I usually check the news early in the morning. Today I saw some news and reports that should be explained. They are linked with a debate published some days ago. Taeb had a debate with a prominent former political prisoner which exposed the scope of inhuman procedures in Iran’s judicial system. Then Javid Rahman, who due to his previous job aimed to expose the scope of inhuman procedures in Iran’s judicial system, met with a hugely unpopular group and called its leader president-elect (of the transition phase). Biden also said some hours ago his hope for a peace deal in Gaza is “javid” which can refer to that too (that is the word that was used in the news feed I read).
So it seems Iran’s regime made a similar deal (to the one made earlier) with the West. In exchange for actually exposing the inhuman nature of Iran’s regime, Khamenei was offered that I would collaborate with Mojahedin in the transition phase. And so I should very plainly reject any such idea. Mojahedin will play absolutely no role in the future of Iran. Mojahedin is a small cult, and beyond a small number of members, they have no social support whatsoever in Iran. Some groups that want to destabilize Iran want such a hugely unpopular group to form a government in Iran. Their aim is to destabilize Iran and break it into smaller weak countries.
Iran’s regime doesn’t seem to know what parallelism is all about. Parallelism, by its nature, undermines undemocratic groups, be it Iran’s regime or Mojahedin or kingdom supporters. A while ago they compared me with the founder of Tetris (hoping that I would collaborate with Iran’s regime), a video game developer whose game was sold by the soviet union to Western companies while the game developer himself was totally sidelined. Iran seems to be unaware of the concept of open source. this platform is free and open-source. I won’t own that, no one will own that. And by its nature, it undermines undemocratic processes. Iran’s regime made a huge historical deal on something it doesn’t know what it is at all.
The issue of the Kingdom should also be discussed here. Reza Pahlavi said in an interview that it’s undemocratic to take the kingdom option off the table. In another interview, he said he was willing to have the same role as the king of the UK or some other European countries (which means he would have no political power at all). He himself doesn’t seem to know what he wants. It should be remembered that most Iranians supported Khomeini in the early days of Iran’s revolution. A once-in-a-lifetime referendum on the Constitution doesn’t make it a democratic regime. Democracy requires that those who run the country can be replaced by others in a democratic peaceful process, every 4-5 years if they lose in real elections. And so the requirement for democracy is to take the kingdom option (that is someone at the helm with huge political power that cannot be removed by people’s vote) off the table.
UPDATE 1:
To make things uncountably worse, Taeb actually listened to the way protesters in the 2009 disputed election were tortured. That incident in particular is very important. Protesters only wanted clarity on democratic processes. They opposed Khamenei’s viewpoint on neglecting ambiguous activities (another example was resolving the budget office by Ahmadinejad/Jalili’s camp). The regime then had to admit they made a mistake about Ahmadinejad. So regime supporters carried out all sorts of unimaginable methods to torture those who said things that the regime itself would admit in some years.
Those torturers thought they were protecting the ultimate wisdom. It turned out Khamenei was wrong and those who were tortured were right.