Leftists, with Western pro-Khomeini protests, not just in Iran, with the usual involvement from the KGB, and the CIA opposing, brought Khomeini to power with claims that he would bring a communist revolution. As per tradition in a communist revolution, first thing he did once in power is execute communist allies. Of course, Iran is still allied with the KGB (now FSB) and Moscow, currently delivering weapons and weapon designs for use in the war against Ukraine.
You could also point out that Iran is kind-of socialist, in the sense that the state controls, at minimum, 70% of the economy, and all those "companies" are directly controlled by the government.
So socialists are still at it, supporting the ayatollah, for example:
https://marxist.com/iran-for-a-nationwide-uprising-down-with...
Note: yes, I get what the title says, but read. IN the article you'll find an insane rant about how Israel and the US are really behind the revolution and how despite that the regime really held back, and this popular revolution, if it fails will bring back national Iranian pride, and the revolution failing will be the final push that ayatollah's need to actually bring the communist revolution to Iran
Including the Mossad, which is kinda an important footnote you might not want to omit: https://xcancel.com/BarakRavid/status/1560685368780939265/
Also - Israel got burned so bad with the idiotic Pollard affair, there is zero chance Israel would put so much of their assets in the US when they have a 7 front war. They are many things, but they are not idiots, and they clearly care far more about their immediate security interests than what the US thinks.
These theories make absolutely no sense, my dear fried.
An agent is specifically some third party acting on your behalf. It's the same when we speak of real estate agents.
> Someone who works for an intelligence agency: whether an officer or employee thereof or anyone else who agrees to help their efforts (for ideology, for money, as blackmailee, or otherwise).
That said, I also asked ChatGPT and it says you're right.
"Agent" is a term of art with a rather strict meaning, but that's obviously only true when used in conversations within that specific field.
My daughter’s hair stylist is Iranian (she was an accountant in old country). When Jimmy Carter’s wife died, she said “I’m happy she’s dead.” I’ve never seen anyone else say a negative thing about the Carters personally. Even die hard Republicans who think he was a weak President don’t hate him as a person. But this is not an uncommon sentiment among the Iranian diaspora.
This happened during Clinton, if you're counting history in US presidencies. And also it doesn't even matter if their sister really was killed. Islamic regimes like the one in Iran are despicable, and would have been even they didn't support goons killing girls for dumb religious regions.
I've been told off repeatedly and threatened with all kinds of consequences by dang and I haven't come close to postings like this.
I could not edit it myself because HN banned me for exposing their Mossad propaganda, yesterday
That's true for everyone.
You're not shadowbanned.
Iranian who left Iran here. Do you have stats or reference for this critical piece of information?
It’s as if someone’s says, since Bangladesh is predominantly muslim, the majority aligns with what the Islamic regime does for ideological reasons and would try to undermine the account of atrocities.
But one shouldn’t believe this before seeing some polls, stats, etc.
Also, as a Russian who left Russia, it's certainly a familiar pattern.
Note, by the way, that this doesn't really imply anything about whether those people are wrong to be antagonistic.
I've noticed there's two distinct 20th century Russian diaspora groups in the US. Those who came here prior to the fall of the USSR, and those who came after.
In talking with the ones who came after the fall, life wasn't glamorous but got truly unlivable in the wake of the collapse.
In talking with the ones who came before the fall, they wanted to make money.
My friend is one but wasn't always like that. He was never critical of Russia or the USA and was pretty quiet until befriending some Russian dude in his apt building during the blackout of hurricane Sandy. Now he frequently criticizes and rants about capitalist USA then sings praise of Russia. We keep telling him to go back but he doesn't. He's unfortunately "that guy" in our group of friends now -_-
However there was a smallish wave of political immigration after the 2011 protests and 2014 conflict with Ukraine, and a much larger one since the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. And those people tend to be very anti-Russian-government for obvious reasons.
I haven't met him personally, but years of trading ideas with him in threads and I can tell you this is true. rayiner is among the best of us.
Joking aside, we are on opposite sides of a sociological debate. Is Bangladesh a crappy country because of external factors, or because of the culture and choices of the people who live there? It's not crazy to ask that question, and stop pretending that it is. What's ironic is that most Bangladeshis (not the ones raised in the west) fall in the "culture" camp. My family is particularly negative on Bangladeshi culture--especially my mom (growing up as a woman in a Muslim country will do that)--but none of my views are remarkable in my extended family. Or even in Asia more generally. One of the greatest success stories in third world development is Singapore. Lee Kuan Yew adamantly believed that "culture is destiny" and that principle guided the incredible results he achieved in Singapore: https://paulbacon.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/z....
[1] I was at a cousin's wedding a few years ago, and I complained that I couldn't find anyone on Facebook because in our culture we don't have family names. Everyone has two given names, but goes by a nickname which is completely unrelated to either given name. My dad responded, "Bangladeshis don't know how to name their children." I reflexively tried to say, "no, they just do it differently." Then I stopped myself, because why the fuck should I whitesplain the merits of naming conventions to my father.
There are a couple of subjects that seem to do this to people, immigration is one of them, 9/11 is another. Then there are holocaust deniers and people who seem to - without any kind of prompting - find it in them to be defending the actions of the various strong-arm government components in the United States.
I have no idea if there is something in the water or not but it is very scary to see otherwise intelligent people completely lose it over such objectively simple things. Once dug in the only solution seems to be to dig further and to cut off all input to that might lead to introspection.
FWIW when it comes to Russia specifically, I would broadly agree that the problem there is not just the government but the culture as a whole (although we'd probably disagree about the specific things in that culture that are problematic). It is not obvious, though, and I think it always behooves one to be careful when making sweeping generalizations like that and carefully rationalize them.
You’re correct about Russia. And the same observation applies to the Indian subcontinent, where I’m from, as well. And, while you’re correct that each place requires a separate analysis, I would guess it applies to most places people leave.
People’s emotions and tribalism often make them romanticize the places they left. They attribute the good things about their society to the people and their culture, but externalize the bad things about their society. That’s usually self-deception.
That’s true. Bangladeshi people strongly supported amending the constitution to make Islam the official religion. Islamization of the country has accelerated since we left, and now it looks like the Islamist parties will get a seat at the table in a coalition government.
It seems to be true across the Muslim world. My father is from North Africa, and any time we've been back there over the past decades it's very clear a large swath of the youth are embracing the more religious political movements.
It’s very odd. I saw lots of younger Bangladeshis supporting the overthrow of the Awami League government (the most secular of the parties). I wasn’t sure if it was people who just didn’t realize it would leave a vacuum for Islamists, or or people who wanted that. It seems there’s some of both.
All I can do is throw my anecdotes into the pool: I mostly have met two types of Iranians: Those that fled in the 80's post-revolution, and those that come to the US for university (90's, 00's, and 10's).
All of them have been anti-regime.
I have met a few that came for other reasons (not education and not the 80's stock). Yes, those are either pro-regime or neutral.
My guess is that what rayiner says is correct: The majority of the Iranian diaspora in the US is self selecting and not representative of the full population.
My guess as well. As an Iranian outside of Iran, I see that my folk in Iran are way angrier, more disappointed, braver and determined against this injustice than I (we outside) am. It’s common sense.
In any case I was simply responding to OP's "why" question and that their theory on blaming Reagan allegedly vs Carter on a narrow point, highlighting that particular case is temporally much later, and has no relevance to the underlying reason Carter is hated over there.
Iranian-American here, I have never heard a single Iranian badmouth Carter or his family in my entire life. This is the first time I'm hearing of it.
> extremely antagonistic towards the regime
On the other hand, this point is very accurate, I can confirm. There's a reason we left, after all. To my earlier point: this is consistently the direction of our anger - towards the regime - not the Carter administration.
You say it yourself, the ones who "had the financial means to do so left" - so it's very disingenuous to then state "the people who were fine with it stayed." What about those who couldn't afford to leave?
Well - the data they publish can be correct; or it can be a made-up lie. We simply don't know.
So why should we assume the data they publish should be correct? How did they reach that number? And why is that number more precise than earlier reported numbers? And, why is that number so different to the other numbers told before?
What if they say tomorrow it is 50.000 suddenly?
Given the veracity of the current administration, the repeated history of the US government lying to justify military interventions (Vietnam Tonkin Gulf incident looks fake going back a little further), I think people who know a little bit of history and are paying attention have legitimate reason to want more than just one source. Whatever the number is in Iran it's terrible but there's no military intervention outside countries can do that's going to change that given Iran is already sanctioned to the gills and it's a huge country that presents many challenges - the people there are going to have to do it themselves.