Iran – The End of Theocracy or the Beginning of Civil War?

As my esteemed readers know, yesterday the United States and Israel struck Iran, killing a large number of the country’s leaders, beginning with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Iran, for its part, has launched its own missiles at least toward the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Jordan, Qatar, Syria, Iraq and Bahrain, as well as, of course, Israel. In addition, it has closed the Strait of Hormuz.

Iranians have reacted to the events—at least according to Iranians living in Finland—by celebrating in the streets. Women symbolically with their hair uncovered, and at least some shouting the name of Reza Pahlavi, the current head of the country’s former monarchical dynasty.

On the other hand, social media also contains video material of demonstrations supporting the Iranian government. Based on what I have seen, the crowds at these demonstrations appear to be quite large.

* * *

It remains to be seen, then, how the situation in Iran will develop from here. In this respect, the absolutely central factor is the Iranian army: will it remain loyal to the Islamist regime, or will it shift to the side of those demanding change? Or, as I could well imagine, will it split into two camps that begin to wage a civil war against each other?

In any case, it is clear that neither the United States nor Israel will send their ground forces into Iran. For that reason, the country’s future is still entirely open, and it would not be surprising if it were to continue its existence in a medieval atmosphere in the future as well.

This alternative becomes more likely the longer the people demanding liberation remain without military force—that is, the longer the country’s leadership is given time to recover from its losses.

* * *

In order to clarify the situation, I asked the Gemini AI for the very latest information. It replied that “there have been reports that parts of Iran’s regular army and local security forces have refused to follow orders or have even joined the side of the protesters. Wikipedia sources and news agencies now mention ‘armed civilians’ and ‘police and military defectors’ as part of the ongoing unrest.”

In addition, according to Gemini, “there have been reports of local clashes in the regions of Kurdistan and Baluchistan. In particular, Kurdish groups (such as PJAK and PDKI) have moved from a state of readiness to actively taking up positions in their own areas.” It also stated that “there have been reports within the country of arson attacks and assaults against symbols of the regime as well as local offices of the IRGC.”

I interpret this to mean that it is not yet possible to draw conclusions about Iran’s future. In any case, however, Iranians now have an opportunity to replace their Islamist theocracy with a more civilized form of government—but the window of time for doing so may not be very long.

* * *

Finally, one observation about the possible effects of a change of power on Finnish society. It may well happen that refugees set out from the country toward Europe.

In this sense, it should be understood that these people would not be ordinary Iranians, as such people would rather return to their homeland if conditions there were to normalize. Instead, those who may set out could be Islamists who have served and/or supported the country’s tyrannical regime.

For this reason, Finland should already now state very clearly that it will not grant asylum to potential Iranian refugees in the event of a change of government, but rather that Iran will be regarded as a safe country for all its citizens—and that this assessment will not be altered by possible reports of representatives of the Islamist regime being held accountable for crimes committed over the course of half a century.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
UN Congratulates an Executioner – Credibility in Free Fall
What’s Next, Iran?
Iran at a Crossroads: From Islamist Rule Toward Democracy?

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Vaihtuuko Iranissa valta?

The Outbreak of the Continuation War Between Finland and the Soviet Union

In recent days, Finland has been engaged in a discussion about the outbreak of the Continuation War between Finland and Russia as part of the Second World War. The debate began when Finland’s largest newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat (HS), published an article with a headline claiming that “Elina Valtonen forgot the Continuation War on television.”

It claimed that Finland had attacked the Soviet Union in 1941, at the beginning of the Continuation War. This stirred up a lot of debate—and perhaps even some lipstick-splashing—because it is an indisputable fact that the Soviet Union initiated the hostilities of the Continuation War.

* * *

The Finnish-language Wikipedia states the matter—immediately under the subheading “The war begins”—as follows:
“The Soviet Union’s attacks against Finland began on 22 June 1941 at 6:05 a.m., when the Soviet Union opened artillery fire from the Hanko base at Finnish targets in the archipelago and on the mainland, and launched air raids against Finnish ships at sea. On the same day, the Soviet Union carried out several artillery strikes on the eastern border.

According to the same source, ‘after this, on the same day Finland participated in the mining of the southern Gulf of Finland. Germany had launched Operation Barbarossa at 3:00 a.m., and German aircraft that had conducted mine-laying flights from East Prussia to the Leningrad region landed at the Utti airfield on their return journey to refuel. The Soviet Union continued its air and artillery strikes against Finnish military targets in Finland. Finland refrained from returning fire and attempted to assert its neutrality in the new war.’”

And again, quoting Wikipedia:
“On 25 June 1941, the Soviet Air Force bombed Helsinki, Turku, Heinola, and Porvoo as well as a dozen other localities with about 500 aircraft, of which 27 were shot down over Finnish territory. Based on these bombings and previous events, in a communication submitted to Parliament the government concluded that the country had entered a state of war. Parliament accepted this position. Later that same day, 25 June, Prime Minister Jukka Rangell stated on the radio that Finland was once again at war with the Soviet Union…. War was declared on 26 June 1941. The Finnish Army and German troops stationed in Finland began the land offensive.”

* * *

HS has later attempted to correct its mistake with an addition stating that “Finland declared a state of war only after the Soviet Union had bombed Finland, but Finland had already before this made extensive offensive preparations to join the war alongside Germany. Finland’s objective was to occupy large areas of the Soviet Union beyond those that had been lost in the Winter War.”

This correction is indeed in the right direction, but it is still misleading. It was the Soviet Union that unambiguously initiated the Continuation War. And, incidentally, it committed what would today be considered a serious crime against humanity, since terror bombings—even against countries allegedly preparing for war—aimed at civilian populations are indisputably such acts.

The Red Army Air Force bombings of 25 June were unquestionably exactly that—state terrorism. And it is equally indisputable that Finland began its own offensive operations only after those attacks.

For the first three days of the war, all Finnish military operations had been defensive. And that’s not all: as can be seen even from the Wikipedia excerpts I cited above, Finland had refrained even from some defensive actions.

* * *

It must of course be acknowledged that German soldiers had arrived in Finland. It is also well known that many of Finland’s political leaders at the time wished to avenge the defeat of the Winter War.

I personally find Heikki Ylikangas’s view quite plausible—that this idea had been adopted, as a result of Hermann Göring’s persuasion, already at the end of the Winter War.

However, this does not change the truth that Finland was not the aggressor in the Continuation War; it was Stalin’s Soviet Union. It is also a fact that since history is not an experimental science, we cannot turn back time and see whether Finland would have attacked the Soviet Union without the war initiated by Stalin.

Furthermore, one should understand about the nature of the Continuation War that although Finland’s offensive into the Soviet Union—beginning several days after the Red Army’s military actions—was undeniably a war of conquest, it was not an existential threat to the communist state. This is because Commander-in-Chief Carl Gustaf Mannerheim refused to launch an active offensive against Leningrad and did not order the continuation of the conquest beyond the three isthmuses stretching from the Gulf of Finland through Lakes Ladoga and Onega to Lake Seesjärvi. Yet conditions would have been favorable for such an advance at the time.

* * *

Based on all this, I must deeply wonder why HS, even while correcting its article, failed to present an accurate picture of the events of June 1941. Instead, it gave support to the false propaganda spread across social media in recent times by Putin’s Russia and its trolls (example), claiming that Finland was a Nazi state that attacked the innocent Soviet Union. The fact is that Finland never had a Nazi party in its Parliament; the only far-right party represented there, the Patriotic People’s Movement, was relatively small and not a Nazi party.

* * *

At the same time, it is necessary to correct the notion—indeed, an urban legend—that the Soviet Army was not prepared for Germany’s attack. In fact, its forces had been massively strengthened after the Winter War, so that in the summer of 1941 it was—at least on paper—much stronger than the German armed forces. And Hitler’s intelligence had failed to discover this fact.

I even consider it possible that this very fact—the presumed strength of the Soviet Army—explains the Red Army’s attack on Finland immediately after the start of Barbarossa. It is, after all, irrational that Stalin opened a new front—against a new enemy—after being forced into a defensive war against the Germans.

I justify this by arguing that Stalin may have imagined his unprecedentedly strong Red Army capable of stopping and destroying the attacking German forces, unlike the French the previous year. And as we know, that is ultimately what it did—although only after years, and with the support of massive American aid packages.

The Finnish Army, on the other hand, Stalin failed to defeat, and Helsinki remained unconquered. And therefore our history does not include a 50-year period of misery under communist dictatorship.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Why Did Finland Remain an Independent Democracy After World War II?
Bless Ukrainian Soldiers With the Spirit That Once Defined the Celebrated Finnish Veterans
History of Finland XIV: The end of the first Finnish Republic

Responding to Russia’s Challenges Is Essential

This morning’s news reported that Poland’s air defense destroyed Russian drones. And this did not happen in Ukraine, but in the airspace of Poland, a NATO member.

Taking into account the recent interference with the aircraft carrying the president of the European Commission, as well as the earlier bombing of a factory in Ukraine owned by Americans and the damaging of EU and UK buildings, it is becoming clear that this is not about accidents but deliberate actions. And such actions can only have one purpose: to test the unity and readiness of Europeans and especially NATO.

At the same time, it is clear that the more loosely the West responds to Russian actions, the more certain it is that Russia will continue to challenge them. The only question is where and in what way.

In this situation, the greatest danger lies with the smallest border states, namely the Baltic countries. Estonia, for instance, has recently been subjected to several airspace violations, the latest just a couple of days ago.

Thus, the question arises: if the West responds weakly or not at all to Russia’s provocations related to the war in Ukraine, could a surprise attack be ahead? For example, a blitzkrieg directed at one of the Baltic states, with the goal of occupying the entire country so quickly that a reluctant NATO would not have time to intervene?

To prevent such a scenario, it is important that Western countries pull themselves together, recognize the obvious facts, and respond forcefully to Russia’s provocations in Ukraine and in its immediate border areas. In doing so, they would send Vladimir Putin the clearest possible message: that there are no easy victories for him in EU and NATO countries—only bitter defeat.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Ukraine’s Missiles and Russia’s Forced Recruitment Set to Topple Putin’s Regime
The War in Ukraine Came Close to Me
Donald Trump’s Meeting With Vladimir Putin: The Advice He Needs