Arsalan Naamdar's banner
Arsalan Naamdar's profile picture

Arsalan Naamdar

@arsalannaamdar6,543 subscribers

Entrepreneur | Independent Researcher on Middle Eastern & Iranian History

Shorts

One issue I truly hope will finally be correctly addressed post revolution, is the stray dog situation in Iran. Iran has absolutely beautiful dogs. They are gentle, affectionate, and remarkably calm. I’m the type of person who will run up to a dog and start petting it without hesitation, often forgetting that a dog could react aggressively, especially in Iran, where many of these poor animals have endured harsh lives. Yet I have never had a single negative experience with stray dogs in Iran. I have carried them, washed them, and cared for them, and not once did they show any sign of aggression. There are compassionate individuals trying to help where they can. Some people have built small informal networks with local butchers to collect leftover bones and scraps so they can at least feed the dogs. These efforts come from genuine care and personal sacrifice. But this is not a structural solution. It is only a bandage on a deep wound. The current way the government handles the stray population is cruel and inhumane. Dogs are captured, their mouths are taped shut, and they are left to slowly starve. At the same time, ordinary people face heavy restrictions on keeping dogs. Small dogs can sometimes be hidden inside apartments, but larger ones are nearly impossible to keep. If you walk your dog outside, you risk it being confiscated. Even inside your own home, a hostile neighbor can report you simply for owning a dog, and authorities can act on that complaint. This creates an environment where ownership is punished, while the real problem continues unchecked on the streets. What Iran needs is a humane, practical, and modern solution: 1. A nationwide Catch–Neuter–Vaccinate–Release (CNVR) program 2. Properly managed municipal shelters with medical standards 3. Public education and cultural change We have many urgente matters to attend to after this vile and evil regime falls.

One issue I truly hope will finally be correctly addressed post revolution, is the stray dog situation in Iran. Iran has absolutely beautiful dogs. They are gentle, affectionate, and remarkably calm. I’m the type of person who will run up to a dog and start petting it without hesitation, often forgetting that a dog could react aggressively, especially in Iran, where many of these poor animals have endured harsh lives. Yet I have never had a single negative experience with stray dogs in Iran. I have carried them, washed them, and cared for them, and not once did they show any sign of aggression. There are compassionate individuals trying to help where they can. Some people have built small informal networks with local butchers to collect leftover bones and scraps so they can at least feed the dogs. These efforts come from genuine care and personal sacrifice. But this is not a structural solution. It is only a bandage on a deep wound. The current way the government handles the stray population is cruel and inhumane. Dogs are captured, their mouths are taped shut, and they are left to slowly starve. At the same time, ordinary people face heavy restrictions on keeping dogs. Small dogs can sometimes be hidden inside apartments, but larger ones are nearly impossible to keep. If you walk your dog outside, you risk it being confiscated. Even inside your own home, a hostile neighbor can report you simply for owning a dog, and authorities can act on that complaint. This creates an environment where ownership is punished, while the real problem continues unchecked on the streets. What Iran needs is a humane, practical, and modern solution: 1. A nationwide Catch–Neuter–Vaccinate–Release (CNVR) program 2. Properly managed municipal shelters with medical standards 3. Public education and cultural change We have many urgente matters to attend to after this vile and evil regime falls.

33,153 görüntüleme

To Muslims who have seen the footage of Iranians burning mosques over the past days. One point must be made clear. The Islamic Republic is not merely using religion as a political tool. It is using religion as physical cover to carry out mass murder. My friends were present the day the first mosque was burned on Friday. I asked them what exactly they burned, because it was unclear on the video. They anwsered: “A mosque. But they were shooting at people from the inside.” If you believe it is acceptable to use a mosque as a military position to fire on civilians, then my conversation with you ends here. If you do not, then you should stand with the people of Iran, who are fighting a regime that exploits your religion to commit crimes in its name. The late Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was a devout Muslim. He survived multiple assassination attempts by Islamo-Marxists and other extremists. Those experiences brought him closer to God and to Islam. This may not resonate with everyone, but he remains the single historical figure I admire and respect most, and I will not speak against what he believed in. To my fellow Iranians, please read his book: 'Answer to History'. Today, it is his son, Reza Pahlavi, whom the people have chosen as their leader. Reza Pahlavi seeks internal peace for Iran. But internal peace is impossible without regional peace. A country does not exist in isolation. It is like buying a house, renovating it, and turning it into a beautiful place to live. If the neighbouring houses are crack dens, filled with violence and instability, your house will never truly be safe, nor will it hold its value. Under his leadership, religion will be separated from the state. Not erased. Separated. And an Iran without an antagonistic Islamic regime will bring regional stability. That stability will save the lives of millions of Muslims in the years to come.

To Muslims who have seen the footage of Iranians burning mosques over the past days. One point must be made clear. The Islamic Republic is not merely using religion as a political tool. It is using religion as physical cover to carry out mass murder. My friends were present the day the first mosque was burned on Friday. I asked them what exactly they burned, because it was unclear on the video. They anwsered: “A mosque. But they were shooting at people from the inside.” If you believe it is acceptable to use a mosque as a military position to fire on civilians, then my conversation with you ends here. If you do not, then you should stand with the people of Iran, who are fighting a regime that exploits your religion to commit crimes in its name. The late Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was a devout Muslim. He survived multiple assassination attempts by Islamo-Marxists and other extremists. Those experiences brought him closer to God and to Islam. This may not resonate with everyone, but he remains the single historical figure I admire and respect most, and I will not speak against what he believed in. To my fellow Iranians, please read his book: 'Answer to History'. Today, it is his son, Reza Pahlavi, whom the people have chosen as their leader. Reza Pahlavi seeks internal peace for Iran. But internal peace is impossible without regional peace. A country does not exist in isolation. It is like buying a house, renovating it, and turning it into a beautiful place to live. If the neighbouring houses are crack dens, filled with violence and instability, your house will never truly be safe, nor will it hold its value. Under his leadership, religion will be separated from the state. Not erased. Separated. And an Iran without an antagonistic Islamic regime will bring regional stability. That stability will save the lives of millions of Muslims in the years to come.

18,294 görüntüleme

Videos

arsalannaamdar's profile picture

Johnny Harris, Johnny Harris I'm getting absolutely sick and tired of your factually incorrect, recycled talking points that you repeat over and over to spread false narratives about Iran and the Shah. I've been watching your videos for many years. Every time, I hope that because you clearly spend a lot of time researching, you'll eventually realize where you've been wrong and correct those mistakes in future videos. Instead, the same false narratives keep getting repeated. If you didn't have such a large platform, I wouldn't even care. Your video starts off reasonably well when discussing Reza Shah, but once you move on to Mohammad Reza Shah, your historical accuracy completely falls apart. To start, you claim: "The British are taking Iran's oil, and the Shah is okay with it, because remember, the British installed the Shah." I don't know if you understand how a hereditary monarchy works, but the crown passes from father to son. When Britain and the Soviet Union invaded Iran in 1941, Reza Shah's newly built military had no realistic chance of resisting two global superpowers. He was forced to abdicate and was sent into exile. His son then succeeded him, exactly as he would have under the normal line of succession. There were discussions between Britain and the Soviets about restoring a Qajar prince instead. They ultimately abandoned that idea because the Qajars had little support in Iran, whereas the Pahlavis did. If Britain had bypassed the line of succession and placed a Qajar or another political figure on the throne, that would have been installing a ruler. That is not what happened. Then you claim that "the Iranian people didn't like the Shah, they liked Mohammad Mossadegh." Who forced Soviet troops out of Iran after World War II? The Shah. Who reasserted Iranian control over the Soviet-backed separatist governments in Azerbaijan and Mahabad? The Shah. Following those events, Mohammad Reza Shah enjoyed enormous popularity. Now let's talk about Mossadegh. Who was most enthusiastic about Mossadegh's rise? The Soviet-backed Tudeh Party. The Tudeh Party, financially and politically aligned with Moscow, strongly supported him. Mossadegh certainly gained popularity among parts of the Iranian public because of his campaign to nationalize Iran's oil. What many people didn't realize was that the original D'Arcy concession—the agreement that handed Britain a 60-year oil concession—was signed under the Qajar dynasty, the dynasty to which Mossadegh himself belonged. So yes, it was the Qajar state that granted Britain that concession. Reza Shah later renegotiated it into a more favorable agreement for Iran. Yet somehow people continue repeating the myth that it was the Pahlavis who "gave away Iran's oil." Of course the Shah did not want Britain controlling Iran's oil indefinitely. What constrained him was reality. Iran had just emerged from World War II. It lacked the military strength to openly confront Britain, and unlike Mossadegh, the Shah had no interest in relying on Soviet support to challenge British influence. He also understood something Mossadegh failed to appreciate until it was too late. Nationalizing oil is easy on paper. Extracting it, transporting it, insuring it, refining it, finding buyers, and exporting it are entirely different matters. Iran lacked that infrastructure. When Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry before Iran was capable of operating it independently, Britain organized an international boycott. Oil exports collapsed, government revenues dried up, and the country was pushed into a severe financial crisis because oil was Iran's primary source of national income. The Shah's strategy was different. He wanted to continue receiving oil revenues, use that income to industrialize and modernize Iran, build the expertise and infrastructure necessary for an independent oil industry, and nationalize from a position of strength rather than symbolism. You are free to disagree with that strategy. You are not free to rewrite history. If you want to actually learn about this part of Iranian history, read this article.

Arsalan Naamdar

15,610 görüntüleme • 9 gün önce

arsalannaamdar's profile picture

Reza Pahlavi, for all intents and purposes, does not owe us anything. His family built Iran from zero. When I say zero, I mean zero. A weak, fragmented Qajar state, one in which women could not leave the house without a man. One in which Iran’s internal affairs were completely controlled by outsiders. One in which foreign armies seized our lands to feed their troops while half our population died of famine. A country without an army, without national infrastructure, without sovereignty over its own resources. And I can go on, and on, and on. In return, we Iranians repaid their blood, sweat, and tears with one of the greatest treacheries imaginable in modern history. His grandfather, arguably one of the greatest men in Iran’s history, his tomb was levelled to the ground. His father was forced to leave the country he loved more than anything in the world. One could say it was not his illness that killed him, but the knife we put in his back, the betrayal of a nation he had dedicated his life to. Reza Pahlavi’s friends and family who remained in Iran were murdered, one by one, at the hands of the regime WE enabled. An entire generation around him was hunted, imprisoned, executed, or driven into exile. His sister and brother, unable to bear the weight of exile and the destruction of everything they had known, took their own lives. Reza Pahlavi has the money. He could have chosen a quiet life, a life of comfort and distance, far from the insults, the threats, the endless character assassination. Instead of spending more than four decades on this path, he could have lived for himself and his family, free of this burden. Instead, he chose responsibility. He chose to stand for the very people who betrayed his family and became the cause of so much suffering in his life. What does he ask in return? Nothing. No throne has been demanded. No position imposed. He has asked only for a national process in which the Iranian people themselves decide their future. He has anchored that path in clear principles, precisely to prevent Iran from falling once again into chaos, fragmentation, and revenge. Yet even for that, he is criticised by so-called “Iran expert” podcasters who have never carried the weight of a nation on their shoulders, who say, “He does not want to lead,” “He is not your guy.” All while he and his family live under constant attacks, threats, and scrutiny on a daily basis. Despite all of that, his love for his people and his land overrides everything. He continues to fight for us. I want to say we have done nothing to deserve it, but the people of Iran have proven otherwise in these past weeks. They are no longer blinded by decades of propaganda. They are revisiting their history. They are correcting the lies they were raised with. They are openly calling his name in the streets, knowing the price that must be paid for it. They are awake to the mistakes of past generations, and they have reached out their hand to him. And he, despite everything, has taken that hand.

Arsalan Naamdar

24,647 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

arsalannaamdar's profile picture

Very well spoken alayar kangarlu

Arsalan Naamdar

19,380 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

arsalannaamdar's profile picture

Reza Pahlavi II has repeatedly spoken about the structural weaknesses of an overly centralized monarchy. He compares it to a game of chess. In chess, the king is the final piece. When the king falls, the game is finished. In a system where all power is concentrated in one individual, all responsibility and all blame are concentrated there as well. The most important figure inevitably becomes the most vulnerable point in the entire structure. He explains that after Reza Shah, the continuation of the monarchy was seen as the only realistic way to stabilize the country. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was sent to study in Switzerland so he could return with modern ideas and democratic values. When he came back, he had to build modern institutions almost from scratch: schools, hospitals, infrastructure, the military, and a functioning state apparatus. Those responsibilities fell largely on his shoulders alone. Over time he became not only the main decision-maker, but also the main target for every failure and every grievance. That is exactly the problem Reza Pahlavi II highlights today. If a Shah is expected to be the central pillar of stability, is it logical or practical to place him at the most fragile point of the system at the same time? I genuinely wish that both supporters and critics of the Pahlavi Dynasty would take the time to listen to what these individuals have actually said, in the past and in the present, and understand the context in which they speak.

Arsalan Naamdar

13,891 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

Daha fazla içerik yok.