Iran has now been offline for 96 hours(twitter.com) |
Iran has now been offline for 96 hours(twitter.com) |
There was also a three year old killed by anti-regime protestors which has heightened the sentiments of pro-regime protestors.
The Iranian anti-regime movement is very well established and is not the product of foreign intervention. It's actually not all that clear that foreign actors in the region favor regime change!
(I'm not holding out much hope that these protests will actually topple the regime, though it would be amazing if they did.)
> "Unverified reports indicate that at least several hundreds, and according to some sources, more than 2,000 people may have been killed," IHR said in a statement, adding that according to its estimate, more than 2,600 protesters had been arrested.[1]
> However, starting with reports from a handful of Tehran hospitals, an informal, expatriate group of academics and professionals calculated that protester deaths could have reached 6,000 through Saturday.[2]
> IHR said that "according to some estimates more than 6,000 may have been killed", but warned that the almost four-day internet blackout imposed by the Iranian authorities makes it "extremely difficult to independently verify these reports".[3]
[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-protests-us-trump-death-to...
[2] https://time.com/7345347/iran-protests-death-toll-estimate-t...
[3] https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacific/20260112-live-iran-...
They love to imagine that the suffering of a populace is some guarantee of both a revolution and the success of that revolution. For some reason the near-total destruction of Syria and ongoing conflicts in the MENA region don't seem to register. At this point I'm convinced that social media creates an environment that rewards wishcasting more than logical analysis based on precedent.
This doesn’t seem very different than the 2008 and Mahsa protests.
Most likely there will be an internal reorganization towards economic reform and moderate social policies.
This time, there's no calls for conciliation or change, it's outright "death to the tyrants" and an astonishing number of people hitting the streets. They're burning down mosques, tearing down statues, burning out police stations, lynching regime officials, going to officials houses and dragging them out, and so on.
Also, it's been going on for 16 days at this point, and for some reason, is noticeably absent from world media. That feels significant, somehow.
It might have been a possibility if Israel didn’t decide to start a war and assassination campaign against Iran.
I agree that these types of things galvanize a population.
Sometimes better to just let sleeping bears sleep.
1. The jamming/disruption is local to large cities most notably the capital, Tehran.
2. Even in Tehran it is not complete and my friends are able to send and receive messages. Uploading videos is harder.
3. The regime is now raiding homes that they suspect have Starlink terminals. I don't know how they identify them but I do wonder if they are using technology to locate them.
Interesting thing is that they say they never seen such a beautiful country with even more beautiful people. Also they said they filled up two full car tanks for ~5€.
Their conclusion is that people there live much better life(more fulfilling) then people in western countries.
It's my understanding Iran polices the ISPs, who aren't assigning IP addresses at this time. Iran could treat the dishes as contraband, but short of working with Starlink, is there a practical way for them to prevent satellite internet? You could flood all channels with packets like a jammer or something, but doing that at nation-scale still seems impractical to me? I'm not an expert in any of these fields, just asking really
Easiest way would be to fly drones or planes around and look for the dishes. Should be possible to receive and triangulate the signals.
The problem for Iran regime is that they are busy putting down the uprising.
It depends on the Jamming power and the satellite beamforming how close you would have to be to jam it.
This is not the case for GPS because GPS is receive-only and the satellite doesn't listen for user transmissions (although you could still try to jam the control uplink to prevent synchronization which would decrease accuracy over a few days, but then you would have to be close to the GPS control stations and you'll probably get arrested soon)
"Bitchat for Gaza – messaging without internet"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45929358 14-nov-2025 292 comments
Perhaps also other such apps like Briar, Birdy, Meshtastic/Meshcore ?
No, they're not.
... I mean, I'm not sure anyone cares _that_ much about the Director-General of the BBC.
Trump gonna declare himself president of Iran in Wikipedia.
The revolts in Iran are backed by US/Israel. They openly brag about it on every channel. They don’t care about Iranian‘s freedoms. They are the same who support every dictator in the region if and only if that dictator accepts Israel‘s dominance.
Edit: Yeah, let’s downvote instead if arguing.
Edit 2: https://x.com/ggreenwald/status/2010798811288133695
> Glenn Greenwald:
> Trump's former CIA Director and the largest newspapers of the Israeli media can state explicitly and clearly that the Mossad is all over the protests in Iran, and yet still people will deny it and say only a conspiracy theorist could believe such a crazy tale.
And I'm not talking about university. I'm talking about the hoards of kids that want to play Roblox. It's been a nightmare keeping my kids off of it but I continue to fight the online lifestyle! </sarcasm>
A related question that someone here may be able to answer: Who wins the jamming game in principal? Is it $JAMMER or $COMMUNICATORS?
It seems like Starlink could distribute secret codes[0] on each device, where each code is used in some kind of spread spectrum scheme, and that jamming all of the codes would be difficult, the wider the spectrum? There must be some kind of energy/bandwidth tradeoff, but what I want to understand is if the game is easier for one side in principal.
(It's "in principle" BTW.)
This, for the most part, is self inflicted by the Iranian regime.
For example, it's interesting that the US would declare Jolani a terrorist if they were in support of his regime.
There was a large bounty on his head until recently because of his atrocities.
Iran hasn't threatened to destroy, they have made it their stated mission to "annihilate" Israel. I doubt Israel would have any ill-will towards Iran if Iran didn't first say that about Israel.
1. Jolani was propped up by Turkey not Israel, their relations are still tense. E.g. Jolani has been massacring the Druze which are Israel's allies, while Israel-Turkey relations are only getting worse.
Unsure where so many get the idea Israel is excited about an ISIS veterans regime on its border that regularly massacres civilians including on-brand mass rapes, kidnappings, beheadings, cutting hearts out etc
The US had previously imprisoned Jolani and had a 10 million reward on his head until 2024, so, that also doesn't align with your narrative
2. Western governments make sure not to meet the crown prince in a state setting or using high dignities, as to limit their support
3. The Shah government was terrible in some respects but still arguably superior to the current one, in any case hopefully Iranians can find their own new way once they get rid of their current fascist theocracy
4. There is no real evidence that the local revolts are supported by the US or Israel. It is naturally the regime propaganda stance as authoritarian regimes usually turn the blame outwards rather than face their failures (environmental disaster, raging inflation, sanctions, complete regional defeat, unwanted religious laws)
5. Not many dictators in the region historically "accepted Israel's dominance" so I don't think you have many supporting points for your sweeping statements
Probably accurate, but I think if Israel sincerely objected to Jolani's leadership in Syria, a state visit to the White House would not have happened.
Read into that what you will.
Perhaps because they openly provided support to them for years: https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/report-israel-treating-al-...
2) Nobody is asking to "accept Israel's dominance", but dropping the "Destruction of Israel" as one of the main goals of the state would be a quite welcome.
The world does not revolve around Israel, and the less bloody dictators it has (theocratic or not) the better.
I despise the Iranian regime, but knowing what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, I find it quite troubling that people are quite giddy about this as though it's not going to result in many lives lost (many more than what the regime is currently responsible for), and destabilisation of the country.
And given the USA's track record in regime changes, and the issues they have in their own country currently, I don't think the US - nor Israel - have any standing to be carrying out a regime change in another sovereign state.
Downvoted!
Criticism of Western liberalism is not one of them.
Please enlighten us with some of this easily verifiable information.
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cj691w2e840t?post=asset%3A8b0d...
"... there will be plenty of voices around Trump advising him to be careful if he does go down that route. The Trump administration would be careful, because the consequences of regime change would be extremely complex ..."
There are reports of hospitals, banks and other institutional buildings being burned, even fire engines - but does it make sense for iranians to burn those?
But the mossad stated they have agents acting in the field. https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-881733
FYI, statues of khomeini, etc were burnt during Mahsa Amini protests too. https://x.com/Joyce_Karam/status/1573372214833041409?s=20
The question remains - after everything is burned to the ground, what opposition or leader is going to take control, if not the IRGC or military?
> it's been going on for 16 days at this point, and for some reason, is noticeably absent from world media. That feels significant, somehow
somehow, yes, but in a good or bad way? what is the significance? maybe the US/israel was gearing up to bomb Iran and the revolts would endear Iranian people to the Western public in a way that powers that be don't want? just thinking out loud here
Edit: chanced on an article which kind of supports this idea
A national security expert said President Donald Trump may already be prepared to act against Iran, suggesting a widely reported upcoming briefing on U.S. options could be intentional "deception" as deadly protests intensify in the country.
In their view, the topology of Iranians and their political views would be: 10% - pro-US regime change intervention; 20% - ardent regime supporters; 70% - pro-regime change but without US involvement.
older conservative boomers vs. younger moderates. it wasn't old ladies launching riots about wearing headscarves...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46547303 https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=46547807&goto=item%3Fi... https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=46556525&goto=item%3Fi... https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=46548546&goto=item%3Fi...
Israel more pressing Islamist threat, Hezbollah, was the focus back then and therefore these organizations were given medical help in turn for agreeing not to kill Druze and to stay away from the Israeli border.
It was quite evident Israel's position as it hasn't tried to fight for Al Nusra when Assad recaptured that area even though it could easily make the Syrian regime forces retreat.
Also, the repeated bombing of the current syrian government forces are probably not due to some outbursting friendship
That said; if you believe (as do some commenters here) that Israel could ignite nationwide protests with 100,000s of people whenever they want, then they definitely don't have to worry about Irans army
I'm just a message board commenter, this is just a take.
I know quite a lot of Iranians, and when I talked about this with them about a year ago, their lay of the land given their own opinions and their wider networks opinion is that the majority of Iranians are pro-regime change but NOT at the hands of a US/Israeli intervention.
There are anti-regime segments that are pro-US/Israel intervention, but they think this is a minority and they think most of them are products of foreign intervention.
After Israel bombed Iran last year, there were a few Israeli cells that were uncovered in Iran, so suggesting there is some foreign intervention isn't out of the ordinary.
"In 1953, the CIA- and MI6-backed 1953 Iranian coup d'état overthrew Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, who had nationalized the Anglo-Persian Oil Company."
Like: yes, I lay a lot of the responsibility for the nightmare state Iranians live in at the hands of Cold War NATO policymakers, for sure, but I don't think it's all that useful as a positive claim of what happened in the 1970s. The US did not support the Ayatollahs.
I didn't say that. It's just that Iran already had a democratically elected government. However there is some truth to the claim that you put in my mouth, that is, you can see that pattern quite often in history. Chile is another example but let's focus on Iran.
Realistic best case scenario right now is a situation like England where there is technically a monarch (who also heads the church) but they practically hold no power (less and less over time).
I don't see what reforms they could implement that can quickly fix this as they need to radically alter trust in the government for currency reforms to work.
But who knows? Maybe they'll muddy their way through or rely on force to stay in power. Certainly large protests have happened before, but this is the first time in decades where all 5 conditions of a successful revolution are present at the same time.
I'm not too bright, could you point me in the direction of understanding what those five conditions are?
The regime currently is in its weakest position. Russia is busy with Ukraine, many of top IRGC commanders assassinated, HAMAS is in disarray, and their nuclear program has been crippled.
The water shortage was the straw that broke the camel's back. Years of sanctions, economical downturn and abuses by the Regime piled up to the point of no return.
Based on my last contact with my family, our people have crossed a line and there is no going back.
What Westerners don't realize is that if your back is against the wall, all you have left is putting your life on line.
People rather die trying because truthfully, what is the alternative?
I say that from the luxury of my very safe keyboard, of course. I hope your family is staying as safe as possible. Can't imagine the stress (I get tangled up enough in our own US gov't shenanigans and that pales in comparison to Iran right now).
The idea that misery inevitably leads to revolution is driven by narrative selection, not reality. In reality countries like the DPRK for example simply ate the cost of a million+ starving to death and then went 'happily' onward. There's a reason that successful and lasting revolutions are exceptional, not the rule.
The regime was organically declining in popularity. Israel’s war simply rejuvenated the regime’s supporter base without any meaningful gains on the ground. There was minimal impact to the enrichment campaign. And the fact that negotiation was used as a ruse by the Americans is definitely a motivation to pursue enrichment even further.
Not to mention that regional powers are now wary of Israel’s expansionist nature and see nuclear power as the only true deterrent. Think about it: does anyone ever mess around with Pakistan or NK?
This offensive directly led to the Saudi-Pakistan defense pact, with Turkey probably joining soon. I would also wager that both KSA and Turkey are starting or are considering starting their own nuclear weapons programs.
Israel’s war on Iran was an important piece in the way to the collapse of the regime. It exposed how incompetent the regime truly is in protecting Iran, and how the Iranian “ring of fire” project (masterminded by Qassem Suleimani) to encircle Israel with proxies, at a cost of tens of billions of dollars, was taken apart by Israel in the course of a year. All of this investment, in direct funding as well as sanctions over the past 40 years came to naught when Israel struck back. Mullahs were exposed as weak, irrelevant, only able to oppress their own.
Furthermore, Israel essentially decapitated the Iranian state apparatus in those 12 days. Everyone who mattered in the government and IRGC was killed. It just completely pulled the rug from under this regime.
I’m almost confident this is over. And with it there’s going to be a huge shift in Middle East politics. Likely more countries will align with Israel, but the removal of the primary Shia power might push the Sunnis to negatively fixate on Israel.
I am less convinced this is the end though, but maybe another step in a slow death of the regime. Regarding your last point, this is already happening, now that Iran is weak the KSA has less of an interest to ally with Israel and it shifts to allying its previous rivals of Qatar and Turkey along with Pakistan
Let’s follow up in a few months and see who was right.
That is a statement that might make sense two weeks ago, but now? Evidently the effect Israel war had was not enough to prevents riots, or arguably might have emboldened them
2. The scale of the protests is very likely overblown.
3. Iran’s purging of Mossad assets since the 12 day war has not yet wrapped up. The CIA is rumored to also have assets participating in these riots.
The part we're all having trouble with is "and therefore the US wants to install the son of the Shah."
Words are cheap and politicians often do much different than they promised. Remember when Trump said no new wars? Remember when he said we were done in Iran after dropping the bombs, and now intervention is looming?
Everyone who participates here needs to observe the guidelines. These ones in particular are relevant.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
What part of the comment is disputable?
> Western governments do not want democracy in Iran.
This is purely speculation, and is not generally true based on statements from Western governments. What I would say is that Western governments want stability in Iran, just like virtually every other nation. If the current leaders in Iran were not sponsoring terrorists across the world, weren't actively pursuing the most dangerous military weapon in existence, and hadn't run their country into the ground, I don't think Western governments would spend much time thinking about Iran or its form of government.
> They want the son of Shah back in Iran, the Shah whose father tortured and exploited Iranians, and that led to the revolution and the rise of the mullahs.
The second part of this is true (the Shah was a poor ruler), but the first does not appear to be true.
> The US and Israel want regime change so Israel can dominate the ME.
I suspect your definition of "dominate the ME" is not very mainstream if you accept this at face value. Iran (along with some other ME nations) has a stated goal of wiping Israel off the map, which Israel strongly disagrees with.
> Just like they replaced Assad in Syria by Jolani, a wanted Al Qaeda terrorist who does not oppose Israel in any way but slaughter kurds and alavites because they are moderate muslims.
How did Western governments replace Assad with Jolani? Do you want the leader of Syria to oppose Israel, or should they attempt to normalize relations with a neighbor? Have you considered that he realizes that he can't win that fight and is attempting to cling to the power he seized during their civil war?
> The revolts in Iran are backed by US/Israel.
Any evidence of this?
> They openly brag about it on every channel.
Any evidence of this?
> They don’t care about Iranian‘s freedoms.
Any evidence of this?
> They are the same who support every dictator in the region if and only if that dictator accepts Israel‘s dominance.
Any evidence of this? Again, Western governments are really looking for stability first, and will accept it if a dictator can provide it based on past behavior.
In short, these are a bunch of highly biased and polarizing statements of opinion, some of which might be backed by a shred of truth but then warped to fit a very specific viewpoint.
Its wild that someone can say this with a straight face.
>What I would say is that Western governments want stability in Iran, just like virtually every other nation.
While "stability" is being generous, this is more or less true. Western governments want whatever form of government is most beneficial to them, which usually implies some form of "stability". What it does not imply is any form of democracy or liberalism. The last 100+ years in the region demonstrate this, with the British and US supporting undemocratic, sometimes brutal regimes that were beneficial to them.
>The second part of this is true (the Shah was a poor ruler), but the first does not appear to be true.
That is literally one of the easiest claims to verify. 5 seconds google search:
"As Iranian protests grow in size, an unlikely figure is gaining prominence—the son of the country’s reviled shah, who was toppled in the 1979 revolution.
Iranians across the country are chanting slogans in support of Reza Pahlavi, whose father, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, ruled the country for decades."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/iranians-are-rallying-a...
That’s why the US toppled the democratically elected Mossadegh in the 1950s and installed a puppet regime with the brutal Shah? And when the Iranians started a revolution and sent the dictator into exile the West gave money and weapons to Iraq‘s Saddam Hussain and killed 1 mil Iranians? And put Iran under harsh sanctions for decades under which Iranians suffer deerly?
> If the current leaders in Iran were not sponsoring terrorists across the world,
Global terrorism comes from IS/Al Qaeda, which are Sunnis, originating in Saudi Arabia, not Iran.
And speaking of extraterritorial killings: Read the book „Rise and Kill“ by an Israeli. Israel kills people around the globe extrajudicially like no other country. Israel is accused of genocide. Yet the collective West is silent.
What a leap of logic. I’d wager not being able to afford basic necessities and also your women being killed by morality police, not having any political freedom, not being able to decide how your government is run, etc. are enough incentives. Don’t you think the people there have enough agency to want all of these? If Israel wanted to intervene, it looks like Iranian government is doing their work for them by making Iran a living hell for its people.
Some of this is disputable, much of it isn't. Meanwhile:
* There's no evidence that foreign powers are behind these protests, just narratives. The track record on unsupported but convincing-sounding narratives everywhere is pretty bad; nowhere is it worse than in this part of the world.
* There's no evidence that the protests themselves are pro-US (and certainly not pro-Israel; most of the protesters probably don't like Israel!). They just want water, jobs, and currency that can reliably buy food.
* There's also not much evidence that any major government in the world wants Iran toppled. Iran is incredibly weak right now. Regional powers like Turkey, Saudi, and especially Israel --- which has basically depantsed the IRGC --- don't actually have much to gain from an Iranian overthrow, but the whole region has a lot to lose from instability.
So yeah, I'd say: pretty extraordinary claim --- again, that claim being, "the anti-regime movement is the product of foreign intervention".
I want to keep saying: I don't think the protests will be successful. It's a state specifically designed to prevent protests movements like these from being successful! They may suck at air defense, but I don't think they're bad at putting down rebellions.
Depends how stringently you mean that.
Earlier this year Israel attacked Iran with the stated intent of helping the people with regime change.
The mossad stated they have agents acting in the field. https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-881733
The whole reason for doing sanctions was to get to this point, too.
If you're trying to say that the vast majority of citizens aren't taking orders from foreign powers, then sure.
But "no evidence that foreign powers are behind these protests" is a pretty extreme thing to say
I’m sorry what? Maybe this is an argument over terminology, but Israel absolutely wants Iran toppled in any colloquial definition of the word. This has been their stated goal since the 90s. And much of their activity in the Middle East since then is towards this goal.
> and especially Israel --- which has basically depantsed the IRGC --- don't actually have much to gain
Again I’m sorry what? Iran has been a major deterrent to their regional hegemony for decades. Remove US support and Israel is destroyed. They need these threats removed so they can end their reliance on US support.
Iran, on the other hand, partly as a result of Khomeinism and the status quo ante of the Iranian Revolution, when the military was a big part of the repression apparatus in the Shah's state, has more or less gutted its official military service branches. As we just saw, Israel literally controls Iran's own airspace. They flew slow drones over Tehran, presumably just as a "fuck you". Iran placed a huge bet on projecting military force through regional proxies --- the "Axis of Resistance". What they have instead of a modern military is the IRGC. See how that went for them!
Some (including quite a few neoliberals) want to abolish the IMF altogether, though I'm unsure if letting countries collapse completely is really a better option.
Edit: See also. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine
Nicole Bauer did a better job paraphrasing than I can, so I'll just quote her:
> [Goldstone] notes that a revolution requires lack of support from or alienation of elites, a crisis such as a fiscal strain, mass mobilization and popular anger against perceived injustices, an ideology of resistance, and favorable international relations. Most important, Goldstone debunks the common misconception that revolutions spring from an excess of injustice and poverty leading to frustration and eventual resistance. Poverty and frustration are not enough to ignite a revolution as countless examples, such as the Irish Potato Famine, have shown. What is needed is widespread belief that change is both desirable and possible, as well as a convergence of the factors mentioned above.
All I'm saying is that I don't see the regime falling currently, and even if it does, there is no obvious replacement. which might mean civil war or something even worse than now. There is also no indication that a new regime, chosen by actual Iranian people (not the shah's son) would give up its nuclear ambitions (which were actually started by the shah). So what is even the point of doing regime change? My guess is regime change is not what the US and Israel are even trying for, but just chaos to weaken a local power and a source of fuel for China, etc..
There is very little in that post that is verifiable. See above for what most people would call the rest of the content.
Just as one example, how does "Iranians across the country are chanting slogans in support of Reza Pahlavi" demonstrate that Western nations want him in power?
And did you miss this in that article: "Few analysts think Pahlavi has a real path to the throne or leadership in Iran."
2. Hard to tell yet, there are videos that at least claim to show hundreds of dead which indicate both mass shooting and mass demonstrations
3. The issue is that like in USSR, any political prisoner given enough torture admits spying. So you can't really tell which are and which aren't. I wouldn't put much trust on Iranian media on that matter, especially when they only point at external enemies when there have been repeating demonstrations for years and life has only turned progressively worse for the Iranian people
2. Agree that it’s hard to tell for certain.
3. The truth is somewhere in between. My reading is that Mossad is definitely operating on the ground in some capacity.
3. Yes, it showed impressive operational capacity on the ground during the war. However, trying to attribute the protests solely to Israeli intelligence both gives too much credit to Israel, and uses the same mechanism in point 1 that erases the more uncomfortable parts of reality to keep a predefined political idea coherent.
To highly paraphrase, in order to create a myth you shouldn't be concerned with what you remember but with what you forget
But my point with the comparison is that the protests in their current form are not worthy of this level of coordinated international coverage. The fact that this ramp up in coverage coincides with rhetoric from multiple governments signaling that regime change is a short term goal raises suspicion.
Also, nowhere did I say that the Mossad is somehow pulling the strings behind the scenes. They are definitely one factor behind these protests, along with the pro-Shah contingent inside and outside the country, as well as serious anti-regime elements inside the country. The latter is a minority thanks to the 12 day war, which comes back to my initial point.
I agree Israel is not a US proxy (the tail wags the dog in this relationship), but freeing oneself from needing the (or any) dog is a sizable gain. Regarding Iran I think they know this. Their military is structured to operate in a post regime world. But that world doesn’t have the capacity to produce nuclear weapons, which is the key goal Israel is after. Iran with nuclear weapons likely ensures the regimes existence for the foreseeable future.
Not a difficult argument in my view. Unless you're stuck believing what they say instead of observing what they do.
...proceeds to describe how Israel is a major government
(I don't think this analysis speaks well of Israel, for what it's worth, but I don't really think about countries in those terms anyways.)
Netanyahu Urges Iranians To Rise Up Against Their Leaders https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcbYzBImi4c
Israel hopes for regime change in Iran https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2026/01/11/...
Israel strikes state-run Iranian TV during live broadcast after Iranian missiles kill 8 in Israel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RkR46Wlv6g
Inside Israel's attack on Iran's Evin Prison https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czd0e23j9q8o
What is the point of attacking a TV station and a prison, if not for regime change?
For the record, I agree with you that Israel has little "to gain from further injury to the Iranian regime, and something to lose from regional instability." I just don't think the people in charge of Israel see it that way. I think they feel they have a short window to achieve certain objectives they've wanted for a long time while Trump is in power).
And I think they prefer to have regional instability - a bunch of weaker chess pieces that they can play against each other - like how they supported both sides of the Iran-Iraq war in the 80's, funded Hamas, ISIS, and ISIS-derived militias to achieve short-term goals etc..
In case you didn't know about the last few points, here are some links:
Netanyahu defends arming Palestinian clans accused of ties with jihadist groups https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/06/netanyahu-defe...
Report: Israel treating al-Qaida fighters wounded in Syria civil war https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/report-israel-treating-al-...
Ex-Mossad head on Israel medical aid to al-Nusra Front - UpFront https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vweHtxqnh-Y
The Israeli Army Is Allowing Gangs in Gaza to Loot Aid Trucks and Extort Protection Fees From Drivers https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-11-11/ty-article/.p...
Gangs looting Gaza aid operate in areas under Israeli control, aid groups say https://archive.is/20250606105700/https://www.washingtonpost...
“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas,” Netanyahu told his Likud party’s Knesset members in March 2019. “This is part of our strategy" https://x.com/haaretzcom/status/1711329340804186619?s=46&t=s...
A Brief History of the Netanyahu-Hamas Alliance https://archive.ph/qHya5
By the way, regarding "Israel literally controls Iran's airspace" - Iran don't really have an air force. Their deliberate strategy given their limited resources was to focus on a ballistic missile program and all things considered this has worked ok. By the way, Israel failed to deliver a knock-out blow to Iran even when they had the element of surprise with an attack that was planned 18 months in advance (drafted during the Biden administration) yet somehow Iran was able to begin answering within 48 hours and do enough damage (which required penetrating anti-missile defenses of several major powers) that Israel agreed to a cease-fire.
After the 12-day war, China immediately sold Iran a number of J10-C fighters and air defense options, but it takes months to deliver/train all of them. So Israel is incentivized to deliver a knock-out blow to Iran before this window closes as well. In other words, Israel's war is the 'cause its own necessity' (1).
1 - The Acquired Immune System-A Vantage from Beneath https://www.cell.com/immunity/fulltext/S1074-7613(04)00307-3
I'm not as convinced as you (and the Economist) are about Israel's interests in the total collapse of the Iranian regime. Either way, the protest movement is far too large for it to plausibly be a product of foreign intervention. I don't think we have to convince each other on this point, even if we don't agree.
Revolutions can have some component of foreign intervention without necessarily negating the will of the people. The French aided the US, for example. So I don't know why the idea that the Iran protests are not foreign backed is so important to you.
There is plenty of public evidence of foreign backing of Iranian opposition (which interestingly might actually play right into the Mullahs' hands https://www.meforum.org/mef-observer/has-reza-pahlavi-become...) but it would make sense for there to be orders of magnitude more activity behind the scenes vs. what is publicly stated. For example, the US didn't admit participating in the 1953 coup of Mossadegh until 2013.
So please tell me how you are so sure that there is no foreign intervention today..
I opened by showing how your statements are in direct contradiction, by the way.