Podcasts about khomeini

In this sweeping episode, Matt Ehret and Ghost are joined by Cynthia Chung (cynthiachung.substack.com) for a masterclass on Iran's modern history. Cynthia walks through her trilogy of essays chronicling how Britain and later the United States engineered regime change to control Iranian oil, beginning with the 1872 Reuter concession that handed Britain the country's economic lifeblood. The conversation traces the 1953 CIA-MI6 coup against Prime Minister Mossadegh for nationalizing oil, the Shah's ambitions to industrialize and escape colonial dependence, and the suspicious rise of Khomeini's revolution. The hosts expose how the same Western networks behind the overthrow of Mossadegh later fueled the Iran-Iraq war, Iran-Contra, and decades of chaos designed to prevent regional cooperation and modernization. They explore the Carter Doctrine, Brzezinski's arc of crisis, and how strategies used to fracture Iran are still deployed across the world. The episode closes with reflections on Iran's attempts to reclaim sovereignty through the Belt and Road Initiative and a vision of economic development to transcend engineered conflicts. Rich with historical detail, this conversation challenges the simplistic narratives that have shaped public perception for generations.

(Aus aktuellem Anlass wiederholen wir diese Woche unsere Doppelfolge zur Iranischen Revolution.)Der bis dahin tödlichste Terroranschlag der Geschichte schockiert im Jahr 1978 die Stadt Teheran. Wer wirklich für diese Katastrophe verantwortlich ist, interessiert in den Wochen danach kaum jemanden. Viel wichtiger ist, wen die Bevölkerung dafür verantwortlich macht. Das Duell zwischen dem Schah und Ayatollah Khomeini läuft auf seinen Höhepunkt zu. Welche Strategie verfolgt der Ayatollah? Warum lässt der Westen den Schah im Stich? Und wie wird die iranische Monarchie zugrunde gehen? Ein Aspekt, den weder der Schah noch Khomeini ahnen, ist, dass in der iranischen Revolution ausgerechnet eine Krankheit Geschichte schreiben wird.Du hast Feedback oder einen Themenvorschlag für Joachim und Nils? Dann melde dich gerne per Mail an: wasbishergeschah@wondery.comQuellen:Revolutionary Islam von Michael AxworthyThe unthinkable Revolution von Charles KurzmanThe last Shah von Ray TakeyhThe Fall of Heaven von Andrew Scott CooperKhomeini: Der Revolutionär des Islams von Katajun AmirpurZeitenwende 1979 von Frank BöschUnsere allgemeinen Datenschutzrichtlinien finden Sie unter https://art19.com/privacy. Die Datenschutzrichtlinien für Kalifornien sind unter https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info abrufbar.

Bij wapenstilstanden vechten de vijanden nog wel eens even door. Dus dat Iran en Israël niet precies op de door Donald Trump gedecreteerde minuut de wapens lieten zwijgen was afschuwelijk voor de slachtoffers, maar het stilleggen van wapengeweld werkt niet altijd met een stopwatch. Trumps woede-uitval – they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing – was duidelijk een teken van onmacht. Dat Israël en Iran eigenlijk helemaal nog niet wilden stoppen is vanuit strategisch perspectief te begrijpen. Zij wisten beide allang dat operatie ‘Midnight Hammer’, het Amerikaanse bombardement met de beruchte ‘bunker buster’-bommen, niet, zoals Trump beweerde, het totale Iraanse nucleaire programma had ‘vergruisd’. Sterker nog, de bommen zijn niet diep genoeg doorgedrongen en hebben de productieruimtes niet of nauwelijks beschadigd, hooguit de toegang. Een geheim rapport van de Amerikaanse inlichtingendiensten, waar de New York Times de hand op wist te leggen, bevestigt eerdere geruchten over het geringe succes. Het Iraanse atoomprogramma is hooguit enkele maanden teruggezet. Bovendien wordt het steeds duidelijker dat Iran nog andere locaties heeft, waar het verrijken van uranium doorgaat. En, veel belangrijker, dat de voorraad verrijkt uranium is opgeslagen op een geheime locatie. Dat is uiteindelijk waarover het gaat, want dat is het materiaal waarmee atoombommen gemaakt kunnen worden. Trump onderschat ook de impact van de geschiedenis en de overweldigende haat tegen de VS. Zo steunde Amerika, met Engeland, in 1953 een staatsgreep tegen de liberale, democratisch gekozen premier Mohammad Mossadeq, en hielp sjah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, sergeant in het leger en symbolisch staatshoofd, in het zadel als nieuwe machthebber. Op dictatoriale wijze probeerde hij het land te verwestersen, waarbij hij oppositie negeerde, opsloot en martelde. Hij onderhield nauwe banden met de VS en Israël. Nadat hij begin 1979, inmiddels ernstig ziek, was verbannen, keerde in februari ayatollah Khomeini terug uit ballingschap en stichtte de Islamitische Republiek Iran. Na een zeer korte periode van schijn-liberalisme, ontstond een islamitisch schrikregime, dat tot de huidige dag aan de macht is. Amerika had aanvankelijk nog diplomatieke betrekkingen, totdat in november een door het regime geregisseerde bende studenten de Amerikaanse ambassade binnenviel en 52 diplomaten 444 dagen lang gijzelde . De haat tegen Amerika – en tegen Israël – is de afgelopen 46 jaar ononderbroken opgefokt. Die aloude haat bombardeer je niet weg met ‘bunker busters’. En je kunt van Israël en Iran niet verwachten dat ze plotseling in het gelid springen op een door Donald Trump gedecreteerde deadline. Als ‘Midnight Hammer’ echt was gelukt misschien wel, maar dat de ‘twaalfdaagse oorlog’, zoals Trump het al noemt, tot meer leidt dan hooguit een paar jaar rust is vooralsnog een illusie.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Você acha que o Irã é só Aiatolá, véu e confusão nuclear? Ah, criatura perdida no noticiário raso… Neste episódio, a gente atravessa 2.500 anos de história – começando com os persas bombados de CGI em 300, passando pelo Cambises surtado, pela ostentação da Dinastia Pahlavi, até o incêndio do Cinema Rex, que virou estopim da Revolução de 1979.Tem espionagem da Savak, tem Khomeini voltando do exílio com um discurso que nem o algoritmo do YouTube conseguiria segurar, tem ARGO metendo Hollywood no meio… e até o Netanyahu, de penetra na história alheia.Porque entender o Irã, meus caros… é entender que ali, entre véus, petróleo e Passat iraquiano… o barril de pólvora é histórico.—------------------------------APOIE o programa: APOIA.SE - https://apoia.se/nosnahistoriaSIGA-NOS no Instagram: @nosnahistoria_@buenasideias@lucianopotter @arthurdeverdadePatrocínio:TRADUZCA - https://www.traduzca.com/LIVROS INDICADOS NO EPISÓDIO - UM LIVRO - https://www.livrarianosnahistoria.com.br

pWotD Episode 2971: Ali Khamenei Welcome to Popular Wiki of the Day, spotlighting Wikipedia's most visited pages, giving you a peek into what the world is curious about today.With 173,385 views on Friday, 20 June 2025 our article of the day is Ali Khamenei.Ali Hosseini Khamenei (born 19 April 1939) is an Iranian cleric and politician who has served as the second supreme leader of Iran since 1989. His tenure as supreme leader, spanning over 35 years, makes him the longest-serving head of state in the Middle East and the second-longest-serving Iranian leader of the 20th and 21st centuries, after Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.Born in Mashhad to the Khamenei family originating from the town of Khamaneh, East Azerbaijan, Ali Khamenei studied at a hawza in his hometown, later settling in Qom in 1958 where he attended the classes of Ruhollah Khomeini. Khamenei became involved in opposition to Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the shah of Iran, and was arrested six times before being exiled for three years by the Shah's regime. Khamenei was a mainstream figure in the Iranian Revolution (1978–1979), and upon its success, held many posts in the newly-established Islamic Republic of Iran. In the aftermath of the revolution, he was the target of an attempted assassination that paralysed his right arm. Khamenei served as the third president of Iran from 1981 to 1989 during the Iran–Iraq War, when he also developed close ties the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). After the death of Khomeini in 1989, Khamenei was elected supreme leader by the Assembly of Experts.As supreme leader, Khamenei promoted scientific progress in Iran, making considerable advances through education and training, despite international sanctions. He supported Iran's nuclear program for civilian use while issuing a fatwa forbidding the production of all kinds of weapons of mass destruction. Khamenei favoured economic privatization of state-owned industries and, with oil and gas reserves, transformed Iran into an "energy superpower". With his foreign policy being centered on Shia Islamism and exporting the Iranian Revolution, Iran supported the "Axis of Resistance" coalition in the Iraq War, the Syrian civil war and the Yemeni civil war. A staunch critic of Israel and of Zionism, he is known for his support of the Palestinians in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.There have been major protests during Khamenei's reign, including the 1994 Qazvin protests, the 1999 student protests, the 2009 presidential election protests, the 2011–2012 protests, the 2017–2018 protests, the 2018–2019 general strikes and protests, the 2019–2020 protests, the 2021–2022 protests, and the Mahsa Amini protests. Journalists, bloggers, and others have been imprisoned in Iran for insulting Khamenei, often in conjunction with blasphemy charges.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 02:56 UTC on Saturday, 21 June 2025.For the full current version of the article, see Ali Khamenei on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm neural Kajal.

Are we on the brink? To understand where we're headed, we've got to know where we've been. Yanni takes us through the rise and fall of the Persian Empire—how a Zoroastrian civilization became a Muslim one. From Cyrus the Great to Khomeini, it's a wild ride through history. Are the Israelis dragging us into their wars? Does Iran have the bomb? Is commentary on the issue organic on the internet? Let's get into it. Support our sponsors: Start saving time and money, without compromising your nutrition today with this exclusive offer for NEW customers of 15% using my exclusive code: YANNIS at https://huel.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Mục tiêu thực sự của chiến dịch « Rising Lion » do Israel tiến hành từ ngày 13/06/2025 không chỉ nhằm mục đích vô hiệu hóa các cơ sở hạt nhân của Iran. Nhà nước Do Thái chủ yếu muốn đẩy nhanh sự sụp đổ của chế độ Teheran. Tuy nhiên, giới chuyên gia cảnh báo một sự thay đổi chế độ chỉ có thể dẫn đến việc trao quyền lực cho lực lượng Vệ binh Cách mạng. Cho đến hiện tại, các điểm tấn công của Israel tại Iran cho thấy, trong ngắn hạn, mục tiêu của thủ tướng Benjamin Netanyahu là bắn phá các cơ sở hạt nhân Iran nhằm giảm đáng kể chương trình vũ khí của nước này. Nhưng thủ tướng Israel đã nói rõ là cuộc chiến với Iran « chắc chắn » có thể dẫn đến một sự thay đổi chế độ tại nước Cộng hòa Hồi giáo. Đây chẳng phải là điều bí mật. Từ lâu chính phủ Israel cũng như nhiều quan chức các đời tổng thống Mỹ đều mong muốn sự sụp đổ của chính phủ Iran hiện nay. Tình hình tại Iran sẽ biến đổi ra sao trong trường hợp chính quyền Teheran hiện nay sụp đổ ? Cơ cấu quyền lực ở Iran Nước Cộng hòa Hồi giáo được giáo chủ Ruhollah Khomeini thành lập năm 1979 và có một cơ cấu chính phủ mang các yếu tố dân chủ, thần quyền và độc tài. Nhà nước được điều hành bởi các giáo sĩ và các nhà lập pháp Hồi giáo nhằm bảo đảm rằng mọi chính sách đều tuân thủ luật Hồi giáo. Vì Iran từng là quốc gia quân chủ lập hiến trước cách mạng, nên các yếu tố thần quyền đã được ghép vào các yếu tố cộng hòa hiện có chẳng hạn như Nghị Viện, Hành pháp và Tư pháp. Tuy nhiên, hệ thống lập pháp của Iran là đơn viện (nghĩa là một viện Quốc hội duy nhất), còn được gọi là Majles và nước này cũng có tổng thống (hiện nay là ông Masoud Pezeshkian). Hai định chế này được bầu chọn qua các cuộc bầu cử thường kỳ. Dù vậy, theo giải thích trên trang The Conversation từ nhà nghiên cứu Andrew Thomas, chuyên gia về Trung Đông, đại học Deakin, tuy được bao phủ các yếu tố dân chủ, trên thực tế đây là một « mạch khép kín », giúp giới giáo sĩ duy trì quyền lực và ngăn chặn mọi thách thức đối với lãnh đạo tinh thần tối cao, vị trí cao nhất trong một hệ thống quyền lực được phân cấp rất rõ ràng, mà người đứng đầu hiện nay là giáo chủ Ali Khamenei. Năm nay 86 tuổi, và từng là cựu tổng thống, Ali Khamenei đã được Hội đồng chuyên gia (gần giống với Thượng Viện) – một cơ quan bao gồm 88 nhà luật học Hồi giáo – chọn trở thành lãnh đạo tối cao vào năm 1989 sau khi giáo chủ Khomeini qua đời. Nếu như các thành viên của Quốc Hội, Hội đồng chuyên gia cũng như tổng thống được bầu chọn qua lá phiếu phổ thông trực tiếp, thì tư cách các ứng viên tranh cử thành viên Quốc Hội, Hội đồng, cũng như tổng thống trước hết phải được Hội đồng Giám hộ (Hội đồng Bảo hiến) quyền lực thông qua. Định chế này có 12 thành viên, nhưng một nửa trong số này là do lãnh đạo tối cao bổ nhiệm, một nửa còn lại là do Quốc Hội chỉ định. Cuối cùng, đích thân giáo chủ, lãnh đạo tinh thần tối cao là người bổ nhiệm người đứng đầu các cơ quan quan trọng của chính phủ, như cơ quan tư pháp, lực lượng vũ trang và lực lượng Vệ binh Cách mạng Hồi giáo (IRGC). IRGC đầy quyền lực Nhìn vào cơ cấu này, đối với các nhà quan sát phương Tây, Iran còn xa mới là một nền dân chủ. Nhưng họ cũng nhìn nhận rằng một sự thay đổi chế độ có thể dẫn đến một nền dân chủ hoàn toàn đi theo Mỹ và Israel cũng là điều không thể, do nền chính trị Iran cực kỳ chia rẽ phe phái. Các phe phái tư tưởng như phe cải cách, phe ôn hòa và phe bảo thủ, luôn có những bất đồng sâu sắc về những chính sách quan trọng. Họ tranh giành ảnh hưởng với lãnh đạo tối cao, cũng như trong giới tinh hoa giáo sĩ. Nhưng không một phe phái nào trong số này đặc biệt ủng hộ Mỹ, càng không ủng hộ Israel. Rồi còn có các phe phái trong các định chế. Trong số này, quyền lực nhất nước là hàng giáo sĩ do lãnh đạo tối cao điều hành. Tiếp đến là Vệ binh Cách mạng. Ban đầu được lập ra như một lực lượng cảnh vệ riêng cho giáo chủ, IRGC ngày nay có một sức mạnh quân sự sánh ngang với cả quân đội chính quy. Mang tư tưởng chính trị cực đoan, IRGC có tầm ảnh hưởng ở cấp quốc gia đôi khi vượt xa tổng thống, gây áp lực đáng kể lên các chính sách của tổng thống, và chỉ công khai ủng hộ những tổng thống nào theo đuổi học thuyết cách mạng Hồi giáo nghiêm ngặt. Không chỉ kiểm soát thiết bị quân sự và ảnh hưởng chính trị, IRGC còn có mối liên hệ chặt chẽ với nền kinh tế Iran. Bị đánh giá như là một « tổ chức tham nhũng », quả thực, giới chức lực lượng Vệ binh Cách mạng đã làm giầu đáng kể nhờ vào các hợp đồng được chính phủ trao, cũng như là việc tham gia điều hành « nền kinh tế ngầm » nhằm lách lệnh trừng phạt của Mỹ và phương Tây. Nguy cơ đi từ chế độ « thần quyền – quân sự » sang « quân sự » Nhìn từ những góc độ này, và trong bối cảnh cuộc không chiến giữa Israel và Iran diễn ra dữ dội từ hôm 13/06, nhà nghiên cứu người Úc Andrew Thomas đánh giá khả năng IRGC sẽ là tổ chức chính trị nắm quyền kiểm soát Iran là rất cao nếu hàng giáo sĩ bị gạt khỏi quyền lực. Đây cũng là quan điểm và nỗi lo của một bộ phận giới nghiên cứu tại Pháp gốc Trung Đông khi e rằng cái chết của ông Ali Khamenei « có lẽ sẽ không giúp thay đổi chế độ » hay cho phép « chấm dứt xung đột ». Trên đài RFI Pháp ngữ, nhà xã hội Azadeh Kian, giáo sư tại đại học Paris Cité giải thích : « Một mặt, người ta không biết lãnh đạo tối cao đang ở đâu và liệu rằng Israel có thực hiện kế hoạch ám sát ông ấy hay không. Mặt khác, tôi nghĩ rằng quyền lực có lẽ đã nằm trong tay Vệ binh Cách mạng, thậm chí cả trước khi diễn ra các cuộc không kích của Israel. Vì vậy, ông ấy không còn ở đó nữa và người cũng sẽ không thể lật đổ chế độ nhưng quyền lực đã được trao không phải cho hàng giáo sĩ mà là hoàn toàn cho Vệ binh Cách mạng. Hơn nữa tôi cũng được nghe nhiều thông tin mà hiện tôi chưa thể thẩm định theo đó lãnh tụ tối cao dường như đã chấp thuận trao cho Vệ binh Cách mạng quyền quyết định. Nếu như vậy, thì chúng ta đang chuyển từ chế độ "thần quyền – quân sự" sang chế độ "quân sự". » Vẫn theo nhà xã hội người Pháp gốc Iran này, trong thời chiến, Vệ binh Cách mạng sẽ thâu tóm nhiều quyền lực hơn. Đây là lực lượng nắm quyền kiểm soát tên lửa đạn đạo và các hoạt động đáp trả. Nếu như các cuộc không kích của Israel đã giết chết một số tướng lĩnh Vệ binh, khiến nhiều người hả dạ và làm suy yếu phần nào chế độ, thì tất cả những điều này chưa đủ để cho chế độ Iran hiện hành có thể bị lật đổ. Trên làn sóng France Culture, nhà xã hội Azadeh Kian giải thích tiếp : « Ngay cả khi chế độ bị suy yếu, hay bị sụp đổ vì các cuộc oanh kích của Israel, liệu chúng ta đã có một giải pháp chính trị, dân chủ nào để có thể thay thế chế độ hiện nay hay là toàn khu vực Trung Đông có nguy cơ sẽ phải đối mặt với sự tan rã của đất nước, sự hỗn loạn … ? Đây thực sự là những câu hỏi quan trọng cần đặt ra và chúng cũng được nêu ra cho các nước trong vùng. Đương nhiên, việc các lãnh đạo, chỉ huy Vệ binh bị giết chết khiến người dân Iran hài lòng bởi đó là những người có trách nhiệm trong việc trấn áp phe đối lập. Nhưng điều đó không có nghĩa là chế độ sụp đổ bởi vì những người đó đã được thay thế nhanh chóng. Iran đã phóng hàng loạt tên lửa nhắm vào Israel. Điều này có nghĩa là lực lượng Vệ Binh vẫn chưa bị tan rã. » Lật đổ chế độ : Bài học Irak Đây cũng chính là quan điểm của nhà chính trị học Myriam Benraad, chuyên gia về Trung Đông, giảng viên trường đại học Khoa học Chính trị Sciences Po, khi trả lời phỏng vấn trang The Conversation. Việc Israel và Mỹ tìm cách tiêu diệt lãnh tụ tối cao Ali Khamenei gợi nhắc lại chính sách sai lầm của Mỹ tại Irak sau khi lật đổ chế độ Saddam Hussein năm 2003, vốn đã không mang lại một nền dân chủ,, mà đúng hơn là một sự hỗn loạn, và sự xuất hiện chế độ tài phiệt độc tài. « Chúng ta đang quay trở lại với giới hạn của học thuyết nổi tiếng về dân chủ hóa Trung Đông mà Mỹ mong muốn vào đầu những năm 2000, sau sự kiện ngày 11 tháng 9. Chính ngày 11 tháng 9 này mà vụ giết người hôm 07/10/2023 thường được đem ra so sánh. Khi đề cập đến việc thay đổi chế độ ở Iran, Netanyahu có ý định sao chép cách tiếp cận rất mang tính kiểu Bush về một cuộc chuyển đổi dân chủ và tự do lớn trong khu vực, một chuỗi sự kiện bắt đầu vào ngày 11 tháng 9. Nhưng có lẽ ông đang tự lừa dối mình nếu nghĩ rằng mọi việc sẽ diễn ra đơn giản như vậy. » Trong bối cảnh này, ngày 17/06/2025, vào lúc đối đầu quân sự giữa Israel và Iran bước vào ngày thứ năm, tổng thống Pháp Emmanuel Macron, bên lề thượng đỉnh G7 tại Canada, cảnh báo một sự thay đổi chế độ tại Iran sẽ đồng nghĩa với sự « hỗn loạn ». (Nguồn The Conversation, France Culture và RFI)

In this episode of Ami's House, we dive into why American isolationists are misreading the Iran conflict and, in doing so, undermining their own objectives. Featuring an insightful conversation with Mark Dubowitz– CEO of non-profit thinktank Foundation for Defense of Democracies– we unpack the pitfalls of isolationist rhetoric, explore on-the-ground realities, and discuss what constructive engagement might look like. Whether you follow Middle East foreign policy closely or are just curious about the human impact behind headlines, this episode sheds light on how U.S. isolationism can backfire and what genuine support might entail.We cover:Historical Context: Understand pre-1979 Iran, the Shah's era, and how the Islamic Republic consolidated power.Myth-Busting: Learn why common narratives (e.g., “Argo”) misrepresent key events and how that shapes public perception.Nuclear Threat Analysis: Explore the strategic factors driving Iran's nuclear ambitions, Israel's responses, and why timing matters.U.S. Policy & Isolationism: Discover how calls to “avoid escalation” can paradoxically make war more likely by undermining credible deterrence.Civil Resistance & Regime Change: Hear about the growing Iranian protest movements, Operation Rising Lion, and how external support might tip the balance. If you found this discussion valuable, hit Subscribe and ring the bell to get notified about future Ami's House episodes on Israel, Middle East affairs, and global politics. Consider joining our Patreon for early access, bonus content, and to help us build a grassroots community of informed viewers. Support on Patreon https://www.patreon.com/amishouse/postsMike's podcast "Iran Breakdown" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WyoGsvpl3c&list=PLmEsAFBNkqsMQnt5pypwEX0ul0NyIjd3EJoin the Conversation:Do you think U.S. isolationist policies help or hinder stability in the Middle East? Have you seen gaps between American debate and on-the-ground realities? Let us know your thoughts! Comments!00:00 – Iran Under the Shah vs. the 1979 Islamic Revolution02:50 – Debunking “Argo” and the 1953 Coup Narrative04:31 – Khomeini's Rise06:08 – Succession of Ali Khamenei07:03 – The Ayatollah's Biggest Miscalculation12:22 – Why NOW? The Closing Window on Iran's Nuclear Program22:20 – What are the threats to the U.S. if it attacks Iran?28:16 – The Regime's Vulnerability38:28 – Operation Rising Lion: Supporting the Iranian People to Overthrow the Regime45:22 Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, and What the Isolationists Don't Get

*36 ویں برسی امام خمینی رح*

In deze aflevering van Op z'n Kop! gaan Marianne Zwagerman en Rick van Velthuysen in gesprek met cultureel psycholoog en auteur Keyvan Shahbazi. Geboren in Teheran, belandde hij na de terugkeer van ayatollah Khomeini in 1979 in een nachtmerrie. Op zeventienjarige leeftijd werd Shahbazi gemarteld en meermaals onderworpen aan schijnexecuties. In 1983 wist hij te vluchten naar Nederland, waar hij zijn vrijheid hervond — maar diezelfde vrijheid ziet hij vandaag de dag opnieuw onder druk staan. In zijn nieuwste boek De Prijs van Vrijheid uit Shahbazi zijn zorgen over de groeiende invloed van de islam in Nederland en Europa. Volgens hem komen fundamentele waarden als de vrijheid van meningsuiting en individuele rechten hierdoor in het gedrang. Ook bekritiseert hij het gebrek aan open debat over religie binnen politiek en media, en roept hij op tot meer moed en eerlijkheid in het gesprek hierover. Is zijn boodschap een terechte wake-up call — of valt het allemaal wel mee? Luister mee en oordeel zelf!

The One about Khomeini's Underware. With Dina Losito and Tomm Looney SUPPORT US ON AMAZON – CLICK HERE

The One about Khomeini's Underware. With Dina Losito and Tomm Looney SUPPORT US ON AMAZON – CLICK HERE

Lily Bandehy er forfatter, skribent og aktivist. Hun kom til Norge i 1988 som politisk flyktning fra Iran. Bandehy var politisk aktiv under både Shahen- og Khomeini-regimet. Hun er utdannet lærer og sykepleier med videreutdanning i psykiatri, og har jobbet fra 1991 i helsesektoren, i kontrollkommisjon for psykiatrien og vært nemndmedlem i UNE. Som samfunnsdebattant er Lily kjent gjennom sitt kritiske blikk innen temaene ytringsfrihet og religion, og har vært fast skribent hos Nettavisen i tillegg til å ha skrevet i 18 år for ulike riksaviser som Aftenposten, VG, Klassekampen.I episoden i dag snakker vi blant annet om hennes oppvekst i Iran, om selve dagen i 1979 da hele landet forandret seg fra Sjahen Reza Pahlavi til Ayatollah Khomeini over natten. Om det autoritære styrets voldsbruk, moralpoliti og flukten fra Iran til Norge.Om å klare seg som alenemor med tre barn i et nytt land og helt annen kultur. Om livet på asylmottak med små barn. Om Islam, sharia, salafisme og naive Norge, og utviklingen vår her i landet. Om hvordan Iran stod bak 7. oktober i Israel.Om hvordan folket i Iran elsker Israel, og hvordan de faktisk håper at Trump og Bibi (som det iranske folk kaller ham) kommer til å bombe iran, og hjelpe dem tilbake til frihet. Bandehy har skrevet boken Kvinner i Islam – Islams forakt for kvinner. Boken er en grunnpilar i litteratur om kvinners rettigheter og likestilling i Islam. ►  ⁠BLI ⁠⁠⁠⁠MEDLEM⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Fremover vil de som er støttemedlemmer få tilgang til episodene først. Da støtter du podcasten med det samme som prisen av en kaffe hver måned. Setter stor pris på om du blir støttemedlem. Tusen takk.► VIPPSOm du ønsker å støtte arbeidet med denne podcasten, kan du bidra med et stort eller lite beløp, etter eget ønske. All støtte settes pris på, og du bidrar til arbeidet med å lage flere episoder. Bruk Vippsnummer: #823278► Du kan altså støtte podden ved å donere et beløp til:➡ Vipps (lenke for mobil) eller bruk Vippsnummer: #823278➡ Eller bli MEDLEM og få tilgang til de nyeste episodene først.► Omtale/rating:Legg gjerne igjen en omtale/rating på ⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠ & ⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠. Det hjelper podcasten med å bli synlig for flere.► Linker:⁠⁠Youtube⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠Nettside⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠TikTok⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠ | Podimo | ⁠⁠Facebook⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠Apple

The founder of Iran's most feared military force, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard (IRGC), sits down with Patrick Bet-David to EXPOSE what really happened behind closed doors during the 1979 Iranian revolution.. Mohsen Sazegara, a former insider, reveals how the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps transformed from its original mission into a global power player—linked to Hezbollah, Hamas, and international conflicts.

Retour sur la condamnation à mort de l'écrivain Salman Rushdie par l'ayatollah Khomeini en 1989 suite à la publication de son roman Les Versets Sataniques, jugé blasphématoire par le monde musulman.Notre équipe a utilisé un outil d'Intelligence artificielle via les technologies d'Audiomeans© pour accompagner la création de ce contenu écrit.En 2025, Europe 1 célèbre ses 70 ans. 70 ans d'histoire, de rires, de partages et d'émotions.Pour marquer cet anniversaire, découvrez une collection inédite de podcasts : "70 ans d'Europe 1".

Remontez le temps jusqu'en février 1979, lorsque l'ayatollah Khomeini fait un retour triomphal en Iran après 14 ans d'exil en France. Acclamé par des millions de manifestants, il orchestre depuis la France la chute du régime dictatorial du Shah, jugé incompatible avec la religion chiite.Plongez au cœur de cette révolution islamique qui bouleverse le paysage politique iranien, accompagné du reporter d'Europe 1, François Ponchelet, témoin de la foule en liesse accueillant l'ayatollah. Découvrez comment Khomeini, depuis son exil, a œuvré pour renverser le Shah, dont la chute a des répercussions mondiales, notamment sur le prix du pétrole, une crise analysée par le ministre de l'Industrie, André Giraud.Alors que la vie quotidienne en Iran reste difficile malgré le changement de régime, observez comment cette révolution inspire une nouvelle génération de militants anti-impérialistes dans le monde musulman. Et laissez-vous bercer par les paroles rassurantes de Michel Sardou, pour qui "ils ont le pétrole, mais c'est tout".Un épisode passionnant qui vous fera revivre un moment charnière de l'histoire, à la croisée de l'Iran, de l'Europe et du monde arabe.

Retour sur les événements marquants de la révolution iranienne de 1979, qui a vu le retour triomphal de l'ayatollah Khomeini et l'instauration de la République islamique, avec les conséquences sur la production mondiale de pétrole.Notre équipe a utilisé un outil d'Intelligence artificielle via les technologies d'Audiomeans© pour accompagner la création de ce contenu écrit.En 2025, Europe 1 célèbre ses 70 ans. 70 ans d'histoire, de rires, de partages et d'émotions.Pour marquer cet anniversaire, découvrez une collection inédite de podcasts : "70 ans d'Europe 1".

In questo podcast, dalla voce dell'architetto e politico iraniano Mehdi Chamran, il racconto della Rivoluzione islamica che l'11 febbraio del 1979 trasformò l'Iran, regno dello Scià di Persia Reza Pahlavi, in una repubblica islamica sciita. Chamran attualmente presidente del Consiglio comunale di Teheran, è una delle figure più autorevoli che hanno partecipato alla rivoluzione. È stato negli anni il capo dell'intelligence esterna e tra coloro che hanno contribuito al programma di sviluppo nucleare del Paese. Con suo fratello, Mostafa Chamran, ha dato vita agli Hezbollah libanesi, il Partito di Dio. Suo fratello Mostafa, politico, comandante e guerrigliero iraniano, ha servito come Primo Ministro della Difesa nell'Iran post-rivoluzionario, è stato membro del parlamento, nonché Comandante dei Volontari paramilitari nella guerra Iran-Iraq. Durante quel lungo terribile conflitto perse la vita. Nella prima parte del podcast, Charman ripercorre la storia della Rivoluzione islamica. Nella seconda ricorda l'Ayatollah Ruhollah Moṣṭafāvī Mōsavī Khomeini, Guida suprema dell'Iran dal 1979 al 1989 e Padre della Rivoluzione, l'attuale Guida Suprema, l'Ayatollah Seyyed Alì Khamenei, già presidente della repubblica Islamica dal 1981 al 1989, massimo esponente nazionale del clero sciita. Infine il racconto di Mehdi Charman si chiude con la testimonianza della fondazione e costituzione di Hezbollah, il Partito di Dio libanese. A cura di Francesco De Leo. Montaggio di Silvio Farina. https://storiainpodcast.focus.it - Canale Eventi e luoghi ------------ Storia in Podcast di Focus si può ascoltare anche su Spotify https://open.spotify.com/show/293C5TZniMOgqHdBLSTaRc ed Apple Podcasts https://podcasts.apple.com/it/podcast/la-voce-della-storia/id1511551427. Siamo in tutte le edicole... ma anche qui: - Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/FocusStoria/ - Gruppo Facebook Focus Storia Wars: https://www.facebook.com/groups/FocuStoriaWars/ (per appassionati di storia militare) - YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/focusitvideo - Twitter: https://twitter.com/focusstoria - Sito: https://www.focus.it/cultura Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In questo podcast, dalla voce dell'architetto e politico iraniano Mehdi Chamran, il racconto della Rivoluzione islamica che l'11 febbraio del 1979 trasformò l'Iran, regno dello Scià di Persia Reza Pahlavi, in una repubblica islamica sciita. Chamran attualmente presidente del Consiglio comunale di Teheran, è una delle figure più autorevoli che hanno partecipato alla rivoluzione. È stato negli anni il capo dell'intelligence esterna e tra coloro che hanno contribuito al programma di sviluppo nucleare del Paese. Con suo fratello, Mostafa Chamran, ha dato vita agli Hezbollah libanesi, il Partito di Dio. Suo fratello Mostafa, politico, comandante e guerrigliero iraniano, ha servito come Primo Ministro della Difesa nell'Iran post-rivoluzionario, è stato membro del parlamento, nonché Comandante dei Volontari paramilitari nella guerra Iran-Iraq. Durante quel lungo terribile conflitto perse la vita. Nella prima parte del podcast, Charman ripercorre la storia della Rivoluzione islamica. Nella seconda ricorda l'Ayatollah Ruhollah Moṣṭafāvī Mōsavī Khomeini, Guida suprema dell'Iran dal 1979 al 1989 e Padre della Rivoluzione, l'attuale Guida Suprema, l'Ayatollah Seyyed Alì Khamenei, già presidente della repubblica Islamica dal 1981 al 1989, massimo esponente nazionale del clero sciita. Infine il racconto di Mehdi Charman si chiude con la testimonianza della fondazione e costituzione di Hezbollah, il Partito di Dio libanese. A cura di Francesco De Leo. Montaggio di Silvio Farina. https://storiainpodcast.focus.it - Canale Eventi e luoghi ------------ Storia in Podcast di Focus si può ascoltare anche su Spotify https://open.spotify.com/show/293C5TZniMOgqHdBLSTaRc ed Apple Podcasts https://podcasts.apple.com/it/podcast/la-voce-della-storia/id1511551427. Siamo in tutte le edicole... ma anche qui: - Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/FocusStoria/ - Gruppo Facebook Focus Storia Wars: https://www.facebook.com/groups/FocuStoriaWars/ (per appassionati di storia militare) - YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/focusitvideo - Twitter: https://twitter.com/focusstoria - Sito: https://www.focus.it/cultura Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jimmy Carter (1924-2024) was hailed as an exemplary leader on human rights whose presidency was ruined by crises outside his control, none worse than the hostage crisis in Iran. This favorable view elides critical events that took place during the years before the U.S. embassy was seized in Tehran in Nov. 1979. President Carter acted like the previous presidents he had criticized. He embraced the brutal Shah of Iran, sold him weapons, and stuck with him to the very end. Then the Carter administration avoided making contact with Iran's new revolutionary, Islamist leaders headed by the Ayatollah Khomeini. What if Carter had made different moves? Would U.S.-Iran relations be different today? In this episode, historian and Eurasia Group senior analyst Gregory Brew delves into the Cold War origins of the U.S.-Iran relationship and why Jimmy Carter made a human rights exception for the Shah.  Further reading: The Struggle For Iran: Oil, Autocracy, and the Cold War, 1951 to 1954 by Gregory Brew and David S. Painter America and Iran: A History, 1720 to the Present by John Ghazvinian Further listening: Operation Ajax (podcast featuring interview w/ Gregory Brew)

With news of the passing of the 39th President of the United States, Jimmy Carter, we present a special edition of Roqe. While Carter is being lauded for virtues and impressive accomplishments through his storied life, his legacy with Iran during the period of his presidency is more problematic and fraught with questionable decisions. Indeed, a credible case can be made that it was a consequence of Carter's actions - and inactions - that Khomeini and the Islamic Republic of Iran was enabled to take power. Jian is joined by historian and journalist Kai Bird (redux) on his biography - The Outlier: The Unfinished Presidency of Jimmy Carter. Plus Jian opens the show with an essay suggesting to non-Iranians: “Don't be surprised if some of your Iranian friends are less forgiving in remembering Jimmy Carter.”

Les États-Unis observeront le 9 janvier prochain une journée de deuil national en l'honneur de l'ex-président Jimmy Carter. L'ancien président est mort ce dimanche 29 décembre 2024 à l'âge de 100 ans. Il avait été le 39ᵉ président des États-Unis, mais c'est surtout son action post-présidence qui aura été unanimement louée. Le 39ᵉ président des États-Unis était né en Géorgie. EtThe Atlanta Journal-Constitution racontait ce dimanche 29 décembre 2024 qu'à l'annonce de sa mort, des habitants d'Atlanta ont commencé à se réunir au Manuel's Tavern, un bar près de la Fondation Carter. Car c'est dans cet établissement que Jimmy Carter avait lancé sa campagne de gouverneur en 1970. Pourtant, c'est sa carrière en dehors des États-Unis et après sa présidence que la presse américaine met en Une aujourd'hui : « Une stature bien au-delà de la présidence », titre ainsi USA Today.Il faut dire que la présidence de Jimmy Carter a été difficile, et qu'il a été abondamment moqué : un éditorialiste du New York Times rappelle que le décorateur de son successeur Ronald Reagan aurait ironisé sur la nécessité de « se débarrasser de l'odeur du poisson-chat ». Mais Jimmy Carter a été « un bien meilleur président qu'on lui en sait généralement gréé ». Après la présidence Nixon et le scandale du Watergate, explique le Washington Post, « Carter a aidé à restaurer la confiance dans la présidence grâce à des réformes éthiques aujourd'hui plus d'actualité que jamais », il a aussi mis les droits de l'homme au centre de sa politique étrangère, à un point tel qu'aucun futur président n'a pu faire l'impasse dessus.Bilan mitigé en matière de politique étrangèrePour autant, pour André Caspi, historien des États-Unis et professeur émérite à la Sorbonne, en matière de politique étrangère, si Jimmy Carter « a réussi des choses pendant sa présidence » (les accords de Camp David par exemple, qui ont permis la paix entre Israël et l'Égypte), ce qu'il reste « ce sont surtout ses échecs », comme sa politique iranienne : il « n'a pas vu venir l'ayatollah Khomeini ». Et si son successeur Ronald Reagan a « su redonner vigueur à la présidence des États-Unis dans l'ensemble du monde, Jimmy Carter y est parvenu après sa présidence ». Pour ce qui est de l'Amérique latine, André Caspi rappelle que lorsque Jimmy Carter arrive au pouvoir en 1977, les relations États-Unis / Amérique latine sont encore marquées par l'influence de Fidel Castro, « il y a tout un bouillonnement d'idées, de transformation de la vie politique dans les années 196-70. Jimmy Carter fait face à ce mouvement, mais ne peut pas empêcher des tensions fortes entre les États-Unis, entre ces révolutionnaires ou prétendus révolutionnaires », d'autant que l'URSS existait toujours.Un ex-président louéDe fait, Jimmy Carter est surtout considéré comme un formidable ex-président, rappelle USA Today : « plutôt que de retirer de l'argent de son statut d'ex-président, il a inlassablement servi les causes de la paix, des droits humains, de l'éradication de la maladie et du logement à un prix abordable. Il a travaillé pour apaiser les tensions dans la péninsule coréenne, au Moyen-Orient, en Amérique latine et partout ailleurs ». En 2002, après avoir été nommés à de nombreuses reprises pour le prix Nobel de la Paix, rappelle leNew York Times, il le remporte finalement, entre autres pour sa « contribution vitale » aux accords de Camp David.ÉvangélismeLe Washington Times affirme que « la foi a façonné la présidence de Jimmy Carter et les décennies de vie publique qui ont suivi ». Dans Politico, un professeur en religion à l'Université de Dartmouth parle de la fin, avec sa mort, de « l'évangélisme progressif », qui a cherché au XIXᵉ à« réformer la société américaine selon les normes de la piété » en se préoccupant des« plus petits ». Une tradition, écrit le spécialiste, à laquelle l'élection de Ronald Reagan a porté un coup fatal, les évangéliques blancs se mêlant à « l'extrême droite du Parti républicain ». Tout cela culminant avec un soutien massif à Donald Trump.Les côtes du Pérou, du Chili et de l'Équateur frappées par d'énormes vaguesCes houles venues du nord provoquent des vagues atteignant les quatre mètres de haut, raconte au Chili La Tercera. En Équateur, détailleEl Universo, deux personnes ont été tuées.En fait, la nouvelle phase lunaire influencerait l'augmentation du niveau de la marée dans certaines zones côtières : c'est ce qu'a expliqué la direction de l'hydrographie et de la navigation de la marine péruvienne au quotidien El Comercio. Au Pérou où 91 ports ont été fermés, détaille Diario Correo. De son côté Peru 21 publie les images de la station balnéaire de Mancora, dévastée par les vagues. Et raconte que, à quelques heures de célébrer la nouvelle année, des dizaines d'entrepreneurs de la côte (hôtellerie, gastronomie, tourisme) sont désespérés : ils ont perdu tous leurs investissements.Cent ans de solitude sur NetflixLes huit premiers chapitres de la série Cent ans de solitude sont disponibles sur Netflix. Il s'agit de l'adaptation du célèbre roman – un classique – qui a valu à son auteur, le Colombien Gabriel García Márquez, le prix Nobel de littérature en 1982. La correspondante de RFI Marie-Eve Detoeuf a recueilli quelques réactions de Colombiennes plutôt séduites : l'une parle du format « série » comme du seul possible pour adapter l'œuvre à l'écran, et dit avoir été « transportée » sur les lieux du roman. Une autre, si elle juge les premiers épisodes « très bien faits », estime que la série ne peut pas égaler ce que l'imagination crée à la lecture du livre.Le Journal de la PremièreRodrigue Petitot va-t-il retrouver sa liberté ?

Iran's Religious and Ethnic Diversity, Part I: Introduction This episode delves into the rich tapestry of Iran's religious, linguistic, and ethnic diversity, tracing its ‎roots from the ancient Persian empires to the transformative events of the Islamic Revolution of 1979. ‎Iran's historical role as a crossroads of civilizations has shaped a multi-ethnic society, with Persian as the ‎national language alongside numerous minority languages and dialects. Religiously, while Shiism ‎dominates, smaller communities of Sunni Muslims, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and Bahā'īs ‎contribute to the nation's pluralistic identity.‎ We explore how efforts at centralization during the Pahlavi era—through language policies, land ‎reforms, and modernization—sought to homogenize this diversity, often with limited success. The ‎Islamic Revolution then ushered in a Shiite theocracy, profoundly impacting Iran's sociopolitical fabric. ‎Recognized religious minorities, such as Zoroastrians, Christians, and Jews, face varying degrees of ‎inclusion and restrictions, influenced by constitutional provisions and state strategies.‎ From Reza Shah's modernization policies to Khomeini's establishment of a dual governance system, ‎the episode examines the tension between Iran's vibrant diversity and the state's attempts to impose ‎ideological unity.‎ Keywords ‎#IranDiversity #ReligiousPluralism #IslamicRevolution #PersianHeritage #EthnicMinorities #Jews ‎‎#Iranianjews #Rezashah #Khomeini #Iran‎

Offerta di ESCLUSIVA NORDVPN: Vai su https://nordvpn.com/dentrolastoria per acquistare NordVPN + 4 mesi Extra + 6 mesi da regalare a chi vuoi +30gg soddisfatti o rimborsati Il nostro canale Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1vziHBEp0gc9gAhR740fCw Sostieni DENTRO LA STORIA su Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/dentrolastoria Abbonati al canale: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1vziHBEp0gc9gAhR740fCw/join Il nostro store in Amazon: https://www.amazon.it/shop/dentrolastoria Sostienici su PayPal: https://paypal.me/infinitybeat Dentro La Storia lo trovi anche qui: https://linktr.ee/dentrolastoria Nell'Iran pre-rivoluzionario circolavano molte audiocassette. Il contenuto però non era musicale: erano sermoni e discorsi di un predicatore che invitava il popolo a "svegliarsi", ribellandosi allo Scià. Quella voce apparteneva a un anziano ayatollah che nel 1963 aveva osato sfidare il potere imperiale e la Rivoluzione Bianca. Esiliato dal suo Paese, Ruhollah Khomeini aveva continuato a diffondere le sue prediche religiose incitando gli iraniani a rovesciare il governo dello Scià che, a suo dire, era ormai servo degli americani. Dopo la fuga dell'imperatore, Khomeini tornò per realizzare il suo ambizioso progetto, quello di creare una enorme teocrazia. Ma il suo modello politico era davvero più libero rispetto alla dittatura precedente? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

   The news headlines are flying around the world so fast I can hardly keep up with them, nor can I imagine what world leaders like Biden, Harris, Trump, Netanyahu, Khomeini, Putin and so many others, are thinking or planning behind closed doors!  What I CAN DO is pray, keep digging into God’s Word and celebrate that Almighty God is on His throne!  He is sovereign over all things, at all times, in all places and nothing is happening in our world today that is unknown to God or catches God by surprise, do you agree? I am amazed at how relevant the accounts of very real events recorded in God’s Word in Israel 2700 years ago are to our world today.(Click here to see full text, images and links)   Today’s Scripture: Isaiah 36:20 – 37:8. Choose below to read or listen.​​Isaiah 37Pastor Doug Anderson    “Let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, with our eyes fixed on Jesus…” (Heb. 12:1,2)Have a comment or question about today's chapter? I'm ready to hear from you, contact me here. Interested in helping "Walking with Jesus" financially? Click here

Rabbi Jacobson will discuss the following topics:What do the Nine Days teach us today?    What is the Rebbe's unique approach to this saddest time of the year?  How does this period help us face challenges?  How does Rosh Chodesh Av empower us?  Can we expect that the sadness of this period will be transformed to joy?  Should we be afraid of our enemies threatening us?  What is the best way to fight our enemies?  What can we learn from this assassination in Tehran, in a private place?  Are we allowed to celebrate the deaths of our enemies?  Can we desecrate their graves?   What does the Torah say about offense being the best defense?   What should be our reaction to Israeli soldiers being arrested for abusing Hamas terrorists?  Why do we have an enemy that wants to destroy us in every generation?  Why isn't there greater emphasis on fighting radical Islam and its mandate to take over the world?  Did the Rebbe comment on the Islamic Revolution and Khomeini?  Should we start buying property now in Israel?  Why are we not doing more to unite Jews?  What should be our attitude to Jewish antisemites?  Why don't you openly come out against the current democratic party?  How should we address the current crisis following the assassination of prominent terrorist leaders? Is it wise to assassinate the enemy's leaders? War in Israel Jewish Unity Presidential Election Sholom Bayis: How do you distinguish between healthy compromise and becoming a “doormat”? What is the significance of Shabbos Chazon? 

Der bis dahin tödlichste Terroranschlag der Geschichte schockiert im Jahr 1978 die Stadt Teheran. Wer wirklich für diese Katastrophe verantwortlich ist, interessiert in den Wochen danach kaum jemanden. Viel wichtiger ist, wen die Bevölkerung dafür verantwortlich macht. Das Duell zwischen dem Schah und Ayatollah Khomeini läuft auf seinen Höhepunkt zu. Welche Strategie verfolgt der Ayatollah? Warum lässt der Westen den Schah im Stich? Und wie wird die iranische Monarchie zugrunde gehen? Ein Aspekt, den weder der Schah noch Khomeini ahnen, ist, dass in der iranischen Revolution ausgerechnet eine Krankheit Geschichte schreiben wird.Du hast Feedback oder einen Themenvorschlag für Joachim und Nils? Dann melde dich gerne per Mail an: wasbishergeschah@wondery.comQuellen:Revolutionary Islam von Michael AxworthyThe unthinkable Revolution von Charles KurzmanThe last Shah von Ray TakeyhThe Fall of Heaven von Andrew Scott CooperKhomeini: Der Revolutionär des Islams von Katajun AmirpurZeitenwende 1979 von Frank Bösch+++ Alle Rabattcodes und Infos zu meinen Werbepartnern findet ihr hier: https://linktr.ee/was_bisher_geschah +++Unsere allgemeinen Datenschutzrichtlinien finden Sie unter https://art19.com/privacy. Die Datenschutzrichtlinien für Kalifornien sind unter https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info abrufbar.

What if you could witness the 1979 revolution of a nation through the eyes of someone who lived it? Join us for an insightful conversation with Amir Tahiri, an esteemed Iranian-born journalist and scholar, as he takes us on a political journey of Iran's revolution.Amir's firsthand experiences as the executive editor of Iran's largest daily newspaper, Kayhan, offer a unique perspective on the Shah's leadership, the rise of Khomeini, and the seismic shifts that reshaped Iran and its global relationships.Join us as we dissect the economic and political paradigms that challenge conventional wisdom, like the perceived links between democracy and wealth. Amir unpacks the Shah's industrial ambitions, the strategic errors that facilitated Khomeini's ascent, and the complex geopolitical dance between Iran and the United States. Through detailed anecdotes and critical analysis, we expose the misinformation and external influences that fueled the revolution, providing a rich narrative that illuminates the nuances of this pivotal moment in history.Finally, we celebrate Iran's cultural resilience and the boundless creativity of the Iranian people, who continue to inspire despite oppressive regimes. Amir reflects on the enduring spirit of Iranians and their potential for greatness, amplified by social media's transformative power.#iran #iranrevolution #tehran #iranian 

Der Iran-Experte Walter Posch über die Hintergründe des Verhältnisses Israel-Iran und die Rolle des Krieges in Gaza. Ein Podcast vom Pragmaticus. Das ThemaIsrael, der Iran und die gesamte Region Naher Osten werden bis auf Weiteres in desaströser Prekarität verharren, so der Iranist Walter Posch. Wer einen Flächenbrand ausgehend vom Konflikt Israel und Iran erwarte, sei blind für die Gegenwart, sagt er. Denn der Flächenbrand ist bereits da: Frieden für die sei nur ausgehend von einem Frieden in Gaza und einer tragfähigen Lösung für die palästinensische Bevölkerung denkbar. Der Westen müsse sich (diesmal) auch davon verabschieden, eine Lösung zu forcieren, die seiner Hegemonie nützt: „Wenn ich eine Befriedigung zum Zwecke der Absicherung der westlichen Hegemonie versuche, wird das nicht gelingen. Globalisierung heißt auch, dass alle mitreden. Daran werden sich auch die Europäer und die Amerikaner gewöhnen wissen, und die Russen übrigens auch.“Unser Gast in dieser Folge: Walter Posch ist Iranist und Islamwissenschaftler. Er forscht und lehrt am Institut für Friedenssicherung und Konfliktmanagement der Landesverteidigungsakademie in Wien, die zum Bundesministerium für Landesverteidigung gehört. Einer seiner Forschungsschwerpunkte sind Untergrundbewegungen des Nahen Ostens.

Find me and the show on social media @DrWilmerLeon on X (Twitter), Instagram, and YouTube Facebook page is www.facebook.com/Drwilmerleonctd   Some articles referenced in the episode: Libertarian article: To End the War in Ukraine, Expose Its Core Lie | The Libertarian Institute Nato Watch article: How Gorbachev was misled over assurances against NATO expansion TruthOut article: The Ukraine Mess That Nuland Made | Truthout   FULL TRANSCRIPT: Announcer (00:06): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge. Wilmer Leon (00:15): Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon. I am Wilmer Leon and this is a special episode. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they occur in a vacuum and we're failing to understand the broader historical context in which many of these events occur during each episode. Usually my guests and I have probing, provocative and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between these events and the broader historic context in which they occur, and this enables you to better understand and analyze the events that impact the global village in which we live on today's episode. The issue before us is what's really behind this most recent spate of military spending and is democracy really at risk? My guest for this discussion is me as the brilliant philosopher of the late Maurice White with Earth, wind and Fire said in all about love. (01:23) I want to take this moment to run down a couple of things about things we see every day. So in this episode it's just going to be you and I, president Joe Biden. On Wednesday the 24th of April, he signed into law the So-called Military Aid Package. It's worth $95 billion of your hard earned tax dollars. It includes nearly $61 billion that's going to Ukraine, $26 billion for Israel and $8 billion for the Indio Pacific. After signing the bill, president Biden said quote, it's a good day for America. It's a good day for Ukraine. It's a good day for world peace. The aid package, Biden said is going to make America safer. It's going to make the world safer, and it continues. America's leadership in the world. Is it and does it really well. So these statements by Biden, they're going to be kind of the broad outline of my comments for today. (02:43) What's really behind all of this money to Ukraine, Israel and the Indio Pacific, and is it an investment in safety or is it profit for the military industry? On January 17th, 1961 in his farewell address to the nation president Dwight Eisenhower, a former general and Republican warned the country and the world against the establishment of what he called the military industrial complex. Eisenhower said, and I quote, A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be might ready for instant action so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. He was talking about a defensive military, not an offensive military. He went on to say American makers of plowshares could with time and as required make swords as well, but now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions and this is really the key, this conjunction, this is Eisenhower of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience, yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications in the councils of government. (04:28) We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought by the military industrial complex, the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. I repeat that the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist and that's what we see today. Eisenhower was incredibly prophetic in his concern of the dangers of American foreign policy becoming the ideological play thing of the arms industry. So coming out of World War II in 1945 coming out of the Korean conflict in 1953 and entering the Vietnam conflict around 1955 or 1956, it's very easy to understand Eisenhower's position on the need for a strong and prepared military. We're not going to debate that point. That could be a whole nother program, but with that, he admonished us not to fail to comprehend the grave implications, the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought by the military industrial complex. (05:57) So again, what's really behind all of this money to Ukraine, all this money to Israel, all this money to the Indio Pacific. Let's start with Ukraine and most of this will center around Ukraine because that's where a bulk of the money is going and that's also where for the most part, the most immediate risk of conflagration exists. There's a great piece that's published in the Libertarian Institute. It's entitled to end the War in Ukraine, expose its core lie to end the war in Ukraine, expose its core lie it's co-authored by Ted Snyder, a regular columnist on US foreign policy at antiwar and history at anti-war dot com as well as the Libertarian Institute and it's also it's co-authored by Professor Nikolai Petro. He's a political scientist at the University of Rhode Island and he's also the author of a number of books and since their piece is so well researched and so well written, I'm just going to quote from it, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, they did a phenomenal job with this piece and I suggest everybody read it anyway. (07:19) They write. The essential argument used to avoid negotiation and continue support for the war in Ukraine is based upon a falsehood. They call it a falsehood. I call it a lie. That falsehood repeated by Joe Biden is that when Russian president Putin decided to invade Ukraine, he intended to conquer all of Ukraine and annihilated its falsity and this is Snyder and Petro its falsity has been exposed multiple times by military experts who have pointed out both before and after the invasion that Russia could not have intended to conquer all of Ukraine because it did not invade with sufficient forces to do so. Indeed, this was the key reason why senior Ukrainian officials and even President Zelensky himself argued just days before the invasion it would not occur. Now, I take issue with their use of the word invasion because it's really a military intervention, but again, that's a discussion for another time. (08:33) Folks, if you just strip away the rhetoric and the lies, and if you just look at the facts, the US started this fight with Russia and is using Ukraine as its proxy to do so. Schneider and Petro also have a piece, it's a shorter version of piece that I just referenced and it's entitled four Myths that Are Preventing Peace in Ukraine. Again, their work is so well researched and written, I'm just going to quote them again, I'm not going to try to reinvent the wheel they write. If diplomacy is to have a chance at settling the bloody conflict, then four persistent myths about Ukraine need to be exposed and refuted. Myth number one, Putin. I'm sorry, myth number one. If Putin is not defeated in Ukraine, he will roll into Europe. You've heard this many times. If Putin takes Ukraine, according to President Biden, he said this in Congress on the 6th of December, 2023, he won't stop there. He's going to keep going. He's made that pretty clear. (09:53) The problem with that statement is no evidence to support it has ever been presented. Petro and Snyder go continue, but Putin has not made that pretty clear. In fact, Putin has consistently said that the Ukraine crisis is not a territorial conflict. The issue is much broader and more fundamental and is about the principles of underlying the new international order. Simply put, it's about President Putin being concerned about Russian territorial security, sovereignty and integrity in the same manner that any other leader in the world is concerned about their territorial security, sovereignty and integrity. He's not doing anything different than what any other world leader would do. There's a piece@natowatch.com, I think.org, nato watch.org entitled How Gorbachev was Misled Over Assurances Against NATO expansion. And this piece that I'm referencing is kind of background to give you some greater context about what Schneider and Petro have written the US was trying to convince. The Soviet Union, this is back in the nineties, was trying to convince the Soviet Union to allow for the reunification of East and West Germany. (11:40) The then US Secretary of State, James Baker, his famous not one inch eastward assurance about NATO expansion while he was meeting within the president of Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev. This was on February 9th, 1990 was only a part of a cascade of similar assurances, meaning not only did James Baker say it, but other European leaders said this to Gorbachev as well. In February of 1990, baker assured the Soviet Union, and at the time he was the US Secretary of State under then President George HW Bush, he assured his counterpart Edward Chevron Nazi, that in a post Cold War Europe, NATO would no longer be belligerent, less of a military organization, much more of a political one, and then it would have no need for an independent capability. This is what the United States told the Soviet Union. Nonetheless, baker promised Shepherd Nazi ironclad guarantees that NATO's jurisdiction of forces would not move eastward meaning no closer to the then Soviet Union. (13:12) On the same day in Moscow. He famously told the Secretary General that the alliance would not move one inch to the East The following day, O Cole, the future chancellor of a United Germany repeated the same thought to Gorbachev even though they were disagreeing on other issues. Tillman Cole told Gorbachev not one inch eastward. That's what convinced Gorbachev to agree to the reunification of east and West Germany. I believe France, Britain and possibly one or two other European countries made the same assurances as well. And again, as a result of these insurances assurances, Germany was reunited the West NATO and Western allies or US allies have violated this agreement ever since. That's what's at the crux of the conflict. That's why when President Putin and President Biden met in Geneva, Switzerland before the Russian intervention, Putin told Biden, I'm giving you my security concerns in writing and I expect your response to my concerns to come back to me in writing. (14:46) He demanded the written response because Baker had stated the commitment verbally to Gorbachev. So now Putin wants this in writing and just quickly to those that say, oh, well, because it was just a statement and it was not written, it's not valid. Nene, I say to you, there's a case, I think it's Norway versus Greenland. It's a 19 35, 19 36 international law case that holds statements made by official representatives of states or countries are valid. They are enforceable. So the fact that Baker said it and didn't write it does not mean it's not valid. Again, according to Norway v Greenland, it's a 19 35, 19 36 international case. Okay with that. Now let's go back to Petro myth number two. Russia's invasion of Ukraine was never about nato. That's the myth that this has. The conflict in Ukraine has nothing to do with nato. Western officials insists that Russia's invasion of Ukraine was unprovoked and that Russia's decision to illegally invade Ukraine was never about NATO expansion and crossing Russia's red lines, but rather it's a senseless war against a sovereign freedom loving nation. (16:29) Petro Snyder continue. On the 7th of September of 2023, NATO's secretary Jens Stoltenberg made the stunning admission that Putin's decision to invade Ukraine was indeed provoked by NATO encroachment on Ukraine. The United States wanted to put missiles into Ukraine too close to the Russian border. Prior to making that decision to go into Ukraine, Stoltenberg said that Putin had sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent to us, Stoltenberg said and was a precondition for his not invading Ukraine. And Stoltenberg said, of course, we didn't sign that. Myth number three, the war in Ukraine is a war on democracy versus autocracy. According to this narrative, Russia cannot be allowed to win because this war is not just about Ukraine. It's the first battlefield in a larger war for democracy against autocracy. (17:55) But Russia abandoned the goal of exporting ideology when the Soviet Union collapsed. In fact, the Russian constitution, article 13 of the Russian constitution explicitly prohibits the imposition of a single state ideology and the exportation of such. And for those of you who will say, oh, you all didn't know Russia has a constitution, president Putin is bound by that constitution. Russia has a parliament, they have a democracy. Vladimir Putin, contrary to popular belief and narrative is not an autocrat. He's no more of an autocrat than Joe Biden is an autocrat and some would tell you that Joe Biden is an autocrat. But anyway, this and this is my input. If the US is spending billions of your taxpayer dollars to defend democracy, then why did the United States go in and overthrow the democratically elected government of President Victor Jankovich in Ukraine in 2014? To that point, there is a piece in truth out the Ukraine mess that Newland made. (19:18) You can find this in truth out the Ukraine mess that Newland made assistant Secretary of State at the time, Victorian Newland engineered Ukraine's regime change without weighing its likely consequences. This is by Robert Perry, a RRY, as the Ukrainian army squares off against ultra-right, and neo-Nazi militias in the west and violence against ethnic Russians continues in the East, the obvious folly of the Obama administration's Ukraine policy has come into focus even for many who tried to ignore the facts or what many have called the mess that Victoria Newland made assistant Secretary of state for European affairs. Tor Newland was the mastermind behind the February 22nd, 2014 regime change in Ukraine, plotting the overthrow of the democratically elected government of President Victor Jankovich while convincing the ever gullible us mainstream media that the coup wasn't really a coup but a victory for democracy folks. She worked with Nazis in Ukraine to overthrow the democratically elected Jankovich government in 2014. (20:51) It's called the ma don coup or ma don coup. Look it up, M-A-I-D-O-N. Everything I'm telling you right now, you can verify for yourselves. In fact, I implore you to do so. I'm not just taking this stuff off the top of my head. This is not my opinion. If it is my opinion, I will tell you that it is. This is historic fact. Myth number four, Putin again, this is Snyder and Petro Putin is not interested in negotiating. The West insists that Putin is not interested in negotiating an end to this conflict despite multiple news reports that he has been signaling through intermediaries that he is open to a ceasefire and that he is ready to make a deal. The White House continues to insist that he has shown absolutely no indication he's willing to negotiate. And that's just not true. My opinion, that's just not well, that's a fact. (22:08) He my opinion is not interested in negotiating based upon the usual tactic that the United States uses. The United States usual tactic of negotiation is capitulation. The United States comes to the table and says, here's how it's going to go. And once you agree to how we believe it's going to go, then we can sit down and talk about it. And Putin's saying, no ne nay, I'm not going to do that. You want to negotiate this. We're going to sit down and negotiate this. And that's one of the big problems. My opinion, again, that's one of the big problems that the United States has with dealing with a peer such as Russian president, Putin back to Petro. But the historical record shows that Putin has sought a negotiated settlement since the opening days of conflict. And by all accounts, Russia and Ukraine had even reached a tentative agreement in Istanbul in April of 2022. And that has been confirmed by American reporting by then Israeli Prime Minister Neftali Bennett by former German chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder by Turkish Foreign Minister, and Newman Tuus, sorry for that struggle with those names. He's the deputy chairman of Erdogan, Turkish president of Erdogan's party. In fact, former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, he went to Ukraine and told Zelensky in April of 22, under no circumstance is the West going to allow you to negotiate a settlement with Russia. (24:29) I say that again as the United States says that Russia has no interest in negotiating. They were already negotiating and they had reached an agreement. And there have been some instances, some press conferences where Putin has held up the agreement and said, I got it right here. But Bojo Boris Johnson went and told on behalf of the West, went and told Zelensky, under no circumstances is the West going back that play. So if Putin isn't interested in negotiating, negotiating, why did he participate in the mens agreements, the series of international agreements which sought to end the Donbass conflict that was fought between armed Ukrainian, pro-Russian separatist groups and the armed forces of Ukraine. Folks look up the Minsk accords. And when you look up the Minsk accords, here's the problem. You can find this at the World Socialist website. You can find this a number of places former German chancellor, Angela Merkel Min, that the mins accords or the mins agreement was merely to buy time for Ukraine's arms buildup. The 2024 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time. Merkel told a German newspaper, it was also used. They also used that time to become stronger as you can see today. (26:16) And Angela Merkel was one of the key conveners of the Minsk meetings under the pretext of negotiating a settlement between what were called the ethnic Russians in the Donbass region and the rest of Ukraine. See, once you had the 2014 Midon coup and the Yakovich government was thrown out, then a pro Ukrainian nationalist Western leaning government backed by Nazis in Ukraine was implemented. And they then, because they were Ukrainian nationalists, they started ethnically cleansing what were called ethnic Russians in what's known as the Donbas region of Ukraine. And those folks in the Donbas were begging President Putin to intervene on their behalf. They're Ukrainian citizens with Russian background, Russian families, many of them speak Russian. They are members of the Russian Orthodox Church. They travel back and forth between the Donbass and Russia because they have families in Russia. But the Ukrainian nationalists wanted to ethnically cleanse them from the country. (27:50) And so in order to stop the conflict, they came to what was called the mens accords, which is why if you go back and look at the record, you'll see Putin telling Biden before he went into Ukraine, all you got to do is implement the Minsk agreement and we're good. All you've got to do is implement the Minsk agreement. And I'm not going in. We've already negotiated this. All you have to do is implement it. And the United, he told that to Biden when they were in Sweden in Geneva, you can look it up. The United States ignored it. So folks, this is a cursory view, cursory overview of the situation. You can research this for yourselves. Tony Blinken, Joe Biden, even Malcolm Nance, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, they're all lying to you. This is not about defending democracy, it's not about stopping the further advance of Russia. It's all about selling weapons around the world and they're using your nickel to do it. (29:22) Of the $60.7 billion that's going to Ukraine, $38.8 billion isn't going to Ukraine. It's going to US factories that make missiles, munitions, and other military gear. It's going to replenish the United States military stocks that have been depleted as a result of this fool's errand called Ukraine. It's going to Lockheed Martin, it's going to General Dynamics, it's going to General Electric, it's going to Boeing, it's going to Raytheon, it's going to a whole lot of other American arms manufacturers or as Eisenhower refer to them, the military industrial complex. And I'm not making these numbers up. You can look it up. This came from an Associated Press story and guess where the Associated Press got their numbers? They got their numbers from the Biden administration. So again, not my opinion, it's the facts. There's a great summary at the World Socialist website. (30:48) I referenced the story a little earlier in this piece, but if you're asking yourself, so what's the motivation behind the United States for using Ukraine as its proxy to confront Russia? The summary is as follows, since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States has pursued the goal of remaining the sole world power. To this end, Washington has waged numerous criminal wars and expanded NATO into Eastern Europe. Now it wants to integrate Ukraine, Georgia, and other former Soviet republics into NATO and subjugate Russia in order to plunder its resources and isolate China. You may have heard the pivot towards China from the Obama administration. That's what this isolation of China is all about. It's a pivot away from Afghanistan, a pivot away from a conflict with Russia, and the focus is on China. So the 61 billion in aid to Ukraine, the 26 billion for Israel, the $8 billion for the Pacific, those are your tax dollars with infrastructure crumbling in the United States, healthcare, pensions, education, we don't have the money to deal with those things as the rate of suicide is up in the United States as the rate of depression is up in the United States as inflation is ravaging the pocketbooks of the middle class and the working class and the poor in this country, they got 95 billion of your tax dollars that they can send to Ukraine now 26 billion for Israel. (33:09) What a mess that is contrary to the dominant narrative. This conflict did not start on the 7th of October. In fact, there's a piece in the publication in these times entitled History didn't Begin on October 7th. The Israeli military is currently carrying out an attack on the besieged Gaza Strip bombing homes, bombing mosques, bombing hospitals, churches cutting off access to water, assassinating children, assassinating doctors. They're cutting off electricity, they're cutting off food. The Palestinian death toll has risen to over 35,000. 70% of those 35,000 are women and children, 80% of GA's, 2.3 million residents have been displaced GA's and suffer untreated injuries and a continual lack of medical supplies. (34:28) While this collective punishment, which by the way violates international law, has been justified by right wingers. Israeli defense minister Yoav Glan called Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip human animals and US Senator Lindsey Graham, the Republican from South Carolina that's never met, a war he didn't like, called for the military to level the place in a sitting American senator has called upon the Israeli government to level Gaza, which by the way is in violation of American law because Israel is using American money and American weapons to ethnically cleanse, to collectively punish, to engage in genocide against the Palestinian people. Look up the Lehe law, thehe Amendment, look it up. Look up the Arms Export Control Act, and you'll see very clearly that the United States is in violation of its own law by providing weapons to Israel. While it's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, while it's defense Minister Gallant and others have stated very clearly that they are engaging in genocide. (36:16) Now, as I talk about this and as I talk about what Hamas' response, Hezbollah's response in Lebanon, ansara Allah in Yemen, I'm not saying this to condone violence or to condone killing in no way, shape or form, but you have to understand the context in which these actions and reactions are taking place. Dr. King told us many times that war is an enemy of the poor, and he also talked about the three evils of society are racism, militarism, and poverty about racism. He said, if America does not respond creatively to the challenge to banish racism, some future historian will have to say that a great civilization died because it lacked the soul and commitment to make justice a reality for all men. That not only applies to how the United States government treats Native Americans, that not only applies to how the United States government treats Mexican and other Latino or Hispanic immigrants. That does not only apply to how the United States treats African-Americans, it applies to how the United States spends and spends its money to back fund and organize genocide against the Palestinians. (38:03) The second evil was militarism. And Dr. King said, A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. 95 billion sent of our tax dollars to foreign countries for war, for oppression to maintain this unitary or unilateral hegemony that the United States has become used to since World War II and our bridges are collapsing. You have people in the United States that are having to decide between do they pay their rent, do they pay their mortgage, or do they pay their grocery bill? And that takes us into the third element, the third evil of society that Dr. King talked about poverty where he says the poor black and white are still perishing on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. What happens to a dream deferred? It leads to bewildering frustration and corroding bitterness. (39:29) The people cry for freedom and the Congress attempts to legislate repression. They just voted to send $95 billion of your tax dollars to oppress another people, repress another people, Dr. King, millions. Yes, billions are appropriated for mass murder. That's not me, that's Dr. King for mass murder. But the most meager pittance of foreign aid for international development is crushed in the surge of reaction. Unemployment rages at a major depression level in the black ghettos, but the bipartisan response is an anti-riot bill rather than a serious poverty program. Or you've got Mike Johnson going to Columbia calling for the arrest of protesting students that are protesting what? They're not protesting against Judaism. They're not protesting against Israelis, they're protesting against genocide and they're protesting for the freedom and the rights of Palestinians at the time that he gave this speech, which I think was 1968, right before he died, $26 billion. (40:56) I'm sorry, this is me now, my problem, my mistake, 26 billion of your tax dollars are being invested in the genocide of the Palestinian people. Context, folks. Context is incredibly, incredibly important here. I'm not going to go through the 75 years of apartheid and oppression right now that's going on in pal. I'm not going to go through that right now. Let's just look at some of the most recent incidents. According to Chatham House, the Israeli attack on Iran's consulate in Damascus on the 1st of April. You remember Israel sent missiles into Damascus, Syria and struck the Iranian consulate in Damascus, killing an Iranian general and a number of other diplomats. That's unprecedented. That's an unprecedented escalation by Israel against Iran in Syria, an unprecedented escalation. Folks, it's a violation of international law for one country to attack the embassy or the consulate of another country, and they did it on Syrian soil, which means they also violated Syrian sovereignty. (42:37) What did Iran do after consultation with the United States and agreement with the United States? Some say it was Bill Burns from the CIA A with the US and other countries in the region and based upon and consistent with international law. That's a very, very important point here is that after Israel on April 1st illegally struck the Iranian consulate in Syria, Iran did not just react in a knee-jerk manner. They didn't just send a barrage of missiles into Tel Aviv. They sat down and they spoke with the United States and they said, look, we can't allow this to stand. (43:29) We just can't sit I lead by anymore and let them do this to us. So here's what we're going to do Based upon international law, we are allowed to retaliate rarely. When you read about this in the newspaper, does it say that Iran retaliated against Israel? What they usually, how they usually describe it, and this is why context is important, they usually describe it as Iran struck Israel. Iran attacked Israel. No, they retaliated. And under international law, what you are allowed to do is you are allowed to strike military targets that were tied to the offensive strike that you endured, and you're also allowed through international law to strike support targets well such as radar towers, communication facilities. And so Iran sat down, I think it was Bill Burns from the CCIA A and Bill Burns said to Iran, okay, so long as you don't hit civilian targets, we the United States will not respond. So what did Iran do? (45:02) They retaliated as international law allows them to, and when they finished, they even gave the United States and Israel the heads up. They said In five hours, this is what we're going to do. And they used these slow moving drones so that the United States and Israeli radar could track the drones. They even gave them time to get their newly acquired F 35 jet fighter planes that they had just gotten from the United States out of harm's way. They did all of that to make a point, and when they were finished, they said, we now consider the matter closed. You struck us. We retaliated we're good, but Israel wasn't satisfied. (46:10) And what did Israel do? They struck again in violation of international law. Fortunately, president Raisi as well as Supreme Leader, Khomeini and others in the Iranian government, fortunately they are thoughtful. Fortunately, they have a longer view of history than Americans do. Fortunately, they exercised restraint and they have not struck back. Think about that context, folks. Context is very important. President Biden tells us that we're protecting security and democracy in Israel. Here's the newsflash. There's nothing secure about Israel and there's nothing democratic about a colony that oppresses over 30%. Its population. Palestinians do not have the same rights to vote as Israelis do. Palestinians do not have the same right to travel throughout the country as Israelis do. (47:46) Many Palestinians have been relegated to living in an open air concentration camp called the Gaza Strip, where their caloric intake is monitored and managed by the Israeli government. Their access to water, their access to electricity is managed by the Israeli government. That's not democracy. That's not even humanity. It's called genocide. And your tax dollars are being used to fund it. There's nothing democratic about a United States that is arresting students for peacefully protesting against genocide. Now, over 40 colleges and universities are engaged in protests. The University of Southern California in Los Angeles has canceled graduation. They are not allowing, well, the first thing they did was they decided that the valedictorian of the class of 2024, a Palestinian American woman was not going to be allowed to give her valedictorian address and they claim due to security concerns. So instead of protecting her and allowing her to give her speech, they have been held hostage by threat, by innuendo, by social media posts. Think about that. (49:29) Over 40 colleges and universities are now engaged in protests and presidents of these universities are calling out the police. They were arresting students. Mike Johnson, the speaker of the house, just went to Columbia University and threatened or called for the resignation of the President of Columbia because she's not following the script. And to show you how prevalent this has become, there are now high school students, high school students in Washington DC at Jackson Reed High School, the largest high school in the District of Columbia. They have had to file a lawsuit being represented by ACL U. They have filed a lawsuit against their principal saying that the principal has infringed upon their first amendment rights by barring them from holding pro-Palestinian events and distributing information materials. So apparently the First Amendment doesn't apply if your speech is in support of those that the Israeli lobby deems to be offensive. (51:06) And for those of you listening to this that say that this is an anti-Semitic analysis, no, it's not. It's anti-Zionist is what it is. And contrary to what they have now wanted to say from Congress and what many backing the Israeli lobby will tell you, Zionism and Judaism are not the same thing. Look it up. Don't take my word for it. Zionism is a political ideology that is racist, that is white supremacists and is used as the basis for genocide against the Palestinians, whereas Judaism is a religious belief system. Two totally different things. Finally, what the United States loves to call the Indio Pacific, basically what they're doing is trying to start a war with China, and they're using the island of Taiwan as the United States has used Ukraine as its proxy to start a war with Russia. The United States is using the island of Taiwan in a similar manner, and fortunately, president Xi of China is thoughtful, patient, reserved, and is not responding to the provocations as the United States would do if China were trying to do to Puerto Rico or trying to do through Puerto Rico. What the United States is trying to do to China through Taiwan, missiles would be flying and bullets would be shot. (53:17) But G is a wise man and he's not falling for the banana in the trick. He's not going to allow the United States to provoke his country into a conflict. So the United States is engaging in military exercises with South Korea. The United States is engaged in military exercises with Japan. The United States is engaged in military exercises with the Philippines. The United States is building more military bases in along the Pacific Rim. All of this, and heaven knows why, because it's a fight. The US can win. We don't have the technology, we don't have the technology that they have. We don't have the capacity, the capability, the hypersonic missiles. Look, the United States going back to the Iranian, I'm sorry, going back to, yeah, the Gaza conflict, the United States sends in the USS Eisenhower, was it Gerald Ford? I think it was the Gerald Ford. They send in the Gerald Ford carrier Group into the Mediterranean off the coast of Israel. And President Putin says to Biden, he says, why are you doing this? He says, you're not scaring anybody. These people don't scare. He says, oh, and by the way, we Russia can sink your aircraft carrier from here with hypersonic missiles. (55:26) Hypersonic missiles. These things fly at something like nine times, 10 times the speed of sound they have, I think it's the SU 35, which is a fighter jet that Russia has, and they're called Kja. I think it's K-I-N-J-A-L, Ken jal missiles. Look it up. They can sink the carrier from the Black Sea before the carrier even recognizes that the missiles are incoming. That thing is on its way. That carrier is on its way to the bottom of the Mediterranean before they even know that the missiles are incoming, and China has the technology as well. Some say that Iran has the technology. (56:20) So folks, why are your tax dollars being used being wasted when there is such drastic need at home? And this is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. Democratic, this is a NeoCon, and you got Republican and Democratic neocons. This is a NeoCon issue. They are lying to you about the rationales and the so-called logic that they are employing so that it's a money laundering scheme, is what it is. The United States through its proxy, Ukraine starts a conflict with Russia so that the Biden administration can tell you that we have to increase our military spending to stop the fight with Russia to stop the war in Ukraine, to defend the Ukrainians. Well, if you hadn't started the fight in the first place, there wouldn't be a fight. (57:57) Joe Biden tells us we have to defend security and democracy in Israel as the United States Arms funds, trains, provides logistics support to the Israeli government as it engages in genocide against the Palestinians. It's very simple. Joe, if you want to bring a stop to this as you ring your hands and cry, crocodile tears about protecting innocent Palestinian civilians, pick up the phone. Tell Benjamin Netanyahu, you don't get another damn dime. Very simple, very simple. The way you end the fight is don't start the fight in the first place. The United States is trying to provoke a war with China over Taiwan, even though it is clearly stated, articulated by then President Nixon, secretary of State, Kissinger, the one China policy. The United States considers Taiwan to be a part of China. The UN recognizes Taiwan is a part of China. The majority of Taiwanese believe support that they are Chinese citizens. If you don't want to have a fight with China, then don't provoke the fight with China, as they say on the corner. Don't start nothing. Won't be nothing. So folks, here's what you really need to think about. What does this mean? I just went through Ukraine. I just went through Israel. I just went through the conflict with China, and what does this mean? What's at stake? Well, first of all, world War iii. Remember, Russia is a nuclear armed country. China, I believe, has nuclear weapons. Israel, that's the worst kept secret in the world, is a nuclear armed country. So the United States as a nuclear power is trying to start a conflict with other nuclear powers. A nuclear war is unwinnable by anybody. Everybody loses in the course of a nuclear war, (01:01:06) Even if the war doesn't go nuclear. Look at all the resources that have been wasted that could have been used to make America truly safer. When our infrastructure is sound, the country is safer. When our children are better educated, our country is safer. When you have social security, our country is safer. Why can't we have the healthcare, the mental healthcare, the family care that this $95 billion, and that's just the most recent of the So-called aid bills. That's just the most recent of them, 95 billion. Where could that money go, and what could that money do to help you life easier to ensure a better standard of living for you? (01:02:32) What could be done with that money instead of being used to fund a fight that the United States started? Again, don't start. Nothing won't be nothing. But when militarism is all you have, what is the adage? When your only solution is a hammer, every problem is a nail. When militarism is your solution, every problem is a conflict. And oh, by the way, you're starting the conflict. So folks, in all the stuff that I've said over this past hour, if you heard that on M-S-N-B-C, have you heard that on CNN? Have you heard that on Fox News? Probably not. But when you do a little research, you'll find everything I've said to you is true. (01:03:45) The truth is the light. So again, this is on you because this is impacting you, and you've got to start at the local level, starting with your city council, starting with your state and local government and working its way up. You've got to look at what those kids are doing on college campuses and on high school campuses. Now they are getting engaged. Now, I'm not saying you got to pitch a tent on somebody's lawn, and no, there are a myriad of ways that you can reengage in the process, but it starts with reading. So with that, I say to you, I got to thank my guest, who by the way, is me. Thank you all so much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wilmer Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, please follow and subscribe. Go to patreon.com/wilmer leon and contribute. Please contribute. It costs to produce this program every week. We could do more programs in the week if we had the funding to do so. So please contribute. Go to patreon.com/wilmer Leon, leave a review, share the show, follow us on social media. You can find all the links below in the show description. And remember that this is where the analysis of politics, culture, history, converge, talk without analysis is just chatter, and we don't chatter here on connecting the dots. See you again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Wilmer Leon. Have a great one. Peace Announcer (01:06:11): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.

Show Notes and Transcript A warm welcome for the return of Anni Cyrus, host of "Live Up to Freedom" to provide a detailed analysis of Iran's history and its impact on the Middle East.  She traces Iran's journey from Zoroastrianism to the Islamic Revolution of 1979, highlighting the societal changes and challenges faced under the Islamic regime.  Anni explores Iran's relationships with neighbouring countries like Saudi Arabia and Turkey, shedding light on power struggles and religious divisions in the region.  She also discusses Iran's media censorship, political landscape, and foreign policy towards Israel, emphasizing the use of proxies for influence.  We end with reflections on the possibilities for change in Iran and its implications for regional stability. Aynaz “Anni” Cyrus is the founder of ‘Live Up To Freedom', she was born in 1983 into an Islamic family in Iran, after the Islamic Revolution removed the Shah and turned the “mini-America” of the Middle East into an Islamic tyranny. Given no choice, Aynaz was labeled as a Muslim by birth. Under Sharia (Islamic Law) she grew up under total Islamic dominance by her father, a Sheikh, and her mother, a Quran teacher. At age nine, Aynaz rejected Islam completely in her heart and mind. It happened on her 9th birthday when the Islamic state, in a public ceremony, declared the absurdity that she would be, from that day forward by law, an adult woman. Over the next six years, Aynaz suffered terrible, but legal by Islamic Law, abuses and punishments at the hands of many Islamic males of Iran. After being forcibly sold by her own father into an extremely violent marriage, Aynaz desperately sought escape from her hell as a child bride. Even after being visibly battered one last time, the Islamic courts denied her a divorce from the man who was clearly bound to beat her to death. So at age 15, facing death by one way or the other, Aynaz got herself smuggled out of Iran, to save her own life. Knowing nothing of the life of freedom for women and girls outside of Iran or Islam, she ran into what she calls “The Unknown.” But her running was a crime, for which, to this day, she stands condemned to death by stoning under Sharia. Aynaz then gained asylum in Turkey through the United Nations. But, as an unaccompanied minor, she was obligated to wait three more years. Finally, at age 18 her petition to become an American citizen was approved. After a further delay following 9/11, Anyaz was allowed entry into the United States on August 8, 2002. She became a naturalized and proud American citizen in 2010. Since 2011, Aynaz has produced the popular Internet video series, “The Glazov Gang”, hosted by renowned author in the counter-jihad movement, Dr. Jamie Glazov. Aynaz also appears in many of the show's hundreds of segments. Years of her media appearances are found in public speaking venues, interviews, videos, and articles, published in affiliation with The David Horowitz Freedom Center, Jihad Watch, Breitbart, American Thinker, Worldview Weekend, and American Truth Project, to mention a few. Connect with Anni….. WEBSITE            liveuptofreedom.com GETTR:               gettr.com/user/AnniCyrus X                          x.com/LiveUpToFreedom INSTAGRAM       instagram.com/aynazcyrus TELEGRAM         t.me/Liveuptofreedom Interview recorded 19.4.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop *Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast. Check out his art theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com and follow him on X twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin Transcript  (Hearts of Oak) And I'm delighted to have Anni Cyrus back with us again. Anni, thank you so much for your time today. (Anni Cyrus) Absolutely. My pleasure. It's been a while. It has. That's exactly what I was thinking. It has been a while. And current events bring us together with the madness and chaos over in the Middle East. And who better, I thought, than asking on is Anni Cyrus. But first, people can find you @LiveUpToFreedom. Tell us about your show. Just give people, give the viewers, if they don't follow you, give them a taster of what they can find and what you put out. Absolutely. So Live Up to Freedom, which is also the name of my show, we produce two shows a week at the moment, hoping to somehow get to five days a week. But the majority of information that is produced on Live Up to Freedom is related to Middle East, Islamization, Sharia, and the dangers of red-green axis. 90% of the time, this is the type of educational programming. I mean, I don't force my opinion, but I will give you evidence from the Quran, from the Sira, from the Sura, every single one evidence coming from their own word, proving the fact that the possibility of us coexisting, not really possible. I'm with you 100%. And I do want your opinion, full force. So, yeah, I'm looking forward to getting your thoughts. But maybe I can ask you, we have watched what has happened with Israel, obviously, and then watched what has happened with Iran responding. Most of the viewers, whether they're US-based or UK-based, have zero concept of how Iran fits in the Middle East. They may have an understanding of, if they know history, of the Persian Empire. So it is a history that stretches back thousands of years. But today, few people in the West have an idea, I guess, of how Iran fits in. But obviously, you're Iranian-born. You live in the States at the moment. Maybe just touch on that about Iran and how it fits in with that, I guess, illustrious history over the thousands of years? How does Iran kind of fit in to the Middle East jigsaw? Sure. So let me start from here. Since you brought up the Persian Empire, let me just set the record straight about Persians versus Persian Empire. There's this thing going on lately that Persians don't exist because Persia doesn't exist. I want to make it very clear. Iran, as you know it today, is what was of Persia. So by nationality, we are Iranians. By race, we are Persians. Why is this important? Because there's a difference between nationality and race. And that's where actually we get all confused between racism, if you're criticized Islam, because a lot of nations now carry Islam. If you say something against Islam, they're racism Islam. Their race could be Persian, could be Indian, could be Arab. Now, Arab race has a breakdown. Again, Syrian Arabs have their own DNA. Saudi Arabian Arabs have their own DNA. However, there's one group of Arabs that don't have DNA, Peter, and that is Palestinians. The reason it's important to say we're Persians, nationality Iranian, is because we can make the point of there is no such a race as Palestinians. If you would do a DNA test on anyone in Palestine claiming to be Palestinian, you would find the DNAs of Syrian Arabs. You would find Iraqi Arabs. You would find even Egyptian blood. But you wouldn't find a Palestinian race blood because it doesn't exist. Now, I'm going to pull a leftist here and say, if you're willing to call them Palestinian by race, well, I identify as a Persian, so you're going to call me a Persian. That being said, Persian Empire down to a smaller size, down to a smaller size to today, which is a tiny bit of Islamic Republic of Iran, has always been the heart of Middle East. Literally the heart. Depending on how Iran beats, Middle East operates. That's why it's the heart. You go back, we're not going to even go 2,700 years ago. Let's not do that. We could. Cyrus the Great, king of Persia, freed the Jews in Babylon, told them you're free, and there you go. Temple Mount is there. That's how much Persia or Iran has been the heart. But recent, 45 years ago, 47, 50 years ago, when Iran was under the kingdom of Shah Pahlavi, you look at Middle East, there was peace. Prosperity, lots and lots of import and export financially, economy of Middle East was in good shape. Every neighbour country was also in good shape as far as culture, freedom, education goes. Islamic regime took over in a matter of 45 years. Not only Iran itself with all the resources Iran has, and I'm just going to name a few. Iran is number one land of making saffron. We have the second top quality pistachio. I'm not going to even go into the oil industry because everybody's aware of that. And then considering between Afghanistan and Iran, you have the two only countries producing opium. Well, I know some people misuse it, but it still is important material we need. So with all the resources, Iranian people, more than 82% are living life under the line of poverty by international standards. Same thing with the neighbours. You got the Turkey, you got Pakistan, you got Afghanistan, Azerbaijan. That is how much Iran's operation has affected not only Middle East, but over here with Western countries. I hope that answered the question. Oh, it does. I want to go back because we look at Islamic connection with Iran. But if you go, I mean, long time prior to the Islamic revolution in, it was 79, you've got from different breakups of the kingdom. And before that, you had from, I think, from the 20s, the Iranian state. So Islam was not in it. Tell us kind of how Iran kind of fits into that, where it's now known as the Islamic Republic of Iran. But before that, Islam wasn't in the name. Does that mean Islam was not part of the culture? Sure. Yes. So if we go back way back, way back, about 2,700 years ago, all the way to about 1,800 years ago, that period of time, majority of Iranians were known as Zoroastrians. There were some other atheists, there were Jews, there were Christians, all that. But then the Battle of Mohammed started 1,400 years ago. Now, what was the Battle of Muhammad? Muhammad started from Mecca, then went to Medina, then conquered Saudi Arabia. Now, who was the competition? Who was the biggest challenge? Persian Empire. Persia was standing up. They even sent messengers to the king of that time saying, have your people convert to Islam and we'll leave you alone. The king was like, no, we're good. We're not going to force anybody. So the very first time, the very first attack of Islamic attack, which in history books, you read them as Arab attacks. Yes, there were Saudi Arabians, but the attack wasn't about race. It had nothing to do with land versus land or people versus people. It was Mohammed continuing to conquer of Islamization to basically, you know, the global caliphate, which then global was just that area. The first attack happened. They couldn't conquer. The second one couldn't conquer on and on and on and on for a long time. In meantime, some of the Iranians or Persians decided to convert by choice, by choice, until one of the Iranians who by choice converted decided to become a traitor and basically start cooperating with the Arabs. That was the first time I want to say about probably 800, 700 years ago is when the first time of conquering people of Persia happened. A lot of Zoroastrians escaped. They went to India. That's why you see somewhat the biggest population of Zoroastrians are found in India. They took refuge in India. Some converted, some were killed, some became dhimmis and gradually either converted or died and fast forward all the way to almost, I want to say, 90, 92 years ago, when one of the kingdoms of Iran on the Qajar, or you guys pronounce it Qajar dynasty, they actually ruled under Islam. The king in the kingdom decided we will rule under, the full hijab came to the country. The full mosque building started. And then Pahlavi dynasty returned that. They didn't get rid of Islam, but they did return the country into America, freedom of religion. If you want to be a Muslim, be a Muslim. If you want to be Christian, be a Christian, anything. Until the first king, Pahlavi, decided to actually ban Sharia in Iran. Nobody was allowed to wear hijab, mosques were shut down. And surprise, surprise, England and France got involved and told him that you're going to lose power if you don't give them their freedom back. So the decision was the father will step down, the son will take over. And they will allow Sharia to continue. On top of that, they will allow one representative of Islam or Muslim community of Iran to step into Congress. The rest is history. Literally 20 years later, Islamic revolution happened and it has never gone back. But it's not just Iran, I guess, has a history. Think Egypt having a long history. Lebanon, I know, reading the Bible and you hear about the cedars of Lebanon. And then you think of Saudi Arabia and you think of the House of Saud. But a long time before that, there were different emirates in that area. And some of those countries have been artificially created, maybe like Jordan. But other countries actually have got a history of thousands of years. How does that work? Because as a Brit, I think of Europe and the struggle with the nations in Europe for dominance with France, Spain, with the UK. What is that kind of struggle like in the Middle East with those countries that have a long history? Well, another country we can name is Afghanistan. If you look, Afghanistan is a pretty recent conqueror of Islamization. Right around 1979 when Iran was conquered, very shortly before that, Afghanistan was conquered. Afghanistan has a long history of battling back and forth and by the way I sometimes feel like people of Afghanistan are not getting the credit they deserve they have such a long and pure history, cultural music involved in art involved they have some of the most unique musical instrument you find out there that is now westernized and used but nobody knows because everybody thinks Afghanistan was, you know, Islamic country from day one, and Afghans were all Muslim. That is not what it is. Now, that battle, with Saudi Arabia, you need to realize when Mohammed, you know, came up and said, I am the prophet, the majority of people in Saudi Arabia were. I can't pronounce the English, when you believe in more than one god, polygamous? Is that the word? Polytheism? There you go, polytheism. So with Saudi Arabia, there is a much deeper root of Islam. It was literally the first introduced religion that unified the country. It did, or nation. But the rest of Middle Eastern countries those who are not as you said artificial those that existed they were none of them has any roots, none of them, that's the thing sometimes we have this saying in Middle East is like, oh you're just a Muslim born, meaning you're not really Muslim and I'm like, that doesn't exist, it doesn't because nobody the root, except of Saudi Arabia, there is no other race or nation that was the start. So that the struggle for every single Middle Eastern country back and forth between this. Now, again, I even during the Pahlavi kingdom, Peter, nobody minded Muslims. Nobody did because it wasn't the constitution. You wanted to be a Muslim, be a Muslim. But then on the other end of the city, you would find, you know, restaurants and bars and concerts. And women with short skirts. The struggle in Middle East even as recent as two years ago in Afghanistan. It's the matter of literally forcing this Islam into the country rather than allowing it, which is one of my main arguments. if this religion is such a religion of peace, why is it that wherever it goes it's forced, feared, blood involved. If it's so peaceful why can't they get people to convert on their own, but rather have to force them to do it. So that has been the struggle of last literally 1400 years. Today, you find people from Saudi Arabia who reject Sharia. They don't want their constitution to be Sharia anymore. Now, do we have Sharia-based constitution in Western countries? No. But are many of them already living life under Sharia? I would say, for example, London is a great city to name. I have not been to London because they won't let me come to England. But the last time I left London was January of 2011. And sometimes when I look at some of the videos or live feeds coming from London, like that's not where I was. That's not what I remember of London. So not to make it even longer than I did, if Western countries don't realize that there needs to be an absolute cap and limitation, the struggle of Middle East will start coming here, where you constantly have the battle of Islamization, de-Islamization, Islamization, de-Islamization, and gradually the culture will disappear. I hate to say it, when I look at my fellow Iranians today, there isn't much of Persian culture left anymore. it's something of a confused Arab versus Persian, versus Sharia, versus Western. It's a very mixed up where, sadly, you can't really pinpoint anything left of that land or country or culture and behaviour of the people. Half of the Farsi they speak, I don't even understand. I'm like, what is that? Any of the leaders, they started talking. I'm like, okay, you're not a speaking Farsi. It's full on Arabic at this point. Tell me, when I talk, and I want to get up to the current day where we are, but I'm curious because I talk to a lot of my African friends, especially in church, and you realize that African nations are tribal-based and there is more allegiance to the tribe than there is to the nation. We look at Nigeria and it's completely separated on tribal lines. What is it like for a country like Iran? Iran is a large country, nearly 90 million, so it has influence in that regard. How does it work when people call themselves Iranian or me? How has it worked prior to the Islamic Revolution in 1979? Where is that kind of identity and connection for Iranians who lived there prior to the revolution? That's actually an interesting question. One of the top things I did a few years ago, one of the things I mentioned about Iran that many people are not aware of is the majority of Iranians are actually bilingual by about age 9 or 10. Because Iran, as of today still, it has, if you look at the map, the south versus northeast versus west. They are tribes, not the African style of tribe, but they do have their own tribes where you have the Kurds who are still within their own culture. Their customs are still the old school, traditional Kurdish. They speak the Kurdish language at home and then they speak the Farsi language, which is the country's language. And then you have the Turks in Tabriz and some of those areas. Again, the food and the music and the language is the Turkish. And again, this is because you shrunk this huge empire down into the small size of the country. A lot of tribes are still in there. You have the Fars, literally, who are the pure Persians, the only non-bilingual people of Iran who only speak Farsi, have the traditional customs of Persia, the way they do their Norse versus the rest of the provinces. Says it's different however somehow for some reason it has always been united regardless of who's from which side or which background, doesn't matter if you're the Arab of the south or if you're the Kurd or you're the Turk or you're the Fars it has always been united until the Islamic revolution, where the country became divided based on Muslims versus non-Muslims. And when I say non-Muslim, Peter, I don't mean Christian or Jew. No, I mean non-Muslims in eyes of the government. Those like Mahsa Amini, who don't wear the proper hijab. Those who don't do the prayer the right way. Those who wear the makeup. Those who have boyfriend or girlfriends, which is against Sharia. Those are the secondary group of people. Tell me about when you think 45 years ago, the revolution, what does that mean for freedom within the country? I know it's claimed to be 99% Muslim, but not just religious, but general freedom within the country. What is it like to live in the current, I guess regime or government in Iran? I'm so glad you asked that I was having a discussion with a friend of mine literally yesterday about this, that it has come to a point where the the lack of freedom isn't, isn't just about your, what you say or what you wear or what you eat anymore. The lack of freedom has gotten to a point where a majority of Iranians, especially the younger generation have lost absolute motivation, that the answer always is, well, so what? Like, why don't you go get a job? It's like, then what? Why don't you go to school? Do what with it? You literally have Uber drivers it's not Uber, it's called a snap I think in Iran, when they pick you up snap, you sit in the car and by the way for those of you, yes I have not been back to Iran but I do have people who are in Iran or just came back from Iran so the information comes from there, now I'm not smuggling myself back. You start talking to the driver and he will tell you that he holds a darn PhD, Peter, but there's no job for him, either because he doesn't belong to IRGC or SEPA or this group of Islam or that group of Islam, or it's the fact that somewhere somehow when he was younger, got arrested and has some sort of morality police stamp on his resume. So he won't be hired or it's the matter of, he is not a Muslim. He's a Baha'i. He can't admit he's a Baha'i. They're going to kill him, so he'd rather drive his own taxi than go get killed. It's just literally there is zero motivation to do anything with your life because one way or another, you'll be blocked by this regime. Genuinely, they wake up in the morning, change their mind about the latest law, and there's nothing to stop them. There is nothing that could stop them from changing the laws every hour. Every house supreme leader can literally wake up this morning and say colour red is forbidden for women, I dare you wear red, They will arrest you. They will probably put you in detention centre. They will drag you to Sharia court and then probably, I don't know, lash you a couple of lashes and you home. Make an example out of you. Nobody else can avoid a wreck. Now, I'm making this up as an example, but to that, the small detail of life is being controlled. Tell us how, within the country, what does it mean for the media? What does it mean for, I mean, some countries like Dubai want to be outward. Focused but still want to be Islamic where other countries like Saudi it's maybe less, so it's wanting to have that pure Islam and there is a less focus on being outward looking, when you think of Iran you think of something which is a closed box because of the devotion to Islam and that cuts off the West so what does that mean within, for education, for media? Okay, so we need to explain something before we even answer that question. By we, I mean me. I identify as... Media in Iran. There is no... private or alternative media. There's just one type of media, which is owned by government, ran by government, approved by government, everything government. There are, I believe six channels of cable, only six. One is dedicated to news. One is dedicated to sports. And the other three, one is dedicated to religion actually. Most of the time, it's like some Mullah sitting there dissecting and fat buzz and Corona and stuff. And then there are two, that is a combination movies, TV series, commercial news, a little bit, things like that. Now, why am I breaking it down is because it is so extremely controlled that it's only six, Only six. For example, the sport channel, you'll never find any kind of female competition inside or outside of Iran out there. You just don't. They cover all of the European leagues, right? The soccer leagues. And you literally see that if they pass by a female audience in a stadium who is wearing makeup or open hair, you literally see them blurred out and then you come back to zoom back in. To that extent what is being aired inside the country's control You can make a movie in Iran, but before you make a movie you got to take your script and your crew names to this department that's going to read the script, either approve it or tweak it then approve it or reject it, if you get approved on your script then you go make the movie, but before you air the movie Peter they will watch how you make this script. If they find one scene, just one scene that they don't like, they'll have you go either redo it, edit it, come back again. A movie can take seven years to be released or two minutes to be rejected. Doesn't matter how much you spend on your movie. It's done. Won't never come out. So that's the internal. Now, they have one, Tenseem is the name of it. I actually report from it a lot. They have one, let's say, kind of like an article or text formatting website that is tied to the regime. And then they have their own Islamic Republic of Iran's broadcasting website. Those are the ones that are being fed propaganda and lies to be published because we outside have access to that. We read that where it makes it look like the country is flawless and people are super happy and the elections are going fantastic, that is the one for external use that is mainly filled with propaganda And how does politics work? How does, are there elections, were there elections before, how does that work in the country? Yes there are, there are selections. There are selection election however it's in your best interest to show up for this election, because one they can create a lot of propaganda video and put it out, number two, now in Iran when you vote they actually stamp like you use your index on a stamp and they you put it on your birth certificate which Iranian birth certificates are like a lot of booklets, now if you have that a printer means you voted. And for example, at the end of the year, when they're giving away coupon for chicken or egg or oil or whatever it is, if you have that fingerprint, you get your coupon. If you don't, well, good luck, go buy it out of your own pocket. So it's a selection coordinated to look like an election. And if you don't show up, well, there are consequences. [Hmm tell me how it, is the focus with Iran with the leadership, is it for dominance within the region and then you're clashing with the other Islamic nations or is it with the destruction of Israel because Iran and Israel don't border, think isn't Iraq between them if I my middle eastern geography is bad so feel free to correct me, but how does it fit in, what is the goal? Is it regional stability and power within the region, or is it focused on hatred towards Israel? Can I go with all of the above? Is that an option? Internally, the regime or the mullahs, internally, main focus is to re-establish a stability. Because literally from 2009 and the Green Movement, on and on and on, they have lost that stability. Every time there's an uprising, it's becoming a stronger, longer, stronger, more planned. So they're trying to gain that stability they had for the first, I don't know, 27 years of their power. That's number one internally. Now, how do they gain that is by creating some sort of dilemma or war for the people of Iran to stand down because they're, at the end of the day, if you look at the history of Iran-Iraq war for eight years, eight years, people of Iran fought. And I can tell you, I have heard directly from the soldiers or from children of those soldiers that they have always said, we didn't fight for the mullahs. We fought for our country. Okay. So with that, if there is a war going on, even if it's a small, even if it's not a major, it doesn't have to be an eight years war, but the regime can reestablish that stability inside. They do have hatred for Israel. I repeat, when Khomeini arrived in Tehran in 1979, he was driven from the plane airport to the biggest and most, I don't know why it's famous, but famous cemetery in Tehran. They put a chair, he sat on it, and he started talking. The very first thing that came out of his mouth was, let the plan begin. We're going to take down the great Satan and wipe Israel off the map. Now, 47 years ago, they already said what they're planning to do. So that's that. They want to wipe Israel off the map. Is it mainly religious beliefs? Yes. But also, it's the fact that they know that as long as Israel exists, Iran will not be able, in any shape or form, or the government of Iran, rest easy knowing they have the land forever. But you've got a, I mean, you could have countries coming together with a focus on a common enemy, which is Israel for everyone. But then you've got, you've got obviously Lebanon and Syria basically failed states, but then you've got Turkey and Saudi and Egypt and the Emirate, Dubai wanting to assert themselves. So is there no coming together against a common enemy? Because Iran seems to be very much still out in the cold in regards to relations with other nations around it. That's a good question. I highly doubt that Iran and Saudi Arabia would ever come together. Again, going back to 1400 years ago, this battle didn't start yesterday and it's not going to end tomorrow. That Saudi Arabia versus Iran, or better yet, Arabs versus Persians war, a battle has been going on for a long time. And is Saudi Arabia targeting Israel enough to put themselves in this scenario? I doubt it. As far as Turkey is concerned, right now, Erdogan is doing a lot of talking. But remember, Erdogan needs to be very careful because they don't want to be kicked out of EU. This much of the country is in Europe. The rest is in Middle East. They worked so hard to squeeze themselves into EU. He's going to have to be very careful because he won't have the allies he has today. If he's kicked back into full on Middle East, that's when Iran is going to come after him. Iran and Turkey on paper, it might seem all good, but Iran and Turkey don't get along either. All the way from the Caliph of Sunnis until today, the Sunni versus Shia scenario has been going on between Turkey and Iran. So I know Erdogan does a lot of talking. I don't believe unless Russia gets involved, Turkey won't get involved. That's the only time Turkey will get involved because now Turkey has the approval of Russia to get involved and back Iran. So let me jump up to the present day. And if my research serves me correct, I don't think Iran has actually struck at Israel since the revolution. And this seems to be from what I've understood knowing little about Iranian politics but it seems to be the the first attack on Israel. Is that correct and how does what Iran have done, the attack on Israel, how does that change things in the region? You are correct. Yes since 79 until today there has never been a direct, a strike or attack from Iran toward Israel. But I go back to the fact that we need to acknowledge they are playing it this way, but we need to remember this attack directly was by IRGC. IRGC is Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. It is not Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Were they put together by Khomeini? Absolutely. Do they belong to the government of Iran? No, there are their own entity freely guarding all Islamic nations. That's why you have their children such as Hezbollah and Houthis and Hamas out there. That being said, I don't, this is not going to be pleasant to a lot of your audience, but I'll say it. Iran's strike or IRGC's strike or Israel's airstrike. Neither one of them were strikes. This just doesn't look like anybody's planning to do anything major. Both Iran and Israel have the military needs, means, sorry, wrong word. To do real damage if they wanted to, This whole, in Farsi, we laugh and say, you know, they knock at each other's door and run and hide. Seems like that's what they're doing. They send a couple of missiles, yeah, 300, lots of missiles and drones, but then they call and say, heads up, in about an hour, hour and a half, fix up your iron dome so we're about to arrive. When was the last time Hamas gave a heads up? Right? October 7th happened, catching everybody off guard. And they left a mark. You know what I mean? This Iran Saturday strike and this Israel striking back, which by the way, Iran is absolutely denying the existence of this attack back. And that's what you need to look at. Iran goes saying, okay, we attack, this is it. If you attack back, we're going to be in a split second, we're going to destroy Israel. Israel attack back and Iran denies it. It ignores it, never happened. Does that look like something is about to change in the Middle East? No. This is all tied back to Western countries. In America, we're in election year. We're in election year. Whatever happens over there can definitely help Biden over here. Europe is in pretty much a lot of chaos. The tests run up. Are they going to sit back and let us do whatever we want to do? Or are they going to dare try to rescue and get attacked in their own countries with our sleeper cells? That's all there is to this I'm not downplaying anything but I know both countries, I've heard and I've seen the capability of both ends, this doesn't look like something that's going to turn into world war three, that's not going to happen No you're right when I read the reports a day before, 100 rockets are going to be fired over and talking to people and they said seriously who gives their enemy that much notice and then the next day 100 came over to the number. So you've got that a show of strength and I get that as a show of strength, especially drones taking three to four hours and it shows you what you can do, but with Iran having so many proxies, I mean Hezbollah are a serious threat to the region and seemingly much more dangerous than Hamas are and they're embedded in Lebanon and Syria. How does that play and does Iran not just use a proxy like Hezbollah to attack Israel instead of firing over what, drones that take four hours? That's not a serious attack, but Hezbollah do seem to be serious. Yes, exactly. And that's where I put my thought process. I'm like, OK, you have Hezbollah and you have Hamas. And again, I go back to October 7. It shocked all of us. Not because we weren't expecting Hamas to be so barbaric. No, it was the fact that nobody called anybody to say, okay, so tomorrow at your music festival, we're coming. That's how you do serious damage. You have Hezbollah, you have Hamas. And I'll go back to what I've said many times, and I've been accused of many things. Israel is not going to take on Iran. You know why? Israel has what it takes to take on Hamas, and they never did. They haven't. I was looking on my Facebook page, and last year, this week, is exactly when this Hamas-Israeli situation was going on, and Biden was on the phone asking for a ceasefire, which Israel ended up doing the ceasefire. Every year. It's a pattern. It just happens. But for anybody to either get excited or get nervous that something's going to come out of this, no. Hezbollah is regrouping, yes. Israel is talking about possibly going into Lebanon, yes. Is any of this going to put an end to this back and forth? I highly doubt it. I do. In no shape or form is it in benefit of anyone involved with globalist groups or elite or deep state. None of whom have any interest in ending this conflict in Middle East. So it's not going to end one way or another, and it's not going to even start. Again, it's that time of the year where everybody needs to get a little dusty in Middle East, and then everybody's going to go home and next year we'll repeat. That's just the way things go. Unfortunately, as much as I wish somebody would finally put their foot down and say enough is enough, nobody's going to do that. They are just giving a break to Hamas for now. While Hezbollah is regrouping IRGC is doing a lot of manoeuvring, And that's it. Now, why is Israel not standing up? Well, that one is a question for Netanyahu. It's interesting watching because, obviously, Israel didn't deal with Hamas before. It's now been forced to deal with Hamas. And Israel are going to do what it takes. That's how it seems. And whatever force is needed for them to secure their security, they will go for. But I guess the Islamic nations have been happy for Hamas to be a thorn in the side and for the Palestinians to be a thorn in the side of Israel because that keeps Israel's defence spending high, it keeps their a threat level high, it keeps that fear, it's perfect to kind of keep Israel nervous and not let them kind of relax a constant state of war I guess. What does it mean if Hamas are removed to a degree? Does it then, do those nations around think, what's next? Does Hezbollah then have to come in and provide that? What does that mean for stability? Because it does seem the country has been happy to sit back and let Hamas do the, let's piss off Israel role. Well actually to emphasize on your point, Hamas and Palestinians were put there exactly for that purpose, now I brought this up a couple of times that we call, I don't, but Western countries you call them Palestinians but if you talk to them, talk to Rashida Talib, for example, and listen to their chants on the streets of UK, France, US, Canada, anywhere, you don't hear Palestine, you hear Philistine. It's Philistine. The enemies of Jews, Philistine. They were picked. This name wasn't specifically picked. Their location wasn't specifically picked. That's one of the reasons when it comes to the argument of Palestinians versus Israel or the Gaza border. I just opened this up. First of all, you don't find an Arab-speaking person who can say Palestine. Again, my mother tongue of Farsi was not Farsi. It's Parsi. Parsi, the language of the Pars people of Persia. It turned into Farsi because in Arabic language there is no character as P they don't say Pepsi they say Bepsi, how do you expect them to say Palestine, no we have turned that into Palestine so we hide the fact that they are the Philistinians the enemies of Jews, so they are put in place and named specifically for that reason. Now, if Israel for any reason would finally come to realize that let's just take him out once and for all, and yes, taking out Hamas is very much doable. And that way, they will force the hands of IRGC and Hezbollah of Lebanon to actually take action. That's when Israel will have what they need legally by international law to actually overthrow the regime of Iran. But they won't. Yeah, and with the Palestinian, we've had Robert Spencer on maybe a month or six weeks ago, and I enjoyed his Palestinian myth book. So 100% with you that it is a made-up terminology. Can I just finish off on Iran and you've been great at giving us a broad sweep I think to help us understand, because many of us are completely unaware of not only where the countries fit in together but where Iran fits in, but what does it mean for Iran and freedom because you want individuals to be able to choose where they live, how they live and to decide they don't want the constant state of tension with their neighbours. What does it mean for Iran going forward? Is there a chance of a revolution in Iran from the people to overthrow the regime and have something which cares about people's rights and freedoms? Or do you not have any great hope for that happening in the near future? This might come as a surprise if... Lord willing, comes November, and we get President Trump back in the office. Within months, there will be an uprising in Iran. The last two times people of Iran tried, unfortunately, once was during Hussein Obama, once was Biden, they couldn't get the help they needed. They couldn't get the Biden regime or Obama regime to put sanctions and pressure on the regime. So they ended up losing a lot of lives, either by being killed or being imprisoned and tortured daily. So they went home. I know for a fact, if President Trump is back in office, people of Iran will try again. Will they be successful? That's when the Israeli government comes to picture. Again, Iran by itself, people of Iran, first of all, remember, they don't have a Second Amendment. Not only that, there are no illegal guns to be bought either. The borders are extremely protected in Iran. You can't even smuggle them into the country. So they're always empty handed. Secondly, the very first thing that happened is the regime cut down, cuts off the internet access to the people, which adds the agony of now what? How do we get the message out? How do we get the people to put pressure on the government? So Israel and America's government play a huge role of what will happen internally in Islamic Republic of Iran next. We need all these sanctions back. We need a lot of economic pressure back on Iran, and we need Israel to keep pushing back. Then people of Iran will have what it takes to finally overthrow these people. Am I hopeful? Always. There's always hope. As Robert Spencer said, it's not over until it's over, and it's not over yet.

« Moyen-Orient, le scénario du pire », titre l'Express en Une, avant de faire le bilan des forces en présence. « Une armée iranienne d'un autre âge », « une aviation iranienne surclassée », mais « l'Iran puissance aérobalistique » explique l'hebdomadaire : « pour pallier la faiblesse de leur aviation, les Iraniens ont investi dans les technologies non embarquées et conçu des dizaines de types de missiles de croisière et balistiques, ainsi que des drones ». De son côté, Israël mise sur son « bouclier du ciel », le « Dôme de fer », pour intercepter « les drones et les roquettes ». Il y a aussi l'arme nucléaire même si, nous dit l'Express, les autorités israéliennes ont toujours « nié posséder des armes atomiques ». L'Express qui a interrogé la chercheuse américaine Barbara Slavin : elle prédit un avenir sombre, et redoute « une nucléarisation du conflit au Moyen-Orient », assurant, par exemple, que « si les réacteurs iraniens de Bouchehr étaient touchés par Israël, les radiations se propageraient à travers le Golfe Persique jusqu'aux voisins arabes de l'Iran, entraînant ainsi des pertes humaines massives ». De son côté, Le Point fait sa Une sur le Hezbollah, « bras armé de l'Iran », et publie une enquête qui nous conduit notamment en Amérique latine où, nous dit-on, « le Hezbollah contrôle une partie du trafic de drogue ». « Rien que le trafic de cocaïne, qu'il a investi, dépasserait les 100 milliards de dollars par an ». Ce serait « la deuxième source de revenus du Hezbollah, après les subsides fournis par l'Iran », estime Le Point qui s'est aussi rendu au Liban, où explique-t-il, « le Hezbollah a supplanté l'État ». L'hebdomadaire prend notamment l'exemple du Sud-Liban, et d'une famille de déplacés acquise à la cause du Hezbollah, à qui l'on a fourni un logement disposant de tout le confort et « dont le loyer est intégralement pris en charge ».   Enfin, l'hebdomadaire s'intéresse au « réseau discret », « surveillé mais toléré » tissé par le Hezbollah en France, citant le cas d'une association de Montreuil, en banlieue parisienne, « dont la proximité avec le Hezbollah est avérée », et qui « entretient des liens étroits avec l'Iran ».« C'est donc toi »« Salman Rushdie, la mort en face » : c'est le titre choisi par le Nouvel Obs pour nous parler de Salman Rushdie (condamné à mort par l'Iran en 1989) et de son dernier livre, « Le couteau ». L'auteur des Versets sataniques, rappelle l'hebdomadaire, « a été victime d'une tentative d'assassinat le 12 août 2022 aux États-Unis ». Et c'est cette agression que l'écrivain raconte dans son livre. « Un récit qui n'est pas seulement le compte rendu minutieux des faits », précise l'hebdomadaire, « c'est aussi une œuvre littéraire au sens propre ». « Lorsqu'il raconte comment le couteau de l'assaillant pénètre dans sa chair, on entend presque le bruit que ça fait. On est à la fois la peau et le métal, le corps qui tombe et la foule qui se précipite, le meurtrier ceinturé et l'hélicoptère qui s'empresse de venir chercher la victime ».   Le Nouvel Obs publie plusieurs extraits du livre, notamment celui où Salman Rushdie explique qu'il n'a pas tenté de fuir face à son agresseur. « J'étais pétrifié, raconte-t-il. Il s'était écoulé trente-trois ans et demi, depuis la fameuse condamnation à mort prononcée par l'ayatollah Khomeini (...) et pendant ces années, je l'avoue, j'ai parfois imaginé mon assassin se lever, de quelque assemblée publique ou autre et foncer vers moi exactement de cette façon.  Aussi, ma première pensée, quand je vis cette silhouette meurtrière se précipiter vers moi, fut : ' C'est donc toi, te voilà ' ». « Le Couteau, poursuit le Nouvel Obs, est le témoignage d'un écrivain qui n'a jamais varié, jamais tremblé, jamais failli ». Il se dit « fier du travail qu'il a accompli », « et cela, dit-il inclut bien évidemment 'Les Versets sataniques'. Si quelqu'un s'attend à ce que j'exprime des remords, il peut arrêter immédiatement de me lire ». BardellamaniaLe Journal du Dimanche consacre à interviewé Jordan Bardella, la tête de liste du Rassemblement national pour les élections européennes du mois de juin. Il est le favori des sondages, et peut-être bien celui du JDD, selon lequel Jordan Bardella « semble taillé pour assumer son nouveau statut ». Dans une longue interview, le candidat d'extrême droite est interrogé, comme souvent, sur la délinquance et l'immigration. « Quand on disserte des heures sur la violence des mineurs et la montée de la barbarie dans la société française, sans jamais aborder la question de l'immigration, on passe à côté de l'essentiel », assure-t-il. Le journal du Dimanche a suivi le candidat du Rassemblement national dans l'un de ses déplacements, hier, à la foire de Montereau. « L'occasion, nous dit le JDD, de mesurer le phénomène de la Bardellamania ». On voit le candidat, tout sourire, poser pour un selfie.  Un monsieur de 76 ans trouve « le jeune homme intéressant, il parle clairement, il a du charme, il s'exprime bien ». Le JDD a aussi rencontré une ancienne électrice de gauche convertie au RN. « Mélenchon a trahi la gauche, dit-elle, avec Bardella on a l'impression d'être écouté ». 

Pour la première fois, l'Iran a attaqué directement Israël dans la nuit de samedi à dimanche. Si en 1948, l'Iran n'était pas contre la création de l'État hébreu, les deux pays sont désormais devenus des ennemis mortels. À quand remonte la première discorde entre l'Iran et Israël ? Tout change en 1979 quand, avec la révolution islamique des ayatollahs, Khomeini prend le pouvoir à Téhéran. Il rejette l'impérialisme américain et rompt les relations diplomatiques avec Israël. Qu'est-ce que la guerre de l'ombre entre les deux pays ? Explications avec Bénédicte Tassart, responsable du service international de RTL. "Deux minutes pour comprendre" est le podcast de la rédaction RTL. Du lundi au vendredi, un journaliste décrypte une actualité marquante de la journée.

Pour la première fois, l'Iran a attaqué directement Israël dans la nuit de samedi à dimanche. Si en 1948, l'Iran n'était pas contre la création de l'État hébreu, les deux pays sont désormais devenus des ennemis mortels. À quand remonte la première discorde entre l'Iran et Israël ? Tout change en 1979 quand, avec la révolution islamique des ayatollahs, Khomeini prend le pouvoir à Téhéran. Il rejette l'impérialisme américain et rompt les relations diplomatiques avec Israël. Qu'est-ce que la guerre de l'ombre entre les deux pays ? Explications avec Bénédicte Tassart, responsable du service international de RTL. "Deux minutes pour comprendre" est le podcast de la rédaction RTL. Du lundi au vendredi, un journaliste décrypte une actualité marquante de la journée.

Pour la première fois, l'Iran a attaqué directement Israël dans la nuit de samedi à dimanche. Si en 1948, l'Iran n'était pas contre la création de l'État hébreu, les deux pays sont désormais devenus des ennemis mortels. À quand remonte la première discorde entre l'Iran et Israël ? Tout change en 1979 quand, avec la révolution islamique des ayatollahs, Khomeini prend le pouvoir à Téhéran. Il rejette l'impérialisme américain et rompt les relations diplomatiques avec Israël. Qu'est-ce que la guerre de l'ombre entre les deux pays ? Explications avec Bénédicte Tassart, responsable du service international de RTL. "Deux minutes pour comprendre" est le podcast de la rédaction RTL. Du lundi au vendredi, un journaliste décrypte une actualité marquante de la journée.

Iran has threatened a devastating response to Israel's airstrike on the Iranian embassy in Damascus. But a direct strike on an Israeli facility may not be easy for Ayatollah Khameini. Ali Siadatan (thinkagainproductions.com), born in Iran before the Shia revolution of 1979, joins us to explain why Khomeini may not be as eager to hit back at Israel as some of his supporters, preferring instead to come up with an asymmetrical approach involving his proxies in Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, and maybe even a plot to overthrown King Abdullah of Jordan. For information on the Gilberts' Solidarity Mission to Israel May 6–13, 2024, go to www.gilberthouse.org/travel/. FOLLOW US! X: @Five_In_Ten and @WatchSkyWatchTV YouTube: @SkyWatchTVnow @SimplyHIS @FiveInTen Rumble: @SkyWatchTV Facebook: @SkyWatchTV @SimplyHIS @EdensEssentials Instagram: @SkyWatchTV @SimplyHisShow @EdensEssentialsUSA TikTok: @SkyWatchTV @SimplyHisShow @EdensEssentials SkyWatchTV.com | SkyWatchTVStore.com | EdensEssentials.com | WhisperingPoniesRanch.com

Show Notes and Transcript The current Israeli-Gaza war has sparked much debate focussing on geo politics and historical land disputes.  But few dare ask if Islam is the root cause of the ongoing tension.  Robert Spencer has studied Islam for 3 decades. His dozens of books and the Jihad Watch website are all go to sources of background information on Islam and the history behind it.  He returns to Hearts of Oak to ask if this is a religious problem and we start by looking at what Islam actually says about the Jews.  The aggression and vitriol throughout Islamic text and the history of behaviour towards the Jewish people is an eye opener to all of us.  Armed with this deeper understanding Robert then touches on how the term Palestinian was invented. The history, leader, flag and culture had to be invented as it was all non existent before.  His short book "The Palestinian Delusion" goes into much more detail and is a recommended read.  Enjoy the interview and get ready to see this current conflict in a whole new light. 'The Palestinian Delusion: The Catastrophic History of the Middle East Peace Process' on Amazon https://amzn.eu/d/cPigAab Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is the author of twenty-seven books, including the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, The Truth About Muhammad and the bestsellers The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS and The Critical Qur'an: Explained from Key Islamic Commentaries and Contemporary Historical Research. His new book is Empire of God: How the Byzantines Saved Civilization. Spencer has led seminars on Islam and jihad for the FBI, the United States Central Command, United States Army Command and General Staff College, the U.S. Army's Asymmetric Warfare Group, the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), the Justice Department's Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council and the U.S. intelligence community. He has discussed jihad, Islam, and terrorism at a workshop sponsored by the U.S. State Department and the German Foreign Ministry. He is a senior fellow with the Center for Security Policy. Connect with Robert and Jihad Watch... X                                x.com/jihadwatchRS  @jihadwatchRS WEBSITE                   jihadwatch.org/ Interview recorded  26.3.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA   heartsofoak.org/connect/  SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/ TRANSCRIPT (Hearts of Oak) It's wonderful to have Robert Spencer back with us again. Robert, thank you so much for your time today. (Robert Spencer) Always good to talk to you, Peter. Thank you. Great to have you on. Always good to have guests on talking about their books. We'll get into a book that I've been delving into and got a couple of months ago, but only picked it up recently and have read it. We'll get into that in a moment. But obviously, you can find Robert: that is his Twitter handle, @jihadwatchRS. And obviously jihadwatch.org is the website. You can find everything in the links below. Make sure and use it. Make sure and sign up to it. One of the latest, I think the latest piece on that, and we're doing this just two days before the video goes out, is the U.S. Supreme Court gives Hamas-linked CAIRE a 9-0 thumbs up. And CAIR obviously is the Council on American Islamic Relations. I encourage you to delve into that, which gives some of the geopolitics, I guess, that lies behind some of the difficulties that the U.S. Faces as it engages and grapples and understands Islam, which is a massive subject. But the book that I've been delving into and enjoying is The Palestinian Delusion. Short book, 200 pages. And if you want to understand what is happening at the moment in the Middle East, I would encourage you to get a hold of a copy. Available US, UK, wherever you are. The links are in the description. Grab it. And I know you'll want to get it after this interview. But , I do want to get into modern day; what is happening? But right at the beginning, chapter two; chapter one is about the formation of Israel. If we just go on to chapter two, does religion, specifically Islam, lie at the root of the problem? What are your thoughts, Robert? And of course, you delve into this in chapter two. Yeah, absolutely, Peter. Islam is what the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is all about. If you look at the messages from Hamas, from Palestinian Islamic Jihad, from Fatah, from the Palestinian Authority itself, they are all about Islam all the time. Yet that is the one aspect of this conflict that is universally ignored by policy analysts and by policymakers in the West. Every attempt at a negotiated settlement initiated by the President of the United States or any other entity over the last 50 years has completely ignored, 100% ignored, Islam as a factor in this conflict. And yet, from the standpoint of the Palestinian Arabs, that's what it is all about, and we ignore it to our own detriment. Now, chapter two is entitled The Roots of the hatred of Israel. Hatred is a very strong word, Robert, is it not? Yes, but it's entirely accurate in this case, because what we are dealing with is not only a hatred, but what has been termed the longest hatred, that is the hatred of the Jews, which of course is not solely the province of Muslims or Islam, but, many people in the West don't realize that there even is such a thing as Islamic anti-Semitism. Yet, it is very real and it is at the roots of the problem between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs today. Now, we all hear the term Islam being one of the great Abrahamic religions, and yet there doesn't seem to be a lot of love for the Jews in Islam in the text and the history. Do you want to just let us know; because that is a different side that many people will certainly not hear in the legacy media. Yes. Islam, the Quran teaches that Islam is the third revelation after the revelation of the Torah and the Gospel. That is the core scriptures of the Jews and the Christians, and that it confirms the message of the Torah and the Gospel. And that Moses and Abraham before him, and Jesus after him, and all the other prophets in the Bible, in both the Jewish and the Christian scriptures, are people who taught Islam. Islam was the original religion of all the prophets. We can see this particularly in chapter 3, verse 67 of the Quran, which says Abraham was not a Jew or a Christian. He was a Muslim. And you might wonder, well, this doesn't make any sense. How could Abraham be a Muslim when Muhammad is the originator of Islam in the 7th century and Abraham is many, many centuries before that? The Islamic answer is that Islam is the original religion of all the prophets and that it was their followers who twisted their teachings to create Judaism and Christianity. The only legitimate expression of the true teachings of the prophets is Islam. And that being the case, the orthodox mainstream understanding among Muslims of Judaism and Christianity is that they have no legitimacy at all. Now, this is a very important point because, then the Quran commands Muslims to fight against and subjugate the Jews and Christians, among others. And it's in part because of their rejecting the true faith and corrupting their scriptures, although that part comes from Islamic tradition. Now, the difficulty that people have with this arises from the fact that Islamic spokesmen in the West very deceptively, frequently, refer to how much they as Muslims revere and respect figures such as Abraham and Moses and Jesus himself himself. And so Jews and Christians who are uninformed about Islam hear this and they think, isn't that wonderful? How generous and open-minded and ecumenical they are. And we should do the same. We should reciprocate by acknowledging Muhammad as a prophet. And they don't realize that the Muslims do revere and respect Abraham and Moses and Jesus and the rest of them, but as Muslims, not as they are portrayed in Judaism and Christianity. I mean, everything seems to be on the terms of Islam. I knew your book: Did Muhammad Exist? Actually, I think we need to remind ourselves of the world that Muhammad, if he did exist, was born into, which wasn't an Islamic world as we know today. It was a very different world. Yes. North Africa, the Middle East, what we think of today as the heart of the Islamic world, those were Christian lands. They were 99% Christian from Morocco all the way across North Africa and throughout the Middle East. And so it was the conquest initiated by the Arabs beginning in the 630s that ultimately led to the Islamization of those various nations and the steady diminishment of the Christian population. But, it's important to keep in mind, Peter, that the Christian population did not decline because the Christians were gradually convinced of the truth and beauty of Islam. Rather, they were subjugated, as the Quran directs, under the hegemony of Islamic law and denied basic rights in the societies that had been conquered. And the only thing they had to do to free themselves from the oppression of living with this denial of rights was to convert to Islam. And so many people did over the centuries, such that, for example, Egypt was 99% Christian when the Arabs invaded, and now it's about 10% Christian. The Christians didn't all leave. They just converted to Islam over time, because of the pressure placed on non-Muslims. Well, maybe as the world talks about repatriations, especially in the BLM movement, maybe Christians need to get some of that from Egypt. Yes. If there were real reparations for slavery and for oppression, then yes, the Christian population of the entire Middle East and North Africa would be owed an immense amount of money. But nobody's talking about that. I guess we hear the term anti-Semitism and we're told that any feeling of anti-Semitism from Islam is purely misplaced and doesn't lie at the heart of it and this seems to be this distinction between kind of rogue Islamic preachers, but actually key text and that seems, I think commentators seem to want to make a wide gap between that. Yet, as you point out, this term anti-Semitism, it lies right at the basis of Islam from 1300, 1400 years ago. Yes, absolutely. The Qur'an says in chapter 5, verse 82, that the people who are most intense in hostility to the believers will be the Jews, as well as the polytheists. Now, what this works out to in practice is that the Jews are the recipients of the most hostility from the Muslims. This is also because this is not an isolated passage, but the Quran is full of passages depicting the Jews in a negative light, depicting them as schemers who plot against the plans of Allah himself and try to foil them. Who crow about the limits on the power of Allah, saying Allah's hand is chained. That's chapter 5, verse 64. They were transformed into apes and pigs by Allah for their disobedience. That's chapter 2, verses 62 to 66, rather. Chapter 5, 59 and 60, and 7, 166. and many, many, other passages all the way through the Quran depict the Jews as being rebellious against Allah and essentially enemies of Allah. Then the Islamic tradition is even worse and the Jews are depicted as plotting against Muhammad, trying to kill Muhammad, being massacred by Muhammad and punishment for their plots to kill him. Jewish woman poisons Muhammad and this ultimately leads to his death and so on. They're the real villains of the entire tradition. And this carries through to the modern age where Judaism and Jews are so stigmatized in the Islamic world that several ex-Muslims have spoken about moving to America or moving to Europe and encountering actual Jews for the first time and being shocked that they were not evil, horned creatures, devils in human form, trying to disrupt human society in every way, but just ordinary people like everybody else, some good, some bad. And they had no frame of reference to understand this, because Islam is so unanimous and monochromatic in depicting them as evil. I think if someone is watching this as a Christian, they will understand the Bible as the text that they live by, which is full of stories, explains things, not really chronological, but actually, you can read it and you can grasp a lot of its meaning. And that stands by itself outside the Christian traditions, really. Islam seems to be quite different. It seems to be not not only is the Qur'an actually impossible to understand, but actually seemingly is only supposedly, understandable. With a wealth of other writings, which seems to confuse things massively for anyone coming from a Christian background or from the West. That's right, Peter. The Qur'an in the first place is written, in many cases it tells the stories that it tells. In a way that makes it clear that it assumes that the hearers have heard them before and are familiar with the general outlines of the story. So, it leaves out important aspects of the stories, and many times it is speaking about incidents, and events, and not explaining what incident or event is involved. It's as if you were talking to a friend and I walked up and I didn't know either of you very well and didn't know what you what incidents you were talking about, and you didn't pause to explain it to me. I would have no idea what you're what you're discussing, and that's what reading the Quran is like in many ways. So, you have the voluminous hadith literature: hadith means report and it's the reports of Mohammed's words and deeds. In the hadith literature you find what is known as the Asbab al-Nuzul which is the circumstances of revelation that tells the stories of what was going on at the time among the early Muslims. And Muhammad that led to the revelation of this or that passage of the Quran. And that's all very well, but this material comes from a couple of hundred years after Muhammad is supposed to have lived. And there's no trace of it existing before that. And so, it's an open question as to whether these things really give the circumstances of revelation and the Quran passage follows from that, or if these stories were put together in order to explain what is essentially a gnomic, elliptical, incoherent text. And that seems, the latter seems to be more likely. Some philologists like Christoph Luxemburg have noted that if you strip out the diacritical marks that distinguish many Arabic letters from each other, because there are 22 letters in the Arabic alphabet, but 16 are exactly the same character, just with different combinations of dots above or below. And so if you take out the dots and repoint it as if it were Aramaic, then suddenly it's a whole different text and a Christian text in many cases. And so, Luxembourg contends that it was actually a Christian text that was repurposed by the early Arab conquerors in order to create the religion of Islam. And they did this because this is actually the fundamental thesis of my own book: Did Muhammad Exist? They did this because in those days, religions were what cemented political unity. There were no parliaments or constitutions in this era when Islam arose. And you had two great powers in this region, the Byzantine Empire, which was Christian, and the Persian Empire, which was Zoroastrian. They were held together by those religions. The idea was that to be a Roman citizen at this time, a citizen of the Byzantine Empire, meant that one was a Christian and adhered to the tenets of Orthodox Christianity. Consequently, the non-Christians were not considered to be fully citizens of the empire. And this is another story, but it was the Christian identity that was the cement that held the empire together. So, the Arabs amassed a great empire, conquering massive expanses of territory, and then they developed a religion to hold it all together. And because these were warriors who wanted to expand and defend and strengthen their empire, they made their religion belligerent, aggressive, martial, warlike, expansionist, and so on. I think in chapter two, you talk about that we all know of Muslims praying to Mecca, and only then Allah can really hear the prayers properly. But you talk in the book about initially it was facing towards Jerusalem. So, was this just Muhammad wanting to be accepted? and then later on, of course, or at that time, Muhammad wanting to be a prophet. Kind of, in my thinking, that's sheer arrogance, thinking you can be a prophet to a religion you come across. Those concepts of him wanting to be a Jewish prophet, but also praying towards Jerusalem, those are two facts that seem to be missing in any dialogue today. Yes, well, it does seem as if, at least according to the canonical traditional Islamic story; that is of questionable historical value. But there's no doubt that Muslims believe it; that Muhammad taught that he was a new prophet in the line of the prophets of the Bible. And that consequently he was the new prophet of the Jews and a new prophet of the Christians. And both groups said, you're not. The Jews said, you're not Jewish. You can't be a Jewish prophet. And the Christians said, Jesus said: it is finished on the cross. We're not looking for a new prophet. And so he was rejected by both. And this has led to the kind of cognitive dissonance that the Quran says that the Jews and Christians, the Christians in particular in chapter five of the Quran will be rightly guided if they follow the gospel. And yet the Gospel does not confirm the teachings of the Qur'an as the Qur'an insists, and it insists that it confirms the teachings of the Torah also. And so Islamic spokesmen, Islamic scholars throughout the ages have accounted for this discrepancy by claiming that the Jews and Christians corrupted their scriptures. And so, they maintain that Muhammad is indeed a prophet in the line of the biblical prophets, but that it's the Jews and Christians' fault for not recognizing him. They twisted their scriptures to erase the congruence so, that people would not see that the Quran confirms the Torah and the gospel. A s a result, the Jews and Christians are portrayed as these incredible renegades and rebels against God who have dared to tamper with the very word of God that he gave them, and created false religions of their own making. And so here again, they have no legitimacy. I do want to get on to current day but, I want to there there's another concept that comes out in your book which is a widely misunderstood word and that's the word jihad, and we are told jihad is inner struggle. It's a spiritual struggle between yourself trying to be right and to be good and live correctly. Yet, jihad is a term that's used in violence all across the world. What is this term, jihad? The primary understanding of jihad in Islamic theology is warfare against unbelievers in order to bring them under the hegemony of Islamic law. The confusion arises from the fact that jihad means struggle, and there are as many things that are referred to as struggles in Arabic as there are in English. And so you can have great struggles and small struggles. You can struggle to be on time for appointments when you're chronically late, but you can also have a great struggle between civilizations, such as World War II or something. Now, in the Islamic realm, it's the same thing. The Islamic Republic of Iran has a department of agricultural jihad, which doesn't involve blowing things up on farms. It involves trying to struggle to increase the efficiency of the farms and their fruitfulness. Whereas in Islamic theology, the principal meaning of jihad has to do with this warfare against unbelievers. So, here again, Islamic spokesmen in the West frequently confuse people. They're trying to confuse them and make them complacent about the jihad threat by saying jihad just means struggle. And it's about struggling to better yourself. And they don't tell you that Muhammad said the warfare against unbelievers is the highest understanding of jihad, that there's nothing greater than jihad in which one loses one's life and then is rewarded with paradise. In the book, you use a number of examples of what we would call hit preachers. This is in 45, the Hamas deputy minister of religious endowments on Al-Aqsa TV 2010 said: the Jews suffer from a mental disorder because they are thieves and aggressors. A thief or aggressor who took land or property develops a psychological disorder and pangs of conscience because he took someone that wasn't his. And then the next page, you have a from 2018, a program on Palestinian Authority television saying people could be deluded or think that they have no way out with the Jews. The liberation of this land is a matter of faith, which will happen despite everyone. And then the next page up, the Jews are treacherous and conniving cheaters. But again, the argument, many of the guests I have on would not look at Islam as an issue, as a problem. And they would simply say those are misguided, radical preachers, and they don't understand the true, beautiful nature of Islam. How do you speak against that criticism, I guess, that you're maybe picking things out and you're looking at these preachers that actually don't understand Islam, really? Well, in the first place, I find it difficult to believe that people who have committed their lives to understanding Islam correctly would not understand it correctly. While non-Muslims who've never picked up a Quran or have any idea what it says, they understand it perfectly well. Islam is kind of funny in that way that the more you know about it, the less you understand it. And the less you know about it, the more you understand it. We see this with non-Muslim politicians all over the West who assure us with immense confidence that Islam is a religion of peace that has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. Those are actually the exact words from Hillary Clinton a few years back, but many, many other politicians say exactly the same thing. And I know that Hillary Clinton doesn't have the first foggiest idea of what the Koran teaches, whereas I, who have read the Koran dozens and dozens of times, committed a great deal of it to memory. Published a translation and commentary of it that's my own, and have studied Islamic theology for 40 years, now. They would say, well, you don't understand Islam at all. And even more to the point, these Muslim clerics who've attended Al-Azhar or other prestigious Islamic institutions and and spend their whole lives trying to understand the Quran and the Islam properly, and they don't get it at all. So, in the first place, it's absurd. But in the second place, what these people said that you quoted, like the fellow who said the Jews are treacherous, conniving, cheaters, that's just Quranic theology. If you read what the Quran says about the Jews, just get a Quran, don't even read the whole thing. Get one with a good index and read all the passages about the Jews. And you will see that every last one of them is negative. Every last one of them portrays the Jews as scheming and conniving and cheating the righteous people. And so this is the prism through which these clerics see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They understand it through the lens of the Qur'an, because they believe that the Qur'an is the perfect word of the perfect being that is valid for all times and all places in all situations. They see the world today and they see Israel and the Palestinians. And the first place they will go to understand all that is the Quran, because they would trust Allah over any human authority, telling them what the conflict is all about. The Quran tells them over and over that the Jews are evil and enemies of Allah. So, they see Israel and they think, here are the evil Jews who are enemies of Allah. Even, the fact that they refer to Jews and not to Israelis or to Zionists or some other term of that kind indicates that they're seeing this through theological principles. And those theological principles are deeply anti-Semitic. Well, bringing us up to the present day, for over 2,000 years, the Jews did not have their homeland there in the land that is Israel. And it was under all different, we'll not go into the history, all different, I guess, occupying forces or other forces. And then 1948 happens and the Jewish homeland, modern day Israel, is founded again. And immediately, and this is chapter three, you talk about the jihad of 1948,which is an interesting term. Why that title? Well, the whole thing is a jihad from 1948, from before 1948, when the Zionist settlement began in the late 19th century. Even before that, because there there were always Jews in the Holy Land, and they were always subject to sporadic, periodic attacks. Now, after the Zionism began, these attacks intensify because in the first place, the Ottomans were alarmed when they owned the land that the Jews were moving in, because they thought that it would threaten their hegemony over it. Then when the Ottoman Empire fell, the League of Nations, the precursor to the United Nations, gave Britain the mandate for Palestine to establish a Jewish national home. Now, why did the Arabs object to a Jewish national home? There were already large Arab states right there neighboring this territory. And so it should have been and could have been. A relatively peaceful and orderly process once the Jewish national home was actually founded. After World War II, Germany lost massive territories in the East because it fought a war of aggression and lost. And for reasons of national security, the Poles, the Soviets, and the French in the West took various territories from the Germans. The Germans who who lived in those areas, were sent to what remained of Germany. Nobody complained. Nobody raises, nowadays, some right of return or speaks about occupied German territory in Poland and Russia. It would be absurd even to think about. But it's the exact same situation with Israel. The Arabs of Lebanon, of Syria, and of Jordan are identical ethnically, culturally, linguistically, and religiously with the Palestinian Arabs. There has never been a distinct Palestinian nationality. That's a propaganda creation that was designed to be a weapon to use against Israel. So, when you have Arabs who leave, they did not actually get kicked out. They left because the Arab League told them to leave in 1948, because the Arab states neighboring Israel were going to crush it within weeks. Then they would be out of the line of fire and could return home after Israel was destroyed. It didn't work that way, because Israel actually turned out to win the war. The Arab states, after that happened, could have easily absorbed these populations. And there would be no problem today, just like there's no problem in Europe today, in regard to the German refugees after World War II. And yet they did not do that because they they wanted to keep the Palestinian refugees as stateless, as refugees, as a weapon to beat Israel with. This is what became the linchpin for what I referred to as the Jihad of 1948. The Jihad, because the Quran says in chapter 2, verse 191: drive them out from where they drove you out. It's a myth, as I just noted, it's a myth that the the Israelis drove the Arabs out. It's not a fact, but it's what the Arabs all over the Middle East and the non-Arab Muslims are taught about what happened. So, that is because it triggers the divine command, drive them out from where they drove you out. They have to have been driven out for that to kick in as being applicable. So, now millions of Muslims, Arab and non-Arab, are taught that they must drive out the Israelis, because the Muslims were driven out. It's a divine command, no less than the Ten Commandments for Christians. Consequently, it is a jihad because if it were not for these religious principles that are rooted in Islam and the Quran, the problem would have been solved by negotiations decades ago. But no negotiated settlement ever succeeds, because you don't negotiate away divine commandments. Well, that negotiated settlement, two-term, two-state solution is the phrase that comes up, and you touch on that in that chapter. And we're told this is the way to fix all the problems, if only we can come up with this mythical two-state solution. Why is that then not the solution to the issue that the world faces in the Middle East? A two-state solution would require two states. That requires at least ostensibly that the Arabs have to acknowledge that a Jewish state of some size has a right to exist there and they will never accept that, because the divine command has driven them out from where they drove you out. That does not admit of half measures. It might admit of partial fulfilment that they take over half of Israel and then the other half later. But it doesn't allow for the recognition of the right to exist of any non-Muslim entity on that land. Consequently, the Jewish state could be the size of my office here. The Jewish state could be the size of a postage stamp, and it would not be acceptable, because they have have to drive them out from where they drove you out without any exceptions. The negotiation, the two-state solution would quickly become, or even eventually, even slowly become, a one-state solution. The Palestinian state would make war against what's left of Israel and ultimately destroy it. There would never be two states in that land on an indefinite basis. In your book, one of the chapters talks about the naivety of Carter. Seemingly, every U.S. president has accepted this. Even Trump has accepted; has stated that actually he sees that as the best solution. Is that simply an absolute misunderstanding that this is a religious ideology that lies at the root of all this? Yeah, absolutely. It's because nobody in Washington knows or wants to know about the power and influence of Islam over political issues. They underestimated and misunderstood Khomeini when it was the time of the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979. And since 1948, they have misunderstood the Israeli-Arab conflict, because they don't understand Islam. They routinely discount it as having anything to do with this conflict. And yet, it's right there in the Hamas charter. Israel will arise and will remain until Islam obliterates it. Islam obliterates it. And yet, no policymaker, no president, not Carter, not any of the others. Not Trump. None of them have ever pondered. What does that mean until Islam obliterates it? How can Islam obliterate a country? That doesn't even make any sense to the policymakers in Washington, because they think of Islam solely as a religion, and they think of it because they come from Judeo-Christian backgrounds. The way Christianity operates in the West. They assume it's like that, and so, they have no idea of its political, aggressive, expansionist, and supremacist aspects. In chapter four, you say the Palestinians are invented. That's a very strong statement. Surely, we've had the land of Palestine back in the Roman era. That's surely 2,000 years old. So, there must be all this history and people: the Palestinians. Well, I'll tell you, Peter, you're right, and yet not. And I know you know. It's true. The Romans renamed the land of Judea, that is, land of the Jews. They renamed Judea Palestine in 134 AD. And they officially expelled the Jews from the area, although many of them stayed all the way through to the modern age. Now, Palestine was a name they had taken from the Bible, from the Philistines, the ancient enemies of the Israelites, in the Jewish scriptures. And they named it Palestine. They named Judea Palestine as a yet another taunt against the Jews as they were expelling them from the region. They renamed the region against their extinct enemies. But, there were never any Palestinians. And I would ask you, you know. You can find on YouTube, for example, the men on the street interviews, and people are even Palestinians are asked, name a famous Palestinian from history. And they all say Yasser Arafat. Okay, name another. If they were Palestinian since 134 AD, then, okay, name one. Give us one from the second century or the fifth or the 10th or the 15th or the 19th. There weren't any. It was the name of a region. It's like Los Angeles. Los Angeles is a city in the United States. And there are citizens of Los Angeles, but if we start talking about a distinct Los Angeles nationality that deserves its own state, people would laugh. It's the name of the city. And Palestine was the name of this region, but there were never any Palestinians. It was just the name of a place. The idea that it's a distinct nationality was invented by Arafat and the KGB in 1964. And they did it as a propaganda weapon because the whole world in those days was sympathetic to Israel. The Israelis, because they had faced off and defeated massive nations. Arab and non-Arab Muslim nations, and had stood against them even though they were vastly outnumbered and outgunned. They gained the sympathy of the entire world. And so, the KGB in Arafat in 1964 renamed the Palestine Liberation Organization, the PLO, the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Very small change and nobody even noticed, but it was a momentous change, because it indicated for the first time in history that there was a people called Palestinians. And now the whole world accepts it and takes it for granted, but this is an invented nationality that was designed to create an even tinier people that was menaced by the massive Israeli war machine. And that would take the wind out of the sails of Israel, the tiny underdog Jewish state facing off against these massive Arab states. And it's worked very well. Even the Israelis have admitted or accepted the existence of Palestinians as a distinct nationality when there has never been such a people in history. You can go to 1948. Go to the library, read the newspapers from the day. Read the United Nations deliberations when they offered the Arabs half of the area of Israel. We're going to establish yet another Arab state and a Jewish state. And the Arabs said no, because they wouldn't accept a Jewish state of any size. Nobody ever mentions Palestinians. It's funny, because they're the center of the conflict now. And yet, in those days, it was the Israeli-Arab conflict. There was not a single mention anywhere of Palestinians. I mean, Islam does seem to have a trend of rewriting history. And in the book you talk about a number of statements and articles referring to Jesus as a Palestinian. That would be news to Jesus, because I'm sure I read in my Bible that he was Jewish. Yeah, well, obviously this is another propaganda point that's designed to curry favour among non-Muslims with the Palestinians. Even from a historical standpoint, Jesus was not a Palestinian because it wasn't until a hundred years after Jesus that the Romans renamed the area of Judea Palestine. The Gospels are very clear. Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea. That Galilee was right there next to Judea, where he grew up in Nazareth. And he says salvation is from the Jews. A very ignored statement of his. This is very clearly someone who was operating within a Jewish framework, a Jewish culture surrounded by Jews. And even the theology of Christianity is based on the theology of Judaism, that the temple Judaism before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD was based on animal sacrifices for atonement for sins. And then Jesus is presented as being, as God become man, the eternal sacrifice and the perfect atonement for sins that opens the way of heaven for the people. This is something that really doesn't even make any sense apart from Judaism. And I think Christians nowadays are getting very carried away in this Christ is King controversy that's been going on in regard to Candace Owens and the Daily Wire and so on. It risks ignoring or denying the Jewish roots of Christianity and the fundamental kinship that Judaism and Christianity actually have, despite the undeniable antagonism and the Christian anti-Semitism that was certainly operative in Europe for centuries. Well, you're right. Without Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the stories of the Old Testament, God's promised there would be no New Testament and Jesus would not be there. 100%, Robert. Just to finish off with, the last chapter is what is to be done. And it seems from this discussion that what the conflict that we see at the moment between the Palestinians in Gaza and the Israelis is just part of the wider issue of Jews and Muslims, of Islam and Judaism. So, when you say what is to be done, how do you see looking ahead? Well, looking ahead, it doesn't look good, because the American government, which is essentially the principal, if not the sole ally of the Jewish state, is betraying Israel because the Biden regime is very afraid that it's going to lose the Muslim vote, which could lose it several swing states in the November election. And end up with Biden being defeated for re-election. So, they've decided to betray Israel as a result. They're pressing for a Palestinian state. If a Palestinian state were founded, that would, as I discussed earlier, become a new jihad base for renewed attacks against what's left of Israel. They don't seem to know or care that if Israel is destroyed, then the jihadis all around the world will be emboldened like never before, and will step up their attacks in Europe and the United States. This is what we're looking at in the future unless Israel is able to destroy Hamas despite the international pressure to get it to surrender and by surrender. I mean accept a ceasefire that would allow Hamas to live and if Israel can do that then all bets are off and the post-war picture will be radically different. But right now it looks like it's going to be very tough times ahead head, both for Israel and for the West. Well, I would encourage people to get: The Passing Delusion. It's a great book and will help explain what is happening. And of course, Robert's latest book is: The Empire of God, How the Byzantines Saved Civilization. A wonderful endorsement by Victor Davis Hanson. So, if you're not sure about Robert, go to Victor David Hanson. Robert, really appreciate you coming along. Love your work over the many decades with Jihad Watch, certainly one of my go-to places on the geopolitics and deeper. Thank you so much for your time today. Thank you. Pleasure.

Der Schah ist gerade gestürzt, da erlassen die islamischen Revolutionäre um Khomeini ein Schleiergebot. Irans Frauen protestieren zu Tausenden.

Der Schah ist gerade gestürzt, da erlassen die islamischen Revolutionäre um Khomeini ein Schleiergebot. Irans Frauen protestieren zu Tausenden. Von Marfa Heimbach.

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/racconti-di-storia-podcast--5561307/support.OFFERTA ESCLUSIVA NORDVPN Non perderla: https://nordvpn.com/dentrolastoria35 anni fa, il 24 febbraio 1989, l'ayatollah Khomeini pronunciava la fatwa contro Salman Rushdie, l'autore dei "Versetti Satanici". Quella condanna a morte è simbolo di oscurantismo e di negazione di una delle maggiori conquiste umane: il diritto d'opinione e d'espressione. La morte in carcere di Alexei Navalny una settimana fa ci dovrebbe far riflettere su quanto sia prezioso l'articolo 21 della Costituzione Italiana e sulle sue implicazioni. A volte diamo per scontata un diritto che invece ha richiesto tanti sacrifici per essere conquistato e affermato. Il nostro editoriale odierno è dedicato proprio a chi dissente nelle dittature per ridare dignità e diritti a intere popolazioniIl nostro canale Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1vziHBEp0gc9gAhR740fCwSostieni DENTRO LA STORIA su Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/dentrolastoriaAbbonati al canale: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1vziHBEp0gc9gAhR740fCw/joinSostienici su PayPal: https://paypal.me/infinitybeatDentro La Storia lo trovi anche qui: https://linktr.ee/dentrolastoria Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/racconti-di-storia-podcast--5561307/support.

Chris, Todd, and John discuss T-Pain writing country hits, Khomeini's ban from FB and insta, the theft of a 200ft radio tower, and our preferred hand smells.   // to hear the full episode and many more, check out our patreon at patreon.com/beepbeeplettuce

The Shah cracks down on dissent, to the point even his great ally Jimmy Carter begins to cool on the relationship. The economy continues to overheat and the exiled Ayatollah Khomeini has never been more popular. In early 1978 people take to the streets in protest. This quickly escalates until the Shah believes he has no choice but to abdicate. But will Khomeini bring respite to the country, or will things just keeping get worse? Join William and Anita as they are joined by Ali Ansari for the last time to discuss the climax of our story, the Iranian Revolution, and the terrible bloodshed that accompanies Iran's mullahs rise to power. For bonus episodes, ad-free listening, reading lists, book discounts, a weekly newsletter, and a chat community. Sign up at https://empirepod.supportingcast.fm/ Twitter: @Empirepoduk Email: empirepoduk@gmail.com Goalhangerpodcasts.com Producer: Callum Hill Exec Producer: Neil Fearn Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On today's episode we discuss the origins of Hezbollah, focusing on three key factors in its creation: Iran and Khomeini, The tenuous relationship between Palestinians in south Lebanon and the native Shia communities, as well as Israeli occupation and influence in southern Lebanon. https://www.patreon.com/brohistory #298 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Afshin, born as an Iranian, raised as a devout Muslim, believed in the jihadist revolution led by Khomeini. At the age of 12 he joined Hezbollah. On a mission to convert Christians in the United States to his religion, he was arrested after trying to use a fake passport. In his prison cell, Afshin met Jesus. Jesus challenged this young soldier with words that broke the hard-harded militant. He caved. Afshin knew as a student of Islam that no person could speak directly to God, but in that encounter, Jesus declared Himself as God. Today, Afshin is a whole-hearted follower of Jesus Christ, on a mission to make peace between the "Sons of Isaac" (the Jews), and the "Sons of Ismael" (the Arabs). If you watch only one video, watch this one; as Randy Kay, a former "militant agnostic," interviews a former militant jihadist. Together they speak as brothers in Christ.

In this episode, Dinesh examines the state of radical Islam from the Khomeini revolution to the present. Debbie and Dinesh discuss the relationship between the cartels and Islamic terrorism, the vulnerability of our open border, the debate about the morality of killing civilians, and the latest news about the new film “Police State.”See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For access to full-length Patreon episodes, upcoming installments of DEMON FORCES, and the SJ Grotto of Truth Discord, subscribe to the Al-Wara' Frequency at patreon.com/subliminaljihad. After bidding farewell to Christina, Dimitri and Khalid keep on chooglin' through a few more hours of Taylor discourse, including: The (somewhat triggering) comparisons between Taylor and the Grateful Dead, the Right Wing Straussianism of Lana Del Rey, Taylor's opera singing grandmother Marjorie Finlay, her grandfather Robert Finlay's work in 1950s Havana before fleeing due to “political unrest”, Raymond Construction Company, Scott Borchetta and RCA/MCA, Scooter Braun's Make-A-Wish connections, Taylor-as-ARG, Zersetzung Taylor always watching, Matty Healy's irrepressible parasocial desire to riff with the Cum Boys, Khalid wondering whether there could be a Subliminal Jihad episode about Taylor Swift, escaping the teenage jail of Gen X music hipsterdom, why it's okay to respect quality and craft, more similarities with the Eagles, Khomeini, and Qassem Suleimani, going in on Joe with “You're Losing Me”, wisely turning down a FTX sponsorship in 2020, and whether or not Taylor has ever taken psychedelics.

Dimitri and Khalid are joined by Public Swiftie intellectual Christina (@stidrill) to explore and critically uphold the parasocial cult of personality, esoteric symbolism, and Eagles-tier Song Power of Ms. Taylor Alison Swift, including: The Eras Tour parking lot experience, recent comparisons with the Grateful Dead, mass amnesia/dissociative episodes at her concerts, Taylor-as-Sufi mystic/spiritual leader, getting Swiftiepilled when it wasn't “cool” in the late 2000s, Taylor becoming the Bob Dylan of the millennials, the low-key emo character of “Fearless” and “Speak Now”, Taylor's high finance parents and her carefully managed musical upbringing in Nashville, the Gaylor theories, Hetlers, Karlie Kloss, the Kushners, and David Geffen, similarities to the Ayatollah Khomeini, the deep cultural ramifications of Kanye interrupting Taylor at the 2009 VMAs, the Olivia Rodrigo interpolation controversy, Ryan Adams' pre-cancellation “1989” cover record, leaning into snake symbolism on “Reputation”, Joe Alwyn's ambiguous writing credits on “Folklore” and “Evermore”… The sordid saga of Scooter Braun, the Carlyle Group, and the Soros/Disney families stealing the masters of Taylor's first six albums, Taylor's ingenious decision to outfox the Silk Toppers by rerecording all her early records, the sus career moves of (son of a 1956 Hungarian emigré dentist) Scott “Scooter” Braun, gr**ming Justin Bieber for superstardom, noticing the social and business interlocks between Matty Healy, Peter Thiel, and certain prominent dirtbag podcasters who despise Taylor and hiss like snakes from the shadows as they root for her downfall, Matty Healy the Interscope COINTELPRO chaos agent, the unbearable midness of The 1975, Scott Swift's double-dealing with Scooter over Taylor's masters, Scott Borchetta's betrayal, big Saul Zaentz vibes, Taylor getting ermed by NYT journalists for making “…….a choice” to call out Soros by name, getting caught in the middle of the Hungarian Yankee-Cowboy Soros v. Orban shadow war, more political/apolitical parallels between Taylor and Khomeini, the fuzzy folklore of Taylor's MIB computer repairman guitar teacher in Nashville, and the carefully premeditated tactical media aspects of Taylor's rise to superstardom. Part 1 of 2. Follow Christina on Twitter: @stidrill

Featuring Eskandar Sadeghi-Boroujerdi and Golnar Nikpour on the history of modern Iran. This is the fourth episode in what is now a FIVE-part series. We pick up in the wake of the Islamic Revolution as Khomeini consolidates power, represses his rivals, and confronts an invasion from Saddam Hussein's Iraq. We continue through the Iran-Iraq War, the mass execution of thousands of leftist prisoners, and Khamenei and Rafsanjani's rise to power after Khomeini's death.Support The Dig at Patreon.com/TheDigCheck out our vast archives and newsletter at thedigradio.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Featuring Eskandar Sadeghi-Boroujerdi and Golnar Nikpour on the history of modern Iran. This is the fourth episode in what is now a FIVE-part series. We pick up in the wake of the Islamic Revolution as Khomeini consolidates power, represses his rivals, and confronts an invasion from Saddam Hussein's Iraq. We continue through the Iran-Iraq War, the mass execution of thousands of leftist prisoners, and Khamenei and Rafsanjani's rise to power after Khomeini's death. Support The Dig at Patreon.com/TheDig Check out our vast archives and newsletter at thedigradio.com