Any country watching Iran situation should take a way a few things: For one khamenei was known to be against nuclear weapons and was a sort of a peace keeper between hardliners leaning towards lifting sanctions but seems to have been forced into a lame duck through narratives inside and outside along with internal leaks. Two, its no longer possible to shut down the internet with Starlink.
Those two were supposed to be backstops against any externally induced regime change. Now any country at odds with United States currently owning nukes is looking at escalating straight to warning shot doctrine. Having enriched uraniums or some land based ICBM is no longer enough. Something tactical and small enough to be used to limit nuclear fallout but make regional allies absolutely against engaging in war at behest of the US seems like it would test US nuclear umbrella.
ex) Any NATO countries willing to have a low yield tactical nuke detonate near their border but inside a disputed territory/land? Which non-nuclear EU country is willing to erase themselves off the map to shield their European brothers?
If Ukraine had kept its nuclear weapons it would not have been attacked, but there was never any risk of Russia using nuclear weapons.
This is just one of many many ways that people in the west fundamentally misunderstand Russia, and why so many people made fools of themselves thinking that Putin would not invade. The other really big one is that Russia never admitted that it lost the Cold War and thinks the war is still going on, and that it's the fault of the US and others that Russia is so backwards and poor, not a result of their own mismanagement, the weakness of their people, and the general corruption.
With Russia it's precisely because of their fundamentals. Too much depends on the people in charge, because Russia never developed effective institutions to constrain their leaders. When they have a good leader, they take a step forward, and when they have a bad leader, they take three steps backward. Bad leaders are always more effective, because it's easier to make things worse.
Medieval Russia was not too different from the rest of Europe, with all the little monarchies and merchant republics. The period of centralization that followed was also similar. But the accidents of history almost all went the same way. Monarchies defeating merchant republics and free cities. Muscovy being too good at conquering its neighbors, turning Russia into a huge centralized empire with little direct competition. The assassination of Alexander II before he could complete his reforms. The unholy mess of 1917–1922. The idealism of Gorbachev and Yeltsin that turned their reforms into a disaster.
A lot of it is because transportation is quite difficult. On the opposite end of the spectrum is the US where even before the railroad and the automobile, transportation was quite easy, with navigable rivers flowing through the best farmland in the world.
Another big piece is how easy it is to invade; how hard it is to defend. History records 50 invasions of Russia. For centuries Russian looked at the fertile land perfect for farming in what is now Southern Russia and Eastern Ukraine, but dared not farm it because it was swept regularly by quite fierce nomads on horses.
Because their institutions are completely corrupt. There are no rules to the game so the powerful take everything. It is a smaller pie but if I can have it all, why do I care?
Prosperity correlates with powerful institutions (not necessarily democratic). But ultimately you need a set of rules that even the state has to follow.
Brain drain at an unimaginable scale, which is a self-reinforcing mechanism because once it starts, governments will usually impose restrictions to try to stop it, which makes everyone else want to leave too.
> For one khamenei was known to be against nuclear weapons and was a sort of a peace keeper between hardliners
I think the Iran war was a dumb idea, but you’re repeating propaganda.[1] Khamenei called the shots in Iran. The country had a nuclear weapons program because he wanted it. Iran isn’t an autocracy in the same way China isn’t an autocracy—the mullahs run the country in the same way as the CCP runs China. But major defense programs don’t happen without the supreme leader’s approval.
Khamenei was also a hardliner. Over the last two decades, there have been many moderate candidates for Iran’s presidency. But the Guardian Council banned all of them from running. (The Guardian Council has six members appointed by the Ayatollah, and six appointed by the Chief Justice, who is appointed by the Ayatollah.)
[1] I find it interesting people feel the need to make excuses for the Iranian regime. I guess non-interference with a sovereign country’s internal affairs is not, by itself, a very satisfying principle. So there is a desire to make it seem like Iran’s leadership didn’t deserve to get blown up.
I don't think the current regime has changed their policy out of the goodness of their hearts, or for the concerns of the citizenry. If I were to hazard a guess, I'm guessing it is so their army of digital burglars can wreak havoc on US sites, in retaliation for the bombings by the US. So I guess we can only expect more ransomware and more digital mayhem.
I'm not a fan of the Iranian government at all but this is pure Iran Derangement Syndrome. If you thought about this for half a second you'd realize that their "army of digital burglars" has had internet access the entire time. No state, and especially not one that specializes in proxy warfare, is going to intentionally cripple its actors with the highest damage to plausible deniability ratio.
It's the middle of the night in the region, so I don't expect very many human internet users from Israel or Iran right now. This may also explain why so much of the traffic coming out of Iran is flagged as bot traffic.
I agree that a significant portion of urban middle class Iranians have been online the entire time, but it's a group that is roughly analogous to the people in China who go out of their way to use a VPN.
Thanks for reminding everyone of the obvious. You'd think it wouldn't be necessary.
The popular theory that all Iranian internet was shut off like Johnny pulling the plug out of the socket in Airplane is simplistic and beyond ludicrous.
The more important aspect is that the regime now feels certain enough that they have killed enough of the internal opposition so that the security forces can handle rest even with open comms.
I've been able to talk to every dev I know in Iran this whole time and none of them are state affiliated, just regular open source contributers. Don't trust 5 eyes (this includes CF) and what they say about Iran. There have been Iranians on twitter this entire time also that are completely normal citizens.
Israelis and US news sources will tell you Iran is strangling their people of internet and then upload 300 videos a day from inside Iran allegedly from bystanders filming strikes or whatever.
Its wild how brainwashed western tech people are. If I were a world leader though, I'd probably cut my citizens off from the Western Internet. The original patch for the ARMY psyops division is literally a ghost holding its hand out from way above with electrical signals pulsating from its hand. Which is really future thinking considering this patch is from the 40s-50s. Look up "Army PSYOPs ghost patch". I always say Starlink should change its logo to that.
Don't fall for the trap where the US and Israel paints Iran as some authoritarian censor. The US is far more authoritarian, we have the largest prison population in the world and the most corrupt leaders on earth. Also, Iran hasn't been committing a genocide. I would love to see evidence for the thousands of executions they allegedly did, still haven't seen a single bit of video evidence for that other than 400p 10 second clips of random bags on a ground.
Not sure about CF but 5 Eyes is an information sharing agreement to get around laws regarding governments spying on their own citizens. So eg. Australia wants to surveil some guy but legally can’t. Well, they can’t help it if the US spies on that guy, right? And if the US later hands the Australian government an envelope with some information in it, that’s perfectly legal, right? And later the same thing takes place in reverse, quite a coincidence really.
"Don't fall for the trap where the US and Israel paints Iran as some authoritarian censor. The US is far more authoritarian"
This is total delusion, honestly, it's why people in these systems will remain trapped for a long time.
America has many problems but when people in places like Iran start on this bandwagon, it's evidence of inability to just weigh reality in the face of emotional rhetoric.
Nobody is suggesting that Iran is 'committing genocide' - that's just something you made up, however, they have been killing protesters, this is very real.
From Amnesty [1] (not exactly a pro US voice)
Human Rights Watch [2]
Amnesty and HRW indicate the state murdered at least thousands of protesters, and HRW has considerably more than that under investigation, there is plenty of evidence.
There are 2000 drones that hit UAE and you hardly see a video, why? Because UAE officials are brutally oppressive about this. They threaten people with imprisonment and expulsion for any 'leaks' and they've been forcing social media personalities to push propaganda. That's just UAE, Iran is even more assertive.
Press freedom index [3]
Iran has a ruthlessly oppressive regime, not even comparable to that of the US.
> Iran has a ruthlessly oppressive regime, not even comparable to that of the US.
Not comparable in domestic affairs... in foreign affairs the situation is reversed. US is by far the most violent, untrustworthy, and oppressive in the world, while Iran looks pretty peaceful and harmless in comparison.
Even with the terrible shenanigans of the last 1.5 years - the US is actually still the only thing that holds the world together.
The reason it's hard to grasp is because we see 'horrible Trump regime' - and previous failures in Iraq but don't look at the underlying tectonic security foundation.
DJT is Humpty Dumpty on a very entrenched wall.
We live in a 'Post World War 2' system of relative peace which hasn't really happened in history.
The US could have occupied and controlled 1/2 the world after World War 2 - it choose not to.
This is the one of the most meaningful geopolitical actS in history - that framework actually still exists.
Here are some Eisenhower quotes that capture the ideology [1], worth a read ('no nation before another' etc.).
That's still the foundation.
We mostly accept the notion of sovereignty because of this order.
Freedom of navigation for example - is something that we take for granted, but that only exists because of a Western-led order with the US as the base of that.
Even Vietnam - it was acted upon for the same reasons as Korea, but it was a mess and the US failed, were they to have been successful, we would look at it differently.
There is no way to be an 'entirely benevolent power in all affairs' - it's always going to be a bit murky.
It is a paradox that DJT has threatened Greenland (which is really all about him, nobody actually supports that) but the actions in Venezuela are not totally inconsistent with 'order' - it just so happens to be done by a leader with ulterior motives.
The US did not stay in Iraq or 'acquire' it's vast Oil reserves.
Up until President Humpty Dumpty - the US provided security for the Gulf for 80 years - again, almost unthinkable in the context of history.
People have completely forgotten that the 'true point of instability' in the Middle East is Egypt vs. Israel. That's way, way more dangerous than Iran v. Israel - but we don't talk about it because the US has been 'bribing' Egypt for decades - still to this day - with billions in aid and support to keep the political system reasonably balanced. Without that - there would be constant war between Israel and Egypt, and Suez would be closed.
If the US did not exist as a 'power' - then the world would be wild place - Ukraine would have been conquered long ago, at very least the Baltic states as well.
Neither the Suez or Panama canal would exist as we understand them, and it's hard to even grasp what the world map would look like.
And all of that despite Iraq, Afghanistan etc..
The world is shifting away from this, but not completely.
The US will lose 'absolute centrality' but will not loose general centrality.
If you for some reason think Israel is less authoritarian than Iran, I really don't care to argue with you. They've been murdering tens of thousands of civilians and publishing videos of them bragging about it to the world. They film themselves firing machine guns into refugee camps and post it on their Instagram stories.
As a US citizen I will go to prison for a decade for donating school supplies to a state ran school in Cuba. If I donate a microscope or a glass beaker to a high school in Iran I will likely end up in prison for 10-20 years as a political prisoner.
All governments are repressive, Iran included, but if we're going to make a competition out of it its not even close. Iran's prison population isn't even as large as Texas's. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait actually has hijab rules, I don't see us carpet bombing their infrastructure to rescue the women and we're actively flirting with the idea of giving them nuclear weapons and already sell them our best defense tech.
The weird thing is: Iran seems to be acting like the war is ending, and that their peace plan has been accepted, and yet now it's the Trump administration that says it's all fake news. In the past the Trump administration has claimed the war was ending and Iran said (truthfully) it's all fake news.
It makes me wonder if something has shifted with the internal power dynamics in Iran, and the civilian government at least is worried about being ousted if this continues. The usual reason why you would lie about peace being around the corner is to placate the citizenry and prevent them from revolting.
Also relatedly, Trump is now doubling down on U.S. demands and threats of more military action. This is what you do if you sense your opponent is weak. Does U.S. intelligence know something we don't?
I don't think U.S. intelligence thought any part of this war was a good idea or justified. There were two National Intelligence Estimates (a panel of all 18 agencies in the IC) that concluded Iran was not developing nuclear weapons.
There has also been reporting that a top general in the Joint Chiefs of Staff warned Trump about starting a conflict with Iran[0]. The only party that believes, or wants others to believe that Iran is a huge threat, is Israel.
It could be a trust-building move, open up a little and see if it's reciprocated, although if it's a trust-building move the right response is probably not to threaten to obliterate them, or to launch more military strikes.
Although this conflict has seen both sides consistently choose the wrong response in basically every situation, which is why it's still going on.
Yeah, it's not even clear what the true motivation is from the US side.. "get the Uranium out" by itself doesn't make sense, because (a) they can just enrich again (or even be supplied directly by Russia/NK) and (b) even if they build nukes they'll never be able to reach US territory. If they wanted to destabilize the regime, they would have needed to actively push an alternative group or leader. If they wanted to pressure China/EU by stressing global markets, I'd say it was mildly successful - though incredibly short term.. I suppose it may be a mix of all of those (and maybe more). But I'm lost as to what the overall goal and strategy is here, it feels extremely haphazard.
Everyone is lost about what exactly was the US strategy here. Everybody understands Iran wasn't a threat to the US that warranted immediate action. Mostly everyone understands the aftermath of this war looks to be worse than the previous situation.
> Everyone is lost about what exactly was the US strategy here.
The strategy is clear: out Iran as a paper tiger (accomplished last year), disarm the mullahs by sinking their boats and destroying the few aircrafts they had left, and humiliate the regime so that an uprising becomes more likely. Same strategy that has already realigned Syria and Venezuela with U.S. interests, and that will soon take Cuba too.
I don't think that anything should be negotiated at this stage. Return to combat operations, destroy Iran's ability to threaten traffic through the Strait, escort the ships that are currently trapped in the Gulf, and maintain the blockade on Iranian ports.
There are many reasons to lie about peace being around the corner, it is the default norm. It is in part to place the blame of further conflicts on your enemies, i.e. I wanted peace but clearly they did not.
There is a conflict of narratives and one way to help push your narrative is to act like it is the reality on the ground. Unless the US is going to send in a ground army or nuke Iran then all we have at the moment is a pointless stalemate and the longer this goes on the more people will be upset at Trump and Israel for creating this situation.
No, the regime has been very publicly saying 'there is no deal', more so than US Admin who keeps hinting 'a deal' or 'imminent' or '95% of the way there'.
"Trump is now doubling down on U.S. demands and threats of more military action. "
No - he's been backing down over and over for weeks. There limited strikes today.
The US Admin is wary of escalation, Tehran knows it (or seems to be acting as though they believe that) and are dragging this along.
> Also relatedly, Trump is now doubling down on U.S. demands and threats of more military action. This is what you do if you sense your opponent is weak. Does U.S. intelligence know something we don't?
Hasn’t he done this every week since it started? He constantly bounces between “we’ve almost got a great deal” and “we are going to ABSOLUTELY OBLITERATE IRAN1!!!1!”
No, Iran is acting like time is on their side. Because it is. The iceberg the rest of the world is about to hit in the coming month or two is strategic reserves of crude oil as well as refined petroleum products (eg jet fuel, gasoline, diesel) being drained. That's going to be a whole new level of suffering.
Trump is doubling down on Israel's demands. That's the true stumbling block here. Israel wanted this war. They still do. Israel thinks they can turn Iran into a failed-state like Somalia.
Trump is also the least reliable indicator of what's going to happen becausee, as we all hopefully know by now, he just rants stream-of-consciousness like. The Joint Chiefs, the intelligence community and allies all knew this was doomed to failure. Closing the Strait of Hormuz has been historically modeled in terms of military exercises and capability for decades. It was unproven prior to this war if the US could reopen the Strait. Well, now we know. Congratulations, everybody, the system works.
I don't know what increased Internet traffic from Iran means. As was proven last year though, Israel used that access for intelligence and assassination purposes (ie to identify target locations, particularly through the large number of of Afghan refugees that were in the country at the time, allegedly [1]).
There is no grand strategy. There are no cards left to play by the US short of the use of nuclear weapons. I mean that literally. The uS has lost but unwillingness to break with Israel has stopped the administration from admitting it publicly.
> The iceberg the rest of the world is about to hit in the coming month or two is strategic reserves of crude oil as well as refined petroleum products (eg jet fuel, gasoline, diesel) being drained.
It's not clear to me that the "world" will come down on Iran's side on this one. On the one hand you have a country that is perpetrating a violation of international norms by establishing a toll on the straight of hormuz and is shooting at or is threatening to shoot at the "world"'s ships, on the other hand you have a country that violated international norms by invading another country (ho hum, everyone does this) but isn't shooting at or threatening to shoot at your ships (mostly just iranian or dark ships). When the oil reserves run out, do you side with the bad guys that are making a token effort at helping to get oil to you, or do you side with the bad guys that are preventing oil from getting to you just to middle finger trump?
The world already has come down on Iran's side. It's pretty much the US and Israel (and maybe the UAE) against the world. Trump has bemoaned the lack of international support. Use of bases and airpsace have been spotty. And this is only going to get worse once winter hits in Europe and people start seeing their electricity and heating bills. Asia (minus China and Japan) are the most vulnerable because they're almost entirely dependent on Gulf oil that has stopped. And they blame the US for it. Iran has allowed traffic through the Strait to countries that aren't aiding the war effort. It's now the US that is blocking it.
Americans as a whole don't understand the history of the region or know about all the sins the US has committed against Iran over a century, including being responsible for the current regime, overthrowing their democratically elected government in 1953 and stole their oil. They also propped up the Iran-Iraq war and destabilized Afghanistan to flood Iran with heroin.
There was a perfectly good deal with Iran called the JCPOA but Trump tore it out because it had Obama's name on it and Israel hated it. Everything that has happened since is Trump's (and Biden's) fault.
Iran is defending itself against an unprovoked attack by the biggest bully on the planet. The tolls are e complex issue because the navigable lanes through the Strait of Hormuz go through, in part, Iranian territorial waters. There were no tolls. The us started an unprovoked war, caused countless deaths, blew up a school through of girls and assassinated a bunch of leaders. So the tolls are viewed by many as, well, reparations. Iran never closed the Strait or enforced a toll prior to this war.
Iran also acted in good faith last year after yet another unprovoked attack (ie the 12 day war) that was ultimately called off because the US and Israel were losing the ability to intercept Iranian missiles. Why? Critically depelted munitions. And what did the US do? turned around and made another unprovoked, surprise attack rather than negotiating. Because Israel told them to.
So Iran has been forced into the position that they need to make the economic damage of this so high that the US and Israel never think about doing this again. And if you can't see why they might do that, consider what the US did after 9/11.
Sanctions don't work on enemies. We've had what? 4 years of sanctions on Russia now? How's that going? Iran has had over 40 years of almost uninterrupted sanctions. How was that going? North Korea?
Sanctions force an enemy to build an economy to withstand those sanctions. This is easier when you can grow food, have water and have energy. Also, they've built their entire military to resist the one card you can play: strategic bombardment. Cheap missiles, super-cheap drones, both easy to produce and launch and underground facilities that are largely immune to bombing.
Strategic oil reserves are getting perilously low [1] and everybody understands that Trump would rather let the world burn than restrain Israel in the slightest.
It's fair to say sanctions don't always work but otherwise this is wrong on every account.
- The Soviet Union fell apart for economic reasons, not due to ideology or anything else.
- Sanctions 100% work. North Korea is a powerless useless state due to sanctions. They have not collapsed, but they can't do anything otherwise.
- Sanctions on Russia are absolutely effective - we can see how the state budget gets drained and how it affects their ability to fight.
Russia is finally at the 'end of it's rope' ad Putin is talking about 'the war coming to an end' - why? Because the economic engine is failing, and people are starting to turn against him.
The 'hardship at home' is finally starting to take root, and it's putting a lot of pressure on Putin.
It doesn't mean the economy or regime collapses, but it puts Putin in a corner, in a weakened position.
- Iran is not North Korea - the leadership is not popular and the people are not 'brainwashed' like in NK, and economic sanctions will hit very hard.
The JCPOA put in place by Obama was by far the best deal, but failing that, the 'oil blockade' is by far the best option for getting Iran to the table, probably more effective than any of the kinetic actions. Iran has bout 3 months until the pain starts to hit.
The pain will hit 'the world' hard, but the US will only face mild inflation.
Paradoxically - that mild inflation will infuriate voters and cause 'regime change' in the US at midterms. So - you can see 'sanctions' are working for Iran as well.
- " Trump would rather let the world burn than restrain Israel in the slightest." this is false, and a total misunderstanding about Trump's position on Israel.
Trump has restrained Israel on many occasions. He went after Iran for his own benefit not for anyone else. It worked last year to bolster his image, then after 'Venezuela' Trump saw the obvious path to popularity. Netenyahu told him 'it would be easy' to win - and even do 'regime change' aka appealed to Trump's ego, not to the plight of Israel. Even on the domestic issues, DJT is mostly after AIPAC money and votes. He's not strongly ideologically aligned, and he's happy to do deals with Qatar, UAE, Saudi that throws Israel's security interest to the window.
Literally yesterday - Trump was plausibly going to offer 'a deal' that would have given Iran quite a lot, but it was his own pro-Israel senior political that forced him to backpedal. Senior GOP people came out and warned him off.
DJT wants out of this situation and would throw all of us - including Israel to the wind.
Note that Iran can re-organize their budget, change spending, get some Oil out otherwise, and 'prolong their burn' which then gives impetus for Trump to strike a deal.
But time is not really on Iran's side - they think they have a bit of an edge, but it's definitely a game of chicken.
Any country watching Iran situation should take a way a few things: For one khamenei was known to be against nuclear weapons and was a sort of a peace keeper between hardliners leaning towards lifting sanctions but seems to have been forced into a lame duck through narratives inside and outside along with internal leaks. Two, its no longer possible to shut down the internet with Starlink.
Those two were supposed to be backstops against any externally induced regime change. Now any country at odds with United States currently owning nukes is looking at escalating straight to warning shot doctrine. Having enriched uraniums or some land based ICBM is no longer enough. Something tactical and small enough to be used to limit nuclear fallout but make regional allies absolutely against engaging in war at behest of the US seems like it would test US nuclear umbrella.
ex) Any NATO countries willing to have a low yield tactical nuke detonate near their border but inside a disputed territory/land? Which non-nuclear EU country is willing to erase themselves off the map to shield their European brothers?
I really thought that Russia would use such a device to end the war in Ukraine. Hopefully they will not.
If Ukraine had kept its nuclear weapons it would not have been attacked, but there was never any risk of Russia using nuclear weapons.
This is just one of many many ways that people in the west fundamentally misunderstand Russia, and why so many people made fools of themselves thinking that Putin would not invade. The other really big one is that Russia never admitted that it lost the Cold War and thinks the war is still going on, and that it's the fault of the US and others that Russia is so backwards and poor, not a result of their own mismanagement, the weakness of their people, and the general corruption.
> and that it's the fault of the US and others that Russia is so backwards and poor
Why is Russia so backwards and poor? Russia and Iran are two countries that seem to way underperform their fundamentals.
With Russia it's precisely because of their fundamentals. Too much depends on the people in charge, because Russia never developed effective institutions to constrain their leaders. When they have a good leader, they take a step forward, and when they have a bad leader, they take three steps backward. Bad leaders are always more effective, because it's easier to make things worse.
Medieval Russia was not too different from the rest of Europe, with all the little monarchies and merchant republics. The period of centralization that followed was also similar. But the accidents of history almost all went the same way. Monarchies defeating merchant republics and free cities. Muscovy being too good at conquering its neighbors, turning Russia into a huge centralized empire with little direct competition. The assassination of Alexander II before he could complete his reforms. The unholy mess of 1917–1922. The idealism of Gorbachev and Yeltsin that turned their reforms into a disaster.
A lot of it is because transportation is quite difficult. On the opposite end of the spectrum is the US where even before the railroad and the automobile, transportation was quite easy, with navigable rivers flowing through the best farmland in the world.
Another big piece is how easy it is to invade; how hard it is to defend. History records 50 invasions of Russia. For centuries Russian looked at the fertile land perfect for farming in what is now Southern Russia and Eastern Ukraine, but dared not farm it because it was swept regularly by quite fierce nomads on horses.
Because their institutions are completely corrupt. There are no rules to the game so the powerful take everything. It is a smaller pie but if I can have it all, why do I care?
Prosperity correlates with powerful institutions (not necessarily democratic). But ultimately you need a set of rules that even the state has to follow.
Brain drain at an unimaginable scale, which is a self-reinforcing mechanism because once it starts, governments will usually impose restrictions to try to stop it, which makes everyone else want to leave too.
> For one khamenei was known to be against nuclear weapons and was a sort of a peace keeper between hardliners
I think the Iran war was a dumb idea, but you’re repeating propaganda.[1] Khamenei called the shots in Iran. The country had a nuclear weapons program because he wanted it. Iran isn’t an autocracy in the same way China isn’t an autocracy—the mullahs run the country in the same way as the CCP runs China. But major defense programs don’t happen without the supreme leader’s approval.
Khamenei was also a hardliner. Over the last two decades, there have been many moderate candidates for Iran’s presidency. But the Guardian Council banned all of them from running. (The Guardian Council has six members appointed by the Ayatollah, and six appointed by the Chief Justice, who is appointed by the Ayatollah.)
[1] I find it interesting people feel the need to make excuses for the Iranian regime. I guess non-interference with a sovereign country’s internal affairs is not, by itself, a very satisfying principle. So there is a desire to make it seem like Iran’s leadership didn’t deserve to get blown up.
Re. point 2: It is if you own Starlink. :S
The US Government can own and nationalize it in a heartbeat if they want to. Even other Billionaires hate Musk.
Related post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48297937
I don't think the current regime has changed their policy out of the goodness of their hearts, or for the concerns of the citizenry. If I were to hazard a guess, I'm guessing it is so their army of digital burglars can wreak havoc on US sites, in retaliation for the bombings by the US. So I guess we can only expect more ransomware and more digital mayhem.
I'm not a fan of the Iranian government at all but this is pure Iran Derangement Syndrome. If you thought about this for half a second you'd realize that their "army of digital burglars" has had internet access the entire time. No state, and especially not one that specializes in proxy warfare, is going to intentionally cripple its actors with the highest damage to plausible deniability ratio.
Its also simply not true, Iranians have been on the internet this entire time. These people commenting are Israelis, which HN is full of.
It's the middle of the night in the region, so I don't expect very many human internet users from Israel or Iran right now. This may also explain why so much of the traffic coming out of Iran is flagged as bot traffic.
I agree that a significant portion of urban middle class Iranians have been online the entire time, but it's a group that is roughly analogous to the people in China who go out of their way to use a VPN.
What kind of crazy person would be on the internet on the middle of the night? None of us normal people would ever do that! cough cough
Iranian-sponsored threat actors have had network access throughout this entire conflict.
Thanks for reminding everyone of the obvious. You'd think it wouldn't be necessary.
The popular theory that all Iranian internet was shut off like Johnny pulling the plug out of the socket in Airplane is simplistic and beyond ludicrous.
That fact wasnt obvious to me.
The internet is a pretty critical economic tool. I'd imagine that a good portion of the reason is simply to let Iranian businesses function.
Wouldn't regime glow in the darks have open access already? You'd imagine they'd run a whitelist or something.
You might be right; most of the traffic is bot-driven
The more important aspect is that the regime now feels certain enough that they have killed enough of the internal opposition so that the security forces can handle rest even with open comms.
I've been able to talk to every dev I know in Iran this whole time and none of them are state affiliated, just regular open source contributers. Don't trust 5 eyes (this includes CF) and what they say about Iran. There have been Iranians on twitter this entire time also that are completely normal citizens.
Israelis and US news sources will tell you Iran is strangling their people of internet and then upload 300 videos a day from inside Iran allegedly from bystanders filming strikes or whatever.
Its wild how brainwashed western tech people are. If I were a world leader though, I'd probably cut my citizens off from the Western Internet. The original patch for the ARMY psyops division is literally a ghost holding its hand out from way above with electrical signals pulsating from its hand. Which is really future thinking considering this patch is from the 40s-50s. Look up "Army PSYOPs ghost patch". I always say Starlink should change its logo to that.
Don't fall for the trap where the US and Israel paints Iran as some authoritarian censor. The US is far more authoritarian, we have the largest prison population in the world and the most corrupt leaders on earth. Also, Iran hasn't been committing a genocide. I would love to see evidence for the thousands of executions they allegedly did, still haven't seen a single bit of video evidence for that other than 400p 10 second clips of random bags on a ground.
> Don't trust 5 eyes (this includes CF)
What are CF & 5 eyes?
Not sure about CF but 5 Eyes is an information sharing agreement to get around laws regarding governments spying on their own citizens. So eg. Australia wants to surveil some guy but legally can’t. Well, they can’t help it if the US spies on that guy, right? And if the US later hands the Australian government an envelope with some information in it, that’s perfectly legal, right? And later the same thing takes place in reverse, quite a coincidence really.
"Don't fall for the trap where the US and Israel paints Iran as some authoritarian censor. The US is far more authoritarian"
This is total delusion, honestly, it's why people in these systems will remain trapped for a long time.
America has many problems but when people in places like Iran start on this bandwagon, it's evidence of inability to just weigh reality in the face of emotional rhetoric.
Nobody is suggesting that Iran is 'committing genocide' - that's just something you made up, however, they have been killing protesters, this is very real.
From Amnesty [1] (not exactly a pro US voice) Human Rights Watch [2]
Amnesty and HRW indicate the state murdered at least thousands of protesters, and HRW has considerably more than that under investigation, there is plenty of evidence.
There are 2000 drones that hit UAE and you hardly see a video, why? Because UAE officials are brutally oppressive about this. They threaten people with imprisonment and expulsion for any 'leaks' and they've been forcing social media personalities to push propaganda. That's just UAE, Iran is even more assertive.
Press freedom index [3]
Iran has a ruthlessly oppressive regime, not even comparable to that of the US.
[1] https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-af...
[2] https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2024/country-chapters/iran
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index
> Iran has a ruthlessly oppressive regime, not even comparable to that of the US.
Not comparable in domestic affairs... in foreign affairs the situation is reversed. US is by far the most violent, untrustworthy, and oppressive in the world, while Iran looks pretty peaceful and harmless in comparison.
No, this is hyperbole.
Even with the terrible shenanigans of the last 1.5 years - the US is actually still the only thing that holds the world together.
The reason it's hard to grasp is because we see 'horrible Trump regime' - and previous failures in Iraq but don't look at the underlying tectonic security foundation.
DJT is Humpty Dumpty on a very entrenched wall.
We live in a 'Post World War 2' system of relative peace which hasn't really happened in history.
The US could have occupied and controlled 1/2 the world after World War 2 - it choose not to.
This is the one of the most meaningful geopolitical actS in history - that framework actually still exists.
Here are some Eisenhower quotes that capture the ideology [1], worth a read ('no nation before another' etc.).
That's still the foundation.
We mostly accept the notion of sovereignty because of this order.
Freedom of navigation for example - is something that we take for granted, but that only exists because of a Western-led order with the US as the base of that.
Even Vietnam - it was acted upon for the same reasons as Korea, but it was a mess and the US failed, were they to have been successful, we would look at it differently.
There is no way to be an 'entirely benevolent power in all affairs' - it's always going to be a bit murky.
It is a paradox that DJT has threatened Greenland (which is really all about him, nobody actually supports that) but the actions in Venezuela are not totally inconsistent with 'order' - it just so happens to be done by a leader with ulterior motives.
The US did not stay in Iraq or 'acquire' it's vast Oil reserves.
Up until President Humpty Dumpty - the US provided security for the Gulf for 80 years - again, almost unthinkable in the context of history.
People have completely forgotten that the 'true point of instability' in the Middle East is Egypt vs. Israel. That's way, way more dangerous than Iran v. Israel - but we don't talk about it because the US has been 'bribing' Egypt for decades - still to this day - with billions in aid and support to keep the political system reasonably balanced. Without that - there would be constant war between Israel and Egypt, and Suez would be closed.
If the US did not exist as a 'power' - then the world would be wild place - Ukraine would have been conquered long ago, at very least the Baltic states as well.
Neither the Suez or Panama canal would exist as we understand them, and it's hard to even grasp what the world map would look like.
And all of that despite Iraq, Afghanistan etc..
The world is shifting away from this, but not completely.
The US will lose 'absolute centrality' but will not loose general centrality.
[1] https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/eisenhowers/quotes
The US does occupy and control > 1/2 the world through financial instruments.
If you for some reason think Israel is less authoritarian than Iran, I really don't care to argue with you. They've been murdering tens of thousands of civilians and publishing videos of them bragging about it to the world. They film themselves firing machine guns into refugee camps and post it on their Instagram stories.
As a US citizen I will go to prison for a decade for donating school supplies to a state ran school in Cuba. If I donate a microscope or a glass beaker to a high school in Iran I will likely end up in prison for 10-20 years as a political prisoner.
All governments are repressive, Iran included, but if we're going to make a competition out of it its not even close. Iran's prison population isn't even as large as Texas's. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait actually has hijab rules, I don't see us carpet bombing their infrastructure to rescue the women and we're actively flirting with the idea of giving them nuclear weapons and already sell them our best defense tech.
The weird thing is: Iran seems to be acting like the war is ending, and that their peace plan has been accepted, and yet now it's the Trump administration that says it's all fake news. In the past the Trump administration has claimed the war was ending and Iran said (truthfully) it's all fake news.
It makes me wonder if something has shifted with the internal power dynamics in Iran, and the civilian government at least is worried about being ousted if this continues. The usual reason why you would lie about peace being around the corner is to placate the citizenry and prevent them from revolting.
Also relatedly, Trump is now doubling down on U.S. demands and threats of more military action. This is what you do if you sense your opponent is weak. Does U.S. intelligence know something we don't?
> Does U.S. intelligence know something we don't?
Well, yes probably.
> Does U.S. intelligence know something we don't?
Unlikely. They thought a dose of shock and awe would get people out on the streets for a rapid regime change and it didn't work.
I don't think U.S. intelligence thought any part of this war was a good idea or justified. There were two National Intelligence Estimates (a panel of all 18 agencies in the IC) that concluded Iran was not developing nuclear weapons.
There has also been reporting that a top general in the Joint Chiefs of Staff warned Trump about starting a conflict with Iran[0]. The only party that believes, or wants others to believe that Iran is a huge threat, is Israel.
0: https://www.axios.com/2026/02/23/iran-strike-trump-gen-dan-c...
Isn't it also possible that this happened to be one of the explicit pre-conditions for a treaty by the US?
It could be a trust-building move, open up a little and see if it's reciprocated, although if it's a trust-building move the right response is probably not to threaten to obliterate them, or to launch more military strikes.
Although this conflict has seen both sides consistently choose the wrong response in basically every situation, which is why it's still going on.
Yeah, it's not even clear what the true motivation is from the US side.. "get the Uranium out" by itself doesn't make sense, because (a) they can just enrich again (or even be supplied directly by Russia/NK) and (b) even if they build nukes they'll never be able to reach US territory. If they wanted to destabilize the regime, they would have needed to actively push an alternative group or leader. If they wanted to pressure China/EU by stressing global markets, I'd say it was mildly successful - though incredibly short term.. I suppose it may be a mix of all of those (and maybe more). But I'm lost as to what the overall goal and strategy is here, it feels extremely haphazard.
Everyone is lost about what exactly was the US strategy here. Everybody understands Iran wasn't a threat to the US that warranted immediate action. Mostly everyone understands the aftermath of this war looks to be worse than the previous situation.
> Everyone is lost about what exactly was the US strategy here.
The strategy is clear: out Iran as a paper tiger (accomplished last year), disarm the mullahs by sinking their boats and destroying the few aircrafts they had left, and humiliate the regime so that an uprising becomes more likely. Same strategy that has already realigned Syria and Venezuela with U.S. interests, and that will soon take Cuba too.
I don't think that anything should be negotiated at this stage. Return to combat operations, destroy Iran's ability to threaten traffic through the Strait, escort the ships that are currently trapped in the Gulf, and maintain the blockade on Iranian ports.
There are many reasons to lie about peace being around the corner, it is the default norm. It is in part to place the blame of further conflicts on your enemies, i.e. I wanted peace but clearly they did not.
There is a conflict of narratives and one way to help push your narrative is to act like it is the reality on the ground. Unless the US is going to send in a ground army or nuke Iran then all we have at the moment is a pointless stalemate and the longer this goes on the more people will be upset at Trump and Israel for creating this situation.
>Trump is now doubling down on U.S. demands and threats of more military action.
He does this every day even if hes not at war. He threatens to nuke canada and destroy the EU. You literally can never take him seriously.
The prime example of the boy who cried wolf.
No, the regime has been very publicly saying 'there is no deal', more so than US Admin who keeps hinting 'a deal' or 'imminent' or '95% of the way there'.
"Trump is now doubling down on U.S. demands and threats of more military action. "
No - he's been backing down over and over for weeks. There limited strikes today.
The US Admin is wary of escalation, Tehran knows it (or seems to be acting as though they believe that) and are dragging this along.
> Also relatedly, Trump is now doubling down on U.S. demands and threats of more military action. This is what you do if you sense your opponent is weak. Does U.S. intelligence know something we don't?
Hasn’t he done this every week since it started? He constantly bounces between “we’ve almost got a great deal” and “we are going to ABSOLUTELY OBLITERATE IRAN1!!!1!”
No, Iran is acting like time is on their side. Because it is. The iceberg the rest of the world is about to hit in the coming month or two is strategic reserves of crude oil as well as refined petroleum products (eg jet fuel, gasoline, diesel) being drained. That's going to be a whole new level of suffering.
Trump is doubling down on Israel's demands. That's the true stumbling block here. Israel wanted this war. They still do. Israel thinks they can turn Iran into a failed-state like Somalia.
Trump is also the least reliable indicator of what's going to happen becausee, as we all hopefully know by now, he just rants stream-of-consciousness like. The Joint Chiefs, the intelligence community and allies all knew this was doomed to failure. Closing the Strait of Hormuz has been historically modeled in terms of military exercises and capability for decades. It was unproven prior to this war if the US could reopen the Strait. Well, now we know. Congratulations, everybody, the system works.
I don't know what increased Internet traffic from Iran means. As was proven last year though, Israel used that access for intelligence and assassination purposes (ie to identify target locations, particularly through the large number of of Afghan refugees that were in the country at the time, allegedly [1]).
There is no grand strategy. There are no cards left to play by the US short of the use of nuclear weapons. I mean that literally. The uS has lost but unwillingness to break with Israel has stopped the administration from admitting it publicly.
[1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckglp8epg11o
> The iceberg the rest of the world is about to hit in the coming month or two is strategic reserves of crude oil as well as refined petroleum products (eg jet fuel, gasoline, diesel) being drained.
It's not clear to me that the "world" will come down on Iran's side on this one. On the one hand you have a country that is perpetrating a violation of international norms by establishing a toll on the straight of hormuz and is shooting at or is threatening to shoot at the "world"'s ships, on the other hand you have a country that violated international norms by invading another country (ho hum, everyone does this) but isn't shooting at or threatening to shoot at your ships (mostly just iranian or dark ships). When the oil reserves run out, do you side with the bad guys that are making a token effort at helping to get oil to you, or do you side with the bad guys that are preventing oil from getting to you just to middle finger trump?
> ho hum, everyone does this
No, just US, Israel, and Russia.
The world already has come down on Iran's side. It's pretty much the US and Israel (and maybe the UAE) against the world. Trump has bemoaned the lack of international support. Use of bases and airpsace have been spotty. And this is only going to get worse once winter hits in Europe and people start seeing their electricity and heating bills. Asia (minus China and Japan) are the most vulnerable because they're almost entirely dependent on Gulf oil that has stopped. And they blame the US for it. Iran has allowed traffic through the Strait to countries that aren't aiding the war effort. It's now the US that is blocking it.
Americans as a whole don't understand the history of the region or know about all the sins the US has committed against Iran over a century, including being responsible for the current regime, overthrowing their democratically elected government in 1953 and stole their oil. They also propped up the Iran-Iraq war and destabilized Afghanistan to flood Iran with heroin.
There was a perfectly good deal with Iran called the JCPOA but Trump tore it out because it had Obama's name on it and Israel hated it. Everything that has happened since is Trump's (and Biden's) fault.
Iran is defending itself against an unprovoked attack by the biggest bully on the planet. The tolls are e complex issue because the navigable lanes through the Strait of Hormuz go through, in part, Iranian territorial waters. There were no tolls. The us started an unprovoked war, caused countless deaths, blew up a school through of girls and assassinated a bunch of leaders. So the tolls are viewed by many as, well, reparations. Iran never closed the Strait or enforced a toll prior to this war.
Iran also acted in good faith last year after yet another unprovoked attack (ie the 12 day war) that was ultimately called off because the US and Israel were losing the ability to intercept Iranian missiles. Why? Critically depelted munitions. And what did the US do? turned around and made another unprovoked, surprise attack rather than negotiating. Because Israel told them to.
So Iran has been forced into the position that they need to make the economic damage of this so high that the US and Israel never think about doing this again. And if you can't see why they might do that, consider what the US did after 9/11.
Time is on their side - except for the embargo. That stops 90% of their revenue and that's a very real thing.
It's interesting to see how far they think they can get away with this, but they are not in an easy situation.
Soldiers and civil infrastructure don't last on $0.
That money stops is the 'most likely thing' that will cause a real revolution.
Both sides are hoping for 'regime change' by embargo it seems!
Sanctions don't work on enemies. We've had what? 4 years of sanctions on Russia now? How's that going? Iran has had over 40 years of almost uninterrupted sanctions. How was that going? North Korea?
Sanctions force an enemy to build an economy to withstand those sanctions. This is easier when you can grow food, have water and have energy. Also, they've built their entire military to resist the one card you can play: strategic bombardment. Cheap missiles, super-cheap drones, both easy to produce and launch and underground facilities that are largely immune to bombing.
Strategic oil reserves are getting perilously low [1] and everybody understands that Trump would rather let the world burn than restrain Israel in the slightest.
[1]: https://archive.ph/lWiwl
It's fair to say sanctions don't always work but otherwise this is wrong on every account.
- The Soviet Union fell apart for economic reasons, not due to ideology or anything else.
- Sanctions 100% work. North Korea is a powerless useless state due to sanctions. They have not collapsed, but they can't do anything otherwise.
- Sanctions on Russia are absolutely effective - we can see how the state budget gets drained and how it affects their ability to fight.
Russia is finally at the 'end of it's rope' ad Putin is talking about 'the war coming to an end' - why? Because the economic engine is failing, and people are starting to turn against him.
The 'hardship at home' is finally starting to take root, and it's putting a lot of pressure on Putin.
It doesn't mean the economy or regime collapses, but it puts Putin in a corner, in a weakened position.
- Iran is not North Korea - the leadership is not popular and the people are not 'brainwashed' like in NK, and economic sanctions will hit very hard.
The JCPOA put in place by Obama was by far the best deal, but failing that, the 'oil blockade' is by far the best option for getting Iran to the table, probably more effective than any of the kinetic actions. Iran has bout 3 months until the pain starts to hit.
The pain will hit 'the world' hard, but the US will only face mild inflation.
Paradoxically - that mild inflation will infuriate voters and cause 'regime change' in the US at midterms. So - you can see 'sanctions' are working for Iran as well.
- " Trump would rather let the world burn than restrain Israel in the slightest." this is false, and a total misunderstanding about Trump's position on Israel.
Trump has restrained Israel on many occasions. He went after Iran for his own benefit not for anyone else. It worked last year to bolster his image, then after 'Venezuela' Trump saw the obvious path to popularity. Netenyahu told him 'it would be easy' to win - and even do 'regime change' aka appealed to Trump's ego, not to the plight of Israel. Even on the domestic issues, DJT is mostly after AIPAC money and votes. He's not strongly ideologically aligned, and he's happy to do deals with Qatar, UAE, Saudi that throws Israel's security interest to the window.
Literally yesterday - Trump was plausibly going to offer 'a deal' that would have given Iran quite a lot, but it was his own pro-Israel senior political that forced him to backpedal. Senior GOP people came out and warned him off.
DJT wants out of this situation and would throw all of us - including Israel to the wind.
Note that Iran can re-organize their budget, change spending, get some Oil out otherwise, and 'prolong their burn' which then gives impetus for Trump to strike a deal.
But time is not really on Iran's side - they think they have a bit of an edge, but it's definitely a game of chicken.
Why is the bot traffic in Iran is so high -75%? I checked Argentina - 16%, Netherlands - 65%.
Oh come to think of it, I had some attempted logins to some home-hosted infrastructure from Iran last week...
You should really filter third world IP ranges. Removes a lot of of the unwanted log noise.
The US just struck them again at Bandar Abbas