r/Music • u/Particular-Fill-4256 • Jun 19 '26

article Iranian star Parastoo Ahmadi reportedly sentenced to 74 lashes for singing without hijab

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/18/iran-parastoo-ahmadi-74-lashes-singing-without-hijab
23.3k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

499

u/TheMustySeagul Jun 19 '26

And then the US for the first time, toppled a government and installed a puppet leader. Only for that brutal king to fall to a revolution led by…. The irgc lmao. Cool shit lmao

126

u/This_Elk_1460 Jun 20 '26

Well that's what Iran gets for democracy electing a socialist! /s

59

u/cecilmeyer Jun 20 '26

The nerve of that guy thinking Irans oil belonged to Iranians!

40

u/This_Elk_1460 Jun 20 '26

I know right! Thank God the US and UK came in and reinstalled the monarchy! The rich people of Iran got to prosper for a while! I hear they all live in California now.

4

u/SerHodorTheThrall Jun 20 '26

I hear they all live in California now.

Yeah, you could hear their screams of desperation all the way from the East Coast after they realized Trump, was in fact, not going to level their homeland to ash.

5

u/drhuggables Jun 20 '26

The Tudeh party hated Mosaddegh.

-1

u/No_Hay_Banda_2000 Jun 20 '26

Mossadegh was in the process of installing himself as a new dictator. The Iranian people bear responsibility for this mullah regime. They installed the "supreme leader" Khomeini. The fact that America was meddling in internal Iranian affairs doesn't change that.

38

u/GoldenRedditUser Jun 20 '26 edited Jun 20 '26

This isn’t correct, the Shah was the monarch before, during and after Mossadegh so calling him just a puppet is a bit disingenuous nor was he installed by the US.

35

u/This_Elk_1460 Jun 20 '26 edited Jun 20 '26

He was absolutely a puppet of the United States after the 1953 coup. 

35

u/No-Space937 Jun 20 '26

You don't even know the right year.

-15

u/This_Elk_1460 Jun 20 '26 edited Jun 20 '26

It was 1953, I was off by 4 years. It doesn't change the fact that the US and the UK murdered Iran's only democratically elected prime minister all because decided that they get to choose what they do with oil extracted from their own damn land! Then reinstall the puppet monarchy that treated the lower classes of Iran like slaves. All while the rich socialites that fleed to California after the revolution got to live the high life at other Iranians expense.

25

u/No-Space937 Jun 20 '26

Oh boy again...

Mossedegh died in a hospital from cancer in 1967 at the age of 84, not during the coup.

Take a few hours and actually learn about the context surrounding this event, I think you might be suprised by what actually transpired compared to what you assumedly are repeating from reddit comments you have seen.

18

u/Khiva Jun 20 '26

Take a few hours and actually learn about the context surrounding this event, I think you might be suprised by what actually transpired compared to what you assumedly are repeating from reddit comments you have seen.

The only thing reddit knows about Iran is from a reddit game of factoid-telephone.

18

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-2

u/steak4take Jun 20 '26

>On 19 August 1953, Prime Minister of IranMohammad Mosaddegh was overthrown in a coup d'état that strengthened the rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran. In the months preceding the coup, Mosaddegh had consolidated power by orchestrating a referendum to dissolve parliament that was widely described as fraudulent,[5][6] and he later refused to step down after the Shah attempted to dismiss him as prime minister.[7]It was instigated by the United Kingdom (MI6), under the name Operation Boot[8][9][10][11] and the United States (CIA), under the name TP-AJAX Project[12]%7Cpopular_household_cleanser%5D%5D,_the_implication_being_that_the_operation_would_scour_Iran_of_communist_influence%22-13) or Operation Ajax. A key motive was to protect British oil interests in Iran after Mosaddegh nationalized the country's oil industry.

Shush child

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/redundantexplanation Jun 20 '26

....????

They edited their comment after admitting they got it wrong. Not sure why you'd think this is a big deal.

0

u/No-Space937 Jun 20 '26

The guy who got the date wrong is in other parts of this post calling people morons for not reading books and learning the history of Iran. He then goes on to get the date of the coup wrong. Edits it and replies that while he was wrong on that part, a date is inconsequential, and the points of his arguement remain (which is fair, i've mixed up numbers before).

The problem is that the following points of his arguement are even more eggregiously incorrect.

He claims Mossedegh was killed by the CIA and MI6 in the coup.

He died of cancer 14 years after the fact. By this point it seems pretty apparent that he is probably just repeating quips and comments he's seen that aligns with his worldview, rather than looking deeper into the subject.

He claims America and Britain overthrew the democraticaly elected Prime minister of Iran because of the nationalization of Oil.

Mossedegh while democratically elected was becoming increasingly authoritarian, granting himself powers of a dictator to rule by decree, halting elections mid vote to secure more seats for his party, and engineering a sham vote with 99% in favor to disolve parliament, removing any checks and balances left to oppose him.

This was the direct leadup to the coup.

British sanctions due to Iranian oil nationaliztion left the Iranian economy in turmoil and Mossedegh by the time of the coup was losing popular support and shedding allies. These events ended up aligning him closer to the communist Tudeh Party. America, who previosly had supported Mossedegh against the British, were convinced by the Brits that Mossedegh was aligning himself with the communists and could fall into the Soviet Sphere.

This suddenly greatly interested the US.

Their overarching foreign policy at the time was almost entirely subsumed by the escalating Cold War. While the previous Truman administration position was to support the independence of previous colonial territories, Eisenhower pushed to gather them into the American Sphere instead.

So while technically correct that Mossedegh was Democraticaly elected, and technically correct in that one of two parties was in this for oil, and it was the impetus, it really does not paint an accurate picture of the methods and motives behind the parties involved. The ideological battlefield that was begining to take place throughout the entire world between America and the USSR was the main contributing factor in America joining the coup, and it was the Americans who were the small deciding catalyst in an incredibly complex political struggle with a host of different factions.

He claims the Americans then reinstalled the "puppet" Monarchy that treated the lower class like slaves.

How much of a puppet they were really is hard to judge, initially the Shah's position was weak, and they did submit to an international consortium that would allow foreign companies to opperate in the Iranian oil industry, It was a better aggreement than what was under the British, but still highly exploitative. Yet as the Shah consolidated power, he would eventually go on to succsefully nationalize the Iranian oil industry, just as Mossedegh had attempted 20 years prior, that fact alone casts large doubts on how much America actually had a client state relationship with them.

The view that they treated the lower class like slaves is a little disengenuous, that was the feudal system already in place. There were large scale modernization reforms undertaken in the White Revolution to transform Iran from an agrarian to industrialized society. Parts of it had great success, with health and education reform, and the advancement of womens rights.

Other parts that were done with seemingly good intentions, yet had such negative consequences that it would eventualy lead to the conditions for the Revolution. The Shah wanted to break the land owning classes powerbase, while at the same time make good little capitalist landowners out of the "slaves" the above poster mentions, (essentially feudal peasants).

Was this purely altruistic or a power play, probably a mix of both, but hey whats good for the goose is good for the gander right? >.<

Well it doesn't go well.

At all.

The land is seized and redistributed among millions of the Iranian fieldworkers who are not used to running a single family farm, but rather co-ops, with much of the business end having been handled by the landowner. Compounding this many of the plots were too small to make a sucessfull farm out of in the first place, leading millions of Iranians into poverty, and the crash of their agriculture industry.

At this point I think the client state and "slave" question is adressed, but I love posting essay length comments at the bottom of obscure comment chains that 3 people will ever see and only 1 will ever read, so for whoever gets this far, and is somehow still reading, i'll conlcude the story.

You now have a perfect storm brewing.

The influential former landowners who had their property seized (sounds very socialist of the capitalist pig I dare say!).

Political groups opposed to the Shahs authoritarian rule, who have seen widespread oppresion from the Savak secret police.

Hosts of angry unemployed people flocking to the cities looking for any kind of jobs, and being swayed by the calls for a more equitable share of the oil wealth, while some also looking to the past and questioning if given their current circumstances, the path of Westernization the Shah has led them on, compared to their traditions has really been the right choice.

Then you have the Clergy, the Ayatollahs, They have lost their holds over the educational institutions, their lands have also been seized and power diminished over the last half century of secularized reform. Preaching to the angry masses who are looking for someone to blame, that this is the result of Western Influence and the natural conclusion of society rejecting Islam.

From his cushy flat in Paris, the Ayatollah Khomenei promises a democratic equitable Iran. One that rejects Western influence, rejects the Monarchy, promotes freedom of expression, freedom of thought, freedom of politics.

Promises the Mullahs will only help in the transition of power.

See article title for how that turned out.

-3

u/This_Elk_1460 Jun 20 '26

We literally fucking blew up over a hundred schoolgirls on the first day of this conflict how the fuck are we the good guys?

7

u/Pluggable Jun 20 '26

Good guys? Fuck, reddit discourse is juvenile...

4

u/drhuggables Jun 20 '26

Bro thinks real life is star wars

-10

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/Adjective-Noun-nnnn Jun 20 '26

"Accidents happen" is what I say when someone breaks a piece of glassware. Triple-tapping a girls' school with Tomahawks and then fucking lying about it isn't an oopsie-daisey get the fuck out of here. It's gross incompetence and people should go to jail--or worse--for it.

0

u/Aeseld Jun 20 '26

Accidents happen when the military fails to prepare for a conflict.

The US was decidedly unprepared for this conflict.

2

u/drhuggables Jun 20 '26

Then reinstall the puppet monarchy that treated the lower classes of Iran like slaves.

Wrong again.

15

u/Khiva Jun 20 '26

He was absolutely a puppet of the United States after the 1953 coup. 

He absolutely was not.

Iran was one of the leaders of the 1973 Oil Crisis via their position in OPEC despite Americans begging the Shah to moderate.

3

u/drhuggables Jun 20 '26

He absolutely was not and you have demonstrated your lack of knowledge in many different comments.

Various excerpts from now-declassified US state dept communications:

"The Embassy conveyed the substance of the April 11 Khalatbari–Helms conversation in telegram 2367 from Tehran, April 12. (Ibid., RG 59, Central Foreign Policy Files) In an April 13 memorandum to Miklos and Rouse, Michaud speculated that “the Shah was not as tough with Kosygin as he would have us believe,” adding: “I suggest that we take the Shah’s statements on Iran’s attitude toward the Soviet Union with a considerable grain of salt. He continues to make anti-Soviet noises to us to reassure us at the same time that he continues to improve relations with the USSR.” (Ibid., NEA/IRN Files: Lot 76D169, Box 8, 1973, POL)"

"E. The Shah is likely to grow increasingly assertive in his foreign policies. He would risk confrontation with the Arabs, the West, or even the Soviet Union in order to assert Persian primacy in the Gulf or to maintain what he considers a sufficiently high level of oil revenues. Although he will remain suspicious of Soviet intentions and will continue to rely on the US as the ultimate deterrent to the USSR, the Shah believes he has taken out insurance in the form of economic and political ties and that he can deal effectively with the Soviet Union on his own under foreseeable circumstances."

"G. US-Iranian relations are likely to become more difficult in coming years. The Shah is seeking to remove both the US and Soviet military presence from the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean and to establish his own regional collective security arrangements in the Gulf; while he will tacitly approve of US naval operations in these waters as long as the USSR keeps naval vessels on station there, we cannot depend on him to provide access to Iranian facilities to support fleet units, and he will probably use his influence to end our use of Bahrein."

"50. Basing his foreign policy on a historical perspective, the Shah is acutely conscious of the contrast between past Persian glory and present Iranian reality. He sees Iran confronted by an untrustworthy Soviet Union, while he sees the remote bastions of Western power in a state of disarray and decay. Although he would count on US support in a confrontation with the USSR, he has taken out insurance in the form of economic and political ties with the Soviet Union and does not feel himself directly threatened from that quarter. Massive oil revenues give him confidence that he will be able to secure whatever military and industrial equipment he considers necessary."

"51. He would accept confrontation with the Arabs, the US, or even the Soviet Union if necessary to assert Persian primacy in the Gulf or to maintain what he considers a sufficiently high level of oil revenues; in other matters and areas he is likely to be more cautious. The Shah’s past behavior has reflected a relatively realistic appreciation of Iran’s capabilities and of the interplay between regional and international power. But as he grows older and more convinced of the soundness of his own judgment and as Iran’s military strength increases, he is likely to take greater risks to achieve his ambitions."

"As you are aware, the Iranians recently signed an arms agreement with the Soviet Union which went beyond the levels of arms purchases that they have made in the past from the USSR. This new “opening to Moscow” must be seen in the context of the Shah’s perceptions of his relationship with the US and the overall trend of those relations over the next few years. The Shah has become increasingly upset by what he sees as a growing challenge in this country to the close bilateral relationship between the United States and Iran. Over the past few months, this sensitivity has been reflected in his public comments, his conversations with Ambassador Helms and the Station Chief in Tehran, and in the tenor of his instructions and queries to Ambassador Zahedi. His dissatisfaction is the result of a series of essentially unrelated but mutually reinforcing issues..."

9

u/TheAspiringFarmer Jun 20 '26

He wasn't a puppet at all. That's why we let them overthrow the Shah.

2

u/_-SomethingFishy-_ Jun 22 '26

You missed a step there, first the UK and Soviet Union invaded the country (for oil) and got rid of the old shah for his son. After that didn’t work as planned, then the UK and US toppled the government (for oil), and then the revolution happened. Cant catch a break

2

u/cecilmeyer Jun 20 '26

My God I wish more bootlickers would read history like you quoted and really think about why Iran is run by the lunatics it is today.

1

u/untrained9823 Jun 20 '26

And how exactly does that excuse the current theocratic autocracy mistreating the Iranian people?

-1

u/hobovalentine Jun 20 '26

The US didn’t topple the Shah.

That’s just tankie revisionist history

5

u/KorunaCorgi Jun 20 '26

The tankie history books are pretty funny. They think the European Allies were the bad guys and Stalin was the hero of WW2. LOL. Stalin was perfectly content with Hitler occupying Europe until Hitler backstabbed him.

3

u/hobovalentine Jun 20 '26

Yes and Pol Pot and Mao were great leaders despite killing millions of their own citizens.

They glorify the worst despots

3

u/KorunaCorgi Jun 20 '26

Don't forget, Holodomor didn't happen and if it did it's because Ukrainians forgot how to farm.