Unfortunately in a place that there are some people in Iran and they want to hide or "mast mali" chemical revenge attack on school girls in Islamic Republic of Iran's schools with their books are approved by the system their teachers are trained by the system and the government pays for most of education and the teachers.
For last 40 years Iran's message to the world was Iraq during 80s used chemical attacks against civilians and military of both Iran and Iraq population and now some morons in the light of day doing these things in their place of education and get away with it like the walk in a park.*
If military grade WMD are used, the impact will be "slightly" different from what transpired in Iran as of late, that is school girls feeling dizzy for a couple of hours and quickly recovering afterwards. You may confidently take this to the bank.
Moreover there's no evidence that someone was carrying out "revenge attacks" in broad daylight. Considering the frequency of these incidents at least one perpetrator would have been sighted by eye witnesses, who'd then have filmed the suspect(s) with their mobile phones. Before you know it the internet would've been flooded with corresponding images.
There's no
māst māli involved when international medical experts opine that this was a typical phenomenon of mass psychosis, for which there are multiple quasi identical precedents the world over. If some people only cared to read up on these precedents in earnest. Next door in Afghanistan for instance, the very same sort of incidents have been taking place uninterruptedly for numerous years now. The UN, which certainly does not harbor any favorable bias towards the Taleban, dispatched its own teams of investigators and their conclusion was that there's no evidence for poisoning. Reports to this effect proved thus unreliable and tendentious.
We've had a non-Iranian physician specializing in the field, who carefully studied publicly available information relating to the dossier, sign up on PDF and inform us in this very thread not only about his findings but also about the censorship his work had been subjected to in mainstream media. This onto itself ought to tell us a lot.
Also the case of National-Socialist Germany you cited in illustration of ostracism and persecution of ethnic / religious minorities is quite disconnected from whatever semantics some may have used in Iran to designate either actual counter-revolutionaries or mild critics. The Islamic Republic by virtue of its principled anti-imperialist stance has been and will be bound to face raging hostility from imperialist enemies, which will not be without a certain impact on Iranian society. Security imperatives will be different for the Iranian government and potential threats won't be taken too lightly, understandably so. Which might reflect itself in the language and general mindset of those tasked with upholding national security as well as law and order. This however has never and will never result in people being systematically arrested and locked up in camps based on their sole "ethno"-linguistic or religious backgrounds, nor anything of the sort. These situations aren't comparable, really.
On a sidenote, I'd advocate using historic examples from regions closer to us. The WW2-centric worldview, which intends to turn that page of mainly European history into an exclusive universal benchmark by which every contemporary occurrence is to be measured (and ethically judged) no matter how inoperative the historic analogy, is in fact part and parcel of the zio-American empire's instruments of dominance. It is used by them as an object of neuro-linguistic programming.
No, which is the source of most problems.
You can't elect people who have different thought processes, ideas and methods of governance. Naturally, many people who no longer have faith in the system just leave the country.
Sometimes you insult the country, okay it is what it is, lets look at the positives that can be found between our countries. One of the things about Turkey is its system of governance is adaptable to changes, right now you can vote for Kilicdaroglu, and push the country to a completely new direction (assuming no sketchy business is taking place in the elections). Such a thing doesn't exist in Iran, it is like voting for Putin or Putins best buddy Medvedev.
Actually political pluralism in Iran is far more pronounced compared to the prevailing norm in so-called "democracies" of the west or Turkey for that matter.
In the Islamic Republic one of two main factional groupings, namely the camp made of reformists and moderates, intends to entirely do away with the current political system and to put an end to the existing constitutional order from within, Gorbachev-style. Their values and political convictions - unfettered economical as well as social-cultural liberalism, creeping proclivity for secularism, blind admiration for anything western and obsession about "normalizing" ties with Washington, are diametrically opposed to the very pillars of the Islamic Republic's founding ideology.
No need to go into details I would assume, since assiduous observers of Iranian politics over the years paid attention to the discourse and policies emanating leading moderate figures such as Rafsanjani or Rohani as well assorted reformists, so those observers will necessarily be aware of the fact.
Whereas not a single liberal so-called "democracy" has to contend with a situation where one of its two main governing parties is pursuing an implicit agenda to topple the political order through institutional means. The day on which either the Democrats or the Republicans set out to conform to an agenda defined by authorities in Tehran and to steer the United States into that direction, is when the American system of governance will officially become as pluralistic as the Islamic Republic.
That the Islamic Republic, thanks its founders' extraordinary foresight has a series of built-in institutional safeguards in place which make it difficult for infiltrated elements to disrupt the system from the inside, might have caused liberals to fail at bringing their subversive agenda to its intended conclusion. However, it does not imply that views held by said liberals aren't in stark contrast with the tenets embodied by revolutionary and principlist factions, nor that political alternance through elections is any less substantial than it effectively is, i.e. a whole lot more than elsewhere.
When people get poorer and poorer everyday due to currency devaluation coupled with foreign cultural penetration against IR, that sentiment will change very quickly. Especially when the older generations are no longer alive who are notably more Pro-IR than the younger generations.
Soon youth will as good as disappear from Iranian society due to the steep demographic downward slope the country happens to be engaged on. Iranians are already having fewer children than the French, which is pretty telling. Fewer people under 30 years of age = fewer manipulable hotheads volunteering to confront security forces, fewer buyers to be found for pseudo-insurgent romanticism peddled by enemy-controlled mass media.
From this perspective, time's actually running out for the anti-IR crowd.
This is what happens with every revolution. The originals, the OGs eventually gone and are periodically replaced by lesser believers until the people ruling the system themselves are not particularly interested in defending it. The Soviet Union would have never failed had the mentality of the OGs of the 1920s were still around in the 1980s. They would still be here today.
Well, a number of revolutions (in Cuba, Korea, Iran to name a couple) have weathered these stages with functioning generational succession all the while of displaying impressive degrees of resilience to outside pressure.
In fact some western analysts have come to the realization that revolutionary systems like the Islamic Republic of Iran are actually among the world's most stable, and that crises only strengthen them, contrary to the impression created by the empire's ongoing and very real antagonism.
Among these sharp observers is the author of the following paper published in the "New York Times" less than two years ago (some of the usual propagandistic concepts resorted to against the IR notwithstanding):
Governments rooted in revolution like Tehran’s have proved to be among the world’s most stable, even drawing strength from crises.
www.nytimes.com
