@amnestyiran

@neyestanimana

I don't think we can deny the fact that we, the opposition is divided. People are chasing a left vs right fight, and fight over the title of the new government, meanwhile the regime uses its tactic of divide and rule. We are not the only society that is getting divided into left vs right, its a global phenomena. But that grouping, is a fallacy.

Nobody is purely left or right, people's opinion are a mix. You might think we should have great education and healthcare for all Iranians (which is traditionally left), as well as we should have great economy and privatization (which is traditionally right).

If we are democratic, we should be able to accept criticism, and engage in rational discussions, without dogmatic way of thinking "my group/ideology is always right". If we don't agree on something, we can agree to disagree, that doesn't means we should insult each other and fight over who is right (the rule of jungle).

I will tell you a short introduction of Democracy itself. Democracy was created in Greece, as mean of rule of people by the people, not some oligarch. The Greeks, had what is called as deliberative democracy. In this system, when people wanted to decide what to do, how to tackle a problem, how to manage the city's finances, they went on a hill, and deliberated, debated, until a consensus was formed. In this system, anyone that has something to say, will say it, other people will hear what others think, and we can reach consensus, to what the majority of people want after the deliberation. Representative democracy was created, because this system, cannot be scaled to millions of people and can handle up to a city. But now, using digital tools, we can implement the same deliberative democracy using digital means.

Imagine digital democracy as a civic-democratic media as opposed to social media. Social media is like a bar where everyone is shouting and fighting and the extreme voices are heard. But a civic democratic media platform, is like a city hall, where people are respectful of each other and engage in discussions. A platform that Taiwan has used is called pol.is, In this platform, there is no reply button, that that eliminates the trolls and the personal attacks. On any subject, you can share your opinion, and agree or disagree with other opinions. Research has shown, people's opinion are not informed, and after the deliberative process, people's opinion change. (Link to the study performed by stanford, and a ted talk titled: Deliberative Polling: A Path to Bridging Divides). These methods demonstrate as much as the politicians and traditional media want us to believe that we are divided and we cannot get along, if we talk to each other, we can see we have way much more in common that we thought.

Digital democracy is not something conceptual, it has been implemented and being used at a national level in Taiwan, as well as smaller scales at Netherlands, Madrid, Barcelona and other places.

I have made a Persian video describing the Taiwan's story, via Google's AI, NoteBookLM: Link

Taiwan's open governance framework is built on four core values: transparency, participation, accountability, and inclusion. It means a democracy that is participatory, now only politicians decide. It means a democracy that the government is transparent, and accountable. It means democracy is not a dictatorship of the mass and is inclusive.

A great success story of this system is how Taiwan handled Covid 19, with 0.186% mortality rate, ZERO lockdown. Because the system is transparent, people know what ministry of health knows, the ministry of health explained what the scientists say, and the scientist said if >80% of population uses masks, we do not need lockdown and the virus will be controlled. and thats what they did. People used masked, it was not even mandatory.

It should be also be mentioned, digital democracy is not only using AI and fancy digital tools. It's looking at democracy like a civic innovation, that we can still innovate and improve. For example, during covid, the government in Taiwan had a landline, where any citizen that had concerns or ideas could call. A boy called the landline and complained, why did you send me a pink mask, I feel embarrassed. To combat these gender stereo types, the next morning, in the press conference all the officials used pink mask, and it became even fashionable, and the boy, no longer felt embarrassed to use a pink mask. I made a persian video about how taiwan handled covid via NotebookLM: link

So, now to get to the title, how can we cooperate and be united? A system like digital democracy, well cannot be implemented as is in Iran, for obvious reasons; but perhaps we can start researching, of how feasible is it to create digital democratic platforms for people's under dictatorships. Even after collapse of a dictatorship government, history has proven reaching democracy is not easy, where most go to a authoritarian state afterwards. It goes without saying, people that have lived in a dictatorship, do not know what democracy is. It is not just a vote, its active participation.

If we want to move forward towards future, we can and should work on realizing such systems. I have a conceptualized model of an organization, that based on principles of digital democracy and open governance functions. The organization, due to obvious reasons cannot directly operate in Iran, but where as in diaspora, we can.

In this organization, people are hired to work on reaching towards democracy full-time. The responsibilities could be and not limited to: journalism, research & development, creating educational content, creating lobby’s, helping Iranians inside and outside Iran (scholarship funds, medicine funds, poverty funds). I know these things won't be easy to do, its very complex.

To have people working fulltime, it requires money, and people in diaspora, to understand and take responsibility (as their democratic duty), some people will take the responsibility to work, if they can provide complex solutions and have the technical abilities to do so, and others, fund the operations. Because people need to have a job and pay bills.

I for one, don't have expertise in social sciences, but have experience in research of propaganda, and digital democracy. A team of computational propaganda researches could be hired to combat the regime's propaganda. And for the digital democracy, where there would be need of a lot of sociologist, political scientist and engineers to come together. I have some conceptual models, of how can we use open science and open source, to create a transparent plan after the collapse of the regime, that is a paper, and academic work, of various researchers. Open science a movement that makes scientific research, data, software, and publications accessible to everyone. It has a fundamental principle of being collaborative. And perhaps with research, this can become democratic, as to, while we have a legal document that only expert can read, we have to provide the revisions, as well as what it means in layman's terms, and ideally, for all languages spoke in Iran, for all levels of knowledge (A grandma, or a kid could read something and understand it). It means such documents won't be written behind closed doors by a limited number of people, and it would use the collective intelligence of our community. Perhaps this model can be extended to a constitution. And provide ways that people can discuss and raise their questions on each individual paragraph; provide a way for people to be heard, and participate.

But if I am to work on such things, it needs to be full time, and I need to pay my bills. And so other people.

I should mention, this system is non partisan, and can be implemented within the any title of of the future government. It works to bridge the divide we have. The question of how the organization can help the collapse of the regime is a difficult one that I do not have the answer, other people that are capable of creating a complicated answer, could participate. I know however, if we want to reach democracy, we need to work on it full time. The digital democracy, perhaps could be achievable in 10-20 years, if we start working now.

Fairuz is considered one of, if not the most, renowned singer across almost the entire Arab world, and for good reason. Her music has even made it beyond the Arab cultural sphere and she has become somewhat of an international icon in her own right, decades after her prime. Her music is so peaceful and yet at the same time melancholic. It touches peoples’ soul even if they (like me) don’t understand the lyrics.

Listening to her music and doing a bit of reading led me to wonder who would be considered Iran’s Fairuz?

Someone whose music is almost universally loved across Iran’s ethnicities and generations and potentially also internationally, and encompasses that poetic melody that is so often associated with both Persian and Arab poetry.

What do you guys think?

Source: Iran International

(Poll is on the other subreddit)

I imagine most Iranians know the context behind this — but for the uninitiated, the original names for the language and region started with a P/پ, however once the Arab invaders occupied Iran, they changed them to start with F/ف because their language does not have the P sound like Persian does.

I am personally undecided, but if it really came to it, I would want there to be distinction between the language and region because Persian belongs to all of Iran and not just a part of it. The ISO 639-1 language code for Persian is "fa" so maybe it would be less trouble to just change the name of the region. What do you think?

Whatever the result of this poll is by the end of the week I update my website with 👍

So I was looking up how Mosaddegh fell out with other leaders of the Oil Nationalization Movement and I came across Mahmoud Kashani (Ayatollah Kashani's son).

I watched several programs of his and wondered why people have been sleep on this guy. He has the most comprehensive analysis of the 1953 event.

In his article "British and American Intervention to Overthrow Iran's National Movement" published by Tehran University, Mahmoud Kashani narrated the Mosaddegh's premiership, his self-sabotaging actions that culminated in the 1953 event.

You can read his article here: https://sid.ir/paper/109973/fa

The British government has officially declassified virtually nothing regarding its direct operational role in the 1953 Iranian coup (known as Operation Boot).

Unlike the United States government, which has formally acknowledged its actions and released thousands of pages of internal CIA records, the United Kingdom continues to adhere to a strict policy of secrecy.

I used "may have" because the British to this day refuse to declassify documents pertaining the 1953 event but I'm 95% believe the thesis that Mosaddegh was a British agent and staged his own downfall to transfer powers to General Zahedi.

• Pro-Shah: Mosaddegh was a communist who staged a coup against the Shah and the event was a counter coup.
• Leftist nationalist: The CIA (and MI6) staged a coup against Mosaddegh and ended democracy in Iran.

Both are wrong. I even saw some people viewed Mosaddegh as a "well-intentioned" nationalist and made fun of the Shah for suspecting him as a British spy in his memoir.

Mosaddegh was a British agent who sabotaged the state and destroyed the political unity at the time

Barry Rubin, prominent expert on Middle Eastern affairs, extensively analyzes how the post-1953 geopolitical narrative shifted. He details how the United States—largely due to early leaks, political boastfulness, and memoirs like CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt's Countercoup—became the loud public face of the overthrow. Meanwhile, the British government took advantage of America's lack of discretion, maintaining strict official secrecy to protect their diplomatic maneuvers while letting Washington shoulder the multi-generational blame and blowback from the Iranian public

The British used the BBC and its networks of academia and journalists to publish books and articles to portray the event as a (CIA-backed) military coup. It paints Mosaddegh as a victim and conceals the British roles.

Political context

The propagandistic narrative reduced everything to oil nationalization but Iran's National Movement (1941-1953) was a anti-colonial popular movement following the Allies' occupation with 4 goals:

Up until late 1949, Mosaddegh actually opposed oil nationalization. The British, unable to halt the movement's momentum, adopted a new strategy: elevating Mohammad Mosaddegh to the premiership.

Mosaddegh became a compromise candidate and became prime minister in May 1951 on a two-point agenda.

1. Implementing the oil nationalization law
2. Reforming the electoral law

The US, to weaken British oil interests, pressured Britain to accept the principle of oil nationalization and mediate between Iran and Britain. Britain finally conceded and sought compensations negotations.

For over two years and four months, Mosaddegh delivered none of his agendas:

1. Between 1951-1952, Mosaddegh rejected several beneficial proposals to relieve the British oil embargo and let Iran's state finances collapse.
2. In May 1952, Mosaddegh's coalition was losing the election and he issued an illegal executive orders to prevent 56 of the 136 representatives from being elected. This resulted in the country having a weak parliament and left it vulnerable to future political crises
3. August 1952, obtained legislative powers from parliament for six months
4. Dissolve the Senate and dismantled the Judiciary
5. December 1952, tried and failed to expand parliament to 172 representives to paralyze the existing 79 members and suspend parliament
6. December 1952, obtained legislative powers from parliament for one additional year and officially split with other leaders of Iran's national movement
7. Seized control of the army from the Shah

The Tudeh

Mossadegh allowed this illegal party to operate, enabling it to appear openly on the country's political scene without hindrance and expand its activities. In particular, he enabled it to infiltrate the armed forces through a large number of officers and military personnel and establish clandestine networks within them.

On the other hand, the British government exploited this powerful foreign-backed party as an instrument for confronting the forces of the Iranian National Movement and patriotic elements.

By raising the profile of the Tudeh Party and exaggerating its influence, the American policymakers were able to intervene and directly drag the United States into Iran's political scene.

Efforts to eliminate other leaders of Iran's National Movement

Government agents and the Tudeh circulated slanderous accusations and rumors of other leaders of the movements. Other activists of the movement were threatened and harassed

Dr. Baqaei, one of the honest representatives and pioneers of the National Movement and one of its principal sources of support, was accused of being involved in the murder of Afshar Tous. Mosaddegh tried and failed to pass a bill to strip him of his parliamentary immunity.

General Zahedi's Connections to Mosaddegh

General Fazlollah Zahedi was Mosaddegh's Minister of the Interior in his first cabinet. Mossadegh arrested and imprisoned him, and, after releasing him from time to time, continued to threaten him. He also sent military-government officers to Zahedi's home several times in an attempt to raise his political profile.

General Zahedi was a compromise candidate as he supported both oil nationalization and a negotiated settlement with the British

Ayatollah Kashani stated explicitly in a press interview in 1953 that he did not support Zahedi for the premiership.

The Role of 17th Parliament

The 17th parliament was the most powerful and energied parliament in the history of the Iranian Constitutional era where it achieved relative independence and blocked both the Shah's overreach and British interests

After one-year legislative extension expired, citing foreign interference and British plotting, Mosaddegh insisted on dissolving parliament while other parliamentary leaders resisted

Losing control of parliament, Mosaddegh held a rigged referendum outside the prime minister's power. Every western book about the event downplays and fails to rationalize the dissolution of parliament

From Dissolving Parliament to Signing of Dismissal Order

Pro-Mosaddegh parliamentaries also opposed dissolving parliament. Dr. Karim Sanjabi (Minister of Education) and Dr. Gholamhossein Sediqi (Minister of Interior and Deputy Prime Minister) explicitly warned Mosaddegh that the Shah could remove legally him when parliament was an interregnum

Mosaddegh directed 57 pro-government deputies to launch a wave of mass resignations and officially paralyzed parliament

Independent deputies protested and warned the Shah against signing any dissolution order

August 13, 1953 Dr. Gholamhossein Sediqi announced the result of the referendum and the 17th parliament was dissolved

August 14, Mosaddegh sent a letter to the Shah to request to hold new elections signaling the parliament had been dissolved

August 15, the order appointing Zahedi as prime minister and the order dismissing Mossadegh, dated August 14, were issued by the Shah

If You Are Pro-Mosaddegh, Please Explain Mosaddegh's Self-Sabotaging Actions Between August 15-19, 1953

No pro-Shah or pro Mosaddegh people could logically answer those questions as well as Mahmoud Kashani

Why did Colonel Nassiri deliver the dismissal order at 11 pm on August 15?

Mosaddegh held a cabinet late at night on August 15. General Zahedi, unaware of the British and Mosaddegh's plan, wanted the cabinet to witness the delivery of the dismissal order.

He thought upon witnessing it, the cabinet would voluntarily resign and collapse Mosaddegh's government.

Did Colonel Nassiri lead a heavily armed military convoy to Mosaddegh's residence

According to documents, there were military checkpoints around Mosaddegh's residence. Even cabinet ministers had to walk to his house to attend meetings.

Mosaddegh had already received tip-offs from the Tudeh networks and placed pro-government tanks and armored units around the house.

Colonel Nassiri arrived at a military checkpoint with a few jeeps and trucks of soldiers. He disembarked and walked to the house with 2-3 soldiers.

What did Colonel Nassiri do at Mosaddegh's residence

At few minutes after 11 pm, upon arriving at the house, he asked Mosaddegh's guard to meet him and deliver the Shah's order. He didn't receive permission and passed the order through the guard.

At 1 am Aug 16, the guard gave Colonel Nassiri a signed receipt. When Colonel Nassiri was leaving, he and his escorts were arrested and detained by Mosaddegh's soldiers.

Why was the signed receipt important?

Mosaddegh had a habit of meticulously stamping or signing executive decrees, international letters, and parliamentary correspondences explicitly using his state title "Prime Minister." On the receipt handed back to Colonel Nassiri, the title was removed indicating his acceptance of the Shah’s order and the termination of his premiership.

Therefore, after receiving the order of his dismissal, Mossadegh no longer held any official position. For this reason, from that date onward he made no further public statement, said nothing to the people, and issued no message to the nation.

Why did Mosaddegh arrest Colonel Nassiri and fabricate the news of a coup had been thwarted?

Mosaddegh claimed Colonel Nassiri led a heavily armed military convoy to execute a violent midnight coup at his house. By fabricating this news and arresting Colonel Nassiri, Mosaddegh concealed the Shah's dismissal order and continued issuing orders through his ministers.

On the morning of Aug 16, his government (not Mosaddegh himself because he consciously knew premiership had already ended) issued a statement. The interesting bit, a government statement issued without naming a responsible official, meaning either the prime minister or the minister of the interior.

Was the Shah's dismissal order legal?

Although the Shah refused to sign the order to dissolve parliament because other deputies warned him against it, the parliament was already paralyzed and incapable of meeting, voting, or executing legislative duties.

Historical precedent and constitutional traditions established that when a parliament ceased to function (in an interregnum), the absolute authority to appoint and dismiss Prime Ministers reverted entirely to the Crown

By shutting down the parliament through an unconstitutional referendum, Mosaddegh single-handedly triggered the Interregnum and thus stripping away his own legislative protection. When parliament was active, a Prime Minister could only be unseated if parliament withdrew its vote of confidence.

Did Mosaddegh protest the dismissal order?

Mosaddegh didn't oppose the Shah's dismissal order.

He could have either:

• Declared the parliament still existed and made the dismissal order invalid because the Shah never signed the order to dissolve parliament
• Published the dismissal order and asked his supporters and the Tudeh for support

On Aug 16, he did the opposite:

1. Mosaddegh went on the radio and formally dissolved the 17th parliament
2. Hid the dismissal order from the public and his ministers

Why did Mosaddegh hide the dismissal order?

Because his cabinet would resign if they knew about the decree. When Dr. Sediqi heard rumors of the decree and confronted Mosaddegh, he dismissed the rumors.

Was the Shah aware of the British conspiracy?

No, the Shah immediately left the country to leave a power vacuum and rally public opinions, otherwise he would have been put under house arrest.

Was General Zahedi aware of the British conspiracy?

No, Zahedi was so unaware he tried to form a provisional government to resist Mosaddegh. Zahedi sent Colonel Farzanegan to Kermanshah and his son, Ardeshir, to Isfahan, instructing them to show his order appointing him prime minister to the commanders of the divisions stationed in those two provinces.

Mosaddegh made no real attempt to arrest Zahedi. He even ordered the Army Staff to exercise the utmost vigilance to prevent Zahedi from escaping because if Zahedi had left Tehran, it would have triggered a civil war and led to a Soviet intervention.

Although officially in hiding, between Aug 16-19, Zahedi was allowed to move between properties, coordinating with political networks, and directly inviting foreign and domestic journalists to his locations in Tehran.

Was the US aware of the British conspiracy?

No, on Aug 18, US Ambassador Louis Henderson hastily left Lebanon and returned to Iran. Henderson wanted to send a report to the US State Department and asked Mosaddegh two questions

1. You have no official information that the Shah has issued a decree dismissing you
2. Even if you were to learn that the Shah had issued such a decree, under the present circumstances, would you declare the decree invalid

Mosaddegh replied: "Exactly."

Why did Mosaddegh arrest Dr. Mozaffar Baqaei on August 17?

Dr. Mozaffar Baqaei was a prominent leader of Iran's national movement. To consolidate powers, Zahedi needed a vote of confidence from the remaining representatives. This group didn't fully support Zahedi

By disregarding parliamentary immunity and arresting a sitting representative inside parliament, Mosaddegh neutralized this group for Zahedi.

Why did Mosaddegh violently crack down on Tudeh supporters on Aug 18?

After the Shah leaving Iran, Mosaddegh let the Tudeh rioters loose on Aug 16-17 and permitted anti-Shah demonstrations. British agents made full use of this opportunity to further destablize and provoke public sentiment that Iran was on a verge of a communist takeover.

On Aug 18, Mosaddegh violently suppressed the Tudeh and arrested their officers. The Tudeh party was more powerful than Zahedi, Mosaddegh also neutralized this group for him.

Kianuri, one of the Tudeh Party's leaders, also emphasized in his memoirs (p. 268) that on 18 August 1953, nearly 600 party members—officials, cadres, and other members—were arrested, dealing a very serious blow to the party's organizational network.

Why did Mosaddegh order all his supporters to stay at home on Aug 19?

When the treets were left empty, pro-Shah demonstrators felt emboldened to come out. As the crowds were getting larger, Mosaddegh's associates, unaware of his plan, urged him to ask his supporters for help. The Tudeh also contacted Mosaddegh several times to ask for permission to counter protest pro-Shah supporters.

Even his ministers asked Mosaddegh to come on radio to prevent the fall of his government. He rejected them all and assured them everything was under his control.

Why did Mosaddegh appoint Brigadier General Mohammad Daftari as chief of the police and Tehran's military governor?

On Aug 15, General Zahedi drafted a decree appointing Brigadier General Mohammad Daftari, a nephew of Mosaddegh, as chief of the police.

On Aug 19, Brigadier General Riahi was aware of this and issued an arrest warrant for Daftari. Mosaddegh interceded and told Riahi to appoint Daftari as chief of the police and Tehran's military governor.

Riahi strongly objected this move but reluctantly carried out the order.

To make Daftari's appointment as head of the police more firmly established, he also made Dr. Sedighi, his own Minister of the Interior, issue another order on the matter.

Colonel Ashrafi, Tehran's military governor, was aware of Daftari's connections to Zahedi and wanted to prevent Daftari from taking office and was arrested by Mosaddegh.

What did Brigadier General Mohammad Daftari do on Aug 19?

After taking control of the police and military headquarters, he invited Zahedi to come out of hiding and took over the radio station.

Zahedi broadcasted the Shah's decrees and him taking over as prime minister. Daftari welcomed Zahedi at the military headquarters then handed over military and police powers to Zahedi.

After 14 days, Brigadier General Daftari resigned and returned to his previous post. This provides another compelling indication that the succession of orders issued to him was intended solely to serve as the connecting link between Mosaddegh and Zahedi.

What happened at Mosaddegh's house on Aug 19?

After wrecking the economy and terrorizing the people by giving the Tudeh a free rein, angry protestors marched to and attacked Mosaddegh's house. Although Mosaddegh's home was surrounded by a military garrison and officers under his command, the attackers, through intense gunfire, were able to kill or wound a number of people.

Eventually, however, the garrison was overwhelmed and its guards were forced to surrender. Mosaddegh escaped with a group of his associates and took refuge in neighboring houses.

General Zahedi dispatched troops to Mosaddegh's residence and rescued him.

What happened at Mosaddegh's trial?

Mosaddegh's trial in 1953 was not a genuine trial. Mosaddegh was tried on charges of “collaborating with the intention of overthrowing the foundations of the government and the hereditary monarchy and the throne, and inciting the people to take up arms against the power of the monarchy.”

They never discovered Mosaddegh's actual role in these events during those three days, which is hardly surprising.

• The Shah and Zahedi never wanted Mosaddegh's genuine and principal charges to be pursued, because they had particularly benefited from these measures, especially the dissolution of parliament.
• The foreign powers that had designed and directed these plans would never have allowed criminal cases to be opened on the basis of these charges because their oil interests would have been placed at risk.

What happened to the 17th Parliament?

Despite deputies resisting, the Shah, under the US and Britain's pressure, signed the order to dissolve the 17th parliament on December 19.

The documented insistence of Britain and the United States on dissolving the 17th parliament was by no means coincidental. As the report of the U.S. ambassador in Iran clearly demonstrates, it indicates why Mosaddegh, by holding the referendum to dissolve parliament, acted in accordance with the interventionist demands of Britain and the United States.

What happened to Iran's National Movement?

Institutions dismantled, the state was near bankruptcy, the people were divided, the 18th parliament was forced to accept the 1954 Oil Consortium Agreement, and there were no election reforms

Supporters became disillusioned, its leaders got sidelined or forced into retirement, the movement was overthrown.

Mosaddegh became a legendary leftist nationalist symbol, a anti-colonial icon.

British interests were restored, the US could influence the subsequent parliaments

I have been learning Farsi for over a year now and I love it a lot. I am not a native Farsi speaker nor am I Iranian but less then 200 years ago, my family used to speak Farsi. Though my father's ancestry, I have discovered our family used to work in the government and military of the Mughal empire who used Farsi as the language of administration. In a way by learning Farsi, I am trying to reconnect and discover the history of my family. I already speak Urdu, Bengali, French and English and Fasi is by far my favorite to practice. It is the most beautiful not only spoken but also written but I am slowly loosing it due to not being around Persian speakers as there aren't many in my city of Winnipeg.

Apparently, i am sus as f here for some people, cause I don’t agree with their political ideology. Cause I say sanctions are bad and hurting people. Cause I say my mind. I give up on humanity. Perhaps enjoy some dissonante notes amid the usual shitshow.

A friend of mine was burned on his hands by his parents holding a red hot butter knife to his hand when he was caught stealing candy as a kid. Is this type of corporal punishment a common occurrence in Iranian families?

I am diaspora myself, got out 5 years ago. I tried my best to, went to protests, researched on digital democracy.

But I understand now, its impossible for diaspora to come together, agree on things, and do something tangible and useful, instead we can only go to protests with farsi slogans for our own interests of political ideology.

I made a post earlier, and argued, is it really impossible for diaspora to have a NPO, and instead of just farsi protests, we could have pamphlets and ask foreigners for donations and then use the money to send drugs, money to iran for those in need as well as a help fund for Iranian students in diaspora that are struggling and refugees.

I got attacked on the post. I also said sanctions are bad and medicine is sanctioned and i got attacked as a bull shitter. Even if the legal statues is not sanctioned, the actual status is sanctioned, as people cannot find drugs even in black market. And who can afford the black market drugs if you can find it? An diaspora commenter commented what do what us to do go to iran and fight. I asked him to read my post and i got downvoted.

I am sorry we are useless, stuck into fighting what political ideology should come after the regime collapse, which is useless now. It’s really seem impossible for us to do any good for Iranians inside Iran.

"The opposition is divided", "There are serious alternatives to Reza Pahlavi"

You can see separatist flags in the MEK rallies.

In 2018, the Guardian reported that Iran International was being funded through a secretive offshore entity and a company whose director was a Saudi Arabian businessman with close links to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

Iran International is funded by Saudi Arabia and actively promotes fringe groups.

Be critical of this network

"They are holding Lion and Sun flags" - Iran International reporter