It is a question that does not sit still. It travels across borders, across drawing rooms, across WhatsApp groups and television studios. It arrives in India too, carrying with it an unease that is not easily dismissed. Is Iran more irresponsible than Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state with a history of military coups and militant spillovers? Is it more dangerous than North Korea, which has tested nuclear weapons with theatrical defiance and declared itself unanswerable?

Or is the issue something else entirely? Not recklessness, but alignment. Not capability, but compliance.

If tomorrow India were told by Washington that it must dismantle its nuclear arsenal, the reaction here would not be philosophical. It would be visceral. Sovereignty does not negotiate easily with instruction.

That is where the Iranian story begins to acquire its sharper edges.

Iran’s present cannot be understood without its past, and that past is not a calm archive. It is a wound that has not fully healed.

In 1953, Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh nationalised Iran’s oil industry, challenging British economic dominance. It was a move that spoke the language of sovereignty, but it collided with the interests of empire. What followed was a covert operation by British intelligence and the CIA. Mossadegh was removed, arrested, and silenced. The Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, returned to power with Western backing.

For many Iranians, this was the moment democracy was interrupted, not by internal failure, but by external design.

The Shah’s rule that followed was ambitious, modernising, and deeply authoritarian. Iran was pushed rapidly toward a Western model, but political dissent was crushed. The secret police became a symbol of fear. The state spoke the language of progress, but society carried the weight of repression.

Revolutions do not arrive overnight. They gather in silences, in resentments, in the distance between rulers and the ruled. By 1979, that distance had become unbridgeable.

The Revolution and Its Afterlife

The revolution that brought Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to power did not merely change a government. It altered the vocabulary of the state.

Khomeini’s Iran was not interested in moderation. It spoke in........

© ABP Live