Glad to see ancient Iranian culture featured here. People in the west have a lot of misconceptions about Iran. Persian culture is thousands of years old.
Talking about morality and "fighting terrorism and oppression" is laughable.
Please - don't do this. You don't know how hard it is for revolutions to succeed
The "Ayatollah's" in fact started the mess by assassinating the previous prime minister (who is never discussed) who was also "democratically elected". This was not the first Islamist terror in Iran. Again this is before the counter-coup of '53. (Yes, the first coup detat was by the famous "democratically elected PM", Mr. Mossadeqh.)
Iran had a constitution that precisely defined the roles of the Majlis (parliament) and the monarch. This monarch was sworn in as king in the Majlis way before '53. Kindly explain how he was "installed" in '53 by the CIA.
The "Islamic Republic" is a blight in the history of Iran and Islam. Their little project of creating the Islamist Vatican is an abomination in Islam. Their ridiculous "Supreme Leader" is another abomination, both for Iran and again for Islam. Islam is the religion of deliberation of assemblies and no man is "supreme" amongst the Muslims.
Basically, the Shah assumed direct rule in an autocoup (after a first failed autcoup) in an effort he was threatened with being deposted by the CIA into participating in, with US- and UK- and their Iranian pawns both orchestrating pro-Mossadegh anti-Shah demonstrations and violence, then pro-Communist anti-Shah anti-Mossadegh demonstrations and violence, and, ultimately, the pro-Shah military moves directed against the waves of violence and lawlessness that they themselves had sponsored.
Former enemies:
https://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/q&a/ref/2.html
"Cousins":
https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/176895/SN06808.pdf
(it's a question of power asymmetries. Really did the poor Shah have any choice? Related thoughts: Is the Japanese PM "Installed" by US? Is the UK PM a "puppet" of US?)
And to be quite frank, as an Iranian born, the assertion that some American (Kermit Roosevelt) gets off the plane with a briefcase full of dollars and overnight "installs" the constitutional king of Iran is bascially a hidden insult to Iranians. What sort of a entirely pushover nation are they, these Iranians? It's a bad propaganda joke.
Secondly, the fact remains that the roughly 14 years (60s-early70s) that Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, yes as an autocract oversteppingn the bounds of the constitution, ran the place, Iran experienced its singularly most spectacular years in the 20th century. And the social progress, specially women's rights, are all due to the efforts of that man and his "regime".
US has nothing to apologize to Iran about viz a vis the Shah other than backstabbing a loyal ally in a time of crisis, and actively helping to usher in an entirely alien system, the "Islamic Republic of Iran"*, to power.
US chose Islamic Fundamentalism as a stretegic tool to further its geopolitical goals, and unleashed the hords on the world. US does need to come clean about that.
* (3 lies in one name, a world record!): It is not a republic. It is not Islam. And it certainly is not Iranian.
A taste of your evil minds is the ludicrous notion that a woman choosing to not wear a piece cloth clutched between her teeth like a bit make Iranian society "naked".
And you also you have your history wrong. It was Reza Shah* that "forced" the removal of chadors. The Shah in question here made it a personal choice. The rights mentioned were the right to work, and rights relating to marriage and children.
* some background on the history here. Reza Shah famously walked into a mosque and whipped the men [read mullahs] who had insulted his wife who had visited earlier. This 'right to insult and harrass women in public' is a "right" these men take quite seriously. They never forgave him for this offence and subsequently when they seized power, they chose a "civilized and godly" expression of their displeasure by dessecrating the remains of a dead man. And then they built a toilet over it. This is the retarded gang that currently occupies Iran. As I said, a historic blight on our nation.
Let's call it instigation.
Weird that anyone is still in denial after that
-
Jeasus I have to explain this on HN?
--
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11235-medieval-islami...
https://muslimheritage.com/new-discoveries-in-the-islamic-co...
etc... much learning you need
1. Would you like to visit Persia?
2. Would you like to visit Iran?
The only weird thing with the name Iran, is that it literally means "The Land of Aryans" which got a bad rep after Nazis (rightfully so).
It’s not just about an empire for the Persians. (But Persia is pretty good branding, that’s all)
I know that you're not confusing this but as some others might: Persian language is of the Persian people (although there are many non-persian L2 speakers), it should rightfully still called that and should not be confused with the (settled at this point) debate about the name of the country as a whole
Yangzi is the correct pinyin spelling of the syllables that "Yangtze" was meant to indicate. (Similarly, if you want to spell them in modern pinyin, you'd have Laozi instead of Lao Tzu/Tze, Sunzi instead of Sun Tzu, and of course Kongzi instead of Confucius.) But the Chinese name of the river is something completely different. What's the point of updating the spelling of the English name as if it were also the Chinese name?