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.
> 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.
What a leap of logic. I’d wager not being able to afford basic necessities and also your women being killed by morality police, not having any political freedom, not being able to decide how your government is run, etc. are enough incentives. Don’t you think the people there have enough agency to want all of these? If Israel wanted to intervene, it looks like Iranian government is doing their work for them by making Iran a living hell for its people.
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 there's really clear evidence. They're geopolitical adversaries, but Iran's ability to project force has been decimated over the last 2 years, to the point where Israel literally controls Iran's airspace. They have not much more to gain from further injury to the Iranian regime, and something to lose from regional instability.
(I don't think this analysis speaks well of Israel, for what it's worth, but I don't really think about countries in those terms anyways.)
What is the point of attacking a TV station and a prison, if not for regime change?
For the record, I agree with you that Israel has little "to gain from further injury to the Iranian regime, and something to lose from regional instability." I just don't think the people in charge of Israel see it that way. I think they feel they have a short window to achieve certain objectives they've wanted for a long time while Trump is in power).
And I think they prefer to have regional instability - a bunch of weaker chess pieces that they can play against each other - like how they supported both sides of the Iran-Iraq war in the 80's, funded Hamas, ISIS, and ISIS-derived militias to achieve short-term goals etc..
In case you didn't know about the last few points, here are some links:
“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas,” Netanyahu told his Likud party’s Knesset members in March 2019. “This is part of our strategy"
https://x.com/haaretzcom/status/1711329340804186619?s=46&t=s...
By the way, regarding "Israel literally controls Iran's airspace" - Iran don't really have an air force. Their deliberate strategy given their limited resources was to focus on a ballistic missile program and all things considered this has worked ok. By the way, Israel failed to deliver a knock-out blow to Iran even when they had the element of surprise with an attack that was planned 18 months in advance (drafted during the Biden administration) yet somehow Iran was able to begin answering within 48 hours and do enough damage (which required penetrating anti-missile defenses of several major powers) that Israel agreed to a cease-fire.
After the 12-day war, China immediately sold Iran a number of J10-C fighters and air defense options, but it takes months to deliver/train all of them. So Israel is incentivized to deliver a knock-out blow to Iran before this window closes as well. In other words, Israel's war is the 'cause its own necessity' (1).
I agree, Iran doesn't really have an air force. In fact, they don't really even have a military --- by deliberate design. Iran will never field a competitive air force and I think it's actually pretty unlikely that they'll ever even field a seriously deterrent air defense system. I think that apart from lobbing MRBMs at Israel they simply aren't a serious regional threat anymore. They bet big on the IRGC Axis and it collapsed.
I'm not as convinced as you (and the Economist) are about Israel's interests in the total collapse of the Iranian regime. Either way, the protest movement is far too large for it to plausibly be a product of foreign intervention. I don't think we have to convince each other on this point, even if we don't agree.
I think you're constantly making non sequiturs around details that aren't central to the point. I could answer these, but I don't want to get distracted. At the end of the day, given everything you know, you don't believe that Netanyahu wants the Iranian regime toppled?
Revolutions can have some component of foreign intervention without necessarily negating the will of the people. The French aided the US, for example. So I don't know why the idea that the Iran protests are not foreign backed is so important to you.
There is plenty of public evidence of foreign backing of Iranian opposition (which interestingly might actually play right into the Mullahs' hands https://www.meforum.org/mef-observer/has-reza-pahlavi-become...) but it would make sense for there to be orders of magnitude more activity behind the scenes vs. what is publicly stated. For example, the US didn't admit participating in the 1953 coup of Mossadegh until 2013.
So please tell me how you are so sure that there is no foreign intervention today..
It’s your choice to claim a negative in the first place. But yes, make an attempt to prove what you are saying and extraordinary claims require some evidence. Foreign countries have been meddling with Iran for over 200 years at the very least. The idea that now they aren’t is laughable.
I opened by showing how your statements are in direct contradiction, by the way.
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).
If you look at the history of places like Iran, or more recently in Syria and Venezuela, the conditions you're describing are just as likely to lead to a mass exodus and a civil war of the remainders as anything like a successful revolution. The "Arab Spring" was also driven by issues with water and the subsequent impact on the local economic situations, and they KIND OF succeeded... for a while. Now it's all back the way it was, or worse.
The idea that misery inevitably leads to revolution is driven by narrative selection, not reality. In reality countries like the DPRK for example simply ate the cost of a million+ starving to death and then went 'happily' onward. There's a reason that successful and lasting revolutions are exceptional, not the rule.
Fellow Iranian here. Admiral in the Navy (my handle is to throw them off my trail). By the name of Admiral Ackbar. I want to warn the western states not to intervene during this unstable protests - the state is in fact more stable than ever -- It's a trap!
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.
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
Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
> 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.
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.
> ‘Jake’ claimed that a “top BBC anchor resigned on air and was immediately detained by security services” and that “crowds have surrounded the residence of the newly appointed ‘Governor General’ imposed by London”.
... I mean, I'm not sure anyone cares _that_ much about the Director-General of the BBC.
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
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.
Why should they? Palestinians have a home. Jordan consists of majority palestinians. Why should they take in Palestinians? Besides Egypt and Jordan are puppet regimes, paid for by the West. They receive billions for weapons annually. One dicatator and another monarch suppressing their people and getting weapons and intelligence in return.
If Israel were to be magically relocated to the moon or mars or 'the sea', region would resume the explosion of local wars, now that common enemy briefly uniting them is gone.
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.
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.
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)
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?
Western policy toward Iran basically boils down to: we're fine with democracy, just not if it threatens US/Israeli regional dominance. The 1953 coup, freezing out Hamas after they won elections, bankrolling the Saudis and Mubarak, it's all pretty consistent. "Democracy promotion" is the talking point; the actual goal is a pliant regional order where Israel stays militarily dominant and Iran either gets weaker or flips to being Western-aligned.
So when you see Reza Pahlavi suddenly getting airtime in Western policy circles, or street protests getting instrumentalized, or the recent conflict framed as a chance to degrade Iranian capabilities—it's not hard to read that as regime-change-by-attrition rather than genuine concern for what Iranians actually want.
---
And since you are too lazy to google yourself, here's some food for thought for you:
1953 COUP & PATTERN OF UNDERCUTTING INCONVENIENT DEMOCRACIES
The coup itself:
- Detailed reconstructions document CIA/MI6 overthrow of elected Mossadegh to restore a pro-Western Shah and protect Western oil interests.[1][2][3][4]
- CIA officially acknowledged its role; mainstream sources frame it as toppling Iran's elected government, followed by decades of US-backed dictatorship.[5][6]
The pattern:
- Once you map 1953 → Hamas 2006 → ongoing Saudi/Egyptian support, scholars synthesize it into the exact logic described: democracy is fine until it threatens US/Israeli primacy.[2][10][11][13]
HAMAS' 2006 ELECTORAL VICTORY & WESTERN RESPONSE
- Hamas won a free, competitive election in 2006; the US and allies then moved to diplomatically and financially isolate the government unless it met stringent conditions.[7][8][9][10]
- Policy analysis shows US-led isolation pushed the Palestinian Authority toward collapse—fitting the claim that "democracy promotion" gets subordinated to Israeli interests once voters pick the "wrong" side.[9][10][7]
- US military and economic aid to Egypt under Mubarak continued for decades despite systematic repression; "democracy assistance" remained marginal compared to security aid.[11]
- Bipartisan US tolerance for Saudi Arabia and Gulf monarchies persists despite their undemocratic character—even after Khashoggi, even during Saudi counter-revolutionary moves against Arab Spring uprisings.[12][13]
THE STRUCTURAL LOGIC: "PLIANT REGIONAL ORDER" + ISRAELI MILITARY DOMINANCE
- Critical analyses argue Washington's overriding priority is stability of a pro-US security architecture and Israel's qualitative military edge; democracy and human rights are secondary, adjustable variables.[13][12]
REZA PAHLAVI, STREET PROTESTS & REGIME-CHANGE-BY-ATTRITION
- Reza Pahlavi is positioned as a pro-Western, pro-Israel opposition figure amplified in Western forums, despite uncertain domestic support.[14][15][16]
- US and allied Iran policy mixes sanctions, information ops, support for exiled media, and military pressure as a long-term weakening strategy—not engagement with any outcome that might produce an independent, nationalist democracy.[17][18][19]
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."
> What I would say is that Western governments want stability in Iran, just like virtually every other nation.
That’s why the US toppled the democratically elected Mossadegh in the 1950s and installed a puppet regime with the brutal Shah? And when the Iranians started a revolution and sent the dictator into exile the West gave money and weapons to Iraq‘s Saddam Hussain and killed 1 mil Iranians? And put Iran under harsh sanctions for decades under which Iranians suffer deerly?
> If the current leaders in Iran were not sponsoring terrorists across the world,
Global terrorism comes from IS/Al Qaeda, which are Sunnis, originating in Saudi Arabia, not Iran.
And speaking of extraterritorial killings: Read the book „Rise and Kill“ by an Israeli. Israel kills people around the globe extrajudicially like no other country. Israel is accused of genocide. Yet the collective West is silent.
"... 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 ..."
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>
reply