Mullahs Ruined Progressive Iran by Rohan Khanna India

The discussion critically examines the current geopolitical landscape, particularly the ongoing conflict between Iran and Israel and its broader implications. The dialogue touches upon the historical context of Israel’s creation and its comparison to the formation of Pakistan, both established on religious grounds. It also explores the impact of clerical rule in Iran, contrasting the perceived prosperity under the Shah with the current regime’s restrictions and the resulting public discontent. Furthermore, the conversation questions the narrative surrounding the Israel-Arab conflict, suggesting it is more of a racial issue than a religious one, while also expressing disdain for Western influence and the perceived hypocrisy in international relations.

Iran-Israel War: Nuclear Fears, History, and Regional Politics

The ongoing situation in the Middle East includes a full-fledged war between Iran and Israel, which is described as a “great catastrophe”.

Here’s a breakdown of the conflict and related perspectives:

• Nuclear Concerns
• Benjamin Netanyahu has expressed concern that if Iran possessed nuclear capability and its missiles were equipped with nuclear weapons, the consequences for the world would be unimaginable.
• There is a broader debate about whether nuclear weapons are the right of every country or should remain the monopoly of major powers.
• The concept of using atomic energy for the benefit of mankind, such as utilizing the heat generated from fission, was the basis for Dr. Abdul Salam’s Nobel Prize. It’s noted that an atom bomb’s explosion requires a specific mechanism, such as two missiles hitting the atom.
• Historical Context and US Role
• During a past Arab-Israel war, Iran and Saudi Arabia notably stopped the supply of petrol to Israel.
• This action by the Shah of Iran was viewed as a “betrayal” by the United States.
• According to memories attributed to the US ambassador in Tehran, the ambassador himself was involved in actions against the Shah, who was reportedly punished for halting petrol supply to Israel.
• The sources claim that Israel was created by Britain and America. The creation of Pakistan, a state formed in the name of religion by Britain and America, is mentioned as a historical justification to counter arguments against Israel being a state based on religion. It’s suggested that if Pakistan, created under the British Act of Parliament, is accepted, then Israel should also be accepted.
• Nature of the Conflict and Perceptions of Israel
• The issue between Israel and Arabs is characterized by one speaker as not an issue of Islam, but primarily a racial issue of the Arabs.
• Despite this, there is strong hatred towards Israel among some people. The Quran is cited as stating that “O Muslims, those who are Judos can never be your friends”.
• Israel is described by some media as a “naughty child” that troubles everyone. Israel is also accused of committing atrocities and killing many people in Gaza.
• Iran’s Internal Situation and the Cleric Rule
• The current conflict is seen by some as part of a larger plan for a “Greater Israel,” which is considered practically impossible.
• The sources heavily criticize the current cleric rule in Iran, stating that “Mullahs ruined progressive Iran”.
• It is suggested that if the cleric rule ends, the entire Iranian nation would rejoice. People reportedly touch their ears in dismay when thinking about what the Maulvis (clerics) have done.
• The Shah of Iran’s era is remembered fondly as the “Paris of Asia,” characterized by low costs and significant development like the construction of flyovers. Iranians are described as longing for that time, with people even keeping old currency notes bearing the Shah’s picture.
• The current clerics are accused of having “broken all the records” of oppression, even surpassing the Savak (secret police under the Shah), and of killing people over minor incidents, such as a girl’s headscarf coming off.
• The younger generation in Iran reportedly questions why older generations did not protest the clerics when they took power.
• Pakistan’s Stance
• Pakistan currently does not accept Israel, despite having no shared borders or direct connections.
• It is suggested that Pakistan is waiting for the Saudi government to accept Israel before it does.
• Concerns exist that acceptance of Israel could lead to significant public unrest or “ruckus” within Pakistan.
• Path to Peace
• Some countries have announced the importance of maintaining peace.
• The welfare of the people is seen as achievable through compromise.

US Foreign Policy and Middle East Geopolitics

Based on the sources, US foreign policy is depicted as highly influential, strategic, and at times, interventionist, particularly concerning the Middle East.

Here’s a breakdown of key aspects:

• Role in State Creation and Justification:
• The US, along with Britain, is stated to have created Israel. This creation was reportedly a point of contention, as it was a “state in the name of religion”.
• To counter this criticism, the US (and Britain) are said to have created Pakistan as another state “in the name of religion”. This was part of a strategic justification, where Roosevelt allegedly wrote to Churchill during World War II, stating that for US help, Britain needed to conquer India and create two “military states”. Pakistan was thus formed under the British Act of Parliament, serving to justify Israel’s existence as a religiously-based state by demonstrating the creation of a Muslim state as well.
• Punitive Measures and Non-Forgiveness of “Betrayal”:
• US foreign policy does not “forgive” what it perceives as “betrayals”.
• A significant example given is Henry Kissinger’s alleged threats to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Shah of Iran, and Faisal. These threats were reportedly a direct consequence of Iran and Saudi Arabia stopping petrol supplies to Israel during a past Arab-Israel war. The source claims that Kissinger “blew away all three of them”.
• Specifically concerning Iran, the US ambassador in Tehran is alleged to have been directly involved in actions against the Shah, whom the US “punished” for halting petrol supply to Israel. This punishment is described metaphorically as the “landlord” sending a “henchman” to “beat him with shoes”.
• Intervention and Strategic Manipulation:
• The sources suggest a US strategy of “using the governments of all the Muslim countries” and “the clerics” for its own objectives, citing Afghanistan as an example.
• Regarding Iran, it is controversially suggested that the rise of the clerics (Mullahs) who replaced the Shah was “part of the plan” orchestrated by the US, potentially alongside Russia and Britain, despite the subsequent anti-American sentiment. The US ambassador in Tehran is implicated in actions against the Shah, reportedly supporting those against him and punishing him.
• The conflict between Iran and Israel is seen by some as part of a larger, though “not practically possible,” plan for a “Greater Israel”.
• Influence and Future Considerations:
• The US exerts significant influence, as evidenced by the importance placed on a “call from the byte house” (White House) for leaders like Pakistan’s Prime Minister.
• In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian issue, the sources mention that America has “so much money” to potentially resettle Palestinians in other Muslim countries like Jordan and Egypt.
• It is also cryptically stated that “America will set up a super college in the future”, hinting at a continued, significant US presence or strategic involvement in the region.
• In the current Iran-Israel war, the “status of America is in front of you on the surface,” with suggestions that “their nuclear potential has been destroyed”, implying US involvement or impact on Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

The Double Standard of Religious States: Israel and Pakistan

The sources discuss “religious states” primarily in the context of the creation of both Israel and Pakistan by Britain and America, and the subsequent implications and perceptions surrounding them.

Here’s a breakdown of the concept of religious states as presented in the sources:

• Creation of Religious States by the US and Britain:
• Israel was explicitly created by Britain and America as a “state in the name of religion”. This creation initially faced questions because of its religious basis.
• To counteract the criticism of Israel being a state formed on religious grounds, Pakistan was also created by Britain and America “in the name of religion”. The stated rationale was that during World War II, Roosevelt told Churchill that for US help, Britain needed to conquer India and create two “military states.” Pakistan was thus formed under the British Act of Parliament to serve as a justification, demonstrating that “not just Israel, we have created Pakistan also in the name of religion, both the states in the name of religion”.
• Arguments and Perceptions Regarding Religious States:
• A key argument presented is that if Pakistan, a state created under the British Act of Parliament by Britain and America, is accepted, then Israel should also be accepted. The sources question why Pakistan fights with Israel, given there are “neither borders nor any connection” between them, yet Pakistan accepts its own creation by Britain.
• Pakistan is described as a country that “run[s] our country in the name of religion” and “defend[s] our country which was formed in the name of religion”.
• The “two nationalist view” in Pakistan, often associated with its religious foundation, is questioned in the context of historical atrocities, specifically the killing of “38 lakh people” by “Islamic taba, Al Bad and Shams” (referring to events during the Bangladesh Liberation War). The speaker ponders what kind of “nationalist view” allows for such killings.
• Political and Diplomatic Stance on Religious States:
• Pakistan currently does not accept Israel, despite having no direct shared borders or connections. It is suggested that Pakistan is “waiting for the Saudi government to accept” Israel before it does.
• There are concerns that if Pakistan were to accept Israel, it could lead to significant “public unrest” or “ruckus” within the country.
• Religious Sentiment and Conflict:
• Despite the issue between Israel and Arabs being characterized by one speaker as “not an issue of Islam, it is a racial issue of the Arabs,” there is “a lot of hatred” towards Israel among some people.
• The Quran is cited as stating: “O Muslims, those who are Judos can never be your friends”. This suggests a religious basis for animosity in some interpretations.

In summary, the sources portray religious states as entities whose creation by Western powers was intertwined with strategic justifications and which continue to generate complex political, identity, and conflict dynamics.

Pakistan: Created, Questioned, and Contradictory Legitimacy

Pakistan’s legitimacy is discussed in the sources primarily through the lens of its creation by Britain and America as a “religious state” and its subsequent acceptance (or non-acceptance of others) on the global stage.

Here’s a breakdown of how Pakistan’s legitimacy is portrayed:

• Creation as a “Religious State” and Strategic Justification:
• Pakistan was created by Britain and America “in the name of religion”.
• This was part of a larger strategic move during World War II, where Roosevelt allegedly told Churchill that for US help, Britain needed to “conquer India and create two states here for us, making them military states”.
• The creation of Pakistan served as a justification for Israel’s existence, which was also a “state in the name of religion.” The argument presented was: “sir, not just Israel, we have created Pakistan also in the name of religion, both the states in the name of religion”.
• Pakistan was formed under the “British Act of Parliament”. The sources explicitly state there was “no connection of any Jana Saheb Gandhi or Nehru in this nor is there any name of any actual parliament” in its creation, implying it was a colonial construct.
• Internal Critique and the “Two Nationalist View”:
• The sources mention that Pakistan “run[s] our country in the name of religion” and “defend[s] our country which was formed in the name of religion”.
• However, the “two nationalist view” in Pakistan is sharply questioned in the context of historical atrocities. The speaker asks, “which two nationalist view is this sir, under which you killed 38 lakh people,” referring to killings by “Islamic taba, Al Bad and Shams” (groups mentioned in relation to the Bangladesh Liberation War). This implies a critique of the moral legitimacy of the state’s foundation when such violence occurred under its purported religious/nationalist ideology.
• International Acceptance and Hypocrisy:
• A central argument posed by the sources is that “if you accept Pakistan created by Britain and America, then accept Israel”. This highlights what is perceived as a hypocrisy in Pakistan’s foreign policy, as it does not accept Israel despite both states being created “in the name of religion” by the same powers.
• The sources question Pakistan’s conflict with Israel, stating, “what is your fight with Israel, neither do you share borders nor do you have any connection, you do not accept Israel for no reason”.
• Pakistan is currently waiting for the Saudi government to accept Israel before it does. There are concerns that accepting Israel could lead to “significant public unrest” or “ruckus” within Pakistan.
• The importance of international recognition and influence is also hinted at, with references to Pakistani leadership longing for a “call from the byte house” (White House).

In summary, the sources portray Pakistan as a state whose legitimacy is tied to its unconventional, religion-based creation by external powers (Britain and America). While it is accepted as a state, its moral and political consistency are questioned due to historical events and its stance on Israel, especially given the shared, religiously-motivated origins of both nations.

The Clerics’ Grip: Iran’s Ruin and Foreign Influence

The influence of Mullahs (clerics) is presented in the sources primarily through their significant role in Iran, their alleged manipulation by external powers, and the profound impact they have had on Iranian society.

Here’s a discussion of their influence:

• Role in Iran’s Political Shift and Alleged External Orchestration:
• The sources suggest that the rise of the clerics (Mullahs) who replaced the Shah in Iran was “part of the plan” orchestrated by America, Russia, and Britain. This implies that their ascendance to power was not merely an internal uprising but potentially a strategically engineered outcome by major global powers.
• It is alleged that the US ambassador in Tehran was directly involved, supporting those against the Shah and effectively “punish[ing]” the Shah for halting petrol supplies to Israel. This suggests that the Mullahs’ rise was facilitated, if not directly engineered, by American foreign policy objectives.
• Negative Impact on Iran and Suppression of Freedoms:
• The clerics are accused of having “ruined progressive Iran”.
• Under their rule, “all the records” of suppression have been broken, surpassing even the Savak (the Shah’s intelligence agency). It is stated that “if a person speaks even a little, he is blown away,” and a “tabaaya has spread in Iran”.
• The sources suggest that the clerics have caused immense “destruction” in Iran, specifically mentioning the decline of the Iranian currency which was once among the highest in the world. This stands in stark contrast to Iran during the Shah’s time, which was described as the “Paris of Asia” and a place of prosperity.
• The Mullahs are blamed for the killing of people over minor issues, such as a girl’s head covering coming off, leading to widespread destruction and deaths.
• Public Perception and Desire for Their Removal:
• There is a strong sentiment expressed that the “entire Iranian nation will come out in joy” if the rule of these clerics were to end. People are said to “touch their ears to hear what these Maulvis have done there”.
• Younger generations in Iran reportedly question older people why they did not resist the clerics when they rose to power, given the current suffering and abuses.
• The speaker expresses a personal wish to witness “the funeral procession of these clerics to come out and end there,” believing that “Iranians are crazy” with joy at the prospect.
• Strategic Utility by External Powers:
• Beyond Iran, America is stated to have “used the governments of all the Muslim countries, [and] used the clerics” for its own objectives, citing Afghanistan as an example. This indicates that the influence of clerics is not confined to internal governance but is also a tool that global powers leverage for strategic purposes in the broader Muslim world.

By Amjad Izhar
Contact: amjad.izhar@gmail.com
https://amjadizhar.blog

Affiliate Disclosure: This blog may contain affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you click on the link and make a purchase. This comes at no additional cost to you. I only recommend products or services that I believe will add value to my readers. Your support helps keep this blog running and allows me to continue providing you with quality content. Thank you for your support!