[FilosofumRex]

> It's a circular logic. He elects people who elect him.

"Supreme Leader" does not elect anyone, he appoints the head of judiciary, according to the tradition and customs of Sharia law. People elect parliament, president and Assembly of Experts. The Guardian Counsel's only power is to certify minimum qualifications of candidates, according to election laws not personal prerogative of the "Supreme Leader".

Iran's "regime" is only 45 years old, the first 8 years of which was in war and the last 25 years, under sanctions by the Western "democracies". This is after 3,000 years of absolute monarchy or occupation.

You, your king and your Mossad handlers may control the internet, but will never be able to return to Iran.

[perching_aix]

Your attempts at justifying Iran's self-identification of a republic as legitimate have been thoroughly falsified by me in a comment above. I don't know why you keep trying to pretend that it is a republic, it is still blatantly a theocratic monarchy in all but name. I have thoroughly justified how their regime, no scare quotes, and its Supreme Leader, no scare quotes, is held in place by undemocratic, circular, and corrupt processes. These are legal and practical facts you have not been able to contend. They're further so uncontroversial and boring, it boggles the mind you're trying to paint them otherwise. It's not even necessary to claim otherwise per se: history books detail countless bona fide, self-identified monarchies where the people were satisfied and the economic situation was decent. Which is to say, Iran could (in principle) just as well adopt a different leadership, still remain a pseudo monarchy (or even turn again into an explicit one), yet economically prosper with their populace satisfied. It is an invariant. Indeed, if the Iranian regime has any common sense and they're genuinely the one faulted at all by the people (which I still haven't confirmed nor care of), they'll just scapegoat the currently incumbent people-elected bodies for any wrongdoing, maybe rotate them, and call it a day. Would be basically standard political practice.

All accusing random people of being an Israeli spy does, especially when all the evidence for it is just them trying to contextualize your misleading comments, is render you an untrustworthy narrator of a then-evidently dishonest narrative. As if you ran out of convenient facts, so you pivoted to convenient speculations. It is very clear you're here to paint Iran as something it isn't, absolving their leadership from being at any fault or having any responsibility for the protests discussed by handwaving away their significance in its totality. It is further very clear that you're not here to do so via any appreciable, honest means, and that you get hostile specifically in response to when you get called out for this, indicating both a strong and a willful bias.

I further don't understand all this "your king" stuff. What king? You even claimed their "king" is elected by "Trump or Satanyahu", when in an earlier comment you explicitly prided Iran on how it's not like European or Asian monarchies, with their hereditary processes. Surely you can appreciate the contradiction.

> (...) your king (...) may control the internet, but will never be able to return to Iran

I'm confused. So you're claiming

- the guy above has a king, so they're currently nationals at one of these places: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahrain, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Cambodia, Canada, Denmark, Eswatini, Grenada, Jamaica, Jordan, Lesotho, Malaysia, Morocco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, The Bahamas, Tonga, Tuvalu, and the UK. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_monarchs_of_so...)

- that king was elected, leaving: Cambodia, Eswatini, Jordan, and Malaysia (see the same link as previously)

- that king would have an interest to return to Iran, implying they must be former Iranian nationals: none of the aforementioned kings fit this bill

- that king was elected by Satanyahu, i.e. that king is an Israeli spy; as per the previous facts, this cannot be, there's no one remaining

- the guy above is an Israeli spy

I'm honestly mystified just what kind of character you're envisioning that could match all this, and why do you keep suggesting that he's presently a national at a place that clearly cannot exist, for being lead by a king with an impossible combination of characteristics. Even if you did not literally want to suggest a king, and that was sarcasm, that still doesn't clarify much. Is this some kind of political bravado specific to where you're from?