Iran seems like it is really going to shit.
A water crisis in Tehran and a general economic collapse.
Granted everybody seems to be going downhill at the same time in a global race to the bottom but things seem especially bad there.
So it doesn't surprise me they are having some unrest.
There's been an interesting piece on the BBC basically explaining why they're not covering it much. Basically there are protests. It's very hard to verify as there's just a lot of videos verifying and a very motivated (and I think politically incompetent) emigre community which is sharing this with a high pitch of excitement and rumour (the one I saw was IRGC abandoning several cities which feels unlikely).
So the BBC were basically explaining how they're trying to report what they know is true, that it's tough but they're not going to report rumour or social media videos without it. Which makes sense and I think is the right choice (and learned through hard experience in the last few decades - not least recently in Gaza) but basically leaves them just saying protests are happening.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 03, 2026, 12:24:02 AMThere's been an interesting piece on the BBC basically explaining why they're not covering it much. Basically there are protests. It's very hard to verify as there's just a lot of videos verifying and a very motivated (and I think politically incompetent) emigre community which is sharing this with a high pitch of excitement and rumour (the one I saw was IRGC abandoning several cities which feels unlikely).
So the BBC were basically explaining how they're trying to report what they know is true, that it's tough but they're not going to report rumour or social media videos without it. Which makes sense and I think is the right choice (and learned through hard experience in the last few decades - not least recently in Gaza) but basically leaves them just saying protests are happening.
Yeah I have nothing to base this on but the vibe feels like when in Hungary a thousand angry college kids would tussle with riot police for an hour with 5 thousand people watching the live feed hoping it would escalate to regime change.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 03, 2026, 12:24:02 AMThere's been an interesting piece on the BBC basically explaining why they're not covering it much. Basically there are protests. It's very hard to verify as there's just a lot of videos verifying and a very motivated (and I think politically incompetent) emigre community which is sharing this with a high pitch of excitement and rumour (the one I saw was IRGC abandoning several cities which feels unlikely).
So the BBC were basically explaining how they're trying to report what they know is true, that it's tough but they're not going to report rumour or social media videos without it. Which makes sense and I think is the right choice (and learned through hard experience in the last few decades - not least recently in Gaza) but basically leaves them just saying protests are happening.
Maybe they should send someone over there?
Quote from: Tamas on January 03, 2026, 01:22:06 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on January 03, 2026, 12:24:02 AMThere's been an interesting piece on the BBC basically explaining why they're not covering it much. Basically there are protests. It's very hard to verify as there's just a lot of videos verifying and a very motivated (and I think politically incompetent) emigre community which is sharing this with a high pitch of excitement and rumour (the one I saw was IRGC abandoning several cities which feels unlikely).
So the BBC were basically explaining how they're trying to report what they know is true, that it's tough but they're not going to report rumour or social media videos without it. Which makes sense and I think is the right choice (and learned through hard experience in the last few decades - not least recently in Gaza) but basically leaves them just saying protests are happening.
Yeah I have nothing to base this on but the vibe feels like when in Hungary a thousand angry college kids would tussle with riot police for an hour with 5 thousand people watching the live feed hoping it would escalate to regime change.
I don't know. This one seems big.
We'll see.
Quote from: Valmy on January 05, 2026, 04:00:15 PMQuote from: Tamas on January 03, 2026, 01:22:06 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on January 03, 2026, 12:24:02 AMThere's been an interesting piece on the BBC basically explaining why they're not covering it much. Basically there are protests. It's very hard to verify as there's just a lot of videos verifying and a very motivated (and I think politically incompetent) emigre community which is sharing this with a high pitch of excitement and rumour (the one I saw was IRGC abandoning several cities which feels unlikely).
So the BBC were basically explaining how they're trying to report what they know is true, that it's tough but they're not going to report rumour or social media videos without it. Which makes sense and I think is the right choice (and learned through hard experience in the last few decades - not least recently in Gaza) but basically leaves them just saying protests are happening.
Yeah I have nothing to base this on but the vibe feels like when in Hungary a thousand angry college kids would tussle with riot police for an hour with 5 thousand people watching the live feed hoping it would escalate to regime change.
I don't know. This one seems big.
We'll see.
Yeah it seems to be escalating.
Quote from: Tamas on January 06, 2026, 01:59:16 PMYeah it seems to be escalating.
Imagine the US and Trump if they get rid of Maduro and Iran collapses, on top of things like the hugely effective Israeli operations against Hezbollah and the collapse of Assad.
Maybe time to split this stuff out into a thread?
Thought of making one with my original post on it but there was just zero reporting from legit sources :lol:
Go Persians go.
The shah is being very vocal about it all. Odds of a restoration?
America stomping around Latin America, revolution in Iran, the 70s are back baby.
Quote from: HVC on January 08, 2026, 04:32:33 PMAmerica stomping around Latin America, revolution in Iran, the 70s are back baby.
Energy crises, Middle Eastern wars, inflation, a post-war order falling apart, a superpower shuddering on with an elite of corrupt gerontocrats, left wing terrorism in Germany.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2026, 04:52:27 PMQuote from: HVC on January 08, 2026, 04:32:33 PMAmerica stomping around Latin America, revolution in Iran, the 70s are back baby.
Energy crises, Middle Eastern wars, inflation, a post-war order falling apart, a superpower shuddering on with an elite of corrupt gerontocrats, left wing terrorism in Germany.
We didn't start the fire!
...
...
...
I thought you were singing it
Trump's Playboy's essay remains undefeated.
Quote from: Tamas on January 08, 2026, 04:11:09 PMOk I definitely was wrong about Iran earlier:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/08/iran-plunged-into-internet-blackout-as-protests-over-economy-spread-nationwide
I understand not wanting to get your hopes up after 2022 but the situation is just much worse for Iran now.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 06, 2026, 02:27:33 PMQuote from: Tamas on January 06, 2026, 01:59:16 PMYeah it seems to be escalating.
Imagine the US and Trump if they get rid of Maduro and Iran collapses, on top of things like the hugely effective Israeli operations against Hezbollah and the collapse of Assad.
That is a huge fucking trophy on Netanyahu's mantle.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 06, 2026, 02:27:33 PMQuote from: Tamas on January 06, 2026, 01:59:16 PMYeah it seems to be escalating.
Imagine the US and Trump if they get rid of Maduro and Iran collapses, on top of things like the hugely effective Israeli operations against Hezbollah and the collapse of Assad.
Yeah well...we'll see.
Iran was a minor annoyance at best and we will see what follows if it actually collapses. Likewise we will see what happens in Venezuela.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 09, 2026, 12:50:07 AMThat is a huge fucking trophy on Netanyahu's mantle.
Well good for him.
Hey another reason Israel no longer needs our money.
Report of 12,000 dead.
Austrian Der Standard says reports of 2,000.
Where is Russia in all of this? Seems hard to believe that they'll just sit idly watching their ally to go down. At times like these Russians are usually there providing support and advice for mass slaughter operations.
I'm assuming they have some advisors down there, but maybe their key assets are currently busy elsewhere and can't be spared?
QuoteWhere is Russia in all of this? Seems hard to believe that they'll just sit idly watching their ally to go down. At times like these Russians are usually there providing support and advice for mass slaughter operations.
I don't think the Iranian state needs any leason in mass murder, iirc there's no clear idea of how many died in the 1979-80 revolution, but it must have been many tens of thousands.
Plus that provides a cautionary lesson, as all sides, save perhaps for the Bani Sadre (sp?) government spilled plenty of blood;
The Shah would have killed many, many more if it hadn't been for the army getting cold feet.
Came across an interesting survey of Iranaian attitudes towards religion :
https://gamaan.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/GAMAAN-Iran-Religion-Survey-2020-English.pdf
Interesting to find that only 32% consider themselves to be Shi'ite muslims.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 13, 2026, 09:56:50 AMCame across an interesting survey of Iranaian attitudes towards religion :
https://gamaan.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/GAMAAN-Iran-Religion-Survey-2020-English.pdf
Interesting to find that only 32% consider themselves to be Shi'ite muslims.
My professor for Ancient Near Eastern studies, who was a specialist regarding the khuzistan-luristan region already mentioned -over 20 years ago now- that the Iranians, and especially the young ones, were truly done with the regime and suffocating influence of religion.
The ayatollahs are turning the country into society where secularism might very well become the norm if they're driven from power.
Imagine Iran being a stable-ish secular democracy in 2030.
I'm sure some strongman will find a way to avoid that. The son of the last shah apparently already said that he for sure needs to be part of any post-Ayatollah state :P
Wasn't Iran relatively secular and modern in the 70s?
Quote from: HVC on January 13, 2026, 10:56:25 AMWasn't Iran relatively secular and modern in the 70s?
Yes, but Very corrupt.
Quite a few of the 'exile' families were part of the Shah's kleptocracy and already established abroad, come the revolution they couldn't return, but then got to cloak themselves in the exile banner, rather than being part of the reason for the revolution in the first place.
Quote from: mongers on January 13, 2026, 11:07:19 AMQuote from: HVC on January 13, 2026, 10:56:25 AMWasn't Iran relatively secular and modern in the 70s?
Yes, but Very corrupt.
Quite a few of the 'exile' families were part of the Shah's kleptocracy and already established abroad, come the revolution they couldn't return, but then got to cloak themselves in the exile banner, rather than being part of the reason for the revolution in the first place.
That's usually the way. Look at the first gen Cuban exiles. Theres a reason people had the means and connections to flee.
If even 10% of the reports coming out of Iran are true then the protests have been drowned in a sea of blood basically.
Quote from: Legbiter on January 13, 2026, 12:12:50 PMIf even 10% of the reports coming out of Iran are true then the protests have been drowned in a sea of blood basically.
Yeah. It would be sad... If they were Palestinian.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 13, 2026, 12:21:39 PMQuote from: Legbiter on January 13, 2026, 12:12:50 PMIf even 10% of the reports coming out of Iran are true then the protests have been drowned in a sea of blood basically.
Yeah. It would be sad... If they were Palestinian.
Must be time for a new skin for that drum of yours.
I hope the Iranian people succeed.
It seems international responses have been fairly muted so far...
I guess Russia is too busy to do much yet, while the West is in complete disarray so lacks a unified response.
I know Trump has threatened attacking Iran, but I assume it's mostly bluster at this point?
What about Europe and China? I'm assuming some statements, but little action?
Quote from: HVC on January 13, 2026, 11:12:36 AMThat's usually the way. Look at the first gen Cuban exiles. Theres a reason people had the means and connections to flee.
I always thought it was because they were property owners. what kind of corruption did they practice?
Quote from: mongers on January 13, 2026, 11:07:19 AMQuote from: HVC on January 13, 2026, 10:56:25 AMWasn't Iran relatively secular and modern in the 70s?
Yes, but Very corrupt.
Quite a few of the 'exile' families were part of the Shah's kleptocracy and already established abroad, come the revolution they couldn't return, but then got to cloak themselves in the exile banner, rather than being part of the reason for the revolution in the first place.
Maybe some, but you are overstating it when you say "quite a few". And what do you mean by "cloak themselves in the exile banner". Almost all fled after the revolution with nothing but the clothes they could carry. And many of those had a hard road before they made it to places like Canada.
Quote from: Legbiter on January 13, 2026, 12:12:50 PMIf even 10% of the reports coming out of Iran are true then the protests have been drowned in a sea of blood basically.
The IRGC was never going to give up their power without a fight.
Quote from: Jacob on January 13, 2026, 01:38:06 PMI know Trump has threatened attacking Iran, but I assume it's mostly bluster at this point?
I hope I'm wrong but I slightly worry there's a bit of Bush and the Kurds about this.
Again I hope I'm wrong but I'd expect the regime to crush this as they have previous movements (like the Green Revolution) in 2009 - and protests are regular. But ultimately it's a very brutal regime and Khamenei is a revolutionary from 1979.
QuoteMaybe some, but you are overstating it when you say "quite a few". And what do you mean by "cloak themselves in the exile banner". Almost all fled after the revolution with nothing but the clothes they could carry. And many of those had a hard road before they made it to places like Canada.
I think that's true for most.
But there were also many who fled with their jewels or to their Swiss bank accounts from their systematic looting of the country (I think these are often the ones yearning for a Shah). I think it's a bit like White Russians where there are lot who fled with nothing and some who flet with Faberge eggs. There's been a recent novel about the insanely privilege Iranian emigres in the US flitting between LA (Tehrangeles), Aspen, New York and Houston - it's called The Persians and good fun.
QuoteWasn't Iran relatively secular and modern in the 70s?
I think it's a bit like Afghanistan in that - yes it was in the cities for certain classes, many of whom were basically feudal landowners with estates in the countryside that were not modern or secular. I could be wrong but I think that rural, traditional, more religious and more conservative class of former peasants is basically who the Basij militias are recruited from and they're normally the forces unleashed on protests.
I suspect in that sense Iran is probably more modern now.
I just heard on a BBC radio tidbit with an interview of a professer of American studies at Tehran University saying that zero protestors have died and any video showing casualties are showing the Mossad agents that are currently battling the security forces.
That's quite a lot of Mossad agents that have been embedded in Iran.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 13, 2026, 05:43:40 PMQuote from: Jacob on January 13, 2026, 01:38:06 PMI know Trump has threatened attacking Iran, but I assume it's mostly bluster at this point?
I hope I'm wrong but I slightly worry there's a bit of Bush and the Kurds about this.
Again I hope I'm wrong but I'd expect the regime to crush this as they have previous movements (like the Green Revolution) in 2009 - and protests are regular. But ultimately it's a very brutal regime and Khamenei is a revolutionary from 1979.
QuoteMaybe some, but you are overstating it when you say "quite a few". And what do you mean by "cloak themselves in the exile banner". Almost all fled after the revolution with nothing but the clothes they could carry. And many of those had a hard road before they made it to places like Canada.
I think that's true for most.
But there were also many who fled with their jewels or to their Swiss bank accounts from their systematic looting of the country (I think these are often the ones yearning for a Shah). I think it's a bit like White Russians where there are lot who fled with nothing and some who flet with Faberge eggs. There's been a recent novel about the insanely privilege Iranian emigres in the US flitting between LA (Tehrangeles), Aspen, New York and Houston - it's called The Persians and good fun.
QuoteWasn't Iran relatively secular and modern in the 70s?
I think it's a bit like Afghanistan in that - yes it was in the cities for certain classes, many of whom were basically feudal landowners with estates in the countryside that were not modern or secular. I could be wrong but I think that rural, traditional, more religious and more conservative class of former peasants is basically who the Basij militias are recruited from and they're normally the forces unleashed on protests.
I suspect in that sense Iran is probably more modern now.
You are wrong about your last paragraph. It was not at all like Afghanistan. It had a large middle class and was thoroughly modern on the cities. And the countryside was not fuedal. Rather villages operated more like communes.
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 13, 2026, 06:08:10 PMI just heard on a BBC radio tidbit with an interview of a professer of American studies at Tehran University saying that zero protestors have died and any video showing casualties are showing the Mossad agents that are currently battling the security forces.
That's quite a lot of Mossad agents that have been embedded in Iran.
If it's the guy I'm thinking of, name escapes me, then he's a straight-up regime mouthpiece/ apologist; I don't know why western media interview him.
Edit:
This bloke? :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Marandi
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/images/ic/640x360/p06hkff7.jpg)
I didn't catch the name, but the profile fits.
To be fair, the BBC interviewer challenged him pretty well I think.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 13, 2026, 06:30:57 PMYou are wrong about your last paragraph. It was not at all like Afghanistan. It had a large middle class and was thoroughly modern on the cities. And the countryside was not fuedal. Rather villages operated more like communes.
I think you misread my point on Afghanistan.
On feudalism - it literally was feudal until the 1960s/70s (and in my head there's nothing about a communal village life that contradicts feudalism - seems to me they often go together). I think the Shah's attempt at land reform was one of his big pitches as a reforming "progressive" monarch. But my understanding - and I could be wrong - is that even after land reform the traditional landowners still earned huge wealth from and were very powerful in their old estates. From what I understand a bit like the situation in Pakistan (strikingly, another US ally against communism but not frontline states like Taiwan and South Korea?).
Again from what I understand, I think a lot of the change from land reform has now accrued to the state, elites around politics and groups like the IRGC.
Quote from: mongers on January 13, 2026, 01:12:55 PMQuote from: Razgovory on January 13, 2026, 12:21:39 PMQuote from: Legbiter on January 13, 2026, 12:12:50 PMIf even 10% of the reports coming out of Iran are true then the protests have been drowned in a sea of blood basically.
Yeah. It would be sad... If they were Palestinian.
Must be time for a new skin for that drum of yours.
Saw a video of someone asking people about the dead Iranians at a pro-Pal march in Britain.
"Who cares? Free, Free Palestine!"
Anyway, reading from some of the Pro-Pal sites, it's nice to know that some mass murders are justified.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 13, 2026, 06:41:09 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on January 13, 2026, 06:30:57 PMYou are wrong about your last paragraph. It was not at all like Afghanistan. It had a large middle class and was thoroughly modern on the cities. And the countryside was not fuedal. Rather villages operated more like communes.
I think you misread my point on Afghanistan.
On feudalism - it literally was feudal until the 1960s/70s (and in my head there's nothing about a communal village life that contradicts feudalism - seems to me they often go together). I think the Shah's attempt at land reform was one of his big pitches as a reforming "progressive" monarch. But my understanding - and I could be wrong - is that even after land reform the traditional landowners still earned huge wealth from and were very powerful in their old estates. From what I understand a bit like the situation in Pakistan (strikingly, another US ally against communism but not frontline states like Taiwan and South Korea?).
Again from what I understand, I think a lot of the change from land reform has now accrued to the state, elites around politics and groups like the IRGC.
No, I understand your point about the comparison ito Afghanistan, and you continue to be wrong in your characterization of Iran as being feudal. To the extent it looked that way to a casual observer, the American and UK regime change that brought the Shaw to power are largely to blame.
And come to think of it, the views you are expressing here are a good illustration of the kind of propaganda used by the Brits to justify their actions, so I suppose it is understandable that it has been internalized as a kind of accepted wisdom.
Ah the old when you can be a dick, go full dick.
Because of these events I listened to the Rest is Politics again. Whish I didn't. I can't bear their style, it's like a couple of people from around 2000 looking at our world through a time machine's TV screen and commenting on it.
Quote from: garbon on January 14, 2026, 08:24:24 AMAh the old when you can be a dick, go full dick.
When I hear uninformed stereotypes being trotted out, yeah I call like I see it.
I am reading "King of Kings" by Scott Anderson.
Even from the point of view (with hindsight) of an American journalist, the shah was terrible. But still not as terrible as this current government.
The blood on the streets was quite common back then too, but the Islamic Republic undoubtedly has cranked the bloodletting up quite a few dozen notches.
The discussion about "who lost Iran" is moot. The shah lost Iran. Simple as that. Anderson points to the CIA basically not being asked any questions about the goings on in Iran, and not bothering much to find out then. It seemed nobody, including the revolutionaries, could really see the regime falling, yet it happened so fast that I suppose we should not have been that surprised by the collapse of the Soviet bloc.
I have through the years known a few Iranians in exile here. Most remember the shah with mixed feelings, all are very clear in their view that the Islamic Republic was not what they wanted.
While this is more guesswork than anything tangible or verifiable, I do think the "opposition" today as well is not a very homogenous group.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 14, 2026, 07:48:29 AMNo, I understand your point about the comparison ito Afghanistan, and you continue to be wrong in your characterization of Iran as being feudal. To the extent it looked that way to a casual observer, the American and UK regime change that brought the Shaw to power are largely to blame.
And come to think of it, the views you are expressing here are a good illustration of the kind of propaganda used by the Brits to justify their actions, so I suppose it is understandable that it has been internalized as a kind of accepted wisdom.
Sorry I really don't understand how this ties to what I said. I'd be interested to understand because I'm not sure.
QuoteI am reading "King of Kings" by Scott Anderson.
Even from the point of view (with hindsight) of an American journalist, the shah was terrible. But still not as terrible as this current government.
The blood on the streets was quite common back then too, but the Islamic Republic undoubtedly has cranked the bloodletting up quite a few dozen notches.
Yeah I feel about it in a similar way to Russia. Impossible to not sympathise with the revolution and think it was fully justified (even if the Shah got off lightly), while at the same time regretting the political force that seized their chances in the revolution.
QuoteI have through the years known a few Iranians in exile here. Most remember the shah with mixed feelings, all are very clear in their view that the Islamic Republic was not what they wanted.
While this is more guesswork than anything tangible or verifiable, I do think the "opposition" today as well is not a very homogenous group.
I agree. I think there's a very hard-core of basically unhinged ultra-monarchists (I suspect heavily concentrated in the Iranian emigres who fled to Beverly Hills with healthy Swiss bank accounts) - they've got the money so they're the most vocal. But both within and outside Iran I suspect the vast majority of the opposition may hate the regime but have no desire to see a Pahlavi come back.
@ Norgy, King of Kings is a great book :)
I also recommend All the Shaw's Men which is a narrative history of how the US were first supporters of the new democratically elected government of Iran, but then there was a change of policy and the the CIA took steps to overthrow it and install the Shaw. When people talk about the corruption that existed prior to the revolution, this is the story of the root of that corruption.
The Americans being unreliable allies has a long history...
https://www.indigo.ca/en-ca/all-the-shahs-men-an-american-coup-and-the-roots-of-middle-east-terror/9781681620619.html
Surpise...Trump TACO's on Iran in record time.
QuotePresident Donald Trump made a vague statement Wednesday that he's been told "on good authority" that plans for executions in Iran have stopped...
https://apnews.com/article/trump-iran-protesters-executions-195edfa07111be782db71af07b538fdc
Well, the communists will be pleased.
The Brits were far more responsible for the installation of the Shah than the bumbling CIA. Their guys just couldn't brag about it due to the Official Secrets Act.
Quote from: grumbler on January 14, 2026, 08:16:34 PMThe Brits were far more responsible for the installation of the Shah than the bumbling CIA. Their guys just couldn't brag about it due to the Official Secrets Act.
Yeah, I think there is a lot to that.
(https://i.imgur.com/YYXchPj.jpeg)
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 14, 2026, 06:48:44 PMQuotePresident Donald Trump made a vague statement Wednesday that he's been told "on good authority" that plans for executions in Iran have stopped...
https://apnews.com/article/trump-iran-protesters-executions-195edfa07111be782db71af07b538fdc
"good authority" - Vladimir P.
Quote from: Norgy on January 14, 2026, 11:31:15 AMMost remember the shah with mixed feelings, all are very clear in their view that the Islamic Republic was not what they wanted.
That's pretty much irrelevant though.
Trump supporters may claim they did not want what is happening now because it affects them, but they really wanted higher tariffs, a "strongman" type at the head of the US, cruelty toward immigrants and an Handmaid Tales type of social regime.
This is what Americans who did not vote for the Democrats wanted to happen, they felt the Dems were too soft.
And I feel it was the same with Shah's opposition. The repression was terrible. But the opposition movement was not out there in the street to ask for democracy and western liberalism. They were opposed to the very liberal reform made by the Shah and they actually wanted more conservatism.
It's really hard to claim after that "oh, that's not what we wanted". Yes, actually, that's what they wanted, a more conservative Iran, a much less liberal Iran. That they
did not expect Iran to become so corrupt, so repressive and so miserable would be fairer assessment.
But that's what happens with theocracy.
there weren't only islamist retrogrades protesting against the Shah though. Progessives were protesting too, thinking the ayatollah-supporters were their allies.
They rued their mistake when they were eliminated.
(it's the same mistake progressives in the west make. Islamics are not your allies. They'll use you, then destroy you)
To be fair, even the local communists, instructed by the USSR but not only that, thought they could use islamists as useful idiots to get into power.
We all know what happened next, with the purge facilitated by the war with Iraq, started by Saddam who thought he could benefit from the upheaval.
I think the Tudeh was about four people. But Iran failed to absorb the young, poor newly urbanised males. The thing they had in common was not politics, but religion. Shiite religion. And when Khomeini got to Paris and could communicate freely, while other opposition groups failed to get any concessions from the hardliner Khomeini, I suppose it was the shahanshah or Islamic Republic. The other opposition groups falling in line behind Khomeini was probably the bell that tolled for the monarchy and any hope of reform.
I would love to see a free Iran with no kings and no ayatollahs. That would brighten this shitshow of a year.
I think in a revolutionary moment the people who can act decisively to seize opportunities tend to do well. I think that was true around Khomeini'sstrongest supporters - and I think Khomeini is an extraordinary figure.
I know he's a hate figure on the right (in part for this) but I think Foucault's writing from when he went to Iran in 1978-79 is really interesting in part because he's about the only western observer who actually sees what's happening rather than just layering their own preconceptions (about modernity, revolution, politics, progress) onto it.
Are there any Western observers in Iran now? Nope.
We know very little.
I'd say the regime won this. Trump probably got a lot of frantic phone calls from Gulf Arabs telling him not to go in. The street protests have been put down brutally, probably exceeding Tiananmen Square by a comfortable order of magnitude at least. We'll see. A weak disunited Iran probably serves their interests best.
As Iran seems to be slowly loosening restrictions on the internet I assume the revolt has been smothered in blood already.
In any case: no universities were occupied or red lines drawn.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 17, 2026, 02:56:26 PMI know he's a hate figure on the right (in part for this) but I think Foucault's writing from when he went to Iran in 1978-79 is really interesting in part because he's about the only western observer who actually sees what's happening rather than just layering their own preconceptions (about modernity, revolution, politics, progress) onto it.
:lmfao:
Actually, Foucault was layering his own preconceptions on the Islamic Revolution, which made him a useful idiot of the islamists, despite some pussyfooting and later lame attempts to disavow Khomeiny (calling himl a saint so much for structuralism and post-modernity).
QuoteFoucault et la révolution iranienne
Fin 1978, il se rend à Téhéran après le massacre de la place Jaleh, dans le cadre d'un reportage pour le Corriere della Sera, qui inaugure une série de reportages effectués par des intellectuels. À son retour, il consacre à la Révolution iranienne plusieurs articles enthousiastes qui déclenchent une vive polémique[56]. Certains l'accuseront de soutenir l'Ayatollah Khomeini[57]. Pourtant, il distingue la « spiritualité politique » des insurgés du « gouvernement sanglant d'un clergé intégriste » et refuse surtout de penser cette révolution, qu'il préfère appeler « insurrection », à l'aune de son résultat :
« Les religieux iraniens veulent authentifier leur régime par les significations qu'avait le soulèvement. On ne fait pas autre chose qu'eux en disqualifiant le soulèvement parce qu'il y a aujourd'hui un gouvernement de mollahs[58]. »
Cependant, et malgré des réserves, Foucault s'avoue impressionné par les objectifs du nouveau régime :
« Je me sens embarrassé pour parler du gouvernement islamique comme « idée » ou même comme « idéal ». Mais comme « volonté politique », il m'a impressionné. Il m'a impressionné dans son effort pour politiser, en réponse à des problèmes actuels, des structures indissociablement sociales et religieuses ; il m'a impressionné dans sa tentative aussi pour ouvrir dans la politique une dimension spirituelle[59]. »
« Peut-être les sujets révoltés du chah sont-ils en train de rechercher cette chose que nous avons oubliée depuis si longtemps en Europe : une spiritualité politique. »
Spiritualité, vraiment ? Voilà encore comment le philosophe décrivait l'ayatollah se dressant face au shah :
« La situation semble être suspendue à une grande joute entre deux personnages aux blasons traditionnels : le roi et le saint, le souverain en armes et l'exilé démuni ; le despote avec en face de lui l'homme qui se dresse les mains nues, acclamé par un peuple[60]. »
Plus tôt dans l'année, il a voyagé au Japon pour la seconde fois, exprimant un intérêt pour « les limites de la rationalité occidentale » (il ajoute qu'il s'agit d'une « question qu'il est inévitable de poser parce que le Japon n'est pas en opposition à la rationalité occidentale »).
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault)
As Sartre at the same time, the latter having his islamist, after marxist-leninist, stalinist, Ho-Chi-Minh and maoist periods.
Ended up asking Giscard to take more boat people, after fighting for those régimes. :lmfao:
OTOH, Giscard granted entry to Khomeiny...
Quote from: Norgy on January 17, 2026, 04:06:46 PMAre there any Western observers in Iran now? Nope.
We know very little.
Yeah. I've no idea - obviously I hope the revolters can triumph but there's so little reliable information coming out it's impossible to really think anything.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 17, 2026, 04:20:51 PMAs Iran seems to be slowly loosening restrictions on the internet I assume the revolt has been smothered in blood already.
In any case: no universities were occupied or red lines drawn.
The people who occupy universities were rather on the side of the government. Turns out the Republic of Gilead is emancipatory if it opposes the US.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2026, 07:04:43 PMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 17, 2026, 04:20:51 PMAs Iran seems to be slowly loosening restrictions on the internet I assume the revolt has been smothered in blood already.
In any case: no universities were occupied or red lines drawn.
The people who occupy universities were rather on the side of the government. Turns out the Republic of Gilead is emancipatory if it opposes the US.
I mean what would they be protesting? The US government already opposes Iran. There is no US government policy to protest.
Quote from: Valmy on January 17, 2026, 10:01:48 PMQuote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2026, 07:04:43 PMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 17, 2026, 04:20:51 PMAs Iran seems to be slowly loosening restrictions on the internet I assume the revolt has been smothered in blood already.
In any case: no universities were occupied or red lines drawn.
The people who occupy universities were rather on the side of the government. Turns out the Republic of Gilead is emancipatory if it opposes the US.
I mean what would they be protesting? The US government already opposes Iran. There is no US government policy to protest.
They are on the side of the Iranian regime. The protests against the regime are part of an Imperialist-Zionist-Monarchist plot. The people of Iran are already liberated. That's what liberation looks like.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2026, 10:55:34 PMThey are on the side of the Iranian regime. The protests against the regime are part of an Imperialist-Zionist-Monarchist plot. The people of Iran are already liberated. That's what liberation looks like.
I guess I missed the mass protest where this message was communicated.
Look I am sure somebody on the internet said this. But I will need to see some more convincing evidence this is a view shared by everybody who doesn't want billions of our tax dollars sent to fund an ethnic conflict in the Middle East. I don't want that and I am against the Iranian regime so...how do you explain that?
Quote from: Valmy on January 17, 2026, 11:28:35 PMQuote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2026, 10:55:34 PMThey are on the side of the Iranian regime. The protests against the regime are part of an Imperialist-Zionist-Monarchist plot. The people of Iran are already liberated. That's what liberation looks like.
I guess I missed the mass protest where this message was communicated.
The protestors in Iran are apparently just Zionist mercenaries.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2026, 11:30:55 PMThe protestors in Iran are apparently just Zionist mercenaries.
Again I am sure somebody on the internet said this. But that is stupid.
Quote from: Valmy on January 17, 2026, 11:28:35 PMQuote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2026, 10:55:34 PMThey are on the side of the Iranian regime. The protests against the regime are part of an Imperialist-Zionist-Monarchist plot. The people of Iran are already liberated. That's what liberation looks like.
Look I am sure somebody on the internet said this. But I will need to see some more convincing evidence this is a view shared by everybody who doesn't want billions of our tax dollars sent to fund an ethnic conflict in the Middle East. I don't want that and I am against the Iranian regime so...how do you explain that?
Clearly you haven't been to enough to teach-ins and haven't learned about the all-encompassing evil that is Zionism. You are still at the Tucker Carlson level of antizionism. "It's muh money!" You need to graduate to the Candace Owens level of antizionism "they control everything!".
Oh, sorry that's for right-wingers.
Change the names of Tucker Carlson to Rashida Talib and Candace Owens to Calla Walsh for a left-wing version. Same coin, different side.
At least 4200 killed. Official Iranian reports 5000, including around 500 from the security forces.
Arrests in the tens of thousands. :unsure:
Quote from: Norgy on January 18, 2026, 05:07:35 AMAt least 4200 killed. Official Iranian reports 5000, including around 500 from the security forces.
Arrests in the tens of thousands. :unsure:
Jesus.
Is it over?
And they'd already been killing/imprisoning "traitors" by the thousands after the Israel/US strikes.
Do we have any indication of whether the regime is under any real threat from the protests?
How much concrete support does the Iranian government have?
I fear the mullahs will end up having had more than 10,000 of their fellow Iranians murdered, on the streets, in their homes or when held in prison.
As far as I know we have no idea what is going on besides lots of people have been killed.
Quote from: Jacob on January 18, 2026, 05:18:01 PMDo we have any indication of whether the regime is under any real threat from the protests?
Signs point to "no"
(https://i.imgur.com/TOaL1XJ.jpeg)
From a German journalist of Iranian descent - I don't know how true all of these are but they're heart-breaking:
QuoteGolineh Atai
@GolinehAtai
Messages from #Iran
,,I don't know how to live with so much pain and grief"
,,you cannot imagine what happened"
,,nothing will be like before"
,,is the world even ready to face this calamity? Is it capable of not turning its eyes away?"
,,at night their storm private houses, kicking the doors"
,,all of us are in pain, in anger, and full of hate"
,,there are floods of people in Isfahan's cemetery. They brought the corpses in refrigerated trucks. Blood was dripping from the trucks"
,,I am utterly hopeless and exhausted. I cannot imagine something happening from within. They have infiltrated us more than you think. They have everything to kill each and everyone of us"
,,The Islamic Republic was right when it promised to feed the people. Yes, they fed us bullets"
,,The situation reminds me of Orwell's 1984. Everywhere you hear and see their propaganda while you've lost the ability to speak because of the terror they have imposed on us"
,,They killed the protester. He had a tattoo on his middle finger that showed a crown. They also shot through this finger"
I know there's the mourning cycle which was an engine in the Iranian Revolution and may happen but it sounds very grim :(
:(
Does look like their may be a US strike too. They've moved a lot of forces into the area, Western airlines are limiting flights over the Middle East, the RAF have deployed forces to Qatar for "defensive purposes" (Qatar is a key LNG supplier for us and our "supplier of last resort" in the event of an energy crisis) and the Iranian regime is issuing some very bellicose statements on what will happen if their leadership is attacked.
The Economist reporting that people, including senior officials in Tehran, estimate the total death toll is around 20,000 :(
I'm seeing stuff saying 30k+ https://time.com/7357635/more-than-30000-killed-in-iran-say-senior-officials/
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 26, 2026, 07:56:38 AMThe Economist reporting that people, including senior officials in Tehran, estimate the total death toll is around 20,000 :(
Just a massacre. And probably way under-reported.
Does this regime really think this is sustainable?
The regime? Yes, I believe they do.
And unfortunately, they seem to be right.
This is a situation where the regime is right until they're not. Unfortunately, it's impossible to tell where that crossover point is.
My memory recalls at least 3-4 major protest movements in Iran that simply just get crushed ruthlessly.
The trend line seems to be that without outside intervention or a large part of the military/security forces switching sides...the outcome will usually be the same. And Iran appears to have a much better handle on those forces than their Arab counterparts had during the Arab Spring. The IRGC seems to be good at their job internally, and I suspect the Army/military, while ostensibly separate, really isn't.
There might be a graph line where the number of protestors/resistors becomes enough to overwhelm the security forces on their own, but I suspect in Iran that line is rather quite high (it was probably much lower in a more divided nation like Syria).
Media outlets close to the Turkish government are reporting that they're activating emergency plans in preparedness for a possible US-Iran conflict including buffer zones and refugee camps.
Regime is living on borrowed time. The old veterans from the Iraq-Iran war that are the base of regime support aren't getting younger, and they've blown whatever remnants of other public support they might have been able to claim. The bazaari merchants turned out big in these protests which is always a bad sign for an Iranian regime. The real old timers and top leadership in IRGC may bitter end it, but the mid-level elechons are going to start to think about what a successor regime might look like and whether they would be better off getting out in front of that process.
I agree with all of that - although on that count I think that's where Pahlavi die-harders in the West are not particularly helpful (although perhaps they just don't matter).
The slight thing I'd question is about the mid-level because, as Tonitrus says I can remember several rounds of very significant protests in Iran. But I can't think of any elite defections or security service defections. I think those are key factors in successful revolutions. I'm not sure the extent to which, like under Assad, it is simply impossible for those people to imagine an alternative under a successor regime and the extent to which their material and status is tied up in the regime enduring.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 26, 2026, 04:45:15 PM...Pahlavi die-harders in the West are not particularly helpful (although perhaps they just don't matter).
That exiled prince dude, and the attention he gets amid these events is pretty ridiculous. Iran doesn't need to replace mullahs with a failed/discredited monarchy.
That said...the prospects for any kind of democratic movement there will have lots of difficulties from the start. The democratic/republican institutions from the pre-Shah days are pretty far gone in the past, and there is a large cohort of regime loyalists/sympathizers/leftovers who would still be around to push things in a regressive direction.
Even if a popular revolution would to push over the line to topple the regime, there is a great danger of things going along the lines of the post-USSR Russia...years of poverty/beggary followed by a slow or quick retrenchment into thuggery.
But maybe I am too cynical. :hmm:
The number of dead is horrendous... but sadly, not out of character for the regime.
Does it look like the US will take any action?
Quote from: Jacob on January 26, 2026, 05:24:28 PMThe number of dead is horrendous... but sadly, not out of character for the regime.
Does it look like the US will take any action?
They have a lot of kit assembled in-theater but what would a sustained bombing campaign even do? You can bomb leadership targets, the lower rank move up but facts on the ground remain the same. If the US seizes/blows up Kharg Island on day 1 then I'll believe they're serious about tossing the Islamic Republic out. Unless the opposition is armed with weapons on the ground this is like Venezuela 2.0
I have enough low opinion of the current US government mafia that I suspect Venezuela 2.0 might be exactly what they're thinking.
However, I also suspect the Iranian ayatollahs are not as pliable as it seems Maduro's successors turned out to be, even if they are bombed.
And I am much more skeptical that a "snatch and grab" operation of Ali Khamenei would work out as well either. For us or for them.
Quote from: Jacob on January 26, 2026, 05:24:28 PMThe number of dead is horrendous... but sadly, not out of character for the regime.
Does it look like the US will take any action?
I think there's reasons to think it. They've moved a lot of hardware into the region. The UK have deployed the RAF in a "defensive capacity" to Qatar (a very close ally). The regime has issued some very bellicose statements. Reports in Turkiye are that the government are activating emergency plans for a US-Iran conflict.
(Very much not important but I'd just note on this from a Euro-centric perspective that the Syrian conflict resulted in around 1.5 million refugees in Europe - and had a big destabilisnig effect on our politics. And worth noting that Turkiye took significantly more in - closer to 3-4 million. But seen an article from several years ago estimating a war in Iran could lead up to as many as 8 million refugees in Europe - again probably far more within the region.)
Agree on all of that though Tonitrus.
I think this is a far more hardened regime that I think will be prepared and preparing for an attack (see their very aggressive statement). There is a leadership class at the top that are ideologically committed and came through (often as the young radicals) a revolution and existential war. I suspect even more broadly than that there is a broad class whose material well-being depends on the survival of the regime. As I say I think there is more of an Assad style zero-sum aspect with the opposition here too.
On the other hand I slightly query quite what the regime can do in response - and I think it does show the worth/sense of their "forward defence" policy in Lebanon, Syria and Yemen for the last forty year. As it's a lot easier to attack Iran when they don't have proxies to move in the region. I'd also add that Saudi is re-aligning interestingly.
Having said all that - the attack in Venezuela was extraordinary, so I'm very reluctant to write of the US military.
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 26, 2026, 06:07:30 PMI have enough low opinion of the current US government mafia that I suspect Venezuela 2.0 might be exactly what they're thinking.
However, I also suspect the Iranian ayatollahs are not as pliable as it seems Maduro's successors turned out to be, even if they are bombed.
Yes, the US is after all their 'Great Satan' and I'd guess many do genuinely believe that after the Iran-Iraq war, during which the US extensively cooperated with the Iraqis to mount the most successful chemical weapons campaign on the battlefield.
And not forgetting all of the European country's chemical companies that supplied the base chemicals and for whom European countries turned a continent wide blind-eye.
My point being that if so many of the regime have survived chemical weapons attacks, they'll forever hold the US and the West responsible, so for them martyrdom of one form or another is no big deal.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 26, 2026, 06:18:10 PMI'd also add that Saudi is re-aligning interestingly.
How so?
Saudi Arabia has been warming relations with Iran over the past few years. They even went so far as to lead the condemnation of Israel's strikes last year (https://www.arabnews.com/node/2604354/saudi-arabia).
Quote from: mongers on January 26, 2026, 06:18:45 PMYes, the US is after all their 'Great Satan' and I'd guess many do genuinely believe that after the Iran-Iraq war, during which the US extensively cooperated with the Iraqis to mount the most successful chemical weapons campaign on the battlefield.
And not forgetting all of the European country's chemical companies that supplied the base chemicals and for whom European countries turned a continent wide blind-eye.
My point being that if so many of the regime have survived chemical weapons attacks, they'll forever hold the US and the West responsible, so for them martyrdom of one form or another is no big deal.
I don't think that the Iranians believe that the US "extensively cooperated with the Iraqis to mount the most successful chemical weapons campaign." Nor that "many of the regime have survived chemical weapons attacks."
Martyrdom in Shia Islam is definitely seen as a sacred thing.
Quote from: Jacob on January 26, 2026, 06:51:19 PMHow so?
May be overstating it but I thought this was interesting by Hussein Aboubakr Mansour from a couple of weeks ago, via Adam Tooze framing the argument and the shift from the Emirati alliance into a closer working with Turkey, a more explicitly religious and anti-Zionist line sems clear. Plus I think while the Axis of Resistance still existed the possibility of alignment between Israel, Saudi and the UAE was plausible - having destroyed the Axis of Resistance, I think Israel's also destroyed the basis of that rapprochement.
I still think aspects of Project 2030 have been surprisingly (to me) successful (I think particularly the propaganda side of things) but I think it's also clear they're trying to defend oil prices as structurally key to their economy.
QuoteFor more than a decade, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates functioned as the central axis of what was called moderate Arab politics. They coordinated on Yemen, jointly confronted Qatar, underwrote counterrevolutionary reaction after 2011's Arab Spring, and presented themselves to Washington as the region's most reliable Arab partners. Now, Saudi Arabia is changing this course and is repositioning for regional primacy in a Middle East it believes will soon look very different.
After a decade of costly and inconclusive ventures: the failure to impose an outcome in Yemen, the inability to subordinate Qatar through coercive isolation, the underwhelming regional returns of Vision 2030, and the growing economic and strategic rivalry with Abu Dhabi, Saudi policymakers appear to have reached a different conclusion about what is the best path they have to accumulate regional power in current conditions. A consolidating relationship with Turkey, renewed investment in Islamist and anti-Zionist legitimation, a deliberate freeze of normalization with Israel, and public confrontation with the UAE across multiple theaters are all clear signs of such a major strategic pivot. And behind it all, a strategic wager: the American-led conditions that made Gulf alignment rational are thinning, and Saudi Arabia intends to lead the region in whatever post-liberal world comes next. Riyadh is no longer a conservative stakeholder seeking to preserve an inherited hierarchy. It is acting as a revisionist manager—prepared to challenge old partners, reorder alignments, and redefine the principles around which regional politics are structured.
The immediate trigger was the developments in Yemen, which began last month. Emirati-backed forces advanced into Saudi-controlled territory in the south, seizing energy infrastructure with minimal resistance. Riyadh responded with a sustained counteroffensive that pushed Emirati proxies back and signaled a willingness to contest Emirati positions across the theater. The military clash was quickly accompanied by an information war. Saudi-aligned media accused the UAE of promoting secessionism, undermining Arab territorial integrity, and acting as a conduit for Israeli nefarious plans. Emirati outlets countered by portraying Saudi Arabia as reckless, ideologically Islamist, and unfit to manage regional stability.
This confrontation with the UAE and the end of the Saudi-UAE relationship as a stable axis are the first visible expressions of a broader regional system transition: from a region organized around managed alignment to one structured by open competition among status-seeking middle powers within conditions of competitive multipolarity in which conflict is not episodic but structural.
[...]
What is emerging is not multipolarity in the classical sense—a stable distribution of power among great-power blocs--but something more fluid and less predictable: a post-liberal environment in which the American rule-based hegemony that once mediated competition has ended. Or to put it in other terms, America's hegemony is no longer rule-based. Access to markets, capital, and security guarantees can no longer be secured through institutional compliance. They must be bargained for, repeatedly, from a position of leverage.
[...]
Saudi Arabia's pivot must be read against this backdrop, and against a second, equally decisive factor: Trump's unilateral reordering of global energy markets. Saudi regional strategy rests on oil rents; without elevated oil revenues, domestic and regional expenditures become unsustainable. American policy now threatens that foundation with structural oversupply into a market already suffering from price volatility, undermining OPEC+ leverage precisely when Riyadh needs it most. The turn toward agenda control, symbolic custodianship, and selective mobilization is not ideological regression into a primordial Wahhabi Islamist DNA that reasserts itself. It is an adaptation to a new reality—one in which American actions have become unpredictable not only in the security domain but in the economic base that makes Saudi power possible.
[...]
The combined effect is the collapse of residual bipolarity. A system that had been organized around the two former bounding forces—American management on one side and Iranian-led resistance on the other—has lost both. With fewer external constraints and fewer systemic ceilings, competition becomes direct, positional, and difficult to contain. States accumulate influence less through institutional standing than through control over corridors, investment pathways, narrative platforms, and conflict portfolios. They seek veto points, cultivate leverage across arenas, and treat symbolic issues as instruments of statecraft.
[...]
Saudi Arabia's portfolio is anchored in wealth, scale, and symbolic authority. It is the only Arab state that combines demographic weight, financial capacity, and custodianship of Islam's central holy sites. These attributes generate a form of mass legitimacy unavailable to its Gulf peers, non-Arab states, let alone a small Jewish state, and impossible to replicate through material investment. Riyadh can mobilize regional publics, shape discourse, and redefine political priorities in ways that smaller states cannot. Its control over religious infrastructure further embeds Saudi authority into the everyday political economy of the Muslim world.
These structural assets translate easily into symbolic capital. Saudi Arabia realized that it is uniquely positioned to claim custodianship over regional "moral" files—above all Palestine—and to convert that claim into agenda-setting power, which ultimately makes an anti-Zionist posture more advantageous than a normalizing one. Narrative mobilization is therefore not ancillary to Saudi strategy but integral to it. In a system where legitimacy is increasingly contested, the ability to define what counts as stability, fragmentation, normalization, or betrayal constitutes a form of hard power by other means. Riyadh's current heightened propaganda activities reflect an effort to turn this symbolic advantage into a durable instrument of system management.
[...]
Several of the region's most consequential disputes now turn on a single question: which political units in the Middle East are permitted to consolidate, and which must be kept fragmented and permanently constrained. Unlike what Saudi and Qatari propaganda claim, the real answer is not doctrinal but strictly contingent. Every major actor endorses sovereignty when consolidation would produce a friendly power, and resists it when consolidation would generate a rival capable of locking in an adverse alignment. Fragmentation is not an ethical category. It is an equilibrium outcome in arenas where no coalition can impose a preferred settlement and where permeability itself becomes leverage.
[...]
Iran is where end-state preferences diverge sharply. The Islamic Republic has been severely weakened: its regional network has been degraded, its deterrent architecture disrupted, and its domestic stability stressed by sustained domestic pressure that might, as I type these lines, overthrow the regime. Israel's strategic horizon with Iran is regime change. Jerusalem is not merely trying to reduce Iranian projection or capabilities; it is trying to break the Islamic Republic once and for all without the capacity to regenerate. That is why regime change is central to Israeli victory, whether framed as an explicit objective or as the acceptable terminal outcome of sustained military pressure. Israeli messaging toward Iran's protest movement has always reflected this orientation.
Arab preferences are different. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states do not want regime change in Iran. They want an Iran that is humbled, constrained, deterrable, and internationally isolated—not a collapsing state whose internal convulsions spill outward and whose succession produces unpredictable escalation. But neither do they want a secular, wealthy, internationally reintegrated Iran—economically normalized and capable of stable relations with the West and Israel—which would become a serious competitor for regional primacy with fewer structural constraints and greater attractiveness to capital. Riyadh prefers a weakened, isolated, "Islamic" Iran: this justifies Saudi Arabia's own religious securitization and ensures Iran remains a pariah rather than a competitor for Western investment. The Gulf preference, in other words, is managed containment: weaken Iran's projection and keep it boxed, but avoid the systemic risks of regime implosion and the strategic risks of Iranian normalization.
Moreover, Riyadh's calculus cannot be divorced from oil market dynamics, especially following the developments in Venezuela and how American actions have introduced serious instabilities into that calculus.
Venezuela holds the world's largest proven reserves. Under Maduro and sanctions, production collapsed from roughly three million barrels per day to under 800,000. The removal of Maduro and the installation of an American-aligned successor government opens the possibility of Venezuelan production rehabilitation at scale—a massive supply injection, sold at steep discounts to rebuild market shares, into a market already suffering from fears of oversupply and price volatility. Iran presents the same logic at an even greater magnitude. If the Islamic Republic falls amid the current protest wave and a successor regime normalizes with the West, Iranian production could return to four million barrels per day or more without sanctions constraints. Taken together, the normalization of both Venezuelan and Iranian output would structurally undermine OPEC+ leverage and place sustained downward pressure on prices, precisely when Saudi Arabia needs elevated revenues to fund its ambitious projects, which are already struggling, and defend its regional position in a time of intensified competition.
Saudi Arabia simply wants Iranian oil out of Western markets. A pariah Iran under sanctions is a gift to Saudi market share and pricing power. The current developments are a long-term threat to oil rents that makes Saudi regional strategy possible in the first place. The Saudi pivot is also a hedge against an American-led reordering of global energy markets that Riyadh cannot predict or control.
[...]
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 26, 2026, 06:18:10 PMHaving said all that - the attack in Venezuela was extraordinary, so I'm very reluctant to write of the US military.
I think the factor that Caracas is on the coast, and Tehran (and probably other leadership hideouts) are pretty far inland is not an insignificant one in this case.
Fair.
And it's a long time ago but I remember reading Guests of the Ayatollah which has a whole section on the disastrous rescue mission :ph34r:
I mean, I think we'd pretty easily replicate the total air superiority we had earlier in the year. But a SOF-raid with helos would be much different than bombers and stealth fighters.
Interesting, Sheilbh. Thanks for sharing that. Do you have a link to the source?
I found the source: https://critiqueanddigest.substack.com/p/the-saudi-pivot?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share
It's pretty interesting reading. I find his analysis of the nature of the post-liberal world order pretty compelling too.
Sorry - I was going to link - got distracted. Glad you enjoyed - I agree on the post-liberal stuff.
And no idea if he's right on the Middle East but it does feel like Saudi is shifting and the analysis of the US being gone, changing energy politics and the collapse of an ordering rivalry strikes me as plausible.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/28/trump-threat-us-iran-war-armada-nuclear-programme
QuoteTrump said: "Hopefully Iran will quickly 'Come to the Table' and negotiate a fair and equitable deal – NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS – one that is good for all parties. Time is running out, it is truly of the essence!
Basically at this stage the US armed forces are the Trump family's extortion crew.
Trump is turning the US into what the hard and firm left thought the US was all along. It's almost like he looked at their bullshit and decided, "Hey, that's a good idea".
Full message:
(https://i.ibb.co/7JkGJjHz/image.png)
Who are you thinking of as the hard and firm left?
I think people saw what was happening in the US over the last four or five decades and validly critiqued what was occurring. A reminder that Trump is not the cause, he is the result.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on January 28, 2026, 09:28:14 AMTrump is turning the US into what the hard and firm left thought the US was all along. It's almost like he looked at their bullshit and decided, "Hey, that's a good idea".
Like he is turning the US into what Soviet Propaganda and its useful idiots always depicted it as? Is that what you are getting at?
Quote from: Valmy on January 28, 2026, 10:06:53 AMLike he is turning the US into what Soviet Propaganda and its useful idiots always depicted it as? Is that what you are getting at?
Yes, basically.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 28, 2026, 09:43:21 AMWho are you thinking of as the hard and firm left?
I think people saw what was happening in the US over the last four or five decades and validly critiqued what was occurring. A reminder that Trump is not the cause, he is the result.
As Valmy suggested, I am thinking of the hyperbolic caricature that Soviet, Russian, and Chinese propaganda built of the US, and those who subscribe to those caricatures as truth. Elements like the UK Greens being discussed off and on in the UK megathread.
I'm certainly not under the delusion that this is something new or unique to Trump. I don't know if I have said it here before, but I see Trump taking to their final form a bunch of trends and institutions I have never liked, some of which go all the way back to the New Deal. That's a much broader subject than just Trump's approach to the rest of the world.
My initial reaction was based on the less-valid "criticisms" leveled by certain elements of the left that the US basically does nothing internationally unless the purpose is self-enrichment or subjugation. That we have always been, essentially, a 19th Century colonial/imperial power that does not have friends or allies, only vassals that must pay us tribute in some fashion. I think Trump is actually taking this attitude, and I
do think this is new from him. The closest we've been to this point before was the Banana Wars period from the Spanish American War until the mid-30s. Even then it wasn't as widespread as it is now.
Honestly, on the specific subject of Iran, if we could remove the current regime and replace it with a semi-liberal democracy, without significant suffering and bloodshed, I'd be all for that. However, that's not possible, nor is it what Trump wants to do. I think he actually does want to subjugate Iran in some way, as he is trying to do with Venezuela. I think that is a major change from past US interventions, even Dubya going into Iraq.
Iran has been majorly destroyed already?
As a side note I guess we just have to accept that this fucker will generate one international crisis per week.
Quote from: Tamas on January 28, 2026, 01:04:17 PMAs a side note I guess we just have to accept that this fucker will generate one international crisis per week.
It's pretty wild.
I mean, personally it's almost a relief that Trump might start a massive clusterfuck in Iran because that lowers the likelihood that he'll start one in Greenland or Canada.
Which is unfair to the Iranians and anyone else who'd suffer from the massive clusterfuck. I hope they don't.
I'm wondering which weekly crisis will be the next one to come completely out of left field. Will it be missile strikes on Uzbekistan? Pushing US claims to 54°40' N? Declaring the Dalai Lama illegitimate and Trump is the actual head of the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism? Crowning himself Holy Roman Emperor and demanding the dissolution of the Federal Republic of Germany?
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on January 28, 2026, 06:54:14 PMI'm wondering which weekly crisis will be the next one to come completely out of left field. Will it be missile strikes on Uzbekistan? Pushing US claims to 54°40' N? Declaring the Dalai Lama illegitimate and Trump is the actual head of the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism? Crowning himself Holy Roman Emperor and demanding the dissolution of the Federal Republic of Germany?
Depends on what Stephen Miller does while playing HoI4 that week.
Will he be...Ottoman Empire?
Just about all the pieces for a strike are now in place. Monitoringbros, lock in.
https://x.com/OAlexanderDK/status/2016844367231685068 (https://x.com/OAlexanderDK/status/2016844367231685068)
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on January 28, 2026, 11:05:42 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on January 28, 2026, 09:43:21 AMWho are you thinking of as the hard and firm left?
I think people saw what was happening in the US over the last four or five decades and validly critiqued what was occurring. A reminder that Trump is not the cause, he is the result.
As Valmy suggested, I am thinking of the hyperbolic caricature that Soviet, Russian, and Chinese propaganda built of the US, and those who subscribe to those caricatures as truth. Elements like the UK Greens being discussed off and on in the UK megathread.
I'm certainly not under the delusion that this is something new or unique to Trump. I don't know if I have said it here before, but I see Trump taking to their final form a bunch of trends and institutions I have never liked, some of which go all the way back to the New Deal. That's a much broader subject than just Trump's approach to the rest of the world.
My initial reaction was based on the less-valid "criticisms" leveled by certain elements of the left that the US basically does nothing internationally unless the purpose is self-enrichment or subjugation. That we have always been, essentially, a 19th Century colonial/imperial power that does not have friends or allies, only vassals that must pay us tribute in some fashion. I think Trump is actually taking this attitude, and I do think this is new from him. The closest we've been to this point before was the Banana Wars period from the Spanish American War until the mid-30s. Even then it wasn't as widespread as it is now.
Honestly, on the specific subject of Iran, if we could remove the current regime and replace it with a semi-liberal democracy, without significant suffering and bloodshed, I'd be all for that. However, that's not possible, nor is it what Trump wants to do. I think he actually does want to subjugate Iran in some way, as he is trying to do with Venezuela. I think that is a major change from past US interventions, even Dubya going into Iraq.
Thanks, that all makes good sense
Saw a media post about more USAF and RAF assets being repositioned towards the Middle East.
Are we going to see strikes against Iran soon?
Why on earth would the RAF want to get involved in that shitfest? (Unless it's for defense)
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 12, 2026, 12:29:15 PMWhy on earth would the RAF want to get involved in that shitfest? (Unless it's for defense)
Trump Appeasement Syndrome
The implication was that the RAF would be involved in protecting Israeli airspace against a potential Iranian response to American actions, but I don't know how valid that implication is.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 12, 2026, 12:29:15 PMWhy on earth would the RAF want to get involved in that shitfest? (Unless it's for defense)
The first image that came to mind was Peter Seller as Group Captain Mandrake interacting with General Ripper.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 12, 2026, 12:29:15 PMWhy on earth would the RAF want to get involved in that shitfest? (Unless it's for defense)
Not sure on the latest but the RAF were involved in shooting down Iranian missiles targeting Israel (which is why I find the Israeli attacks on Starmer and his government wrong). From my understanding the deployments so far have been to Qatar and all the statements describe them as defensive - Qatar is a key energy supplier to the UK (and our treaty gas supplier of last resort in a crisis).
It might be to help - it might be because something's coming and Britain (and, frankly, Europe) have interests in the region that would likely be a target in any Iranian retaliation. And Iran is threatening significant retaliation.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 12, 2026, 01:01:55 PMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 12, 2026, 12:29:15 PMWhy on earth would the RAF want to get involved in that shitfest? (Unless it's for defense)
The first image that came to mind was Peter Seller as Group Captain Mandrake interacting with General Ripper.
:lol:
:(
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 12, 2026, 12:29:15 PMWhy on earth would the RAF want to get involved in that shitfest? (Unless it's for defense)
There's a lucrative interest in burying anything Epstein related right now in the US as well as in the UK.
Quote from: viper37 on February 18, 2026, 03:11:41 PMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 12, 2026, 12:29:15 PMWhy on earth would the RAF want to get involved in that shitfest? (Unless it's for defense)
There's a lucrative interest in burying anything Epstein related right now in the US as well as in the UK.
yeah, it's incredible how that guy and his island and his clique got away, and are getting away with so much.
It's radicalizing me sufficiently I feel the itch to start building guillotines. ça ira!