How should readers assess the credibility of these claims that 12k, 36k, or 100k have been killed? I'm not there. I haven't seen anything with my own eyes. Should I expect that if the death toll reaches X, then Y form of evidence would make it out?
Credible reporting puts the number somewhere between 30-40k among the intelligence community - comments and discussions have happened in public, and various officials around the world have repeated that range several times over the last week or so.
The information and sources are there for you to search, and it's up to you to determine who you find credible and why.
> Credible reporting puts the number somewhere between 30-40k among the intelligence community
The same intelligence community bragging that they're embedded among the protestors and engaging in covert-action (oxymoronic as it sounds) to bring about regime change?
That said it's been pointed out to me that my link is statements by anonymous government officials, which is not the same thing as "official Iranian government numbers".
I find the numbers to be surreal. The Gaza war is estimated to have around 100.000 dead (if you also count those who were buried under collapsed buildings or died of indirect causes). That was after two years of bombardment.
The Gaza war is a war with the side with the superior army trying to avoid killing. In Iran's war on it's own people, the superior army is trying to kill "as a punishment" (their words).
The same is true for the Russia-Ukraine war, btw. There have been 1300 victims per day for over 3 years. Russia is not trying to minimize casualties.
Why is it surprising that it results in an extreme difference in death toll? Or at least, in the rate of killing.
Yes, but 1300 victims per day, which is absolutely horrible, but still less than 6000 - 50.000 victims per day.
Or as another point of comparison (according to Wikipedia) : The bombing of Dresden went over three days and cost 25.000 lives. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually resulted in 100.000 immediate deaths.
All those locations - the Donbas, Gaza, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were complete wastelands afterwards.
This makes it hard to believe for me. That being said, 3000 would still be absolutely gruesome.
I think in Russia's case it's a matter of practicality. It's not like every day they have an average number of dead and there certainly have been days with far more than 1000 victims per day, they have at least reached 5000 in a single day. I bet fighting around Kyiv got the rate much higher 3 years back too. Ukraine and Russia are not fighting in dense cities like Teheran, but in small rural villages mostly, and a lot of the time in fields, in treelines. Tough to kill many people there.
Iranian Islamic guard was slaughtering people in dense crowds in the middle of skyscrapers. That certainly makes those numbers realistic to me.
Gazan health authorities were releasing the names of their dead, and this was met with great skepticism and qualification in Israel and the West (until this week when Israel just accepted at least tens of thousands died).
Random, inflated numbers from anonymous sources pop up on Iran and they're instantly quoted as fact.
Also - some of the rebels have guns and have been using them, so some of these dead are from shootouts.
I think, as sad as it sounds, the exact number doesn’t really matter.
We know: We know: a government whose sole purpose is to protect its people has committed the mass murder of unarmed civilians. has committed the mass murder of unarmed civilians.
That’s all there is to know to make a judgement about what has happened.
I don't know but the videos coming out are horrific. I don't understand how the Gaza crowd is supporting the Iranian regime/trying to bury this after they just fought so hard to get the Gazan's suffering seen/heard.
I stopped collecting specific examples because it does no good (people asking your question previously weren't really asking in good faith) but jumping back to the last time I was:
You honestly cannot know and anyone who claims you can should be suspected. It's probably between what the government claims (which will tend to be lower) and what people estimate. Some groups are only logging confirmed deaths are around 12k+ probably increasing by the day.
But if it's 5-10-20 or even more k, how much difference does it make? The crime of mass killing and collective punishment is still as gruesome either way
Iranian official figures[1] put the final death toll at ~3111 for the entire duration of the protests (about a month). They have supposedly published names and identification numbers for about ~2900. So that gives a baseline at least.
Figures thrown around like 12k/20k/30k in 2 days - frankly beggar belief. Compare it to the recent (and ongoing) massacre of Gaza. which at its peak we were talking 1000-2000 deaths per day. The Israelis were dropping 2000-pound bombs and shelling non-stop until the entire strip into rubble. Reaching similar numbers against armed protestors without resorting to heavy weapons doesn't seem plausible. On top of it, 100s of thousands of injured (claimed along with the deaths). Again in 2 days. Even in a country of 90 million, can you imagine the utter pandemonium in every hospital. Mass graves. The blood and bodies at the squares. It would be visible from space. It would impossible to conceal. You have to go to Babi Yar in WW2 to get similar figures.
Beyond that its hard for me to tell. I dont trust any of this, given the interests and parties involved and the sources pushing these narratives . The legacy media is in full-blown propaganda offensive. The accounts and claims seem to come from a constellation of anti-regime NGOs, activists, Israeli lobbyists, neocons and intelligence agencies. Statements and actions of western and Israeli leaders make it abundantly clear this is an armed regime-change operation backed by numerous US, Israeli and western-backed proxy groups. US carrier strike groups have finally arrived in Gulf of Oman and suddenly the news stories pick up again. A month ago the same CSG was off the coast of Venezuela while the nobel prize was being awarded to an opponent of the Venezuelan government. Now that same nobel-laureate is meeting up with Reza Pahlavi and opponents of the Iranian government while Trump is sabre-rattling again. It all feels like deja-vu all over again. Netanyahu and the Israelis really want their Iran war and they need the Americans to carry it home for them.
The original read "Spine-chillingly familiar" verbatim. I did not claim that the US was doing the same thing as Iran, and I changed it to make that even more clear after you tried boxing me into your interpretation.
It's troubling that most of the free world stands by and watches as a genocidal-level massacre takes place in Iran. Persians don't expect China/Russia to respond, but come on, no action from the West?
Imagine negotiating with Hitler to give up his V2 missiles and nuclear plans while the Holocaust was taking place. History will judge us for negotiating (and therefore, legitimizing) with the islamic regime that's occupied Iran for 47 years.
The West already has Iran under crippling economic sanctions, has intelligence operatives undermining the Iranian government, and funds military attacks by proxies. What more do you expect them to do apart from direct military action (which would be deeply unpopular)?
Yes, deeply unpopular in the countries who would be providing the militaries. The countries in question tend to be democratic, thus unpopular decisions that have no real benefit to that country are unlikely to be made.
I'm sure that many Iranians would support the regime being toppled, and so would the Iranian diaspora (understandably, since most of them were either forced out of the country or chose to leave due to the revolution, so of course they would be in favor of regime change). However, it would be extremely unpopular in general in the West. One recent poll indicated that 7 out of 10 Americans don't want the US government to take military action against Iran for killing protesters who demonstrate against the Iranian government. https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3945 You barely see that kind of consensus on any political polling in the US, and what voters think actually matters for a few months because the midterm elections are coming up.
How about South Korea, Japan, Germany, and France? US military intervention has had really good outcomes in the past, why just cherry pick the bad ones?
That's a ridiculously cherry-picked list. What about Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Congo (1960), Cuba (1961), Vietnam, Dominican Republic (1965)... I'm still in the sixties.
Basically anyone anywhere in the planet other than the US would find your statement outrageous.
How many times have the people of those countries stormed american embassies? Iranians may hate the regime but they also hate american imperialism. The country is not a monolith, many will not accept american intervention.
Preferential satrap treatment is for countries whose geopolitical alignment helps US... i.e. containing USSR, PRC. Iran/Shah muscle and Saudi money use to be US twin pillar strategy for MENA influence, including coldwar anticommunist containment. Israel is muscle now, and they sure as shit isn't going to share with Iran. Deputy sheriff position is zero-sum.
The current realpolitik geopolitical fate for Iran is to be suppressed and relegated, regional players don't want to redistribute power / influence to accommodate Iran. Bluntly Iran is too big allow to flourish, but not so big it cannot be suppressed. That's Iran's fate under current dynamics, no one wants to save Iran, they want to neutralize Iran, naive to pretend otherwise. Iran is no longer in the minority of potential strategic intervention successes, its in the bucket of dozens of countries US intervention fucked over because that's the strategic end goal is for these countries to remain weak. If Iran wants bigger lightcone, it needs to fight for one.
As an Iranian, nothing hurts me more than someone outside my country lecturing Iranians about Iran. Vast majority of Persians are waiting for the US and Israel to attack the regime and finish off this mafia that's kept us hostages for half a century.
AMERICANS aren't the world police.
Americans are starving, can't afford medical care, being shot at, and tons of atrocities to deal with AT HOME RIGHT NOW.
That has been the bargain since WWII though. Pax Americana meant the US owned and enforced a global order, in return international trade and finance ran on its platform. Most Americans can't fathom how bad the alternative is to not being the world police.
The US have a good share of responsibility for what's going on in Iran, first by overthrowing the democratic government of Mossadegh, then by imposing crippling sanctions (reneging on a previous agreement) that brought the population to this level of desperation.
The US doesn't make foreign policy decisions altruistically. If we are involved somewhere, it's solely because it's to our benefit. The idea that we enforce order is childish; we do nothing that doesn't enforce our own international supremacy.
If we want to have the almost 800 military bases stationed in about 80 countries around the world, then there are some responsibilities that come with that.
Yes we are. You may not like it, you may not want to pay for it. You may even have voted to not be. But we have been in the past so the US will be judged for not picking up the mantle this time.
It's not a "grammatical technicality" to misuse a word. Iran is not carrying out a genocide.
>It's your mess, now clean it up.
The US is under no obligation to the people of Iran whatsoever. If we take action in Iran, it will be solely to our benefit, and it may or may not improve those peoples' lives. In all likelihood, it will be another Libya or Afghanistan situation in which we take what we want and leave a power vacuum in our wake.
Thank you, your comment made me aware of this event I didn't know. [1] I have found at least one concrete evidence you assertion is correct [2]: The Dusseldorf Agreement of March 16, 1939.
> The British historian Martin Gilbert believes that "many non-Jews resented the round-up", his opinion being supported by German witness Dr. Arthur Flehinger who recalls seeing "people crying while watching from behind their curtains". Rolf Dessauer recalls how a neighbor came forward and restored a portrait of Paul Ehrlich that had been "slashed to ribbons" by the Sturmabteilung. "He wanted it to be known that not all Germans supported Kristallnacht."
This passage is particulary eerie IMHO, since I've been reading "I don't condone this" of current world events over and over.
> In 1938, just after Kristallnacht, the psychologist Michael Müller-Claudius interviewed 41 randomly selected Nazi Party members on their attitudes towards racial persecution. Of the interviewed party members, 63% expressed extreme indignation against it, 5% expressed approval, and the remaining 32% were noncommittal.
Also particurlarly eerie to me. Yet the regime went on.
"Pol Pot killed one point seven million Cambodians, died under house arrest, well done there. Stalin killed many millions, died in his bed, aged seventy-two, well done indeed. And the reason we let them get away with it is they killed their own people. And we're sort of fine with that. Hitler killed people next door. Oh, stupid man. After a couple of years we won't stand for that, will we?"
-Eddie Izzard
Most action from the West is likely to make things worse. Can you give a scenario where that's not the case?
WWII did not happen because of the Holocaust and nations around the world being outraged at that. In truth, the US and many other countries rejected Jewish refugees from Germany
> It's troubling that most of the free world stands by and watches as a genocidal-level massacre takes place in Iran. Persians don't expect China/Russia to respond, but come on, no action from the West?
I find it surprising that you're troubled. The West helped Israel with its genocide in Gaza; why did you expect that the West would intervene in what's happening the Iran, which by death count is significantly smaller?
In 48 hours, the islamic regime in Iran massacred more than 40,000 protestors (and left tens of thousands of people blinded/wounded, often "finishing them off" by raiding hospitals...). Some figures even show more than 40,000, but even assuming the low-park, that's 833 people per hour, or 13 people per minute who got killed.
Whatever Israel did (to defend itself) was by no means even near those numbers.
> In 48 hours, the islamic regime in Iran massacred more than 40,000 protestors (and left tens of thousands of people blinded/wounded, often "finishing them off" by raiding hospitals...). Some figures even show more than 40,000, but even assuming the low-park, that's 833 people per hour, or 13 people per minute who got killed.
> Whatever Israel did (to defend itself) was by no means even near those numbers.
Israel killed about 300,000 people in the first month. Sure, it's a lower count per day, what a low bar.
From now on, every time anyone says anything about Iran, I'll be pushing the narrative that "whatever Iran did, it was to defend itself".
Edit to add: Also, Israel was actually attacked, and civilians were raped, kidnapped, and murdered. Did any of the protestors in Iran kill, rape, or murder any of members of the regime who subsequently slaughtered them?
Right, that was the number I had in my head... and that's for the whole war. This guy apparently believes 300k were killed in the first month, but I have no idea where that's coming from.
> Edit to add: Also, Israel was actually attacked, and civilians were raped, kidnapped, and murdered. Did any of the protestors in Iran kill, rape, or murder any of members of the regime who subsequently slaughtered them?
Just to be clear. You're arguing that if a country is attacked, it's ok to kill civilians that are unrelated to the attack? Or are you arguing that those 300,000 were somehow involved in the killing of the 3,000 Israelis that died in the Hamas attack?
> Edit to add: Also, Israel was actually attacked, and civilians were raped, kidnapped, and murdered. Did any of the protestors in Iran kill, rape, or murder any of members of the regime who subsequently slaughtered them?
So you're not saying that what Israel is doing is less bad due to the fact that it was attacked? So what are you saying then?
I guess that no, I can't find a more charitable way to interpret what you said.
>> From now on, every time anyone says anything about Iran, I'll be pushing the narrative that "whatever Iran did, it was to defend itself".
> Israel was actually attacked
I was responding to your claim that Iran was defending itself... Whether or not Israel responded disproportionately to October 7 (it did), I don't think it's fair to say Iran's actions are "self-defense" in the same way that Israel's war was self-defense.
No, I don't agree. What is Israel is doing is WAY past the "disproportionate" conversation. For one, Israel's targets have nothing to do with the people who attacked Israel, other than they come from the same geographical area. It's like saying "bombing Italy is a disproportionate response to Luigi Mangione assassinating someone".
Disproportionate would be if they caught the October 7 terrorists and their collaborators, and instead of arresting them killed them. If that was what happened, I wouldn't be morally against it.
The best thing about zionism zealots propagandists is they can't hide it. I guess it's the effect of decades of having the West self-flagellate over "antisemitism", they got used to getting away with everything.
Also funny the wording "whatever they did", as if it's a mystery.
I think if you support Netanyahu, you are not in a position to condemn these atrocities. The problem is that Iranian pro-democracy opposition is demolished by far-right sometimes neo-Nazi monarchists!
Still blows my mind how NKR with all it's geologic limitations, or perhaps despite it, played their weak hand well while Iran squandered a much stronger hand. Too much oil and cultural/past hegemon hubris, the Ayatollah are not serious people. Nor the Iranian people who protest because lol the shah's son told them to (this article). They deserve each other. Frankly Iran is on Israel grass mowing schedule now - they didn't win the 12 day war, but demonstrated even incompetent Iran has latent ability to. IMO Iranian dissidents are dangerously naive to geopolitical reality, it's in no ones regional interest to do anything other than to keep Iran and by extension, Iranians down. At this point, if Iran serous about favourable regional lightcone, their only option is to ditch half measured authoritarian amateur hour and double down. Frankly they should have had their own firewall and purged libtard compradors 10+ years ago.
The EU and US have imposed sanctions on Iran, crippling its economy, Israel has killed much of its military high command. The US and Israel have rallied the usual internal opposition. Joined no doubt, by some who have been hit in the wallet and stomach by crippling sanctions. Just like the Scandinavians focused on Venezuela with their prize and Trump murdered Maduro's bodyguards and whoever else was standing around in an attempt to wrest Venezuela's sovereignty, or now Cuba's or even Greenland's, Iran is a current focus of western imperial focus to destroy their sovereignty. The US and UK succeeded in the 1950s when the Iranian parliament tried to nationalize Iran's oil, but they were tossed out in 1979 and the imperialists have been hell bent to put Iran under their thumb again.
While children in Gaza starve, ICE roams the streets killing even non-immigrants, and Greenland is in the crosshairs, white, professional-managerial types put their focus on replacing Iranian sovereignty with being under the West's boot, for very liberal, humanitarian reasons of course.
They are not. It's the eastern imperialists that are causing this. And if it's a choice between eastern imperialists (China and Russia) and western ones, it seems that Iranian people by far prefer the western ones.
For three main reasons.
1. Culturally Iranians are way more aligned with west.
2. Western imperialism results in more democracy. Not 100%, but not this bad.
3. Economically countries under west's influence do much better. Iran is extremely poor right now.
Iran's government is an Islamic fundamentalist dictatorship. It has imprisoned and killed protestors[0], it hung over 700 political dissidents last year[1], it has imprisoned and executed people who have left Islam[2], it has beaten and imprisoned women who refused to wear hijab[3]. As for LGBT rights, Equaldex lists Iran 190th out of 197 nations[4]. Time Magazine reports[5] that some 30,000 people were killed in January for protesting the government.
Even the parent article reports first-hand that the Iranian regime is now labelling protesters as terrorists and calls for their arrests.
This, combined with the drought and economic collapse, has pushed the Iranian people towards revolt.
This is not the fault of Israel, America, Trump, Greenland, white people, or any other boogeyman. It's a feature of Iranian government, and the Iranian people want change.
The Iranian government is responsible of all sorts of human rights violations, and also for the drought (at least partly), but the economic collapse was triggered by the US.
Bessent said so at Davos:
"President Trump ordered our Treasury and our OFAC division (Office of Foreign Asset Control) to put maximum pressure on Iran. And it's worked, because in December, their economy collapsed. [...] So this is why people took to the street. This is economic statecraft". https://youtu.be/VQQXLnXlWqY?t=1722
Is this how America helps dissidents? Make them so miserable they can't bear it anymore? Anyways, it never works. It just makes civilians more miserable and the government more repressive. Look at Cuba or North Korea.
Yes, I concede the US is partly responsible for Iran's economic collapse. What a wonderful outcome should it result in the Ayatollahs losing their grip on power.
To dismiss the impact of economic sanctions is at best intellectually dishonest. Economic sanctions aren't a natural disaster. Somebody is imposing them. Who, exactly? And why?
Also, US allies (ie Israel) can kill hundreds of thousands of people without any consequences. In fact, we bankroll the weapons they use to do it to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.
So why are the documented atrocities of one country not an issue at all but the transgressions of another country worthy of starving that country for decades? What's different between these two? And who is making that determination?
Iran has no one to blame for the sanctions but themselves. The conditions to drop them have been clear, they have refused. Fine, but you dont get to then turn around and blame the sanctioning countries for the situation you put yourself in.
Make no mistake about Venezuela. The Maduro regime has caused untold pain and suffering to the Venezuelan people. Venezuela was no longer sovereign nation, Maduro was staying in power by force against the will of the people.
I get anti-West sentiment. I get anti-US imperialism. I get pointing out the double standard of the West regarding Israel, their atrocities and genocide. I get looking with cynicism at the great powers' manouevers.
I don't get—never have, probably never will—painting the Islamic Republic of Iran as saviours, freedom fighters, or the last bulwark of an axis of resistance.
If the Boston strangler was anti-imperialist, would you claim he was a hero? It feels like you would.
If the mullahs are so bad, why did the UK and US back them against the democracy of Mossadegh in the 1950s? Then Savak with CIA help slaughtered the secular left in Iran into the 1970s.
Westerners work to slaughter the secular left in a country, then use that as their entitlement to take over the country - "there is no secular force to take over".
This just happened in Syria - the West forced out a secular leader to replace him with a now celebrated al-Qaeda leader who the US had a $10 million bounty on fourteen months ago. Who is currently slaughtering every minority ethnicity in the country.
I assume that the economic conditions are caused by the sanctions designed to force Iran to give up their nuclear ambitions? But that only works if the country actually cares about its people. Iran seems content to let them suffer (or kill them themselves). Is Iran destined to become the next North Korea? Will their oil save them from that?
Nevermind that Iran's nuclear ambitions had already been kept in check by a thorough program of inspections. Trump walked back on that, because the sanctions are an end in itself.
How should readers assess the credibility of these claims that 12k, 36k, or 100k have been killed? I'm not there. I haven't seen anything with my own eyes. Should I expect that if the death toll reaches X, then Y form of evidence would make it out?
Credible reporting puts the number somewhere between 30-40k among the intelligence community - comments and discussions have happened in public, and various officials around the world have repeated that range several times over the last week or so.
The information and sources are there for you to search, and it's up to you to determine who you find credible and why.
> Credible reporting puts the number somewhere between 30-40k among the intelligence community
The same intelligence community bragging that they're embedded among the protestors and engaging in covert-action (oxymoronic as it sounds) to bring about regime change?
https://archive.is/20251230221603/https://www.jpost.com/midd...
https://x.com/mikepompeo/status/2007180411638620659 https://x.com/mikepompeo/status/2007180411638620659
Pompeo showing some impressive vicarious cosplay here.
Iranian Ministry of Health officials have put the number at ~30k. So I would take that as a likely lower bound.
https://archive.ph/2026.01.25-142822/https://time.com/735763...
>Iranian Ministry of Health officials have put the number at ~30k.
Iran official figures put it around ~3k actually.
https://x.com/araghchi/status/2014688298472460563
That was 4 days before the link I posted.
That said it's been pointed out to me that my link is statements by anonymous government officials, which is not the same thing as "official Iranian government numbers".
The article contradicts what you said. It cites "two [unnamed] senior officials" and then goes on to say:
> The 30,000 figure is also far beyond tallies being compiled by activists methodically assigning names to the dead.
The official government estimate is still 3,117 btw.
The truth is we'll likely never know for sure the real number and any outlet reporting anything else without qualifications is being dishonest.
This is not an official count. It's some officials speaking through anonymity with their own personal estimates
*purported officials
I am very skeptical tbh seeing all this unfold. The propaganda push from media over this is off the charts on this.
A counter-perspective on these figures and their sources :
https://x.com/TheGrayzoneNews/status/2017089536686211440#m https://xcancel.com/TheGrayzoneNews/status/20170895366862114...
The Grayzone is also a propaganda outlet, for the other side: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grayzone
I find the numbers to be surreal. The Gaza war is estimated to have around 100.000 dead (if you also count those who were buried under collapsed buildings or died of indirect causes). That was after two years of bombardment.
This here is the same death toll in two days.
Their own people too
The Gaza war is a war with the side with the superior army trying to avoid killing. In Iran's war on it's own people, the superior army is trying to kill "as a punishment" (their words).
The same is true for the Russia-Ukraine war, btw. There have been 1300 victims per day for over 3 years. Russia is not trying to minimize casualties.
Why is it surprising that it results in an extreme difference in death toll? Or at least, in the rate of killing.
Yes, but 1300 victims per day, which is absolutely horrible, but still less than 6000 - 50.000 victims per day.
Or as another point of comparison (according to Wikipedia) : The bombing of Dresden went over three days and cost 25.000 lives. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually resulted in 100.000 immediate deaths.
All those locations - the Donbas, Gaza, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were complete wastelands afterwards.
This makes it hard to believe for me. That being said, 3000 would still be absolutely gruesome.
I think in Russia's case it's a matter of practicality. It's not like every day they have an average number of dead and there certainly have been days with far more than 1000 victims per day, they have at least reached 5000 in a single day. I bet fighting around Kyiv got the rate much higher 3 years back too. Ukraine and Russia are not fighting in dense cities like Teheran, but in small rural villages mostly, and a lot of the time in fields, in treelines. Tough to kill many people there.
Iranian Islamic guard was slaughtering people in dense crowds in the middle of skyscrapers. That certainly makes those numbers realistic to me.
They have almost no credibility.
Gazan health authorities were releasing the names of their dead, and this was met with great skepticism and qualification in Israel and the West (until this week when Israel just accepted at least tens of thousands died).
Random, inflated numbers from anonymous sources pop up on Iran and they're instantly quoted as fact.
Also - some of the rebels have guns and have been using them, so some of these dead are from shootouts.
> "Random, anonymous sources"
Time Magazine is reporting[0] that local Iranian health officials have given that number.
[0]: https://time.com/7357635/more-than-30000-killed-in-iran-say-...
I think, as sad as it sounds, the exact number doesn’t really matter.
We know: We know: a government whose sole purpose is to protect its people has committed the mass murder of unarmed civilians. has committed the mass murder of unarmed civilians.
That’s all there is to know to make a judgement about what has happened.
I don't know but the videos coming out are horrific. I don't understand how the Gaza crowd is supporting the Iranian regime/trying to bury this after they just fought so hard to get the Gazan's suffering seen/heard.
Who's supporting it?
I stopped collecting specific examples because it does no good (people asking your question previously weren't really asking in good faith) but jumping back to the last time I was:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46611046
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46605598
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46596836
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46611065
SyrianGirl and others in the same space on X.
> I haven't seen anything with my own eyes.
Do you mean in person?
With nazi type regime, always assume the worst.
You honestly cannot know and anyone who claims you can should be suspected. It's probably between what the government claims (which will tend to be lower) and what people estimate. Some groups are only logging confirmed deaths are around 12k+ probably increasing by the day.
But if it's 5-10-20 or even more k, how much difference does it make? The crime of mass killing and collective punishment is still as gruesome either way
Iranian official figures[1] put the final death toll at ~3111 for the entire duration of the protests (about a month). They have supposedly published names and identification numbers for about ~2900. So that gives a baseline at least.
Figures thrown around like 12k/20k/30k in 2 days - frankly beggar belief. Compare it to the recent (and ongoing) massacre of Gaza. which at its peak we were talking 1000-2000 deaths per day. The Israelis were dropping 2000-pound bombs and shelling non-stop until the entire strip into rubble. Reaching similar numbers against armed protestors without resorting to heavy weapons doesn't seem plausible. On top of it, 100s of thousands of injured (claimed along with the deaths). Again in 2 days. Even in a country of 90 million, can you imagine the utter pandemonium in every hospital. Mass graves. The blood and bodies at the squares. It would be visible from space. It would impossible to conceal. You have to go to Babi Yar in WW2 to get similar figures.
Beyond that its hard for me to tell. I dont trust any of this, given the interests and parties involved and the sources pushing these narratives . The legacy media is in full-blown propaganda offensive. The accounts and claims seem to come from a constellation of anti-regime NGOs, activists, Israeli lobbyists, neocons and intelligence agencies. Statements and actions of western and Israeli leaders make it abundantly clear this is an armed regime-change operation backed by numerous US, Israeli and western-backed proxy groups. US carrier strike groups have finally arrived in Gulf of Oman and suddenly the news stories pick up again. A month ago the same CSG was off the coast of Venezuela while the nobel prize was being awarded to an opponent of the Venezuelan government. Now that same nobel-laureate is meeting up with Reza Pahlavi and opponents of the Iranian government while Trump is sabre-rattling again. It all feels like deja-vu all over again. Netanyahu and the Israelis really want their Iran war and they need the Americans to carry it home for them.
https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2026/02/01/763331/Iran-officia...
> The people who had been called ‘rioters’ the day before were now labelled ‘terrorists’.
A familiar tactic to many governments around the world.
Iran is operating in at a scale so far beyond anything ever seen in the US that it's completely dishonest to compare the two.
No comparison was made, you're just reading a lot into one sentence.
The top-level comment was edited. It originally said that it was chillingly familiar to us or something along those lines.
Ah, thanks for pointing this out.
I mean, that's because the US and UK are doing that right now. I don't agree they cannot be compared
No they are not. Neither the UK nor the US are murdering protestors at any comparable scale at this point in time.
Do UK and the US import Iraqi militias to suppress local unrest?
> indoordin0saur
> Iran is operating in at a scale so far beyond anything ever seen in the US that it's completely dishonest to compare the two.
The person you're responding to didn't mention the US, but it's telling that that's where your mind goes to.
As someone else pointed out, the comment originally said that the US was doing the same thing as Iran before it was edited.
Ok, when you edit your comment I'll edit mine.
The original read "Spine-chillingly familiar" verbatim. I did not claim that the US was doing the same thing as Iran, and I changed it to make that even more clear after you tried boxing me into your interpretation.
It's troubling that most of the free world stands by and watches as a genocidal-level massacre takes place in Iran. Persians don't expect China/Russia to respond, but come on, no action from the West?
Imagine negotiating with Hitler to give up his V2 missiles and nuclear plans while the Holocaust was taking place. History will judge us for negotiating (and therefore, legitimizing) with the islamic regime that's occupied Iran for 47 years.
The West already has Iran under crippling economic sanctions, has intelligence operatives undermining the Iranian government, and funds military attacks by proxies. What more do you expect them to do apart from direct military action (which would be deeply unpopular)?
Deeply unpopular? I suspect many Iranians would welcome the regime being toppled. Or do you mean unpopular in Western countries?
Yes, deeply unpopular in the countries who would be providing the militaries. The countries in question tend to be democratic, thus unpopular decisions that have no real benefit to that country are unlikely to be made.
I'm sure that many Iranians would support the regime being toppled, and so would the Iranian diaspora (understandably, since most of them were either forced out of the country or chose to leave due to the revolution, so of course they would be in favor of regime change). However, it would be extremely unpopular in general in the West. One recent poll indicated that 7 out of 10 Americans don't want the US government to take military action against Iran for killing protesters who demonstrate against the Iranian government. https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3945 You barely see that kind of consensus on any political polling in the US, and what voters think actually matters for a few months because the midterm elections are coming up.
How well did that work out in Libya?
How about South Korea, Japan, Germany, and France? US military intervention has had really good outcomes in the past, why just cherry pick the bad ones?
That's a ridiculously cherry-picked list. What about Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Congo (1960), Cuba (1961), Vietnam, Dominican Republic (1965)... I'm still in the sixties.
Basically anyone anywhere in the planet other than the US would find your statement outrageous.
How many times have the people of those countries stormed american embassies? Iranians may hate the regime but they also hate american imperialism. The country is not a monolith, many will not accept american intervention.
Preferential satrap treatment is for countries whose geopolitical alignment helps US... i.e. containing USSR, PRC. Iran/Shah muscle and Saudi money use to be US twin pillar strategy for MENA influence, including coldwar anticommunist containment. Israel is muscle now, and they sure as shit isn't going to share with Iran. Deputy sheriff position is zero-sum.
The current realpolitik geopolitical fate for Iran is to be suppressed and relegated, regional players don't want to redistribute power / influence to accommodate Iran. Bluntly Iran is too big allow to flourish, but not so big it cannot be suppressed. That's Iran's fate under current dynamics, no one wants to save Iran, they want to neutralize Iran, naive to pretend otherwise. Iran is no longer in the minority of potential strategic intervention successes, its in the bucket of dozens of countries US intervention fucked over because that's the strategic end goal is for these countries to remain weak. If Iran wants bigger lightcone, it needs to fight for one.
It would be unpopular in Iran to have a war. If you think otherwise you read too many Enlgish-language diaspora / filtered sources.
I imagine war is always deeply unpopular!
But it was asked what else the West could do beyond what it’s already doing.
It might be possible to do a targetted kidnapping/assassination without provoking a war. Or it might not be. Such actions become unpredictable fast.
As an Iranian, nothing hurts me more than someone outside my country lecturing Iranians about Iran. Vast majority of Persians are waiting for the US and Israel to attack the regime and finish off this mafia that's kept us hostages for half a century.
AMERICANS aren't the world police. Americans are starving, can't afford medical care, being shot at, and tons of atrocities to deal with AT HOME RIGHT NOW.
You make it sound as bad as Iran. Yet I see no uprising in the USA as I see in Iran.
Basically zero Americans are starving.
>genocidal-level massacre
"Genocidal" is not an order of magnitude; it's a description of purpose. What's going on in Iran is an atrocity, but it's not "genocidal."
>History will judge us for negotiating
We're not the world police.
> We're not the world police.
That has been the bargain since WWII though. Pax Americana meant the US owned and enforced a global order, in return international trade and finance ran on its platform. Most Americans can't fathom how bad the alternative is to not being the world police.
The US have a good share of responsibility for what's going on in Iran, first by overthrowing the democratic government of Mossadegh, then by imposing crippling sanctions (reneging on a previous agreement) that brought the population to this level of desperation.
The US doesn't make foreign policy decisions altruistically. If we are involved somewhere, it's solely because it's to our benefit. The idea that we enforce order is childish; we do nothing that doesn't enforce our own international supremacy.
The bargain? A bargain implies agreement. A one sided forced hegemony is not a bargain.
If we want to have the almost 800 military bases stationed in about 80 countries around the world, then there are some responsibilities that come with that.
>We're not the world police
I imagine you saying this in 1940, to a german jew refugee. Would you do it? Would you say this to a jewish person in WWII, to justify non-action?
>We're not the world police.
Well, not anymore after that speech from the Canadian Prime Minister!
I get the US has done much wrong before, but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with world policing,
we share a planet
>We're not the world police.
Then why did you overthrow their elected government in 1953? Which also set the country firmly on the path to the current regime.
Most US citizens today weren't even alive then. They aren't responsible for that and it's unreasonable to act as though they were.
Venezuela.
Yes we are. You may not like it, you may not want to pay for it. You may even have voted to not be. But we have been in the past so the US will be judged for not picking up the mantle this time.
And yet we are everywhere.
> "Genocidal" is not an order of magnitude; it's a description of purpose. What's going on in Iran is an atrocity, but it's not "genocidal."
Oh, well that's alright then. Hey fellers, we got off on a grammatical technicality.
> We're not the world police.
It's your mess, now clean it up.
It's not a "grammatical technicality" to misuse a word. Iran is not carrying out a genocide.
>It's your mess, now clean it up.
The US is under no obligation to the people of Iran whatsoever. If we take action in Iran, it will be solely to our benefit, and it may or may not improve those peoples' lives. In all likelihood, it will be another Libya or Afghanistan situation in which we take what we want and leave a power vacuum in our wake.
>"It's your mess, now clean it up"
Yes sir.
On a second thought - who the fuck are you to tell the country with the biggest dick what to do. We'll be putting 100% tariffs on you.
The British government continued to negotiate with Hitler after Kristallnacht (November 1938). They only stopped once he invaded Prague in March 1939.
Thank you, your comment made me aware of this event I didn't know. [1] I have found at least one concrete evidence you assertion is correct [2]: The Dusseldorf Agreement of March 16, 1939.
> The British historian Martin Gilbert believes that "many non-Jews resented the round-up", his opinion being supported by German witness Dr. Arthur Flehinger who recalls seeing "people crying while watching from behind their curtains". Rolf Dessauer recalls how a neighbor came forward and restored a portrait of Paul Ehrlich that had been "slashed to ribbons" by the Sturmabteilung. "He wanted it to be known that not all Germans supported Kristallnacht."
This passage is particulary eerie IMHO, since I've been reading "I don't condone this" of current world events over and over.
> In 1938, just after Kristallnacht, the psychologist Michael Müller-Claudius interviewed 41 randomly selected Nazi Party members on their attitudes towards racial persecution. Of the interviewed party members, 63% expressed extreme indignation against it, 5% expressed approval, and the remaining 32% were noncommittal.
Also particurlarly eerie to me. Yet the regime went on.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%BCsseldorfer_Abkommen_(19...
Talks with Iran were just called off and the US continues to flow military hardware to the area. I hope they take action against the regime soon.
"Pol Pot killed one point seven million Cambodians, died under house arrest, well done there. Stalin killed many millions, died in his bed, aged seventy-two, well done indeed. And the reason we let them get away with it is they killed their own people. And we're sort of fine with that. Hitler killed people next door. Oh, stupid man. After a couple of years we won't stand for that, will we?" -Eddie Izzard
> come on, no action from the West?
Most action from the West is likely to make things worse. Can you give a scenario where that's not the case?
WWII did not happen because of the Holocaust and nations around the world being outraged at that. In truth, the US and many other countries rejected Jewish refugees from Germany
> It's troubling that most of the free world stands by and watches as a genocidal-level massacre takes place in Iran. Persians don't expect China/Russia to respond, but come on, no action from the West?
I find it surprising that you're troubled. The West helped Israel with its genocide in Gaza; why did you expect that the West would intervene in what's happening the Iran, which by death count is significantly smaller?
> which by death count is significantly smaller
In 48 hours, the islamic regime in Iran massacred more than 40,000 protestors (and left tens of thousands of people blinded/wounded, often "finishing them off" by raiding hospitals...). Some figures even show more than 40,000, but even assuming the low-park, that's 833 people per hour, or 13 people per minute who got killed.
Whatever Israel did (to defend itself) was by no means even near those numbers.
> In 48 hours, the islamic regime in Iran massacred more than 40,000 protestors (and left tens of thousands of people blinded/wounded, often "finishing them off" by raiding hospitals...). Some figures even show more than 40,000, but even assuming the low-park, that's 833 people per hour, or 13 people per minute who got killed.
> Whatever Israel did (to defend itself) was by no means even near those numbers.
Israel killed about 300,000 people in the first month. Sure, it's a lower count per day, what a low bar.
From now on, every time anyone says anything about Iran, I'll be pushing the narrative that "whatever Iran did, it was to defend itself".
300,000? Can you cite something for that?
Edit to add: Also, Israel was actually attacked, and civilians were raped, kidnapped, and murdered. Did any of the protestors in Iran kill, rape, or murder any of members of the regime who subsequently slaughtered them?
71K https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Gaza_war
Right, that was the number I had in my head... and that's for the whole war. This guy apparently believes 300k were killed in the first month, but I have no idea where that's coming from.
> Edit to add: Also, Israel was actually attacked, and civilians were raped, kidnapped, and murdered. Did any of the protestors in Iran kill, rape, or murder any of members of the regime who subsequently slaughtered them?
Just to be clear. You're arguing that if a country is attacked, it's ok to kill civilians that are unrelated to the attack? Or are you arguing that those 300,000 were somehow involved in the killing of the 3,000 Israelis that died in the Hamas attack?
> You're arguing that if a country is attacked, it's ok to kill civilians that are unrelated to the attack?
If a country is attacked, and defends itself, are you saying it should stop any form of defense because a civilian can die?
If this is the logic, then what would prevent armies from using human shields?
> You're arguing that if a country is attacked, it's ok to kill civilians that are unrelated to the attack?
How on earth did you get that from my comment? Can you think of a more charitable way to interpret what I said?
> Edit to add: Also, Israel was actually attacked, and civilians were raped, kidnapped, and murdered. Did any of the protestors in Iran kill, rape, or murder any of members of the regime who subsequently slaughtered them?
So you're not saying that what Israel is doing is less bad due to the fact that it was attacked? So what are you saying then?
I guess that no, I can't find a more charitable way to interpret what you said.
>> From now on, every time anyone says anything about Iran, I'll be pushing the narrative that "whatever Iran did, it was to defend itself".
> Israel was actually attacked
I was responding to your claim that Iran was defending itself... Whether or not Israel responded disproportionately to October 7 (it did), I don't think it's fair to say Iran's actions are "self-defense" in the same way that Israel's war was self-defense.
No, I don't agree. What is Israel is doing is WAY past the "disproportionate" conversation. For one, Israel's targets have nothing to do with the people who attacked Israel, other than they come from the same geographical area. It's like saying "bombing Italy is a disproportionate response to Luigi Mangione assassinating someone".
Disproportionate would be if they caught the October 7 terrorists and their collaborators, and instead of arresting them killed them. If that was what happened, I wouldn't be morally against it.
Debunked and no evidence, all claims came from biased sources: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/how-2-debunked-accounts-o...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_and_gender-based_violen...
Hannibal directive: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-07-07/ty-article-ma...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal_Directive#Claimed_use...
> 300,000 people in the first month
That’s the fake UN number - in contradiction with Gaza Health Ministry.
> Whatever Israel did (to defend itself) was by no means even near
Now that's a record fast jump between "it never happened" and "they deserved it".
The best thing about zionism zealots propagandists is they can't hide it. I guess it's the effect of decades of having the West self-flagellate over "antisemitism", they got used to getting away with everything.
Also funny the wording "whatever they did", as if it's a mystery.
Because Iran has oil, which makes it far more interesting to the West than Yugoslavia and Kosovo, where the west did intervene.
I think if you support Netanyahu, you are not in a position to condemn these atrocities. The problem is that Iranian pro-democracy opposition is demolished by far-right sometimes neo-Nazi monarchists!
Still blows my mind how NKR with all it's geologic limitations, or perhaps despite it, played their weak hand well while Iran squandered a much stronger hand. Too much oil and cultural/past hegemon hubris, the Ayatollah are not serious people. Nor the Iranian people who protest because lol the shah's son told them to (this article). They deserve each other. Frankly Iran is on Israel grass mowing schedule now - they didn't win the 12 day war, but demonstrated even incompetent Iran has latent ability to. IMO Iranian dissidents are dangerously naive to geopolitical reality, it's in no ones regional interest to do anything other than to keep Iran and by extension, Iranians down. At this point, if Iran serous about favourable regional lightcone, their only option is to ditch half measured authoritarian amateur hour and double down. Frankly they should have had their own firewall and purged libtard compradors 10+ years ago.
The EU and US have imposed sanctions on Iran, crippling its economy, Israel has killed much of its military high command. The US and Israel have rallied the usual internal opposition. Joined no doubt, by some who have been hit in the wallet and stomach by crippling sanctions. Just like the Scandinavians focused on Venezuela with their prize and Trump murdered Maduro's bodyguards and whoever else was standing around in an attempt to wrest Venezuela's sovereignty, or now Cuba's or even Greenland's, Iran is a current focus of western imperial focus to destroy their sovereignty. The US and UK succeeded in the 1950s when the Iranian parliament tried to nationalize Iran's oil, but they were tossed out in 1979 and the imperialists have been hell bent to put Iran under their thumb again.
While children in Gaza starve, ICE roams the streets killing even non-immigrants, and Greenland is in the crosshairs, white, professional-managerial types put their focus on replacing Iranian sovereignty with being under the West's boot, for very liberal, humanitarian reasons of course.
Talk to some Iranians. We would _welcome_ "imperialist" intervention.
The black and white "west is bad" narrative you're being fed isn't accurate.
Definitely seems the majority viewpoint of people from Tehrangeles
How can you welcome imperalist intervention when the imperialists are the ones purposely causing (to a large extent) the economic instability?
Just trying to understand.
They are not. It's the eastern imperialists that are causing this. And if it's a choice between eastern imperialists (China and Russia) and western ones, it seems that Iranian people by far prefer the western ones.
For three main reasons.
1. Culturally Iranians are way more aligned with west.
2. Western imperialism results in more democracy. Not 100%, but not this bad.
3. Economically countries under west's influence do much better. Iran is extremely poor right now.
Interesting perspective!
Why do you think China and Russia are causing the economic instability? I thought it was because of US sanctions and currency manipulation.
Ask Poles.
Some "west bad" rhetoric is that the fall of communism was orchestrated by Americans and not of organic local origin.
In reality the communist regime protected by Russian/ soviet violence had no legitimacy or support from the population.
Perhaps Poles could not free themselves without the western , maybe Cia played active role in organizing solidarity movement.
If this is true then we Poles are forever grateful for orchestrating regime change in Poland in 1989.
Iran's government is an Islamic fundamentalist dictatorship. It has imprisoned and killed protestors[0], it hung over 700 political dissidents last year[1], it has imprisoned and executed people who have left Islam[2], it has beaten and imprisoned women who refused to wear hijab[3]. As for LGBT rights, Equaldex lists Iran 190th out of 197 nations[4]. Time Magazine reports[5] that some 30,000 people were killed in January for protesting the government.
Even the parent article reports first-hand that the Iranian regime is now labelling protesters as terrorists and calls for their arrests.
This, combined with the drought and economic collapse, has pushed the Iranian people towards revolt.
This is not the fault of Israel, America, Trump, Greenland, white people, or any other boogeyman. It's a feature of Iranian government, and the Iranian people want change.
[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2026/jan/27/i...
[1]: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/07/iran-horrifyi...
[2]: https://persecution.exmuslims.org/countries/iran/
[3]: https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/10/14/iran-new-hijab-law-adds-...
[4]: https://www.equaldex.com/region/iran
[5]: https://time.com/7357635/more-than-30000-killed-in-iran-say-...
The Iranian government is responsible of all sorts of human rights violations, and also for the drought (at least partly), but the economic collapse was triggered by the US.
Bessent said so at Davos:
"President Trump ordered our Treasury and our OFAC division (Office of Foreign Asset Control) to put maximum pressure on Iran. And it's worked, because in December, their economy collapsed. [...] So this is why people took to the street. This is economic statecraft". https://youtu.be/VQQXLnXlWqY?t=1722
Is this how America helps dissidents? Make them so miserable they can't bear it anymore? Anyways, it never works. It just makes civilians more miserable and the government more repressive. Look at Cuba or North Korea.
Yes, I concede the US is partly responsible for Iran's economic collapse. What a wonderful outcome should it result in the Ayatollahs losing their grip on power.
To dismiss the impact of economic sanctions is at best intellectually dishonest. Economic sanctions aren't a natural disaster. Somebody is imposing them. Who, exactly? And why?
Also, US allies (ie Israel) can kill hundreds of thousands of people without any consequences. In fact, we bankroll the weapons they use to do it to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.
So why are the documented atrocities of one country not an issue at all but the transgressions of another country worthy of starving that country for decades? What's different between these two? And who is making that determination?
Iran has no one to blame for the sanctions but themselves. The conditions to drop them have been clear, they have refused. Fine, but you dont get to then turn around and blame the sanctioning countries for the situation you put yourself in.
Make no mistake about Venezuela. The Maduro regime has caused untold pain and suffering to the Venezuelan people. Venezuela was no longer sovereign nation, Maduro was staying in power by force against the will of the people.
nice casual racism.
I get anti-West sentiment. I get anti-US imperialism. I get pointing out the double standard of the West regarding Israel, their atrocities and genocide. I get looking with cynicism at the great powers' manouevers.
I don't get—never have, probably never will—painting the Islamic Republic of Iran as saviours, freedom fighters, or the last bulwark of an axis of resistance.
If the Boston strangler was anti-imperialist, would you claim he was a hero? It feels like you would.
Sure, Iran isn't exactly the best country, but they're still a sovereign nation right? Let them figure their own problems.
Just because they have a shitty government doesn't mean we (USA) have the right to their oil.
They are trying hard to solve their own problems! Have you not seen the size and scope of the protests!?
USA indeed doesn’t have any right to their oil, but that doesn’t mean they couldn’t help.
If the mullahs are so bad, why did the UK and US back them against the democracy of Mossadegh in the 1950s? Then Savak with CIA help slaughtered the secular left in Iran into the 1970s.
Westerners work to slaughter the secular left in a country, then use that as their entitlement to take over the country - "there is no secular force to take over".
This just happened in Syria - the West forced out a secular leader to replace him with a now celebrated al-Qaeda leader who the US had a $10 million bounty on fourteen months ago. Who is currently slaughtering every minority ethnicity in the country.
Because it was never a judgement about who is bad vs. good, but who would be best for American/British interests with zero regard for Iranians.
Why are so many Iranians (like the author of the article) repeating the Western propaganda though? That confuses me.
Iranians hate the dictatorship they live under. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
If that's sarcasm, it's British levels of dry.
I assume that the economic conditions are caused by the sanctions designed to force Iran to give up their nuclear ambitions? But that only works if the country actually cares about its people. Iran seems content to let them suffer (or kill them themselves). Is Iran destined to become the next North Korea? Will their oil save them from that?
Nevermind that Iran's nuclear ambitions had already been kept in check by a thorough program of inspections. Trump walked back on that, because the sanctions are an end in itself.
> Nevermind that Iran's nuclear ambitions had already been kept in check by a thorough program of inspections.
This is incorrect. For example, the deal with Iran did not allow for surprise inspections.
> I assume that the economic conditions are caused by the sanctions designed to force Iran to give up their nuclear ambitions?
No, that's the regime's excuse. Most electricity in the country is used by the regime to mine crypto (!).