beepDid they even say thank you?
https://piefed.world/c/microblogmemes/p/1032686/did-they-even-say-thank-you
FiniteBanjo“Spiritual leader” is a huge stretch, dude was their dictator.
marxismtomorrowSo, no. that’s not how any of that works.
He was the head of the Shia sect of Islam. i.e. he was essentially the pope.
He was not the head of state and had limited power beyond his role as spiritual leader. The head of state would be the president of Iran, or the Prime minister. Both of whom did consult him, of course as it’s still a theocratic republic, but he had as much power as the pope has in Italy.
Repeating far-right propaganda like you are does nothing to help anyone. Change cannot be brought about by objectively false analysis and propaganda; hence the current state of Afghanistan and Iraq.
So no, that’s also not how that works. The Supreme Leader directly appoints and can dismiss at will 6 of the 12 members of the Council of Guardians that decides who can and cannot run for elected office. The Chief Justice appoints the other 6 but he is also directly appointed and can be dismissed by the Supreme Leader. Opposition candidate are routinely prevented from running. The Assembly of Experts selects and can dismiss the Supreme Leader but those members also have to be approved by the Council of Guardians so they’re all loyalists. The supreme leader is legally considered “inviolable”, with Iranians being routinely punished for questioning or insulting him. Oh, he’s also the Commander-in-Chief of the Iranian armed forces too. He is not just a pope-like figure, he is the highest authority in the country with effective control over every government position and policy. Effectively, a dictator.
Got literally any non-NED sources for that little buddy?
Because this sounds like some ‘Kim Jong-Un used AA to kill his uncle’ level nonsense that goes against literally all knowledge on the subject.
I’ll do it for the other guy.
www.britannica.com/topic/supreme-leader-of-Iran
Again, got any non-NED sources supporting your theory?
Iran’s government website is open to the wider world, as well as non-[Literally been at war with Iran since 1956 and thus has high chance of outright lying] sources of information.
mumbai.mfa.gov.ir/en/…/government-of-iran
So…the very first page here talks about part of it but leaves out the Guardian Council thing and its influence.
reuters.com/…/irans-presidential-election-process…
The Reuters article shows more about the Guardian Council.
Since pretty much every single thing I’m finding is talking about it and showing real people and reporting on news about it, about you tell the class why you think it’s all fake?
The ‘guardian council’ is real, the same way there’s a group of bishops in Italy that advise the government. The power they have is… advice. They have no power over elections, they have some power over laws.
Again it’s a theocratic republic, the heart of the Shia religion. While other religious groups are guaranteed government representation in Parliament (which again disproves your original concept of ‘hurr durr magic guardian council chooses who can run for office,’ they still need to make sure any laws passed do not discriminate against Shia and abide by the basics of abrahamic religions.
You haven’t really given any sources at all for that being the extent of their power, and you also seem to have very little understanding of the fact that a group picked out by the guy who commands the military is not easily ignored. You also talk about the Ayatollah like it’s a pope position yet he’s the guy who keeps showing up to foreign affairs stuff.
Even in your own, un-sourced description you look kinda dumb.
If you call your debate opponent anything like “little buddy”, “sweetheart”, etc., you instantly lose the argument.