Latest news with #IslamicRevolutionof1979
Indian Express
11 hours ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
World Refugee Day: An Iranian refugee in Pune dreams of a day when his motherland will become a democratic nation
Behzad Amiri, a 74-year-old Iranian refugee in Pune, dreams of a future when Iran will become a democratic nation. 'I don't know if I will be alive to see that day, but I'm sure one day Iran will become a democratic country,' said Amiri, speaking to The Indian Express ahead of World Refugee Day on June 20. Born in Iran's Bushehr province, Amiri lives in Pune. Before coming to India to pursue higher education at the age of 26, he completed compulsory two-year service in the Iranian Army, working with a special camp of the Shah of Iran. 'I did my BA in Economics from Wadia College in Pune. Then I took admission for a Masters course… But I went back to my country nearly two months after the Islamic Revolution of 1979, led by Ayatollah Khomeini. My father told me I should not have returned as the Islamic Republic in Iran would execute me. I supported democracy and have always been against the Islamic regime. So I left Iran. I went to Tehran and from there I came to India again and started living in Pune Camp,' he said. Amiri said he was blacklisted by the Islamic Republic in Iran. 'On August 26, 1982, I got refugee status in India' he said. Settling down in Pune, he married an Indian woman, Ismat, who passed away about 15 years ago. His son and daughter were born in India. He now stays on NIBM Road in Pune, with his son, who is an engineer working for a private firm. Amiri said his father was put behind bars by the Islamic regime and was later released. 'I lost my mother at an early age. My father once came to meet me in Pune. He went back after spending ten days with me. After a period of time, he died in Iran. But I could not attend his funeral as I would have got killed there. I avoided talking to my friends and relatives fearing it could get them in trouble… I started a new life in Pune with the help of supporters and well-wishers,' he said. Amiri is an active member of the National Movement of the Iranian Resistance (NAMIR), founded by Iran's former prime minister Shapour Bakthiar. He said NAMIR is a broad-based coalition of Iranian people, inside and outside the country, who are working for 'ending Islamic cleric's tyrannical, theocratic regime and its replacement by a democratic government, which will protect human rights.' 'While living in Pune, I joined NAMIR and had at least five telephonic interactions with Bakthiar, who had moved to France after the Islamic Revolution in Iran. He led NAMIR from Paris,' he said. Bakhtiar was murdered in France in 1991. 'Bakhtiar was pro-democracy. He gave us the slogan 'Iran Will Never Die'. Twice a year, NAMIR members spread in different countries meet online. Through NAMIR we continue to oppose the Islamic Republic in Iran and propagate the thought of establishing democracy,' Amiri said. Everyday Amiri circulates on WhatsApp several reports about various incidents in Iran, along with the slogan 'Iran Will Never Die'. Asked about the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran, he said, 'I am against the dictatorial Islamic regime in Iran. But I am also against the killing of ordinary citizens in Iran by Israel…. I have deep respect for Indian democracy. I want Iran to be a democratic nation like India.' In charge of NAMIR's India arm, Amiri has been active in holding events like 'International Day of Cyrus the Great'. During this programme, Amiri along with a few more Iranian nationals gather in Pune to remember 'Cyrus the Great', the King of Persia, who they said had 'declared the first charter of human rights in the world, also known as 'Cyrus Cylinder'. At the programme, they observe one-minute silence around a photo of 'Cyrus the Great' along with the flag of Iran before the 1979 Islamic revolution. Amiri said Iranians believe 'October 29 (7th of Aban)' is the anniversary of the entrance of Cyrus into Babylon. 'Cyrus was the founder of the Achaemenid Empire and is well-respected for his achievements in human rights, politics and military strategy. We Iranians want October 29 to be called Unity Day,' he said. Amiri has also held solidarity meetings of NAMIR in Pune to protest against the 'rule of anarchy in Iran' on the occasion of the anniversary of Iranian revolution of February 11, 1979.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Memo: US faces sea of risk if Trump presses ahead with Iran attack
President Trump looked to be on the cusp of deciding whether to join Israel's attack on Iran on Wednesday. Trump told reporters at the White House that he had 'ideas' of what he wanted to do but had not reached a definitive conclusion. In general, he said, he likes 'to make a final decision one second before it's due.' Late Wednesday afternoon, The Wall Street Journal reported that, the previous day, Trump had told senior aides he had signed off on plans to attack Iran but had not ordered those plans be put fully into motion until he saw whether Iran would abandon its nuclear program. Iran has vigorously defended its right to continue enriching uranium, even as the nation's leaders have insisted the substance is intended only for civilian use. The political push and pull over whether U.S. forces should directly participate in the Israel-led assault is intense. It has huge stakes for the region at large — and perhaps for Trump's presidency as well. On a purely practical level, it has been widely reported that Israel needs direct American assistance to accomplish even its most short-term goal of destroying the Iranian nuclear program. One of the key Iranian enrichment facilities, at Fordow, is built into a mountain. Destroying it likely requires the use of enormous bunker buster 30,000-pound bombs, which only the U.S. possesses or has a plane capable of transporting them: the B-2 bomber. Many voices in Trump's party support muscular American backing for its Middle East ally, with figures like Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) at the fore in making that argument. But in the wider Make America Great Again (MAGA) world, there are voices who are highly skeptical of such an enterprise. The divide was shown to dramatic effect in a long and contentious interview between Cruz and Tucker Carlson on the topic, which went viral Wednesday. Carlson is perhaps the most influential figure warning against the U.S. getting sucked into another major foreign conflict after years of being mired in Iraq and Afghanistan. The arguments of the pro-war side extend beyond merely the standard U.S. support to Israel, which has long relied on a gusher of American military aid. Proponents say Iran is at a key crossroads, unusually dangerous because of the relatively short time it would hypothetically need to become a nuclear power, but unusually weak because of the series of setbacks suffered by its proxies and those to whom it was sympathetic: Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and the now-toppled regime of former President Bashar Assad in Syria. But if some people see a rare window of opportunity to topple the theocrats who have run Iran since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, others warn about the sheer scale of the risks. One obvious issue is the potential vulnerability of U.S. troops elsewhere in the region if American forces attack Iran directly. There are an estimated 13,500 U.S. service members in Kuwait, 10,000 in Qatar, 9,000 in Bahrain and 2,500 still in Iraq, The New York Times estimated Wednesday. All would be in close range of Iran. Of course, those troops will all be on heightened alert and are well fortified. But the loss of any U.S. lives at all could change the political dynamics for Trump at home. Back in 1980, then-President Carter suffered a disaster in the Iranian desert when an attempt to rescue hostages failed. Several helicopters used in the covert mission failed and eight U.S. service members were killed. The circumstances were admittedly very different, but the fact remains that the loss of American lives can easily become politically catastrophic. Then there are the economic effects of an all-out war to consider. The price of oil has climbed roughly 10 percent over the past week. A sustained price rise will be a drag on industry and a driver of inflation. The Strait of Hormuz, which passes along the Iranian coast, is a conduit for about one-fifth of global oil supplies. Another huge question: What would be the objective of an American assault? Would it be simply to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities or would it be aimed at toppling the regime? If the latter is the real objective, there are a multitude of complications. Even though many Iranians are unhappy with the leadership of the mullahs, that does not mean they would welcome Washington toppling them, especially at the behest of the hated Israel. Who would replace the current leadership, and what legitimacy would the new leadership have? How would a new government even be arrived at? And, if that process proved tortuous and violent, what role could the U.S. have in trying to pacify a nation of almost 90 million people? None of it seems appealing to many of the Trump voters who grew tired of what MAGA figures like Steve Bannon call 'forever wars' elsewhere. Meanwhile, even if the U.S. did have more modest objectives, pertaining to the destruction of nuclear capability, the Iranians could rebuild that over time. Indeed, Iranians might well consider it an imperative to do so at full velocity — if they come to see the failure to acquire nuclear weapons as one reason their enemies felt at liberty to attack in the first place. To be sure, many worst-case scenarios might not come to pass. But there are more than enough factors to give Americans serious pause for thought as Trump considers his next move. The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
The Memo: US faces sea of risk if Trump presses ahead with Iran attack
President Trump looked to be on the cusp of deciding whether to join Israel's attack on Iran on Wednesday. Trump told reporters at the White House that he had 'ideas' of what he wanted to do but had not reached a definitive conclusion. In general, he said, he likes 'to make a final decision one second before it's due.' Late on Wednesday afternoon, the Wall Street Journal reported that, the previous day, Trump had told senior aides that he had signed off on plans to attack Iran but had not ordered those plans put fully into motion until he saw whether Iran would abandon its nuclear program. Iran has vigorously defended its right to continue enriching uranium, even as the nation's leaders have insisted the substance is intended only for civilian use. The political push and pull over whether U.S. forces should directly participate in the Israel-led assault is intense. It has huge stakes for the region at large, and perhaps for Trump's presidency as well. On a purely practical level, it has been widely reported that Israel needs direct American assistance to accomplish even its most short-term goal of destroying the Iranian nuclear program. One of the key Iranian enrichment facilities, at Fordow, is built into a mountain. Destroying it likely requires the use of enormous 'bunker buster' 30,000-lb bombs which only the U.S. possesses or has a plane capable of transporting: the B-2 bomber. Many voices in Trump's party support muscular American backing for its Middle East ally, with figures like Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to the fore in making that argument. But in the wider Make America Great Again (MAGA) world, there are voices who are highly skeptical of such an enterprise. The divide was shown to dramatic effect in a long and contentious interview between Cruz and Tucker Carlson on the topic which went viral on Wednesday. Carlson is perhaps the most influential figure warning against the U.S. getting sucked into another major foreign conflict after years of being mired in Iraq and Afghanistan. The arguments of the pro-war side extend beyond merely the standard U.S. support to Israel, which has long relied on a gusher of American military aid. Proponents say Iran is at a key crossroads – unusually dangerous because of the relatively short time it would hypothetically need to become a nuclear power, but unusually weak because of the series of setbacks suffered by its proxies and those to whom it was sympathetic: Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and the now-toppled regime of former President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. But if some people see a rare window of opportunity to topple the theocrats who have run Iran since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, others warn about the sheer scale of the risks. One obvious issue is the potential vulnerability of U.S. troops elsewhere in the region if American forces attack Iran directly. There are an estimated 13,500 U.S. forces in Kuwait, 10,000 in Qatar, 9,000 in Bahrain and 2,500 still in Iraq, The New York Times estimated on Wednesday. All would be in close range of Iran. Of course, those troops will all be on heightened alert and are well fortified. But the loss of any U.S. lives at all could change the political dynamics for Trump at home. Back in 1980, then-President Carter suffered a disaster in the Iranian desert when an attempt to rescue hostages failed. Several helicopters used in the covert mission failed and eight U.S. service members were killed. The circumstances were admittedly very different, but the fact remains that the loss of American lives can easily become politically catastrophic. Then there are the economic effects of an all-out war to consider. The price of oil has climbed roughly 10 percent over the past week. A sustained price rise will be a drag on industry and a driver of inflation. The Strait of Hormuz, which passes along the Iranian coast, is a conduit for about one-fifth of global oil supplies. Another huge question: What would be the objective of an American assault? Would it be simply to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities or would it be aimed at toppling the regime? If the latter is the real objective, there are a multitude of complications. Even though many Iranians are unhappy with the leadership of the mullahs, that does not mean they would welcome Washington toppling them, especially at the behest of the hated Israel. Who would replace the current leadership, and what legitimacy would the new leadership have? How would a new government even be arrived at? And, if that process proved tortuous and violent, what role could the U.S. have in trying to pacify a nation of almost 90 million people? None of it seems appealing to many of the Trump voters who grew tired of what MAGA figures like Steve Bannon call 'forever wars' elsewhere. Meanwhile, even if the U.S. did have more modest objectives, pertaining to the destruction of nuclear capability, the Iranians could rebuild that over time. Indeed, Iranians might well consider it an imperative to do so at full velocity — if they come to see the failure to acquire nuclear weapons as one reason their enemies felt at liberty to attack in the first place. To be sure, many worst-case scenarios might not come to pass. But there are more than enough factors to give Americans serious pause for thought as Trump considers his next move. The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage.
Spectator
2 days ago
- Politics
- Spectator
‘De-escalation' won't work on Iran
As Donald Trump hastily dashed home from the G7 meeting in Canada to deal with the escalating conflict between Iran and Israel, Prime Minister Keir Starmer went to speak to reporters. The G7 resolution on Iran, he said, 'was about de-escalation'. 'The thrust of the statement is in accordance with what I was saying on the way out here, which is to de-escalate the situation, and to de-escalate it across the region rather than to escalate it,' he added. The Prime Minister has clung doggedly to this line since the first reports came through early last Friday morning of massive and coordinated Israeli air strikes on Iran. That afternoon, Downing Street announced that Starmer had spoken to his counterpart in Jerusalem, Benjamin Netanyahu. The read-out was almost a caricature of Starmer's mugwumpish, hand-wringing approach to public affairs: This is not merely an existential threat to Israel The Prime Minister was clear that Israel has a right to self-defence and set out the UK's grave concerns about Iran's nuclear programme. He reiterated the need for de-escalation and a diplomatic resolution, in the interests of stability in the region. In other words, the UK fully appreciated and understood Israel's anxieties and the threats it faced, but would rather, on balance, it did not act to alleviate them because that would only lead to unpleasantness. This knee-jerk response supporting a 'need for de-escalation' is not just a mimsy progressive instinct that, as Harold Macmillan once said, 'jaw, jaw is better than war, war'. Macmillan, a hawk on Suez until he wasn't, never believed that as a universal principle in the way that Starmer seems to. There is a deeper and more unsettling inference to be drawn: that stepping back from armed conflict is always the preferable option because military action is never really justified and that – and this is the key – war is a failure of diplomacy between morally equivalent actors. By that reasoning, one should never favour conflict, with negotiation is always preferable. In the case of the conflict between Israel and Iran, this is emphatically not the case; Starmer is deluding himself and damaging our national interest if he cannot see a distinction. Israel, the only recognisable liberal democracy in the Middle East, is a long-standing ally of the United Kingdom. It has faced existential threats since its declaration of independence in May 1948. Iran, by contrast, since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, has been definitionally an enemy of the West and of Western interests. The Islamic Republic of Iran does not recognise Israel's right to exist: Israel's destruction has been central to Tehran's foreign policy for nearly 50 years. This is not merely an existential threat to Israel. On 5 November 1979, the supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, declared that 'the Great Satan is America that gathers around other devils blatantly'. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom is 'the old fox', a malign agent of intervention which remains an implacable enemy. Iran has sponsored Islamic terrorism across the Middle East and around the world: through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), it has trained, supplied and assisted Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Taliban, al-Qa'eda, the Houthi movement, the Mahdi Army, the Badr Organisation, Saraya al-Mukhtar and the al-Ashtar Brigades in Bahrain. It is now also closely tied into the 'Axis of Upheaval', or 'CRINK': China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. The Islamic Republic of Iran is not a state with which the West can have sustainable long-term relations. It funds and foments violence against us and our allies, and it seeks to develop nuclear weapons. It also exercises a potentially devastating control over one of the four or five most important global maritime chokepoints in the Strait of Hormuz, through which a quarter of the world's oil and a third of its liquefied natural gas must transit. Perhaps, then, the Prime Minister should think again. Do we really benefit from the 'de-escalation' of a conflict between Israel and Iran in which the early signs are that Israel has delivered catastrophic blows to the Tehran régime's capabilities and infrastructure? Iran has lost the head of its armed forces, the head of the IRGC and half a dozen other senior military leaders; Major-General Ali Shadmani was appointed to lead the armed forces' combatant HQ, Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, after its previous commander, Gholam Ali Rashid, was killed, then was himself killed by an air strike after four days in post. The Islamic Republic is in a critical condition. Negotiations to accommodate or constrain Iran have never yielded a long-term solution because such a co-existence is impossible. There is no need for UK armed forces to wade into this fight – we lack any meaningful capacity to do so anyway – but it is hard to see how our interests are not served by an Iranian defeat and, potentially, regime change in Iran. Israel is fighting because it feels it must. Explain, Sir Keir, to those of us struggling to understand, how 'de-escalation', giving Iran breathing space and halting Israel's devastatingly effective military campaign, is in Britain's strategic interests. Iran is on the ropes, and it would be an act of criminal folly to force our way in and offer to mop its brow now.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
4 days ago
- Politics
- First Post
As Netanyahu dares Khamenei, here's timeline of Israel-Iran conflict
After decades of proxy warfare, Israel and Iran are now locked in a war that has killed dozens and injured hundreds. Here is the timeline of the Israel-Iran conflict that now threatened to light up West Asia. read more People watch from a bridge as flames from an Israeli attack rise from Sharan Oil depot, following Israeli strikes on Iran, in Tehran, Iran, June 15, 2025. (Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA via Reuters) In the early hours of Friday, Israel struck Iran's nuclear sites, wiped out the Iranian military's chain of command, and destroyed a host of military sites ranging from air defence units to missile launchers. As Iran responded, the two countries entered direct war after decades of proxy warfare. This is the third time that the two have found each other in a direct confrontation in more than a year — even though this one is the most intense. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In the past two instances, both the sides made it a point to offer an offramp to the other and leave a scope of de-escalation in their own attacks. With strikes on Friday and follow-up attacks that continue, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not left any room of de-escalation — at least for now. Here is the timeline of the Israel-Iran conflict from 1970s to 2024. The Islamic Revolution of Iran of 1979 As they have clashed for decades, it may appear that Israel and Iran are natural enemies, but that is not the case. Until the Islamic Revolution of 1979, when radical Islamists overthrew the rule of liberal, pro-West Shah of Iran and established a theocracy, Israel and Iran had extensive partnerships in the domains of economy, trade, defence, agriculture, and intelligence. Iran was part of Israel's 'Alliance of the Periphery' along with Turkey and Ethiopia. The idea of the alliance was to be friends with non-Arab countries in the West Asia and North America region — the enemy's enemy being your friend. In his book 'The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World', Avi Shlaim called Iran the 'jewel in the crown of the Alliance of the Periphery'. 'Its common border with the Soviet Union made Iran a front-line state in the Cold War. Traditional hostility between Iran and the Arab world also facilitated cooperation with Israel. In March 1950, Iran recognised Israel de facto and permitted it to maintain an unofficial low-level representation in Tehran. Iran also supplied oil to Israel. In the aftermath of Suez this low-level economic relationship was transformed into a close political and strategic partnership,' noted Shlaim. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD That changed with the Islamic Revolution of 1979 of Iran when the Islamist Ayatollah Ali Khomenei took over the country. He made opposition to Israel and the United States, whom he called 'Small Satan' and 'Great Satan' respectively, central to the ruling ideology and formally committed Iran to the destruction of Israel. Contrary to the tone that Netanyahu has now chosen, which calls for the overthrowal of the Ayatollah's regime in Tehran, Israel for years sought a relationship with Iran even after the Islamic Revolution. Israel supported Iran in the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88). However, with no reciprocity, Israel's attempts faded and the two sides entered a decadeslong phase of proxy warfare that erupted into a full-scale war last week. Israel-Iran proxy war (1980s-2024) Even as Israel supported Iran against Iraq, Iran propped Hezbollah in Lebanon in 1992. Until its decapitation in 2024, Hezbollah would become the most potent non-state actor in West Asia, with tens of thousands of fighters and an arsenal of hundreds of thousands of missiles and rockets. Inside Lebanon, Hezbollah ran a state inside a state and controlled vast swathes of territories in the southern part of the country bordering Israel. The group clashed with Israel numerous times, conducted attacks, and fought wars. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In the 1990s, Iran also started supporting Hamas, which later went on to become the principal Palestinian anti-Israel group. Both Hezbollah and Hamas share Iran's goal of destroying Israel. These are the major incidents during the proxy war: 1992: Argentina Embassy bombing: Hezbollah bombed the Embassy of Israel in Buenos Aeris, Argentina, killing 29 people, including four Israelis. 1994: AMIA Jewish center was bombed in Argentina, killing 85 killed. Hezbollah was blamed for the attack. 2002: Western intelligence agencies expose the Iranian nuclear weapons programme. 2003: Iran formally shuts down the nuclear programme and enters talks. 2006: Iran resumes nuclear fuel enrichment. 2010: Stuxnet virus attack on Natanz nuclear site. 2010-onward: Assassinations of Iranian nuclear 2010-20, Israel assassinated at least six Iranian nuclear scientists, including Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, who was known as the father of Iranian nuclear programme. He was killed in 2020 with a robotic gun. Other scientists killed included Masoud Alimohammadi (2010), Majid Shahriari (2010), Fereydoon Abbasi-Davani (2010; he survived), Daryoush Rezaei-Nejad (2011), and Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan (2012). 2020: The United States assassinated Qasem Soleimani, the chief of Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps' (IRGC) Quds Force in Iraq. Israel assisted in the the strikes, Iran and its proxies in the region targeted US military bases in the region with missiles and rockets. Israel-Iran conflict of 2024 After decades of proxy war and cold war, Israel and Iran exchanged direct blows for the first time in 2024 in the aftermath of the October 7 attack. In April, an Israeli strike on the Iranian diplomatic mission in Syrian capital Damascus killed senior officers of the IRGC. Iran and its proxies launched hundreds of missiles and drones on Israel and a defensive coalition propped by the United States, comprising the US, British, French, Saudi, Emirati, and Jordanian forces, helped Israel in its defence. Israel also responded with strikes days later. Both sides carried out strikes in a manner that allowed them an off-ramp. On July 31, Israel assassinated then-Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran in a bomb blast. In a colossal embarrassment for Iran, he was killed inside an IRGC guesthouse while he was attending the inauguration of Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian. Earlier that day, Israel had assassinated Fuad Shukr, the military chief of Hezbollah, in an airstrike in Lebanese capital Beirut. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Iran responded with hundreds of missiles and drones in October and Israel responded with retaliatory airstrikes. In the second round of strikes too, both sides allowed them an off-ramp even as Israel delivered substantial blows to Iran. This time too, the then-Joe Biden administration revived the defensive coalition for the defence of Israel. In major achievements, Israel destroyed most of the Iranian air defence systems and damaged a key component of the nuclear programme.
