Iran Goes Into IPv6 Blackout

> All European kings have the power to dismiss the elected prime ministers

This is false. For Sweden, and Andorra this is both de jure and de facto wrong, for others, it is still de facto wrong. Did you even read the line you quoted?

In the UK, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, and Luxemburg, their monarchs do not dismiss the PM at will. They act on advice, and violating that norm would almost certainly force abdication or abolition. They are formally involved in appointing or dismissing a prime minister, but only within strict constitutional norms (loss of parliamentary confidence, resignation, elections). Acting unilaterally would trigger a constitutional crisis.

> and are the nominal head of the armed forces

This is once again false for Sweden and Andorra, and once again, only ceremonially (de jure) true for others, and wrong in practice (de facto false). Did you even read the line you quoted?

In contrast with all of this, the Supreme Leader of Iran:

- is a direct, actual commander-in-chief for Iran's armed forces, and is actively involved in its operations

- can directly dismiss some high officials and initiate the removal of others, and has complete if indirect control over who gets to run for their positions to begin with, and how a removal process would turn out

> Iran "Supreme Leader" has never removed any elected presidents or members of parliament

Your scare quoting of Supreme Leader is unjustified to the extent I can tell: checking in with language models, it is a correct and reasonable translation. Ironically, it might even be risky to do for someone in and from Iran, as it could get interpreted as criticizing him, which afaik is illegal and routinely punished.

This is further not a claim I made or even suggested: on the contrary, I laid it out through several paragraphs why and how the election of officials is manipulated at the source, rather than at the destination. Did you even read the comment you're responding to?

> has no authority over government expenditures or taxes, therefore is not responsible for mis-management of economy

Yes he does and is. Not only are large swaths of national economic activity, revenue streams, and spending functionally outside the ordinary budget process and under his control, he has supervisory authority that can shape fiscal policy indirectly through oversight powers. He also routinely sets "general policies" that are binding on the executive branch and influence budgeting priorities. Finally, which was the key point, he has influence over who can get elected into the various "people-elected" bodies that actually drive such policies and implement them. Did you even bother to understand the comment you're responding to?

> So those who call for his removal are not motivated by economic hardship but are politically motivated who can't win democratic elections

Nice opinion! I personally have no idea who's being blamed in these protests, didn't care to read up on it. The economic hardships of Iran are of no controversy to my understanding though, so I don't know why you would put that in question.

Regarding political struggle, to my understanding, most parties and people who would run don't even get to run in the first place (did you read what I wrote?). So it makes little sense to discuss the capability of them "winning" an election, when they can't even run on it. Unless you meant to suggest you think they're justified in triggering an uprising, but then I don't know why you'd be against the protests.

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?

I notice that what we in the West are doing is just Countries Doing Their Thing while the foreigners are violating humanity itself.