Iran summons families of exiled journalists to halt their activities(iranintl.com)
iranintl.com
Iran summons families of exiled journalists to halt their activities
https://www.iranintl.com/en/202602017863
97 comments
While IRGC killed thousands in Iran, and they killed some of the doctors who were helping the injured civillian protestors, Doctors Without Borders just refuses to say anything, anything at all about this situation. Sometimes you just lose faith in humanity...
Their work requires physical presence which makes them easy to threaten.
Do you have similar presence, vulnerability, and defiance in spite of it? Or are you casting stones from a position of comfort while doing, comparatively, nothing?
Do you have similar presence, vulnerability, and defiance in spite of it? Or are you casting stones from a position of comfort while doing, comparatively, nothing?
"It's easy to be a saint in paradise." Cmdr. Sisko, ST:DS9
The real question is have they tried to “be present” and denied access? If not, what you’re saying is moot.
It took me one search to determine that they have teams in Iran, and so face both direct physical risk to their teams, and face a direct risk to their mission if they are not careful about what they say.
That was a question.
From the source: “While we are not authorized to carry out activities beyond the scope of our projects — which focus on marginalized communities in Iran — we continue to offer medical support to hospitals.”
https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/what-we-do/where-we-wo...
It seems that they are present physically but don’t have proper authorization for activities beyond the scope…
Compare it with their missions elsewhere (i.e. Gaza, which I’m not against btw):
“In Palestine, Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) provides humanitarian assistance to people affected by violence and displacement, and has scaled up activities to assist people affected by Israel’s war and siege on Gaza.”
Why the difference?
Do you get the point of the original comment now?
From the source: “While we are not authorized to carry out activities beyond the scope of our projects — which focus on marginalized communities in Iran — we continue to offer medical support to hospitals.”
https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/what-we-do/where-we-wo...
It seems that they are present physically but don’t have proper authorization for activities beyond the scope…
Compare it with their missions elsewhere (i.e. Gaza, which I’m not against btw):
“In Palestine, Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) provides humanitarian assistance to people affected by violence and displacement, and has scaled up activities to assist people affected by Israel’s war and siege on Gaza.”
Why the difference?
Do you get the point of the original comment now?
> Why the difference?
What exactly is complicated about this? It is very simple: Different governments allow them different access. This access is often precarious and dependent on not pissing off the government in control over whichever area they operate in. This is the same problem every humanitarian organisation operating in the field has to deal with.
What exactly is complicated about this? It is very simple: Different governments allow them different access. This access is often precarious and dependent on not pissing off the government in control over whichever area they operate in. This is the same problem every humanitarian organisation operating in the field has to deal with.
So do you think they have wider authorization or autonomy in besieged Gaza compared to Iran? Why is that?
I think you’re getting closer to the point I’m trying to make here.
I think you’re getting closer to the point I’m trying to make here.
What is complicated here? The Iranian regime apparently cares more what they might report, presumably because the Iranian regime perceives it to be a bigger threat to their interests.
What is it you think is complicated about this? Just tell us instead of beating around the bush.
What is it you think is complicated about this? Just tell us instead of beating around the bush.
I think you are the one that casting stones from a position of comfort rather than seeing and condemning evil for it is evil, same as all these NGOs and organizations. They could put themselves in danger its literally doctors without borders made to help the unrepresented populations. They were in Palestine and keep being against Israel, but can not say a word against IRGC? what are you trying to accomplish by your comment? I am doing what I can for my friends and family in Iran who many of them have had dangerous stuff almost getting killed by IRGC.
MSF is not filling its mission. I used to donate but I regret it now.
"Our actions are guided by medical ethics and the principles of impartiality, independence, and neutrality." - They are obviously not impartial nor neutral and this is just one example. Don't give them money unless they actually start acting as their mission statement states.
"Our actions are guided by medical ethics and the principles of impartiality, independence, and neutrality." - They are obviously not impartial nor neutral and this is just one example. Don't give them money unless they actually start acting as their mission statement states.
Because if MSF says anything they lose their access and can't get anything done.
[deleted]
Weird, MSF chooses politics and making statements all the time. They even choose to refuse to follow requirements and to be kick out of some host nations (though they chose to follow Iran's).
https://kagi.com/search?q=msf+statement
https://www.msf.org/msf-statement-sharing-staff-information-...
https://kagi.com/search?q=msf+statement
https://www.msf.org/msf-statement-sharing-staff-information-...
If it’s any consolation, it appears a strike by the US is imminent based on hardware that has been repositioned, with the backing or approval of the Saudis.
For those following along at home, that's the same US Gov which is currently killing civilians protesting against its own activities.
Hooray more death, that'll fix things.
Do you have a suggestion for a plausible alternative that can stop the IR government from continuing to murder thousands of its own people?
It's not about the Iranian government killing its own. Then we should have seen a lot more interventions. It's about oil and regional power. The US wants that the region is in hands of their allies and Iran threatens this.
Everything is about self-interest. That does not mean there is no such thing as aligning interests.
Yes. Iran’s territory includes ethnic minorities that could be joined to its neighbors, neighbours who are less brutal. Starting there might be a good first step since we’re now firmly back into redrawing borders with force.
Really? You are advocating regional/civil war, aligned with ethnic ties at that, instead of surgical regime change by the US? How would a regime change of the Mullahs equate to "redrawing borders?" No such thing happened when they were installed and won't need to happen now. Seems like that's what you are suggesting.
> How would a regime change of the Mullahs equate to "redrawing borders?"
It doesn’t. Maybe there is a Delcy Rodriguez in the IRGC. I’m doubtful. If there isn’t, we have the option of creating a power vacuum or quarantining the problem.
I’m arguing for the latter. The Azeri-majority northnorth to Azerbaijan; the Turkic areas to its west to Turkey [1]. Balochistani southeast to Pakistan. Arab southwest to Iraq. Hell, if you’re ambitious, find a way to give Bandar Abbas to the Emiratis and secure the Strait of Hormuz.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicities_in_Iran
It doesn’t. Maybe there is a Delcy Rodriguez in the IRGC. I’m doubtful. If there isn’t, we have the option of creating a power vacuum or quarantining the problem.
I’m arguing for the latter. The Azeri-majority northnorth to Azerbaijan; the Turkic areas to its west to Turkey [1]. Balochistani southeast to Pakistan. Arab southwest to Iraq. Hell, if you’re ambitious, find a way to give Bandar Abbas to the Emiratis and secure the Strait of Hormuz.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicities_in_Iran
There's a widely popular Shah who is ready to take the helm, at least for a "transition" and that's what the majority seems to want in the protests. I'm certain given enough enticement from United States, we can easily find someone who is able and willing from the army or even an IRGC figure who would eagerly jump on the opportunity. Plus, you somehow think the Iranians would just roll with your whiteboard map? Even among the minorities--let alone the majority--you specified, it is not clear that separation is the predominant preference. Many of those plans may look attractive today to some simply because Islamic Republic has mismanaged the economy, not because there is no national bond. To boot, why would United States prefer to hand over such important region to arguably as bad or worse governing bodies like Pakistan, Taliban, or Iraq, and questionable partners like Turkey[1], rather than own Iran by installing its own preferred partner as an ally[1]? Are you delusional?
[1]: I won't be surprised if regime change will be coming for Erdogan not too far from now, after Iran is done.
[2]: If US really wants to shit on the region like that, there are various cards they could have played much easier: unleash groups like MEK/Kurds and start a civil war. So far, it does appear Israel/US behavior, like the way they conducted the 12 day war, is to keep Iran intact and does not mess with the balance of power in the region as much as possible.
[1]: I won't be surprised if regime change will be coming for Erdogan not too far from now, after Iran is done.
[2]: If US really wants to shit on the region like that, there are various cards they could have played much easier: unleash groups like MEK/Kurds and start a civil war. So far, it does appear Israel/US behavior, like the way they conducted the 12 day war, is to keep Iran intact and does not mess with the balance of power in the region as much as possible.
> widely popular Shah
This is strongly contested.
> we can easily find someone who is able and willing from the army or even an IRGC figure who would eagerly jump on the opportunity
This is not the history of nation building.
> Even among the minorities--let alone the majority--you specified, it is not clear that separation is the predominant preference
They have insurgencies for a reason. Many of these groups were also promised some level of self governance, promises which have been trotted back.
> why would United States prefer to hand over such important region to arguably as bad or worse governing bodies like Pakistan, Taliban, or Iraq, and questionable partners like Turkey
Never said Taliban. We have influence over Iraq. And even Pakistan isn’t really fucking with American interests that much, and giving them Balochistan might help them with their anti-terror mission. (It would also piss off India. So maybe skip that, too.)
> to keep Iran intact and does not mess with the balance of power in the region as much as possible
I’m not suggesting this is currently U.S. strategy. I’m saying there are advantages to it over trying to do the Shah again. Namely, it shatters a regional problem more evenly and protects choke points around the Caspian and Strait of Hormuz.
This is strongly contested.
> we can easily find someone who is able and willing from the army or even an IRGC figure who would eagerly jump on the opportunity
This is not the history of nation building.
> Even among the minorities--let alone the majority--you specified, it is not clear that separation is the predominant preference
They have insurgencies for a reason. Many of these groups were also promised some level of self governance, promises which have been trotted back.
> why would United States prefer to hand over such important region to arguably as bad or worse governing bodies like Pakistan, Taliban, or Iraq, and questionable partners like Turkey
Never said Taliban. We have influence over Iraq. And even Pakistan isn’t really fucking with American interests that much, and giving them Balochistan might help them with their anti-terror mission. (It would also piss off India. So maybe skip that, too.)
> to keep Iran intact and does not mess with the balance of power in the region as much as possible
I’m not suggesting this is currently U.S. strategy. I’m saying there are advantages to it over trying to do the Shah again. Namely, it shatters a regional problem more evenly and protects choke points around the Caspian and Strait of Hormuz.
> This is strongly contested.
Sure if you watch #AyatollahBBC or Democrat media who created the beast in the first place under Carter.
--
The rest I will just let you wait and see... There may be some success on the Kurdish/Azeri separationist fronts, but there is less than zero chance Pakistan and Iraq could take over the rest of the country.
The majority of Iranians hate Pakistan and Arabs. The whole undercurrent of the protest is a nationalist movement to kick Islam and Arab culture out. You take a province here a province there; what to do with the rest?
Sure if you watch #AyatollahBBC or Democrat media who created the beast in the first place under Carter.
--
The rest I will just let you wait and see... There may be some success on the Kurdish/Azeri separationist fronts, but there is less than zero chance Pakistan and Iraq could take over the rest of the country.
The majority of Iranians hate Pakistan and Arabs. The whole undercurrent of the protest is a nationalist movement to kick Islam and Arab culture out. You take a province here a province there; what to do with the rest?
> Sure if you watch #AyatollahBBC or Democrat media who created the beast in the first place under Carter
Non-English language assessments from countries in Europe or Asia that haven’t been calling theirq shots wrong in the Middle East for two generations.
I’m not saying we can conclude the Shah is unpopular. Just that we only have quality evidence that he is narrowly popular, and at that moreso abroad and in English-language press.
> You take a province here a province there; what to do with the rest?
Let them have their mullahs. (Or not.) Taliban has been fine from a regional-security perspective. So, increasingly, is Syria.
Non-English language assessments from countries in Europe or Asia that haven’t been calling theirq shots wrong in the Middle East for two generations.
I’m not saying we can conclude the Shah is unpopular. Just that we only have quality evidence that he is narrowly popular, and at that moreso abroad and in English-language press.
> You take a province here a province there; what to do with the rest?
Let them have their mullahs. (Or not.) Taliban has been fine from a regional-security perspective. So, increasingly, is Syria.
I can accept that I don't have any better alternative while while not exactly being consoled.
And billions spent on weapons that could be healthcare…
Sometimes it does though, eg Hiroshima.
There's good reason to believe that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were essentially technical demonstrations warning the soviets, given the clearly imminent end of the war, to not start anything with us. There were already signs of a Japanese desire for surrender.
> There were already signs of a Japanese desire for surrender.
I'm no historian but this point doesn't sound very noteworthy unless it was the leadership who wanted that surrender. It took two bombs to make them surrender; they didn't surrender after the first.
Edit: actually this is much more nuanced than I think either of us make it sound. Japan did send out "peace feelers", but they were more like "we want peace but we don't accept your terms." The Japanese required that the US allow retention of the emperor, no occupation, self-conducted war crime trials, and even possibly keeping some of their conquered territory. The US wanted an unconditional surrender.
I'm no historian but this point doesn't sound very noteworthy unless it was the leadership who wanted that surrender. It took two bombs to make them surrender; they didn't surrender after the first.
Edit: actually this is much more nuanced than I think either of us make it sound. Japan did send out "peace feelers", but they were more like "we want peace but we don't accept your terms." The Japanese required that the US allow retention of the emperor, no occupation, self-conducted war crime trials, and even possibly keeping some of their conquered territory. The US wanted an unconditional surrender.
Probably the worst example, because Japan was probably going to surrender anyways.
> Japan was probably going to surrender anyways
Well yes. The question is how many more would have had to die to get it. This question doesn’t have an easy answer. To the extent there are wrong ones, it’s anyone claiming confidence.
Well yes. The question is how many more would have had to die to get it. This question doesn’t have an easy answer. To the extent there are wrong ones, it’s anyone claiming confidence.
A nonsensical false dichotomy of sorts. Between "Japan surrenders without a single further death" and "We have to nuke two cities for them to surrender" there are numerous steps of gradual escalation that could have been taken before arriving at the "nuke the cities" option. One such possible step could have been nuking a remote area, or at the very least sparsely populated area, to achieve the demonstration of destruction without hundreds of thousands of deaths.
I have no sympathy for the Japanese who killed tens of millions of people in their WW2 atrocities, and the two bombs killed orders of magnitude fewer of their people. I also see no reason to pretend that there weren't obvious alternatives to USA dropping nukes on their cities if we are to believe that the objective was merely getting Japan to surrender (an objective most difficult to believe). No need for pretense -- they wanted to demonstrate their new weapons, AND they wanted to kill a lot of Japanese.
I have no sympathy for the Japanese who killed tens of millions of people in their WW2 atrocities, and the two bombs killed orders of magnitude fewer of their people. I also see no reason to pretend that there weren't obvious alternatives to USA dropping nukes on their cities if we are to believe that the objective was merely getting Japan to surrender (an objective most difficult to believe). No need for pretense -- they wanted to demonstrate their new weapons, AND they wanted to kill a lot of Japanese.
> One such possible step could have been nuking a remote area, or at the very least sparsely populated area, to achieve the demonstration of destruction without hundreds of thousands of deaths
There is a reason it took bombing both Hiroshima and Nagasaki to cause surrender. And if you telegraph that you’re going to bomb a remote place and the bomb fails, you’ve undermined your weapon’s credibility in unique ways.
I’m not saying you’re wrong. Just that your confidence is wrong. What you’re talking about was contemporaneously and continues to be historically debated.
There is a reason it took bombing both Hiroshima and Nagasaki to cause surrender. And if you telegraph that you’re going to bomb a remote place and the bomb fails, you’ve undermined your weapon’s credibility in unique ways.
I’m not saying you’re wrong. Just that your confidence is wrong. What you’re talking about was contemporaneously and continues to be historically debated.
And it was followed by another bomb.
Hiroshima didn’t fix anything because they dropped another on Nagasaki.
Furthermore they could have only destroyed only one city if Hiroshima had been an at sea demonstration instead, maybe even destroy zero cities.
Furthermore they could have only destroyed only one city if Hiroshima had been an at sea demonstration instead, maybe even destroy zero cities.
> Furthermore they could have only destroyed only one city if Hiroshima had been an at sea demonstration instead, maybe even destroy zero cities.
Given the immediate response to Hiroshima was disbelief, surely an at-sea demonstration would have been even less convincing than the observable absence of a city?
Even once the Japanese government confirmed that Hiroshima had indeed been destroyed by a nuclear weapon, part of the reason Nagasaki followed Hiroshima was that the Japanese forces estimated the US couldn't have built more than one or two more (they were correct, they just hadn't internalised what losing an entire city meant).
Even after Nagasaki, there were some who attempted a coup to prevent surrender: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyūjō_incident
Given the immediate response to Hiroshima was disbelief, surely an at-sea demonstration would have been even less convincing than the observable absence of a city?
Even once the Japanese government confirmed that Hiroshima had indeed been destroyed by a nuclear weapon, part of the reason Nagasaki followed Hiroshima was that the Japanese forces estimated the US couldn't have built more than one or two more (they were correct, they just hadn't internalised what losing an entire city meant).
Even after Nagasaki, there were some who attempted a coup to prevent surrender: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyūjō_incident
> Hiroshima didn’t fix anything because they dropped another on Nagasaki
After which Japan surrendered.
This logic is like arguing 99% of a drug doesn’t do anything because the bug is only eradicated by the last effective molecule.
> they could have only destroyed only one city if Hiroshima had been an at sea demonstration instead, maybe even destroy zero cities
This was considered. The bombs’ unreliability (and cost) made it a non-starter.
After which Japan surrendered.
This logic is like arguing 99% of a drug doesn’t do anything because the bug is only eradicated by the last effective molecule.
> they could have only destroyed only one city if Hiroshima had been an at sea demonstration instead, maybe even destroy zero cities
This was considered. The bombs’ unreliability (and cost) made it a non-starter.
Hooray genocide.
I would not be surprised if a lot of these humaitarian organizations come out and condemn the said strike u are mentioning rather than the IRGC actios. Also the Qataris, the Turkey, Russians, Chinese and Pakistanis and Palestinians are all supporting the IRGC killing Iranian civillians. All over the world we are seeing their actions. Also Obama,Biden they had same opportunities but they decided to help IRGC than actually fight them and take them out of power. There's a video of Obama admitting he made a mistake when he was in power. But still even now he's silent on Iran. That's why everyday, I lose a little bit more faith in humanity. Even the EU, France, Spain, UK they barely put IRGC as a terrorist organization now, they did NOT want to do it. Iranian embassies and their personel are active in all said countries... Just terrible politics ad terrible people in power if you ask me.
Don't lose faith in humanity, just global institutions and NGOs.
Frankly, if you hadn't lost faith in those already...
Frankly, if you hadn't lost faith in those already...
Humanity is violent. It’s a primal impulse. Tiananmem killed thousands as well but they have been forgotten and no one really refuses to do business with the Chinese.
So yes, I do feel sorry for those who died. But make no mistake - whatever the result, their death will be in vain. Whoever ends up taking the reins in Iran will be as corrupt and as bad as the mullahs. It’s just that they will acquiesce to US priorities.
So yes, I do feel sorry for those who died. But make no mistake - whatever the result, their death will be in vain. Whoever ends up taking the reins in Iran will be as corrupt and as bad as the mullahs. It’s just that they will acquiesce to US priorities.
Ur last statement could not be more wrong, the Shah did not kill anyone and left the country when the protests became big enough.Thats a historical fact. You can not be any worse than those in power (the mullahs). Even Nazi Germany wasn't killing their own people. It rarely happens that a minority in power start mass killing people of their own population, AK-47's against civillains.
The shah was a brutal ruler. His SAVAK police were responsible for widespread torture and killings. The only reason he fled is the army may have turned against him.
There is not much evidence of torture in SAVAK, yes there was a SAVAK an intelligence/spy agency just like CIA, MI6, Mossad and they were trained in SAVAK by CIA, MI6 and Mossad, the army did not turn against him. The head of army gave him the option to kill Iranians and suppress the protests, the Shah declined and left himself.Even if for sake of argument what your saying was true, and Savak did torture, SAVAK had prisoned Khomeini and his followers, the same people who are now in power and killing CIVILLIANS. Those people in SAVAK custody were NOT civillians. Also they were alive after Shah left and Savak dismantled which means SAVAK wasn't killing...
You’re mistaken. The Nazi Party in Germany intentionally killed a lot of German citizens.
Absolutely!! The intual Jews killed and sent to concentration camps were german jews.
I just meant other than Jews obviously, the Pure Blood Germans if you wanna call them.
Iranintl is a saudi-funded propaganda organ[1]. I wouldn't trust anything that comes out of this rag.
[1]: https://www.mintpressnews.com/iran-international-saudi-funde...
[1]: https://www.mintpressnews.com/iran-international-saudi-funde...
Out of [genuine] curiousity - is there any media available that is "trustworthy"
When it comes to politically charged events (especially wars) both sides tend to only release articles that make themselves look brilliant, and the others as shite, and it's really REALLY hard to get an accurate picture of what's happening on the ground.
Purely yelling that everyone else is producing a "rag" isn't really helpful either, for the same reasons.
When it comes to politically charged events (especially wars) both sides tend to only release articles that make themselves look brilliant, and the others as shite, and it's really REALLY hard to get an accurate picture of what's happening on the ground.
Purely yelling that everyone else is producing a "rag" isn't really helpful either, for the same reasons.
Imo, trustworthiness is all about which side represents best your material interests. As a worker, the Epoch Times, the Business Insider, or the Washington Post are diametrically opposed to my interests, because they are owned by and represent the interests of the Bourgeoisie. What's important is thus finding a source from your own class. CGTN, The Morning Star, or Mintpress being a workers-funded, they represent my class interests best, and are therefore trustworthy sources. To determine this is a bit tricky ofc, because 1) you have to know on which "side" you are, and 2) you have to follow the money and understand how those sources are funded.
TL;DR iranintl is a rag (if you are a worker!) because it's by and for the Saudi aristocracy. But if you are a powerful aristocrat, then I'd say its an adequate news website.
TL;DR iranintl is a rag (if you are a worker!) because it's by and for the Saudi aristocracy. But if you are a powerful aristocrat, then I'd say its an adequate news website.
I already know which "side" I am on though, the side that's asking to be well informed of the facts, not something slanted to some "class warfare" idealogue.
Then I'm afraid finding your luck will take some time, if not your whole lifetime.
I guess, at the least I'm not sharing Chinese state funded media (CGTN) whilst complaining about Saudi funded media
/me shrugs
/me shrugs
Curious who funds mintpressnews.com
It’s a blatant translation of Islamic Regime propaganda websites.
see KhabarOnline, IRIB, etc.
It’s a blatant translation of Islamic Regime propaganda websites.
see KhabarOnline, IRIB, etc.
Why this was flagged?
This website has no more than a year in video presence in Youtube. It talks exclusively about Iran-only affairs that are of interest for foreigners. [It was started in 2017 and is mostly funded by Saudi money](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_International).
Sorry but we're going to need a more credible source than a propaganda site.
Sorry but we're going to need a more credible source than a propaganda site.
Are you suggesting this didn’t happen, or that they’re hypocrites for publicizing it while taking Saudi money?
Every authoritarian regime does this, and some legitimate non-totalitarian governments do too.
Every authoritarian regime does this, and some legitimate non-totalitarian governments do too.
Yes, they are very obviously suggesting it didn't happen. I have no idea why certain people on the left want to ignore what is happening on Iran, and even pretend like nothing problematic is happening in Iran.
Nobody’s saying nothing problematic is happening in Iran.
What I’m saying is that a lot of people are extremely interested in seeing Iran fall and that Western media paid by Saudi Arabia has exactly zero credibility. So get better sources, that’s all.
What I’m saying is that a lot of people are extremely interested in seeing Iran fall and that Western media paid by Saudi Arabia has exactly zero credibility. So get better sources, that’s all.
Always baffled how credulous hn users are when it comes to political news
I guess I thought that would be a good thing? Like shouldn't we be measured and critical? Check our sources? Recognize at least the possibility of being fooled?
I think we should always default to skepticism no matter our priors, even if that ends up being wrong, its not a fruitless position compared to the alternative.
I think we should always default to skepticism no matter our priors, even if that ends up being wrong, its not a fruitless position compared to the alternative.
yes, I think it's because HN users think that politics are comparable to systems design, and its not. Politics is very complex and a lot of non-rational things are done and rationalized later.
I also blame undeveloped theory of mind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind
Do you have any suggestions?
Get better sources with a history of credibility instead of being funded by a state actor whose main man had a journalist dismembered.
Does anyone have a link to a good political model for Iran?
This looks maximally stupid given the American hardware in the region. But there may be internecine angles I’m missing. (Which factions benefit from American air strikes?)
This looks maximally stupid given the American hardware in the region. But there may be internecine angles I’m missing. (Which factions benefit from American air strikes?)
I'd recommend Vali Nasr and Payam Mohseni's works.
But frankly, Iran as it stands today is structurally similar to pre-1976 PRC, and requires an Iranian "Deng Xiaoping", but the only reason Deng even got as far as he did was because the Sino-Soviet Split made the PRC an attractive partner against the USSR and because it took someone with the stature of Mao to host a "Nixon in China" moment, which made partnering with America politically palatable.
The key economic and political institutions in Iran (Army, IRGC, Bonyads) would need to be incentivized to flip to being pro-EU and pro-America in order to sustain the semblance of democracy and secularism because frankly, Russia, China, India, portions of the Gulf, and much of ASEAN is fine working with Iran as it stands today because it is a critical regional power.
Turkiye, the UAE, Qatar, KSA, and Pakistan are probably the best regional players to push a gradual re-opening of Iran.
But frankly, Iran as it stands today is structurally similar to pre-1976 PRC, and requires an Iranian "Deng Xiaoping", but the only reason Deng even got as far as he did was because the Sino-Soviet Split made the PRC an attractive partner against the USSR and because it took someone with the stature of Mao to host a "Nixon in China" moment, which made partnering with America politically palatable.
The key economic and political institutions in Iran (Army, IRGC, Bonyads) would need to be incentivized to flip to being pro-EU and pro-America in order to sustain the semblance of democracy and secularism because frankly, Russia, China, India, portions of the Gulf, and much of ASEAN is fine working with Iran as it stands today because it is a critical regional power.
Turkiye, the UAE, Qatar, KSA, and Pakistan are probably the best regional players to push a gradual re-opening of Iran.
Unfortunately (perhaps) Iran isn't as "weak" as we in the west are led to believe - the drone strike on the USA base in Qatar, for example, we were told that there was no damage done to the base, and the POTUS laughed at how "weak" Iran's attacks were.
Then it turned out to be bluster, there /was/ damage.[0]
It's /really/ hard to get good independent coverage of most politically charged events (The fog of war, etc)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_strikes_on_Al_Udeid_Ai...
Then it turned out to be bluster, there /was/ damage.[0]
It's /really/ hard to get good independent coverage of most politically charged events (The fog of war, etc)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_strikes_on_Al_Udeid_Ai...
https://tatsuikeda.substack.com/p/iran-strike-probability-ju...
This writer has developed a model of the situation
This writer has developed a model of the situation
sure this writer has developed a model, but I disagree with his assessment: when they open a "diplomatic channel" just to say "our existential weapons programs are nobody else's business", it just creates the appearance of diplomatic cooperation in global media without actually having sincere diplomatic conversation.
Clicked on the podcast portion and its Google Notebook LM AI Slop
I hadn't noticed that, thanks. Check out the guy's LinkedIn!
https://www.linkedin.com/in/tatsu
https://www.linkedin.com/in/tatsu
No one is afraid of the US. Iran has continuously waged war on America since the revolution, killing countless soldiers, as well as murdering civilians on western soil. America’s response has been essentially non-existent.
Short of an unignorable mass attack on the homeland, America has a proven track record of turning the other cheek.
Short of an unignorable mass attack on the homeland, America has a proven track record of turning the other cheek.
> No one is afraid of the US
No one should be. But only idiots, today, are not fearful of the largest and most-comprehensive war machine in human history.
> America’s response has been essentially non-existent
Are we starting the clock after the Israeli campaigns that established air superiority over all of Iran?
No one should be. But only idiots, today, are not fearful of the largest and most-comprehensive war machine in human history.
> America’s response has been essentially non-existent
Are we starting the clock after the Israeli campaigns that established air superiority over all of Iran?
After waging war on America continuously for 46 years, the response was to take out a handful of targets, leaving the entire theocratic regime and nearly all of its regional military capabilities intact.
Yep, that’ll show them.
Yep, that’ll show them.
At some point when you go to extreme lengths to pick the softest wording possible you yourself become an accomplice, they didn't "summon", that word is better for fantasies where they summon spirits or beasts like shai-hulud, here the fitting word would be "forced" as in "Iran government forces families of exiled journalists to stop any criticism against them"
To summon someone implies force both in the "real world" use and in the mythological use.
In the real world it generally means to order, with the implication that there are consequences to failing to appear, and the consequences in this case are clear from the juxtaposition of wanting to shut up exiled journalists and summoning their families.
In mythology it typically implies incantations etc. forces the entity to appear.
There's nothing soft about that wording. If anything "to summon" is often used to imply a level of disdain and lack of legitimate basis that is not implicit in "to order"
In the real world it generally means to order, with the implication that there are consequences to failing to appear, and the consequences in this case are clear from the juxtaposition of wanting to shut up exiled journalists and summoning their families.
In mythology it typically implies incantations etc. forces the entity to appear.
There's nothing soft about that wording. If anything "to summon" is often used to imply a level of disdain and lack of legitimate basis that is not implicit in "to order"
The word summon comes from Anglo-French somundre and Old French somondre (or semondre), meaning "to call, send for, or notify". It derives from the Latin summonere, meaning "to remind privately, warn, or hint to".
To summon is the correct word in this case. The fantasy meaning comes from thee power politics between one that summons (usually: a king) and the one being summoned (usually the serf).
To summon is the correct word in this case. The fantasy meaning comes from thee power politics between one that summons (usually: a king) and the one being summoned (usually the serf).
Etymology is irrelevant to current meaning and understanding.
I sincerely doubt that if someone hears 'summon' today, they think about Dungeons and Dragons-style summoning of fantasy beings. They more likely hear 'to be made to appear in front of [a state power / a court / ...]"
As such, current understanding is closely aligned to the etymological meaning.
As such, current understanding is closely aligned to the etymological meaning.
Even summoning in fantasy tends to imply the entity being summoned has no choice in the matter. If anything, summoning in fantasy is usually stronger, in that there is a tendency for it to imply the entity is powerless to resist.
In this case, however, it reflect the current usage.
If you click the link you'll see the byline says "summoned and threatened"
I would prefer to be summoned and threatened, forced, or even exiled, than get outright assassinated by quadcopter, airstrike or sniper rifle (or something else).
https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/12/1166481
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_...
https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/12/1166481
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_...
No worries they did those (except the quadcopter I think) already. There’s no shortage of evil here or there.
[deleted]
These types of regimes are truly perverse, specially when threatened.
Maduro imprisoned and sentenced to maximum time (30 years) the son in law of the president elect Edmundo Gonzalez in the stolen 2024 election, simply to pressure Edmundo to stop denouncing the election sham.
It’s Sippenhaft.
Maduro imprisoned and sentenced to maximum time (30 years) the son in law of the president elect Edmundo Gonzalez in the stolen 2024 election, simply to pressure Edmundo to stop denouncing the election sham.
It’s Sippenhaft.
Let's cut the euphemistic crap.
This is government blackmail upon threat of death of any family they could find.
This is government blackmail upon threat of death of any family they could find.
Sounds like they'll be invited to the Oval Office as best buddies and scold the press for asking about the truth on murdering journalists
Or go to a few judges to try to get journalists imprisoned and when the judges say no that's not legal, they'll go to grand jury and just lie instead
Oh wait that's US not Iran, the tyrannical "lite" government
Or go to a few judges to try to get journalists imprisoned and when the judges say no that's not legal, they'll go to grand jury and just lie instead
Oh wait that's US not Iran, the tyrannical "lite" government