· 144 comments · Save ·
Questions & Help Mar 16, 2026 at 8:50 AM

Iran taking steps to prevent anti-establishment protests, Tehran residents tell BBC

Posted by sqeaky_squirrel

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clygdwqw5dvo
🚩 Report this post

144 Comments

Sign in to comment — or just click the box below.
🔒 Your email is never shown publicly.
DJrenji Mar 16, 2026 +90
The article mentions using Starlink is punishable for up to two years. Crazy stuff. The regime needs to go.
90
Hour-Passenger-8513 Mar 16, 2026 +30
Where do Iranians get hands on Starlink hardware? Do they smuggle it in through customs? Or do Mossad agents help them out?
30
Real-Ad-1728 Mar 16, 2026 +39
Iran has a huge black market for such things, intelligence agencies don’t really need to do anything, supply and demand have it covered. There are also substantial black markets for things like alcohol and p***, as well as legal markets that sell non-illegal goods smuggled into the country like the newest generations of phones and laptops.
39
Which_Emergency5847 Mar 18, 2026 +1
Is that how Israel supplied those exploding pagers?
1
Can_Of_Worms Mar 16, 2026 +3
A bunch were just smuggled in recently with the protests
3
topohunt Mar 16, 2026 +1
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/u-s-smuggled-thousands-of-starlink-terminals-into-iran-after-protest-crackdown-69a8c74f
1
putinseesyou Mar 16, 2026
Probably supplied by mossad agents
0
tehlemmings Mar 16, 2026 +33
Why would that be crazy? It's an ISP run by a member of the government that's openly attacking them. They'd be crazy not to ban it.
33
LilyBelle504 Mar 16, 2026 +24
1. They were banned and illegal before the war started. 2. Another commentor said penalties can be up to 2 years in prison. But it's actually 10 from a quick google search with the death penalty also possible, cited as: "corruption on earth". 3. The reason why it's illegal and the penalties are so harsh is because it circumvents Irans state restricted internet. It allows people inside Iran to see and communicate with the outside world without the government being able to do anything if they say something they don't like. And FYI, Iran is currently in an government induced internet blackout since January 2026 massacres. That's why you hear very few Iranians in Iran right now.
24
[deleted] Mar 16, 2026 +4
USA has been aggressing and preparing to attack Iran for a long time before the war. Iran has no reason to allow USA state sponsored media or networks in their country. China also banned Meta and its sort, good on them.
4
LilyBelle504 Mar 16, 2026 +9
It's not about allowing the US or state sponsored media into their country (to presumably influence the populace- which already largely despises them even before the war). It's about controlling what goes *out.* 1. The regime already lets select western media into the country, like CNN when they interviewed their foreign minister before the war, and BBC when they had their 47th annual Islamic revolution day in Tehran (Feb 2026). They do this because they want to sell the image that "everything is fine here"- and allowing select media companies in allows them to filtering what the news organizations can see and say. 2. The regime goes out of their way to go on western networks to promote their agenda, as we saw yesterday with their head foreign minister again reaching out on multiple networks. So no. They're not restricting their internet access because they're afraid of "western media". To expand on what I said earlier, the reason their internet is still largely down is because of two major reasons: 1. In the context past uprisings and internal dissent, like in January 2026, it blunts the protests by preventing them from accessing social media/ the internet, and easily communicating and organizing demonstrations. 2. It also allows the regime to brutally crackdown when the protests get to out of control, and prevent the outside world from mostly seeing what's going on. Because if we really saw what was going on, 52% of Americans wouldn't be "opposed to intervening".
9
polargus Mar 16, 2026 +7
Yeah except they’re banning it to hide their atrocities
7
[deleted] Mar 16, 2026 -16
And this is completely okay when Israel has harsh punishments for people who post anything online without government permission. BBC do some real journalism instead of just reporting one sided western propaganda.
-16
HassananeBalal Mar 16, 2026 +17
Don’t mention the fact that Israelis are getting five years in prison for posting any rocket attacks - it’s only Iran that’s bad!
17
LilyBelle504 Mar 16, 2026 +5
UAE and pretty sure other states in the region criminalize that. Largely because adversaries can gain useful information from seeing where rockets landed, and which ones were able to evade air defense systems.
5
[deleted] Mar 17, 2026 +2
They are more concerned about their image in front of the world than security, as they have heavily invested in mega real estate projects, and this war has begun to damage their reputation. At this point they must be more mad at the US and Israel for this misadventure than Iran
2
LilyBelle504 Mar 17, 2026 +1
That too.
1
HiHoJufro Mar 16, 2026 +6
That's pretty common, it isn't an Israel thing specifically. You don't want people to show how well things were aimed and which areas have a higher or lower chance of successfully destroying things, because that's useful Intel for whoever is attacking.
6
enigmaticowl Mar 16, 2026 +1
It’s not just “for people who post *anything online* without government permission,” it’s *very specifically* for posting footage of (or live-streaming) missile impacts, missile interceptions, etc. Posting videos of impacts and interceptions can provide intelligence to enemies to allow them to make adjustments and improve their target accuracy so that the next missile does even more damage (usually to civilian populations) *and*, worse yet, can even help enemies to identify the location of missile defense systems so that they can try to destroy those systems and leave the public extremely vulnerable. And even then, people can still get approval for this; I have personally watched countless interceptions with my own eyes (both live-streamed and videos shot by American and Israeli journalists in Israel) just in the last 2 weeks of this conflict. Also, the “harsh punishment” *allows* a *maximum* penalty of 20-30 months prison time (up to 5 years during wartime emergency laws), but that’s what’s “on the books” as a deterrent/hypothetical maximum rather than being reflective of what *actually* happens to people; find me some cases of civilians *actually* sentenced to years in prison for this.
1
LilyBelle504 Mar 16, 2026
Don't bother explaining to them. It's hard to argue with demagogues and facetious commenters "setting up security forces checkpoints to monitor your own people for rebellion again <> posting missile interception information that can be used by your adversaries to hone their attacks and further compromise safety".
0
LilyBelle504 Mar 16, 2026 +1
Like go to Iran's 47th Islamic revolution day, just a week after the crackdown and massacres on their own people, and call the state sponsored staged event: "a family event"?
1
bass248 Mar 16, 2026 +1
The regime does need to go. America and Israel are working on it. Unfortunately the rest of the world doesn't agree
1
LilyBelle504 Mar 16, 2026 +1
\*10 years with the possibility of death penalty if used for "treasonous purposes".
1
erectilereptile6900 Mar 17, 2026 +1
Out of all the things the regime has been doing to its people, this is perhaps the least atrocious reason for the regime to go. Water, killings tens of thousands of protesters, pouring funds into terrorist organizations all over the Middle East while the people are starving, and more...
1
Umtks892 Mar 17, 2026 +1
>The regime needs to go. Definitely. But not like this and unfortunately not right now. Iran is a very complicated story and now fighting for its existence. Israel does not want a regime change, they want Iran to become completely unstable and eventually become a failed state. Another problem is the lack of opposition, the only "figure" the Iranians have is the Shahs grandson which is a western asset. If the war ends and Iran survives, it needs to open up to the rest of the world and integrate. It is either gonna be a long but progressive period until the regime completely changes or a full blown civil war which will cause immense suffering to the Iranian people. And remember most of the problems in Iran are because of US intervention and the sanctions. OFC this is not saying there is no blame for the regime, they are unquestionably evil, but they are also the only ones fighting the anti-christ right now. Take it as you will. Of course I don't have much right to say even the stuff I said, only the Iranians have that absolute right to say what can and should happen in their country. But as someone who lived 25 years in Turkey which is following the same steps as the Iranian regime and also closely observed what has happened/happening on Iran, I can understand more of this I believe. Regime change is needed not for us but for the Iranians and their prosperity, but it is a tremendous task and unfortunately right now Iran is not in the situation to do that. My heart and soul is with the Iranians, I have a close friend who is right now in Tehran and I think about him everyday.
1
Eitarris Mar 18, 2026 +1
Yup I could excuse the mass slaughter of protestors but I draw the line at banning starlink
1
funnyBatman Mar 16, 2026 -47
What else you think they gonna do when they know the protestors are being actively supported by the same country that's waging a war on them? They found the perfect reason to be as harsh as they can be on anyone against the regime this time...
-47
NLwino Mar 16, 2026 +57
They already killed 30k+ protesters before US attacked. How much harsher can they become?
57
HonestBalloon Mar 16, 2026 -49
Dude, the west threw morality out the doer when Isreal destroyed Gaza lol
-49
NLwino Mar 16, 2026 +46
Yea, but you are just using whataboutism to change the subject now. Doesn't change the fact that the regime was already killing protesters at an large scale. "Isreal destroyed Gaza, therefor the Iran regime should be allowed to mass murder their own people." No wonder the world is going to shit with these kind of arguments.
46
LilyBelle504 Mar 16, 2026 +2
Agreed. The internet brain-rot has really gotten to people so much that now the same group that argues it's not okay for a government kill 1000s of innocent people, play games when 1000s of people die in another place that doesn't suit their narrative because they can't blame the west or Israel for that one.
2
HonestBalloon Mar 16, 2026 -22
Nope, it sounds like some parts of Isreal are starting to look like Gaza, so Isreal can answer directly to the Iranians now. There's no point trying to pull heart string here mate lol
-22
LilyBelle504 Mar 16, 2026 +3
>There's no point trying to pull heart string here mate lol That's self evident...
3
Wengerreloaded Mar 16, 2026 -30
30k + ? U really an idiot
-30
Zachsjs Mar 16, 2026 -9
Totally fake number. Why are you uncritically repeating warhawk propaganda?
-9
TobysGrundlee Mar 16, 2026 -9
Man, I can't believe people are still staying that 30k figure like it's fact. This is just Iran's "WMDs". It's the BS the right wing government is pushing to justify their military actions.
-9
LilyBelle504 Mar 16, 2026 +6
But you believe it when a report says: "at-least 7,000 people died in Gaza in the last couple months"?
6
_KodeX Mar 16, 2026 -16
The US/Israel attack Iran every few years and have also been funneling in starlink terminals for a good few months/years at this point. Yes this regime needs to go but they absolutely can and will use US/Israel meddling as an excuse to punish it's citizens
-16
Wonderful_Soft850 Mar 16, 2026 -38
Please explain how that is even logistically possible much less feasible? You'd think we have more than enough flootage flooding the internet by now... Just an insult to our intelligence 
-38
diddlyfool Mar 16, 2026 +29
Guess the morgues filled with bodybags are a joke? Oh, and the literal footage of live rounds being fired by security forces? Not to mention the corroborated data from doctors in Iran? But sure, it's not real. Nice job being a regime mouthpiece.
29
Wonderful_Soft850 Mar 16, 2026 -12
3000 people dead is alot and the body bags show that 30k is absolutely ridiculous, the blood on the streets would still be there, hospitals absolutely overloaded for days if not weeks.  How can they kill 30k within 2 nights and manage to clean it all up? Makes zero logistically sense. Internet connection to the outside was reestablished within just a few weeks. So why haven't video footage be flooding the internet? Provide your sources. What corroborated data shows anywhere over the 3k that were actually listed by the government? All the videos I saw were that of rioters burning public spaces, and public services, such at fire stations and medical centers, beating and shooting everyone around them to death and burgeoning irgc soldiers. Didn't "israel" claim to have hacked security cameras 🤔? So where is the footage? It would have very easily convinced people. Apparently using my brain makes me a mouthpiece?  Tracks since youre just regurgitating 💩 with no critical thinking, much less actual verifiable sources.  People are allowed to question the narrative especially when the narrative is created by those who have been beating the wardrums for decades
-12
NLwino Mar 16, 2026 +8
3000 is Iran's regime's estimate, what kind of idiot believes that? UN Human Rights Experts says at LEAST ten's of thousands. The 30k number came from medics/morgue staff in Iran. Hospitals are empty because the regime went into the hospitals and killed every wounded there. Want sources? scroll down here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026\_Iran\_massacres](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_massacres), compiled from 243 sources.
8
Wonderful_Soft850 Mar 16, 2026 -4
No the number came some from some randon eye doctor in Germany. Official morgue documents shows around 6k, which lines up with the daily mortality rate of ~1,260 (normal natural causes) per day for 2 days and the ~3,000 victims from the violent cia/mossad backed rioters.  Same idiots who ridiculed the countless Dr's and nurses, and medic who personally witnessed and treated hundreds of victims of Narnia's ethnocentric aggression and genocidal violence, even with all the evidence including x-rays. But then turned around and believe and amplify any random claims (zero evidence) that just so happens to help manufacture consent (how convenient). Seriously, critical thinking is dead these days. 
-4
NLwino Mar 16, 2026 +9
Ah yes, the standard internet argument: "Do your own research" You are ignoring all official sources including the UN. Which includes the official investigation of countries like China and India. Also 7007 were verified of which 6488 protester and 236 minors. With 11000 more under investigation at the time. But sure, its just one random doctor in Germany... Perhaps it's you who needs some more critical thinking?
9
Wonderful_Soft850 Mar 16, 2026 +2
What official investigation by the UN? The ones that just recently started and will continue for another 2 years? No results, just accusation based off immediate reactions. Where did you get the 7,007 number?  Yeah, the bs number came from a random doctor in Germany who somehow managed to have communications access to nedics in iran under an internet shutdown? How does that work exactly? He has some superpower like telepathy?  I looked thru multiple "sources" and they all make accusations but then farther down clearly state that numbers had not been verified. All the "sources" are just a bunch of nothing burgers  Im allowed to ask for sources since yall seem so hellbent on making ridiculous accusations that are logistically improbable, if not downright impossible. Ive spent the past 2.5 years watching a livestreamed genocide, with airstrikes, and  bombings and being gaslit even with all the verified proof in front of our eyes, that its somehow only ~70k. But somehow the Iranian government can murder 30k in under 48 hours? I have every right to be incredulous. I dont think you even believe the 💩 youre spewing
2
Puzzleheaded-Mall794 Mar 16, 2026 +2
More dead in two days than DDay or the worst days of the Holocaust and they want us to accept it with no proof
2
LilyBelle504 Mar 19, 2026 +1
But you believe it when a report says "10,000+ people died in Gaza in the past couple months"?
1
Mama_Swag Mar 16, 2026 +11
The logistics are firing machine guns into crowds… There is mountains of footage of killings, and of over capacity morgues and hospitals. You must have a very sanitized/censored internet experience .
11
Wonderful_Soft850 Mar 16, 2026
Post them then, provide your sources. Posting accusations with no tangible evidence isn't proof. Where does this footage exist? What machine guns?  Names? Are you gonna post pics of random (still living) people, claiming they are dead (as has already been done)? Come on, prove it Allegations as egregious as these require substantial evidence not social media posts by ziobots and genocide supporters
0
BigJellyfish1906 Mar 16, 2026 -18
But you think it’s our responsibility to fight and die to do it? Why?
-18
enigmaticowl Mar 16, 2026 -1
Was it “our” responsibility to fight and die for Europeans in World War II? I guess if you had it your way, Hitler taking over Europe and slaughtering droves of innocent civilians wasn’t our problem, and you’d be fine letting that happen (until it was physically on our home-front)?
-1
BigJellyfish1906 Mar 16, 2026 -3
>Was it “our” responsibility to fight and die for Europeans in World War II? Yes. In WWII, the entire stability of global society was at stake. We stayed out of that war long enough for Japan and Germany to drag us in anyway. You don’t have a point here. >I guess if you had it your way, Hitler taking over Europe and slaughtering droves of innocent civilians If he has kept it to Germany’s borders, then no, we can’t send Americans off to fight and die to try to save everyone around the world from the plethora of evil murderers who exist. How many other human rights atrocities exist around the planet that we could go fight and die for according to you? “They are doing horrible things to their people” is not enough to start a war.
-3
enigmaticowl Mar 16, 2026 +6
Iran hasn’t “kept it to their borders,” either? Are we pretending that this regime isn’t *the* funder of terrorist proxies that pose both a regional and global security threat, not just to the Middle East, but to the West? It’s not just “their people.” Their proxies (which aren’t just groups that they throw some cash to, they’re groups that get the *overwhelming share* of their funding *and* logistical support directly from the Islamic regime, effectively a direct extension of the regime itself across the *entire region* and beyond) have a reach that has long posed a threat, and not just to Iranians or their immediate neighbors. Edit: Oh and the regime is also freezing assets and properties of diaspora Iranians (including many who are U.S. residents and U.S. citizens) as well as threatening them (from abroad) and their family members; they have also been attacking our allies (and U.S. service members) in the region for *decades* via their proxies. So no, this regime hasn’t just “kept it in their borders.”
6
LilyBelle504 Mar 16, 2026 +2
Yea. I think people do not realize that wars of *territorial* expansion these days really don't exist as much anymore or are very rare... And we can't rely on that old metric as a means of gauging whether or not a country is being the "aggressor" and whether or not they are a threat. Countries know now that if you go and attack another country to take its land and annex it... Pretty much everyone else is going to form an international coalition to go in and stop you. So governments like the current Iranian regime, who want to expand but not face the international consequences, are clever, and resort to funding and propping local, violent, and criminal militant groups, who are loyal to them instead. That way it's not "them" directly expanding and acquiring territory- since it's not part of Iran proper. But instead controlled by groups loyal to them and trained by them. These groups pose a risk both 1) economically to the rest of the world considering the amount of shipping that goes through the region and countries dependent on those resources and 2 Also to the people living in the region who's lives are under threat from these groups and suffer.
2
enigmaticowl Mar 16, 2026 +3
Precisely. Ground invasions are not the sole (or even primary) means of waging military aggression/warfare, anymore. I think that the average American does not grasp the nature of the proxies situation; it’s *much* closer to actually being a direct IRGC presence (under a different name) across many other countries than it is to just “providing funding or guns.” Hezbollah, PIJ, Houthis, etc. get like *80+%* of their funding from the Iranian regime, and the IRGC directly smuggles mass quantities of arms, missiles, rockets, launchers, drones, fuel, oil, money, ammo, etc. to them, as well as providing intelligence and direction; the Islamic regime doesn’t “support” these groups or their operations, they *are* these guys, and these are *their* operations.
3
LilyBelle504 Mar 16, 2026 +7
>I think that the average American does not grasp the nature of the proxies situation; it’s *much* closer to actually being a direct IRGC presence (under a different name) across many other countries than it is to just “providing funding or guns.” Great way to put it. And totally agree. I think most people are really unaware of the nature as well. And that's by design and exactly how the regime wants it. Most people probably only think it's like 1 or 2 proxies as well. Hezbollah, Houthis, Hamas etc. But there's dozens more. In every country next to them all working towards the same goal for Iran. Whether they know it or not.
7
enigmaticowl Mar 16, 2026 +5
Yeah, people only mention those most well-known ones, you’re right. They have their hooks in all over Iraq, Syria, Bahrain, Pakistan, Northern Africa, etc. to varying degrees, definitely not just limited to the handful that most people can name.
5
LilyBelle504 Mar 16, 2026 +5
Yea. Kitaib Hezbollah (in Iraq) was responsbile for the deaths of the 3 US service members in that Jordanian outpost last year I think.
5
BigJellyfish1906 Mar 16, 2026 +1
>Iran hasn’t “kept it to their borders,” either? Aligning with and funding insurgencies in failed nation states is not even a *remotely* comparable to military land grabs that destroy existing societies. So the entire premise of your response is fundamentally flawed. The chief reason being that this discussion is about when to respond *militarily*, and trying to go after proxy terrorist networks is something we have tried for 20 f****** years to stop the militarily *and failed.* You can send in your military to push an invading army out of a country. You can’t send in the military to stamp out an insurgency, especially when it’s funded by a different country. You’re almost literally arguing to invade Iran and commit to total war with a nation of 90 million people “to stop terrorism.” For fucks sake where have you been for the last two decades to not know how bad of an idea that is?
1
LilyBelle504 Mar 16, 2026 +6
>“They are doing horrible things to their people” is not enough to start a war. From an international law perspective? It actually is though. Ever since Kosovo (1999) and a 2005 UN-endorsed new international norm: nations now have a "responsibility to protect". And under the third pillar (of three), the massacres that were going on in Iran back in January would certainly envoke that conversation by definition. **Pillar III:** >The responsibility of the international community to take **timely** and **decisive** **action** (diplomatic, humanitarian, or other means) when a state manifestly fails to protect its population. Now, that doesn't mean automatically war of course. Before this was the norm, NATO went into Kosovo to stop ethnic cleansing, despite there being reportedly less deaths in that conflict, compared to the Iranian regimes massacres. It does make me wonder, why was it legitimate to intervene in Kosovo, but not Iran?
6
BigJellyfish1906 Mar 16, 2026 +1
> From an international law perspective? It actually is though. Cite the law that says “military intervention is justified for human rights abuses.” > Now, that doesn't mean automatically war of course. Right there are you undercut your own argument. You’re pointing out that it is a decision made by countries at the time to intervene. Not some sort of legal justification. > It does make me wonder, why was it legitimate to intervene in Kosovo, but not Iran? **Because Kosovo wasn’t a real war**. That was a legitimately, quick and easy military action for vastly overpowered force, toppling a flimsy, corrupt, incompetent dictatorship. **That is not the case with Iran at all.** So justification for Kosovo was not “This is what is right.” It was “we think we can do this relatively painlessly.” For fucks sake they were literally **zero combat fatalities** for the US in Kosovo. Iran is a totally different beast. That’s the kind of bloody war that will lead to the deaths of 1,000,000+ people.
1
LilyBelle504 Mar 16, 2026 +1
Probably should've been more clear. It's a international political framework supposed to be used when assessing future conflicts that invokes already existing international law for intervention- i.e through a UNSC resolution for military intervention. For example: If a country commits mass executions of their own people, the rest of the world is supposed to convene and talk about possible solutions to stop the ongoing atrocities **under** the R2P (responsibility to protect). Hopefully that clears things up. >Right there are you undercut your own argument. You’re pointing out that it is a decision made by countries at the time to intervene. Not some sort of legal justification. Legal justification comes from, in international law at-least, a UNSC resolution authorizing force, generally. The kickstarter to having a UNSC resolution debate comes from a bad actor committing mass atrocities. In this case that would be the Iranian government on their own people. >**Because Kosovo wasn’t a real war**. That was a legitimately, quick and easy military action for vastly overpowered force, toppling a flimsy, corrupt, incompetent dictatorship. **That is not the case with Iran at all.** I figured it might go this direction. Whether or not a conflict is going to be "quick and easy" doesn't absolve nations responsibility to protect others or defenseless people under the R2P framework. That's a military strategic calculation and consideration, not a moral obligation. And as I said earlier. Intervention and decisive action could mean diplomatic sanctions, economic or many other things as well. I think regardless of whether or not you, or others are aware of international law / norms. Or whether or not those international frameworks exist at the time. I think most people can agree: if you see someone getting beat up who can't defend themselves, and you can do something about it, you have a moral obligation too.
1
BigJellyfish1906 Mar 16, 2026 +3
>Hopefully that clears things up. So when you said “committing atrocities against their own people justifies military intervention,” what you meant was “committing atrocities can make a conglomerate of nations collectively decide to intervene with escalating measures of coercion, *up to* military intervention.” The key difference is that the international framework allows for a *deliberative and organized* consensus of a *group* of nations to use *a pre-defined scope* of military force. So that is nothing at all like the US and Israel just saying “f*** it” and trying to topple this regime. Because you KNOW the atrocities are not the reason we’re there. Dont turn your brain off. >Whether or not a conflict is going to be "quick and easy" doesn't absolve nations responsibility to protect others or defenseless people under the R2P framework. Wrong. It **absolutely** does. Other nations cannot be compelled to sacrifice thousands of their soldiers because some despot is murdering people. You’re describing *NATO* here. You’re out to lunch. >And as I said earlier. Intervention and decisive action could mean diplomatic sanctions, economic or many other things as well. Then you’ve totally drifted away from the discussion. This is about the war with Iran. >if you see someone getting beat up who can't defend themselves, and you can do something about it, you have a moral obligation too. You don’t have a moral obligation to break into their house and inevitably get maimed yourself to try to stop it. Why does your analogy involve *zero cost* for intervention? Or right, then the narrative doesn’t work…
3
LilyBelle504 Mar 16, 2026 +1
>So that is nothing at all like the US and Israel just saying “f*** it” and trying to topple this regime. I didn't say that? I'm talking about a framework --> legal action in international law. Not what the US or Israel is doing right now. >Dont turn your brain off. I haven't? >You’re out to lunch. What? >Wrong. It absolutely does. Other nations cannot be compelled to sacrifice thousands of their soldiers because some despot is murdering people. No one said nations have to sacrifice, (interesting choice of words), thousands of soldiers. The point the moral obligation was we (as nations) have a responsibility to prevent crimes against humanity from taking place based on the 2005 R2P. And it is not written anywhere in this framework that says: "What's the military difficulty of such an operation?". What's happening is you're putting the cart before the horse. Step 1) What is said nation violating? Step 2) Do we have a moral / legal obligation to step in? Step 3) you start weighing your options of what you can do (this is the part where all that calculus you were talking about earlier most likely comes in and affects what kind of actions you end up taking). We're still talking about step 2. I don't think you've acknowledged that yet so it's kind of impossible to move on if we can't even agree on the underlying principles here. >You don’t have a moral obligation to break into their house and inevitably get maimed yourself to try to stop it. Because no one in that analogy said you had to get maimed. That's an assumption you added. Again, need to back up. The first step is to assess 1) Are crimes against humanity being committed. Step 2) Do nations have an obligation to take action? Step 3) etc etc. Remember your first point was "people doing horrible things to their people is not enough of a reason to start a war". I'm saying, actually, it can be. Both via international norms / law and also based on historical precedent.
1
BigJellyfish1906 Mar 16, 2026 +2
> I didn't say that? I'm talking about a framework --> legal action in international law. Then you’re just monologuing totally off topic. > No one said nations have to sacrifice, (interesting choice of words), thousands of soldiers. **That’s what military intervention is**. Are you kidding me? > have a responsibility to prevent crimes against humanity from taking place based on the 2005 R2P Yeah, and there’s many ways to do that that are not military intervention. And especially not military intervention that’s done unilaterally without any sort of strategic consensus among allies with regard to scope and purpose. > We're still talking about step 2. Well, we’re already at war with Iran so why are we talking about step two when we’re already passed step three? > Because no one in that analogy said you had to get maimed. And that’s **why** your analogy is bogus. Because committing to a war means that your people are going to be killed. If your analogy only works when military intervention has little to no cost, then it’s a shitty analogy. > I'm saying, actually, it can be. In situations totally unlike what we’re dealing with in Iran. So you’re just wasting oxygen making an argument that doesn’t apply to anything.
2
Caisers Mar 16, 2026 -29
Thank you Israel bot for your neutral opinion. lol.
-29
mh_992 Mar 16, 2026 -33
Just wait until you learn that you can get punished in the UAE or Israel for leaking stuff on the internet during wartime. Military censorship while your country is under attack is completely reasonable and democratic countries would do the same. Also, the only regimes that need to go are the ones that keep starting these pointless wars.
-33
WhatTheDusk Mar 16, 2026 +25
"Also, the only regimes that need to go are the ones that keep starting these pointless wars." Saying this under a post that says the Iranian regime needs to go is actually insane, even self-reflection in the mirror cant help here; holy f***
25
Chewym4a3 Mar 16, 2026 -17
Sorry, did Iran start the war by bombing an elementary school? Did Iran invade Lebanon?
-17
x_mutt_x Mar 16, 2026 +20
Yeah, for about 40 years they have paid other to lob rockets into their neighbors backyard. So much so they live in an electronic bubble that shoots them out of the sky. 
20
GermanPayroll Mar 16, 2026 +11
Yeah but if you ignore all the stuff they did do, then they didn’t do anything! - Internet logic
11
mightyblackgoose Mar 16, 2026 +15
Mentioning Lebanon is funny, man. Hezbollah, which has been directly funded by Iran for decades, which has destroyed Lebanon from within, which has helped Assad murder almost a million Syrians, are the ones who attacked Israel two weeks ago. Not in the name of Lebanon but of Iran.
15
ButcherOf_Blaviken Mar 16, 2026 +8
Do you think this whole thing started with a school getting bombed?
8
Chewym4a3 Mar 16, 2026 +5
This current war did in fact start by a US missile blowing up a school, yes. That's not even a valid question seeing as this war is the topic of conversation.
5
ButcherOf_Blaviken Mar 17, 2026 +2
Hmmm and here I’ve been getting told for years that the war on Gaza didn’t in fact start on Oct. 7th and that we needed to look at the broader context to understand why Israel was doing their evilness. Guess that doesn’t apply here though?
2
WhatTheDusk Mar 16, 2026 +12
Supporting the regime that kills tens of thousands of protesters, advocates for the r*** of women and children because they're not the US is insane. Please go to a mental asylum today.
12
Chewym4a3 Mar 16, 2026 -8
"But what about the women!? The protestors?! The monarchists?!" Yes, the appropriate response is to bomb them. This asylum projection is laughable.
-8
WhatTheDusk Mar 16, 2026 +8
The US does not target Iranian citizens. They target specifically the regime. Sometimes accidental casualties are unavoidable; But the death tol of all the US strikes combined since the start of this operation are still lower than a single day of the regime executing protesters by far, entire digits of difference. You can just openly say you support the theocratic regime, no-one will stop you from admitting that you do not care about innocent lives and that your political agenda is more important. You're completely free to say that the raping of children and women is acceptable as long as they oppose the orange man. I think its a disgusting position to hold, but I can't stop you from holding it.
8
Chewym4a3 Mar 16, 2026 +2
Holy God, you're brainwashed. Civilian infrastructure was first targeted by the US and Israelis. There is evidence of this everywhere if you cared to follow what's going on. The US has bombed schools, banks, substations, and oil depots that will poison millions. To you, this is how you fight the regime, by bombing civilians. If you cared so much about innocents, you'd know that these are considered bad things, but you don't. Somehow, murder is morally superior in this case. I'm not surprised at how backwards you are, but thoroughly disappointed.
2
WhatTheDusk Mar 16, 2026 +7
You seem to be very unaware of the situation within Iran, and I'd recommend you get in contact with actual Iranians and ask what is actually going on. The Iranian regime is using civillian infrastructure for their hideouts, they try to assemble civilians where they are specifically to dissuade targeted strikes. This is not some kind of tinfoil theory, there are IRGC broadcasts done from inside classrooms. Civilians in the actually country go out of their way to share those coordinates with the US forces as "IRGC hideouts" while warning other civilians to not go there. I'd recommend you look in a mirror and really question your morality right now, that you are taking the side of the Iranian regime. Its not a good look. I'd also reccomend you look into actually talking to Iranians that are for more aware of the situation in Iran due to either living there, or having family there. You're just blindly spewing their propaganda like a "useful idiot". You're welcome to put a 3 month reminder on this and see where reality ended up by then :)
7
Chewym4a3 Mar 16, 2026 +1
Lol. Lmao even. I don't care, will not listen to and continue to disregard what some Iranian monarchist has to say about the state of affairs in Iran. You know, the real Iranians you speak of. Israel and US assets also hide in residential areas, hotels and schools. You still don't see Iran target hospitals and desalination plants. My morality thinks that bombing children isn't the answer to fix problems which aren't yours or mine to solve. If you disagree with that, not only are you morally inferior, but also stupid. I will set a reminder. In three months the war will be in gridlock, maybe under a temporary ceasefire as the US frantically finds a way to not look more incapable than it already does. Enjoy the pointless loss of life in the meantime, ghoul.
1
Consistent-Low-0 Mar 16, 2026
Elon should be mad.
0
Puzzleheaded-Mall794 Mar 18, 2026
I know right, when I work with foreign governments to kill my leaders I want full protection from the law. That's what liberal democracy is about
0
barney_muffinberg Mar 16, 2026 +17
Right. So, the flow of 20% of the world's oil is blocked & the regime's crackdowns continue. Yeah, that sounds like a win.
17
johnn48 Mar 16, 2026 +25
I want everyone to hear how Pete Hegseth addresses the question about the [Strait of Hormuz](https://youtu.be/UigviFSIW1E?si=VFjhi5Vjs6LVHJDI). When asked whether they had taken into account Iran blocking the Strait, like all Cabinet members when pressed, he deflected. Yes they had planned for dealing with the situation, but meantime the President was demanding help in opening up the Strait, and Petey boy said that they’re “shaping the battlefield” and past military leaders have made a mistake in setting a timetable for achieving strategic goals. I just heard the President say they totally destroyed Irans offensive capabilities and it would take at least 10 years for them to rebuild. Yet he said they weren’t going to end the war yet, I guess Netanyahu hasn’t said it was finished bombing yet.
25
brostopher1968 Mar 16, 2026 +2
It’s much easier to spin what is objectively the administration flailing through an ill-conceived quagmire of global proportions if you don’t give a specific strategic objective to be judged against, they’re as easy to pin down as a greased hog. I think the American electorate will hopefully be able to cut through the bullshit. W Bush walked so Trump could run, we go from no exit strategy to no strategy at all.
2
Johannes_P Mar 16, 2026 +3
> the regime's crackdowns continue With this war and after, they could be even *harsher*, claiming that they wanted to repress "traitors". So instead of Evin, they would just execute these, whether or not a "trial" is held.
3
CressCheap Mar 16, 2026 +5
You’d be surprised to hear they never needed this as an excuse. It’s been their MO for years.
5
Chaoswind2 Mar 17, 2026 +1
Israel shouldn't have told they had agents and collaborators amongst the protesters then. Can you imagine? Russia comes out during the BLM protests telling they have agents amongst the BLM leadership and then BLM kills over a dozen police officers during the riots? what would the USA government do? You people like to pretend our governments would do any differently under a similar situation even though history shows that was not the case and we have plenty of examples during the cold war as proof.
1
Immediate_Amoeba5923 Mar 16, 2026 -11
Do you think these things happen over night? The bombings just started. Have some intellectual honesty.
-11
barney_muffinberg Mar 16, 2026 +17
The bombings have just started? The Trump Admin has stated that the war (which is simultaneously a war and not a war) was won in the first hour, is over, and is just getting started. It’s also said that high oil prices are good, because it means “we” are making a lot of money. If you want intellectual honesty, stop pretending there was a plan. These are completely unserious b**** who are way out of their depth & blundered into a checkmate. The US is now well & truly hogtied, the Iranian regime holds all cards, & there’s no fix in sight.
17
DefenestrationPraha Mar 16, 2026 -5
The Iranian regime has one card exactly, and that is closure of Hormuz. Admittedly this is a strong card. From their other cards - Hezbollah is a goner, ballistic launches are becoming rarer (Israel had a somewhat calm night yesterday). The barrage of Shaheds is only making their neighbors furious.
-5
yorapissa Mar 16, 2026 +10
And Trump wants to arrest news reporters for telling you the truth about what’s happening. Trump also wanted to shoot protesters in Washington Sq but best he could get the “law” to do was tear gas them instead.
10
Ok_Complaint5198 Mar 16, 2026 +5
Did that occur?
5
yorapissa Mar 17, 2026 +1
No. Hegseth didn’t exist as a character back then. Luckily Sec of DEFENSE Espers did and it didn’t happen.
1
TeslasAndComicbooks Mar 16, 2026 +24
Why does every post here lead to “but Trump…”. I can’t stand the guy but we’re literally talking about a government locking the world out of their country so that they can slaughter people in the streets for trying to remove a regime that over 80% of the population don’t want.
24
yorapissa Mar 16, 2026 -14
Why is Iran’s internal affairs a thing we needed personally address? Let’s not gloss over that Trump instigated those students. He said “help is on the way” right in the middle of it happening and then a lot of people died cause help never arrived and it’s all to late now. It was a care less idiot’s move and it killed people and it’s just getting bigger since he opened his big mouth.
-14
brostopher1968 Mar 16, 2026 +3
Much as HW Bush cynically encouraged the Iraqis to rebel in the run up to ‘91 gulf war, only to then leave Hussein in power and abandon groups like the Kurds to reprisal massacres. Half-assing a regime change war is usually much much more harmful than not intervening at all. The issue is the supreme arrogance and ignorance this admin carelessly launched into this adventure with.
3
FluxKraken Mar 17, 2026 +2
Yeah. I oppose the Iran war with every single principle I have. But now that we have started it, just leaving would be more harmful. It needs to be finished correctly. However, I do not trust anyone in the Republican party to do that.
2
IFeedDogsChocolate Mar 17, 2026 +3
God, I wish you knew how insufferable you sound. There are countries and bad people outside of the US. It's globally known he's an ass. No need to stuff him into every single thing. People can say the IRGC is criminal without you screeching, "wHaHbOw TrUmP". Please seek help.
3
christusmajestatis Mar 16, 2026 +10
I am not supporting the Iranian theocracy, but the US-Israel attack is leading credence to the government's rhetoric about the anti-establishment being traitors to their nation and people. And yeah, they can enforce martial law when they are genuinely under attack. Japanese atrocities in China during WW2 had a similar effect on our people. Of this fractured country, Communists and Nationalists set aside their civil war to form a Chinese United Front against Imperial Japan. Both of the Nationalists and Communists back then did many questionable things, but the most hated leaders were those who surrendered to and collaborated with the Japanese invaders (Puyi, Wang Jingwei) On the other hand, this rallying flag effect would only take place if the war drags on and the theocracy remains in power, so I guess Trump can throw in more American lives and equipments in the hope that IRGC's hold over the nation finally snaps under intensive pressure. One thing I don't understand is why the patriotic American people allow their leadership to be so blatantly ordered around by the Israelis.
10
3uphoric-Departure Mar 16, 2026 +16
You can hate the Iranian government and acknowledge this comment is objectively correct.
16
christusmajestatis Mar 16, 2026 +10
Yeah, don't know why people take this as a defense for the theocracy. You don't need to love them to understand that bombing civilians and starting wars would cause the "rallying around the flag" effect. I guess my mastery of English language is not as adequate as I thought.
10
McCree114 Mar 16, 2026 +6
Israeli astroturfing bots out in force if a comment like this is so downvoted.
6
chadly117 Mar 17, 2026 +1
How does this war give credence to the anti-establishment (aka majority of Iranians in the country) being traitors? I dont follow at all. Most Iranians hate their government and were begging for US/Israeli intervention. The only traitors to Iran are the Islamic Republic, who have been massacring and torturing the Iranian people since the revolution
1
ResplendentSmoke Mar 17, 2026 +5
“Most” Iranians were not begging for US intervention. The Persian diaspora was, but they aren’t the majority of Iranians. This is propaganda you’ve uncritically swallowed at best. They may hate the regime, but the vast majority of the country doesn’t want to be bombed by foreign powers either.
5
chadly117 Mar 17, 2026 +2
I’ve seen so many videos of people in Iran filming bombs and saying “thank you bibi/trump”. And I have spoken to my family in Iran about this. I believe you are the one who’s swallowed the propaganda
2
Im2dronk Mar 16, 2026 -1
You know how we always talk about how they're going to use a war to enforce martial law? Turns out, if your country is attacked, it's a really good excuse to enforce martial law.
-1
AmINothing Mar 16, 2026 +1
Anyone supporting the regime needs their heads checked. Also the people suggesting stop the war and it'll magically be okay. The people will carry living oppressed lives and being murdered and jailed for speaking out or wanting change. This is a government that supports Russia and terrorist organisations across the middle east. Why should they continue to rule over people who don't want them there.
1
NiobiumThorn Mar 16, 2026 -6
Now that's some regime change propaganda No matter how allegedly bad the Iranian government is, it does not justify bombing their children
-6
LilyBelle504 Mar 16, 2026 +12
That's a bit of a strawman... And a facetious way to frame the argument. I think what you're trying to say is: "No matter how bad another country is, it does not justify going in and attacking their government (which often results in innocent people being killed)." And to help you steel-man your argument further: "No matter how much the people may want their government gone in said country. There's many unintended consequences and risks involved, let alone actually succeeding in overthrowing a government, that it's not *our* (the outside observers) responsibility to get involved". However, I would disagree with the: "Not the rest of the worlds responsibility when crimes against humanity are being committed against a defenseless people". But that's a whole other conversation.
12
GiantKrakenTentacle Mar 16, 2026 +2
You could certainly argue that the US has committed crimes against humanity with ICE recently "disappearing" many citizens and permanent residents. When is someone gonna invade and dismantle the US government?  Or to be less controversial, why didn't we invade China after the Tiananmen Square protests? Or after the annexation of Hong Kong? Why does Iran get invaded for suppressing protests but other countries don't?
2
LilyBelle504 Mar 16, 2026 +6
Well, if you think NATO should invade the US because ICE murdered a couple of US citizens and deported a couple people then go for it I guess. You can write a letter to NATO right now pleading with them to free you. I wonder, how many people do you think were murdered by the Iranian regime in January 2026? 2, 3, 5?
6
flame7770 Mar 17, 2026 +2
And there it is. You want to compare ICE to the Iranian regime brutally slaughtering tens of thousands of it's own citizens in just a few days. Then going into hospitals to finish the job on survivors. Then torturing the nurses that tried to treat the protesters that survived. [https://www.iranintl.com/en/202603102323](https://www.iranintl.com/en/202603102323) [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15650113/Horrific-gang-r***-torture-ordeal-Iranian-nurses-Medics-subjected-brutal-sex-attacks-revenge-caring-wounded-rioters-one-victim-begging-surgeons-let-die.html?ns\_mchannel=rss&ns\_campaign=1490&ito=social-twitter\_mailonline](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15650113/Horrific-gang-r***-torture-ordeal-Iranian-nurses-Medics-subjected-brutal-sex-attacks-revenge-caring-wounded-rioters-one-victim-begging-surgeons-let-die.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=social-twitter_mailonline) Yep. Just like things in America. I just can't with you people.
2
sqeaky_squirrel Mar 16, 2026 +7
True none of the 40000 Iranians deserved it
7
ResplendentSmoke Mar 17, 2026 +2
Lmfao wasn’t it 30,000 Iranians last week? And it was 12,000 in January. It’ll be 50,000 by April at this rate. This sort of propaganda doesn’t really work anymore, you guys need to update your methods. Or at least settle on a believable number.
2
McKropotkin Mar 16, 2026 +6
40,000 Iranians? This number gets bigger every week.
6
Tribound Mar 16, 2026 +5
First it was 12000, then 20000, then 30000. All in 2 nights. Like umm, the Nazi holocaust deathcamps were killing 4500 a day at their height across Europe. Israel killed 8000 in the first month of the genocide which was its bloodiest month. The entire source for these numbers are also rumors on social media, a game of telephone. That is NOT to say the IR didn't commit a massacre and crimes against humanity, it sure did! The government's official number is 2500 killed. HRNA has counted 5900 deaths. These are still EXTREMELY terrifying figures given the time period is 2 nights, and anyone who's seen the footage would be shook to their core. There is no need to inflate these numbers further, but alas this is what the monarchist right-wing propaganda machine has done.
5
SWGDoc Mar 16, 2026 +7
A propaganda technique historically linked to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels. "the great masses of the people... will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one."
7
Nervous_Mycologist15 Mar 16, 2026 +4
Yes just like a 50 MILLION Americans were killed by ICE. I can make up numbers too.
4
NiobiumThorn Mar 16, 2026 -5
You aren't the police of the world and this propaganda is only working in a small segment of the population. It is not my business what atrocities another country commits. I don't shoot up my neighbors' house because they hit their kid once.
-5
polargus Mar 16, 2026 +12
So a hated theocratic dictatorship killing tens of thousands of its people for decades  = “hitting kids once”. Buddy just say you know absolutely nothing about Iran.
12
NiobiumThorn Mar 16, 2026
I was using an advanced writing technique called "a metaphor"
0
Dry-Yak5277 Mar 16, 2026 +1
Yeah we knew it was a metaphor, it was just a stupid one lmao
1
brostopher1968 Mar 16, 2026 +1
It’s basically impossible to overthrow a government from the air, and I don’t picture Trump committing to a boots on the ground invasion of a country of 90 million people 4x the size of Iraq? So the outcome is likely that we leave the current regime in place. **Half-assing a regime change war is usually much much more harmful than not intervening at all.** Much as HW Bush cynically encouraged the Iraqis to rebel in the run up to ‘91 gulf war, only to then leave Hussein in power and abandon groups like the Kurds to reprisal massacres. And in the meantime the Iranians are crippling the global energy/ agricultural/ helium markets to the benefit of Russia and likely China.
1
tensor-ricci Mar 16, 2026 -1
That figure was published by Iran International, which is a Saudi psy-op.
-1
NiobiumThorn Mar 17, 2026 +1
Shhh stop looking up sources just believe them and buy product
1
Which_Emergency5847 Mar 18, 2026 +1
One thing that prevents protests is constant bombing from Israel and the US.
1
McKropotkin Mar 16, 2026
The BBC pushing the agenda of the Epstein Regime? What a surprise.
0
sqeaky_squirrel Mar 16, 2026 +4
How is weather in Siberia. Does your shift only manage Russian Bots or Iranian too?
4
McKropotkin Mar 16, 2026 +1
Lol I’m a middle aged Scottish guy, but good try. Edit: 12 month old account pushing propaganda with poor English? What a cheek.
1
sqeaky_squirrel Mar 19, 2026
Suffering from white knight syndrome eh?
0
barf_seller Mar 16, 2026 -4
Remember, this protester-massacring regime is the the same one being supported by protesters in the west.
-4
86rpt Mar 16, 2026 +10
Bot farms are out for both your downvotes, and the support for the IRGC in the west.
10
barf_seller Mar 16, 2026 +7
I take it as a badge of honor 😂
7
Extension-Toe-7027 Mar 16, 2026 +12
Quite openly I might add
12
Consistent-Low-0 Mar 16, 2026 +1
are they more brutal than ICE?
1
amodelsino Mar 17, 2026 +6
Yes. Like how is this even a question. The Iranian regime has killed THOUSANDS of it's own citizens, just this year. ICE is fucked but it's not even comparable. Two people being murdered by ICE still has everyone up in arms with their names reiterated in protests the country over, whereas in Iran you literally could not list the names of the people they killed, both because they've killed so many and it's so indiscriminate you couldn't even find all their names in the first place. Comparing ICE to Iran is like comparing Ted Bundy to the Holocaust.
6
Consistent-Low-0 Mar 17, 2026 +2
true, the magnitude and violence of the civil unrest are not comparable either
2
geoflor Mar 16, 2026 -10
Didn't the US carpet bomb a Tehran like a few days ago?
-10
sqeaky_squirrel Mar 16, 2026 -6
Independent evidence of it. But for sure enough is available about 2000 deaths per hour of Iranian civilians at hands of regime. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-01-28/doctor-operated-on-wounded-during-iran-massacre-protests/106277548
-6
McKropotkin Mar 16, 2026 +3
There is no evidence of 2,000 deaths per hour. Literally none. If there was, we all would have seen it. Western journalists are allowed inside Iran.
3
geoflor Mar 16, 2026 -4
Isralie bots down voting yikes
-4
Marcysdad Mar 16, 2026 -1
So as a reminder: The Shah was toppled by many different factions in Iran(communists, students, islam oriented groups) for being extremely repressive, violent and building his reign on nepotism. Anyway Once toppled the Mullahs got rid of their former brethren in arms and took over violently. A horribly brutal state was formed under which the people were repressed and mistreated. Now the only alternative that is sold to us in the West is that the son of the Shah is the best/only alternative to the mullahs? And that's the position the author of the article has represented multiple times in the past. The main problem with the Iranians is that they're unorganized. They haven't buildt a plan for the day after a toppling of the mullahs , yet It's either the shah or the mullahs. No aspirations for a parliamentary democracy or something like that. And before someone says it's because the internet is blocked, I call bullshit In 1979 they toppled their former dictator without the internet existing
-1
← Back to Board