You know how Iran was always months away from nukes? It was. That was the hard liner faction who believed that only nukes would ensure Iran's safety wanting to be able to quickly have one if the fatwa was removed.

Did you not know this? If not, you should stop watching/reading the new sources that didn't tell you this widely available information. They're not new sources but propaganda sources.

[–] Viceversa@lemmy.world -5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Because Iran wasn't a dictatorship.

It had factions.

Isn't ayatollah the supreme leader?

[–] Count042@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Isn't the president the executive branch?

Jesus Christ, do you have any critical thinking skills?

[–] Viceversa@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

As far as I know, ayatollah is entitled to command all leaders of all branches.
That's why he's called the supreme leader.

It's not true?

[–] Count042@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Stop ignoring everything else I wrote you fucking propaganda poisoned jackass.

[–] Viceversa@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Stop being unnecessarily rude.

Also: am I right in my point about ayatollah supremacy?

[–] Count042@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

No, you're not.

You're arguing by title to ignore the points made like a sophist. That is explicitly rude, while trying to pretend it isn't.

Bad faith responses deserve nothing other than the reflection of the rudeness they project.

[–] Viceversa@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I think we disagree.

By the way, I'm from Russia, and we have our own "totally not authoritarian" head of just one branch of government.

And the ayatollah - he's effectively the head of all branches, while also having religious authority. It's very hard to see any democracy here.

[–] Count042@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

We don't disagree. You are factually wrong. I'm not saying that it isn't an authoritarian state. It absolutely is.but the simple fact of the matter is that the Ayatollah isn't involved most decisions. His power mostly came into play with selecting who could run in their elections, which absolutely are real with the opposing sides running having significant political differences.

Did he get to set the goal posts for their parties? Yes, absolutely, and that isn't a full on true democracy. But the Iranian civilians have far far more say in their government than a civilian Russian, for example.

Moreover, you're debating all of this shit in ignorance to move the topic away from the fact the Iran didn't have nukes SOLELY because the leader was religiously opposed to them. The religious leader the US and Israeli's killed. While proving that they are unreliable negotiators.

The only rational view at this point for the average Iranian is to demand nukes.

[–] Viceversa@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

You told me that Iran was covertly enriching uranuim , despite the will of ayatollah, because there are factions in Iran.

If that's your point, then I disagree with you, because of all the power ayatollah had.

(By the way, I'm not defending the USA & Israel war intervention. Nor am I enamoured with Iranian leadership.)