should? can you rephrase or do you want me to answer this? (i dont mind)

==============

There is an Israeli headline which reads: “US President Donald Trump informs Tehran US will not attack Islamic Republic.” I would argue it is difficult for Iran to believe this, noting it would not be the first time the U.S. said one thing and did another. Last year, Trump dictated a ceasefire to Hamas and told them to meet in Qatar and agree on his deal. While the negotiators were discussing the deal, Israel bombed the site — it is generally accepted that the U.S. was aware of this. Similarly, the U.S. was in negotiations with Iran, gave a deadline, and then, before the deadline passed, bombed Iran. The U.S. has therefore repeatedly demonstrated duplicitous behavior.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jan 15 2026 08:14am

You must be non-native English speaker.


What are Iran's allies doing to address the claims of mass murder of protesters - the unrest.

Your comments are addressing other circumstances but not the immediate situation on the ground.

All I've seen is radio Jammers have been offered up which seems like it's not going to really help probably just mask more capital punishment

This post was edited by RedFromWinter on Jan 15 2026 08:03am

Can you expand on this, not everyone is aware of details. Yemen looks to be the best example of your argument, but most here won't know that.

it was either should or could.

preventing communication between groups, stifling organization, while "simple" is still (plausibly) effective. note that I simply DONT KNOW what Iran's "allies" are doing to support it, you are the one that brought up Outside Intervention. Note that there are so many aspects here, points of consideration / conversation, we do not need to go into semantics.

From what I understand, Russia has acted as an intermediary between Iran and Israel to ensure that neither would initiate attacks absent provocation.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jan 15 2026 08:11am

Lebanon would be my best example that is currently ongoing. but Yemen as well. They arm a rebel group like the Houthis or Hezbollah, it gets local support and carves out an enclave. Local govt needs to either pay a STEEP price to expel them, or more often they just make peace and let the group act autonomously to commit piracy or fire rockets into Israel. Syria is another on that list, but its been a dumpster fire with Russian presence, Israeli strikes, US presence, and Iranian influence. they certainly didnt take it over effectively, but had a part in its historic downfall. Iraq as well, but there's deep historic mistrust between the two nations.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jan 15 2026 08:11am

just to expand on snipa's comments:

In 2014–2015, Houthi rebels, supported by Iran, seized Yemen’s capital, Sana’a, forcing President Hadi to flee to Saudi Arabia. The Houthis opposed Hadi’s government, citing corruption, marginalization, and foreign influence from Saudi Arabia. Iran provided weapons, training, and advisory support, enabling the takeover. This sparked a Saudi-led military intervention and escalated Yemen into a prolonged civil war. The event is one of the few clear examples where Iran-backed proxies directly contributed to the overthrow of a recognized government, showing Tehran’s strategy of using aligned groups to expand influence without deploying conventional forces.

--------

No one is saying Iran are the good guys. There are no good guys here, we are discussing the current events in Iran and providing background.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jan 15 2026 08:17am

100%, and Lebanon really is a better example than people recognize. While Hezbollah doesn't control Lebanon entirely, its effectively a state within a state.

and i should state Syria highlights Iranian failure. Despite their efforts to preserve the Assad govt it shows their more effective at arming insurgencies than backing state govts.

can you expand on these or will i? all i want to do here is outline what Iran has done. I want context for all sides of the debate, and i am conscious that there is alot to unpack.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jan 15 2026 08:33am

The headline was taken from Al Jazeera

Lebanon is pretty simple tbh. they armed a group to has taken over the southern part of Lebanon in order to have a rocket proxy to attack Israel. After the gaza campaign wound down Israel struck there and dispersed many of the encampments, and pressured the Lebanese govt to disarm them. Israel reports the Lebanese aren't doing their part to disarm them and has threatened to move back in.

Syria i wont even attempt, it was a dumpster fire, and still is. it dates back to Obama and even before, with Putin, Iranians, and other militant groups all involved.