A Revolution Could Soon Be Under Way in Iran

[Blank]

There might be a really minor argument that Rashidun Caliphate(s) were not monarchies, but after that the Umayaad and Abbasids were just Islamic versions of the "divinely anointed ruler" shtick.

I would even classify Rashidun Caliphate as a monarchy since the actual rulers were the ones that selected the Imams for shura. But it is a bit of a sidetrack.

 

[smartcooky]

There might be a really minor argument that Rashidun Caliphate(s) were not monarchies, but after that the Umayaad and Abbasids were just Islamic versions of the "divinely anointed ruler" shtick.

Disagree. Divinely anointed rulers (i.e. Caliphs) are still Kings in every way but name - they merely use divinely appointed succession instead of primogeniture.

I would even classify Rashidun Caliphate as a monarchy since the actual rulers were the ones that selected the Imams for shura.

Agree.

Of course, the caliphs themselves were not subject to shura, and although some might argue that their system laid the foundation for the election of leaders, later caliphates still relied on hereditary succession like, ahem, monarchs.

 

[angrysoba]

Disagree. Divinely anointed rulers (i.e. Caliphs) are still Kings in every way but name - they merely use divinely appointed succession instead of primogeniture.

The point is that they were not Persian (or at least not for many years). Iran was a territory of the Caliphate, so the idea that there was an "unbroken monarchy" for 2500 years is nonsense. It is in fact a nationalist myth that Mohammed Reza Pahlavi held a massive jamboree for at Persepolis in 1971. The event itself seems to have tried to overplay how much the previous 2500 years had been truly Persian and downplay how much it had been subject to Arab, Turkish and Mongol invasions and subjugation, presumably to lend legitimacy to the Shah, who himself was merely the son of a usurper of the Qajar dynasty.

In fact, Reza Shah apparently wanted to set up a republic himself, modelled on Attaturk's Turkey, but was dissuaded from it by a number of actors, allegedly including the British.

 

[smartcooky]

This is not an economic protest as the BBC are still calling it. This looks and sounds like a full on revolution.

The Iranian government has shut down phone services and the internet to stop information getting out - that's a sure sign that the Revolutionary Guard are going to start a wholesale slaughter of dissenters.

 

[dudalb]

The Iranian government is trying to shut down the internet because of it;s use by the protestors.
I guess the attitude of the Iranian regime is the old joke"

'The People are revolting1"
"They certainly are".

 

[dudalb]

Hopefully this will make some on the militant Left take a second look at their de facto alliance with. Islamic Militants.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

As with all current regimes, the Internet is as much a tool for organizing protests as it is for surveillance. Shutting it down is a drastic step.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

What is being ignored, it seems, is that there are plenty of factions in Iran way more belligerent than the current one. And they are usually more cohesive and better organized than any possible pro -Democracy alliance

 

[angrysoba]

This is not an economic protest as the BBC are still calling it.This looks and sounds like a full on revolution.

The Iranian government has shut down phone services and the internet to stop information getting out - that's a sure sign that the Revolutionary Guard are going to start a wholesale slaughter of dissenters.

According to Wikipedia...

The wave of protests was sparked by a rapidly worsening economic situation. Inflation had surged to 48.6% in October 2025 and 42.2% in December, straining household budgets.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025–present_Iranian_protests#cite_note-:5-26"><span>[</span>21<span>]</span></a> On December 29, the Iranian rial reached its lowest value (1.45 million to the US dollar), then by January 3, the government increased the value of the rial to 1.38 million in an attempt to control the people.
This had no effect, and on January 6, the rial broke its record low again (reaching 1.5 million to the US dollar), causing a sharp increase in prices, including of food and other essential goods.

So it isn't wrong to say these were protests about the economy. But the BBC says on its website that people have become increasingly vocal about being anti-regime.

Link

 

[Darat]

This is not an economic protest
as the BBC are still calling it. This looks and sounds like a full on revolution.

The Iranian government has shut down phone services and the internet to stop information getting out - that's a sure sign that the Revolutionary Guard are going to start a wholesale slaughter of dissenters.

Your news provider says:

Iran's economic woes ignited the current wave of unrest after traders at Tehran's Grand Bazaar went on strike when the rial plummeted to historic lows against the dollar.​

​

The current live report page the BBC is using to follow the story says:

The protests, which began in Tehran on 28 December, were sparked by the collapse of the Iranian currency - since then human rights groups say demonstrations have spread to dozens of other cities​

The BBC says in their Islamist lefty woke madness that the protests were "sparked" whereas the totally objective, are-we-a-news-or--entertainment-channel-this-week said "ignited".

Totally different - the BBC needs to be disbanded for its obvious bias.

 

[Darat]

According to Wikipedia...



So it isn't wrong to say these were protests about the economy. But the BBC says on its website that people have become increasingly vocal about being anti-regime.

Link

As you can see above Smartcooky's news provider GB News also says it was economics which started the protests.

One would almost think there was a bias showing...