At first, I was a little bit disappointed by your interpretation of "Iranian Nationalism". But then, I found out that it's obviously not your fault, but ours that haven't even opened the doors of our country to un-biased researchers like you.

You're doing a great job man. Good luck.

The controversial aspect of Jewish privilege in Palestine is not that it is uniquely immoral for Israeli Jews to claim sectarian privilege for themselves, but that Zionism claims they have the right to do this in a land where Jewish people are not the natural majority, and rely on a gerrymandered majority status created and maintained by the constant use of force against the preexisting population. So Jewish dominance can only come about in the first place through large scale ethnic cleansing (as in 1948, 1967); and it can only be maintained through the slow ethnic cleansing of economic strangulation that goes on year in year out; through the subterfuge of denying equal voting rights to the majority of Arab subjects by insisting they vote for a toothless fake statelet called the PA rather than for the government that actually rules over them; and through the continuing – but smaller scale – expulsions from their homes of people with the "wrong" ethnic-religious background, which is leaving them living in tents in their own backyards in East Jerusalem even as we speak.

It seems to me that the relevant feature of Israeli Zionism is therefore not that it privileges one sect over another, but that it places the privileged position of one minority sect over the right of the majority to be treated as equal human beings regardless of whether or not they have a Jewish mom. This kind of privilege can be established and continue to exist only through an endlessly expanding program of expulsion, killing, dispossession and disenfranchisement of the pre-existing non-Jewish population, because merely by existing the "wrong sort of people" are an unbearable "demographic threat" to minority rule. So an appropriate comparison to the situation in Israel might perhaps be the complications that arose out of the Plantation of a privileged Protestant minority into Ireland or, even more closely, the lengths that the white minority population went to in South Africa in order to reserve political power to themselves in the apartheid era.

In contrast, it really doesn't seem to me that the refusal of Iran to allow its President to be a Sunni is analogous to this situation. It's a rather forced comparison to suggest that not allowing a Sunni minority of 10-15% to provide Iran with an elected President is just like establishing by force a sectarian Jewish state in a land that is overwhelmingly populated by non-Jews and where – even after more than 60 years of ethnic cleansing – that disenfranchised non-Jewish population is poised to be the majority again. Morally there might be no difference between discriminating against a minority of your population and discriminating against a majority of your population, but in the real world I think there's rather a big difference. Not allowing a minority candidate to be President is one thing, forcibly replacing the preexisting population of a country because they don't have the preferred ethnic-religious background seems rather different.

—
is a system based on belief in:
1.the One God (as stated in the phrase "There is no god except Allah"), His exclusive sovereignty and the right to legislate, and the necessity of submission to His commands;
2.Divine revelation and its fundamental role in setting forth the laws;
3.the return to God in the Hereafter, and the constructive role of this belief in the course of man's ascent towards God;
4.the justice of God in creation and legislation;
5.continuous leadership (imamah) and perpetual guidance, and its fundamental role in ensuring the uninterrupted process of the revolution of Islam;
6.the exalted dignity and value of man, and his freedom coupled with responsibility before God; in which equity, justice, political, economic, social, and cultural independence, and national solidarity are secured by recourse to:
(1).continuous ijtihad of the fuqaha' possessing necessary qualifications, exercised on the basis off the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Ma'sumun, upon all of whom be peace;
(2).sciences and arts and the most advanced results of human experience, together with the effort to advance them further;
(3).negation of all forms of oppression, both the infliction of and the submission to it, and of dominance, both its imposition and its acceptance.
—

Note that of these official articles of faith there are several specific to Shiite Islam, such as 5. the Imamah, and 6(1) continuous ijtihad of the fuqaha and the invocation of the Sunnah (practice) of the Ma'sumun (i.e. the 12 imams). A Sunni would not subscribe to these precepts.

As for the Prseidency, Article 115 specifies that
"The President must be elected from among religious and political personalities possessing the following qualifications: Iranian origin; Iranian nationality; administrative capacity and resourcefulness; a good past-record; trustworthiness and piety; convinced belief in the fundamental principles of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the official madhhab of the country."

The "official madhhab of the country" is Twelver Shiism — no Sunnis would qualify.

Of course such a state is inherently flawed since it is a form of affirmative action, displaced local Arab populations and created much misery for local Arabs in 1948. But a one-state solution undermines this central protection for the world's Jews and the ability for a single Jewish state to succeed. We can agree that Netanyahu is a disgrace and that his policies do not foster peace, but those failures should not undermine the basis for Zionism.

I wish Israel could have the univeralistic aspirations of France or the U.S, it just is not the case.