The EQ Point

@sirperseusss @AlispeaksX I may have addressed this point in the last parts of my last comment. We were both writing at the same time, so you might have missed it.

@The_EQ_Point @AlispeaksX Didn’t miss it; I disagree with it in this context. In Iran, much of the population has become more secular in reaction to the regime’s zealotry. Religion has lost its function even as a means of maintaining social order. It serves more as a tool of division than of cohesion.

If Iranians are such great people with a deep civilization, how did they end up with such an ugly regime? The answer lies in a broad and cultural lack of understanding concerning Islam. This is very reminiscent of what we’re seeing today in the West. People lived in the assumption of benevolence, seeing clerics at circumcisions, weddings, and funerals and assuming the best about them. They projected the best ideals of humanity onto Islam and its prophet and sacred text. When it came to the cleric Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, only his devoted followers read his books and truly listened to his sermons and ideas. The general population assumed that a cleric of such high rank was obviously a learned man, and so different factions of society, including intellectuals, pledged allegiance to him as the transition leader. It was only after he killed the opposition, took over the country, and established the Islamic Republic that people began to gradually understand what he represented, what he believed, and what he had written. It took time for people to realize that the religion and what the clerics were teaching were not that far apart. It took time for them to understand that they were being ruled by a theocracy whose religion was the basis of foreign policy. Essentially, if you’re not into religion, it’s a heavy subject that requires serious study. People lived according to their assumptions, much like what we’re seeing today in the West concerning Islam. Now, people are wide awake but trapped.

@sirperseusss @AlispeaksX when a society goes through rough patches, religious institutions become more controlling/repressive in order to prevent fragmentation. The extreme form of Islam we see today - we have to expect from a region that's been troubled for a long time. Not rational Islam of those days.

@sirperseusss @AlispeaksX >> The rationality you see of these rulers is because of the Islamic system that promoted rationality. When a society thrives, more rationality emerges and religious control takes a backseat. When Dark Ages came to an end, so did the dominance of the Church. In the same way, >>

@LeghariSalar @Nishant_Bliss India's massive potential is being wasted by masses and media engaging in petty emotional drama and rivalries. It's a big topic but I personally feel there's the residue of colonial trauma still affecting Indian worldview.

@The_EQ_Point @Nishant_Bliss Because the mentality is same, you can't even compete with China as they are ahead of you in all aspect You can't even make proper jets china creates and sells,You have much more corruption than others. So eventually you can compete to small countries.

Stop Comparing, Stop Finding Pleasure in Pakistan’s Downfall India has come a long way since 1947, and let’s be real, compared to Pakistan, we are at least 10x ahead today. Whether it’s education, infrastructure, healthcare, technology, or overall growth, the gap is very clear. So constantly comparing ourselves with Pakistan, or finding fun in their struggles, just doesn’t make sense anymore. It doesn’t add any value, it doesn’t push us forward. If anything, we should now be looking at countries like Singapore, South Korea, and Japan. These are the benchmarks. Even observing the United States gives direction, even if we can’t directly compare. Because growth comes from looking up, not looking down. India doesn’t need validation anymore. It’s time to move on, raise our standards, and think bigger.

@sirperseusss @AlispeaksX >rough times, religious institutions turn rigid and repressive. An example is the Church and the dark ages.

@sirperseusss @AlispeaksX You probably missed my point 4 comment on the original post. I have addressed it. Copy pasting it here; 04. Islam seen around you today is the Islam of a downtrodden civilisation that's in a dip. Religions are crucial in ensuring social cohesion/order. When societies go through>

@sirperseusss @AlispeaksX Al-Ma’mun championed the Mu'tazila Islamic theological movement emphasizing on ‘reason (Aql)’. He believed that to be a good Muslim was to be a scientist. Shah Abbas actually imported Shia clerics from Lebanon/Bahrain to help consolidate his power and create a national identity.

@sirperseusss @AlispeaksX By 'clerics' if you mean religion as a social/political institution, yes during those times it was not dominant. My point 04 comment was about religion as an institution. Both Al-Mamun and Shah Abbas ruled within Islamic systems. They were products of the system. Not outsiders.

@AlispeaksX 4. Islam seen around you today is the Islam of a downtrodden civilisation that's in a dip. Religions are crucial in ensuring social cohesion/order. When societies go through rough times, religious institutions turn rigid and repressive. An example is the Church and the dark ages.

@AlispeaksX 3. Civilizations rise and fall. There are dips in trajectory. This is not the first time Iran is down. Every time before, it survived, adapted, evolved and re-emerged. Interestingly, each 'down' phase was roughly 300 years. The current phase started roughly in mid 18th cent.

@mtmalinen @VP You definitely got a point. From their perspective, perhaps it was also important to convince the world that they are serious. Specially the likes of Pakistan, GCC, China etc. So, they came with a full delegation and US didn't match that. Hopefully they have made their case.

You made one mistake. While the U.S. sent just @VP and the two stooges to Islamabad, you brought a major "entourage." You made yourself look needy, and Trump smelled this. You should have sent simply yourself with two assistants to discuss the terms of (effective) U.S. surrender. Because of this mistake, you will, most likely, face one more phase of escalation (which can go "all the way").

@Boris1112NY @iranidaturan Can't really understand the question. Yes 'Iran' is a nation and it has a national identity. Persian converts to Islam ?? And if they practice their religion?? What exactly are you asking about?

@The_EQ_Point @iranidaturan Does Iran have a national identity. Do all the Persian converts to Islam really stand by that religion?

For those who know history, understand the Islamic regime, and are following the current events, Trump’s approach toward Iran has become quite clear. About ten years ago, the late Iranian-American analyst Manook Khodabakhshian predicted these exact days in detail. He described the Islamic Republic as a “small Islamic Soviet Union” that would be pushed toward internal collapse through external pressure that would deepen the existing cracks until the system imploded from within. He believed this would be the least costly, least risky, and least bloody path. The similarities are striking. Both systems were highly ideological and totalitarian, extremely inefficient, and relied on heavy violence and external threats to maintain power and create deterrence. Both poured enormous resources into exporting their ideology and supporting proxies while their economies collapsed. And both turned their nuclear programs, or ambitions for them, into an existential burden. The Soviet Union exhausted itself in the arms race, and Iran is doing the same today.America played a very similar role back then. In the 1980s, the U.S. placed a massive naval presence around the Soviet Union, dramatically increased military spending, launched the Strategic Defense Initiative, and openly supported internal dissidents and opposition movements. Today, we are seeing almost the exact same playbook: multiple carrier strike groups in the region, increased military pressure, sanctions, and clear signals of support for the Iranian people and any potential internal change. In the Soviet case, a reformist figure like Gorbachev eventually came to power. He tried to fix the system from within, but the hardliners launched a coup against him in 1991. The coup failed, the hardliners were arrested or marginalized, and nationalist forces gained more power. Ultimately, the Soviet Union collapsed a few months later without a major civil war or violent revolution. It simply dissolved. Iran’s path, however, looks different. Because this regime is not just another leftist dictatorship, it is a cult-like Islamic ideology mixed with apocalyptic and suicidal tendencies. Controlling or sidelining its hardliners is far more difficult than it was with the Soviet communists. A moderate reformist like Gorbachev would likely lose control here. That is why the trajectory in Iran more closely resembles the Egyptian model: an El-Sisi scenario. A pragmatic, security-minded figure who steps in, uses force if necessary to neutralize the hardliners, restores order, and creates the space for a controlled transition. Preside Trump seems to understand this reality very well. His goal is not to directly topple the regime and then own the aftermath like Iraq or Afghanistan. Instead, he wants to use maximum external pressure to weaken the regime, accelerate its internal fractures, and empower the Iranian people themselves to play the main role in the change. He wants the transition to be driven from inside Iran, with America providing support from the outside, not direct occupation. This crack is already visible inside the regime. Decision-making is no longer in the hands of one person. Different factions have formed, and the fact that 70 IRGC figures came to Pakistan shows that none of them trust each other. So far, the El-Sisi-type figure has not emerged with enough power to control the others and accept the necessary concessions. It remains to be seen what will happen in the coming days. Will there be a coup with the help of the regular army against the gangsters of the IRGC, or will the hardliners be purged with Israeli assistance? The coming days are very important. I truly hope that this ends with the least possible cost, and before the hardliners get the chance to do something stupid. Let me know your thoughts on this take, I’d like to exchange ideas and see nom-Iranian perspectives on it. #IranWar‌ ‌ #JavidShah‌‌‌‌‌

@JayTC53 Because Iran hasn't lost any of it in reality. Otherwise why isn't Trump calls the win and close the project? May be move on to introduce reforms, make investments in Iran, touring Iran, all the big talks, shit talks? Why do we see nothing?

Iran has lost all its leaders. Iran has lost its Navy. Iran has lost its Air Force. Iran has lost its missiles Iran has lost its military factories. Iran has not its enrichment facilities. Now, Iran has lost the strait. Tell me again how "Iran is winning" ? 😂

@PoliticalStacy Nah. Remember US doesn't have two parties. It's a uniparty system. Rhetoric last only till elections. Next Democratic admin will start from where Trump has left off. And then they will say Iran has had a major strategic win. They have won the Republican party.

Iran may not be winning on the battlefield, but they can legitimately claim one major strategic victory in this conflict: They’ve successfully captured and taken full control of the Democratic Party. From foreign policy positions to domestic rhetoric, the alignment is hard to ignore anymore. The party that once stood firmly against the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism now often echoes their talking points, defends their proxies, and hesitates to confront their aggression. That’s not exaggeration. It’s observable reality. And it’s one of the most damaging self-inflicted wounds in modern American politics.

@TheModerateCase @realCarola2Hope The 'Moderate' part of your name here - is it sarcasm?

@realCarola2Hope The Pope has zero power over anyone.

Trump has zero power over the Pope. The Pope, on the other hand, has all the power over him. Simple as that. Christ is King!

@iranidaturan @POTUS Socialism is a system of state. Cultural Marxism is different/if the weak undermines the strong, that's new power dynamics. There's a new strong./Rome was already in collapse. Christianity was adopted to prevent it./Did you just criticise multiple ideologies to promote monarchy?

Nietzsche believed that socialism is essentially the secular version of Catholicism. Both are engaged in redefining morality so as to vilify power and the 'winner', not because power is inherently evil, but because this inversion lets the weak undermine the strong and take control themselves. This is exactly why Pope Leo XIV keeps repeating radical left rhetoric: their technique is fundamentally the same. This is the technique Islamoleftist terrorist rebels used to topple the Shah in Iran and seize power themselves in 1979. The Catholic Church, now in one of its weakest states in centuries, has returned to its old moral weapon to stay relevant , by framing unapologetic strength and victory (as embodied by Trump) as immoral, dangerous, or warmongering. But let us not forget that Western Roman civilization once hanged itself with this very rope and plunged into centuries of darkness. History is repeating itself in Europe. And of course, Leo is upset that this time Trump refuses to let US, Iran and Israel fall into the abyss with them. #ThankYouTrump‌