u/Party-Confection-373

Anyone inside Iran still waiting for that final call?

I watched a livestream on the youtube channel "Liberty politics" where he was saying there is some fallout happening between different factions of the regime, some hardliners are calling for the death of the negotiators etc. Can anyone inside Iran share what's happening actually as of now? Is there signs of the regime fracturing and delving into a civil war or something?

In 1979 revolution many different factions co-operated together to dethrone the Shah, but later Khomeini & his Shia Islamist faction took over the government. What happened to the other factions like leftists, secular nationalists, communists, liberals etc? Every documentary I find talk only about the 1979 revolution and the story ends with the fall of the shah, but so far I haven’t come across a single documentary that explains what happened to these other groups and how Khomeini's group consolidated all power. Little I know from browsing the internet is that Khomeini later executed these former allies but how he managed to do it is not discussed there. Like Khomeini didn’t declare himself the Supreme leder immediately after the revolution so how did he become so powerful? Do you know of any documentary or video essay that talks about post 1979 iran and the Islamist takeover of the government?

Is there no surviving faction of Mosaddeqists, Tudeh or other political groups anymore? Or revival of any groups?

If you have been following Reza Pahlavi, you will notice that has repeatedly argues that the Iranian people today are comparable to the French people during WW2 living under Nazi occupation, and that foreign military action against the regime should be understood as a liberation campaign similar to the Allied invasion of Normandy and liberation of France.

The problem is not that historical analogies are inherently wrong. Historical analogies can sometimes help explain complex political situations. The problem is that the France analogy ignores many of the actual realities of how France was liberated and how World War II was fought.

When many people think about the liberation of France, they often imagine a simple story: the Allies arrived in Normandy, defeated the occupiers, and liberated France. But history was far more complicated than that.

1. The liberation of France was not a sudden act of rescue carried out by outsiders. It was the culmination of years of strategic planning, multiple military campaigns, massive sacrifices, and the participation of countless people inside France itself. Before Allied soldiers ever landed on the beaches of Normandy in June 1944, the war had already been raging for years. The Allies did not simply decide one day to liberate France and immediately launch an invasion. They fought in North Africa, they fought in the Mediterranean, they invaded Sicily, they invaded mainland Italy. The Italian campaign began almost a year before D-Day and was itself part of a broader Allied strategy to weaken Axis forces and stretch German resources. The liberation of France was therefore not an isolated humanitarian operation. It was part of a much larger strategic war effort that the Allies believed was necessary for their own survival and security.

2. This distinction is important because the Allies were not fighting solely for the freedom of France. Britain, USA, Soviet union and other allies were fighting because Nazi Germany posed a direct threat to their own national interests and national survival. Humanitarian concerns and liberation certainly mattered, but the Allies were also acting in pursuit of their own strategic interests. That reality is often missing from modern comparisons. When Reza Pahlavi speaks about France and Normandy, the implication is that foreign powers should see the liberation of Iran in the same way that the Allies saw the liberation of France. But the strategic circumstances are very different. The Allied powers of World War II were united around a clear objective: the total defeat of Nazi Germany. Today's international environment is far more fragmented.

3. One of the biggest differences between 1944 and today is the condition of the Western alliance itself. During World War II, despite disagreements, the major Allied powers were committed to a common military objective. Today, relations between the United States and many of its traditional allies have become increasingly strained. Disputes over aiding Ukraine, disagreements over NATO burden-sharing, tensions involving Greenland, and broader debates about America's role in Europe have created visible divisions within the transatlantic alliance.

4. Another major flaw in Reza Pahlavi's analogy is ignoring the role played by the French Resistance. France was not simply liberated by foreigners while French citizens watched from the sidelines. Throughout the occupation, resistance networks operated inside the country. They gathered intelligence. They sabotaged railroads. They disrupted German logistics. They distributed underground newspapers. They coordinated with Allied intelligence services. By the time Allied forces landed in Normandy, resistance networks were actively supporting military operations throughout occupied France. They were not irrelevant spectators waiting for liberation to arrive from abroad. Liberation was a combination of internal resistance and external military power working together toward a common objective.

5. This is where the comparison becomes particularly problematic when applied to Iran. Reza Pahlavi has repeatedly argued that foreign troops are unnecessary because the Iranian people themselves are the "boots on the ground". But The reality is that the overwhelming majority of anti-regime Iranians are unarmed civilians. Courage is not the issue, the Iranian people have demonstrated extraordinary courage repeatedly over the years. The problem is capability. A regime does not fall simply because people dislike it. A regime falls when its coercive institutions begin to break down. So far, despite years of protests and unrest, the Islamic Republic's security apparatus has largely remained intact. The Revolutionary Guards have remained loyal. The Basij remains active. The intelligence services continue to operate. Senior military commanders have not defected in large numbers. Most importantly, the regime has repeatedly shown that it is willing to use overwhelming force against protesters.

This is precisely why the comparison with Normandy becomes difficult to sustain.

• The Allied liberation of France involved enormous numbers of trained soldiers. It involved tanks, artillery, logistics, naval support, air superiority, and eventually millions of troops operating across Western Europe. Thousands of Allied soldiers died on D-Day alone. Tens of thousands more died during the campaign that followed. The liberation of France was not achieved through airstrikes alone. By contrast, recent military action against Iran was primarily an air campaign. There was no large-scale ground invasion. This was not equivalent of Normandy.

And there is a reason for that. After Iraq and Afghanistan, American people are very unsupportive of sending large numbers of American soldiers into another prolonged conflict in middle east. Even among those who support military pressure on Iran, support for a full-scale occupation or invasion is much harder to find.

This is why a different historical example may be more useful.

Rather than looking to France, perhaps the better comparison is Yugoslavia during World War II.

Unlike France, where liberation was heavily dependent on massive Allied military intervention, Yugoslavia developed one of the most significant indigenous resistance movements in occupied Europe. The Yugoslav Partisans built an organized military force, established command structures, controlled territory, conducted operations against occupying forces, and gradually transformed themselves into a force capable of influencing the outcome of the war inside their own country.

Of course they did not act completely alone. They received foreign assistance, weapons, supplies. But the key difference is that Yugoslavs themselves became the primary instrument of their liberation. That lesson is more relevant for Iranians.

If Iran is ever to become free, foreign powers may provide support, economic pressure, intelligence, technology, limited military support etc. But ultimately, the decisive factor will likely be what happens inside Iran itself. No foreign government is going to sacrifice tens of thousands of soldiers to liberate Iran. No American administration is likely to launch a modern version of Normandy D-Day. No Western electorate appears eager to support such a project. Waiting for a foreign liberation campaign that resembles France in 1944 is therefore unrealistic.

If Reza Pahlavi truly believes that the Iranian people are the boots on the ground, then the logical conclusion is not to wait for a modern Normandy, but to focus on building the conditions that make internal resistance effective. That means organization, coordination, creating networks, building structures capable of surviving repression. And arming the resistance. It means developing a strategy that does not depend entirely on decisions made in Washington.

The recent conflict demonstrated a difficult reality. Foreign intervention alone was not enough to topple the regime. The security apparatus remained intact. The regime survived. Whatever damage was inflicted, the system itself endured. That should be a lesson.

The future of Iran cannot depend entirely on the hope that another country will one day decide to liberate it. If Reza Pahlavi wants to see a free Iran, then perhaps the lesson is not Normandy, but Yugoslavia during WW2. Perhaps the lesson is that no nation can outsource its freedom. Foreign powers may assist. Foreign powers may create opportunities. But ultimately, freedom is secured when the people who want it are capable of organizing themselves to achieve it.

Is it true that many of the regime supporters are now angry and turning against the regime because they don't want the deal to be signed? How is the situation now? Can anyone from Iran reply?

And also is there a chance of some massive brawl happening between the hardliners and reformers on the day of Khamenei's funeral if the hardliners are mad about the deal?

He is an Iranian Canadian exmuslim atheist. He runs the youtube channel named "Liberty Politics" (which was previously named "Atheist Republic") where he does multiple livestreams everyday talking about the current situations in Iran. He has been livestreaming regularly with another woman named Goldie Ghamari (Canadian Iranian politician) for a long time and now does livestreams with some other people too. I have been listening to him since January because he was one of the few people to share video clips and news from inside Iran while the internet blackout was going on.

However I feel like becoming more skeptical of his analysis recently because he always sounds like everything is going so well. There's nothing wrong with being energetic, jolly and having high morale but it seems to me that his reasoning is contradicting with reality tbh. Like when the war started he was very hopeful of an uprising happening once the bombing stopped, then he got high hopes about the US seizing Kharg island and training Iranians there; he was also initially against arming the Iranian people & believed that when another uprising happens the Israeli drones will be giving cover to the people but recently few days before the US Iran deal he published a video asking the world to help Iranian people arm themselves.

Now the deal is going to be signed he sees this as a victory for the US and Trump. He thinks Trump and Israel are actually planning something grand behind the curtain which we don't know about. And he never criticizes Trump for once, every statement of move of Trump regarding Iran is deemed as very genius by him. I don't know but all these seem too much wishful thinking to me. I would be happy if someone can prove me wrong and him right because I would really like to see some ray of hope. But seeing him moving the goalposts again and again is kind of disappointing tbh.

Trump made the Mullahs win. They have all the guns and firepowers and will massacre civilians again if another uprising happens. Which means the anti-regime Iranians have only two options left now: either leave Iran and settle down in another country, or rot in this theocratic hellhole. Free Iran is a distant dream, thanks to Trump it will probably never be achieved in our lifetime. Why did I ever put my trust in him?