Here is the recording of our latest session.
In our latest daily session, the focus shifted from the immediate tactics of the revolution to the long-term architecture of the state. The room dissected a critical question regarding the return of the Pahlavi dynasty. Do the Iranian people require a purely symbolic "King Charles" figurehead, or do they need a sovereign with the actual mechanical authority to govern? The consensus was that a ceremonial ribbon-cutter is a luxury a recovering nation cannot afford.
The discussion proposed a specific role for the Monarch. The "Protector of the Constitution." This is a rejection of both the absolutism of the past and the impotence of modern European royals. The King must function as an institutional circuit breaker. If a future Prime Minister becomes corrupt, or if a Parliament attempts to legislate away the rights of the citizenry, the Monarch must possess the reserved power to dissolve the government. This is not tyranny. It is the failsafe against it.
Friction emerged when comparing this model to the West. One dissenting voice noted that the British Monarch theoretically retains the power to dissolve Parliament but simply chooses not to exercise it. The counter-argument from the group was sharp. A power that cannot be used without triggering a constitutional crisis is not a power at all. Iran does not need theoretical safeguards. It needs a functional executive backstop capable of halting the "Islamic virus" before it reinfects the body politic. We are not building a museum piece. We are building a fortress for liberty.
This is not a passive news feed. We are actively debating the architectural blueprints of a post-regime nation. If you have the intellectual bandwidth to contribute to high-level discussions on statecraft, governance, and liberty, your voice is needed in the room. View the calendar at this link to join our next discussion: https://www.skool.com/libertypolitics/calendar