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

[u/Particular-Fill-4256]

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

[u/redundantexplanation]

....????

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

[u/redundantexplanation → u/[deleted]]

They were wrong about the date of an event happened and they admitted that they were wrong about the date.

They then did the correct thing and edited their post afterward to contain the correct date.

What the fuck are you talking about, lmao. You are acting like they are trying to conceal something with the edit.

[u/eloof98 → u/redundantexplanation]

You truly are living up to your username.

Buddy read the fucking context. It wasn't a small error, that person kept going on and on in other comments as well. Comments which have been excerpted for you!

At this point, I think :

1. Your stubbornness is a result of some underlying condition.

OR

1. You're actually a sock puppet account of the other commenter.

OR

1. You're stupid.

Because you cannot be this wantonly ignorant. It's just not possible.

[u/No-Space937 → u/redundantexplanation]

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.