I was referring to the Iranian nation-state.
There's no evidence that Shahkarami was killed by Iranian law enforcement. That's what NATO regimes and their media mouthpieces pretend, you're rehashing their accusations.
Also those rioters you refer to as protesters, who murdered over 60 law enforcement personnel, may be Iranians but they're objectively acting against the stability and safety of their nation, whether they realize it or not.
You may conduct some research to find out more. Masonry being a secret society, does not mean it doesn't exist.
I did not incriminate any of the leaders you mentioned. But it doesn't imply masonry isn't promoting secularism as well.
Also President Bashar al-Assad of Syria definitely does not share your ideas about Islamic Iran, nor did his late father Hafez al-Assad. Hence why Syria entered a strategic relationship with Tehran. Cuba has also had very good mutual relations with the Islamic Republic, featuring delightful episodes such as Iran jamming USA satellite signals from Cuban soil.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/media-july-dec03-jamming_07-17
View attachment 904219
Time to act like those leaders you cite.
They sabotaged Iran's nuclear facilities with explosive materials, namely the centrifuge assembly center at Natanz. They murdered several Iranian nuclear scientists. They sanctioned Islamic Iran under the nuclear pretext. Which of course makes your definition of "support" rather bizarre.
As for direct military aggression, I addressed this already: Iran has sufficient deterrence power to make any such move by NATO or the zionist regime too costly for the latter. Syria and Iraq did not benefit from such a capability. Hence why Syria relied on significant Iranian and Russian assistance for survival, and why Iraq was dependent on full fledged support from both global power blocs of the time to be able to fight Iran.
By the way, Isra"el" isn't simply NATO's local enforcer. The zionists largely dominate western regimes.
This is a fabrication.
Untruth as well. Note that the source is a zionist regime official, I'm at a loss as to how it could be deemed credible. Moreover, the person citing the zionist official is known to be close to the western-absolving reformist faction in Iran.
Also, something of this nature (Isra"el"i planes landing in Iran) would not have gone unnoticed. It's gibberish.
A proxy war erupted between Iran and the zionist entity as a result of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, since Islamic Iran immediately began backing Palestinian factions. The Islamic Revolution was of completely anti-zionist orientation. Imam Khomeini (rA.a.) had consistently denounced the relationship between the toppled monarchy and the zionist occupation regime. This was in fact one of the main reasons behind the 15th Khordad uprising of 1963, when the Imam (rA.a.) for the first time openly denounced the western-backed shah as an illegitimate ruler and called for his overthrow.
Other than taking over the USA's so-called embassy and arresting the spies working there, with the exception of women and Black Americans though, who were permitted to leave, Iran shut down the diplomatic representation which the shah had allowed Tel Aviv to operate in Tehran. It was replaced with a Palestinian one. Isra"el"is present in Iran fled as quickly as they could (one of the slogans of Islamic revolutionaries was: "if you see a Jew, protect them. If you see a zionist, kill them"). The head of the local zionist network, Habibollah Elqanian, was sentenced to capital punishment and executed.
The Islamic Republic and the zionist occupation regime were and have always been enemies.
Where should I start?
Let's go back to Leon Trotsky himself. After being banished from the USSR and eventually settling in Mexico, he deposed before the House Un-American activities against the leaders of the Communist Party of the United States of America, namely Earl Browder and William Foster. Many NATO-aligned elements can be found among Troskyists in general. Including the Trotskyist opposition to the revolutionary government of Venezuela.
The Sino-American strategic cooperation consecutive to the Sino-Soviet split offers another set of examples. Washington and Beijing were then aligned for some time on their Southeast Asian policy, not least in their joint backing of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
A third set of cases is that of the CIA's promotion of so-called "cultural Marxism" and "Freudo-Marxist" currents, in line with capitalism's tilt towards societal liberalism post-WW2 and especially since the late 1960's. In reality, the 1968 student movements served the interests of capital and thus of its political super-structure, NATO. As Michel Clouscard masterfully demonstrated, capitalism's continued expansion after WW2 presupposed the propagation of an ideology of desire.
Feminism falls under the same category. Which is why certain feminist figures didn't shy away from admitting to their cooperation with the CIA:
This whole issue is well understood by what I'd describe as the authentic, intelligent left. It realizes how the CIA has been cultivating a fake left in pursuit of its agenda. Imperialist powers have a long history of engineering fake opposition with the aim of delegitimizing actual opposition in the eyes of its (potential) constituency. This kind of subversion was theorized by a British military officer in the context of the UK regime's attempts to squash the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya.
And since the talk was about Iran, let's add these supposed "warriors against NATO", the MKO terrorist cult:
View attachment 904211
View attachment 904212
View attachment 904213
View attachment 904215
View attachment 904214
Just eight months ago, John Bolton told members of a cult-like Iranian exile group that "before 2019" they would be ruling Iran.
theintercept.com
Although the MKO leadership no longer believes in a coherent ideology, they have their roots on the left, still indoctrinate their rank and file with "Marxist" theory and continue to be classified on the left.
And here's a prominent Iranian feminist known for the campaign she launched - out of an upscale mansion in Washington D.C. acquired thanks to funds she receives from the USA regime, inciting female Iranians to violate the dress code and remove their hejab in public. Admire the wonderful "progressivist frontline fighter against NATO":
https://www.rfi.fr/en/international...n-rights-activists-praises-women-s-revolution
U.S. President Joe Biden on Thursday vowed to "free" Iran, and said that demonstrators working against the country's government would soon succeed in freeing themselves.
www.reuters.com
But of course, the NATO proxy "is the Islamic Republic", whilst its opponents are "resisting NATO" - in friendly photo shoots and meetings with NATO officials!
Given the above, you just re-defined the terms friend and foe.
Is this what I claimed?
How does it invalidate my points?
The Islamic Republic of Iran took shape as the result of a popular revolution. The Iranian people chose the Islamic Republic in a referendum. Its constitution was also legitimized by a referendum. There's was no forcible takeover, therefore.
The Islamic Revolution under the leadership of Imam Khomeini (rA.a.) overthrew the archetype of a USA vassal regime, that of the last shah Mohammad-Reza Pahlavi, who owed his throne to the 1953 CIA coup against then Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq. The Americans were booted out of Iran in 1979, their spy den (so-called embassy) neutralized, their businesses shut down, their military advisers expelled and so on.
Your contention is literally inverting historic reality. And it's a baseless claim, not substantiated by any evidence.
So you are saying Musharraf sending forces into Lal Masjid in 2007 to clear out the filths there presents you the reason to say that Mushy shouldn't have done that but also this "Khawarij" shouldn't exist. Me confusee.
