Since the beginning of the conflict I have a growing suspicion that Iran is more modern and bottom-up that the west wants to admit. I share the sentiment about a holy book being the main framework for politics but the clergy in power in Iran today is more capable of materialist analysis than liberal politicians

And imperialism promotes theocratic attitudes in places that are subjugated. A society can't progress when, well, it's progress is stopped by imperialism. This is a truism but people still ignore it and smear developing countries while ignoring the circumstances

You've got to zoom out and look at things more holistically. This focus on individual states and the exact structure of them instead of the bigger picture is the individualist mindset expanded to geopolitical analysis.

The contradiction in the world today is between imperialism and anti-imperialism. Many of the countries on the side that we call anti-imperialism are imperfect or even reactionary. But siding against them means siding with imperialism.

Take Russia for example. Analyse it at the individual level the state is bad and we are absolutely not fans of it. But analyse it in a more holistic picture of the world and you realise that it is the supplier of weapons, defence, resources (oil/gas) and intelligence for every actually-good country on the side of anti-imperialism, such as Cuba, Venezuela, Burkina Faso, etc etc etc. Literally every single country on the side of anti-imperialism has Russia as a crucial ally, supplier and supporter.

Analysing these states as they are individually is not enough to draw a picture of correct strategy. They have to be placed into the context of the whole picture. Iran is the Russia of the Middle East. You don't have to be its fan, but you do have to realise how completely fucking essential it is to resistance to imperialism.

Any complaint about what countries individually are can wait until the primary contradiction has been resolved. Every attempt to reduce people's views down to the individual analysis of each state is just an attempt to break apart support for essential countries on the anti-imperialist side.

Less smarmy response because I have a bad habit of doing them:

To label Iran as a theocracy in this way feels very tone deaf to me. In addition to what Awoo said, the clerical elite/revolutionary leaders of Iran have sacrificed so much of themselves to defend the Iranian nation and its people. Not to mention how there is a whole electoral power system alongside the clerical class. This callous off-hand reference to reducing the material conditions of Iran to "just a theocracy" is the sort of ideological alienation Marxists should seek to avoid.

The US has repeatedly invoked religious rhetoric in the Ramadan War, explaining to its own military that this war is about securing Christianity (or something else I can't remember). The Iranian side has not done the same, every diplomatic movement from Iran is made using calculated, materialist decision making that is aligned with "International Law" to a frustrating degree and repeatedly punished for it.

Also Persepolis (2003) and its consequences were a disaster for the western perception of Iran not rooted in veiled women and repressive "totalitarianism"

Governments are not good,

That's bad child anarchist reading of things, government is good because it's literally just a formalized structure for a community to work together and resolve disputes

Are you including the Republic of Malta and the Kingdom of Denmark under theocracies or is that only reserved for scary brown Muslim countries like the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia?

That's for the Iranians to sort out without our interference. In fact its the only way it will be sorted out. When there are constant outside threats there isnt much room for instability.

honestly far less gross than the way I was reading it so well done