Head of Iran's Bank resigns amid protests. Reports of security force and protestor deaths. Trump: if Iran "kills peaceful protesters," we will come

essentialsaltes · Monday at 3:16 PM

The resignation of Mohammad Reza Farzin was reported by state TV, as hundreds of traders and shopkeepers rallied in Saadi Street in downtown Tehran as well as in the Shush neighborhood near Tehran's main Grand Bazaar.

Anti-regime outlet Iran International (live updates):

Protests spread to several Iranian cities, with chants targeting Khamenei

Protest rallies turned violent in several parts of Iran, with security forces shooting directly at protesters in Hamadan and firing tear gas in Tehran and Malard.
Nighttime protests were held in several parts of Iran, from Qeshm Island in the south, to Zanjan and Hamadan in the north.
Tehran shopkeepers vowed to continue their strikes and protests on Tuesday. Shahid Beheshti University students also announced plans for a protest gathering on Tuesday morning.
Protesters in several parts of Tehran province chanted 'death to the dictator' during nighttime demonstrations, videos obtained by Iran International show.

essentialsaltes · Wednesday at 8:45 AM

Iranian protests expand beyond the economy as students demand freedom, end to regime rule

Some protestors chanted "death to Islamic Republic" as they took to the streets.

University students in different cities in Iran joined protests against the regime Tuesday by chanting slogans that included “student, be the voice of your people,” and “death to Islamic Republic.”

The protests began Sunday in downtown Tehran as the Iranian currency hit a new low, but they have since expanded in size and scope, moving beyond the narrower cause of the economy to "freedom and equality" and an end to the regime, evident in the slogans protesters are chanting.

Reports from across the country indicate that shop owners in other cities, including the western city of Hamedan and the southern island of Qeshm, have also joined the protests by closing their stores. Slogans such as “death to the dictator” and “Seyyed Ali (Khamenei) will be toppled this year,” referring to Iran's supreme leader, were heard in Qeshm and Zanjan, according to reports.

Students at Khajeh Nasir University of Tehran shouted slogans including “No to scarf, no to suppression. Freedom and equality,” targeting the regime’s suppression of personal and political freedom over the last decades.

durangodawood · Wednesday at 9:05 AM

I wonder if theres any alternatives to the current regime brewing? Like what could viably replace them.

ThatRobGuy · Wednesday at 10:23 AM

durangodawood said:
I wonder if theres any alternatives to the current regime brewing? Like what could viably replace them.

Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Your presence in the streets across Iran has kindled the flame of a national revolution," the royal wrote in a message shared on X/Twitter. "The continuation and expansion of your presence, and taking control of the streets, is today our foremost, vital priority.

Protest gatherings were also held in the city of Hamadan on Tuesday night, with some protesters chanting pro-monarchy slogans like "Long Live the King" and "Reza Shah may God bless your soul"

(that was also the same slogan that popped up in a lot of protests in Iran during 2018 as well)

So I think Reza, being popular with the older crowd that remembers what it used to be like when his family was in charge, and gaining new popularity among some younger Iranians for his position on secularism, makes him the most logical choice.

So I know a lot of people over here on the progressive wing may not find that option palatable due to the history and perceptions about "past sins of colonialism", but even some of the people who participated in the protests and revolution that ousted the Shah now regret their decision some 40 years later. A piece by Nobel Peace prize winner Shirin Ebadi called "I thought the Iranian Revolution would bring freedom. I was wrong." is pretty eye-opening.

A secular government (even if in the form of a Monarchist one) is far better than what they have now.

I've touched on this in other threads pertaining to Iran.

Ousting a secular monarchy in favor of an Islamist government was a huge mistake.

History has shown that secular monarchies can (and often do) have the potential to convert into republics and democracies (the world is full of former monarchist countries that are now free societies). And the current Pahlavi (and his father) both seem/seemed to be receptive to that idea for whatever that's worth. Before the exile, his father (amid declining health) had even appointed a liberal democracy advocate (Shahpour Bakhtiar) to take over as prime minister and run day-to-day operations.

Whereas, are there any example of Islamic theocracies that have ever willingly morphed into democracies (absent outside force)?

durangodawood · Wednesday at 10:35 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
....Ousting a secular monarchy in favor of an Islamist government was a huge mistake.

History has shown that secular monarchies can (and often do) have the potential to convert into republics and democracies (the world is full of former monarchist countries that are now free societies). And the current Pahlavi (and his father) both seem/seemed to be receptive to that idea for whatever that's worth. Before the exile, his father (amid declining health) had even appointed a liberal democracy advocate (Shahpour Bakhtiar) to take over as prime minister and run day-to-day operations.

Whereas, are there any example of Islamic theocracies that have ever willingly morphed into democracies (absent outside force)?

For sure the Islamic revolution was a step backward. I could see a monarchy being better than a theocracy - possibly. But thats a backhanded compliment, really.

One determining factor would be legitimacy. Is the new monarch imposed by outside forces? Do foreign interests engineer the transition - as they did with the previous monarch?

ThatRobGuy · Wednesday at 1:11 PM

durangodawood said:
For sure the Islamic revolution was a step backward. I could see a monarchy being better than a theocracy - possibly. But thats a backhanded compliment, really.

One determining factor would be legitimacy. Is the new monarch imposed by outside forces? Do foreign interests engineer the transition - as they did with the previous monarch?

In this instance, given that the protestors on the streets are chanting "Reza Shah, bless your soul", it sounds like there's some legitimate popular support.

And the current crown prince is even more progressive than his father was on those kinds of matters. So I don't think it would be seen as a "western installation of a puppet" the way it was when his father was helped into power by western interests.

I think the advantage that exists now is that the younger people over there (and some of the older people who were around during the time of his father) have had more access to information on the internet about how things really went down (despite Iran's censorship efforts, over 80% of people under 30 over there access the internet via VPNs and ToR regularly)

And they hopefully realized that western partnership and investments weren't the boogeyman the Islamic Revolutionaries originally claimed they were.

While the common talking points were that the US and Brits were taking a cut (which they were), that it somehow indicated a purely exploitative relationship, and "that's why the Shah is a western puppet"

However, when you look at the revenues that Iran made internally during his tenure:
During 1956-60 alone, government oil revenues reached $1.23 billion—compared to just $483 million during the entire 36 years between 1913 and 1949

Which made sense, US and Britain invested in technological advancements that allowed for more efficient extraction, processing, and shipping of oil.

Sort of one of those
"Do you want to keep trying to do everything on your own and keep 100% of $30 million"
or
"Do you want to allow these other entities to invest in your infrastructure and help you connect with a new customer base and get to keep 40% of $500 million"

And it was those larger revenues that funded the Shah's initiatives for the school, library, and hospital infrastructure expansion boom that happened during his tenure.

Hans Blaster · Wednesday at 1:23 PM

durangodawood said:
I wonder if theres any alternatives to the current regime brewing? Like what could viably replace them.

Unfortunately their warmed over idea is an exiled monarch who was overthrown nearly 50 years ago.

Come on people! All you need to do is remove "Islamic" from your republic.

durangodawood · Wednesday at 1:58 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
In this instance, given that the protestors on the streets are chanting "Reza Shah, bless your soul", it sounds like there's some legitimate popular support.

And the current crown prince is even more progressive than his father was on those kinds of matters. So I don't think it would be seen as a "western installation of a puppet" the way it was when his father was helped into power by western interests.

I think the advantage that exists now is that the younger people over there (and some of the older people who were around during the time of his father) have had more access to information on the internet about how things really went down (despite Iran's censorship efforts, over 80% of people under 30 over there access the internet via VPNs and ToR regularly)

And they hopefully realized that western partnership and investments weren't the boogeyman the Islamic Revolutionaries originally claimed they were.

While the common talking points were that the US and Brits were taking a cut (which they were), that it somehow indicated a purely exploitative relationship, and "that's why the Shah is a western puppet"

However, when you look at the revenues that Iran made internally during his tenure:
During 1956-60 alone, government oil revenues reached $1.23 billion—compared to just $483 million during the entire 36 years between 1913 and 1949

Which made sense, US and Britain invested in technological advancements that allowed for more efficient extraction, processing, and shipping of oil.

Sort of one of those
"Do you want to keep trying to do everything on your own and keep 100% of $30 million"
or
"Do you want to allow these other entities to invest in your infrastructure and help you connect with a new customer base and get to keep 40% of $500 million"

And it was those larger revenues that funded the Shah's initiatives for the school, library, and hospital infrastructure expansion boom that happened during his tenure.

You make it sound like there wasnt retaliation by major consumers against Iranian oil, and production acceleration elsewhere to make up the difference. In other words, this wasnt desert nomads who need fancy people to come in and run the show - tho Im sure they still would have hired Bechtel and the like to engineer/build their major projects. And they were disinvited from any kind of free market.

Bob Crowley · Wednesday at 8:52 PM

They also have a major water crisis, with a possibility of zero hour for water supply in Tehran, which has a population of nearly 10 million people.

There has even been discussion of evacuations but not much detail about where the people would go.

Instead of looking after their own people first, the ruling regime has devoted an absurd portion of their resources on the military and their "Islamic revolution".

The chickens are coming home to roost.

essentialsaltes · 2026-01-01T09:00:35-0600

Iran security force member killed during protests, officials say

A member of Iran's security forces was killed during a fourth day of protests in the country, which have been sparked by a currency collapse, officials have said.

Footage verified by BBC Persian appears to show security forces firing at protesters in the city on the same day.

The semi-official Fars news agency reported that a 21-year-old member of the Basij - a paramilitary force linked to Iran's Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) - was killed during a confrontation in the city of Kouhdasht. Thirteen police officers and Basij members had been injured by stone throwing, the report said.

Twenty protesters were arrested in the city on Thursday night, the IRGC-affiliated Tasnim news agency said.

Unrest broke out in other cities too.

Across the country, schools, universities and public institutions were closed because of the last-minute public holiday announced by the Iranian government.

It was ostensibly to save energy because of the cold weather, though it was seen by many Iranians as an attempt to contain the protests.

ThatRobGuy · 2026-01-01T17:42:11-0600

durangodawood said:
You make it sound like there wasnt retaliation by major consumers against Iranian oil, and production acceleration elsewhere to make up the difference. In other words, this wasnt desert nomads who need fancy people to come in and run the show - tho Im sure they still would have hired Bechtel and the like to engineer/build their major projects. And they were disinvited from any kind of free market.

Having a western-friendly leader like the Shah actually was their foot in door to broader markets. Hence the reason the revenues shot up.

Some quick factoids:
During the nationalization period under Prime Minister Mosaddegh, Iranian oil was not bought by other countries and production fell from 242 million barrels in 1950 to just 10.6 million barrels in 1952

After 1954, a Western multinational consortium led by British Petroleum accelerated Iranian oil development. This consortium included major Western oil companies: BP, Gulf Oil, Royal Dutch Shell, Standard Oil of California, Standard Oil of New Jersey, Standard Oil of New York, and Texaco, plus French CFP.

By 1957, Iranian oil output had surpassed the 1950 level and reached 720,000 barrels per day

Iran's oil exports grew at almost triple the rate of other Middle Eastern countries during this period, reflecting the greatly expanded market for Iranian oil, notably in Britain and Japan.

In 1960, the consortium accounted for 99.9% of Iranian crude oil exports.

...and the Shah being overthrown actually caused a global oil crisis. And in the decades following, Iranian oil exports never got back north of even 40% of pre-revolution levels.

When it comes to major commodities (which oil would certainly qualify as), before people put a lot of their eggs in that basket, some assurance of stability is paramount, as is knowing that irrational leaders won't use any sort of newfound leverage against them later.

And in capitalistic international markets, that "stability" comes in the form of people who put commerce and "good business" above ideology.
(as crass and consumerist as that may sound)

Mosaddegh presented certain risks because he was heavily influenced by populist movements in his country, so if they decided "we need to charge Western countries more" he likely would've gone along with it, and that limited how much people were willing to rely on them as a source.

And obviously the Khomeini reign presents an instability risk because it's a theocratic regime, and would do things like rip up contracts and cancel international oil agreements for religious reasons.

While not to the same degree, European countries were finding that out with regards to their reliance on Russian natural gas. When you're dependent on someone for something, it limits your ability to "slap their wrist" when they get out of line because they can always just stop selling you the thing you need and put you in "frantic scramble" mode.

ThatRobGuy · 2026-01-02T08:46:26-0600

Hans Blaster said:
Unfortunately their warmed over idea is an exiled monarch who was overthrown nearly 50 years ago.

Come on people! All you need to do is remove "Islamic" from your republic.

That's not true either.

Mossadegh wasn't an Islamist (though some strict religious cultural traditions were still upheld during his tenure, though that could've just been a symptom of the times)

Yet, the economy suffered under him.

Ideally it needs to be someone who's both secular AND has a recognition for the fact that we're in a globalized economy, and isn't going to bow to left-wing populism in the form of attempting to nationalize certain lucrative sectors.

As I noted in my previous post, Mossadegh's downfall was in no small part due to his nationalizing of their oil industry, during which time: production fell from 242 million barrels in 1950 to just 10.6 million barrels in 1952

Nationalization of a strategic commodity only works if a nation has a near-monopoly on said commodity.

Other countries don't want to gamble on a strategic partner who could change prices based on factors other than market conditions.

And to your other point, it was his father who was overthrown (and died in 1980):

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The crown prince...

Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

...was still a teenager when his father was exiled, and is actually a pretty strong liberal democracy advocate, and seems to want something more similar to what the England has. Where "the throne" is but a figurehead with some extraneous powers here and there, but where day to day operations are left up to a leader that's picked by the people.

And even for that, he's stated that he would only want that role on a transitionary basis:
Pahlavi has said that he has no intention to take a long-term leadership role in Iran should the current regime fall. He has said the Iranian people must choose the form of rule they prefer, whether constitutional monarchy or a republic,[73] and that a referendum should be held to decide.[73] Pahlavi has said that after the Islamic revolution in 1979, he concluded the merit of "separation of religion from state as a primordial principle and precondition to democratic order".[73] Pahlavi told to the BBC in an interview that he prefers that Iran would choose to become a republic since he views it as more meritocratic.[74] According to a GAMAAN poll of 158,000 Iranians, 80% of Iranians wish to replace the Islamic Republic with a democratic government.[73][75] The GAMAAN poll also found Reza Pahlavi is the top candidate to form a transitionary solidarity council of Iran, acquiring between 32 and 40 percent of support among 34 candidates.

essentialsaltes · 2026-01-02T09:23:53-0600

Trump says if Iran "kills peaceful protesters," the U.S. will "come to their rescue"

President Trump warned Friday in a social media post that if Iran "violently kills peaceful protesters, which is their custom, the United States of America will come to their rescue."

Mr. Trump offer no further comment on Iran or how the U.S. might intervene to protect protesters in the country in the post on his Truth Social network, which was published just before 3 a.m. Eastern, but he said: "We are locked and loaded and ready to go."

It came hours after reports that at least six people have been killedamid nearly a week of escalating protests in Iran. The unrest began last weekend as business owners voiced frustration at the dire economic conditions in the Islamic Republic.

Reacting to the latest remarks by the U.S. president, Ali Larijani, a former speaker of Iran's parliament who's now the secretary of the country's National Security Council, said Friday in his own social media post that "Trump should know that intervention by the U.S. in the domestic problem corresponds to chaos in the entire region and the destruction of the U.S. interests."

"The people of the U.S. should know that Trump began the adventurism," said Larijani.

"They should take care of their own soldiers," he added, in what appeared to be a reference to the U.S. military forces based across the Middle East, who are in easy range of Iran's vast stockpile of ballistic missiles.

There was a more sternly worded warning from Ali Shamkhani, an adviser to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who said "any interventionist hand that gets too close to the security of Iran will be cut."

"The people of Iran properly know the experience of 'being rescued' by Americans: from Iraq and Afghanistan"

Ouch.

ThatRobGuy · 2026-01-02T09:42:11-0600

essentialsaltes said:
"The people of the U.S. should know that Trump began the adventurism," said Larijani.

"They should take care of their own soldiers," he added, in what appeared to be a reference to the U.S. military forces based across the Middle East, who are in easy range of Iran's vast stockpile of ballistic missiles.

There was a more sternly worded warning from Ali Shamkhani, an adviser to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who said "any interventionist hand that gets too close to the security of Iran will be cut."

"The people of Iran properly know the experience of 'being rescued' by Americans: from Iraq and Afghanistan"

Ouch.

Yeah, but that's just their "save face domestically" posturing. They're an authoritarian state, so they have to issue some sort of statement like that to project power (or attempt to) in front of their own people to make them scared.

...but it'd be like last time. We dropped bunker busters on them on key nuclear facilities, they vowed to retaliate, but did so in a way where damage was minimal, and gave an early heads up so that people could be evacuated in advance.

And given that their opponents in a real engagement would be The US, Britain, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan...and Iran has who to back them up? Some militia groups in Lebanon and Yemen?

They "don't want that kind of smoke" as kids would say.

Hans Blaster · 2026-01-02T12:20:49-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
That's not true either.

Mossadegh wasn't an Islamist (though some strict religious cultural traditions were still upheld during his tenure, though that could've just been a symptom of the times)

Yet, the economy suffered under him.

Ideally it needs to be someone who's both secular AND has a recognition for the fact that we're in a globalized economy, and isn't going to bow to left-wing populism in the form of attempting to nationalize certain lucrative sectors.

As I noted in my previous post, Mossadegh's downfall was in no small part due to his nationalizing of their oil industry, during which time: production fell from 242 million barrels in 1950 to just 10.6 million barrels in 1952

Nationalization of a strategic commodity only works if a nation has a near-monopoly on said commodity.

Other countries don't want to gamble on a strategic partner who could change prices based on factors other than market conditions.

The only thing worse than a monarchy is a theocracy. Monarchy is at best a minor upgrade. That was my point. I don't know why you inserted a bunch of 70-year-old politics from when Iran was a monarchy. None of this is relevant.

ThatRobGuy said:
And to your other point, it was his father who was overthrown (and died in 1980):

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The crown prince...

Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

...was still a teenager when his father was exiled, and is actually a pretty strong liberal democracy advocate, and seems to want something more similar to what the England has. Where "the throne" is but a figurehead with some extraneous powers here and there, but where day to day operations are left up to a leader that's picked by the people.

And even for that, he's stated that he would only want that role on a transitionary basis:
Pahlavi has said that he has no intention to take a long-term leadership role in Iran should the current regime fall. He has said the Iranian people must choose the form of rule they prefer, whether constitutional monarchy or a republic,[73] and that a referendum should be held to decide.[73] Pahlavi has said that after the Islamic revolution in 1979, he concluded the merit of "separation of religion from state as a primordial principle and precondition to democratic order".[73] Pahlavi told to the BBC in an interview that he prefers that Iran would choose to become a republic since he views it as more meritocratic.[74] According to a GAMAAN poll of 158,000 Iranians, 80% of Iranians wish to replace the Islamic Republic with a democratic government.[73][75] The GAMAAN poll also found Reza Pahlavi is the top candidate to form a transitionary solidarity council of Iran, acquiring between 32 and 40 percent of support among 34 candidates.

OK, maybe I should have included the "y" in monarchy. I don't keep track of the rich people living in Europe with pretensions to titles that don't exist any more. They are the most irrelevant of all peoples.

durangodawood · 2026-01-02T13:35:26-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
Having a western-friendly leader like the Shah actually was their foot in door to broader markets. Hence the reason the revenues shot up.

Some quick factoids:
During the nationalization period under Prime Minister Mosaddegh, Iranian oil was not bought by other countries and production fell from 242 million barrels in 1950 to just 10.6 million barrels in 1952
......

Back then it was a lot easier for the major buyers to collude to shut out a producer. Less so today with demand spread around so much more.

ThatRobGuy said:
When it comes to major commodities (which oil would certainly qualify as), before people put a lot of their eggs in that basket, some assurance of stability is paramount, as is knowing that irrational leaders won't use any sort of newfound leverage against them later.

And in capitalistic international markets, that "stability" comes in the form of people who put commerce and "good business" above ideology.
(as crass and consumerist as that may sound)

What are you talking about? This is about purchasing oil from iran - a commodity - not long term foreign investment in the country.

ThatRobGuy said:
Mosaddegh presented certain risks because he was heavily influenced by populist movements in his country, so if they decided "we need to charge Western countries more" he likely would've gone along with it, and that limited how much people were willing to rely on them as a source.

And obviously the Khomeini reign presents an instability risk because it's a theocratic regime, and would do things like rip up contracts and cancel international oil agreements for religious reasons.

While not to the same degree, European countries were finding that out with regards to their reliance on Russian natural gas. When you're dependent on someone for something, it limits your ability to "slap their wrist" when they get out of line because they can always just stop selling you the thing you need and put you in "frantic scramble" mode.

Oil producers turn up and down production all the time. They dont typically need years of advance notice. They often do it just to affect markets. Huge gas pipelines, like from Russia, are not a good comparison. Alternatives to gas pipelines (like different pipelines or LNG plants) take years of lead time.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Head of Iran's Bank resigns amid protests. Reports of security force and protestor deaths. Trump: if Iran "kills peaceful protesters," we will come

Fact-Based Lifeform

Protests spread to several Iranian cities, with chants targeting Khamenei​

Fact-Based Lifeform

Iranian protests expand beyond the economy as students demand freedom, end to regime rule​

re Member

Part of the IT crowd

re Member

Part of the IT crowd

Area Meathead

re Member

Well-Known Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

Iran security force member killed during protests, officials say​

Part of the IT crowd

Part of the IT crowd

Fact-Based Lifeform

Trump says if Iran "kills peaceful protesters," the U.S. will "come to their rescue"​

Part of the IT crowd

Area Meathead

re Member

Similar threads

Protests spread to several Iranian cities, with chants targeting Khamenei

Iranian protests expand beyond the economy as students demand freedom, end to regime rule

Iran security force member killed during protests, officials say

Trump says if Iran "kills peaceful protesters," the U.S. will "come to their rescue"