This looks like it might be the end for the current regime. There are still people getting information out, and they are tearing down and burning state buildings - around 3000 protesters killed since the crackdown began, but there appear to be tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people who have risen up against the ayatollah, with an unknown number of state forces and officials killed. Crazy start to the year.
I'm not so sure. There are plenty of pro-regime protests in Iran currently, and the general replies on interviews I've seen is "yes we have our problems, but we don't want Israel and the US fixing it", which tracks with a lot of sentiment I've heard from Iranian friends of mine.
There was also a three year old killed by anti-regime protestors which has heightened the sentiments of pro-regime protestors.
I don't doubt this is true but would also note that high-profile online outlets --- Ryan Grim's Drop Site News, most notably --- have run pieces talking about how huge anti-government protests are in fact pro-government protests, when that has turned out to be flatly false. (I don't know where they get this stuff).
The Iranian anti-regime movement is very well established and is not the product of foreign intervention. It's actually not all that clear that foreign actors in the region favor regime change!
(I'm not holding out much hope that these protests will actually topple the regime, though it would be amazing if they did.)
I agree that the anti-regime movement is not all the product of foreign intervention, but I'd say some (and even wager majority) are. Not acknowledging foreign intervention in this aspect would not give a fuller picture of the dynamics.
I know quite a lot of Iranians, and when I talked about this with them about a year ago, their lay of the land given their own opinions and their wider networks opinion is that the majority of Iranians are pro-regime change but NOT at the hands of a US/Israeli intervention.
There are anti-regime segments that are pro-US/Israel intervention, but they think this is a minority and they think most of them are products of foreign intervention.
After Israel bombed Iran last year, there were a few Israeli cells that were uncovered in Iran, so suggesting there is some foreign intervention isn't out of the ordinary.
The protests are, by credible reporting, huge, reflected in the scale of the number of arrests and fatalities. Their antecedents include sky-high unemployment, the highest inflation rates in the world, and water and power rationing --- far more severe and far more directly material conditions than what preceded the 2022 protests. Diverse outlets have the signal chant of the protesters "Neither Gaza Nor Lebanon, My Life Only For Iran", which correlates well with the belief the the IRGC is effectively an Iranian version of the KGB, a second "inner society" whose large membership has preferential access to everything ordinary Iranians don't.
Some of this is disputable, much of it isn't. Meanwhile:
* There's no evidence that foreign powers are behind these protests, just narratives. The track record on unsupported but convincing-sounding narratives everywhere is pretty bad; nowhere is it worse than in this part of the world.
* There's no evidence that the protests themselves are pro-US (and certainly not pro-Israel; most of the protesters probably don't like Israel!). They just want water, jobs, and currency that can reliably buy food.
* There's also not much evidence that any major government in the world wants Iran toppled. Iran is incredibly weak right now. Regional powers like Turkey, Saudi, and especially Israel --- which has basically depantsed the IRGC --- don't actually have much to gain from an Iranian overthrow, but the whole region has a lot to lose from instability.
So yeah, I'd say: pretty extraordinary claim --- again, that claim being, "the anti-regime movement is the product of foreign intervention".
I want to keep saying: I don't think the protests will be successful. It's a state specifically designed to prevent protests movements like these from being successful! They may suck at air defense, but I don't think they're bad at putting down rebellions.
> There's also not much evidence that any major government in the world wants Iran toppled
I’m sorry what? Maybe this is an argument over terminology, but Israel absolutely wants Iran toppled in any colloquial definition of the word. This has been their stated goal since the 90s. And much of their activity in the Middle East since then is towards this goal.
> and especially Israel --- which has basically depantsed the IRGC --- don't actually have much to gain
Again I’m sorry what? Iran has been a major deterrent to their regional hegemony for decades. Remove US support and Israel is destroyed. They need these threats removed so they can end their reliance on US support.
I know there's a sizable cohort of online people in the west who are convicted of the idea that Israel exists solely as a US proxy and is held in check only by Iran, but obviously no. Israel --- leave aside all the moral stuff right now --- is a hypercapable advanced high-state-capacity regional nuclear power with an extremely effective military. If they didn't buy arms from us, they'd buy them from someone we liked less.
Iran, on the other hand, partly as a result of Khomeinism and the status quo ante of the Iranian Revolution, when the military was a big part of the repression apparatus in the Shah's state, has more or less gutted its official military service branches. As we just saw, Israel literally controls Iran's own airspace. They flew slow drones over Tehran, presumably just as a "fuck you". Iran placed a huge bet on projecting military force through regional proxies --- the "Axis of Resistance". What they have instead of a modern military is the IRGC. See how that went for them!
What point are you trying to make here? I said Israel obviously wants Iran gone and stands to gain a lot from doing so. You didn’t address either of those points, which are extremely relevant when trying to understand why foreign powers want this regime removed and would be involved in its removal.
I agree Israel is not a US proxy (the tail wags the dog in this relationship), but freeing oneself from needing the (or any) dog is a sizable gain. Regarding Iran I think they know this. Their military is structured to operate in a post regime world. But that world doesn’t have the capacity to produce nuclear weapons, which is the key goal Israel is after. Iran with nuclear weapons likely ensures the regimes existence for the foreseeable future.
The general idea is that Iran would be more effective as a regional power if it wasn't ruled by islamists. And that at least the current government of Israel likes incompetent neighbours that make them look good.
Not a difficult argument in my view. Unless you're stuck believing what they say instead of observing what they do.
I don't think either the US or Israel is all that worried about "defanging" Iran's actual military. Their proxies, like Hezbollah, Assadist Syria, Ansar Allah, and Kataib Hezbollah? Sure. But they've mostly already accomplished that. I think Iran's actual military is kind of a joke in military circles?
Israel definitely wants to get rid of Irans ballistic missiles.
That said; if you believe (as do some commenters here) that Israel could ignite nationwide protests with 100,000s of people whenever they want, then they definitely don't have to worry about Irans army
I don't believe Israel can ignite nationwide protest and sort of assume, as a military/strategic matter, that Israel's primary response to Iran's MRBM capabilities is deterrent. Israel control's Iran's skies. I think the direct military part of this conflict is basically over.
I'm just a message board commenter, this is just a take.
I don't see any news source anywhere on the internet claiming that 3000 number - anti-government sources have said 'hundreds' of protestors have been killed, whereas the Iranian state media has been silent on the death toll except confirming 109 members of security forces killed.
> "Unverified reports indicate that at least several hundreds, and according to some sources, more than 2,000 people may have been killed," IHR said in a statement, adding that according to its estimate, more than 2,600 protesters had been arrested.[1]
> However, starting with reports from a handful of Tehran hospitals, an informal, expatriate group of academics and professionals calculated that protester deaths could have reached 6,000 through Saturday.[2]
> IHR said that "according to some estimates more than 6,000 may have been killed", but warned that the almost four-day internet blackout imposed by the Iranian authorities makes it "extremely difficult to independently verify these reports".[3]
It's possible, but remember that in an absence of any political or military rivals, you don't need the loyalty of the populace, only the military and police.
Well it sounds like the whole issue is that the regime has been tanking their economy due to years of funneling money to the Revolutionary Guard, and it's lead to them having to restrict more and more who they can provide favoritism to. It's unclear whether that means it's becoming more difficult to placate the IRGC or there are elements in the IRGC getting greedy, but either way it indicates the loyalty of the military and police can't be taken for granted.
People love to remember the hits and forget the misses. They'll happily chat about how "hunger was the key to the French Revolution" while forgetting how many starved in the USSR, North Korea, China, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, etc...
They love to imagine that the suffering of a populace is some guarantee of both a revolution and the success of that revolution. For some reason the near-total destruction of Syria and ongoing conflicts in the MENA region don't seem to register. At this point I'm convinced that social media creates an environment that rewards wishcasting more than logical analysis based on precedent.
Iranian here (speaking from outside), fair but you have to consider the circumstances.
The regime currently is in its weakest position. Russia is busy with Ukraine, many of top IRGC commanders assassinated, HAMAS is in disarray, and their nuclear program has been crippled.
The water shortage was the straw that broke the camel's back. Years of sanctions, economical downturn and abuses by the Regime piled up to the point of no return.
Based on my last contact with my family, our people have crossed a line and there is no going back.
What Westerners don't realize is that if your back is against the wall, all you have left is putting your life on line.
People rather die trying because truthfully, what is the alternative?
It does seem like there is a point -- and running out of water would be up there near that point, in addition to a collapse of the economy, where people get motivated to make change happen even at the risk to their own lives. I mean, you are going to die anyway, right?
I say that from the luxury of my very safe keyboard, of course. I hope your family is staying as safe as possible. Can't imagine the stress (I get tangled up enough in our own US gov't shenanigans and that pales in comparison to Iran right now).
There's a huge difference - in previous protests, they were begging the regime to hear their voices, to do the right thing - to reform, or change policy.
This time, there's no calls for conciliation or change, it's outright "death to the tyrants" and an astonishing number of people hitting the streets. They're burning down mosques, tearing down statues, burning out police stations, lynching regime officials, going to officials houses and dragging them out, and so on.
Also, it's been going on for 16 days at this point, and for some reason, is noticeably absent from world media. That feels significant, somehow.
Well, where are you getting this information if the internet's been cut off in Iran? All sides are spreading their propaganda so it's hard to say what's actually happening.
There are reports of hospitals, banks and other institutional buildings being burned, even fire engines - but does it make sense for iranians to burn those?
The question remains - after everything is burned to the ground, what opposition or leader is going to take control, if not the IRGC or military?
> it's been going on for 16 days at this point, and for some reason, is noticeably absent from world media. That feels significant, somehow
somehow, yes, but in a good or bad way? what is the significance? maybe the US/israel was gearing up to bomb Iran and the revolts would endear Iranian people to the Western public in a way that powers that be don't want? just thinking out loud here
Edit: chanced on an article which kind of supports this idea
A national security expert said President Donald Trump may already be prepared to act against Iran, suggesting a widely reported upcoming briefing on U.S. options could be intentional "deception" as deadly protests intensify in the country.
Agreed, I’m saying the regime will pass reforms (or try to, given sanctions). I would love for the end of the regime, but who tell me who will take its place?
Realistic best case scenario right now is a situation like England where there is technically a monarch (who also heads the church) but they practically hold no power (less and less over time).
We're seeing what looks to be a full blown economic collapse. People don't have money to buy food right now.
I don't see what reforms they could implement that can quickly fix this as they need to radically alter trust in the government for currency reforms to work.
But who knows? Maybe they'll muddy their way through or rely on force to stay in power. Certainly large protests have happened before, but this is the first time in decades where all 5 conditions of a successful revolution are present at the same time.
It's from Jack's Goldstone's Revolutions: A Very Short Introduction.
Nicole Bauer did a better job paraphrasing than I can, so I'll just quote her:
> [Goldstone] notes that a revolution requires lack of support from or alienation of elites, a crisis such as a fiscal strain, mass mobilization and popular anger against perceived injustices, an ideology of resistance, and favorable international relations. Most important, Goldstone debunks the common misconception that revolutions spring from an excess of injustice and poverty leading to frustration and eventual resistance. Poverty and frustration are not enough to ignite a revolution as countless examples, such as the Irish Potato Famine, have shown. What is needed is widespread belief that change is both desirable and possible, as well as a convergence of the factors mentioned above.
I don't understand, how is your "We're seeing what looks to be a full blown economic collapse. People don't have money to buy food right now" compatible with "Goldstone debunks the common misconception that revolutions spring from an excess of injustice and poverty leading to frustration and eventual resistance"
All I'm saying is that I don't see the regime falling currently, and even if it does, there is no obvious replacement. which might mean civil war or something even worse than now. There is also no indication that a new regime, chosen by actual Iranian people (not the shah's son) would give up its nuclear ambitions (which were actually started by the shah). So what is even the point of doing regime change? My guess is regime change is not what the US and Israel are even trying for, but just chaos to weaken a local power and a source of fuel for China, etc..
Very unlikely. Unlike Syria or Venezuela, the Iranian regime has an ideological base and a very solid base of supporters. A civil war has more odds than that base of supporters accepting a new secular regime.
Popular revolutions will sweep any ideological base away, and it appears to be underway. The scale of the protests in the clips that have made it out have been impressive.
I can't see that it would be anything other than guesswork. Polls are unlikely to be possible with any accuracy there. This is anecdotal, but I've heard from the few Iranians I've known that much of the population lead western lives behind closed doors. Their civil subjugation seems to come from the threat of violent punishment (torture / rape / death / disappearance) and a Stasi-esque domestic intelligence network.
Small sample, but talking about this with my Iranian friends, the sentiment among them and their wider network is that they do acknowledge that Iran has problems, that they need a change in leadership, but that they do NOT want a regime change at the hands of the US/Israel. For them that is a recipe for disaster and more carnage.
In their view, the topology of Iranians and their political views would be: 10% - pro-US regime change intervention; 20% - ardent regime supporters; 70% - pro-regime change but without US involvement.
My fingers are crossed that whatever happens post current regime that life is markedly better for the Iranian people. I'd hate to see civil war or mass starvation. Their currency has fallen off a cliff and continues to do so.
Same concern (although the larger concern is that we've seen this movie before, and it doesn't end well for the protesters), but you can say this about literally every overthrow of every dictatorship. The only way out is through.
The IMF is essentially a credit union with 191 member countries, so they'd become a vassal to most of the world - if by vassal, one means to agree to terms that might make it possible to repay loans.
Some (including quite a few neoliberals) want to abolish the IMF altogether, though I'm unsure if letting countries collapse completely is really a better option.
In the sense that an offensive war - especially one that intentionally targets civilians and their families - rallies people around the flag and provides a boost of support to whoever is in power.
The regime was organically declining in popularity. Israel’s war simply rejuvenated the regime’s supporter base without any meaningful gains on the ground. There was minimal impact to the enrichment campaign. And the fact that negotiation was used as a ruse by the Americans is definitely a motivation to pursue enrichment even further.
Not to mention that regional powers are now wary of Israel’s expansionist nature and see nuclear power as the only true deterrent. Think about it: does anyone ever mess around with Pakistan or NK?
This offensive directly led to the Saudi-Pakistan defense pact, with Turkey probably joining soon. I would also wager that both KSA and Turkey are starting or are considering starting their own nuclear weapons programs.
> The regime was organically declining in popularity. Israel’s war simply rejuvenated the regime’s supporter base without any meaningful gains on the ground.
That is a statement that might make sense two weeks ago, but now? Evidently the effect Israel war had was not enough to prevents riots, or arguably might have emboldened them
2. Hard to tell yet, there are videos that at least claim to show hundreds of dead which indicate both mass shooting and mass demonstrations
3. The issue is that like in USSR, any political prisoner given enough torture admits spying. So you can't really tell which are and which aren't. I wouldn't put much trust on Iranian media on that matter, especially when they only point at external enemies when there have been repeating demonstrations for years and life has only turned progressively worse for the Iranian people
1. Give me a call when the repression of local protests escalates into a 2 year long Western backed campaign of ethnic cleansing and genocide against a blockaded population.
2. Agree that it’s hard to tell for certain.
3. The truth is somewhere in between. My reading is that Mossad is definitely operating on the ground in some capacity.
1. Well, we are digressing to the Gaza conflict, but calling it a genocide is probably just a form of turning up the volume on social media to generate some engagement. It is hardly similar to real mass murders whose goal was destruction of entire nations, that it requires people using the word to ignore the fact of reality that there was no real attempt at destroying the Palestinian people in Gaza. The argument then consequently turns to some legal reading that reduces the crime of genocide to "death of any amount of civilians", to the point it only serves to reduce the crime of real acts of genocide
3. Yes, it showed impressive operational capacity on the ground during the war. However, trying to attribute the protests solely to Israeli intelligence both gives too much credit to Israel, and uses the same mechanism in point 1 that erases the more uncomfortable parts of reality to keep a predefined political idea coherent.
To highly paraphrase, in order to create a myth you shouldn't be concerned with what you remember but with what you forget
We clearly disagree on Gaza, but you brought it up.
But my point with the comparison is that the protests in their current form are not worthy of this level of coordinated international coverage. The fact that this ramp up in coverage coincides with rhetoric from multiple governments signaling that regime change is a short term goal raises suspicion.
Also, nowhere did I say that the Mossad is somehow pulling the strings behind the scenes. They are definitely one factor behind these protests, along with the pro-Shah contingent inside and outside the country, as well as serious anti-regime elements inside the country. The latter is a minority thanks to the 12 day war, which comes back to my initial point.
Israel has had nukes since the 1960’s, and has been wiping the floor with its adversaries since before even that. What changed now that would push Saudi Arabia and Turkey to get nukes? Nothing really. On the contrary: it is Turkey that’s projecting power in Syria, Libya and Somalia, and likewise Saudi Arabia projecting power in Yemen.
Israel’s war on Iran was an important piece in the way to the collapse of the regime. It exposed how incompetent the regime truly is in protecting Iran, and how the Iranian “ring of fire” project (masterminded by Qassem Suleimani) to encircle Israel with proxies, at a cost of tens of billions of dollars, was taken apart by Israel in the course of a year. All of this investment, in direct funding as well as sanctions over the past 40 years came to naught when Israel struck back. Mullahs were exposed as weak, irrelevant, only able to oppress their own.
Furthermore, Israel essentially decapitated the Iranian state apparatus in those 12 days. Everyone who mattered in the government and IRGC was killed. It just completely pulled the rug from under this regime.
I’m almost confident this is over. And with it there’s going to be a huge shift in Middle East politics. Likely more countries will align with Israel, but the removal of the primary Shia power might push the Sunnis to negatively fixate on Israel.
I agree that Israel has largely won the war to an extent that greatly reduced the fear the regime created in its own citizens which hastened this current protests
I am less convinced this is the end though, but maybe another step in a slow death of the regime. Regarding your last point, this is already happening, now that Iran is weak the KSA has less of an interest to ally with Israel and it shifts to allying its previous rivals of Qatar and Turkey along with Pakistan
Some personal observations as I am in touch with a few folks inside Iran through Starlink.
1. The jamming/disruption is local to large cities most notably the capital, Tehran.
2. Even in Tehran it is not complete and my friends are able to send and receive messages. Uploading videos is harder.
3. The regime is now raiding homes that they suspect have Starlink terminals. I don't know how they identify them but I do wonder if they are using technology to locate them.
To the extent that you are able to send messages back, I would relay that the correct strategy is to set up a terminal, run it for a max of an hour or two, then tear it down and move again. And the terminal needs to never be plugged in and active in the same place where it is stored when it is not in use.
I have friends who wore going to Iran for business meeting. Friends are from former Yugoslavia state who still have connections to Iran. They export sparkplugs to Iran.
Interesting thing is that they say they never seen such a beautiful country with even more beautiful people. Also they said they filled up two full car tanks for ~5€.
Their conclusion is that people there live much better life(more fulfilling) then people in western countries.
There's been some talk of people using Starlink to stay online. Is this a practical counter measure, or is Iran just not yet prepared to deal with them?
It's my understanding Iran polices the ISPs, who aren't assigning IP addresses at this time. Iran could treat the dishes as contraband, but short of working with Starlink, is there a practical way for them to prevent satellite internet? You could flood all channels with packets like a jammer or something, but doing that at nation-scale still seems impractical to me? I'm not an expert in any of these fields, just asking really
Iran has deployed jammers for Starlink. It sounds like they got help from Russia and China. They may not be jamming Starlink directly, but GPS that Starlink needs to locate dishes.
Easiest way would be to fly drones or planes around and look for the dishes. Should be possible to receive and triangulate the signals.
The problem for Iran regime is that they are busy putting down the uprising.
> or is Iran just not yet prepared to deal with them? ... you could flood all channels with packets like a jammer or something
A related question that someone here may be able to answer: Who wins the jamming game in principal? Is it $JAMMER or $COMMUNICATORS?
It seems like Starlink could distribute secret codes[0] on each device, where each code is used in some kind of spread spectrum scheme, and that jamming all of the codes would be difficult, the wider the spectrum?
There must be some kind of energy/bandwidth tradeoff, but what I want to understand is if the game is easier for one side in principal.
Just look at Ukraine: drones are using fiber because the jammers are winning. AFAIK jamming is simpler than communication and the jammer can always broadcast just as wide as you can spread a signal.
Wouldn't you just be able to shield the antenna to only point up? I think that is how some aircraft stay protected from GPS jamming/spoofing, and I assume you can do something similar.
The satellite still needs to be able to receive the signal from the terminal. If the Iranian Government sets up transmitters that send up Noise at the satellites, the satellite isn't going to be able to receive the low power transmissions from the terminal if the jammer is close enough to the terminal.
It depends on the Jamming power and the satellite beamforming how close you would have to be to jam it.
This is not the case for GPS because GPS is receive-only and the satellite doesn't listen for user transmissions (although you could still try to jam the control uplink to prevent synchronization which would decrease accuracy over a few days, but then you would have to be close to the GPS control stations and you'll probably get arrested soon)
The pro Gaza crowd is also pro-Iranian theocratic regime (because they back Hamas) and call anyone who wants change Israelis so I wouldn't recommend using any of their tools in such a life or death situation.
Western governments do not want democracy in Iran. They want the son of Shah back in Iran, the Shah whose father tortured and exploited Iranians, and that led to the revolution and the rise of the mullahs. The US and Israel want regime change so Israel can dominate the ME. Just like they replaced Assad in Syria by Jolani, a wanted Al Qaeda terrorist who does not oppose Israel in any way but slaughter kurds and alavites because they are moderate muslims.
The revolts in Iran are backed by US/Israel. They openly brag about it on every channel. They don’t care about Iranian‘s freedoms. They are the same who support every dictator in the region if and only if that dictator accepts Israel‘s dominance.
> Trump's former CIA Director and the largest newspapers of the Israeli media can state explicitly and clearly that the Mossad is all over the protests in Iran, and yet still people will deny it and say only a conspiracy theorist could believe such a crazy tale.
The USA have backed the coup against the democratically elected prime minister Mossadegh, to begin with.
"In 1953, the CIA- and MI6-backed 1953 Iranian coup d'état overthrew Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, who had nationalized the Anglo-Persian Oil Company."
So the claim here is that by backing any coups and revolutions, the US tacitly backed all of them? Ok!
Like: yes, I lay a lot of the responsibility for the nightmare state Iranians live in at the hands of Cold War NATO policymakers, for sure, but I don't think it's all that useful as a positive claim of what happened in the 1970s. The US did not support the Ayatollahs.
> So the claim here is that by backing any coups and revolutions, the US tacitly backed all of them? Ok!
I didn't say that. It's just that Iran already had a democratically elected government. However there is some truth to the claim that you put in my mouth, that is, you can see that pattern quite often in history. Chile is another example but let's focus on Iran.
Israel does seem pretty excited about this and I doubt it is because they suddenly care about people they have killed themselves and a nation they have threatened to destroy.
Iran hasn't threatened to destroy, they have made it their stated mission to "annihilate" Israel. I doubt Israel would have any ill-will towards Iran if Iran didn't first say that about Israel.
Israel and Iran were BFFs right until the revolution and Israel has hundreds of thousands of Persian jews. I'm sure relations will be very quickly amended if the current regime falls.
1. Jolani was propped up by Turkey not Israel, their relations are still tense. E.g. Jolani has been massacring the Druze which are Israel's allies, while Israel-Turkey relations are only getting worse.
Unsure where so many get the idea Israel is excited about an ISIS veterans regime on its border that regularly massacres civilians including on-brand mass rapes, kidnappings, beheadings, cutting hearts out etc
The US had previously imprisoned Jolani and had a 10 million reward on his head until 2024, so, that also doesn't align with your narrative
2. Western governments make sure not to meet the crown prince in a state setting or using high dignities, as to limit their support
3. The Shah government was terrible in some respects but still arguably superior to the current one, in any case hopefully Iranians can find their own new way once they get rid of their current fascist theocracy
4. There is no real evidence that the local revolts are supported by the US or Israel. It is naturally the regime propaganda stance as authoritarian regimes usually turn the blame outwards rather than face their failures (environmental disaster, raging inflation, sanctions, complete regional defeat, unwanted religious laws)
5. Not many dictators in the region historically "accepted Israel's dominance" so I don't think you have many supporting points for your sweeping statements
> Unsure where so many get the idea Israel is excited about an ISIS veterans regime on its border that regularly massacres civilians including on-brand mass rapes, kidnappings, beheadings, cutting hearts out etc
That has been a case of "the enemy of my enemy" as the Al Nusra Islamists had still considered Israel as infidels that need to be eventually be dealt with.
Israel more pressing Islamist threat, Hezbollah, was the focus back then and therefore these organizations were given medical help in turn for agreeing not to kill Druze and to stay away from the Israeli border.
It was quite evident Israel's position as it hasn't tried to fight for Al Nusra when Assad recaptured that area even though it could easily make the Syrian regime forces retreat.
Also, the repeated bombing of the current syrian government forces are probably not due to some outbursting friendship
You are partially right, Israel does want to subdue the middle east and Iran stands in the way. However that does not absolve the current Iranian government of being a despicable entity, mostly hated by its own people. I hope the Iranian people choose democracy, limit the Ayatollahs to their holy city in Qom like the Vatican, tell that rascal Shah's son to go fornicate himself and of-course continue putting a necessary check on Israeli expansionism.
Agree - but a lot of the sentiment I hear from my Iranian friends (and recent pro-regime protestors comments) is that they acknowledge they have issues, but they don't want a regime change at the hands of USA and Israel.
I despise the Iranian regime, but knowing what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, I find it quite troubling that people are quite giddy about this as though it's not going to result in many lives lost (many more than what the regime is currently responsible for), and destabilisation of the country.
And given the USA's track record in regime changes, and the issues they have in their own country currently, I don't think the US - nor Israel - have any standing to be carrying out a regime change in another sovereign state.
1) Cry me a river about bloody dictators being deposed, wah wah.
2) Nobody is asking to "accept Israel's dominance", but dropping the "Destruction of Israel" as one of the main goals of the state would be a quite welcome.
The world does not revolve around Israel, and the less bloody dictators it has (theocratic or not) the better.
And you think my point was about Western liberalism? That’s what you call destabilising countries? All while massively supporting some of the most aggressive dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, UAE?
Liberalism is (in the name of democracy) attacking every country that opposes Israel (Iran Syria Libya Iraq Venezuela) and remaining silent on every US backed dictatorship that doesnt lift a finger to support Palestine. (Egypt Saudi Arabia UAE Jordan Jolani/isis)
I find it impossible to see how the broad assertions you have made could possibly be subject to resolution in any way by argument so it would be a waste of time. I suspect whatever counter arguments were produced you'd diss them.
"... there will be plenty of voices around Trump advising him to be careful if he does go down that route. The Trump administration would be careful, because the consequences of regime change would be extremely complex ..."
This is speculation, but given how cozy he is with Israel it’s not “nonsense”. And the rest of the post is verifiable, despite it being described as “mostly nonsense”.
Words are cheap and politicians often do much different than they promised. Remember when Trump said no new wars? Remember when he said we were done in Iran after dropping the bombs, and now intervention is looming?
Please don't post like this here. HN is not for political or ideological battle or grand assessments/proclamations about geopolitical history. We also don't want giant walls of copy+pasted material here. We're here to converse curiously and contribute our own original thoughts.
Everyone who participates here needs to observe the guidelines. These ones in particular are relevant.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
"Western governments do not want democracy in Iran" is not the same statement as "Western policy toward Iran basically boils down to: we're fine with democracy, just not if it threatens US/Israeli regional dominance" and neither are supported by citations describing what happened in the 1950s.
> Western governments do not want democracy in Iran.
This is purely speculation, and is not generally true based on statements from Western governments. What I would say is that Western governments want stability in Iran, just like virtually every other nation. If the current leaders in Iran were not sponsoring terrorists across the world, weren't actively pursuing the most dangerous military weapon in existence, and hadn't run their country into the ground, I don't think Western governments would spend much time thinking about Iran or its form of government.
> They want the son of Shah back in Iran, the Shah whose father tortured and exploited Iranians, and that led to the revolution and the rise of the mullahs.
The second part of this is true (the Shah was a poor ruler), but the first does not appear to be true.
> The US and Israel want regime change so Israel can dominate the ME.
I suspect your definition of "dominate the ME" is not very mainstream if you accept this at face value. Iran (along with some other ME nations) has a stated goal of wiping Israel off the map, which Israel strongly disagrees with.
> Just like they replaced Assad in Syria by Jolani, a wanted Al Qaeda terrorist who does not oppose Israel in any way but slaughter kurds and alavites because they are moderate muslims.
How did Western governments replace Assad with Jolani? Do you want the leader of Syria to oppose Israel, or should they attempt to normalize relations with a neighbor? Have you considered that he realizes that he can't win that fight and is attempting to cling to the power he seized during their civil war?
> The revolts in Iran are backed by US/Israel.
Any evidence of this?
> They openly brag about it on every channel.
Any evidence of this?
> They don’t care about Iranian‘s freedoms.
Any evidence of this?
> They are the same who support every dictator in the region if and only if that dictator accepts Israel‘s dominance.
Any evidence of this? Again, Western governments are really looking for stability first, and will accept it if a dictator can provide it based on past behavior.
In short, these are a bunch of highly biased and polarizing statements of opinion, some of which might be backed by a shred of truth but then warped to fit a very specific viewpoint.
>not generally true based on statements from Western governments.
Its wild that someone can say this with a straight face.
>What I would say is that Western governments want stability in Iran, just like virtually every other nation.
While "stability" is being generous, this is more or less true. Western governments want whatever form of government is most beneficial to them, which usually implies some form of "stability". What it does not imply is any form of democracy or liberalism. The last 100+ years in the region demonstrate this, with the British and US supporting undemocratic, sometimes brutal regimes that were beneficial to them.
>The second part of this is true (the Shah was a poor ruler), but the first does not appear to be true.
That is literally one of the easiest claims to verify. 5 seconds google search:
"As Iranian protests grow in size, an unlikely figure is gaining prominence—the son of the country’s reviled shah, who was toppled in the 1979 revolution.
Iranians across the country are chanting slogans in support of Reza Pahlavi, whose father, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, ruled the country for decades."
Just as one example, how does "Iranians across the country are chanting slogans in support of Reza Pahlavi" demonstrate that Western nations want him in power?
And did you miss this in that article: "Few analysts think Pahlavi has a real path to the throne or leadership in Iran."
Horrible, but also very exciting. Imagine the huge content drop we’re gonna get when it comes back online and all the images and videos will go out all at once.
This is one of those thoughts you are supposed to keep to yourself and feel bad about having had to begin with because it reflects poorly on the morals you were raised with.
<sarcasm>
Well, if their kids are anything like our kids, they'll certainly have more student protests. Maybe not against the regime, but certainly against their parents.
And I'm not talking about university. I'm talking about the hoards of kids that want to play Roblox. It's been a nightmare keeping my kids off of it but I continue to fight the online lifestyle!
</sarcasm>
This looks like it might be the end for the current regime. There are still people getting information out, and they are tearing down and burning state buildings - around 3000 protesters killed since the crackdown began, but there appear to be tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people who have risen up against the ayatollah, with an unknown number of state forces and officials killed. Crazy start to the year.
I'm not so sure. There are plenty of pro-regime protests in Iran currently, and the general replies on interviews I've seen is "yes we have our problems, but we don't want Israel and the US fixing it", which tracks with a lot of sentiment I've heard from Iranian friends of mine.
There was also a three year old killed by anti-regime protestors which has heightened the sentiments of pro-regime protestors.
I don't doubt this is true but would also note that high-profile online outlets --- Ryan Grim's Drop Site News, most notably --- have run pieces talking about how huge anti-government protests are in fact pro-government protests, when that has turned out to be flatly false. (I don't know where they get this stuff).
The Iranian anti-regime movement is very well established and is not the product of foreign intervention. It's actually not all that clear that foreign actors in the region favor regime change!
(I'm not holding out much hope that these protests will actually topple the regime, though it would be amazing if they did.)
I agree that the anti-regime movement is not all the product of foreign intervention, but I'd say some (and even wager majority) are. Not acknowledging foreign intervention in this aspect would not give a fuller picture of the dynamics.
I think that's an extraordinary claim.
Why do you think it's extraordinary?
I know quite a lot of Iranians, and when I talked about this with them about a year ago, their lay of the land given their own opinions and their wider networks opinion is that the majority of Iranians are pro-regime change but NOT at the hands of a US/Israeli intervention.
There are anti-regime segments that are pro-US/Israel intervention, but they think this is a minority and they think most of them are products of foreign intervention.
After Israel bombed Iran last year, there were a few Israeli cells that were uncovered in Iran, so suggesting there is some foreign intervention isn't out of the ordinary.
The protests are, by credible reporting, huge, reflected in the scale of the number of arrests and fatalities. Their antecedents include sky-high unemployment, the highest inflation rates in the world, and water and power rationing --- far more severe and far more directly material conditions than what preceded the 2022 protests. Diverse outlets have the signal chant of the protesters "Neither Gaza Nor Lebanon, My Life Only For Iran", which correlates well with the belief the the IRGC is effectively an Iranian version of the KGB, a second "inner society" whose large membership has preferential access to everything ordinary Iranians don't.
Some of this is disputable, much of it isn't. Meanwhile:
* There's no evidence that foreign powers are behind these protests, just narratives. The track record on unsupported but convincing-sounding narratives everywhere is pretty bad; nowhere is it worse than in this part of the world.
* There's no evidence that the protests themselves are pro-US (and certainly not pro-Israel; most of the protesters probably don't like Israel!). They just want water, jobs, and currency that can reliably buy food.
* There's also not much evidence that any major government in the world wants Iran toppled. Iran is incredibly weak right now. Regional powers like Turkey, Saudi, and especially Israel --- which has basically depantsed the IRGC --- don't actually have much to gain from an Iranian overthrow, but the whole region has a lot to lose from instability.
So yeah, I'd say: pretty extraordinary claim --- again, that claim being, "the anti-regime movement is the product of foreign intervention".
I want to keep saying: I don't think the protests will be successful. It's a state specifically designed to prevent protests movements like these from being successful! They may suck at air defense, but I don't think they're bad at putting down rebellions.
> There's no evidence that foreign powers are behind these protests
Depends how stringently you mean that.
Earlier this year Israel attacked Iran with the stated intent of helping the people with regime change.
The mossad stated they have agents acting in the field. https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-881733
The whole reason for doing sanctions was to get to this point, too.
If you're trying to say that the vast majority of citizens aren't taking orders from foreign powers, then sure.
But "no evidence that foreign powers are behind these protests" is a pretty extreme thing to say
> There's also not much evidence that any major government in the world wants Iran toppled
I’m sorry what? Maybe this is an argument over terminology, but Israel absolutely wants Iran toppled in any colloquial definition of the word. This has been their stated goal since the 90s. And much of their activity in the Middle East since then is towards this goal.
> and especially Israel --- which has basically depantsed the IRGC --- don't actually have much to gain
Again I’m sorry what? Iran has been a major deterrent to their regional hegemony for decades. Remove US support and Israel is destroyed. They need these threats removed so they can end their reliance on US support.
I know there's a sizable cohort of online people in the west who are convicted of the idea that Israel exists solely as a US proxy and is held in check only by Iran, but obviously no. Israel --- leave aside all the moral stuff right now --- is a hypercapable advanced high-state-capacity regional nuclear power with an extremely effective military. If they didn't buy arms from us, they'd buy them from someone we liked less.
Iran, on the other hand, partly as a result of Khomeinism and the status quo ante of the Iranian Revolution, when the military was a big part of the repression apparatus in the Shah's state, has more or less gutted its official military service branches. As we just saw, Israel literally controls Iran's own airspace. They flew slow drones over Tehran, presumably just as a "fuck you". Iran placed a huge bet on projecting military force through regional proxies --- the "Axis of Resistance". What they have instead of a modern military is the IRGC. See how that went for them!
What point are you trying to make here? I said Israel obviously wants Iran gone and stands to gain a lot from doing so. You didn’t address either of those points, which are extremely relevant when trying to understand why foreign powers want this regime removed and would be involved in its removal.
I agree Israel is not a US proxy (the tail wags the dog in this relationship), but freeing oneself from needing the (or any) dog is a sizable gain. Regarding Iran I think they know this. Their military is structured to operate in a post regime world. But that world doesn’t have the capacity to produce nuclear weapons, which is the key goal Israel is after. Iran with nuclear weapons likely ensures the regimes existence for the foreseeable future.
The general idea is that Iran would be more effective as a regional power if it wasn't ruled by islamists. And that at least the current government of Israel likes incompetent neighbours that make them look good.
Not a difficult argument in my view. Unless you're stuck believing what they say instead of observing what they do.
It seems pretty reasonably that Israel would be happy with a neighbor that doesn't call for its annihilation out of ideologic reasons.
You literally just asked me to write that. I didn't have a point to make; I was answering a question you just asked.
> There's also not much evidence that any major government in the world wants Iran toppled
...proceeds to describe how Israel is a major government
A year ago. Not much has happened in that area over the last year...
Mossad itself confirmed boots on the ground: “We are with you. Not only from a distance and verbally. We are with you in the field.”. See https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-881733
The claim isn't "Mossad has boots on the ground". Everybody agrees the Mossad is in Iran, and the IRGC is in Israel.
Ryan Grim isn't exactly a stellar journalist.
I don't like him but I'm literally asking: where did that assertion come from.
I don't think the US or Israel want to fix it, I think they want a pretext for bombing Iranian military sites to aggressively defang
I don't think either the US or Israel is all that worried about "defanging" Iran's actual military. Their proxies, like Hezbollah, Assadist Syria, Ansar Allah, and Kataib Hezbollah? Sure. But they've mostly already accomplished that. I think Iran's actual military is kind of a joke in military circles?
Israel definitely wants to get rid of Irans ballistic missiles.
That said; if you believe (as do some commenters here) that Israel could ignite nationwide protests with 100,000s of people whenever they want, then they definitely don't have to worry about Irans army
I don't believe Israel can ignite nationwide protest and sort of assume, as a military/strategic matter, that Israel's primary response to Iran's MRBM capabilities is deterrent. Israel control's Iran's skies. I think the direct military part of this conflict is basically over.
I'm just a message board commenter, this is just a take.
I agree - their primary aim is to defang, but the regime change will need to follow so that they can put someone in power that they can control.
Any source for this?
I don't see any news source anywhere on the internet claiming that 3000 number - anti-government sources have said 'hundreds' of protestors have been killed, whereas the Iranian state media has been silent on the death toll except confirming 109 members of security forces killed.
I believe it's all unverified right now.
> "Unverified reports indicate that at least several hundreds, and according to some sources, more than 2,000 people may have been killed," IHR said in a statement, adding that according to its estimate, more than 2,600 protesters had been arrested.[1]
> However, starting with reports from a handful of Tehran hospitals, an informal, expatriate group of academics and professionals calculated that protester deaths could have reached 6,000 through Saturday.[2]
> IHR said that "according to some estimates more than 6,000 may have been killed", but warned that the almost four-day internet blackout imposed by the Iranian authorities makes it "extremely difficult to independently verify these reports".[3]
[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-protests-us-trump-death-to...
[2] https://time.com/7345347/iran-protests-death-toll-estimate-t...
[3] https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacific/20260112-live-iran-...
As of two days ago, multiple Iranian hospitals said >2000 dead was their estimate.
It's possible, but remember that in an absence of any political or military rivals, you don't need the loyalty of the populace, only the military and police.
Well it sounds like the whole issue is that the regime has been tanking their economy due to years of funneling money to the Revolutionary Guard, and it's lead to them having to restrict more and more who they can provide favoritism to. It's unclear whether that means it's becoming more difficult to placate the IRGC or there are elements in the IRGC getting greedy, but either way it indicates the loyalty of the military and police can't be taken for granted.
Be that as it may, Iran has plenty of rivals.
It has plenty of adversaries. It doesn't really credibly project force, can't even control its own airspace, and its proxy network is in shambles.
People love to remember the hits and forget the misses. They'll happily chat about how "hunger was the key to the French Revolution" while forgetting how many starved in the USSR, North Korea, China, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, etc...
They love to imagine that the suffering of a populace is some guarantee of both a revolution and the success of that revolution. For some reason the near-total destruction of Syria and ongoing conflicts in the MENA region don't seem to register. At this point I'm convinced that social media creates an environment that rewards wishcasting more than logical analysis based on precedent.
Iranian here (speaking from outside), fair but you have to consider the circumstances.
The regime currently is in its weakest position. Russia is busy with Ukraine, many of top IRGC commanders assassinated, HAMAS is in disarray, and their nuclear program has been crippled.
The water shortage was the straw that broke the camel's back. Years of sanctions, economical downturn and abuses by the Regime piled up to the point of no return.
Based on my last contact with my family, our people have crossed a line and there is no going back.
What Westerners don't realize is that if your back is against the wall, all you have left is putting your life on line.
People rather die trying because truthfully, what is the alternative?
It does seem like there is a point -- and running out of water would be up there near that point, in addition to a collapse of the economy, where people get motivated to make change happen even at the risk to their own lives. I mean, you are going to die anyway, right?
I say that from the luxury of my very safe keyboard, of course. I hope your family is staying as safe as possible. Can't imagine the stress (I get tangled up enough in our own US gov't shenanigans and that pales in comparison to Iran right now).
There’s no opposition though? As much as some people outside Iran want, I don’t think the Shah’s son has enough of a base of support inside Iran.
This doesn’t seem very different than the 2008 and Mahsa protests.
Most likely there will be an internal reorganization towards economic reform and moderate social policies.
There's a huge difference - in previous protests, they were begging the regime to hear their voices, to do the right thing - to reform, or change policy.
This time, there's no calls for conciliation or change, it's outright "death to the tyrants" and an astonishing number of people hitting the streets. They're burning down mosques, tearing down statues, burning out police stations, lynching regime officials, going to officials houses and dragging them out, and so on.
Also, it's been going on for 16 days at this point, and for some reason, is noticeably absent from world media. That feels significant, somehow.
Well, where are you getting this information if the internet's been cut off in Iran? All sides are spreading their propaganda so it's hard to say what's actually happening.
There are reports of hospitals, banks and other institutional buildings being burned, even fire engines - but does it make sense for iranians to burn those?
But the mossad stated they have agents acting in the field. https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-881733
FYI, statues of khomeini, etc were burnt during Mahsa Amini protests too. https://x.com/Joyce_Karam/status/1573372214833041409?s=20
The question remains - after everything is burned to the ground, what opposition or leader is going to take control, if not the IRGC or military?
> it's been going on for 16 days at this point, and for some reason, is noticeably absent from world media. That feels significant, somehow
somehow, yes, but in a good or bad way? what is the significance? maybe the US/israel was gearing up to bomb Iran and the revolts would endear Iranian people to the Western public in a way that powers that be don't want? just thinking out loud here
Edit: chanced on an article which kind of supports this idea
https://www.foxnews.com/media/trumps-iran-briefing-may-decep...Iran's currency collapsed. That generally requires more than platitudes and token reform to recover from.
Agreed, I’m saying the regime will pass reforms (or try to, given sanctions). I would love for the end of the regime, but who tell me who will take its place?
Realistic best case scenario right now is a situation like England where there is technically a monarch (who also heads the church) but they practically hold no power (less and less over time).
We're seeing what looks to be a full blown economic collapse. People don't have money to buy food right now.
I don't see what reforms they could implement that can quickly fix this as they need to radically alter trust in the government for currency reforms to work.
But who knows? Maybe they'll muddy their way through or rely on force to stay in power. Certainly large protests have happened before, but this is the first time in decades where all 5 conditions of a successful revolution are present at the same time.
> all 5 conditions of a successful revolution
I'm not too bright, could you point me in the direction of understanding what those five conditions are?
It's from Jack's Goldstone's Revolutions: A Very Short Introduction.
Nicole Bauer did a better job paraphrasing than I can, so I'll just quote her:
> [Goldstone] notes that a revolution requires lack of support from or alienation of elites, a crisis such as a fiscal strain, mass mobilization and popular anger against perceived injustices, an ideology of resistance, and favorable international relations. Most important, Goldstone debunks the common misconception that revolutions spring from an excess of injustice and poverty leading to frustration and eventual resistance. Poverty and frustration are not enough to ignite a revolution as countless examples, such as the Irish Potato Famine, have shown. What is needed is widespread belief that change is both desirable and possible, as well as a convergence of the factors mentioned above.
I don't understand, how is your "We're seeing what looks to be a full blown economic collapse. People don't have money to buy food right now" compatible with "Goldstone debunks the common misconception that revolutions spring from an excess of injustice and poverty leading to frustration and eventual resistance"
All I'm saying is that I don't see the regime falling currently, and even if it does, there is no obvious replacement. which might mean civil war or something even worse than now. There is also no indication that a new regime, chosen by actual Iranian people (not the shah's son) would give up its nuclear ambitions (which were actually started by the shah). So what is even the point of doing regime change? My guess is regime change is not what the US and Israel are even trying for, but just chaos to weaken a local power and a source of fuel for China, etc..
That's what I thought during the Mahsa Amini protests, perhaps this time will be different
Very unlikely. Unlike Syria or Venezuela, the Iranian regime has an ideological base and a very solid base of supporters. A civil war has more odds than that base of supporters accepting a new secular regime.
Popular revolutions will sweep any ideological base away, and it appears to be underway. The scale of the protests in the clips that have made it out have been impressive.
That's a myopic, overconfident take because the traditionalist have zillions more weapons and organization.
I’ve been looking for data on this. Has anyone quantified what the regime’s base of support actually is amongst the general population?
I can't see that it would be anything other than guesswork. Polls are unlikely to be possible with any accuracy there. This is anecdotal, but I've heard from the few Iranians I've known that much of the population lead western lives behind closed doors. Their civil subjugation seems to come from the threat of violent punishment (torture / rape / death / disappearance) and a Stasi-esque domestic intelligence network.
could almost guarantee it overlaps greatly with demographics
older conservative boomers vs. younger moderates. it wasn't old ladies launching riots about wearing headscarves...
e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youth_in_Iran
Small sample, but talking about this with my Iranian friends, the sentiment among them and their wider network is that they do acknowledge that Iran has problems, that they need a change in leadership, but that they do NOT want a regime change at the hands of the US/Israel. For them that is a recipe for disaster and more carnage.
In their view, the topology of Iranians and their political views would be: 10% - pro-US regime change intervention; 20% - ardent regime supporters; 70% - pro-regime change but without US involvement.
Fingers crossed
My fingers are crossed that whatever happens post current regime that life is markedly better for the Iranian people. I'd hate to see civil war or mass starvation. Their currency has fallen off a cliff and continues to do so.
Same concern (although the larger concern is that we've seen this movie before, and it doesn't end well for the protesters), but you can say this about literally every overthrow of every dictatorship. The only way out is through.
Puts most of our western troubles in perspective. Things could be worse.
Yes and the perspective I’m taking is that it is very depressing to see direction current events are taking us.
And doesn't become another neoliberal, corrupt vassal state beholden to the IMF.
Yeah, that sounds absolutely awful compared to what it's like to live in Iran now
False choice. Both are bad.
The IMF is essentially a credit union with 191 member countries, so they'd become a vassal to most of the world - if by vassal, one means to agree to terms that might make it possible to repay loans.
Some (including quite a few neoliberals) want to abolish the IMF altogether, though I'm unsure if letting countries collapse completely is really a better option.
Lies. IMF isn't a charity. They come in and dictate policy and make money off misfortune. It's disaster capitalism.
Edit: See also. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine
I did not say it was a charity.
This is not going to happen.
It might have been a possibility if Israel didn’t decide to start a war and assassination campaign against Iran.
In the sense that Trump wouldn't have gotten elected if he hadn't been prosecuted for those documents?
I agree that these types of things galvanize a population.
Sometimes better to just let sleeping bears sleep.
In the sense that an offensive war - especially one that intentionally targets civilians and their families - rallies people around the flag and provides a boost of support to whoever is in power.
The regime was organically declining in popularity. Israel’s war simply rejuvenated the regime’s supporter base without any meaningful gains on the ground. There was minimal impact to the enrichment campaign. And the fact that negotiation was used as a ruse by the Americans is definitely a motivation to pursue enrichment even further.
Not to mention that regional powers are now wary of Israel’s expansionist nature and see nuclear power as the only true deterrent. Think about it: does anyone ever mess around with Pakistan or NK?
This offensive directly led to the Saudi-Pakistan defense pact, with Turkey probably joining soon. I would also wager that both KSA and Turkey are starting or are considering starting their own nuclear weapons programs.
> The regime was organically declining in popularity. Israel’s war simply rejuvenated the regime’s supporter base without any meaningful gains on the ground.
That is a statement that might make sense two weeks ago, but now? Evidently the effect Israel war had was not enough to prevents riots, or arguably might have emboldened them
1. If you look closely, Western media is operating a coordinated campaign that is more interested than usual in what’s happening in Iran.
2. The scale of the protests is very likely overblown.
3. Iran’s purging of Mossad assets since the 12 day war has not yet wrapped up. The CIA is rumored to also have assets participating in these riots.
1. Far less interested than in Gaza, for example
2. Hard to tell yet, there are videos that at least claim to show hundreds of dead which indicate both mass shooting and mass demonstrations
3. The issue is that like in USSR, any political prisoner given enough torture admits spying. So you can't really tell which are and which aren't. I wouldn't put much trust on Iranian media on that matter, especially when they only point at external enemies when there have been repeating demonstrations for years and life has only turned progressively worse for the Iranian people
1. Give me a call when the repression of local protests escalates into a 2 year long Western backed campaign of ethnic cleansing and genocide against a blockaded population.
2. Agree that it’s hard to tell for certain.
3. The truth is somewhere in between. My reading is that Mossad is definitely operating on the ground in some capacity.
1. Well, we are digressing to the Gaza conflict, but calling it a genocide is probably just a form of turning up the volume on social media to generate some engagement. It is hardly similar to real mass murders whose goal was destruction of entire nations, that it requires people using the word to ignore the fact of reality that there was no real attempt at destroying the Palestinian people in Gaza. The argument then consequently turns to some legal reading that reduces the crime of genocide to "death of any amount of civilians", to the point it only serves to reduce the crime of real acts of genocide
3. Yes, it showed impressive operational capacity on the ground during the war. However, trying to attribute the protests solely to Israeli intelligence both gives too much credit to Israel, and uses the same mechanism in point 1 that erases the more uncomfortable parts of reality to keep a predefined political idea coherent.
To highly paraphrase, in order to create a myth you shouldn't be concerned with what you remember but with what you forget
We clearly disagree on Gaza, but you brought it up.
But my point with the comparison is that the protests in their current form are not worthy of this level of coordinated international coverage. The fact that this ramp up in coverage coincides with rhetoric from multiple governments signaling that regime change is a short term goal raises suspicion.
Also, nowhere did I say that the Mossad is somehow pulling the strings behind the scenes. They are definitely one factor behind these protests, along with the pro-Shah contingent inside and outside the country, as well as serious anti-regime elements inside the country. The latter is a minority thanks to the 12 day war, which comes back to my initial point.
Israel has had nukes since the 1960’s, and has been wiping the floor with its adversaries since before even that. What changed now that would push Saudi Arabia and Turkey to get nukes? Nothing really. On the contrary: it is Turkey that’s projecting power in Syria, Libya and Somalia, and likewise Saudi Arabia projecting power in Yemen.
Israel’s war on Iran was an important piece in the way to the collapse of the regime. It exposed how incompetent the regime truly is in protecting Iran, and how the Iranian “ring of fire” project (masterminded by Qassem Suleimani) to encircle Israel with proxies, at a cost of tens of billions of dollars, was taken apart by Israel in the course of a year. All of this investment, in direct funding as well as sanctions over the past 40 years came to naught when Israel struck back. Mullahs were exposed as weak, irrelevant, only able to oppress their own.
Furthermore, Israel essentially decapitated the Iranian state apparatus in those 12 days. Everyone who mattered in the government and IRGC was killed. It just completely pulled the rug from under this regime.
I’m almost confident this is over. And with it there’s going to be a huge shift in Middle East politics. Likely more countries will align with Israel, but the removal of the primary Shia power might push the Sunnis to negatively fixate on Israel.
I agree that Israel has largely won the war to an extent that greatly reduced the fear the regime created in its own citizens which hastened this current protests
I am less convinced this is the end though, but maybe another step in a slow death of the regime. Regarding your last point, this is already happening, now that Iran is weak the KSA has less of an interest to ally with Israel and it shifts to allying its previous rivals of Qatar and Turkey along with Pakistan
Disagree with almost everything you said; too lazy to have an extended back and forth.
Let’s follow up in a few months and see who was right.
You won’t be able to cash your paychecks from Iran around then, so sure.
Some personal observations as I am in touch with a few folks inside Iran through Starlink.
1. The jamming/disruption is local to large cities most notably the capital, Tehran.
2. Even in Tehran it is not complete and my friends are able to send and receive messages. Uploading videos is harder.
3. The regime is now raiding homes that they suspect have Starlink terminals. I don't know how they identify them but I do wonder if they are using technology to locate them.
To the extent that you are able to send messages back, I would relay that the correct strategy is to set up a terminal, run it for a max of an hour or two, then tear it down and move again. And the terminal needs to never be plugged in and active in the same place where it is stored when it is not in use.
I wish only the best for the Iranian people. They're living a nightmare.
I have friends who wore going to Iran for business meeting. Friends are from former Yugoslavia state who still have connections to Iran. They export sparkplugs to Iran.
Interesting thing is that they say they never seen such a beautiful country with even more beautiful people. Also they said they filled up two full car tanks for ~5€.
Their conclusion is that people there live much better life(more fulfilling) then people in western countries.
Maybe that's a good example that as a tourist/guest you only get a very biased perspective when visiting another country.
Hard to be fulfilled when you have no water, power, or enough money to buy bread.
The timing is interesting, this would be much bigger news if the US wasn't on cliff's edge with someone behaving as a dictator.
This likely had some US aid. They are distributing Starlinks to Iranian protestors there and an Israel insider has bet on a strike soon.
Starlink is being jammed in Iran currently.
There's been some talk of people using Starlink to stay online. Is this a practical counter measure, or is Iran just not yet prepared to deal with them?
It's my understanding Iran polices the ISPs, who aren't assigning IP addresses at this time. Iran could treat the dishes as contraband, but short of working with Starlink, is there a practical way for them to prevent satellite internet? You could flood all channels with packets like a jammer or something, but doing that at nation-scale still seems impractical to me? I'm not an expert in any of these fields, just asking really
Iran has deployed jammers for Starlink. It sounds like they got help from Russia and China. They may not be jamming Starlink directly, but GPS that Starlink needs to locate dishes.
Easiest way would be to fly drones or planes around and look for the dishes. Should be possible to receive and triangulate the signals.
The problem for Iran regime is that they are busy putting down the uprising.
They do seem to be jamming GPS around Tehran at least, as seen on GPSJAM. https://bsky.app/profile/lemonodor.bsky.social/post/3mcak43p...
Yeah...for sure 'bigger fish to fry'. Was just curious from a technical perspective if/how they could pull it off. Thank you!
They did seem to block Starlink with jamming.
See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46575224
Oh, missed that. Thanks!
> or is Iran just not yet prepared to deal with them? ... you could flood all channels with packets like a jammer or something
A related question that someone here may be able to answer: Who wins the jamming game in principal? Is it $JAMMER or $COMMUNICATORS?
It seems like Starlink could distribute secret codes[0] on each device, where each code is used in some kind of spread spectrum scheme, and that jamming all of the codes would be difficult, the wider the spectrum? There must be some kind of energy/bandwidth tradeoff, but what I want to understand is if the game is easier for one side in principal.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coding_theory
Just look at Ukraine: drones are using fiber because the jammers are winning. AFAIK jamming is simpler than communication and the jammer can always broadcast just as wide as you can spread a signal.
(It's "in principle" BTW.)
Starlink appear to be jammed too
Wouldn't you just be able to shield the antenna to only point up? I think that is how some aircraft stay protected from GPS jamming/spoofing, and I assume you can do something similar.
The satellite still needs to be able to receive the signal from the terminal. If the Iranian Government sets up transmitters that send up Noise at the satellites, the satellite isn't going to be able to receive the low power transmissions from the terminal if the jammer is close enough to the terminal.
It depends on the Jamming power and the satellite beamforming how close you would have to be to jam it.
This is not the case for GPS because GPS is receive-only and the satellite doesn't listen for user transmissions (although you could still try to jam the control uplink to prevent synchronization which would decrease accuracy over a few days, but then you would have to be close to the GPS control stations and you'll probably get arrested soon)
I did not consider that direction of communication! Seems much easier to locate and send nonsense to satellites than to land-based terminals.
I would guess that someone is beaming a whole lot of wideband power at the satellites themselves, to overload the input receivers.
Thank you! I now realize that my analogy was misplaced due to how Starlink is bidirectional and GPS is unidirectional.
https://xcancel.com/netblocks/status/2010750871274160361
I'm sure that'll make people happier with their leaders
Related?
"Bitchat for Gaza – messaging without internet"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45929358 14-nov-2025 292 comments
Perhaps also other such apps like Briar, Birdy, Meshtastic/Meshcore ?
The pro Gaza crowd is also pro-Iranian theocratic regime (because they back Hamas) and call anyone who wants change Israelis so I wouldn't recommend using any of their tools in such a life or death situation.
> The pro Gaza crowd is also pro-Iranian theocratic regime
No, they're not.
This thread has been cleaned up but it was wild. They very much are. The wildest stuff is gone but:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46547303 https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=46547807&goto=item%3Fi... https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=46556525&goto=item%3Fi... https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=46548546&goto=item%3Fi...
This is depressing
The fact that this insurrection is necessary is depressing. The insurrection itself will hopefully not be.
Western governments do not want democracy in Iran. They want the son of Shah back in Iran, the Shah whose father tortured and exploited Iranians, and that led to the revolution and the rise of the mullahs. The US and Israel want regime change so Israel can dominate the ME. Just like they replaced Assad in Syria by Jolani, a wanted Al Qaeda terrorist who does not oppose Israel in any way but slaughter kurds and alavites because they are moderate muslims.
The revolts in Iran are backed by US/Israel. They openly brag about it on every channel. They don’t care about Iranian‘s freedoms. They are the same who support every dictator in the region if and only if that dictator accepts Israel‘s dominance.
Edit: Yeah, let’s downvote instead if arguing.
Edit 2: https://x.com/ggreenwald/status/2010798811288133695
> Glenn Greenwald:
> Trump's former CIA Director and the largest newspapers of the Israeli media can state explicitly and clearly that the Mossad is all over the protests in Iran, and yet still people will deny it and say only a conspiracy theorist could believe such a crazy tale.
Nah. They'd be happy with democracy there.
The US supported, albeit tacitly, the revolution that put the Ayatollahs in power in the first place.
By which you mean we withdrew support from the Shah, not so much that we supported the Iranian Revolution itself.
The USA have backed the coup against the democratically elected prime minister Mossadegh, to begin with.
"In 1953, the CIA- and MI6-backed 1953 Iranian coup d'état overthrew Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, who had nationalized the Anglo-Persian Oil Company."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution
So the claim here is that by backing any coups and revolutions, the US tacitly backed all of them? Ok!
Like: yes, I lay a lot of the responsibility for the nightmare state Iranians live in at the hands of Cold War NATO policymakers, for sure, but I don't think it's all that useful as a positive claim of what happened in the 1970s. The US did not support the Ayatollahs.
> So the claim here is that by backing any coups and revolutions, the US tacitly backed all of them? Ok!
I didn't say that. It's just that Iran already had a democratically elected government. However there is some truth to the claim that you put in my mouth, that is, you can see that pattern quite often in history. Chile is another example but let's focus on Iran.
The US also armed the predecessors to the Taliban during the Cold War. What is your point?
Israel does seem pretty excited about this and I doubt it is because they suddenly care about people they have killed themselves and a nation they have threatened to destroy.
>and a nation they have threatened to destroy
Iran hasn't threatened to destroy, they have made it their stated mission to "annihilate" Israel. I doubt Israel would have any ill-will towards Iran if Iran didn't first say that about Israel.
Israel and Iran were BFFs right until the revolution and Israel has hundreds of thousands of Persian jews. I'm sure relations will be very quickly amended if the current regime falls.
It's weird how for some, everything that happens is somehow Israel's fault.
This, for the most part, is self inflicted by the Iranian regime.
Example wrong claims:
1. Jolani was propped up by Turkey not Israel, their relations are still tense. E.g. Jolani has been massacring the Druze which are Israel's allies, while Israel-Turkey relations are only getting worse.
Unsure where so many get the idea Israel is excited about an ISIS veterans regime on its border that regularly massacres civilians including on-brand mass rapes, kidnappings, beheadings, cutting hearts out etc
The US had previously imprisoned Jolani and had a 10 million reward on his head until 2024, so, that also doesn't align with your narrative
2. Western governments make sure not to meet the crown prince in a state setting or using high dignities, as to limit their support
3. The Shah government was terrible in some respects but still arguably superior to the current one, in any case hopefully Iranians can find their own new way once they get rid of their current fascist theocracy
4. There is no real evidence that the local revolts are supported by the US or Israel. It is naturally the regime propaganda stance as authoritarian regimes usually turn the blame outwards rather than face their failures (environmental disaster, raging inflation, sanctions, complete regional defeat, unwanted religious laws)
5. Not many dictators in the region historically "accepted Israel's dominance" so I don't think you have many supporting points for your sweeping statements
>Jolani was propped up by Turkey not Israel
Probably accurate, but I think if Israel sincerely objected to Jolani's leadership in Syria, a state visit to the White House would not have happened.
Read into that what you will.
> Unsure where so many get the idea Israel is excited about an ISIS veterans regime on its border that regularly massacres civilians including on-brand mass rapes, kidnappings, beheadings, cutting hearts out etc
Perhaps because they openly provided support to them for years: https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/report-israel-treating-al-...
That has been a case of "the enemy of my enemy" as the Al Nusra Islamists had still considered Israel as infidels that need to be eventually be dealt with.
Israel more pressing Islamist threat, Hezbollah, was the focus back then and therefore these organizations were given medical help in turn for agreeing not to kill Druze and to stay away from the Israeli border.
It was quite evident Israel's position as it hasn't tried to fight for Al Nusra when Assad recaptured that area even though it could easily make the Syrian regime forces retreat.
Also, the repeated bombing of the current syrian government forces are probably not due to some outbursting friendship
You are partially right, Israel does want to subdue the middle east and Iran stands in the way. However that does not absolve the current Iranian government of being a despicable entity, mostly hated by its own people. I hope the Iranian people choose democracy, limit the Ayatollahs to their holy city in Qom like the Vatican, tell that rascal Shah's son to go fornicate himself and of-course continue putting a necessary check on Israeli expansionism.
Agree - but a lot of the sentiment I hear from my Iranian friends (and recent pro-regime protestors comments) is that they acknowledge they have issues, but they don't want a regime change at the hands of USA and Israel.
I despise the Iranian regime, but knowing what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, I find it quite troubling that people are quite giddy about this as though it's not going to result in many lives lost (many more than what the regime is currently responsible for), and destabilisation of the country.
And given the USA's track record in regime changes, and the issues they have in their own country currently, I don't think the US - nor Israel - have any standing to be carrying out a regime change in another sovereign state.
Weird, I have seen literally nothing supporting these claims at all from a remotely reliable source.
For example, it's interesting that the US would declare Jolani a terrorist if they were in support of his regime.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna185076
There was a large bounty on his head until recently because of his atrocities.
1) Cry me a river about bloody dictators being deposed, wah wah.
2) Nobody is asking to "accept Israel's dominance", but dropping the "Destruction of Israel" as one of the main goals of the state would be a quite welcome.
The world does not revolve around Israel, and the less bloody dictators it has (theocratic or not) the better.
Dude, HN debate has held up pretty well for something thats been around for twenty years.
Criticism of Western liberalism is not one of them.
And you think my point was about Western liberalism? That’s what you call destabilising countries? All while massively supporting some of the most aggressive dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, UAE?
Surely saying that Jordan and the UAE are one of the most aggressive dictatorships in the context of discussing Iran is sarcasm I am missing
Liberalism is (in the name of democracy) attacking every country that opposes Israel (Iran Syria Libya Iraq Venezuela) and remaining silent on every US backed dictatorship that doesnt lift a finger to support Palestine. (Egypt Saudi Arabia UAE Jordan Jolani/isis)
I find it impossible to see how the broad assertions you have made could possibly be subject to resolution in any way by argument so it would be a waste of time. I suspect whatever counter arguments were produced you'd diss them.
Downvoted!
I don’t get the downvotes either. Everything you’ve mentioned is pretty easily verifiable and not disputed.
Regime change might not be beneficial to the US, it might be too much trouble.
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cj691w2e840t?post=asset%3A8b0d...
"... there will be plenty of voices around Trump advising him to be careful if he does go down that route. The Trump administration would be careful, because the consequences of regime change would be extremely complex ..."
Trump is going to be careful all of a sudden? That's not his MO, whether you think that's good or bad.
True. He's been talking about "negotiations", though.
It's being downvoted because it's mostly nonsense based on what I'm aware of.
Please enlighten us with some of this easily verifiable information.
If you google about Al Jolani you can see the terrorist orgs he worked for in the first paragraph of his Wikipedia page.
That's not the disputed part.
The part we're all having trouble with is "and therefore the US wants to install the son of the Shah."
This is speculation, but given how cozy he is with Israel it’s not “nonsense”. And the rest of the post is verifiable, despite it being described as “mostly nonsense”.
Words are cheap and politicians often do much different than they promised. Remember when Trump said no new wars? Remember when he said we were done in Iran after dropping the bombs, and now intervention is looming?
Unsubstantiated speculation = nonsense
There is very little in that post that is verifiable. See above for what most people would call the rest of the content.
[flagged]
Please don't post like this here. HN is not for political or ideological battle or grand assessments/proclamations about geopolitical history. We also don't want giant walls of copy+pasted material here. We're here to converse curiously and contribute our own original thoughts.
Everyone who participates here needs to observe the guidelines. These ones in particular are relevant.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Western governments do not want democracy in Iran" is not the same statement as "Western policy toward Iran basically boils down to: we're fine with democracy, just not if it threatens US/Israeli regional dominance" and neither are supported by citations describing what happened in the 1950s.
The historical part about the shah is straightforward and uncontroversial. Pick up a history book covering 20th century Iran.
What part of the comment is disputable?
Let's step through these one by one:
> Western governments do not want democracy in Iran.
This is purely speculation, and is not generally true based on statements from Western governments. What I would say is that Western governments want stability in Iran, just like virtually every other nation. If the current leaders in Iran were not sponsoring terrorists across the world, weren't actively pursuing the most dangerous military weapon in existence, and hadn't run their country into the ground, I don't think Western governments would spend much time thinking about Iran or its form of government.
> They want the son of Shah back in Iran, the Shah whose father tortured and exploited Iranians, and that led to the revolution and the rise of the mullahs.
The second part of this is true (the Shah was a poor ruler), but the first does not appear to be true.
> The US and Israel want regime change so Israel can dominate the ME.
I suspect your definition of "dominate the ME" is not very mainstream if you accept this at face value. Iran (along with some other ME nations) has a stated goal of wiping Israel off the map, which Israel strongly disagrees with.
> Just like they replaced Assad in Syria by Jolani, a wanted Al Qaeda terrorist who does not oppose Israel in any way but slaughter kurds and alavites because they are moderate muslims.
How did Western governments replace Assad with Jolani? Do you want the leader of Syria to oppose Israel, or should they attempt to normalize relations with a neighbor? Have you considered that he realizes that he can't win that fight and is attempting to cling to the power he seized during their civil war?
> The revolts in Iran are backed by US/Israel.
Any evidence of this?
> They openly brag about it on every channel.
Any evidence of this?
> They don’t care about Iranian‘s freedoms.
Any evidence of this?
> They are the same who support every dictator in the region if and only if that dictator accepts Israel‘s dominance.
Any evidence of this? Again, Western governments are really looking for stability first, and will accept it if a dictator can provide it based on past behavior.
In short, these are a bunch of highly biased and polarizing statements of opinion, some of which might be backed by a shred of truth but then warped to fit a very specific viewpoint.
>not generally true based on statements from Western governments.
Its wild that someone can say this with a straight face.
>What I would say is that Western governments want stability in Iran, just like virtually every other nation.
While "stability" is being generous, this is more or less true. Western governments want whatever form of government is most beneficial to them, which usually implies some form of "stability". What it does not imply is any form of democracy or liberalism. The last 100+ years in the region demonstrate this, with the British and US supporting undemocratic, sometimes brutal regimes that were beneficial to them.
>The second part of this is true (the Shah was a poor ruler), but the first does not appear to be true.
That is literally one of the easiest claims to verify. 5 seconds google search:
"As Iranian protests grow in size, an unlikely figure is gaining prominence—the son of the country’s reviled shah, who was toppled in the 1979 revolution.
Iranians across the country are chanting slogans in support of Reza Pahlavi, whose father, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, ruled the country for decades."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/iranians-are-rallying-a...
The logical leaps you make are comically large.
Just as one example, how does "Iranians across the country are chanting slogans in support of Reza Pahlavi" demonstrate that Western nations want him in power?
And did you miss this in that article: "Few analysts think Pahlavi has a real path to the throne or leadership in Iran."
Horrible, but also very exciting. Imagine the huge content drop we’re gonna get when it comes back online and all the images and videos will go out all at once.
This is one of those thoughts you are supposed to keep to yourself and feel bad about having had to begin with because it reflects poorly on the morals you were raised with.
Mossad spurs Iran protests, says agents with demonstrators in Farsi message
https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-881733
<sarcasm> Well, if their kids are anything like our kids, they'll certainly have more student protests. Maybe not against the regime, but certainly against their parents.
And I'm not talking about university. I'm talking about the hoards of kids that want to play Roblox. It's been a nightmare keeping my kids off of it but I continue to fight the online lifestyle! </sarcasm>