Iran rounds up thousands in mass arrest campaign after crushing unrest(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Iran rounds up thousands in mass arrest campaign after crushing unrest
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-rounds-up-thousands-mass-arrest-campaign-after-crushing-unrest-sources-say-2026-01-29/
35 comments
Is reuters anywhere paywalled?
Yes, I just got "Subscribe to Reuters to continue reading." paywall after scrolling down into the page a bit. I could probably delete the element/scrim and make the page scrollable again with dev tools, but yeah... either way. (I assume that's also why https://neuters.de/ exists)
I see. Well, ublock origin seems to have taken care of that for me.
We don't want countries intervening on the afairs of other countries but there comes a time when you really have to consider it.
Yea, I mean, its always led to such stable transfers of power in the past
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Nicaragua https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80...
need I go on? I can?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Nicaragua https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80...
need I go on? I can?
Yes but look who was in charge at the time. In this case we'd likely have Jared Kushner and an AI trained to replicate Hulk Hogan overseeing the transfer of power.
If the rumors are true, the Iranian gov systematically cut off all escape and communication for the 30k people it just ruthlessly murdered. While I agree meddling in other countries’ happenings should be little to none, that’s a lot of people slaughtered and no one even tried to stop it. Whataboutism won’t bring those people back either.
[deleted]
This is a very valid criticism that can't simply be dismissed by an inappropriate application of the whataboutism argument. I agree that the current Iranian regime is ruthless and has to go. But history has shown that almost all US intervention results in a much worse outcome for the people they 'liberate' (a good example was the polpot regime of Cambodia). And this is due to the fact that any humanitarian crisis is just a pretext for the US to invade, and it hides their true motivations of colonial commercial exploitation of the war torn land. Even the current Iranian regime is a direct result of the US sabotaging a democratic system that existed there for exploiting their oil reserves. What makes you think another intervention is going to end any better?
The US government doesn't care at all about the thousands who were murdered in Iran. Gaza is the best example of that. I was worried that the Trumpian rhetoric about the protestors would put them in more jeopardy by painting them as US backed saboteurs to the regime. And that's exactly what happened. If he cared about them, he would have kept quiet for their safety. But what he actually wants is an excuse to invade, and any rhetoric helps that cause. The US intervention is already causing serious issues. However way I look at it, I see this only making a bad situation much worse.
There is this belief that the US is a benevolent superpower who is forced by the brutality of foreign regimes to intervene on humanitarian grounds. But history says otherwise. I always get a strong push back whenever I suggest this, from those who refuse to judge the situation impartially. See what happened in Venezuela, for example. The only difference now is that the current US regime doesn't care about hiding their true intentions.
And finally, the current US regime complaining about the brutality of a foreign regime is supremely ironic. The Khomeini regime may be much more brutal, but it's only because they got so much time to evolve into one. The Trump regime is however, on a speed run to a full dictatorship. Does anybody have any idea what's happening with the nearly 70K people that ICE rounded up so far? Everyone seem to think that they're in some detention facility for their 'crimes'. And that scares me a lot, because that's what the German civilians thought about the Jews too, until the allied forces overran the concentration camps. Attacking a foreign autocracy to deflect attention from the one at home is just pure moral bankruptcy.
The US government doesn't care at all about the thousands who were murdered in Iran. Gaza is the best example of that. I was worried that the Trumpian rhetoric about the protestors would put them in more jeopardy by painting them as US backed saboteurs to the regime. And that's exactly what happened. If he cared about them, he would have kept quiet for their safety. But what he actually wants is an excuse to invade, and any rhetoric helps that cause. The US intervention is already causing serious issues. However way I look at it, I see this only making a bad situation much worse.
There is this belief that the US is a benevolent superpower who is forced by the brutality of foreign regimes to intervene on humanitarian grounds. But history says otherwise. I always get a strong push back whenever I suggest this, from those who refuse to judge the situation impartially. See what happened in Venezuela, for example. The only difference now is that the current US regime doesn't care about hiding their true intentions.
And finally, the current US regime complaining about the brutality of a foreign regime is supremely ironic. The Khomeini regime may be much more brutal, but it's only because they got so much time to evolve into one. The Trump regime is however, on a speed run to a full dictatorship. Does anybody have any idea what's happening with the nearly 70K people that ICE rounded up so far? Everyone seem to think that they're in some detention facility for their 'crimes'. And that scares me a lot, because that's what the German civilians thought about the Jews too, until the allied forces overran the concentration camps. Attacking a foreign autocracy to deflect attention from the one at home is just pure moral bankruptcy.
> The US government doesn't care at all about the thousands who were murdered in Iran. Gaza is the best example of that.
Wait, what? The only people linking Iran and Gaza are the ayatollahs ... and let's be clear: hamas murders more Palestinians than Israel does, which I'm sure Iran actually knows and sees as a good thing.
> There is this belief that the US is a benevolent superpower who is forced by the brutality of foreign regimes to intervene on humanitarian grounds. But history says otherwise.
There's obvious responses (and I'll ignore if that belief is real or not. It's not):
1) the US was indeed forced. In the sense that it's blatantly obvious that current and past administrations would have massively preferred to not interfere. Oh AND when the US says it was forced into action, that's far more true than when Putin says it. Or when the ayatollahs say it for that matter.
2) As for motivations, are they pure? No. The US and the rest of the world, when push comes to shove, is dependent on most countries participating in international trade, and has gone into wars for that. And yes, pushing oil extraction is part of that. Iran is a brutal regime that is not only extremely aggressive against it's own population but is also in a great position and trying to block trade through the Persian gulf. They wouldn't even use that to get some tax out of it. Given the chance, they would use their position to block trade with half the middle east, to conquer it. That's the mullahs wet dream, the goal.
3) And let's be real here: when it comes to US wars, they massively improved the fate of the people in the countries that were targeted. It was indeed brutal regimes that were targeted. So the humanitarian aspect is real, even if the counterargument is true: does the US attack because of humanitarian problems? No.
But compared to the other side, there's the question do US enemies create humanitarian problems as a military tactic? Generally, yes. Especially hamas, of course, and in their case, on a large scale.
4) What are the alternatives? Russia? China? They are worse than the US was at it's worst, centuries back. And the EU countries? When they did care, they had racist, colonial brutality against locals and have now moved to total indifference. Let's politely say "no help there".
5) That the motivations of the US are in question at all, and that we are genuinely discussing them inside the US, by itself, is moral. The motivations of the opposing sides ... nobody even questions how evil they are. Anybody who questions that Iran wants to conquer ... Iran has done that, brutally. Google "plastic keys to heaven", and learn how you can use minority primary school children as cheap demining equipment. Clearly, allah-approved, according to ayatollahs, who I'm told have to study islamic theology for 20 years minimum to get that job.
6) ICE might be bad, but it's not comparable to the ayatollahs. Not even remotely.
7) letting mullahs, who have shown they will use children as demining equipment in a war of aggression, acquire a nuclear bomb does not just seem like morally abhorrent but also a strategic disaster. And in case that argument is not convincing enough, they have made it clear on many occasions they want nuclear weapons in order to use them aggressively.
Wait, what? The only people linking Iran and Gaza are the ayatollahs ... and let's be clear: hamas murders more Palestinians than Israel does, which I'm sure Iran actually knows and sees as a good thing.
> There is this belief that the US is a benevolent superpower who is forced by the brutality of foreign regimes to intervene on humanitarian grounds. But history says otherwise.
There's obvious responses (and I'll ignore if that belief is real or not. It's not):
1) the US was indeed forced. In the sense that it's blatantly obvious that current and past administrations would have massively preferred to not interfere. Oh AND when the US says it was forced into action, that's far more true than when Putin says it. Or when the ayatollahs say it for that matter.
2) As for motivations, are they pure? No. The US and the rest of the world, when push comes to shove, is dependent on most countries participating in international trade, and has gone into wars for that. And yes, pushing oil extraction is part of that. Iran is a brutal regime that is not only extremely aggressive against it's own population but is also in a great position and trying to block trade through the Persian gulf. They wouldn't even use that to get some tax out of it. Given the chance, they would use their position to block trade with half the middle east, to conquer it. That's the mullahs wet dream, the goal.
3) And let's be real here: when it comes to US wars, they massively improved the fate of the people in the countries that were targeted. It was indeed brutal regimes that were targeted. So the humanitarian aspect is real, even if the counterargument is true: does the US attack because of humanitarian problems? No.
But compared to the other side, there's the question do US enemies create humanitarian problems as a military tactic? Generally, yes. Especially hamas, of course, and in their case, on a large scale.
4) What are the alternatives? Russia? China? They are worse than the US was at it's worst, centuries back. And the EU countries? When they did care, they had racist, colonial brutality against locals and have now moved to total indifference. Let's politely say "no help there".
5) That the motivations of the US are in question at all, and that we are genuinely discussing them inside the US, by itself, is moral. The motivations of the opposing sides ... nobody even questions how evil they are. Anybody who questions that Iran wants to conquer ... Iran has done that, brutally. Google "plastic keys to heaven", and learn how you can use minority primary school children as cheap demining equipment. Clearly, allah-approved, according to ayatollahs, who I'm told have to study islamic theology for 20 years minimum to get that job.
6) ICE might be bad, but it's not comparable to the ayatollahs. Not even remotely.
7) letting mullahs, who have shown they will use children as demining equipment in a war of aggression, acquire a nuclear bomb does not just seem like morally abhorrent but also a strategic disaster. And in case that argument is not convincing enough, they have made it clear on many occasions they want nuclear weapons in order to use them aggressively.
You mean the CIA backed Iranian coup in 1953?
Edit0:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat
Edit0:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat
Meanwhile the headlines say Trump is sending more warships to the area and telling Iran it's running out of time to make a deal or else.
But what deal exactly?
I can not help but feel that a lot of what Trump is doing in general, is for the show purpose effect.
I can not help but feel that a lot of what Trump is doing in general, is for the show purpose effect.
But his precise objectives remain unclear. Speaking at the premiere of the documentary Melania, the US president told reporters Iran had to do “two things” to avoid military action. “Number one, no nuclear. And number two, stop killing protesters,” saying that “they are killing them by the thousands”.
There is no deal. The problem with Iran is that it's a regional power that is not aligned with Israel, so Israel has been insisting for decades that it must be attacked. The desired outcome of course is not to "free" Iran but to weaken it so that it can't be a rival power. So first it claimed it was because of Iran's nuclear program, and when Obama put that under control with an agreement that gave Iran the opportunity to thrive, it pushed Trump to renege the deal so Iran's nuclear could be a problem again and the sanctions restored.
It's a regional power that funds militias and paramilitaries in half the middle east, which uses those paramilitary organizations to exert control and influence over their neighbors and occasionally to assassinate political opposition (e.g. in Lebanon, Iraq), and to prop up the likes of Assad (Hezbollah got involved in the civil war on the Assad side, and in one instance laid siege to and starved out a village) and threaten Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc.
Israel is part of the equation but Middle Eastern politics is more complex than that.
Israel is part of the equation but Middle Eastern politics is more complex than that.
It's a power whose slogan is "Death to the US" and which has been doggedly working on nuclear weapons for decades. Try and temper the Israel Derangement Syndrome sufficiently to see that the US and the Mideast would be better off without the Iranian theocracy.
It's not their slogan and it doesn't mean "death"- that's just a purposeful literal mistranslation. "Death to" in Farsi translates as "down with" in English, and that's the actual official translation. And they have all reasons to be angry with the US.
Ah, and one thing I think the world would be definitely better without, is a western apartheid state with genocidal tendencies placed in the middle east and hell-bent on conquering land and destroying all opponents, armed to the teeth and supported by the west beyond all reason.
Ah, and one thing I think the world would be definitely better without, is a western apartheid state with genocidal tendencies placed in the middle east and hell-bent on conquering land and destroying all opponents, armed to the teeth and supported by the west beyond all reason.
It's inexplicable how you can spout this nonsense. Somehow it makes sense to you that there is a relevant distinction to whether a regime machine-gunning its own citizens is shouting "Death to (insert unrelated country)" or "Down with (insert unrelated country)".
You can say that the US is "unrelated" to Iran only if you have zero knowledge of history, either out of ignorance or, most probably, out of convenience.
So they're killing protesters because they hate the US and Israel? QED, I guess.
In national politics, one calls for the vote when the outcome has been decided, in order to "put a bow" on matters.
Trump can be expected to pull a trigger when the results are similarly "known" (Maduro), and not a moment before.
The Iranian situation is orders of magnitude more complex than Venezuela, and the stakes are obviously higher on both ends. If the Iranian autocrats persevere, they will argue heaven is on their side. If Trump fumbles, the Loyal Opposition will be a proxy for the Ayatollah at the midterm elections this November.
For one who (according to his detractors) is an idiot with no self-control, Trump shows much strategic patience.
Trump can be expected to pull a trigger when the results are similarly "known" (Maduro), and not a moment before.
The Iranian situation is orders of magnitude more complex than Venezuela, and the stakes are obviously higher on both ends. If the Iranian autocrats persevere, they will argue heaven is on their side. If Trump fumbles, the Loyal Opposition will be a proxy for the Ayatollah at the midterm elections this November.
For one who (according to his detractors) is an idiot with no self-control, Trump shows much strategic patience.
Like last time, so far he’s bad mostly for his own country.
The Medrano abduction and kirking Iran’s leadership may end up positive actions from a humanitarian view.
The Medrano abduction and kirking Iran’s leadership may end up positive actions from a humanitarian view.
> Like last time, so far he’s bad mostly for his own country.
How well is that going?
> The Medrano abduction and kirking Iran’s leadership may end up positive actions from a humanitarian view.
Meduro may no longer be in Venezuela, but his entire regime is left intact in place with a puppet leader under the remote control of the so-called 'acting president of Venezuela'. So the local dictator of an authoritarian regime is replaced by a foreign one - a very racist one at that. How is this positive on 'humanitarian grounds'?
In Iran too, Trump's callous rhetoric has riled up the Iranian regime to crack down heavily on the protestors in the name of treason. In the future too, his behavior will only bring more suffering to ordinary Iranians.
Why is it that when it comes to authoritarian and dictatorial regimes, so many people pivot to judgments based on nation and race, instead of being politically consistent?
How well is that going?
> The Medrano abduction and kirking Iran’s leadership may end up positive actions from a humanitarian view.
Meduro may no longer be in Venezuela, but his entire regime is left intact in place with a puppet leader under the remote control of the so-called 'acting president of Venezuela'. So the local dictator of an authoritarian regime is replaced by a foreign one - a very racist one at that. How is this positive on 'humanitarian grounds'?
In Iran too, Trump's callous rhetoric has riled up the Iranian regime to crack down heavily on the protestors in the name of treason. In the future too, his behavior will only bring more suffering to ordinary Iranians.
Why is it that when it comes to authoritarian and dictatorial regimes, so many people pivot to judgments based on nation and race, instead of being politically consistent?
[deleted]
lastwalz(2)
Based on the US troop movements, Israel's sneak attack last year and the ongoing suspicion that the US uses protests and NGOs to achieve regime change it'd seem to be a no-brainer for Iran to be on extreme war footing right now. I imagine this'd be part of their preparation.
> Israel's sneak attack
LOL. You mean they didn't warn them like they do in Gaza?
LOL. You mean they didn't warn them like they do in Gaza?
Huh.