8 ms·

Apparently there have been IRGC and basij curfew patrols shooting at buildings / windows of people who sing or shout anti regime songs and slogans. Apparently

Apparently there have been IRGC and basij curfew patrols shooting at buildings / windows of people who sing or shout anti regime songs and slogans. Apparently they are also (at least in some cases) dressing as women to avoid airstrikes. There has been very little photage and info coming out of Iran though. I still believe the Iranian government is more afraid of it's people than of the US and Israel - the US and Israel can bomb leadership and materiel, but without ground troops, regime capitulation is unlikely, unless the populace can themselves overthrow the govt (though that is hard to do when there is a major imbalance in who has guns).

jncfhnb 5mo ago
This is all likely true. Although I feel people undersell how they work together. Iranians broadly hate their government, yeah. But the thing that gets them rioting is economic failure. Which the strikes have exacerbated. Social media is swarmed by people saying it’ll be like Iraq and Iranians will hate the US for its actions. I’m not convinced. My small anecdata of Iranian friends with contacts in Iran agrees with me. I think we could see regime change within a decade.
- cpncrunch 5mo ago
  Why wont a general strike work? Not enough support? People have never had freedom, so dont understand they have 100% ability to bring down govt if they wanted?
  - payamb 5mo ago
    Due to years of corruption and mismanagement, leading to high inflation and high prices most people are below poverty line and living pay check to pay check and they won’t be able to literally feed themselves
    - asdff 5mo ago
      This is the thing that is so curious about the concept of the general strike/siezing the means of production. The workers already have seized the means of production. I mean truly. Owner does not have the keys. Some manager unlocks the building for the day. Workers show up to the farm. Everything gets done every day whether the owner is there or across the globe or some dubious llc entity. The only thing the owner functionally does, is to be an address on file to send their cut of the profits. Nothing more than a specially designated furnace to burn a subset of the monthly revenue, at least in terms of their actual interaction with their business and their businesses interaction with themselves. Socialism is as easy as people waking up, going to work as usual, and not mailing that check to the owner. And having the owner go to the police, who in turn tell them "Awe shucks." These are the only conditions for socialism in 2026. Same as they were in 1926. So tantalizingly possible if people were just on board with it and not beholden to capitalism. Propaganda is why there are a subset of workers who will continue to diligently burn revenue for the owner, and why police will ultimately make the choice to sacrifice their own lives for the petty profits of this ownership class versus consider their own position in this world.
      - nostrademons 5mo ago
        Usually socialist revolutions fail because nobody can agree on who the new leaders should be. Workers seize control of the means of production...and then what? Who determines what they should do with it? Who do they look to for guidance? If you elect/appoint/select someone, now they are the new capitalist. If you don't, the machinery sits idle while various factions fight amongst themselves. We saw this with Occupy Wall Street and the CHAZ in the U.S - these protests didn't fail because they were crushed, they failed because local police basically let them win and then once they won different factions had different ideas of what to do next. We also see it at the state level with the Soviet Union (where a strong dictatorship did eventually emerge - the communist revolution didn't mean everybody was equal, it just meant some people were more equal than others) and in Vietnam (which became intensely capitalist less than 15 years after the communists won. The function of the business owner, CEO, or other executive figure is simply to be a symbol of which direction the organization needs to go. They don't do any work themselves, and they are selected for their ability to look pretty and shout platitudes that other people follow. But that symbol is needed to actually get the people moving in one direction.
  - jncfhnb 5mo ago
    It would work at sufficient scale and sacrifice
    - cpncrunch 5mo ago
      Yes i think scale is the key, and whether the population believes it will work, or refuses to accept the status quo.
- nixon_why69 5mo ago
  If Israel and America can keep it in their pants and stop bombing civilians.. then yeah the government is very unpopular. If.
  - inglor_cz 5mo ago
    Unpopularity won't overthrow a government that is willing to drown every protest in blood.
    - nixon_why69 5mo ago
      You think the French monarchy was overthrown because they didn't try hard enough? It's blood against blood, but it's quite rare for people to rise up while there's an external enemy. Russia 1917 is the only example I can think of?
      - epicureanideal 5mo ago
        And to steel man your position, when the Russian revolution happened the bolsheviks promised peace, an end to the war.
      - inglor_cz 5mo ago
        "You think the French monarchy was overthrown because they didn't try hard enough?" Yes, actually I do. Are you aware how long the process of transformation was and how little actual violence did the royal troops mete out? Most of the blood during the French Revolution was shed among the revolutionaries themselves, later. Not by the old regime which barely resisted what was happening, being confused more than anything else. The French monarchy was remarkably limp-wristed in its reaction to the post-1789 developments, probably because, in the beginning, not even the revolutionaries themselves expected to actually dismantle the monarchy. There was no civil war similar to Cromwell's England, nor massacres in the streets similar to modern Iran. In the largest event of that early period which could be called "a battle" (Storming of the Bastille), a grand total of 114 royalist soldiers made their last stand. Which is tiny for a country the size of France. It took about a year for the situation to progress from the first session of the Estates General to the royal family attempted flight from Versailles, and 2,5 more years for the King to be executed. A classical case of the frog being boiled very slowly. The royal regime was indecisive and offered close to zero violent resistence. (If you want to learn about an actual abortive French revolution which was suppressed with actual brutal violence by the royalists, look up Fronda of 1648-1653.) In contrast, current rulers of Iran have 0 doubts about what is going to happen to them - and within minutes - if they get caught by the street crowd that hates them.
- throwawayheui57 5mo ago
  > But the thing that gets them rioting is economic failure I believe Iranians want to be able to decide their own fate, with the dignity that all humans deserve. Without criminal domestic religious zealots and without foreign meddling and bombing. The previous protest was followed by the killing of Mahsa Amini, in morality police’s custody because of improper hijab. It’s not only economic hardships. But you’re right that war has made the situation worse, obviously. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/10/iran-at-least-23-children-killed-with-impunity-during-brutal-crackdown-on-youthful-protests/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/10/iran-at-least...
  - jameshilliard 5mo ago
    > I believe Iranians want to be able to decide their own fate, with the dignity that all humans deserve. They certainly do, the domestic religious zealots/terrorists on the other hand murdered over 30,000 protesters in 2 days to stop that from happening. > Without criminal domestic religious zealots and without foreign meddling and bombing. The domestic religious zealots have essentially ensured that foreign military intervention is required to some degree for Iranians to have the ability to decide their own fate. At this point it's likely most Iranians support some form of foreign intervention.
- maest 5mo ago
  > I’m not convinced. My small anecdata of Iranian friends with contacts in Iran agrees with me. I am having a very hard time believing anyone would be favourable to the country currently lobbing bombs at them from halfway around the globe. Regardless of how much they dislike their current regime. Maybe this fuels some "everyone loves America, the good guys" fantasy, but, as someone who's come from a country where the people did not like the regime, I am very skeptical foreign interference will be seen positively or even neutrally. Or maybe this is an attempt at making the war seem somehow just and led on humanitarian and democratic principles, as opposed to what it actually is.
  - e-khadem 5mo ago
    Let's put it this way: Have you seen someone's brain on the sidewalk lately? No? Lost a loved one / a friend / a classmate? Perhaps when people see this (as I have) they find more favorable views of the aerial bombing campaign. For reference, it has been verfied [~] that the regime killed ~220 students just in the recent uprisings of this January. That's a whole school full of students, all under-18. And then you have to ask, why would a teenager be on the streets, given that they knew, everyone knew, that snipers and machine guns will be there? Just 5 days ago they hung an 18-year-old who was arrested this Jan. They also hung a 19-yo wrestling champion very recently. The collateral damage of these bombings, which must be denounced and is reprehensible, still has not reached these levels either in brutality and in number. [1] [~] (my internet connection is not good enough to find the sources, I'm using dnstt in a very unreliable network) [1] AFAIK, Around 180-190 students have died in the recent conflict. Some 160-170 was due to an erroneous airstrike by the US military on the first day of the war, and their school was within 30 meters of a military base (!). Furthermore, some of the other students who have died were the children of the assassinated regime officials.
    - oa335 5mo ago
      > No? Lost a loved one / a friend / a classmate? Perhaps when people see this (as I have) Sorry to hear that. Are you currently in Iran now? Or have contact with people in Iran?
- cineticdaffodil 5mo ago
  But the vector under a theocratic government constantly points towards failure. So you have one known vector thats disaster and one unknown vector that just mightbbe disaster.. if in doubt throw the dice ?
- breppp 5mo ago
  > But the thing that gets them rioting is economic failure. Which the strikes have exacerbated. Past riots were related to women rights or election fraud. The last one were related to the economic situation, but there is a large young population in Iran which aren't religious anymore, and living in an oppressive theocracy
  - iso1631 5mo ago
    They'll have company soon https://gtnm.substack.com/p/the-rise-of-theocratic-authoritarianism https://gtnm.substack.com/p/the-rise-of-theocratic-authorita...
- bjourne 5mo ago
  My small anecdata of Iranian friends contradict yours. They are against both the US-Israeli bombings and the Islamic regime. How should be decide whose anecdata is the most trustworthy? Maybe we can use common sense instead and agree that people don't want to be bombed to death regardless of other circumstances?
rambojohnson 5mo ago
[flagged]
- 8593376393 5mo ago
  [dead]
BigTTYGothGF 5mo ago
> Apparently they are also (at least in some cases) dressing as women to avoid airstrikes Didn't help anybody in Minab.
- throwawayheui57 5mo ago
  You’re right and that’s the sad part. They have their underground cities but haven’t bothered to build shelters for civilians. They care for the school children as little as the US bombs do.
beloch 5mo ago
When a regime starts killing thousands of it's own people it's a sign of weakness, not strength. Iran's theocracy was teetering above the abyss before the U.S. started bombing them. Now, they're probably good to go for a couple more decades. Trump is precisely the kind of threat Iranians have been warned about since the revolution. When a regime spends almost half a century preparing for something and it finally happens, it earns them considerable forgiveness. Also, nothing unites people quite like a foreign threat, especially one dumb enough to bomb schoolgirls in its opening salvo. By scuttling the JCPOA for no apparent reason and now invading Iran right when it appeared the regime was crumbling, Trump has single-handedly reinvigorated Iran's theocracy and given them the public support they need for the final push towards nuclear weapons. That's what's so sickening about this invasion. It has acted in diametric opposition to the the policy goals it was purportedly pursuing.
mdni007 5mo ago
Can you provide a source for any of this that is not just American or Isreali propaganda? Because I know you can't
nitwit005 5mo ago
This is just spreading rumors. You have to do better than "apparently".

jncfhnb 5mo ago

This is all likely true. Although I feel people undersell how they work together. Iranians broadly hate their government, yeah. But the thing that gets them rioting is economic failure. Which the strikes have exacerbated. Social media is swarmed by people saying it’ll be like Iraq and Iranians will hate the US for its actions. I’m not convinced. My small anecdata of Iranian friends with contacts in Iran agrees with me. I think we could see regime change within a decade.

cpncrunch 5mo ago
Why wont a general strike work? Not enough support? People have never had freedom, so dont understand they have 100% ability to bring down govt if they wanted?
- payamb 5mo ago
  Due to years of corruption and mismanagement, leading to high inflation and high prices most people are below poverty line and living pay check to pay check and they won’t be able to literally feed themselves
  - asdff 5mo ago
    This is the thing that is so curious about the concept of the general strike/siezing the means of production. The workers already have seized the means of production. I mean truly. Owner does not have the keys. Some manager unlocks the building for the day. Workers show up to the farm. Everything gets done every day whether the owner is there or across the globe or some dubious llc entity. The only thing the owner functionally does, is to be an address on file to send their cut of the profits. Nothing more than a specially designated furnace to burn a subset of the monthly revenue, at least in terms of their actual interaction with their business and their businesses interaction with themselves. Socialism is as easy as people waking up, going to work as usual, and not mailing that check to the owner. And having the owner go to the police, who in turn tell them "Awe shucks." These are the only conditions for socialism in 2026. Same as they were in 1926. So tantalizingly possible if people were just on board with it and not beholden to capitalism. Propaganda is why there are a subset of workers who will continue to diligently burn revenue for the owner, and why police will ultimately make the choice to sacrifice their own lives for the petty profits of this ownership class versus consider their own position in this world.
    - nostrademons 5mo ago
      Usually socialist revolutions fail because nobody can agree on who the new leaders should be. Workers seize control of the means of production...and then what? Who determines what they should do with it? Who do they look to for guidance? If you elect/appoint/select someone, now they are the new capitalist. If you don't, the machinery sits idle while various factions fight amongst themselves. We saw this with Occupy Wall Street and the CHAZ in the U.S - these protests didn't fail because they were crushed, they failed because local police basically let them win and then once they won different factions had different ideas of what to do next. We also see it at the state level with the Soviet Union (where a strong dictatorship did eventually emerge - the communist revolution didn't mean everybody was equal, it just meant some people were more equal than others) and in Vietnam (which became intensely capitalist less than 15 years after the communists won. The function of the business owner, CEO, or other executive figure is simply to be a symbol of which direction the organization needs to go. They don't do any work themselves, and they are selected for their ability to look pretty and shout platitudes that other people follow. But that symbol is needed to actually get the people moving in one direction.
- jncfhnb 5mo ago
  It would work at sufficient scale and sacrifice
  - cpncrunch 5mo ago
    Yes i think scale is the key, and whether the population believes it will work, or refuses to accept the status quo.
nixon_why69 5mo ago
If Israel and America can keep it in their pants and stop bombing civilians.. then yeah the government is very unpopular. If.
- inglor_cz 5mo ago
  Unpopularity won't overthrow a government that is willing to drown every protest in blood.
  - nixon_why69 5mo ago
    You think the French monarchy was overthrown because they didn't try hard enough? It's blood against blood, but it's quite rare for people to rise up while there's an external enemy. Russia 1917 is the only example I can think of?
    - epicureanideal 5mo ago
      And to steel man your position, when the Russian revolution happened the bolsheviks promised peace, an end to the war.
    - inglor_cz 5mo ago
      "You think the French monarchy was overthrown because they didn't try hard enough?" Yes, actually I do. Are you aware how long the process of transformation was and how little actual violence did the royal troops mete out? Most of the blood during the French Revolution was shed among the revolutionaries themselves, later. Not by the old regime which barely resisted what was happening, being confused more than anything else. The French monarchy was remarkably limp-wristed in its reaction to the post-1789 developments, probably because, in the beginning, not even the revolutionaries themselves expected to actually dismantle the monarchy. There was no civil war similar to Cromwell's England, nor massacres in the streets similar to modern Iran. In the largest event of that early period which could be called "a battle" (Storming of the Bastille), a grand total of 114 royalist soldiers made their last stand. Which is tiny for a country the size of France. It took about a year for the situation to progress from the first session of the Estates General to the royal family attempted flight from Versailles, and 2,5 more years for the King to be executed. A classical case of the frog being boiled very slowly. The royal regime was indecisive and offered close to zero violent resistence. (If you want to learn about an actual abortive French revolution which was suppressed with actual brutal violence by the royalists, look up Fronda of 1648-1653.) In contrast, current rulers of Iran have 0 doubts about what is going to happen to them - and within minutes - if they get caught by the street crowd that hates them.
throwawayheui57 5mo ago
> But the thing that gets them rioting is economic failure I believe Iranians want to be able to decide their own fate, with the dignity that all humans deserve. Without criminal domestic religious zealots and without foreign meddling and bombing. The previous protest was followed by the killing of Mahsa Amini, in morality police’s custody because of improper hijab. It’s not only economic hardships. But you’re right that war has made the situation worse, obviously. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/10/iran-at-least-23-children-killed-with-impunity-during-brutal-crackdown-on-youthful-protests/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/10/iran-at-least...
- jameshilliard 5mo ago
  > I believe Iranians want to be able to decide their own fate, with the dignity that all humans deserve. They certainly do, the domestic religious zealots/terrorists on the other hand murdered over 30,000 protesters in 2 days to stop that from happening. > Without criminal domestic religious zealots and without foreign meddling and bombing. The domestic religious zealots have essentially ensured that foreign military intervention is required to some degree for Iranians to have the ability to decide their own fate. At this point it's likely most Iranians support some form of foreign intervention.
maest 5mo ago
> I’m not convinced. My small anecdata of Iranian friends with contacts in Iran agrees with me. I am having a very hard time believing anyone would be favourable to the country currently lobbing bombs at them from halfway around the globe. Regardless of how much they dislike their current regime. Maybe this fuels some "everyone loves America, the good guys" fantasy, but, as someone who's come from a country where the people did not like the regime, I am very skeptical foreign interference will be seen positively or even neutrally. Or maybe this is an attempt at making the war seem somehow just and led on humanitarian and democratic principles, as opposed to what it actually is.
- e-khadem 5mo ago
  Let's put it this way: Have you seen someone's brain on the sidewalk lately? No? Lost a loved one / a friend / a classmate? Perhaps when people see this (as I have) they find more favorable views of the aerial bombing campaign. For reference, it has been verfied [~] that the regime killed ~220 students just in the recent uprisings of this January. That's a whole school full of students, all under-18. And then you have to ask, why would a teenager be on the streets, given that they knew, everyone knew, that snipers and machine guns will be there? Just 5 days ago they hung an 18-year-old who was arrested this Jan. They also hung a 19-yo wrestling champion very recently. The collateral damage of these bombings, which must be denounced and is reprehensible, still has not reached these levels either in brutality and in number. [1] [~] (my internet connection is not good enough to find the sources, I'm using dnstt in a very unreliable network) [1] AFAIK, Around 180-190 students have died in the recent conflict. Some 160-170 was due to an erroneous airstrike by the US military on the first day of the war, and their school was within 30 meters of a military base (!). Furthermore, some of the other students who have died were the children of the assassinated regime officials.
  - oa335 5mo ago
    > No? Lost a loved one / a friend / a classmate? Perhaps when people see this (as I have) Sorry to hear that. Are you currently in Iran now? Or have contact with people in Iran?
cineticdaffodil 5mo ago
But the vector under a theocratic government constantly points towards failure. So you have one known vector thats disaster and one unknown vector that just mightbbe disaster.. if in doubt throw the dice ?
breppp 5mo ago
> But the thing that gets them rioting is economic failure. Which the strikes have exacerbated. Past riots were related to women rights or election fraud. The last one were related to the economic situation, but there is a large young population in Iran which aren't religious anymore, and living in an oppressive theocracy
- iso1631 5mo ago
  They'll have company soon https://gtnm.substack.com/p/the-rise-of-theocratic-authoritarianism https://gtnm.substack.com/p/the-rise-of-theocratic-authorita...
bjourne 5mo ago
My small anecdata of Iranian friends contradict yours. They are against both the US-Israeli bombings and the Islamic regime. How should be decide whose anecdata is the most trustworthy? Maybe we can use common sense instead and agree that people don't want to be bombed to death regardless of other circumstances?

rambojohnson 5mo ago

[flagged]

8593376393 5mo ago
[dead]

BigTTYGothGF 5mo ago

> Apparently they are also (at least in some cases) dressing as women to avoid airstrikes Didn't help anybody in Minab.

throwawayheui57 5mo ago
You’re right and that’s the sad part. They have their underground cities but haven’t bothered to build shelters for civilians. They care for the school children as little as the US bombs do.

beloch 5mo ago

When a regime starts killing thousands of it's own people it's a sign of weakness, not strength. Iran's theocracy was teetering above the abyss before the U.S. started bombing them. Now, they're probably good to go for a couple more decades. Trump is precisely the kind of threat Iranians have been warned about since the revolution. When a regime spends almost half a century preparing for something and it finally happens, it earns them considerable forgiveness. Also, nothing unites people quite like a foreign threat, especially one dumb enough to bomb schoolgirls in its opening salvo. By scuttling the JCPOA for no apparent reason and now invading Iran right when it appeared the regime was crumbling, Trump has single-handedly reinvigorated Iran's theocracy and given them the public support they need for the final push towards nuclear weapons. That's what's so sickening about this invasion. It has acted in diametric opposition to the the policy goals it was purportedly pursuing.

mdni007 5mo ago

Can you provide a source for any of this that is not just American or Isreali propaganda? Because I know you can't

nitwit005 5mo ago

This is just spreading rumors. You have to do better than "apparently".