Irrespective of the accuracy of estimates it will be in the thousands, and most tragicly it will be very young men and women most of whom university educated, the very people that would be the country's tomorrow.
The pervasiveness of propaganda isn't really surprising nor is it complicated to recreate especially with today's AI and especially with state actor-scale AI.
It really seems more like a test to see how gullible people are when presented with mass confirmation bias and no evidence.
It is a source run by expatriate Iranians of the diaspora.. the fact that so many people just discount their point of view it's pretty frustrating. If you speak to Iranians that you work with it's pretty illuminating
The “Iranians that you work with” in the west are highly self-selecting. They’re like Cubans in Florida or Vietnamese—people who fled in the aftermath of the revolution and are extremely antagonistic towards the regime. My family left Bangladesh the year after the dictator made Islam the official religion. My dad is apoplectic about the Islamist parties being unbanned recently after the government was overthrown. By contrast many of my extended family, who came much later for economic reasons, are happy about that. The people who disliked the Islamization of the country and had the financial means to do so left while the people who were fine with it stayed.
My daughter’s hair stylist is Iranian (she was an accountant in old country). When Jimmy Carter’s wife died, she said “I’m happy she’s dead.” I’ve never seen anyone else say a negative thing about the Carters personally. Even die hard Republicans who think he was a weak President don’t hate him as a person. But this is not an uncommon sentiment among the Iranian diaspora.
"It is a source run by expatriate Iranians of the diaspora.. the fact that so many people just discount their point of view it's pretty frustrating. If you speak to Iranians that you work with it's pretty illuminating"
Well - the data they publish can be correct; or it can be a made-up lie. We simply don't know.
So why should we assume the data they publish should be correct? How did they reach that number? And why is that number more precise than earlier reported numbers? And, why is that number so different to the other numbers told before?
It’s similar to how so many people dismiss Cuban American views on Cuba just because the cuban americans were mostly the ownership class that had to flee the revolution.
Actually, if anything, that makes it trustworthy because Saudi would like the regime to stay so that they can stay out of the oil markets and keep the prices high.
EDIT: Sorry... that is too strong... "state aligned influence media". Note that the headline might be true, or it might not, but that source is quite glowy.
Mehdi Hasssan worked for Al Jazeera which is funded by Qatar and is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood with a very specific political agenda. You'll notice they barely are covering the Iran News
Mehdi is a great journalist and speaker. He doesn't jump the gun. One of my favourite debates from him is on Intelligence Squared, on the conflation between anti-zionism and anti-semitism, from 2019:
"Western media" is not an organization it's a description of a group. Trust should be connected to organizations or businesses.
This is such a dangerous manipulation technique that uses the output of one media source like Fox News as an attack on the reputation of all. CNN and the BBC have reported on Israel's offensive and the massive suffering and death multiple times.
> Interesting that the same western media outlets which spent two years nonstop questioning and disputing and refusing to accept Palestinian death tolls out of Gaza, even when they were backed by human rights groups and monitors like Airwars and studies in The Lancet, are totally fine uncritically accepting totally unsourced and huge, huge numbers out of Iran.
Note that this works both ways: "Interesting that the same western media outlets which spent two years nonstop covering Gaza are totally fine not even having a single article about the massacre committed by the islamist iranian regime. And, no, before the trolls descend, of course I'm not questioning that lots of innocent people have been killed in Gaza.".
And "Interesting that the same protesters who spent months protesting on US and EU campuses for Gaza are not protesting to defend the protesters massacred en masse by the iranian regime. And, no, before the trolls descend, of course I'm not questioning that lots of innocent people have been killed in Gaza".
We don't know if the numbers are true but we're literally talking about half the death in two years in Gaza in a few days in Iran. I don't know if people realize the level of horrors we're talking about here.
And there are many other legitimate questions: where are the celebrities speaking up to defend the cause of the iranian protesters? Where are the students in western universities protesting against what the iranian regime did? Where's the International Court of Justice's condemnation of iranian politicians? Where's the flotilla led by Greta Thumberg in support of the iranian people?
There are, IMO, very grave and very serious double standards at play here because I don't think we're going to see any of those.
I checked the reputable newspaper in my country. The only mention of it was on 23/1 where they reported 5000 casualties. EU is going to put together a range of (economic?) sanctions against the regime. US "armada" (quoted from the article) is underway.
It was probably the headline article for a couple of hours on the site. I don't remember extended coverage either so I looked it up.
because Iran's information control is working - the horrific images and numbers only arrived in the west once the protests were already mostly disbanded.
It's not ongoing like e.g. the war in Gaza was, so it can only capture a moment of attention, not a sustained slot.
Unfortunately I would not be surprised if the real death toll is even higher. I have first-hand information. We are talking about indiscriminate shooting with heavy machine guns into peaceful protests, happening in every city of the country. The rule of law has completely broken down. The wounded avoid hospitals because they are afraid of getting killed there.
There was a lot of death in 2 days but the revolution started about a month ago so it's not just those two days. I think you could compare Gaza to a single Iranian city, but Iran is much larger than this. Another important distinction is that - no matter what your beliefs are - civilians aren't the target in Gaza, but they clearly are the target in Iran. If the civilians had weapons, it would be a different story.
> Another important distinction is that - no matter what your beliefs are - civilians aren't the target in Gaza
"No matter what your beliefs are"? Some people believe that Israel is trying to make the people in Gaza starve. If that was true, how would they not be a target?
> no matter what your beliefs are - civilians aren't the target in Gaza
“By December 2025, the Gaza Health Ministry had reported that at least 70,117 people in Gaza had been killed. The vast majority of the victims were civilians, and around 50% were women and children. Compared to other recent global conflicts, the numbers of known deaths of journalists, humanitarian and health workers, and children are among the highest. Thousands more uncounted bodies are thought to be under the rubble of destroyed buildings. A study in the medical journal The Lancet estimated that traumatic injury deaths were undercounted by June 2024, while noting an even larger potential death toll when "indirect" deaths are included. The number of injured is greater than 171,000. Gaza has the most child amputees per capita in the world; the Gaza war caused more than 21,000 children to be disabled.”
Russia has more than likely killed hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians since February 2022 but what is happening in Ukraine is not termed a genocide. Why? Because by and large it is Russian military personnel killing Ukrainian military personnel (and vice versa, of course). Why is what is happening in Gaza being termed a genocide? Because the Israeli military* is targeting and killing civilians. I'm not the one saying that, genocide scholars (among others) are the ones saying that.
“The Gaza genocide is the ongoing, intentional, and systematic destruction of the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip carried out by Israel during the Gaza war. It encompasses mass killings, deliberate starvation, infliction of serious bodily and mental harm, and prevention of births. Other acts include blockading, destroying civilian infrastructure, destroying healthcare facilities, killing healthcare workers and aid-seekers, causing mass forced displacement, committing sexual violence, and destroying educational, religious, and cultural sites. The genocide has been recognised by a United Nations special committee and commission of inquiry, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, multiple human rights groups, numerous genocide studies and international law scholars, and other experts.”
One cannot blockade an entire population and not be targeting the civilians in that population.
“An Israeli blockade heavily contributed to starvation and confirmed famine. As of August 2025, projections show about 641,000 people experiencing catastrophic levels and that "the number of people facing emergency levels will likely increase to 1.14 million". Early in the conflict, Israel cut off Gaza's water and electricity, but it later partially restored the water. As of May 2024, 84% of Gaza's health centres have been destroyed or damaged. Israel also destroyed numerous cultural heritage sites, including all 12 of Gaza's universities, and 80% of its schools. Over 1.9 million Palestinians—85% of Gaza's population—were forcibly displaced.”
* with the backing of primarily the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany
I've read a ton of philosophy and something I don't really understand is that one nation killing another is more immoral than when a nation does this to their own domestic population.
Sure you will get some nay-sayers who say 'a life is a life', if moral particles existed, they might be correct.
But for some reason, humanity doesn't seem to care as much.
What makes intra-state politics more acceptable to use violence?
> something I don't really understand is that one nation killing another is more immoral than when a nation does this to their own domestic population.
I don’t know that anyone thinks a state’s violence against its citizens is less immoral. It’s more that countries are more hesitant to get militarily involved in the domestic affairs of another country because it would mean essentially declaring war against that state. But in a conflict between states, an outsider can more easily support one side militarily without declaring war against the other side.
Historically there was sometimes the idea that citizens are the property of the sovereign to use or dispose of as he sees fit. A lot of historical international law had the view that states have absolute feeedom to conduct their internal affairs however they saw fit.
Luckily we have largely moved past that view.
I think as a purely practical matter, moral outrage is shaped by who controls the information space. If you are a country being invaded, you probably have an organized, well funded communication department to tell your side. If you are an Iranian protestor, not only do you not have that, you don't even have internet at all because the state cut off all means of communication.
Because the international order is fundamentally anarchic, while domestic orders are (supposed to be at least) nomic, structured by law and rights. Yes, there are attempts at creating international law, but these amount to treaties more than a structured, visible, governing law.
“A country that violates the rights of its own citizens, will not respect the rights of its neighbors.”
That’s from my readings of philosophy.
But yeah, I do recognize the same sentiment as you found. I think philosophy itself is an answer: most philosophies explicitly champion dictatorships, under whitewashed terms. Ever heard something like “society is a big organ transcending individual needs”? We got it from Hegel.
I share your opinion. There's nothing worse than a State killing its own citizens, the ones the state had pledged to protect.
But actually, the largest mass killings in history have been always performed by States against their own citizens and not by enemy states:
- Great Chinese Famine (CCP): 20-30 million dead.
- Holocaust (NSP): 6 million
- Holodomor (USSR): 3-5 million
- Congo mass killings (Colonial Regime + Private parties): 1-5 million
- Cambodian genocide (Maoists): 2 million
- Armenian genocide (Young Turk / CUP)
...
The list continues, and remains mainly dominated by assassination's of the State against their own citizens. Majorly communist and totalitarian regimes.
>I've read a ton of philosophy and something I don't really understand is that one nation killing another is more immoral than when a nation does this to their own domestic population.
Who holds this opinion?
>But for some reason, humanity doesn't seem to care as much.
All of humanity cares less about when a government uses violence against its citizens than wars?
How can you possibly make this generalization when each internal conflict is different just like every war and how difficult it is to measure sympathy
> I've read a ton of philosophy and something I don't really understand is that one nation killing another is more immoral than when a nation does this to their own domestic population.
> What makes intra-state politics more acceptable to use violence?
Acceptable? It's more about the consequences or lack thereof, the incentives
History has shown that pretty much nothing happens to the regime unless two coalitions of countries invade from both sides simultaneously, and that's like, not going to happen
At its peak i think (based on googling) the nazis killed about 14,000 per day, which would put it in a similar ball park on a per-day basis. However they kept up the level of killing and didn't stop after just a few days.
The death camps were a practical end result of how much manual labor was required to line thousands of people up and shoot them dead. That’s what they were doing in Poland, to such extremes that is was literally more efficient to build gas chambers.
They wouldn't struggle, even before the gassing systems were built. In Babiy Jar (September 1941), about 33 thousand Jews from Kyiv were shot in two days by SS Einsatztruppen.
This is about what dedicated murderous goverments can pull off using conventional means.
that's because they weren't shooting crowds already assembled in the streets and going into hospitals nationwide to find the injured. Nazi Germany was aiming to maintain plausible deniability in the concentration camps for as long as possible, while parallel competing plans for what to do with the population were being explored and failing. (there were other solutions before and alonside the final solution)
I doubt even 100 people died in those Iranian protests, and there are videos of Mossad agents shooting people before getting arrested by the Iranian police.
Like even the UN stopped pushing that lie after Iranian ambassadors showed them the videos.
The fact that this whole thread got so many upvotes to end up on the front page is the signal I finally needed to delete the account, this has become an echo chamber, the cypherpunk or whatever those smart people with critical thinking and strong moral values are called are not here anymore.
I spoke to a few people living in Iran, and they definitively confirmed that 100+ people died. They obviously don't have the exact number, so that 36,500 figure might be exaggerated, but there are more than enough videos online to verify the 100+ claim if you really want to.
For comparison, estimates of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre death count are usually put in the 300-1,000 range by journalists and human rights groups.
Actually, there is plenty of telling, and the largest (only?) massacre outside Beijing was in Chengdu, with 8 to 400 people killed depending on who you believe:
There was plenty of rounding up student leaders and executions afterwards, but I don't think even the wildest anti-communists would claim a death toll in the thousands for this.
most of the victims during 1989 Beijing massacre were NOT at the actual square, people should already stop using this simplified term which leads to confusion
but yeah, compared to what Israelis do in Gaza or Iran, even whole Beijing numbers are negligible considering China population
One interesting thing about that incident I only learned recently is the chinese leadership was reluctant to use force and prevaricated for ages.
In the end they decided it was worth the risk and I guess they were right, because China survived that period without any rotation of elites and became more prosperous and powerful as a result, avoiding all the chaos of the former Soviet countries
> Meaning, the people should be able to defend themselves against the violence directed to them.
Yes. But not just and not mainly from your government: you are way more likely to get killed by criminals and/or terrorists then by law enforcement officers.
To put things in perspectice in the US there are more than 20 000 homicides per year.
And for women rape and rape attempts are scary, here are the numbers for the UK:
You cannot really compare 36 000+ people getting killed by an islamist regime that rules the country by sharia law with the number of people killed by law enforcement officers in, say, France or the US. Where the number of people being killed by officials, yearly, can be counted on one hand's fingers.
In the same vein, you cannot really compared terror attacks like the 2024 one in Russia where 145 people where killed in a theater or the 130 people killed by terrorists at the Bataclan in France or the 70 killed in Nice (my sister was there with her two kids that day and she saw the terrorist and her son is still, to this day, traumatized) with the number of people getting killed by law enforcement officers in a country like France or the US (I'm using these two as an example for they are country where, each year, a few people are killed by law enforcement officers).
Unarmed people vs terrorists with kalashnikovs: slaughter.
A great many are highly concerned, for example, that there are now sleeping islamists terrorists cells in the EU. Even mainstream media began reporting the concerns. There are regularly arrests and terrorists plots foiled. And Christmas markets and celebrations have been cancelled this year in many european cities because the risk of islamist terror attacks were too high.
When a country disarms its people, it doesn't just make them vulnerable to the governement's wrongdoings: it makes them vulnerables to criminals and terrorists too. Which, so far in the western world, is definitely a much bigger threat.
Now that said there are more than 10 billion ammo sold, each year, in the US, to civilians. If there's one country where either the government or the terrorists would have a problem should they go "all in", it's the US.
I’m not sure if this is an honest question or not, but I’ll treat it as such, even though you could answer your own question quite easily. The West is not complicit in the actions of the Iranian regime in any way that is similar to the situation with Israel. We are not arming the Iranians with the weapons they turn on civilians: very much not the case with Israel. Israel is treated like a normal state, whereas Iran is an international pariah and the subject of crippling sanctions. I could go on. The point is that westerners protest the actions of Israel because we believe we are part of the problem and that our protest might make a difference.
In fact, we believe - quite rightly - that if the US had conditioned military assistance to Israel on appropriate care for civilians, then the awful tragedy that unfolded in Gaza could have been averted. Similar levers for changing the behaviour of Iran do not exist.
Because the far worse Palestine massacre was perpetrated by an ally of the West, defended by western politicians and opinion makers, financed with western money and armed with western weapons. Then it makes sense to protest against your country's complicity.
Protesting in your country against an enemy country that has been subjected already to all kinds of sanctions and military attacks makes little sense.
I used to give some leeway to other, more charitable explanations, but now it's become crystal clear to me there's one reason only: people hate Jews. It's anti-semitism. You can call it whatever you want, give whatever excuses you want, but the fact of the matter: liberals in the west only care about these things if Jews are involved. Otherwise, we'd see celebrities for Iran the same way we saw celebrities for Gaza a long time ago.
This has been said before on here, but the main reason here is because in the West (particularly the US and Germany) there was a large group among the general populace supporting the genocide in Gaza, but in the West there is no large group supporting the massacre in Iran. The latter is an extremely fringe position to hold on the level of flat-earthers. People either don't care or are against it. When there's such a consensus, there's less controversy, less to talk about.
There probably isn't the same awareness. This is the first I'm hearing of a massacre in Iran. It's so hard to keep up with the news these days and for many it's just recommended to avoid it because it's all outrage generation now. The EU has been massively occupied with threats to invade Greenland for the past month along with the subsequent media attention, so that has saturated the news cycle.
People protest to affect political change in their own countries. For example, that's why Americans now protest against ICE and not against the secret police in Turkmenistan. In my country, the government recently signed a secret arms deal with Israel to sell it weapons. Weapons that are then used to maim children. I don't like that. Major politicians have said that Israel should be "thanked" for what it's doing in Gaza. I don't like that either. Hence, why I protest. If the Sionazi regime in Israel was isolated in the same way as the Islamic regime in Iran or the Taliban regime in Afghanistan people would protest less because there would be less political change to affect.
People are vandalizing Jewish restaurants, synagogues and monuments; terrorizing Jewish people and students; and murdering random Jewish grandmothers on the streets to affect political change?
Palestine had a ton of easily accessible video evidence, and not just from the victim's side but also lots of "hot takes" from the Israeli side as well, lots of talk from Israeli civilians and government officials about how there are no innocent civilians in Gaza and other deranged plainly genocidal remarks. In other words, there can be no reasonable doubt about what was going on and the only question really is who's side you're on.
With Iran, there's not a whole bunch of similar material, the death count estimates vary greatly from source to source, and we've got an untrustworthy president beating a war drum which probably makes people a bit more skeptical.. Atrocity propaganda to persuade a democracy to enter a war is something attentive people will be familiar with; incubator babies being tossed on the floor, dissidents being fed feet first into industrial grinders, people remember these stories preceding other wars and remember that evidence for the claims never materialized. Then there's the whole geopolitical angle where the Trump administration in fact supports Israel and Iran happens to be one of Israel's most powerful regional opponents. There are plenty of reasons to temper feelings of certainty.
This is certainly the end of peaceful Iranian protests. Whether it leads to a violent revolution or a static police state like North Korea remains to be seen.
"Iranian security forces deployed unknown chemical substances amid deadly crackdowns on protestors in several cities earlier this month, eyewitnesses told Iran International, causing severe breathing problems and burning pain.
They described symptoms that they said went beyond those caused by conventional tear gas, including severe breathing difficulties, sudden weakness and loss of movement...
...According to the accounts, in some cases gunfire began at the same time, or immediately after, protesters lost the ability to walk or run and fell to the ground.
Several witnesses said that moments of immobilization became points at which shooting intensified, particularly when protesters collapsed in alleys or while trying to flee.
Reports came from multiple cities, including Tehran, Isfahan and Sabzevar."
> Whether it leads to a violent revolution or a static police state like North Korea remains to be seen.
The official name of Iran is "The Islamic Republic of Iran" and it is a country ruled by sharia law. Countries ruled by Sharia are already totalitarian states.
Our Editorial Board has now obtained more detailed information provided by the IRGC Intelligence Organization to the Supreme National Security Council.
Other state institutions have also received differing figures from other security bodies. However, given the scale of the killings, deliberate concealment, and what appears to be intentional disorder in the registration and transfer of bodies – along with pressure on families and, in some cases, the quiet burial of victims – it appears that even the security agencies themselves do not yet know the precise final death toll.
In a report presented on Wednesday, January 21, to the Iranian parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee seen by Iran International, the number of those killed was listed as at least 27,500.
According to sources within Iran’s Interior Ministry who spoke to Iran International on condition of anonymity, a consolidation of figures received from provincial security councils by Tuesday, January 20, showed the death toll had exceeded 30,000.
Two informed sources from the Supreme National Security Council also told Iran International that in two recent reports by the IRGC Intelligence Organization, dated January 22 and January 24, the number of those killed was listed as more than 33,000 and more than 36,500 respectively.
How is this possible without explosives? Even with vehicle mounted machine guns it seems like a crazy high number. Did the protestors get boxed in somehow? And across so many locations, that seems to require a crazy amount of coordination to kill so many in so little time.
The museum of the city has a paper with the order that every soldier would have to kill 400 people, by sword. Of course they were already captured but there were about 1 million people in that city. The city is still perfectly leveled after 800 years. Only a couple of buildings were left standing.
Mongols were very well coordinated. Iranian crowd control has had 45 years and several insurrections to train.
The coordination is the thing here, that's many units being instructed to carry through in the same manner.
As for the numbers:
Interior Ministry reports say security forces confronted demonstrators in more than 400 cities and towns, with more than 4,000 clash locations reported nationwide
it's on the order of 100 deaths at each of 400 locations (clearly not uniformly distributed, some locations would have had many more deaths).
As to the how, the article suggests some deaths immediately occurred in crowds - firing, dispersing, funneling, crush injuries, etc. leading to many intakes to hospitals and treatment tents etc ... followed by execution of the injured.
It's grim stuff.
Some years past the waves of the Rwanda massacres saw almost a million people killed in bursts across 100 days, mostly with machetes and hand guns.
The numbers reported here are absolutely feasible, the reporting is certainly questionable; bad things happened, but was it at the claimed scale?
Exactly. These numbers don’t seem that impossible if one considers that the state‘s force rests upon (enough) ideological support within society. Given that, the distribution of regime supporters will be rather even across the country, and therefore sending in death squads wont mean bussing them in from Teheran but rather sourcing them locally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Severloh Possibly single handedly killed an hard to estimate count of US soldier, but possibly in the hundreds (he had people supplying him ammunitions).
Crowds are just easy to thin with repeating firearms and a good supply of ammo...
The IRGC[0] and Basij[1] are not small organizations, deliberately targeting large crowds of unarmed civilians with automatic weapons will create massive casualties in a very short period of time, no explosives needed.
> Did the protestors get boxed in somehow?
That did also happen.[2]
> And across so many locations, that seems to require a crazy amount of coordination to kill so many in so little time.
The IRGC's primary purpose is to protect the regime, I'm sure they would have plans in place for suppressing protests.
It's absolutely terrible but at the scale of a large country it's not logistically hard to get to that many deaths in a couple of days. Iran is a big country with population around 93 million.
The article says "36,500 killed in 400 cities". That's 91 people per city.
I'm very against foreign forces intervening in such situations they can do more harm than good.
On the other hand, effective dictatorships (hell executive in democratic countries too) are good at controlling police and military.
E.g. take Belarus when it went through a wave of protests few years ago. I always think, if the people would really be against the regime, wouldn't members of the police and military know that?
Receive pressure from families and friends, even non direct one, clearly showing that the public thinks otherwise and they can easily topple those regimes? The moment your armed forces and police stops obeying orders those regimes are cooked. Yet they don't.
Which means that either there is no such an internal pressure or the regimes are extraordinarily good at selecting and incentivizing people to maintain the status quo.
Still, I think this is no excuse for foreign intervention and you should not do others what you don't wish on yourself. But at the same time if those regimes are indeed so effective, how do you get to help them?
I wish that at least instead of unilaterally, drastic measures were first sanctioned and carried out by UN, like it used to happen few decades ago in Africa.
But now it is always unilateral and stuff like what happened in Venezuela has been a tragedy imho where de facto a single country decides to topple the leadership of another one. Again, I don't wish we do what we don't wish for ourselves.
And I wouldn't want my country attacked and it's leadership decimated because somebody more powerful thinks so.
"Which means that either there is no such an internal pressure or the regimes are extraordinarily good at selecting and incentivizing people to maintain the status quo."
Or there is pressure and discontent, but simply not enough to topple the regime as it needs way more than 50% support for a internal regime change.
I have childhood memories of such a succesful change in eastern germany. Most people had enough for a long time, but they knew the sovjet tanks would come if they revolted. After it seemed the sovjets were busy on their own and won't come but rather did democratic reforms themself, but the GDR refused and stayed stalinistic - then the people went to the streets. And at some point those in power just gave up. Not really a consciouss choice, but they were visibly insecure and confused, so weak and fell. (But it was a close call, some wanted to bring out the machine guns as well)
The iranian mullahs were insecure, but they choose the violent path of dominance.
Not the same situation, as they did not rely on a foreign power like in GDR, but it seems they lost majority support a long time ago, but have a loyal enough religious base to use the weapons.
And yes, military and police who have family members on the streets will defect at some point and it seems that also happened in Iran, just not enough.
> Which means that either there is no such an internal pressure or the regimes are extraordinarily good at selecting and incentivizing people to maintain the status quo.
It depends a lot on how much power the people have. The more advanced and diverse an economy and the more qualified and educated the population are the more power they have. On one extreme you have countries like Angola with an economy consisting virtually only out of exporting oil. These countries only need a few qualified engineers for their resource extraction which they pay well and everyone else is entirely replaceable. That leads to extreme inequality between the leading political class that absorbs all the money and pays the military with it. As long as they pay and treat the military well enough they can just suppress the rest of the country. If people act up they can literally just kill everyone part of the rebellion. The political class, the military and the rest are just entirely disjunct classes of people with different incentives. The family of the militaries profit enough from the system to not excert pressure on their family member working for the military. It's the hand that feeds them.
On the other end you have countries with highly developed, specialized economies and a population that is educated enough to understand at least a few things about politics. There ordinary people have extensive training and work experience. You cannot just replace them. They can protest and go on strike and if you start killing everyone the economy will quickly start crashing down. Just pulling a few cogs out of the massively complex machine will stop it from working. And at that point it's not just a problem for the working population but also for the owning class and the pressure will propagate all the way up through the hierarchy. Also people can just leave. They have the economic means to and their qualifications mean that other countries have an interest in attracting already qualified people without having to pay for their education and traning first. That's what happened to east Germany and why they built the wall.
There are some methods of social control that can help to control a population beyond that. The key ingredient is surveillance, mutual control and seeding distrust. One person alone can never challenge the system. People need to organize. You can try to find the organizers via surveillance quick enough and get rid of them before they get dangerous. Also if a significant portion of the population is secretly informing the government people might be to afraid to organize as they distrust each other. That's how the Stasi worked in East Germany. For an extreme case of that see the Inminban[1] system in North Korea where people are bundled into groups where all surveil each other and report any dissident behavior. Failing to do so will lead to collective punishment for the whole group. It's a really perverse system that plays people against each other and their own interest aligning the incentives for the individual with the government rather than their class.
Take a good look US, because once you're down far enough the fascist drain, that's the cost of trying to claw your way back out. And there's no hope of external intervention given nuclear arms
I never understood why some people get so fixated on one event in 1953, as if nothing else mattered after that.
Sure, it had a nontrivial effect. But it also happened in a time when Stalin and Churchill were still alive, there were 6 billion people fewer on the planet and the first antibiotics and transistors barely entered production. Korea was poorer than Ghana etc.
It is 2026, three generations have passed, and not everything can be explained and excused by a 1953 event forever. But it is convenient for autocracy advocates in general.
It reminds me of the worship of the Great Patriotic War in Russia. Again, as if nothing that happened later matters.
But does the number even matter? Whether its 4000 or 35000 the conduct has been unacceptable.
The real question is the solution, is reporting like this designed to be used as the backdrop to foreign intervention? How many people will be killed then?
"one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic" - Not Stalin
36,500 dead, 300,000 injured, In 2 days? People are buying this? Unarmed protesters tend to flee when the shooting starts and armed protesters shoot back. And all this without heavy weapons? Do people remember what Gaza turned into get to that toll?
The actual final toll number is certainly in the thousands But all the numbers being touted in the western press reek of desperation. Lot of the sources are western-backed anti-iranian ngos ( lot of them with cia, mossad and other intelligence ties) which themselves cite dubious sources. IranIntl is itself Saudi-backed and a Mossad asset according to Axios's Barak Ravid, who is himself worked for Israel's Unit 8200. Netanyahu seems to try rope the US into war in the short window before the US mid-terms and the Monarchists seem similarly desperate to show traction to the Trump admin. With Epstein and whatever else that is hanging over Trump's head this is a very dangerous trap.
The iranian government is criminal, but it's absolutely not believable. The 6 months of the Anfal campaign where Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons killed between 50 and 100k people, the 2 years of the last gaza war with the carpet bombing killed 80k people, the tien an men massacre was in the hundreds, 4 years of civil in birmanie killed 80k people too
"Iran International", isn't registered anywhere in the US or traceable to any reputable source, it has no reporters in Iran but claims to have access to "classified" documents of IRGC. This wreaks of desperation at a failed coup
IRGC is not involved in internal affairs, it's Iran's special forces and focuses on strategic defense forces.
No situation justifies external interference, especially not by the US, which has done more than its fair share of invading and then just making things worse for everyone, like in Afghanistan and Iraq.
A country border drawn arbitrarily (straight!) by an English Lord hundreds of years ago?
A country border not everybody agrees about?
A country border defined to keep out intervention more than to protect?
A country border that is porous and is walked across daily by people that aren’t even sure where it is?
Etc…
At some point you may release that humans live on both sides of lines that often exist only on maps, and serve only to keep people servile to autocrats.
Autocrats whom make sure that their schools teach the importance of borders.
I can't comprehend how a population can kill that many of their own people. They aren't even an "other" people, which has been the most common scapegoat lately. Same skin color, same religion, same language, same homeland.
The Khmer Rouge executed between half a million and a million Cambodians between 1975 to 1979[0]. These were the intentional killings, estimates range to as many as 2 million Cambodians or 25% of the population died as a result of Khmer Rouge polices.
The end of the regime was brought about by an incursion into the Vietnamese border town of Ba Chúc, resulting in the massacre of more than 3000 civilians. Vietnam invaded, toppled the Khmer Rouge and brought an end to the executions although civil war would continue for much of the next decade.
For these actions Vietnam was extensively sanctioned[1]. The parallels with ongoing conflicts today are hard to ignore.
They are “othering” the people actually, using very clear ideological and religious lines. That’s what I see and hear from the regime ad campaigns, propaganda, etc.
I can easily comprehend it, the history books are full of people killing large numbers of their own people. They just find some irrelevant differentiating factor that allows them to label the other as the outgroup and bring out the guns, the tanks, the ovens and the bombs.
Also, they know the alternative is that they will be dragged in the streets and killed. Iran is long past the point where a revolution can be peaceful and conciliatory; if the regime falls, there will be a redde rationem where most people connected to enforcement and decision-making will be very summarily judged by the people they abused for decades.
This is a figure for the whole of Iran. So it includes not just the Persian-majority areas, but also the minority-majority areas (Azeris, Kurds, Balochs, Arabs, Armenians, etc). It would not surprise me if the death toll in the minority-majority areas were higher, and hence they contributed a disproportionate percentage of the total, since security forces would likely find it easier to do that to people of a different ethnicity and/or religion (some of these minorities are predominantly Sunni, Christian, etc) than to people more like themselves.
> I can't comprehend how a population can kill that many of their own people.
The notion of some well-defined "people" is a fiction that ruling powers use to keep humanity's innate tribalistic tendencies pointed outward at their adversaries.
The truth is that the powers-that-be consider themselves to be above "the people", and will dispose of you as soon as you become inconvenient.
It’s not necessarily the primary factor, but it’s worth noting that Iran is actually a relatively diverse country by the region’s standards. There are significant Kurdish, Azeri, Balochi, etc. minority groups, for whom the idea that they’re in the same “homeland” as the Persians is not necessarily given.
Iran is made of many different ethnicities, and there were reports of Arab militants that were brought in by the regime (it’s not hard to imagine given how reliant those organizations are on Iran for support).
It’s generally not very hard to incite violence across groups in the Middle East, especially when you consider how bad the outcome might be for the losing side. Case in point, the Alawites who lost control of Syria and are now persecuted by the new government.
From the previous uprisings, the regime usually sends Arab mercenaries like Hizbollah. They don't speak Farsi and have no connection to the people of Iran.
It looks like you were downvoted, but you’re absolutely right. “Their own people” is a silly trope - people are always “othered” by something - if not race (I guess what is mean by “thier own people”), then by religion, political persuasion, etc.
hm, I think we should re-evaluate sanctioning or civilian pressure campaigns, since the guise is for them to coax or turn on the government for regime change, but the government can just hire mercenaries from outside the country.
How about plain civil disobedience? Like just stop working? It would need to get pretty extreme before the government had the audacity (and even capacity) to actually track you down to your home and arrest (or kill) you. Although this kind of coordination might be difficult with government control of communication media.
This works in a country like India but even in Indian history, the movement can die down (it died down in chauri chaura as it became violent and Gandhi didn't like it being violent iirc) though my history about this can be a bit off and I can be wrong tho
Regarding Iran, most of their money is from Oil. As throwawayheui57 says. So I don't really think that they would care much for civil disobedience
I have heard that Iranian shops are either closed or running in the least minimum operational way (barely open/working)
Tough times. I hope for a better future for people of Iran.
The US shipped the carrier battle group in the region out to support the Venezuela operations, and is deporting asylum seekers back to their deaths this week.
Nobody in the US has any idea what is happening in Iran. Judging by the weird, not very HN like threads on this post, sounds like we are going to.
The fact that he said that and then DID NOT topple the government in Iran is insane.. completely irresponsible, or rather responsible.. for those deaths.
The irony is that now those who are still alive in Iran might remember this and update their notion of US trustworthiness accordingly.
Also, we already have Iran on sanctions and every possible diplomatic hostility short of war. What should we rationally ask for from our government? Invasion?
We should be angry about both situations but most people truly don't give a fuck about the latter. It is not just the Iran situation though.
We make decisions all the time that result in immense amount of unnecessary suffering because of a total lack of rationality.
Our food consumption choices alone have created the objectively largest and most horrific engine of suffering in the history of this planet, all for the pleasure of our taste buds. The average person is directly responsible for this.
It is the irrationality and lack of empathy of the average person that bothers me. Unless you show them a video of protestors being massacred in Iran, or take them to a factory farm, they don't care. And even then, they often don't care. Why?
Suffering is roughly sortable and it is certainly within the power of most people to drive down the greatest sources of suffering, and pressure their government to do so when it is not directly within their power.
Such a ridiculous take. Get off your hate wagon. Also I argue no "leftists" support opposing ICE or Palestine out of "leftism". Only hateful bigots would support the execution of our people on our streets, or denying Palestinians their rights to exist and to freedom, free from a zionist ideology that has no respect for property or for life. Maybe if our "right wingers" and "Zionist" friends put humanity first and not politics or racist judaism first, they would not sound as hateful as you do now bud. Your comment is vile, and I can only imagine the hate you have in your bones. Although I will exclude right wingers here, since they are as of late huge supporters of the palestinian cause.
Trump keeping his word would raise gas prices though. A problem when he's managing his 15 other unforced errors currently killing the economy. It's not easy being Tariff Man.
> Remember the governing ideology of the US and Israel sees the continued existence of Iran as an existential threat.
Obviously Israel would see the Iranian regime as an existential threat when they quite openly advocate for the destruction of Israel[0] and have a nuclear weapons program.
> Their aims may align with the protestors temporarily but I think a permanently fractured, Syria type situation is much more palatable to them than a rapid transition to a more democratic system that leaves the country intact.
Israel would almost certainly prefer a stable intact Iran with normalized relations.
> There is no guarantee a post-islamic Iran would step into line, and it would remain a regional power that would be much harder to justify continued sanctions against.
Israel and the US don't want to destroy Iran, they want Iran to stop funding terrorists and stop threatening regional stability.
> A clean change of government with domestic US pressure to lift sanctions would be their nightmare scenario.
Why should the US lift sanctions while Iran continues to fund terrorists and attempts to develop nuclear weapons?
Iran is the 17th most populous nation in the world, with 93 million people. These protests seem to be occurring across the entire nation. Another comment mentioned over 4,000 separate clashes. Other sources have already corroborated a lower bound in the mid-thousands. I think the burden is on you to refute these numbers by showing that the sources are deliberately misleading or finding a flaw in the methodology. Simply saying that you find them "not credible" and that some people might have a political motive behind sharing them is not an argument.
Note, I'm not saying that they have been confirmed, but I do not think that you have given sufficient cause for rejecting them out of hand.
This is the organisation most commonly cited in news reports, they estimate ~5200 protestors confirmed killed (+ a few hundred more for security personnel killed)
They are a group of anti-regime Iranian dissidents based in the US. I don't know why they would seek to provide a deliberately low estimate.
Israel has killed more than double that in Gaza, and that’s only what’s been confirmed as many bodies are under rubble and millions are left living in tents: https://aje.io/5b4h1e
Note that these numbers come straight from the Hamas run health ministry which does not track civilian vs combatant deaths and has questionable accuracy.
This is a little different, this is probably an issue anyone of any side politically can agree is bad. A government is killing their own people in the tens of thousands. It is foolish to even waste time pointing fingers outside of the country in question in my eyes because its irrelevant, their current government is killing citizens in the right here and right now.
> "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic." [0]
However, it also says:
> "Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it." [0]
When people, or communities, or companies, show you their true colors, believe them. Watch out for all those flocking in to explain how this is different…
"The left", i.e socialists, communists, anarchists, etc, are supportive of a theocratic dictatorship? Not sure whats more unlikely here, a unified "left" or that they'd be unified behind a dictatorship with fascist principles.
IE as the right is becoming more anti-Israel, you find a lot more pro Islamic Republic stuff there these days. The boomer and zoomer right are very different beasts.
I don't follow the left as closely these days, but imagine there are a myriad of opinions on the matter.
Disgusting to make that joke on a forum that strives towards reason and enlightenment. Disgusting to make light of 36,500 regular people potentially dead while seeking freedom and justice.
What does Israel have to do with this article? From what I gather, Iran International is owned by Volant Media, based in the UK, with funding from Saudi Arabia.
awesome ! more than 2 years into genocide in Gaza and not a single word on HN. And now a fake news published by a zionist website (iranintl.com is financed and supported by Israel) gets on the first page ! so disgusting.
This is mainly on the security forces who kill people, then on the corrupt government that removes people’s freedoms and their power to decide their fate by free elections, etc. then on regimes apologists who try to undermine the suffering and then if you want to find whoever else that is responsible.
It's completely on EU, Canada, and Australia. Why didn't the new self-proclaimed leaders of democracy and freedom, now completely independent of the US, do anything?
Too busy making deals with China and India for Russian gas, I suppose.
This is depressing because we will go to war over this and it’s going to be five years before people realizing they were tricked by “babies in incubators” propaganda.
That number would inevitably lead to tons of videos with piles of corpses and cities covered with dead.
Like ones that appear when west-backed Julani killed Alawites.
But there is almost no such content - only rumors, unnamed sources and documents no one bother to check.
Unfortunately those videos exist. There are videos of relatives walking for hours from body bag to body bag to find the remains of their lost ones. There are videos of people with heavy machine guns shooting indiscriminately into peaceful protests. There are videos of executions. Everything has been recorded.
There is a reason why the Iranian government cannot activate internet and phones anymore. Once people can communicate again, they will count and document the true scale of events. Right now, it seems the Iranian government would rather give up on internet and telephones altogether than having anyone find out, which tells you just about how bad the situation is.
> There is a reason why the Iranian government cannot activate internet and phones anymore. Once people can communicate again, they will count and document the true scale of events. Right now, it seems the Iranian government would rather give up on internet and telephones altogether than having anyone find out, which tells you just about how bad the situation is.
I had talked to an iranian person who had misconfigured internet provider so I was able to talk to them on a forum. They mentioned that phone calls are still there in the daytime tho (they are cut at night), Sim,internet,starlink all are blocked
If someone's from Iran/related to it feel free to correct me but has there been any recent development where phone calls are completely shut off?
Be aware that all this might be the usual propaganda campaign that precedes US's "regime change" wars to make them appear as justified and necessary to the general public. This has been done so many times now that it's incredible people keep falling for it.
Irrespective of the accuracy of estimates it will be in the thousands, and most tragicly it will be very young men and women most of whom university educated, the very people that would be the country's tomorrow.
The pervasiveness of propaganda isn't really surprising nor is it complicated to recreate especially with today's AI and especially with state actor-scale AI.
It really seems more like a test to see how gullible people are when presented with mass confirmation bias and no evidence.
The Wall Street Journal says at least 10,000 people were killed: https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/irans-protest-crackdow...
Horrifying.
Towards the end it says..
Amiry-Moghaddam of Iran Human Rights said the death toll could be higher than 20,000, based on evidence reviewed by his organization.
With such a large difference between these estimates, it makes 36500 seem suspiciously precise. Comes across like a significant digit violation.
IHR is CIA-backed, and are thus prone to inflate these counts to justify an invasion.
8 replies →
The source (Iran International) is backed by Saudi money and has a bias to dunk on Iran.
That said, I'm sure the death count numbers from the Rasht Massacre are staggeringly higher than the initial tallies of 2-5k.
It is a source run by expatriate Iranians of the diaspora.. the fact that so many people just discount their point of view it's pretty frustrating. If you speak to Iranians that you work with it's pretty illuminating
The “Iranians that you work with” in the west are highly self-selecting. They’re like Cubans in Florida or Vietnamese—people who fled in the aftermath of the revolution and are extremely antagonistic towards the regime. My family left Bangladesh the year after the dictator made Islam the official religion. My dad is apoplectic about the Islamist parties being unbanned recently after the government was overthrown. By contrast many of my extended family, who came much later for economic reasons, are happy about that. The people who disliked the Islamization of the country and had the financial means to do so left while the people who were fine with it stayed.
My daughter’s hair stylist is Iranian (she was an accountant in old country). When Jimmy Carter’s wife died, she said “I’m happy she’s dead.” I’ve never seen anyone else say a negative thing about the Carters personally. Even die hard Republicans who think he was a weak President don’t hate him as a person. But this is not an uncommon sentiment among the Iranian diaspora.
14 replies →
"It is a source run by expatriate Iranians of the diaspora.. the fact that so many people just discount their point of view it's pretty frustrating. If you speak to Iranians that you work with it's pretty illuminating"
Well - the data they publish can be correct; or it can be a made-up lie. We simply don't know.
So why should we assume the data they publish should be correct? How did they reach that number? And why is that number more precise than earlier reported numbers? And, why is that number so different to the other numbers told before?
What if they say tomorrow it is 50.000 suddenly?
It’s similar to how so many people dismiss Cuban American views on Cuba just because the cuban americans were mostly the ownership class that had to flee the revolution.
2 replies →
> It is a source run by expatriate Iranians of the diaspora
Including the Mossad, which is kinda an important footnote you might not want to omit: https://xcancel.com/BarakRavid/status/1560685368780939265/
7 replies →
The number is probably in the middle. Diaspora Iranians are the most anti khomeini people out there
1 reply →
It's clear that at least a couple of thousands Iranians have died in protests. Khamenei even said so in a speech a few days ago. but its not 36,000.
There are other sources, like this: https://time.com/7357635/more-than-30000-killed-in-iran-say-...
Which also refer to unnamed sources and "U.S.-based Human Rights Activists News Agency"(read CIA)
3 replies →
[dead]
Actually, if anything, that makes it trustworthy because Saudi would like the regime to stay so that they can stay out of the oil markets and keep the prices high.
It’s Shia Sunni, it transgresses economics.
If you want a more neutal organization https://time.com/7357635/more-than-30000-killed-in-iran-say-...
It looks a LOT like a CIA front.
EDIT: Sorry... that is too strong... "state aligned influence media". Note that the headline might be true, or it might not, but that source is quite glowy.
[flagged]
Mehdi Hasssan worked for Al Jazeera which is funded by Qatar and is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood with a very specific political agenda. You'll notice they barely are covering the Iran News
6 replies →
Mehdi is a great journalist and speaker. He doesn't jump the gun. One of my favourite debates from him is on Intelligence Squared, on the conflation between anti-zionism and anti-semitism, from 2019:
https://youtu.be/K1VTt_THL4A?si=BRgS6kbEMvLvrjyW
Just as interesting that Mehdi who never spent a second questioning the reports from Gaza is questioning the reports from Iran.
2 replies →
"Western media" is not an organization it's a description of a group. Trust should be connected to organizations or businesses.
This is such a dangerous manipulation technique that uses the output of one media source like Fox News as an attack on the reputation of all. CNN and the BBC have reported on Israel's offensive and the massive suffering and death multiple times.
"Study disputes Gaza genocide charges, finds flawed data amid Hamas-driven narrative"
https://www.foxnews.com/world/study-disputes-gaza-genocide-c...
#--------------
"Gaza death toll has been significantly underreported, study finds"
https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/09/middleeast/gaza-death-toll-un...
"More than 70,000 killed in Gaza since Israel offensive began, Hamas-run health ministry says"
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8e97kl240lo
> Interesting that the same western media outlets which spent two years nonstop questioning and disputing and refusing to accept Palestinian death tolls out of Gaza, even when they were backed by human rights groups and monitors like Airwars and studies in The Lancet, are totally fine uncritically accepting totally unsourced and huge, huge numbers out of Iran.
Note that this works both ways: "Interesting that the same western media outlets which spent two years nonstop covering Gaza are totally fine not even having a single article about the massacre committed by the islamist iranian regime. And, no, before the trolls descend, of course I'm not questioning that lots of innocent people have been killed in Gaza.".
And "Interesting that the same protesters who spent months protesting on US and EU campuses for Gaza are not protesting to defend the protesters massacred en masse by the iranian regime. And, no, before the trolls descend, of course I'm not questioning that lots of innocent people have been killed in Gaza".
We don't know if the numbers are true but we're literally talking about half the death in two years in Gaza in a few days in Iran. I don't know if people realize the level of horrors we're talking about here.
10 replies →
Legitimate question - why am I not seeing this in the news? This is horrifying but where is the coverage?
FWIW, it's reported in Dutch news - https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2026/01/26/dertigduizend-doden-sla... - with reference to this time.com article - https://time.com/7357635/more-than-30000-killed-in-iran-say-... - and a lot of caveats about how the figure can't be verified.
The BBC have been covering it in the UK. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cjnwl8q4ggwt
And there are many other legitimate questions: where are the celebrities speaking up to defend the cause of the iranian protesters? Where are the students in western universities protesting against what the iranian regime did? Where's the International Court of Justice's condemnation of iranian politicians? Where's the flotilla led by Greta Thumberg in support of the iranian people?
There are, IMO, very grave and very serious double standards at play here because I don't think we're going to see any of those.
I checked the reputable newspaper in my country. The only mention of it was on 23/1 where they reported 5000 casualties. EU is going to put together a range of (economic?) sanctions against the regime. US "armada" (quoted from the article) is underway.
It was probably the headline article for a couple of hours on the site. I don't remember extended coverage either so I looked it up.
Because it's islamophobic news. The only news allowed in Western papers is that where Western powers and white people do bad things.
[dead]
They're brown, unknown people. What did you expect?
because Iran's information control is working - the horrific images and numbers only arrived in the west once the protests were already mostly disbanded. It's not ongoing like e.g. the war in Gaza was, so it can only capture a moment of attention, not a sustained slot.
That's crazy.
That's like ~40% of the deaths in the current gaza war, except over just 2 days instead of 2 years.
Unfortunately I would not be surprised if the real death toll is even higher. I have first-hand information. We are talking about indiscriminate shooting with heavy machine guns into peaceful protests, happening in every city of the country. The rule of law has completely broken down. The wounded avoid hospitals because they are afraid of getting killed there.
It almost makes Israel look like they are not there to wipe out Palestine
Or that international pressure succesfully prevented worse.
There was a lot of death in 2 days but the revolution started about a month ago so it's not just those two days. I think you could compare Gaza to a single Iranian city, but Iran is much larger than this. Another important distinction is that - no matter what your beliefs are - civilians aren't the target in Gaza, but they clearly are the target in Iran. If the civilians had weapons, it would be a different story.
> civilians aren't the target in Gaza
"We killed about 80,000 people by mistake" isn't the exculpation you think it is.
6 replies →
> Another important distinction is that - no matter what your beliefs are - civilians aren't the target in Gaza
"No matter what your beliefs are"? Some people believe that Israel is trying to make the people in Gaza starve. If that was true, how would they not be a target?
2 replies →
> no matter what your beliefs are - civilians aren't the target in Gaza
“By December 2025, the Gaza Health Ministry had reported that at least 70,117 people in Gaza had been killed. The vast majority of the victims were civilians, and around 50% were women and children. Compared to other recent global conflicts, the numbers of known deaths of journalists, humanitarian and health workers, and children are among the highest. Thousands more uncounted bodies are thought to be under the rubble of destroyed buildings. A study in the medical journal The Lancet estimated that traumatic injury deaths were undercounted by June 2024, while noting an even larger potential death toll when "indirect" deaths are included. The number of injured is greater than 171,000. Gaza has the most child amputees per capita in the world; the Gaza war caused more than 21,000 children to be disabled.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide
Russia has more than likely killed hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians since February 2022 but what is happening in Ukraine is not termed a genocide. Why? Because by and large it is Russian military personnel killing Ukrainian military personnel (and vice versa, of course). Why is what is happening in Gaza being termed a genocide? Because the Israeli military* is targeting and killing civilians. I'm not the one saying that, genocide scholars (among others) are the ones saying that.
“The Gaza genocide is the ongoing, intentional, and systematic destruction of the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip carried out by Israel during the Gaza war. It encompasses mass killings, deliberate starvation, infliction of serious bodily and mental harm, and prevention of births. Other acts include blockading, destroying civilian infrastructure, destroying healthcare facilities, killing healthcare workers and aid-seekers, causing mass forced displacement, committing sexual violence, and destroying educational, religious, and cultural sites. The genocide has been recognised by a United Nations special committee and commission of inquiry, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, multiple human rights groups, numerous genocide studies and international law scholars, and other experts.”
One cannot blockade an entire population and not be targeting the civilians in that population.
“An Israeli blockade heavily contributed to starvation and confirmed famine. As of August 2025, projections show about 641,000 people experiencing catastrophic levels and that "the number of people facing emergency levels will likely increase to 1.14 million". Early in the conflict, Israel cut off Gaza's water and electricity, but it later partially restored the water. As of May 2024, 84% of Gaza's health centres have been destroyed or damaged. Israel also destroyed numerous cultural heritage sites, including all 12 of Gaza's universities, and 80% of its schools. Over 1.9 million Palestinians—85% of Gaza's population—were forcibly displaced.”
* with the backing of primarily the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany
3 replies →
This is a country of 90 million, compared to Gaza which was 2million
These are 30,000 human lives. Their value doesn’t diminish because of a larger supply.
right, the population increased, so it’s now about 2.1 million.
3 replies →
I've read a ton of philosophy and something I don't really understand is that one nation killing another is more immoral than when a nation does this to their own domestic population.
Sure you will get some nay-sayers who say 'a life is a life', if moral particles existed, they might be correct.
But for some reason, humanity doesn't seem to care as much.
What makes intra-state politics more acceptable to use violence?
> something I don't really understand is that one nation killing another is more immoral than when a nation does this to their own domestic population.
I don’t know that anyone thinks a state’s violence against its citizens is less immoral. It’s more that countries are more hesitant to get militarily involved in the domestic affairs of another country because it would mean essentially declaring war against that state. But in a conflict between states, an outsider can more easily support one side militarily without declaring war against the other side.
1 reply →
Historically there was sometimes the idea that citizens are the property of the sovereign to use or dispose of as he sees fit. A lot of historical international law had the view that states have absolute feeedom to conduct their internal affairs however they saw fit.
Luckily we have largely moved past that view.
I think as a purely practical matter, moral outrage is shaped by who controls the information space. If you are a country being invaded, you probably have an organized, well funded communication department to tell your side. If you are an Iranian protestor, not only do you not have that, you don't even have internet at all because the state cut off all means of communication.
2 replies →
Because the international order is fundamentally anarchic, while domestic orders are (supposed to be at least) nomic, structured by law and rights. Yes, there are attempts at creating international law, but these amount to treaties more than a structured, visible, governing law.
“A country that violates the rights of its own citizens, will not respect the rights of its neighbors.”
That’s from my readings of philosophy.
But yeah, I do recognize the same sentiment as you found. I think philosophy itself is an answer: most philosophies explicitly champion dictatorships, under whitewashed terms. Ever heard something like “society is a big organ transcending individual needs”? We got it from Hegel.
5 replies →
> one nation killing another is more immoral than when a nation does this to their own domestic population.
I don’t think that’s a particularly established moral position.
1 reply →
I share your opinion. There's nothing worse than a State killing its own citizens, the ones the state had pledged to protect.
But actually, the largest mass killings in history have been always performed by States against their own citizens and not by enemy states:
- Great Chinese Famine (CCP): 20-30 million dead. - Holocaust (NSP): 6 million - Holodomor (USSR): 3-5 million - Congo mass killings (Colonial Regime + Private parties): 1-5 million - Cambodian genocide (Maoists): 2 million - Armenian genocide (Young Turk / CUP) ...
The list continues, and remains mainly dominated by assassination's of the State against their own citizens. Majorly communist and totalitarian regimes.
1 reply →
>I've read a ton of philosophy and something I don't really understand is that one nation killing another is more immoral than when a nation does this to their own domestic population.
Who holds this opinion?
>But for some reason, humanity doesn't seem to care as much.
All of humanity cares less about when a government uses violence against its citizens than wars?
How can you possibly make this generalization when each internal conflict is different just like every war and how difficult it is to measure sympathy
1 reply →
> I've read a ton of philosophy and something I don't really understand is that one nation killing another is more immoral than when a nation does this to their own domestic population.
Which books say that?
> What makes intra-state politics more acceptable to use violence?
Acceptable? It's more about the consequences or lack thereof, the incentives
History has shown that pretty much nothing happens to the regime unless two coalitions of countries invade from both sides simultaneously, and that's like, not going to happen
Because the Palestinians raped and killed thousands of innocent people, causing the war.
Whereas the Iranian people just want human rights and didn’t do anything to their leaders.
Are you seriously asking this or are you just fucking with us? It’s blatantly obvious why it is different.
I can’t even imagine how this could be done. Nazi concentration camps would have had trouble killing that many in 2 days.
At its peak i think (based on googling) the nazis killed about 14,000 per day, which would put it in a similar ball park on a per-day basis. However they kept up the level of killing and didn't stop after just a few days.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/2846/
1 reply →
Nazis were … prolific.
The death camps were a practical end result of how much manual labor was required to line thousands of people up and shoot them dead. That’s what they were doing in Poland, to such extremes that is was literally more efficient to build gas chambers.
They wouldn't struggle, even before the gassing systems were built. In Babiy Jar (September 1941), about 33 thousand Jews from Kyiv were shot in two days by SS Einsatztruppen.
This is about what dedicated murderous goverments can pull off using conventional means.
that's because they weren't shooting crowds already assembled in the streets and going into hospitals nationwide to find the injured. Nazi Germany was aiming to maintain plausible deniability in the concentration camps for as long as possible, while parallel competing plans for what to do with the population were being explored and failing. (there were other solutions before and alonside the final solution)
1 reply →
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Do you believe that there’s a single person (or small group) who chooses what’s on the front page?
1 reply →
[flagged]
[dead]
7000$ have been sent to your bank account.
At least 700k people died in Gaza.
I doubt even 100 people died in those Iranian protests, and there are videos of Mossad agents shooting people before getting arrested by the Iranian police.
Like even the UN stopped pushing that lie after Iranian ambassadors showed them the videos.
The fact that this whole thread got so many upvotes to end up on the front page is the signal I finally needed to delete the account, this has become an echo chamber, the cypherpunk or whatever those smart people with critical thinking and strong moral values are called are not here anymore.
I spoke to a few people living in Iran, and they definitively confirmed that 100+ people died. They obviously don't have the exact number, so that 36,500 figure might be exaggerated, but there are more than enough videos online to verify the 100+ claim if you really want to.
For comparison, estimates of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre death count are usually put in the 300-1,000 range by journalists and human rights groups.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests...
But note that the Tianenmen Square massacre was only one part of a larger nationwide protest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Chinese_protests_by_regio... . There's no telling how many were killed or disappeared outside of Beijing.
Actually, there is plenty of telling, and the largest (only?) massacre outside Beijing was in Chengdu, with 8 to 400 people killed depending on who you believe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_protests_of_1989
There was plenty of rounding up student leaders and executions afterwards, but I don't think even the wildest anti-communists would claim a death toll in the thousands for this.
1 reply →
most of the victims during 1989 Beijing massacre were NOT at the actual square, people should already stop using this simplified term which leads to confusion
but yeah, compared to what Israelis do in Gaza or Iran, even whole Beijing numbers are negligible considering China population
One interesting thing about that incident I only learned recently is the chinese leadership was reluctant to use force and prevaricated for ages.
In the end they decided it was worth the risk and I guess they were right, because China survived that period without any rotation of elites and became more prosperous and powerful as a result, avoiding all the chaos of the former Soviet countries
It seems protesting a dictatorship, of whatever kind, is pointless and dangerous.
Meaning, the people should be able to defend themselves against the violence directed to them.
> Meaning, the people should be able to defend themselves against the violence directed to them.
Yes. But not just and not mainly from your government: you are way more likely to get killed by criminals and/or terrorists then by law enforcement officers.
To put things in perspectice in the US there are more than 20 000 homicides per year.
And for women rape and rape attempts are scary, here are the numbers for the UK:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/283100/recorded-rape-off...
You cannot really compare 36 000+ people getting killed by an islamist regime that rules the country by sharia law with the number of people killed by law enforcement officers in, say, France or the US. Where the number of people being killed by officials, yearly, can be counted on one hand's fingers.
In the same vein, you cannot really compared terror attacks like the 2024 one in Russia where 145 people where killed in a theater or the 130 people killed by terrorists at the Bataclan in France or the 70 killed in Nice (my sister was there with her two kids that day and she saw the terrorist and her son is still, to this day, traumatized) with the number of people getting killed by law enforcement officers in a country like France or the US (I'm using these two as an example for they are country where, each year, a few people are killed by law enforcement officers).
Unarmed people vs terrorists with kalashnikovs: slaughter.
A great many are highly concerned, for example, that there are now sleeping islamists terrorists cells in the EU. Even mainstream media began reporting the concerns. There are regularly arrests and terrorists plots foiled. And Christmas markets and celebrations have been cancelled this year in many european cities because the risk of islamist terror attacks were too high.
When a country disarms its people, it doesn't just make them vulnerable to the governement's wrongdoings: it makes them vulnerables to criminals and terrorists too. Which, so far in the western world, is definitely a much bigger threat.
Now that said there are more than 10 billion ammo sold, each year, in the US, to civilians. If there's one country where either the government or the terrorists would have a problem should they go "all in", it's the US.
I really don’t understand why in the West there is nobody in the streets to protest but there was so many people for Palestine… Where are the people?
I’m not sure if this is an honest question or not, but I’ll treat it as such, even though you could answer your own question quite easily. The West is not complicit in the actions of the Iranian regime in any way that is similar to the situation with Israel. We are not arming the Iranians with the weapons they turn on civilians: very much not the case with Israel. Israel is treated like a normal state, whereas Iran is an international pariah and the subject of crippling sanctions. I could go on. The point is that westerners protest the actions of Israel because we believe we are part of the problem and that our protest might make a difference.
In fact, we believe - quite rightly - that if the US had conditioned military assistance to Israel on appropriate care for civilians, then the awful tragedy that unfolded in Gaza could have been averted. Similar levers for changing the behaviour of Iran do not exist.
> The West is not complicit in the actions of the Iranian regime
What about the 1953 CIA/MI6 coup that overthrew Iran's elected prime minister?
Because the far worse Palestine massacre was perpetrated by an ally of the West, defended by western politicians and opinion makers, financed with western money and armed with western weapons. Then it makes sense to protest against your country's complicity.
Protesting in your country against an enemy country that has been subjected already to all kinds of sanctions and military attacks makes little sense.
People have been protesting in the UK.
Fourteen arrested after protest at Iranian embassy: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y3g8glgxvo
Protester climbs on to balcony of Iranian embassy in London: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy09yvd57x2o
Silent protestors gather in solidarity with Iran: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4g1me23x7o
I used to give some leeway to other, more charitable explanations, but now it's become crystal clear to me there's one reason only: people hate Jews. It's anti-semitism. You can call it whatever you want, give whatever excuses you want, but the fact of the matter: liberals in the west only care about these things if Jews are involved. Otherwise, we'd see celebrities for Iran the same way we saw celebrities for Gaza a long time ago.
This has been said before on here, but the main reason here is because in the West (particularly the US and Germany) there was a large group among the general populace supporting the genocide in Gaza, but in the West there is no large group supporting the massacre in Iran. The latter is an extremely fringe position to hold on the level of flat-earthers. People either don't care or are against it. When there's such a consensus, there's less controversy, less to talk about.
Because the western governments support Israel, thus a protests' goal is mainly aimed at changing that. How many westerns governments support Iran?
There probably isn't the same awareness. This is the first I'm hearing of a massacre in Iran. It's so hard to keep up with the news these days and for many it's just recommended to avoid it because it's all outrage generation now. The EU has been massively occupied with threats to invade Greenland for the past month along with the subsequent media attention, so that has saturated the news cycle.
There has been protests organized by the Iranian diaspora in Germany.
In the West you are not allowed to protest against Islam.
Oh, no, not this false dichotomy again!
People protest to affect political change in their own countries. For example, that's why Americans now protest against ICE and not against the secret police in Turkmenistan. In my country, the government recently signed a secret arms deal with Israel to sell it weapons. Weapons that are then used to maim children. I don't like that. Major politicians have said that Israel should be "thanked" for what it's doing in Gaza. I don't like that either. Hence, why I protest. If the Sionazi regime in Israel was isolated in the same way as the Islamic regime in Iran or the Taliban regime in Afghanistan people would protest less because there would be less political change to affect.
People are vandalizing Jewish restaurants, synagogues and monuments; terrorizing Jewish people and students; and murdering random Jewish grandmothers on the streets to affect political change?
Please.
Palestine had a ton of easily accessible video evidence, and not just from the victim's side but also lots of "hot takes" from the Israeli side as well, lots of talk from Israeli civilians and government officials about how there are no innocent civilians in Gaza and other deranged plainly genocidal remarks. In other words, there can be no reasonable doubt about what was going on and the only question really is who's side you're on.
With Iran, there's not a whole bunch of similar material, the death count estimates vary greatly from source to source, and we've got an untrustworthy president beating a war drum which probably makes people a bit more skeptical.. Atrocity propaganda to persuade a democracy to enter a war is something attentive people will be familiar with; incubator babies being tossed on the floor, dissidents being fed feet first into industrial grinders, people remember these stories preceding other wars and remember that evidence for the claims never materialized. Then there's the whole geopolitical angle where the Trump administration in fact supports Israel and Iran happens to be one of Israel's most powerful regional opponents. There are plenty of reasons to temper feelings of certainty.
This is certainly the end of peaceful Iranian protests. Whether it leads to a violent revolution or a static police state like North Korea remains to be seen.
Seems the regime is OK shooting their way out of this problem. How big are these protests? 30K isn't exactly a small number of protestors.
> How big are these protests?
Very likely in the millions.
Not just shooting, chemical warfare:
"Iranian security forces deployed unknown chemical substances amid deadly crackdowns on protestors in several cities earlier this month, eyewitnesses told Iran International, causing severe breathing problems and burning pain.
They described symptoms that they said went beyond those caused by conventional tear gas, including severe breathing difficulties, sudden weakness and loss of movement...
...According to the accounts, in some cases gunfire began at the same time, or immediately after, protesters lost the ability to walk or run and fell to the ground.
Several witnesses said that moments of immobilization became points at which shooting intensified, particularly when protesters collapsed in alleys or while trying to flee.
Reports came from multiple cities, including Tehran, Isfahan and Sabzevar."
https://www.iranintl.com/en/202601235991
2 replies →
> Whether it leads to a violent revolution or a static police state like North Korea remains to be seen.
The official name of Iran is "The Islamic Republic of Iran" and it is a country ruled by sharia law. Countries ruled by Sharia are already totalitarian states.
That article does not explain how the alleged data was acquired.
Our Editorial Board has now obtained more detailed information provided by the IRGC Intelligence Organization to the Supreme National Security Council.
Other state institutions have also received differing figures from other security bodies. However, given the scale of the killings, deliberate concealment, and what appears to be intentional disorder in the registration and transfer of bodies – along with pressure on families and, in some cases, the quiet burial of victims – it appears that even the security agencies themselves do not yet know the precise final death toll.
In a report presented on Wednesday, January 21, to the Iranian parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee seen by Iran International, the number of those killed was listed as at least 27,500.
According to sources within Iran’s Interior Ministry who spoke to Iran International on condition of anonymity, a consolidation of figures received from provincial security councils by Tuesday, January 20, showed the death toll had exceeded 30,000.
Two informed sources from the Supreme National Security Council also told Iran International that in two recent reports by the IRGC Intelligence Organization, dated January 22 and January 24, the number of those killed was listed as more than 33,000 and more than 36,500 respectively.
How is this possible without explosives? Even with vehicle mounted machine guns it seems like a crazy high number. Did the protestors get boxed in somehow? And across so many locations, that seems to require a crazy amount of coordination to kill so many in so little time.
You might check how the Mongols managed to do it on a much vaster scale 800 years ago. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Gurganj
The museum of the city has a paper with the order that every soldier would have to kill 400 people, by sword. Of course they were already captured but there were about 1 million people in that city. The city is still perfectly leveled after 800 years. Only a couple of buildings were left standing.
Mongols were very well coordinated. Iranian crowd control has had 45 years and several insurrections to train.
The coordination is the thing here, that's many units being instructed to carry through in the same manner.
As for the numbers:
it's on the order of 100 deaths at each of 400 locations (clearly not uniformly distributed, some locations would have had many more deaths).
As to the how, the article suggests some deaths immediately occurred in crowds - firing, dispersing, funneling, crush injuries, etc. leading to many intakes to hospitals and treatment tents etc ... followed by execution of the injured.
It's grim stuff.
Some years past the waves of the Rwanda massacres saw almost a million people killed in bursts across 100 days, mostly with machetes and hand guns.
The numbers reported here are absolutely feasible, the reporting is certainly questionable; bad things happened, but was it at the claimed scale?
Exactly. These numbers don’t seem that impossible if one considers that the state‘s force rests upon (enough) ideological support within society. Given that, the distribution of regime supporters will be rather even across the country, and therefore sending in death squads wont mean bussing them in from Teheran but rather sourcing them locally.
Datapoints :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre 400-1500 civilian deaths by 50 British soldiers armed with bolt action rifles (tried to get machine guns on site but thankfully couldn't)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Severloh Possibly single handedly killed an hard to estimate count of US soldier, but possibly in the hundreds (he had people supplying him ammunitions).
Crowds are just easy to thin with repeating firearms and a good supply of ammo...
There were a lot of people with machine guns.
Quite a lot of detail in the nyt article https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/25/world/middleeast/iran-how...
The IRGC[0] and Basij[1] are not small organizations, deliberately targeting large crowds of unarmed civilians with automatic weapons will create massive casualties in a very short period of time, no explosives needed.
> Did the protestors get boxed in somehow?
That did also happen.[2]
> And across so many locations, that seems to require a crazy amount of coordination to kill so many in so little time.
The IRGC's primary purpose is to protect the regime, I'm sure they would have plans in place for suppressing protests.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Revolutionary_Guard_Co...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basij
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2026/01/25/ira...
I don't think killing that many people requires much coordination when one side has guns (let alone machine guns) and a lot of soldiers
It's absolutely terrible but at the scale of a large country it's not logistically hard to get to that many deaths in a couple of days. Iran is a big country with population around 93 million.
The article says "36,500 killed in 400 cities". That's 91 people per city.
I reckon that would require say 6 gunners in each city. Plausible.
They executed every protestor that was arrested or in the hospital (estimated at ~28k.)
They executed everybody on the streets and looked young enough. Not just protesters.
[dead]
The protesters were armed.
I would guess the actual numbers to be about 20-30% of this (which is still a lot). Consider the source.
Iranian hospital workers estimated 20.000 deaths. They looked at their entrances and the morgues.
This is a tragedy.
I'm very against foreign forces intervening in such situations they can do more harm than good.
On the other hand, effective dictatorships (hell executive in democratic countries too) are good at controlling police and military.
E.g. take Belarus when it went through a wave of protests few years ago. I always think, if the people would really be against the regime, wouldn't members of the police and military know that?
Receive pressure from families and friends, even non direct one, clearly showing that the public thinks otherwise and they can easily topple those regimes? The moment your armed forces and police stops obeying orders those regimes are cooked. Yet they don't.
Which means that either there is no such an internal pressure or the regimes are extraordinarily good at selecting and incentivizing people to maintain the status quo.
Still, I think this is no excuse for foreign intervention and you should not do others what you don't wish on yourself. But at the same time if those regimes are indeed so effective, how do you get to help them?
I wish that at least instead of unilaterally, drastic measures were first sanctioned and carried out by UN, like it used to happen few decades ago in Africa.
But now it is always unilateral and stuff like what happened in Venezuela has been a tragedy imho where de facto a single country decides to topple the leadership of another one. Again, I don't wish we do what we don't wish for ourselves.
And I wouldn't want my country attacked and it's leadership decimated because somebody more powerful thinks so.
"Which means that either there is no such an internal pressure or the regimes are extraordinarily good at selecting and incentivizing people to maintain the status quo."
Or there is pressure and discontent, but simply not enough to topple the regime as it needs way more than 50% support for a internal regime change.
I have childhood memories of such a succesful change in eastern germany. Most people had enough for a long time, but they knew the sovjet tanks would come if they revolted. After it seemed the sovjets were busy on their own and won't come but rather did democratic reforms themself, but the GDR refused and stayed stalinistic - then the people went to the streets. And at some point those in power just gave up. Not really a consciouss choice, but they were visibly insecure and confused, so weak and fell. (But it was a close call, some wanted to bring out the machine guns as well)
The iranian mullahs were insecure, but they choose the violent path of dominance.
Not the same situation, as they did not rely on a foreign power like in GDR, but it seems they lost majority support a long time ago, but have a loyal enough religious base to use the weapons.
And yes, military and police who have family members on the streets will defect at some point and it seems that also happened in Iran, just not enough.
> Which means that either there is no such an internal pressure or the regimes are extraordinarily good at selecting and incentivizing people to maintain the status quo.
It depends a lot on how much power the people have. The more advanced and diverse an economy and the more qualified and educated the population are the more power they have. On one extreme you have countries like Angola with an economy consisting virtually only out of exporting oil. These countries only need a few qualified engineers for their resource extraction which they pay well and everyone else is entirely replaceable. That leads to extreme inequality between the leading political class that absorbs all the money and pays the military with it. As long as they pay and treat the military well enough they can just suppress the rest of the country. If people act up they can literally just kill everyone part of the rebellion. The political class, the military and the rest are just entirely disjunct classes of people with different incentives. The family of the militaries profit enough from the system to not excert pressure on their family member working for the military. It's the hand that feeds them.
On the other end you have countries with highly developed, specialized economies and a population that is educated enough to understand at least a few things about politics. There ordinary people have extensive training and work experience. You cannot just replace them. They can protest and go on strike and if you start killing everyone the economy will quickly start crashing down. Just pulling a few cogs out of the massively complex machine will stop it from working. And at that point it's not just a problem for the working population but also for the owning class and the pressure will propagate all the way up through the hierarchy. Also people can just leave. They have the economic means to and their qualifications mean that other countries have an interest in attracting already qualified people without having to pay for their education and traning first. That's what happened to east Germany and why they built the wall.
There are some methods of social control that can help to control a population beyond that. The key ingredient is surveillance, mutual control and seeding distrust. One person alone can never challenge the system. People need to organize. You can try to find the organizers via surveillance quick enough and get rid of them before they get dangerous. Also if a significant portion of the population is secretly informing the government people might be to afraid to organize as they distrust each other. That's how the Stasi worked in East Germany. For an extreme case of that see the Inminban[1] system in North Korea where people are bundled into groups where all surveil each other and report any dissident behavior. Failing to do so will lead to collective punishment for the whole group. It's a really perverse system that plays people against each other and their own interest aligning the incentives for the individual with the government rather than their class.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inminban
The Islamic Republic represents what happens when Islamism achieves full, unchecked state power. The outcome is monstrous.
Who designed this abomination of website? The "infinite" scroll is preventing me to get to the footer links.
The silence of MSM (particularly the BBC) is eye-opening.
Take a good look US, because once you're down far enough the fascist drain, that's the cost of trying to claw your way back out. And there's no hope of external intervention given nuclear arms
[flagged]
Just leaving this here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat
Fun fact, the clergy was a crucial part of the coup, backed by CIA. The same people in power now, btw.
Fun fact, the same people who preach democracy to you all day,
plotted and went about to oust one of the most democratically legitimate leaders of his country by night.
Let that sink in for a moment.
9 replies →
I never understood why some people get so fixated on one event in 1953, as if nothing else mattered after that.
Sure, it had a nontrivial effect. But it also happened in a time when Stalin and Churchill were still alive, there were 6 billion people fewer on the planet and the first antibiotics and transistors barely entered production. Korea was poorer than Ghana etc.
It is 2026, three generations have passed, and not everything can be explained and excused by a 1953 event forever. But it is convenient for autocracy advocates in general.
It reminds me of the worship of the Great Patriotic War in Russia. Again, as if nothing that happened later matters.
The question is, how can you be sure anything you see in the (controlled) news is not another instance of covert plots, false flags, and psyops [0]?
How, precisely how?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_operations_(Unit...
3 replies →
It's the nature of fascist countries to be fixated on the past
timothy snyder describes it as the "politics of eternity"
1 reply →
The source is certainly unreliable, a quick scan of the wiki sources give you that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_International
But does the number even matter? Whether its 4000 or 35000 the conduct has been unacceptable.
The real question is the solution, is reporting like this designed to be used as the backdrop to foreign intervention? How many people will be killed then?
"one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic" - Not Stalin
The invasion of Iran by the US is a fantasy. They'd much rather fantasize about invading Canada.
Foreign intervention doesn't just mean full out invasion though
Why intervene? Iran was already struggling badly as a nation. Killing 2-30k civilians will not help improve a failing state.
The internet is fragile. Access can be so easily cut off for the masses in dire times.
36,500 dead, 300,000 injured, In 2 days? People are buying this? Unarmed protesters tend to flee when the shooting starts and armed protesters shoot back. And all this without heavy weapons? Do people remember what Gaza turned into get to that toll?
The actual final toll number is certainly in the thousands But all the numbers being touted in the western press reek of desperation. Lot of the sources are western-backed anti-iranian ngos ( lot of them with cia, mossad and other intelligence ties) which themselves cite dubious sources. IranIntl is itself Saudi-backed and a Mossad asset according to Axios's Barak Ravid, who is himself worked for Israel's Unit 8200. Netanyahu seems to try rope the US into war in the short window before the US mid-terms and the Monarchists seem similarly desperate to show traction to the Trump admin. With Epstein and whatever else that is hanging over Trump's head this is a very dangerous trap.
The iranian government is criminal, but it's absolutely not believable. The 6 months of the Anfal campaign where Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons killed between 50 and 100k people, the 2 years of the last gaza war with the carpet bombing killed 80k people, the tien an men massacre was in the hundreds, 4 years of civil in birmanie killed 80k people too
He’s talking his book
Earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46754132
"Iran International", isn't registered anywhere in the US or traceable to any reputable source, it has no reporters in Iran but claims to have access to "classified" documents of IRGC. This wreaks of desperation at a failed coup
IRGC is not involved in internal affairs, it's Iran's special forces and focuses on strategic defense forces.
[dead]
But hey, help is coming.
Narrator's voice: "Unfortunatelly, they will be waiting forever, becase that help will never come."
looks like it hasn't moved in a bit
https://www.cruisingearth.com/ship-tracker/united-states-nav...
help will come ... but with scare quotes.
What happened to Trump threatening to invade? This is the one situation that intervention is called for.
No situation justifies external interference, especially not by the US, which has done more than its fair share of invading and then just making things worse for everyone, like in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Define “external”?
External to the planet?
The hemisphere?
The continent?
The lands previously a part of a former empire?
The lands that a country lost to a war?
A country border drawn arbitrarily (straight!) by an English Lord hundreds of years ago?
A country border not everybody agrees about?
A country border defined to keep out intervention more than to protect?
A country border that is porous and is walked across daily by people that aren’t even sure where it is?
Etc…
At some point you may release that humans live on both sides of lines that often exist only on maps, and serve only to keep people servile to autocrats.
Autocrats whom make sure that their schools teach the importance of borders.
The US armada took a while to reach the Gulf. The air strikes will most likely happen this weekend.
I can't comprehend how a population can kill that many of their own people. They aren't even an "other" people, which has been the most common scapegoat lately. Same skin color, same religion, same language, same homeland.
The Khmer Rouge executed between half a million and a million Cambodians between 1975 to 1979[0]. These were the intentional killings, estimates range to as many as 2 million Cambodians or 25% of the population died as a result of Khmer Rouge polices.
The end of the regime was brought about by an incursion into the Vietnamese border town of Ba Chúc, resulting in the massacre of more than 3000 civilians. Vietnam invaded, toppled the Khmer Rouge and brought an end to the executions although civil war would continue for much of the next decade.
For these actions Vietnam was extensively sanctioned[1]. The parallels with ongoing conflicts today are hard to ignore.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge#Crimes_against_hum...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian%E2%80%93Vietnamese_W...
They are “othering” the people actually, using very clear ideological and religious lines. That’s what I see and hear from the regime ad campaigns, propaganda, etc.
I can easily comprehend it, the history books are full of people killing large numbers of their own people. They just find some irrelevant differentiating factor that allows them to label the other as the outgroup and bring out the guns, the tanks, the ovens and the bombs.
Also, they know the alternative is that they will be dragged in the streets and killed. Iran is long past the point where a revolution can be peaceful and conciliatory; if the regime falls, there will be a redde rationem where most people connected to enforcement and decision-making will be very summarily judged by the people they abused for decades.
2 replies →
This is a figure for the whole of Iran. So it includes not just the Persian-majority areas, but also the minority-majority areas (Azeris, Kurds, Balochs, Arabs, Armenians, etc). It would not surprise me if the death toll in the minority-majority areas were higher, and hence they contributed a disproportionate percentage of the total, since security forces would likely find it easier to do that to people of a different ethnicity and/or religion (some of these minorities are predominantly Sunni, Christian, etc) than to people more like themselves.
> I can't comprehend how a population can kill that many of their own people.
The notion of some well-defined "people" is a fiction that ruling powers use to keep humanity's innate tribalistic tendencies pointed outward at their adversaries.
The truth is that the powers-that-be consider themselves to be above "the people", and will dispose of you as soon as you become inconvenient.
It’s not necessarily the primary factor, but it’s worth noting that Iran is actually a relatively diverse country by the region’s standards. There are significant Kurdish, Azeri, Balochi, etc. minority groups, for whom the idea that they’re in the same “homeland” as the Persians is not necessarily given.
A lot of it is being done by mercenaries brought in from Afghanistan and Iraq
How do you know? Do you have links for that information? And if true they’d be regular murders brought in, not mercenaries.
3 replies →
Iran is made of many different ethnicities, and there were reports of Arab militants that were brought in by the regime (it’s not hard to imagine given how reliant those organizations are on Iran for support).
It’s generally not very hard to incite violence across groups in the Middle East, especially when you consider how bad the outcome might be for the losing side. Case in point, the Alawites who lost control of Syria and are now persecuted by the new government.
From the previous uprisings, the regime usually sends Arab mercenaries like Hizbollah. They don't speak Farsi and have no connection to the people of Iran.
[dead]
[flagged]
Most obvious bait ever
2 replies →
Is Iran funded by and supplied weapons by the US and Europe?
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
It’s not necessary to bring American politics into things that happen anywhere in the world.
It looks like you were downvoted, but you’re absolutely right. “Their own people” is a silly trope - people are always “othered” by something - if not race (I guess what is mean by “thier own people”), then by religion, political persuasion, etc.
hm, I think we should re-evaluate sanctioning or civilian pressure campaigns, since the guise is for them to coax or turn on the government for regime change, but the government can just hire mercenaries from outside the country.
don't know a solution but this one isn't it
How about plain civil disobedience? Like just stop working? It would need to get pretty extreme before the government had the audacity (and even capacity) to actually track you down to your home and arrest (or kill) you. Although this kind of coordination might be difficult with government control of communication media.
> How about plain civil disobedience? Like just stop working?
An amazing level of privilege. In half of the world, if you stop working, you will very soon die of hunger.
Part of the motivation for these protests was the inflation making it hard to afford everyday living. Not working means even less money.
The government’s income is made up of oil money not tax money. At some point, people may choose death by regime’s bullets than by hunger.
This works in a country like India but even in Indian history, the movement can die down (it died down in chauri chaura as it became violent and Gandhi didn't like it being violent iirc) though my history about this can be a bit off and I can be wrong tho
Regarding Iran, most of their money is from Oil. As throwawayheui57 says. So I don't really think that they would care much for civil disobedience
I have heard that Iranian shops are either closed or running in the least minimum operational way (barely open/working)
Tough times. I hope for a better future for people of Iran.
>the government can just hire mercenaries from outside the country.
Machiavelli in Discourses on Livy says you are inviting an overthrow of your government by doing this.
The mercenaries can flip sides if the opposite faction pays them and offers them better terms... or maybe the mercs just flip.
Hard to say how true this is.
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
brought to you by unbiased quality sources on par with those which claimed WMD in Iraq... /s
[flagged]
"Help is on the way" from the US is often not a great propositon. Doubly so today.
https://reason.com/2026/01/23/the-trump-administration-plans...
The US shipped the carrier battle group in the region out to support the Venezuela operations, and is deporting asylum seekers back to their deaths this week.
Nobody in the US has any idea what is happening in Iran. Judging by the weird, not very HN like threads on this post, sounds like we are going to.
The fact that he said that and then DID NOT topple the government in Iran is insane.. completely irresponsible, or rather responsible.. for those deaths.
The irony is that now those who are still alive in Iran might remember this and update their notion of US trustworthiness accordingly.
Do you think that the people encouraging ice protests share some culpability in the deaths of the other protesters?
[flagged]
Also, we already have Iran on sanctions and every possible diplomatic hostility short of war. What should we rationally ask for from our government? Invasion?
[flagged]
1 reply →
[flagged]
We should be angry about both situations but most people truly don't give a fuck about the latter. It is not just the Iran situation though.
We make decisions all the time that result in immense amount of unnecessary suffering because of a total lack of rationality.
Our food consumption choices alone have created the objectively largest and most horrific engine of suffering in the history of this planet, all for the pleasure of our taste buds. The average person is directly responsible for this.
It is the irrationality and lack of empathy of the average person that bothers me. Unless you show them a video of protestors being massacred in Iran, or take them to a factory farm, they don't care. And even then, they often don't care. Why?
Suffering is roughly sortable and it is certainly within the power of most people to drive down the greatest sources of suffering, and pressure their government to do so when it is not directly within their power.
But people are irrational.
1 reply →
[flagged]
Such a ridiculous take. Get off your hate wagon. Also I argue no "leftists" support opposing ICE or Palestine out of "leftism". Only hateful bigots would support the execution of our people on our streets, or denying Palestinians their rights to exist and to freedom, free from a zionist ideology that has no respect for property or for life. Maybe if our "right wingers" and "Zionist" friends put humanity first and not politics or racist judaism first, they would not sound as hateful as you do now bud. Your comment is vile, and I can only imagine the hate you have in your bones. Although I will exclude right wingers here, since they are as of late huge supporters of the palestinian cause.
5 replies →
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
The US Navy has an entire battle group headed to the gulf along with aircraft being moved to Qatar. Something is brewing.
[flagged]
Trump keeping his word would raise gas prices though. A problem when he's managing his 15 other unforced errors currently killing the economy. It's not easy being Tariff Man.
[flagged]
> But these numbers are simply not credible.
Why do you think that?
> Remember the governing ideology of the US and Israel sees the continued existence of Iran as an existential threat.
Obviously Israel would see the Iranian regime as an existential threat when they quite openly advocate for the destruction of Israel[0] and have a nuclear weapons program.
> Their aims may align with the protestors temporarily but I think a permanently fractured, Syria type situation is much more palatable to them than a rapid transition to a more democratic system that leaves the country intact.
Israel would almost certainly prefer a stable intact Iran with normalized relations.
> There is no guarantee a post-islamic Iran would step into line, and it would remain a regional power that would be much harder to justify continued sanctions against.
Israel and the US don't want to destroy Iran, they want Iran to stop funding terrorists and stop threatening regional stability.
> A clean change of government with domestic US pressure to lift sanctions would be their nightmare scenario.
Why should the US lift sanctions while Iran continues to fund terrorists and attempts to develop nuclear weapons?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Israel_in_Irani...
Iran is the 17th most populous nation in the world, with 93 million people. These protests seem to be occurring across the entire nation. Another comment mentioned over 4,000 separate clashes. Other sources have already corroborated a lower bound in the mid-thousands. I think the burden is on you to refute these numbers by showing that the sources are deliberately misleading or finding a flaw in the methodology. Simply saying that you find them "not credible" and that some people might have a political motive behind sharing them is not an argument.
Note, I'm not saying that they have been confirmed, but I do not think that you have given sufficient cause for rejecting them out of hand.
https://www.en-hrana.org/day-twenty-eight-of-the-protests-ar...
This is the organisation most commonly cited in news reports, they estimate ~5200 protestors confirmed killed (+ a few hundred more for security personnel killed)
They are a group of anti-regime Iranian dissidents based in the US. I don't know why they would seek to provide a deliberately low estimate.
2 replies →
[dead]
> It's 40 beheaded babies all over again.
No official source ever claimed this. You are disgusting scum for promoting this lie.
Lying and trivializing the brutal murders of Israeli children and tens of thousands of Iranians civilians is utterly reprehensible.
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Israel has killed more than double that in Gaza, and that’s only what’s been confirmed as many bodies are under rubble and millions are left living in tents: https://aje.io/5b4h1e
Note that these numbers come straight from the Hamas run health ministry which does not track civilian vs combatant deaths and has questionable accuracy.
[flagged]
This is a little different, this is probably an issue anyone of any side politically can agree is bad. A government is killing their own people in the tens of thousands. It is foolish to even waste time pointing fingers outside of the country in question in my eyes because its irrelevant, their current government is killing citizens in the right here and right now.
HN mods removed US News of a government killing its own people in Minnesota. The only difference is the quantity. You're being hypocritical.
[dead]
[flagged]
> "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic." [0]
However, it also says:
> "Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it." [0]
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The idea that we can "avoid politics" while talking about the industry is ridiculous anyway...
it should especially considering questionable biased sources
When people, or communities, or companies, show you their true colors, believe them. Watch out for all those flocking in to explain how this is different…
[flagged]
adequate username
[dead]
[flagged]
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/24/iran-rejects-un-rig...
what's wrong with it?
Is “the left” in the room with us right now?
The college students and the left support the Iranian regime.
"The left", i.e socialists, communists, anarchists, etc, are supportive of a theocratic dictatorship? Not sure whats more unlikely here, a unified "left" or that they'd be unified behind a dictatorship with fascist principles.
That’s quite the claim. Do you have any examples?
4 replies →
Are these really left and right issues?
IE as the right is becoming more anti-Israel, you find a lot more pro Islamic Republic stuff there these days. The boomer and zoomer right are very different beasts.
I don't follow the left as closely these days, but imagine there are a myriad of opinions on the matter.
2 replies →
No, no we don't. Nor do we want to get involved in a civil war in Middle East on behalf of Trumps, Saudis, and Israelis.
[flagged]
Disgusting to make that joke on a forum that strives towards reason and enlightenment. Disgusting to make light of 36,500 regular people potentially dead while seeking freedom and justice.
Thank god they’re only potentially dead.
1 reply →
[flagged]
What does Israel have to do with this article? From what I gather, Iran International is owned by Volant Media, based in the UK, with funding from Saudi Arabia.
>What does Israel have to do with this article?
Because others are asking why people are protesting for Gaza and not Iran.
> What does Israel have to do with this article?
In terms of interests, this article benefits Israel, that's what they have to do with this article.
awesome ! more than 2 years into genocide in Gaza and not a single word on HN. And now a fake news published by a zionist website (iranintl.com is financed and supported by Israel) gets on the first page ! so disgusting.
I heard the number was much higher than that, they massacred 6 million iranians during those protests.
I mean, this is the nail in the coffin, I'm removing my hacker news account, this is even worse than reddit in propaganda.
This is partially on America. Didnt Trump publicly encourage the protesters and promised that the help is on the way?
This is mainly on the security forces who kill people, then on the corrupt government that removes people’s freedoms and their power to decide their fate by free elections, etc. then on regimes apologists who try to undermine the suffering and then if you want to find whoever else that is responsible.
It's completely on EU, Canada, and Australia. Why didn't the new self-proclaimed leaders of democracy and freedom, now completely independent of the US, do anything?
Too busy making deals with China and India for Russian gas, I suppose.
This is depressing because we will go to war over this and it’s going to be five years before people realizing they were tricked by “babies in incubators” propaganda.
No. Shut up. This has been confirmed by countless Iranians
We prepared for this :)
https://battlefield.fandom.com/wiki/Battle_for_Tehran
[dead]
Looks more like a civil war or an insurrection rather than peaceful protests every time the numbers are pulled up.
That number would inevitably lead to tons of videos with piles of corpses and cities covered with dead.
Like ones that appear when west-backed Julani killed Alawites. But there is almost no such content - only rumors, unnamed sources and documents no one bother to check.
Unfortunately those videos exist. There are videos of relatives walking for hours from body bag to body bag to find the remains of their lost ones. There are videos of people with heavy machine guns shooting indiscriminately into peaceful protests. There are videos of executions. Everything has been recorded.
There is a reason why the Iranian government cannot activate internet and phones anymore. Once people can communicate again, they will count and document the true scale of events. Right now, it seems the Iranian government would rather give up on internet and telephones altogether than having anyone find out, which tells you just about how bad the situation is.
> There is a reason why the Iranian government cannot activate internet and phones anymore. Once people can communicate again, they will count and document the true scale of events. Right now, it seems the Iranian government would rather give up on internet and telephones altogether than having anyone find out, which tells you just about how bad the situation is.
I had talked to an iranian person who had misconfigured internet provider so I was able to talk to them on a forum. They mentioned that phone calls are still there in the daytime tho (they are cut at night), Sim,internet,starlink all are blocked
If someone's from Iran/related to it feel free to correct me but has there been any recent development where phone calls are completely shut off?
The videos are actually out there. Also remember that they cut the internet just to prevent more evidence coming out.
36,500 seems awfully high. Did they just stand there? Those are numbers you'd see in a war, not a 2-day crackdown on protestors with small arms.
In 532AD the Nika riots[1] in Byzantium ended with 30,000 dead. That's with hand to hand combat at close quarters.
So while the source is biased the numbers are not intrinsically unlikely.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nika_riots
Be aware that all this might be the usual propaganda campaign that precedes US's "regime change" wars to make them appear as justified and necessary to the general public. This has been done so many times now that it's incredible people keep falling for it.