After US-Israel Attacks, 90 Million Iranians Lose Internet Connectivity (cnn.com)
- Reference: 0180873842
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/26/02/28/1733240/after-us-israel-attacks-90-million-iranians-lose-internet-connectivity
- Source link: https://edition.cnn.com/world/live-news/israel-iran-attack-02-28-26-hnk-intl?post-id=cmm6izj3q00043b6rhiv0bz9r
[3]CNN reports :
> Since Iran's brutal crackdown earlier this year, the regime has made progress to allow only a subset of people with security clearance to access the international web, experts said. After previous internet shutdowns, some platforms never returned. The Iranian government blocked Instagram after the internet shutdown and [4]protests in 2022, and the popular messaging app Telegram following [5]protests in 2018 .
The International Atomic Energy Agency announced an hour ago that they're "closely monitoring developments" — keeping in contact with countries in the region and so far seeing " [6]no evidence of any radiological impact ." They're also urging "restraint to avoid any nuclear safety risks to people in the region."
UPDATE (1 PM PST): Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait "are shifting to remote learning starting Sunday until further notice following Iranâ(TM)s retaliatory strikes on Saturday," [7]reports CNN .
[1] https://edition.cnn.com/world/live-news/israel-iran-attack-02-28-26-hnk-intl?post-id=cmm6gdxqk000a3b6xg1wbk87k
[2] https://x.com/netblocks/status/2027658406127960133
[3] https://edition.cnn.com/world/live-news/israel-iran-attack-02-28-26-hnk-intl?post-id=cmm6izj3q00043b6rhiv0bz9r
[4] https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/26/middleeast/iran-clashes-mahsa-amini-grave-intl
[5] https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/04/middleeast/iran-us-protests-intl
[6] https://x.com/iaeaorg/status/2027774615553253398
[7] https://edition.cnn.com/world/live-news/israel-iran-attack-02-28-26-hnk-intl?post-id=cmm6sc52400003575h43i0pul
Yet Another Conflict (Score:2)
Our tariff dollars at work.
Re: (Score:2)
Gotta love the Peace President.
Re: Classic blunder? (Score:1)
Still an air war at this point.
Re: (Score:1)
Probably also ought to avoid a sea war in Asia.
Re: (Score:2)
[1]Iran International has confirmed Khamenei's death [iranintl.com]
Reza Pahlavi has issued a tweet declaring the end of the islamic regime. Iran will gain a new transitional authority in the next few days
[1] https://www.iranintl.com/en/202602280738
Why is internet access the story? (Score:2)
As TFS points out, Iran cutting off the internet is basically just Tuesday.
The real story is what induced Iranian authorities to cut it off this time.
Iran's net access plunged suddenly (Score:2)
Click on [1]the link for "suddenly plunged" [x.com]. It dropped from near-100% levels to just 4%.
CNN's article says the Iranian government had years earlier blocked Telegram and Instagram, and had "made progress" on trying to block access to the international web. But there was still "national" internet connectivity, NetBlocks says. And they show it at near 100% Friday night, then dropping to 4% Saturday.
[1] https://x.com/netblocks/status/2027658406127960133
Re: (Score:2)
Iran's internet had been cut off in mid January, before the massacres on January 8-9th. Since then, it had never been even majorly restored, due to the cascading dependencies w/ which Iran's internet was laid out. Therefore, this story about 90 million Iranians - essentially the entire population - losing their internet access is false. They haven't even had it since January
Hopefully, under the new regime, Iran establishes a completely meshed network w/ no single gateway to the external world, so that
Re: (Score:1)
> As TFS points out, Iran cutting off the internet is basically just Tuesday.
> The real story is what induced Iranian authorities to cut it off this time.
To give it a tech angle, so that /.'s current lefty overlords can kvetch about this situation.
Trump is wagging the dog (Score:2, Insightful)
So what he and netanyahu are doing is airstrikes that "accidentally" Target civilians in the hopes that he can provoke an attack from Iran or their proxies on American soldiers or boats. If you can get that then he thinks he can get the American people to support another forever War.
And he thinks if he can get another forever wa he can't get a third term just like Bush Jr got a second term out of his forever War.
It's incredibly dangerous because Iran is a much larger and more powerful opponent and
Re: (Score:1)
> It's incredibly dangerous because Iran is a much larger and more powerful opponent and there is a risk of the conflict spreading starting world War III for real up to and including nuclear war.
And don't forget the [1] Millennium Challenge 2002 [wikipedia.org] wargame.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
USB sticks (Score:2)
If you know any Iranian people living abroad who visit family back at home in Iran, they practically all bring some media care-packages on USB sticks. There was even once an online campaign to donate USB sticks for that purpose.
The internet outages and regime-control of the access is bad, but the people have long found ways around it.
Re: (Score:2)
"they practically all bring some media care-packages on USB sticks."
Torrented TV series are hardly 'care'-packages.
It is all lies and propaganda (Score:2)
All that talk of peace negotiations was just a cover, they were going to attack regardless, why did the press and everyone fall for it, a 2nd time even?
This war is an Israel project, basically every possible threat around Israel is being eliminated, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, now Iran. Continued war helps keep Netanyahu in power. Meanwhile Israel de facto annexes the West bank with barely a peep from international community.
Trump cares nothing for Iranian people, the administration has boasted of engineering
Consider the architect of this adventure (Score:2)
He's a man who was born into an organized crime family and was raised from birth to be a mobster. He's uneducated and illiterate, and his brain was tapioca even before frontotemporal dementia began to take hold in earnest. His only value is himself: his ego, his vanity, his wealth, his everything. No one and nothing else has ever mattered to him. And his entire "career", if one can call it that, has been a series of criminal and borderline-criminal activities punctuated by frequent threats directed at...
Trump's Board of Peace says what? (Score:3)
[1]Here’s where Trump has ordered U.S. military strikes in his second term [washingtonpost.com] (with timeline charts):
Somalia, Iraq, Yemen, Iran (now twice), Nigeria, Syria, Venezuela as well as in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific.
> In the first 12 months of his second term, President Donald Trump ordered strikes on seven countries, in addition to his campaign against alleged drug smugglers in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific Ocean.
Didn't he literally campaign on America First and No New Wars?
So stumped as to why he didn't get the Nobel Peace prize. /s
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/interactive/2026/trump-strikes-second-term-iran-venezuela/
Is there an Iranian in the house? (Score:2)
On Slashdot? Seems rather unlikely. Even less likely than my getting a Funny moderation.
I admit that I'm a bit pressed to see any funny in the story. Depending on how China and Putin read and decide to play the situation, it could get quite bad quite quickly. Also the discussion says rather too little about Iraq and Afghanistan (and now Pakistan)... Tinderboxes and matches. Such a fun game. So much peace is exhausting me.
But the main reason I'd like to hear from an Iranian involves the last major war the Ir
Ah, we can always count on today's /. (Score:1)
To take the side of murderous dictators.
Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
When has a regime change by the USA ever improved a country? Iran is in their current state because of US meddling decades ago.
Now, what was all that talk of Hillary or Kamala starting a war? Will cheeto return his fake FIFA medal?
Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
> When has a regime change by the USA ever improved a country?
Germany is one example.
Japan is another.
Re:Finally (Score:4, Insightful)
Take a look at the map and behold, most of the Empire is not in fact doing too good: [1]https://www.britannica.com/pla... [britannica.com].
An Empire is a machine of violence with the sole purpose of transferring wealth created by other people back to the motherland. Rarely does anyone do good as a subject nation of the empire, and if that happens, it's only because the Empire was otherwise engaged with more important matters.
[1] https://www.britannica.com/place/British-Empire
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want to shit on your point- because it's spot on, as long as we remember that "The Empire" is a lot more than the parts of it that parent was referring to- The US, Britain, Canada, Australia.
However, if "The Empire" is limited to its anglophone sphere, then yes, it's actually doing... well, quite fucking good.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, that was kinda my point, that he was cherry picking, or possibly, didn't think this through, or didn't even know that there was more to it. For example I've met British people who have literally no idea what it means they had an Empire, and cannot figure out why you would invent such insane things to attack ol' Blighty... I don't know about the British school curricula in particular, but it's not very usual for a country to teach their dark side in schools, so that might be part of it. Maybe like the
Re: (Score:2)
There are shit-loads of Native Americans in the US, and half the country has Native American names attached to areas.
Not all Native Americans agree that what happened was a "genocide" (though I think all can agree that it wasn't good). The city I live in (Seattle) is literally named after a Native American chief.
There was 2 centuries of wars and peace, and one side of that conflict became more and more powerful while the other became less and less so.
Treaties were signed, that are still in force to this
Re: (Score:1)
> Take a look at the map and behold, most of the Empire is not in fact doing too good: [1]https://www.britannica.com/pla... [britannica.com].
The funny part is that you don't realize they are doing worse after leaving the empire.
[1] https://www.britannica.com/place/British-Empire
Re: (Score:3)
Also forgot to add. Ever since the Monroe Doctrine, everything south of US is a victim of the US Empire, not the Spanish one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Venezuela will play out like it has already played out before. The US puppet regime will not care about the people, and because of that will get ousted sooner or later.
Re: (Score:2)
Venezuela was changing, they were in no means perfect, but ever since Chavez kicked out the US they had been getting better, and the people know by experience that their own imperfect government is still better than a US one. Now they're back to square one again, with the puppet government having to run the country for the advancement of US interest again.
As to the boots, I'm not aware of no boots on the ground ever having worked. Japan still has US boots on the ground, so does South Korea. In fact, one mig
Re: (Score:1)
Japan was nuked because the US didn't want to invade the country, it was documented and communicated by the US military, you need a history lesson ..... The US only has presence on the ground in Japan today because it was an agreement US would provide Japan defense after the war ended, never were there boots on the ground during WW2 in Japan because invading an island chain half way around the world is hard in the 1940s. If you think Korea was a success, the country is still divided in 2. The Phillippines
Re: (Score:2)
Japan was nuked because the US wanted to scare Stalin into concessions in Yalta, and it worked, I might add. SU did all the heavy lifting to win the war, yet the US got to pick the winnings. But there was no military need for the nukes, Japan was all but razed to the ground by regular bombing already. There was only two cities left to bomb, and this is where the nukes went. So Japan was ready to surrender and was only looking for a way to save face for the Emperor while doing it. The nukes took care of that
Re: (Score:2)
What a load of revisionist bullshit.
If the US had dropped the bombs to force concessions at Yalta, the Potsdam Declaration would not have been issued prior.
The SU did supply the majority of meat to be ground, but the idea that they "did all the heavy lifting to win the war" is fucking laughable.
In fact, had the US not kept the SU afloat, it's not entirely certain there wouldn't be an old dilapidated Wehrmacht command building in Moscow today.
Pound for pound, there has not been a less effective militar
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's fair to criticize most small and medium GDP countries for basically letting the USA in with a military base, troops, etc. If your country has a hostile adversary, you want the US having your back. Expecting every country to have a respectable army is asking a lot. They should have enough security for internal matters of their own citizens and some amount of troops to lend into international coalitions. Beyond that, it's probably just not worth the GDP % to have a larger military.
USA has o
Re: (Score:2)
If your country has a hostile adversary is exactly the greater evil I mentioned.
As to the world police, you cannot still believe this in 2026? Look around to what the US does, it goes around the world destroying one country after another, sometimes because they wanted to do something the US did not like, sometimes just for the heck of it. The world bully is more apt.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't find Potsdam in no clash with Yalta concessoins. In fact, the declaration exactly left no room for the Japanese to save face for the Emperor, which is why it was not taken. Suppose they had taken it though, the bombs would have found another place to drop. The trigger finger was itching for a pull. You cant' just sit on a brand new toy like that.
Lend-Lease sure was important for the soviet war effort, but so was the soviets own effort. The US put many boots on the feet of soviet soldiers, and a lot
Re: (Score:2)
> In fact, the declaration exactly left no room for the Japanese to save face for the Emperor, which is why it was not taken.
Nonsense.
After the bombs dropped, no such concession was granted to them either.
The Potsdam Declaration was met with silence, because the Japanese Government at the time was not separate from its military, and the military hard-liners would have removed the Japanese Government if they had accepted it. After the bombing, the Emperor intervened, as he was the only person who could overrule the military.
The US looked on? This is what I'm talking about. That is revisionist drivel.
US forces were 80 miles w
Re: (Score:2)
Umm... the approach that worked required having boots on the ground
Re: Finally (Score:2)
> Germany is one example.
Japan is another.
so a war or atom bomb is needed to fix this?
Re: Finally (Score:1)
The historical record is admittedly thin, but seems like there's more examples of militaristic dictatorships folding under exogenous military force than there are examples of them voluntarily disolving themselves to form a democracy.
German, Japan, Panama, Argentina are clear examples of the former.
Brazil, Chile, and to some extent South Africa are examples of the latter.
The Soviet Bloc is a mixed bag. The whole thing collapsed under its own weight as much as from external pressure, but it also is a split ve
Re: (Score:2)
When you say "Argentina", what do you mean precisely? It's had a lot of militaristic dictatorships followed by at least nominal democracy, but I assume you're referring to the most recent one. However, the Falklands war was more a symptom of the collapse than the cause, and didn't lead to an invasion of territory controlled by Argentina before the outbreak of war. I can't understand why you consider it a "clear example". I'd put it in a third category: militaristic dictatorships which collapse involuntarily
Re: Finally (Score:1)
Granted I missed Spain for some reason.
Portugal was abroad defending its colonial holdings. That's exogenous military pressure.
Galtieri went on a military adventure abroad. Franco mostly kept to himself.
If there's two types of dictatorships in the world, Galtieri belongs in the same category as Germany and Japan in my opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Not too good a record since then, though. And none of the advantages of either apply to Iran.
Regime change requires a multi-generational commitment by either the invader or the invaded. The US certainly isn't capable of that these days, the Iranians are far more likely to commit to bringing back the old regime.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany and Japan faced allied forces , not just the USA on its own. And those world leaders were a tad more respectable than the ones leading the current aggressions in Iran.
In short, I don't have the same hope for a positive outcome as you might.
Re: (Score:2)
Before anyone else points this out, I do consider Stalin to be an exception to those who were "respectable." Having him in the group was a marriage of convenience, followed by a quick divorce leading into the Cold War.
Re: (Score:2)
Islamic countries are not like Germany or Japan or even China. That was made very clear to me one time when I had to wait at the waiting lot at the airport in the middle of the day. A number of Uber drivers put out little carpets pointed at a specific direction, knelt on them, put their heads to the ground and continued to do it for like 15 minutes. If you can get people to do that 5 times a day when no one is watching, no one is going to change them.
Re: (Score:2)
Iran is not an Islamic country. Persians were Zorastrians. Mostly they are now something like agnostics. They don't believe in Islam, they don't want to wear the hijab, they are just held captive by a fanatical government that requires them put "Muslim" on their birth certificates.
Re: (Score:1)
ORLY? Then how come a small band of zealots were able to topple the Shah and install themselves as government in 1979? It all started with little protests here and there, like the brainwashed vapid Palestinian-loving privileged white kids here protesting for what they perceive is the latest outrage, the latest slight caused by US and Israel, prodded by their brainwashed teachers.
All the kiddies helped them do it. They wanted it, they got it, and and now you say they're secular?
Their actions proved otherw
Re: (Score:2)
> ORLY? Then how come a small band of zealots were able to topple the Shah and install themselves as government in 1979? It all started with little protests here and there, like the brainwashed vapid Palestinian-loving privileged white kids here protesting for what they perceive is the latest outrage, the latest slight caused by US and Israel, prodded by their brainwashed teachers.
There was big time buyers remorse after Mullahs took over and people realized reality was nothing like the marketing materials.
> All the kiddies helped them do it. They wanted it, they got it, and and now you say they're secular?
A lot of them are. Iran is a real modern country not some oil cursed shit hole.
Re: (Score:2)
This is fascinatingly stupid.
Iran is 99% muslim, and has been for pushing 1000 years.
Discussions of what religion they followed 2500 years ago is less than meaningless.
Re: (Score:1)
> This is fascinatingly stupid.
> Iran is 99% muslim, and has been for pushing 1000 years.
> Discussions of what religion they followed 2500 years ago is less than meaningless.
What is fascinatingly stupid is accepting regime statistics at face value.
This is closer to reality:
[1]https://gamaan.org/wp-content/... [gamaan.org]
[1] https://gamaan.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/GAMAAN-Iran-Religion-Survey-2020-English.pdf
Re: (Score:3)
Just as stupid as accepting a poll so far from a random sampling that one wonders if it was just made to further the rhetorical goals of GAMAAN.
Iran is a culturally Muslim country, and has been for a millennia.
That doesn't mean every single one of them is a hard-line practicing Shiite or Sunni, but the overwhelming majority of them are thinking of Allah when you ask them if they believe in God.
Re: (Score:2)
> Just as stupid as accepting a poll so far from a random sampling that one wonders if it was just made to further the rhetorical goals of GAMAAN.
I certainly don't think so. I don't place any value at all in regime statistics. Can you point to a substantive objection or refutation of this study? Do you have a better source of Iranian public opinions about religion?
> Iran is a culturally Muslim country, and has been for a millennia.
> That doesn't mean every single one of them is a hard-line practicing Shiite or Sunni, but the overwhelming majority of them are thinking of Allah when you ask them if they believe in God.
Put up or shut up motherfucker. Cite a better source or fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
> There was no regime change in Japan.
Surprisingly, this is accurate. At the end of the second world war, after the unconditional surrender of Japan to U.S. forces, when the U.S. occupied Japan, they allowed the emperor to remain.
This turned out to be a brilliant decision.
Re: (Score:2)
The Emperor is not the regime.
It does raise an interesting question. What does "regime change" mean in such a system?
Technically, the Suzuki Government did resign after the surrender, and the Government was handed to the Emperor's brother by allied forces, as well as the military leadership removed.
I think by all definitions, it was a regime change.
Re: (Score:1)
Saying there was "no regime change" is not entirely accurate.
The emperor wasn't really in control of Japan, he was more of a figurehead that was side-lined by the warhawks. When he said Japan must "endure the un-endurable" he was risking his life because he was flat out defying the current power structure. This is precisely one of the reasons he was allowed to remain in power, since he demonstrated a clear resolve to do what was best for Japan, at great risk to his own life. It was also a pragmatic move to
Re: (Score:2)
Dubious, but I'll grant you it could be argued that it wasn't. I think the side that argues that it was would win that argument, though.
Re: Finally (Score:2)
What makes you think that usa made the regime change in germany and japan lol? Ww2 was a collaborative effort of allied countries against the regime. What is happening now is typical american destruction of middle east
Neither of those were regime change wars (Score:1)
We didn't start them to change the regime we started them because we were attacked. Now mind you we knew we were going to be attacked and we let it happen at Pearl harbor but still it wasn't how the War was sold to the American people.
Also in both cases we didn't do regime change. We just set up a democracy and left. We kept some bases in the area for our own strategic needs but we mostly did not meddle in local affairs too much. Not anymore than we would with any other democracy that we fuck with.
A
Re: (Score:2)
A American regime change War means we roll in and kill everyone in the existing government and replace them with whoever the fuck we want. We do not install a democracy. We might pretend to like we did in Afghanistan and Iraq but the people don't really get to pick who their leaders are we pick two or three options and they pick from a list.
Well, I'd have to say "yes and no" to that. Yes, it's true that they couldn't have voted the old regime back into power but no, we didn't give them a pre-picked list
Re: (Score:2)
In the 1980s in Lebanon, Hezbollah, funded and trained by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, carried out bombings that killed American personnel: the April 1983 suicide car bombing at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut (17 U.S. deaths) and the October 1983 Marine barracks bombing (241 U.S. Marines and sailors killed). These attacks are widely attributed to Iran-backed Hezbollah and associated groups.
In the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, a group linked to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard killed 19 U.S. A
Re: (Score:2)
"Japan is another."
Indeed.
And it needed only 2 nukes to change their minds.
Re: (Score:2)
> Not only is germany an example, the entire continent of Europe has just come out of an unprecedented era of peace and prosperity which has been started by the US and her allies after WW2;
This is entirely due to the [1]Marshall Plan [marshallfoundation.org]; where the U.S. decided to help the conquered nations, rather than leave and let them go to hell.
This is in contrast to the end of the first world war, where the result was... the second world war.
[1] https://www.marshallfoundation.org/the-marshall-plan/
Re: (Score:1)
> I know you left wingers are not allowed by your quasi-religion to say a single positive thing about the US as a whole and cheeto-man in particular
Oh, I say something nice about him: he got us out of Afghanistan.
Unfortunately I can't think of anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
> When has a regime change by the USA ever improved a country? Iran is in their current state because of US meddling decades ago.
> Now, what was all that talk of Hillary or Kamala starting a war? Will cheeto return his fake FIFA medal?
When has US sponsored regime change ever before come at the direct request of the people living there? (Maybe Vichy France.)
Persians hate the Islamic regime. They have been in the streets by the millions protesting against Khomenei (who is hopefully now deceased). In response he ordered his personal forces and secret police to open fire on them, killings tens of thousands of innocent people over just two days, another ten thousand put in prison and placed under sentence of death. They went to the hospital
Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to think that the current strikes against Iran by the USA and Israel are an attempt to get Iran to treat its people more humanely.
No, they are a pressure tactic to bend Iran's resolve in nuclear negotiations -- which would not have been necessary if Trump hadn't torn up the JCPOA signed on July 14, 2015 between Iran and China, France, Germany, Russia, the UK, and the USA. But that agreement happened during Obama's administration, so in Trump's mind, it had to go.
And, perhaps -- oh, say -- these strikes are meant to distract the American people from the Epstein files.
Re: (Score:2)
> You seem to think that the current strikes against Iran by the USA and Israel are an attempt to get Iran to treat its people more humanely.
No, and if I did, you would have happily quoted where I said that. Instead you are just being tactically obtuse so you can reframe the argument around an evaluation of US intentions instead of what I actually commented which was regime atrocities.
I am for the people of Iran no longer having to deal with a government they don't want and which blithely murders them en masse. Somehow in your reply you managed **not a single word*** for the Iranian people or the tens of thousands killed. Just desperate it make
Re: (Score:1)
> And, perhaps -- oh, say -- these strikes are meant to distract the American people from the Epstein files.
lol you do know that it's mostly Democrats getting torpedoed by their appearance there, right?
Re: (Score:2)
>> And, perhaps -- oh, say -- these strikes are meant to distract the American people from the Epstein files.
> lol you do know that it's mostly Democrats getting torpedoed by their appearance there, right?
No, I didn't know that. And if it's true, I don't care. If it's true.
Re: (Score:2)
> No, they are a pressure tactic to bend Iran's resolve in nuclear negotiations
This is correct.
What I don't understand, though, is why so many people have apparently forgotten that, only last June, Trump claimed to have "completely and totally obliterated" Iran's nuclear capability.
Re: (Score:2)
> When has US sponsored regime change ever before come at the direct request of the people living there? (Maybe Vichy France.)
This idiotic metric can be used to justify regime change literally anywhere. Even the fucking United States.
> Persians hate the Islamic regime.
Some of them, yes.
A majority of them? No, there isn't evidence of that.
Re: (Score:2)
> This idiotic metric can be used to justify regime change literally anywhere. Even the fucking United States
It's not a "metric" and "idiotic" is trying to shove across the implication that the attitude of the local population into irrelevance. That is intuitively unintelligible. A rational person could contextualize the popular sentiment as less important than some other factor if they had good evidence, but to dismiss it out-of-hand is just flailing. Provide evidence. Provide examples. Show me where the United States has people cheering for outside attack and for British monarchs to reassert themselves, since ap
Improved for who? (Score:1)
Because every regime change war I've seen has improved the country drastically for American mega corporations and their interests.
Re: (Score:2)
> When has a regime change by the USA ever improved a country? Iran is in their current state because of US meddling decades ago.
Popular accounts of US overthrows in Iran are misleading at best and some don't even make logical sense. The US very much tried to meddle in the affairs of Iran for corporate advantage of hydrocarbon industry. Yet persistent narrative the US having installed the king of Iran or orchestrated a coup are simply not true.
The king at the time had the power according to their system to shit can the prime minister (Mossadegh BTW deserved to be shit canned) and ultimately ended up doing exactly that. Maybe Kermi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
50 years ago Iran was still ruled by the US-installed shah, who got put there after Iran had decided to nationalize their oil, that is, Iranian oil should probably belong to Iran and not the British as the former colonists would want.
It was the ousting of the widely unpopular puppet shah by the Islamic Revolution that put Iran to the US enemies list, where it remains to this day. Much like how Cuba got to be on the list when they ousted their own US regime.
See a pattern there?
There's another pattern to look
Re: (Score:2)
> Nothing good is going to come out of this.
this is undoubtedly very bad, but we shall see ...
Re: (Score:2)
> 50 years ago Iran was still ruled by the US-installed shah, who got put there after Iran had decided to nationalize their oil, that is, Iranian oil should probably belong to Iran and not the British as the former colonists would want.
This has no basis in reality. The US didn't install the Shah, he merely succeeded his father after he abdicated (Thank the British) during WWII.
> It was the ousting of the widely unpopular puppet shah by the Islamic Revolution that put Iran to the US enemies list, where it remains to this day. Much like how Cuba got to be on the list when they ousted their own US regime.
> See a pattern there?
The pattern I see is people being spoon fed bullshit and having no clue what actually took place.
People are way better off deriving their lessons from the study of human psychology than history. It is just too easy to reinterpret events or fail to understand the context of the time to push whatever narratives reinforce preconceived political agendas.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I suppose you can argue this on the technicality of my wording, but Operation Ajax was very much a real thing.
Re: (Score:2)
> Well I suppose you can argue this on the technicality of my wording, but Operation Ajax was very much a real thing.
I completely agree, it was an attempt to change the government to favor US economic interests. The framing is still complete nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a successful attempt. Before the coup the role of the monarch in Iran was similar to Great Britain, although the shah had started to change that. But in the coup the government was overthrown, democracy died, and Pahlavi took the reigns and started to persecute the people with a secret police, relying heavily on the US to stay in power. While in his return to the country after the coup he was mostly cheered, by the time of the revolution the country was overwhelmingly happy to get rid of him.
Importan
Re: (Score:2)
> It was a successful attempt. Before the coup the role of the monarch in Iran was similar to Great Britain
The hell it was, there was no coup and the monarch had the power to remove Mosaddeq the entire time.
> But in the coup the government was overthrown, democracy died
The government was not overthrown, Mosaddeq tried to become a dictator and instead he was ousted.
Re: (Score:2)
The Shah wasn't "US-Installed".
You really are quite the misinformation peddler, aren't you?
Sure, the coup was supported by the CIA and MI6, but Mosaddegh's government was ready to collapse after 18 months of dictatorial rule, and rapidly collapsing livelihoods of Iranians.
This is just more revisionist horse-shit from you.
Re: (Score:2)
50 years to get rid of the Iranian government, or just the Internet?
Re: (Score:1)
USA already put in a pro-Western puppet. It eventually failed, and lead to the Ayatollah.
Re: (Score:2)
> USA already put in a pro-Western puppet. It eventually failed, and lead to the Ayatollah.
Some of the common wisdom surrounding Iran is comically wrong. This so called pro-western puppet won his power/position by succession. His father abdicated during WWII I believe at the behest of the British.
Re: (Score:2)
> This should have been taken care of 50 years ago.
50 years ago we didn't have a government that needed a distraction from an ever-growing scandal.
never underestimate the bandwidth (Score:2)
of a drone carrying a load of USB sticks
Re: never underestimate the bandwidth (Score:3)
In my day it was a station wagon full of backup tapes. My how I have aged.
Re: (Score:2)
Carrier pigeons would probably be faster.
Re: never underestimate the bandwidth (Score:1)
I'll say. I shed a bit of a tear when my dad finally got rid of his early 90s stationwagon in the early 2010s.
Re: (Score:1)
That kind of bandwidth is infinitely inferior to low latency and easy delivery in this context. The Regime doesn't want the Iranian people to know the revolution has started but for real.