Now that the U.S. has abandoned the Iranian people’s freedom as a goal in the ceasefire negotiations, it’s time to look back on what happened to women since the Islamic Republic of Iran was established in 1979, creating a theocracy. In the past I’ve done that, as I do here, by doing a Google image search for women in Iran. The results are telling. Here we see the regressive change wrought in the last fifty years.
First, the results of the Google image search, “Women in Iran, 1975″ , before the Revolution. Do the search for yourself, and click what’s below to enlarge it. Note the women in shorts skirts and Western dress, with only a very few in burqas or hijabs:
The results of the Google image search, “Women in Iran, 2025”. Most of the women are covered, and those who are not are protesting covering or demanding freedom. This is what the theocracy has done to women, and the argument that covering is a “choice” simply doesn’t stand up. It’s not chosen, but compelled. (Note: there are some areas of Tehran where women eschew veiling as the Morality Police don’t do their thing there.)
These are half of the people Donald Trump implied that he’d free: they would take over their government after he toppled it.
Thanks for keeping up with the issue of Iranian women’s freedom from theocracy, Jerry! The before and after 1979 pictures of Iranian women are always chilling.
There are similar pictures from Afghanistan. Just as chilling.
I recommend the film “A Separation” , of Asgar Farhadi, for a portrayal of family life in Iran in 2011. It involves a Westernized family and their relationship with a religious family.
This film won an Academy award,
Of course, wearing a head covering can be seen as liberating or as oppressive, depending on the context. Where it is required (e.g. Iran, Afghanistan), it is often seen as a symbol of oppression, and feminists and humanists decry it. When wearing it is (or was) forbidden, such as in Turkey or Egypt (at least in certain fora), then it can be seen by feminists as a right denied to them.
This results in a difficult crux that we see again and again. In Turkey, where it was banned (in public places) from the days of Atatürk until recently, it resulted in more conservative girls/women (or families) either avoiding public places (such as schools) or emigrating to (often European) countries where it is/was allowed. And since such conservative elements were not rooted out, but just pushed to the sidelines, it has also led to very successful political counter movements, à la Erdoğan in Turkey or (less successfully) Morsi in Egypt, who, of course, was ousted in el-Sisi’s coup, not an election, which Morsi, or his brothers-in-arms, would — one might argue — win today if elections were to be held.
Lest I be misunderstood: I despise despotic islamist regimes like that in Iran.
I hate that Trump gave Iranians the hope that we – the US – would free them from the tyranny, when what he meant was that by killing a few leaders, he’d magically enable them to free themselves. If Trump wasn’t so delusional and grandiose – remember when he said he’d be able to end the war between Russia and Ukraine on his first day in office? – he’d have listened to sober-minded experts and known that the reality on the ground made it impossible for the unarmed population to defeat the regime by doing nothing more than dropping a few bombs.
What’s worse is that by raising the hopes of the population, and then dashing them, Trump has just turned people who trusted the US into cynics. If the moderates ever do get into power, they’re going to look elsewhere for allies. Strength requires allies. By alienating former allies and potential future allies, Trump hasn’t made American great again. He’s made it weaker.
Greatly weaker
I think it is too strong to say that by Trump promising help and then attacking Iran’s leaders, Trump raised the hopes of Iranians and then dashed them. The Ayatollah and some of his minions were taken out, which was the help promised. But the IRGC proved more resilient than anticipated, and the people did not rise up as was hoped. With so many Americans concerned about gas prices, Trump finds himself in a tough spot as to how to proceed now. I suppose it is still remotely possible that an internal coup might take place at some point, but I would not bet on it.
I agree, the US needs to bomb Afghanistan yesterday. A decapitation strike should be enough to collapse the entire regime and liberate the people there, especially the women who presumably have it worse than anywhere else on earth.
I don’t think the government in Kabul can be easily brought down. Should it? Of course. Can it? An entirely different matter.
Earlier discussions of this noted that older pictures are from urban centers and that rural dress would be conservative. Religionists came to power. “Free to choose” is tricky. Are girls taught at home and school that not covering is sinful really “free?” Erdogan in Turkey, for example, has dramatically increased religious schools in Turkey as part of his Islamization agenda. Can’t teach that evil evolution and other aspects of modernity!! What will the generation of women from such schools be like? How, if at all, can “tolerant” (modern?) societies deal with religious and other ideological indoctrination of illiberal values in such countries or our own And what happens when head covering morphs into burkas?
Are you saying that there is no difference in covering in the last fifty years? Look at all the women in Tehran (NOT a rural area) who are persecuted for not covering, or for singing, etc.
Try Google-imaging “women in rural areas, Iran 1975” and you’ll pretty much see the same difference: women images of women under that heading also show modern dress.
Not at all. What I wrote means change would be more striking in cosmopolitan areas like Tehran. I googled slight variation of yours. Google AI summary, for what it’s worth, noted more traditional attire in rural areas. Wouldn’t you expect rural areas to be more religious and conservative?
I am not so sure of the potential success of any operations against the Afghan, or even Iranian governments, if the goal is to “liberate” the populace.
The military difficulties are one factor. Sure, it is possible to decapitate these regimes, as the US and Israel have shown. But it is also true that there is another repressive group of individuals waiting to replace them, as we have seen time and again.
The population must want it—really want it. What happened in Afghanistan after the US invaded and got rid of the Taliban? the US left, and the Taliban are back. And nobody, but nobody, wants a permanent occupation.
Iran, of course, is a different story. Much of the population wants the Islamists gone—no doubt about that. But there are a great many who are working for the Islamist government, with varying degrees of commitment. Some are just doing it to feed their families, and would happily switch allegiance. But there are a great many who are committed—and they are armed. The best way to deal with Iran is economic warfare, presumably combined with training and Iranian opposition force—presumably by the CIA. US ground forces should not be used for nation-building. The only use for boots on the ground is operations like destruction of nuclear and missile forces.
All of this takes great commitment. While the US would certainly win an economic war (total blockade of Hormuz hurts the Iranians fair more than it does the US), the US and others would face increases in the price of oil and other economic hardship. Does the West have the will?
Which brings me to my main point. How many times in history has a nation risked its troops for humanitarian reasons? Oil, free trade, sure. But freeing women or others from oppression or worse? Would the West suffer prices increasing by an order of magnitude or more to stop the killing of women? Or homosexuals? Or Jews, Bahai, Christians, or other religious minorities? Where are all the humanitarian protests against the Iranian government for its treatment of dissidents, women, homosexuals and Bahai? The lack of care among those virtue-signaling humanitarians shows me that the populations of Western countries do not have the will. And I don’t think that there are examples from history that show otherwise,with the possible exception of the US civil war, in which there were people fighting for abolition of slavery. (I do not claim that slavery was the only cause of that war, nor the primary motivation of all the population of the North. Nevertheless, such sentiment did motivate some people.)
And that’s the reason that economic warfare and stand-off destruction is the best those suffering persecution and worse in Iran are going to get.