By Matt Underwood Nine people have been killed as protests have erupted in Pakistan and Iraq following the death of Ayatollah Khamenei. The news of his demise has sent shockwaves through these regions, igniting passionate demonstrations that reflect a complex mix of grief, anger, and political sentiment. It’s quite striking to observe the strong reactions, particularly in Pakistan, where a significant portion of the population apparently held favorable views towards Iran and its leadership. Some insights suggest that this support isn’t necessarily for Khamenei himself as a dictator who has, by some accounts, overseen the deaths of tens of thousands of his own people, but rather for what he represented: a figure who openly defied the West and was seen as a moral authority by many Muslims.
The reverence for Islamic dictators, especially those who stand against Western influence, seems to be a significant factor in the outpouring of support. It’s a sentiment that, to some, appears to overlook the internal human rights issues within Iran. This perceived hypocrisy, where leaders are admired for their anti-Western stance despite their domestic policies, is a point of considerable confusion and debate. The idea that as long as the negative impacts aren’t directly felt in one’s own country, it’s acceptable, highlights a particular geopolitical perspective.
The nature of these protests, with some instances of individuals storming heavily armed consulates, raises questions about the expected outcomes of such confrontational actions. When diplomatic compounds on high alert are targeted and attempts are made to set them on fire, the response from security forces is often anticipated to be forceful. This has led to a critical examination of why certain populations, like those in Pakistan, seem to exhibit such strong pro-regime sentiments, even to the point of shock for some observers who are accustomed to different political norms.
A key question arising from these events is the actual impact of any alleged external involvement in Khamenei’s death. There’s a prevailing sentiment that even if one leader is removed, another will inevitably take their place, suggesting a cyclical pattern of power. In Pakistan’s case, the current conflict with Afghanistan is also noted, leading some to question why the focus is shifting to events in Iran when domestic and regional security issues might seem more pressing. The absence of discussions about a brighter future, contrasted with the passion displayed in these protests, presents a somber picture.
For those living in stable Western democracies, the notion that Iran, after the assassination of its leader, would suddenly embrace democratic values seems profoundly misguided. Historical context is often disregarded in such hopes, with the past 70 years of Iranian history offering little evidence to support such an expectation. Yet, the belief persists that this particular instance would be an exception, a testament to Khamenei’s perceived role as a moral authority for many Muslims in the region. The analogy of China assassinating the Pope highlights the profound symbolic and religious weight he carried for a significant number of people.
The situation in Pakistan and Iraq is described by some as lacking “chill,” with initial reports indicating a significant number of casualties. The underlying driver for these protests is often seen not solely as love for Khamenei, but as a powerful expression of anger and exhaustion directed at what is perceived as US imperialism and terrorism. There’s also a narrative that Israel is leveraging American power to weaken its adversaries, a perception that fuels anti-Western sentiment. The desire for a different kind of leadership, perhaps more akin to that of Mohammad Mosaddegh, who sought to nationalize Iran’s oil industry, emerges as a recurring theme.
The argument that the world would be more peaceful without the United States is a strong sentiment echoed by some, who believe that global perceptions are largely negative towards American influence. Downvotes notwithstanding, this perspective suggests that the actions attributed to the US are seen as detrimental to global stability, and the focus on attributing blame for deaths, whether from sanctions or other actions, is a constant. This viewpoint suggests a fundamental disagreement with the existing world order and the role played by major global powers.
Conversations with family members often reveal differing perspectives, with some arguing that the Iranian people should determine their own fate, free from external interference. However, when protests are mentioned, these individuals are sometimes dismissed as agents of external forces, indicating a deep-seated suspicion of any dissent that doesn’t align with a particular national narrative. This highlights the challenge of discerning genuine public sentiment from narratives that are heavily influenced by geopolitical agendas.
A nuanced understanding of Pakistani sentiment suggests that while many may not support Iran as a state or harbor universally favorable views, there is a strong alignment with the concept of an Islamic regime. The distinction is made that if Iran were to become secular, favorable views among Pakistanis would likely diminish. This is partly attributed to a general appreciation for Persian culture and the significant Twelver Shia population in Pakistan, which finds a religious figurehead in leaders like Khamenei. The Pakistani government, however, has a history of strained relations with Iran, indicating that official policy doesn’t always mirror public sentiment.
The concept of “MAGA” or making a particular political ideology great again is seen as a global phenomenon, transcending borders and names. This suggests that similar impulses towards nationalistic or ideologically driven movements can be observed worldwide. The question of who has inflicted more harm, US sanctions or the actions of groups like the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), is also raised, highlighting the complex and often devastating impact of geopolitical conflicts.
Khamenei’s status as a Marja’ al-Taqlid, a highly respected religious authority within Shia Islam, is recognized as a significant factor in the respect he commanded across the Muslim world. This religious dimension is crucial for understanding the depth of emotion associated with his death, extending beyond mere political allegiance. The notion that such leaders are deeply revered by their followers, sometimes to the point of treating political figures as embodiments of good versus evil, is a key insight into the psychology of political and religious devotion.
The failure of economic and social systems, alongside security apparatuses, is identified as a contributing factor to the unrest and the ability of protestors to breach sensitive locations. While acknowledging the tragic loss of life, some view the response as understandable given the circumstances, suggesting that a peaceful dispersal and pardon might not have been anticipated. This perspective highlights the tension between security concerns and the rights of protestors, a delicate balance that is often difficult to maintain in times of heightened tension.
The idea of a leader initiating a new war based on events from decades prior is questioned, with the implication that the motivations might be more complex. The understanding is that such actions are not always driven by straightforward historical grievances but by a confluence of political, strategic, and ideological factors. The willingness of some to engage in direct action rather than “armchair activism” underscores the deep-seated frustrations and the belief that tangible action is necessary to effect change, even if the rationality of those actions is debatable.
The question of whether America is preventing a “Hitler of Iran” and sparing the people from slaughter is a provocative one, suggesting that removing such figures is a morally justifiable act to prevent greater suffering. While acknowledging that not everyone agrees with this interventionist stance, the argument is made that the actions of protestors are understandable within the context of their perceived oppression, and the need for high alert at embassies and bases reflects the volatility of the situation.
The protests are not solely attributed to “Pakistanis” in general, but to the significant Shiite population within Pakistan, for whom Khamenei was a paramount religious figure. His death is seen as a profound blow to these communities, drawing parallels to how the death of a revered religious leader, even one with a complex legacy, would elicit widespread mourning. This highlights the interconnectedness of religious and political identity, particularly within Shia communities.
The notion that Pakistanis are “true believers” in the Islamic Republic form of governance is presented as a possible explanation for their allegiance to Iran. The shared terminology of “Islamic Republic” might foster a sense of solidarity, akin to fans of different but related entities showing support. This shared identity, coupled with a perception of Iran as an underdog fighting against powerful enemies like the US and Israel, can easily be manipulated, especially in circumstances of widespread misery and uncertainty.
The idea that a large portion of the world dislikes the West is presented as a sobering reality that some are only now beginning to grasp. The manipulation of vulnerable populations through promises of spiritual rewards or small material gains, in exchange for undertaking risky actions, is a recognized tactic. This underscores the fragility of societal stability and the ease with which public sentiment can be swayed in times of hardship.
Khamenei’s role as a religious figurehead, rather than just a political leader, is emphasized. The devotion of religious followers is a powerful force, and his removal is recognized as a risky maneuver with potentially catastrophic consequences, including civil war and a surge in terrorism. The economic implications, such as the potential for increased arms sales in a conflict scenario, are also considered.
The shock at the level of support for Khamenei is contrasted with the widespread support for political figures like Trump, illustrating that significant followings are not uncommon for leaders, regardless of their policies. The existence of successor plans, likely involving surviving family members, suggests a degree of continuity and preparedness for such an eventuality, even if not publicly announced.
The argument that the American system, despite its flaws and the presence of individuals willing to exploit others, still commands widespread support is used to question the moral high ground from which other nations are criticized. The idea that the Iranian people can act now to prevent the replacement of Khamenei with someone similar offers a glimmer of hope for those seeking change within Iran.
The analogy of Khamenei as the “pope of the Shia Muslims” is reiterated, emphasizing his immense religious and spiritual significance. The observation that many people create narratives where political figures become idealized embodiments of good battling evil is a key insight into why such fervent support can exist, even for figures with controversial human rights records. This phenomenon of treating political allegiances like sports teams, where loyalty is absolute, is a recurring aspect of human psychology.
The perspective that Pakistan is a client state of America, and that certain actions, like inciting conflict with Afghanistan, are aimed at disrupting supply lines to Iran, offers a more complex geopolitical interpretation of events. This suggests that the unrest and protests are not solely organic but may be influenced by external strategic maneuvers, adding another layer of complexity to an already volatile situation.