There are two things to note here. One is that had they not been as radical as they are they would probably have ended up like a lot of regimes that one day were allied with the west and then toppled the next, with a dysfunctional state and potentially disputed borders as a result. See Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and countless others. Notice that every time a new sanctions round was announced the regime became more theocratic and radical.
Close family friends that are very antireligion by now told me that once that person went to the countryside that the majority of people was in fact wearing hijab and and very conservative(at the time of the Shah who banned the hijab wearing in an effort to be more western).
The thing I just can't comprehend is why they thought it's a good idea to not only establish a moral police, but also empower them to an extent that may end up in the death of an individual instead of just saying fuck it, we can't win this part, let everyone decide for themselves and we'll try to get some favour by letting the more liberal part have this little win.
There are really only two ways you can make sense out of this:
1. they are really that blind
2. which I find more realistic is the thought process of: "if we give them this win, they will want more and then we don't know where it ends". In a way that's not that different from asking for some leniency in an absurd process in Germany where the service person then says that, if you get this special solution, everyone will ask for it in the future.
> "if we give them this win, they will want more and then we don't know where it ends"
Funnily that's what Metternich and similar reactionaries in post -Napoleonic Europe thought, and they were terribly mistaken. It just resulted in a lot of pent up anger and issues eventually exploding in revolution (which failed, but still).
Close family friends that are very antireligion by now told me that once that person went to the countryside that the majority of people was in fact wearing hijab and and very conservative(at the time of the Shah who banned the hijab wearing in an effort to be more western).
The thing I just can't comprehend is why they thought it's a good idea to not only establish a moral police, but also empower them to an extent that may end up in the death of an individual instead of just saying fuck it, we can't win this part, let everyone decide for themselves and we'll try to get some favour by letting the more liberal part have this little win.
There are really only two ways you can make sense out of this:
1. they are really that blind
2. which I find more realistic is the thought process of: "if we give them this win, they will want more and then we don't know where it ends". In a way that's not that different from asking for some leniency in an absurd process in Germany where the service person then says that, if you get this special solution, everyone will ask for it in the future.