Comment by perching_aix

> All European kings have the power to dismiss the elected prime ministers

This is false. For Sweden, and Andorra this is both de jure and de facto wrong, for others, it is still de facto wrong. Did you even read the line you quoted?

In the UK, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, and Luxemburg, their monarchs do not dismiss the PM at will. They act on advice, and violating that norm would almost certainly force abdication or abolition. They are formally involved in appointing or dismissing a prime minister, but only within strict constitutional norms (loss of parliamentary confidence, resignation, elections). Acting unilaterally would trigger a constitutional crisis.

> and are the nominal head of the armed forces

This is once again false for Sweden and Andorra, and once again, only ceremonially (de jure) true for others, and wrong in practice (de facto false). Did you even read the line you quoted?

In contrast with all of this, the Supreme Leader of Iran:

- is a direct, actual commander-in-chief for Iran's armed forces, and is actively involved in its operations

- can directly dismiss some high officials and initiate the removal of others, and has complete if indirect control over who gets to run for their positions to begin with, and how a removal process would turn out

> Iran "Supreme Leader" has never removed any elected presidents or members of parliament

Your scare quoting of Supreme Leader is unjustified to the extent I can tell: checking in with language models, it is a correct and reasonable translation. Ironically, it might even be risky to do for someone in and from Iran, as it could get interpreted as criticizing him, which afaik is illegal and routinely punished.

This is further not a claim I made or even suggested: on the contrary, I laid it out through several paragraphs why and how the election of officials is manipulated at the source, rather than at the destination. Did you even read the comment you're responding to?

> has no authority over government expenditures or taxes, therefore is not responsible for mis-management of economy

Yes he does and is. Not only are large swaths of national economic activity, revenue streams, and spending functionally outside the ordinary budget process and under his control, he has supervisory authority that can shape fiscal policy indirectly through oversight powers. He also routinely sets "general policies" that are binding on the executive branch and influence budgeting priorities. Finally, which was the key point, he has influence over who can get elected into the various "people-elected" bodies that actually drive such policies and implement them. Did you even bother to understand the comment you're responding to?

> So those who call for his removal are not motivated by economic hardship but are politically motivated who can't win democratic elections

Nice opinion! I personally have no idea who's being blamed in these protests, didn't care to read up on it. The economic hardships of Iran are of no controversy to my understanding though, so I don't know why you would put that in question.

Regarding political struggle, to my understanding, most parties and people who would run don't even get to run in the first place (did you read what I wrote?). So it makes little sense to discuss the capability of them "winning" an election, when they can't even run on it. Unless you meant to suggest you think they're justified in triggering an uprising, but then I don't know why you'd be against the protests.