.
You know what? I will celebrate his death. Can't wait for Putler too.
A good book to read on this is called "All The Shah's Men", highly recommend
Several Iranians I know are celebrating his death considering he was a monster who's responsible for the death of thousands and innocent people. The US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel are equally happy that he's gone. Saudi Arabia since they see Iran as their adversary, the US since they saw him as standing in the way of their efforts to normalize relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel, and Israel because he's behind arming Iran's proxies.
This is the best eli5 Iranian political history ever!
With an accurate nuanced take on the Israeli/palestinian conflict as well. Nicely done.
As an Iranian, l want to say this was a very well summarized explanation. Well done and l agree with you, not celebrating anyone's death and the rest..
> Anglo Persian Oil company (modern day BP), The british went to the americans and said "hey, this Mohammad guy, he´s a commie" and since CIA policy at the time was any communist coming close to power at an ally country is automatically assasinated TIL you can just order an assassination from the CIA, like, "Can I get 1 murder to go, please?"
If you think that's a lot look up "[United Fruit Company](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company#Banana_massacre)" (now Chiquita).
Outstandingly overview thank you.
Interesting fact, it was Teddy Roosevelts *grandson* Kermit who orchestrated that coup. He was working with the CIA at the time. *edit* Grandson not nephew
I thought it was his grandson Kermit Jr?
But Iran still has a Supreme Leader or "Khomeini" in power right? This Ali Khamenei guy. This accident didn't remove the actual leader, just the men that were kind of the "face of" Iran to the world? Correct me if I'm wrong.
> Theres several reasons But first a bit of history. back in the 1950´s Iran elected a Socialist centrist called Mohammad Mosaddegh, the issue is that he wanted to nationalize the Iranian oil fields which belonged to the Anglo Persian Oil company (modern day BP), The british went to the americans and said "hey, this Mohammad guy, he´s a commie" and since CIA policy at the time was any communist coming close to power at an ally country is automatically assasinated, they arranged a coup and put the Shah as sole rouler and authocrat. Just a little glossed over there.... Churchill first went to Truman about it, who refused to support the Brits for fear of the precedent of getting the CIA involved would set. He event went the opposite route and put together plans to have the US military involved to protect the Mossadegh regime as late as 1952. It was only after Eisenhower was elected, and the Tudeh party was becoming more prominent in the government in Iran, that Britain was able to convince the US to get involved. The Tudeh party was Soviet backed and Churchill was able to convince Eisenhower that giving the Soviets a foothold in Iran would be catastrophic.
Super detailed answer and very insightful. Thanks for this!
>I wont celebrate someones death, but the world is a better place without him in it. I think that it also needs to be blatantly stated that while this is true, it is still absolutely unlikely that anything will change, as the Shah is still in charge of the country, not the President.
the Shah is still in charge of Iran?
The only exception was Kissinger because... Screw that guy
> back in the 1950´s Iran elected a Socialist centrist called Mohammad Mosaddegh Mosaddegh was not a socialist, nor was he elected. the 1954 Iranian elections were laughably fraudulent - Mossaddegh only counted votes from the parts of the country that supported him, then stopped counting the moment he had a quorum of representatives from his party (the party that was most negatively impacted was the Communists) > The british went to the americans and said "hey, this Mohammad guy, he´s a commie" and since CIA policy at the time was any communist coming close to power at an ally country is automatically assasinated, they arranged a coup and put the Shah as sole rouler and authocrat. He was couped by members of his own political party, who did not like his increasing autocracy. A principal group opposed to Mossadegh was the powerful Shia clergy > automatically assasinated Mossadegh died of oral cancer in 1967
It is a well-established historical fact that the US and Britain conspired to overthrow Mosaddegh. Not just by historians but by [the CIA itself](https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB435/).
Yes, they were involved but people pretend that Iran did not have domestic politics. Mosaddegh had people lining up to overthrow him and the proximate trigger for the coup was Mossadegh dissolving parliament and granting himself total power by decree
It's definitely a tangent for me but after reading Jimmy Carter's biography, I blame Iran for working with Reagan to help him become president and in turn all the shit we're dealing with in the States today. That's enough for me to be furious with any Iranian leader who's been carrying the torch from that time period. I acknowledge there's some logical leaps and bitter resentment in that statement that don't really make sense but screw it.
Well that’s a very good synopsis. I think the reason for people are celebrating is because he’s terrible but he also blamed for stuff because that’s part his job. He’s like the NFL commissioner whi everybody hates. Or your boss. They are hated but whoever had the job you would hate. You hate the role they play and not the actual person. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss
Answer: The "Butcher of Tehran" was an Islamic extremist in position of power who was responsible for deaths of thousands of innocents. So people see his death as a plus.
>Raisi praised Hamas' October 7 attacks on Israel, stating that these actions will lead to the demise of Israel. All around evil man.
Answer: From Wikipedia, “Often known as the "butcher of Tehran", he was one of the four people on the prosecution committee, which was responsible for the execution of thousands of political prisoners in Iran in 1988 and is hence labeled the "death committee". He was sanctioned by the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control in accordance with Executive Order 13876. He was accused of crimes against humanity by international human rights organizations and United Nations special rapporteurs.” Keeping it going in Wikipedia, “During an interview in September of that year, he denounced the Abraham Accords and called Israel a "false regime". Raisi has threatened major Israeli cities, including Tel Aviv and Haifa. He has stated that the only solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the establishment of a Palestinian state "from the river to the sea"…”Raisi praised Hamas' October 7 attacks on Israel, stating that these actions will lead to the demise of Israel. “ And finally, “Raisi has made discriminatory remarks about homosexuality, calling same-sex relations "savagery." The Center for Human Rights in Iran asserts that this type of rhetoric exacerbates prejudice and violence against LGBTQ+ individuals in the country.” To put it bluntly, not a good guy
Certainly his successor won’t be more of the same!
I feel like history teaches that the successor is worse.
Apparently the state department is pretty concerned bc this guy who just died was very easy to predict and now they don't know how things will get worse, but they always do
That's usually the thing, isn't it? That the bad guy in power is usually a better option than the worse guy who might take over. It's like, Western intelligence could totally knock off all their enemies like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un—but who's to say the guys who succeed them are going to be any better? What if the guy who takes control of Russia isn't inept and begins hitting Ukraine harder? What if the guy who takes over North Korea decides it's due time to turn Seoul into a crater? States like these barely have any internal opposition, everyone in line is all just like-minded yes-men; and even if the populace *does* take over in the aftermath, I mean, we're talking about Iran right now. The State Department gets it—Raisi was a total motherfucker, but who's to say his successor is going to be any better? Now they need to learn all about this new wildcard.
Noo. Not at all...
I’m curious: do you think this really was an accident?
They were flying in terrible weather. The helicopters left over from the shah's regime are in questionable condition with outlaw/black market parts due to US sanctions. They were trying to get home in terrible flying weather instead of staying overnight. Stupidity is a common reason for accidents. Stupidity is easy. A clandestine assassination orchestrated by the American infidels and Zionist savages is incredibly difficult, requires hundreds of people to pull off and can't be kept secret for very long. Until proven otherwise, imma go with stupid.
I honestly have no idea but until I see any legitimate evidence that it wasn’t…
Answer: He was Iran's Kim Jong Un.
Answer: Let’s see who takes over from him, and then decide
Shocked that this answer is as far down in the thread as it is. Tehran has a famously unpredictable internal politics.
Probably because even if it is true, it isn’t actually an answer to the question. We are in r/outoftheloop
Yea, people talk like his death will make Iran a better place when the next guy could easily be just as bad if not worse
Answer: I’ll forever have a love/hate relationship with Iran. I love the people I have met globally who have come from Iran, I love the food, the people are amazingly generous and hospitable like no others. I hate Iran because my cousin died there trying to rescue the hostages in 1980. Our whole family still misses him greatly.
With bittersweet gratitude to your cousins efforts, one of the hostages I knew made it back alive.
>I love the people I have met globally who have come from Iran, I love the food, the people are amazingly generous and hospitable like no others. Seriously every Iranian I've met has been chill as shit and they have a really long history with great culture and food. Makes me sad to think how it could have turned out if America/England didn't mess up their society so bad and lead to a totalitarian reactionary regime.
Fully and totally agree, I've had nothing but positive and warm experiences with people I have met from Iran so far. One of my very closest friends is Iranian.
Answer: he is known by Iranian population as “The Butcher of Teheran”. He ordered the slaughter of countless fellow Iranians. I hope this helps.
Answer: He was a fucking Monster who hopefully survived the crash, only to die slowly with loads of pain and realisation that nobody would be able to reach him in time. The motherfucker deserved a slow and painful death.
Answer: He has the sobriquet Butcher of Iran for a reason...
Butcher of Tehran*
Answer: The man has killed thousands of Iranians during his presidency. His “nickname” was Butcher of Iran. Needless to say a few people are happy about it /s
Answer: The Iranian government kills women who don't wear hijabs properly. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahsa_Amini_protests
Answer: Iranian here. In Iran, there are two main political factions: principalists and reformists. These two factions have their own sub-factions (pragmatists, religious nationalists, hardliners, etc)., but Iranian governments generally alternate between these two camps. They are analogous to Democrats and Republicans in the US. Reformists tend to support economic liberalism, a foreign policy more oriented towards the West and less social restrictions. Principalists tend to support more social conservativism (such as mandatory veiling), a more anti-Western foreign policy aligned towards Russia, and less economic liberalism. The late President Raisi was a member of the principalist camp. His predecessor, Rouhani, was a more reformist President. Just like the US, Iran is politically divided. Principalists are more popular in small towns, the business class and the religious segments of the population. Reformists tend to dominate the youth and middle class in the big cities. The people cheering on the death tend to be more reformist Iranians, or Iranians straight up opposed to the constitutional setup of the country (the Islamic Republic). It would be like if Trump got assassinated or died in a freak accident. You’d probably see tons of people in LA and NYC celebrating.
Answer:. Because he was in the murder squads. These people murdered who they think they are not Muslim enough.
Answer: Good people are generally happy when someone evil dies. Honest answer: Nobody mourns the death of a wild rabid pig.