Iran asks its people to delete WhatsApp from their devices

246 rdrd 314 6/17/2025, 7:12:23 PM apnews.com ↗

Comments (314)

bawolff · 39m ago
I kind of suspect this is more a desperate regime on the brink of (at least military) collapse grasping at straws.

Potentially they might be worried about anti-regime activists organizing on whatsapp and want to push people to more easily monitoriable alternatives.

If iran knew meta was doing this for a long time, then it raises the question of why they are just asking people to delete it now. One would presume that such a serious opsec issue would require immediate action.

If they just figured this out right now, its a bit hard to imagine how that happened given how disruptive the bombing campaign has been.

The timing just seems really suspicious to me.

rdrd · 8h ago
I find the wordsmithery on Meta's statement the most interesting:

“We do not track your *PRECISE* location, we don’t keep logs of who everyone is messaging and we do not track the *PERSONAL* messages people are sending one another," it added. “We do not provide *BULK* information to any government.”

Saris · 8h ago
If you read around their points, it sounds like they track general location, log group messages, and provide specific information on request to a government.
perihelions · 7h ago
Meta can also just lie about it. If they were secretly granting backdoor root access to some NSA spooks, like Microsoft did with PRISM or AT&T did with 641A, most likely no one would find out, so, there'd be zero actual downside to simply lying.
hungmung · 2h ago
Usually the three letter agencies will send you a National Security Letter. If somebody sends you a NSL you're not allowed to talk about it, which makes it very difficult to even tell if the NSL is legal or not because it's very difficult to retain legal counsel with these kinds of matters, and secret courts don't have a whole lot of accountability either.
RajT88 · 2h ago
Meta lies about all kinds of other things. No reason not to now - they seem to have paid very little penalty so far for getting caught.
mgraczyk · 2h ago
Is there any evidence Meta has ever intentionally lied about anything? Like do you have any examples?
usr1106 · 32m ago
zzzoom · 28m ago
Does web-to-app tracking through localhost on Android that is illegal under GDPR count?
jibe · 16m ago
Did they intentionally lie about it? Parent post didn't claim Meta has never broken a law.
lurk2 · 5h ago
> like Microsoft did with PRISM or AT&T did with 641A, most likely no one would find out

People did find out.

Cyph0n · 5h ago
Only because a select few people had the balls to blow the whistle.

Imagine if Snowden decided to just do his work and move on? How much longer would it have taken for these facts to be revealed to the public?

akdev1l · 4h ago
Also people found out and nothing happened?

So literally no downside to putting a backdoor and lying about it

solardev · 4h ago
Even after we found out, nobody cared...
BurningFrog · 1h ago
But we knew!
EGreg · 6h ago
mgraczyk · 2h ago
I was around for a lot of these. In none of these cases did Meta lie. They are all either fake or honest mistakes that Meta never lied about.

For the second one in particular, Meta never listened to anyone's mic. I would know, I worked on this stuff there at that time.

bdangubic · 5h ago
I will never understand how anyone in their right mind can use any product owned by Meta…
Cheer2171 · 4h ago
Because the entire rest of society has wrapped itself around Facebook, Whatsapp, and Instagram. It is easy to be a free software purist until you need to know if your child's school has a snow day. Websites and mailing lists are dead. I cannot be involved in my child's school or any of the informal social networks around the parents and teachers without using Meta's platforms. I cannot volunteer at a non-profit I care deeply about without using Meta's platforms, because that's what they have to coordinate.

Are you going to suggest to me that I should force them onto Signal and a pile of other DIY platforms? I dare you. Look a burned out parent in their bloodshot eyes first.

mousethatroared · 3h ago
No, it's because people don't care.

I have three kids. Sure it's not easy, buying used local things is basically impossible, but it's not terribly hard. You just work around it

coliveira · 1h ago
Nobody can be forced to use these apps. If you don't want, they will find some other way, I personally only respond to email.
bdangubic · 3h ago
I have same situation and:

- tell parents and teachers I can be reached at xxx-xxx-xxxx if they need anything

- absolutely never had meta-requirement to volunteer. if I did I would 100% know my time there is better spent elsewhere

I am not going to suggest you anything except to tell you that you can live a beautiful live outside of the meta-world. it is super easy

lukan · 3h ago
"I am not going to suggest you anything except to tell you that you can live a beautiful live outside of the meta-world. it is super easy"

Great it is super easy for you, but why do you think your individual experience is valid for other people (who might be thousands of km away in a very different setting)?

bdangubic · 3h ago
it may not be but I’ve also heard this excuse a million times before. and whatever the situation is meta products can be avoided. we just have a tendency to give into “hey, we have WhateverSupApp group, why don’t you just install garbage on your phone to be a member of this cool group… thanks, but no thanks :)
koakuma-chan · 2h ago
Not Meta, but I bump into IRL things that require a Google account all the time, and they won't even negotiate. Get a Google account or get out.
bdangubic · 1h ago
“thanks, I am out” is the way to reply to that situation
tokioyoyo · 4h ago
Because super vast majority of the population doesn't care. You can just look at the leaks from the last decade and its outcomes. Every company that deals with socials also know that people only care about their privacy within their own small circle. As in, they only care about privacy within their own small bubbles.
philistine · 4h ago
Imagine a small local non-profit with 5000 likes on their page. They might be trying their darnedest to improve their newsletter numbers, but they still need to be on Facebook.

Imagine that times a billion.

bdangubic · 3h ago
meta has made everyone believe that only through their platform can you grow your non-profits and whatnots. and they are obviously great at this, everyone bought that shit. you can organically grow (especially small) non-profits without fucking meta apps.
vkou · 4h ago
Easily.

The alternatives are also probably up to the same sketchy shit, so your choices are to be a hermit, or accept that your services will spy on you.

If you want to participate in society, you have to either trust a very large list of untrustworthy people... Or acknowledge that they are untrustworthy, and mitigate accordingly. Part of that mitigation is accepting the possibility that if the Mossad want to murder you by blowing up your toaster, nobody's going to stop them.

dml2135 · 2h ago
> Part of that mitigation is accepting the possibility that if the Mossad want to murder you by blowing up your toaster, nobody's going to stop them.

People are not accepting that possibility, they are assuming it will not happen to them and that they are not a target of interest.

Change that assumption and attitudes toward privacy also change.

bdangubic · 3h ago
don’t use any alternatives. I have been off social media for years now and my life and health and relationships and career and … have improved so much I cannot put it in words. even if one says “well that’s crazy, I must get my dopamine through an “app” on my phone meta is on another level of insanity to even consider infesting your life and especially your loved one’s life
theshackleford · 55m ago
Checking out of society or any number of other activities you don't feel a huge need for may work for you. You are not everyone and what works for you may not be appropriate for any other individual or group of individuals.

> I have been off social media for years now and my life and health and relationships and career and … have improved so much I cannot put it in words.

It sounds like you personally had a problem. Congratulations I suppose on solving it. However, I have no such issues. My life, health and relationships are all already where I want them to be, and are not impacted by occasional interaction with others through technology as luckily, I have had no such struggles with self control or moderation.

My relationships would be impacted on the other hand if I was to throw a big toddler tantrum about using whatsapp for two weeks whilst i'm overseas with my employer and twenty other people. So i'm probably not going to do that.

vkou · 3h ago
Sure, I can also avoid putting chemicals on my body by washing my hair with apple cider vinegar and baking soda, and I can also churn my own butter by hand, and if mom wants to hear from me, she can cross an international border and drive for five hours, with her travels being logged by countless security and traffic cameras, gas station payment processors, and no less than two governments, so that she can converse with me in person in my RF-shielded, copper-lined[1] Faraday-cage basement.

There's social media use and there's social media use. Hacker News, Reddit, Facebook, Instagram, Whatsapp, EMail, and my phone's SMS systems all serve dramatically different purposes, and all of them are a varied mix of pros and cons and risks.

---

[1] Any Arcanist worth his salt knows that copper has no name, and thus cannot be turned against you.

dh2022 · 2h ago
Hyperbole much? The only social network I use is HN. As a matter of fact last week I was chaperoning a middle school parade. The other chaperones wanted to make a WhatsApp chat group t0 keep in touch during the parade - which I rejected as a matter of principle; so we did a phone chat group. I do not wash my hair with vinegar or do any of the other nonsense you mentioned.
bdangubic · 3h ago
this is too funny how you mind believes social media is “advancement in society” of any kind… don’t blame you though, you are with the majority (and you know what they say when you are… :) )
vkou · 2h ago
I believe nothing of the sort about social (or mass) media.

I do, however, believe that you aren't engaging with what I'm saying, or recognizing some very obvious logical holes in your arguments. Your argument seems to be one of dogma, not one of reason.

bdangubic · 2h ago
huh? let me quote one of the commenters here and see if you recognize the words

Sure, I can also avoid putting chemicals on my body by washing my hair with apple cider vinegar and baking soda, and I can also churn my own butter by hand…

vkou · 2h ago
Could you read the rest of the words in that post?

There are a lot more of them, and they are kind of integral to its meaning.

bdangubic · 2h ago
c’mon mate, the first sentence is the most important sentence to reel me in :)

jokes aside, I did read your entire post and I don’t disagree with a single word you wrote. I still don’t understand why anyone in their right mind would install a Meta-owned application on their PHONE. Lots of people overall and number on this thread go with “hey, the GOVERNMENT is already spying on you so why don’t I also let one of the most evil corporations in the history of mankind access to all my everything too… I don’t expect privacy in general, it is 2025 after all and we are talking on HN but these silly “plate reader excuses” are really too much… like saying “well the government can obviously break into my home whenever they want (in 2025 without a warrant as well) so why don’t I leave the door wide open, if government can enter why would I care if someone else does :)

x0x0 · 4h ago
Signal lagged so far in polish and features that getting friends and family to use it was doa. So I can choose to communicate with friends and family on the apps they use, or I make it very difficult for them to communicate with me.

That ends with them mostly not communicating with me, not with them switching apps.

bdangubic · 3h ago
don’t your friends and family have phone numbers? I have right now 12 active groups on my text messages. why on earth do you need “app”??! I am lost …
x0x0 · 2h ago
Group messaging via sms is terrible. So is photo sharing.
bdangubic · 2h ago
all these are easy excuses… you are here on HN, probably some dope SWE doing amazing shit, I am sure you are more than capable of solving any “picture sharing” problem that is an issue with SMS.
x0x0 · 2h ago
I am not capable of solving shitty downscaled image sharing; flakiness with mms message receipt (esp photos) both on tmobile and verizon; and even worse downscaled video sharing. Because those cannot be addressed by anyone but the telcos.

Nor the inability to add people to groups. sms doesn't have groups; it has pools of numbers. And it works terribly when, eg, one of you is traveling or living outside the US.

brewdad · 46m ago
You send the photo via mms. When there's that one great shot you really want to save, ask them to email it to you. This isn't nearly as hard as you make it out to be.
bdangubic · 2h ago
really? what are you missing, emojis by Kim Kardashian for $19.99 per month?
vkou · 3h ago
You're using a telephone to call and message people?

If you think that your phone provider isn't spying on you, I would like to cut you into an incredible, once-in-a-lifetime investment opportunity in some Louisiana waterfront property.

All I need is your phone number, mother's maiden name, ...

bdangubic · 2h ago
sure, NSA might be :) but not Meta…
x0x0 · 2h ago
And China. And likely lots of other nations.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/chinese-hackers-stole-...

bdangubic · 2h ago
got no problems with China, their entire existence is not predicated on selling shit to people and fucking with our youth.
mywrathacademia · 2h ago
Signal can’t be trusted
bdangubic · 2h ago
I agree, I think you should just go with tried&true trusted apps made by guy who could not get laid in high school and is trying to compensate for that by fucking with you and all your loved ones that install his shitware on their phones :)
imchillyb · 2h ago
It’s not lying if a corporation strictly follows the dictates of a national security letter.
chrismorgan · 1h ago
“They told me to lie” does not make it any less a lie.
bboygravity · 7h ago
"'specific information request to government" == fully automated requests for literally everything all the time.
changoplatanero · 8h ago
I think group messages would still be considered personal. It would only be messages you send to a business or in a group with a business that wouldn't be personal.
cess11 · 8h ago
They're under the CLOUD Act, doesn't matter what their policies say.
chgs · 8h ago
Aren’t groups end-end encrypted still, with key exchange on joining groups?
femto · 6h ago
Does the WhatsApp program generate and store/mange the private keys? If so, it would be possible for the program to send private keys on request, effectively backdooring the endpoint. Such an arrangement would allow Meta to put its hand on it heart and truthfully say it is end-to-end encrypted (on the network), whilst still providing a way around it.
lxgr · 4h ago
Yes, but users can compare fingerprints (sure, most probably don't, but it's definitely a deterrence against MITMing all conversations by default), receive warnings whenever fingerprints change etc.

There's also supposedly a key transparency service deployed (similar to Certificate Transparency), but I haven't looked into that in detail.

BenjiWiebe · 3h ago
Sharing private keys gets around all that.
lxgr · 3h ago
That would require explicit code to do so, which would probably be extremely hard to explain away.
gkbrk · 28m ago
Are people publicly archiving, reverse engineering, and auditing every single version of Whatsapp?

Would you even know if you got a special copy of Whatsapp (still signed by Meta and valid) that has this explicit code?

orthecreedence · 8h ago
PRISM too.
mgraczyk · 8h ago
And they are legally required to do this in most places
luis8 · 6h ago
I don't know why you are being downvoted.

https://transparency.meta.com/reports/government-data-reques...

They can't see your messages but then can give ips or accounts that can be inferred to be related given the info meta has access to

selcuka · 5h ago
Also take the "can't see your messages" statement with a grain of salt. Like the famous Lotus Notes backdoor [1] they might have given the government an easy(ier) way to decrypt those messages.

The backdoor in Lotus Notes (differential cryptography) wasn't a secret. It was public information. Ray Ozzie used it as a way to circumvent US encryption export laws. Today companies have to be more discrete.

[1] http://www.cypherspace.org/adam/hacks/lotus-nsa-key.html

sudahtigabulan · 1h ago
De Morgan's transformations come in handy here :^)
bawolff · 52m ago
I mean, i would be pretty shocked if meta refused to honour american search warrants/NSL.

The real question is where they draw the line, not if they do it ever.

gnarlouse · 4h ago
Yep. Learning to read legal is an invaluable modern skill.
1oooqooq · 2h ago
it's well know they track

group messages and messages (metadata),

messages to business accounts (these they can read in full as the client send to a meta owned private key),

and who forwards media to who (deduplication and cdn)

and links (thanks to previews)

and it scans and uploads your contact list in full all the time.

advisedwang · 1h ago
It's not that nefarious.

> We do not track your PRECISE location

If they log IP addresses, they can't say they don't log location at all.

> we don’t keep logs of who everyone is messaging

Seems like a pretty strong claim

> we do not track the PERSONAL messages people are sending one another

I don't know much about their business offering, but it seems likely it's not e2e encrypted or has some kind of escrow. Businesses often multiple people to be able to access an account and that is best done without e2e encryption... let alone auditing requirements.

> We do not provide BULK information to any government

Because they are subject to subpoena and search warrants. They are legally required to provided tailored information to governments.

====

All in all it's pretty much what you'd expect for Whatsapp's "e2e but otherwise conventional saas" approach. If you want better, use signal.

beejiu · 6h ago
Re: "we don’t keep logs of who everyone is messaging"

From https://faq.whatsapp.com/444002211197967/?locale=en_US:

> In the ordinary course of providing our service, WhatsApp does not store messages once they are delivered or transaction logs of such delivered messages. Undelivered messages are deleted from our servers after 30 days. As stated in the WhatsApp Privacy Policy, we may collect, use, preserve, and share user information if we have a good-faith belief that it is reasonably necessary to (a) keep our users safe, (b) detect, investigate, and prevent illegal activity, (c) respond to legal process, or to government requests, (d) enforce our Terms and policies. This may include information about how some users interact with others on our service. We also offer end-to-end encryption for our services, which is always activated. End-to-end encryption means that messages are encrypted to protect against WhatsApp and third parties from reading them. Additional information about WhatsApp's security can be found here.

Note specifically "information about how some users interact with others on our service", which contradicts their claim they don't keep logs of which people are messaging each other.

cibyr · 5h ago
I think rdrd just missed that piece of the fine wordsmithing - so long as there's at least one person not included in that "some users", then "we don’t keep logs of who EVERYONE is messaging" is still true.
zug_zug · 4h ago
This is just a lie. I personally know somebody who worked at meta and they had a whole set of teams dedicated to building tools for governments to mass-export data based on their queries

Now I don't know the exact details of which governments had which access (was it just for warrants, which nations, what was the line between actual terrorist versus persecuting journalists), but there was absolutely bulk export and the fact that they are lying about it makes me inclined to presume the worst.

dotBen · 3h ago
Remember Snowden outlined the Google<>US government interface:

The US agency would type in the gmail address of the subject (ie the primary key/identifier) and somewhere between the agency and Google a decision would be automatically made as to whether the owner of the account was a US person* or not.

If yes - FISA warrant was required

If no - the US agency user would have immediate access to the entire google account (think Google Take Out).

In other words, if you were not a US person there was no duty to protect data.

* = US Person is either a US citizen located anywhere in the world or anyone of any nationality who is physically in the US (current interpretation includes visa holders, visitors and even undocumented but that's shifting)

vineyardmike · 28m ago
> building tools for governments to mass-export data based on their queries

While I can totally imagine that governments would mass-export data, and I don’t doubt your friends claim, I can also imagine more innocent interpretation of this work.

I once worked on a large company’s GDPR data-export project. It was a large enough company that it also had a dedicated team to handle legal requests regularly from government(s). GDPR exporting needs to work “at scale” for all accounts, without human-in-the-loop work, and without causing any load issues to running services. The same system also handled legal requests, where the legal team could get an export for a user (almost) identically to the process of a user getting their own data. The legal team had tools set up to work with warrants, subpoenas and similar (internationally) legal data requests from courts and law enforcement. It looks like a “mass export” system, because it was, but it wasn’t used in “bulk requests” from the legal system.

paradox242 · 2h ago
Isn't it more likely that Meta has been infiltrated by Mossad, just as they no doubt have by other intelligence services and they use these insiders to exfiltrate location data on specific targets?
smolder · 11m ago
Yes, it's lying with a tiny bit of plausible deniability.
glenstein · 3h ago
It's like the game where you say the same sentence but emphasize a different word each time.

"WE don’t keep logs of who everyone is messaging..."

"We don't KEEP logs of everyone who is messaging..."

"We don't keep logs of EVERYONE who is messaging..."

Etc.

SoftTalker · 4h ago
This is the company that built a secret localhost listener on Android so that they could track users across websites even in private mode. Do not believe this for a second.

I'm much more inclined to believe they track everything in high precision and also MITM all the messages. Especially now that they are inserting ads.

jen729w · 4h ago
> Especially now that they are inserting ads.

I'm no apologist for Facebook, none of whose services I use. But get your facts straight. They are not 'inserting ads' in your chats, as you imply. AFAIK they are adding adds to the never-used 'Updates' tab.

Annoying from an ad perspective, no doubt. Vastly different from a are-they-MITMing-your-messages perspective.

SoftTalker · 4h ago
Thanks for clarifying. I don't use any Meta stuff so I only read about it.
NitpickLawyer · 8h ago
They don't need meta's cooperation for this, they can burn one of their 0-click 0-day exploits and target everyone they need to.
edm0nd · 8h ago
Additionally the NSA has all Meta and WhatsApp servers directly tapped and can just harvest data, oops i mean 'meta data', that way. Then just pass that info to Israel when their internal systems get an alert on good intel.
lowwave · 8h ago
> Then just pass that info to Israel when their internal systems get an alert on good intel.

And on top of that if you want make any money with company like X, you need to send your biometrics to some company in Israel. What is this Israel and surveillance capitalism? Or has this always being the case, and I am just now start to realizing it.

ALLTaken · 8h ago
Wow that is next level WORD SMITHERY!!

Zuck dribbled and 3D Chessed the Law

META DATA. Literally they did say truthfully they "only" read all the Meta Data, which is actually all data of the company Meta.

ben_w · 6h ago
> Zuck dribbled and 3D Chessed the Law

Mixed metaphors aside, you can't cheat the law by naming yourself something.

Well, you can try, but the courts take a dim view of it.

pcthrowaway · 4h ago
> > Zuck dribbled and 3D Chessed the Law

> Mixed metaphors aside

Zapp hit that bullseye, causing the rest of the dominoes to fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.

dataflow · 6h ago
Aren't push notifications logged and used for getting people's data? This was in the news over a year ago: https://www.wired.com/story/apple-google-push-notification-s...
eddythompson80 · 4h ago
In general, all your personal information stored with Google or Apple or any other American company is subject to getting requested by a court order. If you listen to any of the True Crime podcasts, you'll always hear how google searches and cell tower location are always presented in a trial as evidence. People here always think they are so smart saying

> Actualllly you can't prove that it was me who made that search query.

> Actualllly you can't prove that it was me who had that cellphone around that cell tower. Could have been anybody. I could have been hacked.

Judges always allow those evidence and jury always views it as incriminating. What makes more sense, that some unknown hacker hacked into your account and googled something about the thing you're here for, or that you actually just googled it yourself?

brewdad · 41m ago
I was on a jury where data like this harvested from Facebook pushed us beyond a reasonable doubt. There was just enough doubt to acquit or have a hung jury with only the physical evidence and eye witnesses. There was plenty of doubt with only the social media stuff. When you put all of it together, we reached a verdict pretty quickly.
tehjoker · 2h ago
When a CIA drone operator and their commander is behind the button, they give even less of a shit than a jury. No one will ever prosecute them.
lxgr · 3h ago
Definitely, but they don't have to contain any (plaintext) message content for encrypted messengers.

On Android, push notifications were always processed by the receiving app, so it can just decrypt a payload directly (or download new messages from the server and decrypt these); on iOS, this isn't as reliable (e.g. swiping the app out of the app switcher used to break it in several iOS versions), but "VoIP notifications" and the newer "message decryption extension" [1] are.

The same principle applies to Web Push – I believe end-to-end encryption is even mandatory there.

[1] https://developer.apple.com/documentation/usernotifications/...

ben_w · 6h ago
> we don’t keep logs of who everyone is messaging

Surely they must, how else are the messages… you know… available when you use the app?

d0gsg0w00f · 5h ago
IME, they're stored on device only. If you've ever moved phones this becomes painfully obvious unless you've setup backups to your personal Google Drive (native integration with app).
abeppu · 6h ago
I'm not saying I believe their statement, but in principle they could be storing messages indexed by recipient and have the sender id be part of the encrypted content? Then you can drop messages in each user's inbox as they arrive, from which the user's app can read, but not have stored enough information to retroactively query "Show me everyone Alice has talked to"?
dash2 · 8h ago
This, also “logs of who EVERYONE is messaging”
imjonse · 7h ago
"we don’t keep logs of who EVERYONE is messaging"

just selected people then?

beejiu · 6h ago
Yep, they confirm it here: https://faq.whatsapp.com/444002211197967/?locale=en_US

"This may include information about how some users interact with others on our service."

netsharc · 7h ago
"We don't log whom Zuck is messaging, and therefore the statement 'we don't keep logs of who[m] everyone is messaging' is mathematically true!"
FpUser · 2h ago
Why would anyone care what they say. Judging by their previous behavior it is safe to say that if their lips are moving - they're lying
cosmicgadget · 6h ago
"We" don't but these other guys with logins do.
msgodel · 8h ago
I wonder if the people of Iraq have an intuitive understanding of just how much more useful the information Facebook does track is like we do.
blintz · 3h ago
This isn’t some conspiracy, it’s just CYA. They know your general location from your IP and device APIs, they don’t encrypt business messaging, and they comply with subpoenas.
smolder · 13m ago
But don't delete signal because you might get invited to an inner circle war strategy conversation.
lxgr · 4h ago
Lots of largely baseless speculation here about WhatsApp MITMing end-to-end encrypted chats and other hypotheticals, when the most likely government access path is right there in the open:

WhatsApp heavily nudges users into backing up their chats to iCloud or Google Drive. These backups are, by default, unencrypted (or at least encrypted using a key known to Meta). And most users just use the defaults.

It's exactly the same story with iMessage: If "iCloud Backup" and "iMessage in the cloud" are activated (again, Apple nudges users into these by default), all received messages get uploaded to Apple using a key available to Apple, unless "Advanced Data Protection" is also enabled (decidedly not the default).

Users can deviate from these defaults (and both parties to a conversation need to, for the conversation to actually be private!), but they can already also just use Signal if sufficiently motivated.

pier25 · 6h ago
Israel doesn't even need Whatsapp to be installed.

The IDF's Unit 8200[1] can probably hack most phones in Iran. And if not any of the private companies selling spyware software like the NSO Group[2 and 3].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_8200

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSO_Group

[3] https://mepc.org/commentaries/israeli-cyber-companies-overvi...

monero-xmr · 6h ago
I had a coworker from Iran and he said every single computer just runs the same cracked Windows XP version translated into Farsi. Easy to exploit
pier25 · 6h ago
No wonder they got into Natanz with stuxnet.

I recommend the documentary Zero Days from 2016 to anyone remotely interested on this.

anonnon · 6h ago
> No wonder they got into Natanz with stuxnet.

While the PCs used to program the PLCs were running XP, the 0-day that Stuxnet exploited affected all versions of Windows, at least from 2000 onwards, including 2008 and Vista.

EDIT: to clarify, the PCs "programmed" the PLCs indirectly, in that while they ran the Siemans STEP 7 IDE to design the centrifuges' control process, the resulting PLC programs were manually transported to the PLCs via USB devices, so there were two airgaps: the XP-running PCs airgapped from the outside world, and then another airgap between the PCs and the PLCs they programmed.

yuvalr1 · 8h ago
I'm surprised reading that the Iranian's regime concerns are centered on WhatsApp sharing information with Israel. It is much more likely that WhatsApp have 0-day vulnerabilities used by the Mossad to gain the info than WhatsApp actively sharing it.
yuvalr1 · 8h ago
> Iran banned WhatsApp and Google Play in 2022 during mass protests against the government

So more than fearing Israel, they actually fear the public that has an encrypted communication channel that can't be tapped by their police. Explains a lot.

No comments yet

jonplackett · 8h ago
They are probably concerned it would be the platform of choice to communicate during a revolution that Israel is outspokenly trying to foment.
grafmax · 4h ago
So that’s what bombing residential neighborhoods is supposed to do. “Overthrow your leaders or we’ll keep bombing you.” The Israeli state is completing the final stages of the Gaza genocide. So the unbounded cynicism in its treatment of Iran should be no surprise.
jekwoooooe · 1h ago
There is no genocide going on. Stop reading nonsense on Reddit and speak to people who are actually living in Israel dealing with the threat of walking into a bus and getting exploded… again.
spaceribs · 1h ago
Yeah! Get your head out of the gutter grafmax! Starving an entire population is totally if not morally equivalent to feeling nominally threatened.
archagon · 12m ago
What about the threat of getting blown up by a tank while waiting in an aid line? https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-tank-shell...
anticodon · 8h ago
Russian soldiers participating in SMO reported multiple times that after they exchange texts and photos with their relatives in WhatsApp, that information ends up in Ukrainian military HQs next day. With photos. And later used, for example, to harass the relatives of the soldier.

Could be some other mechanism (e.g. Google Drive or some other kind of malware), hard to be sure in the world, where since 2011 Snowden's revelations, bugs are placed my NSA and CIA everywhere, starting from hardware and firmware.

MoonGhost · 7h ago
> Could be some other mechanism

if it was it would be true for telegram as well.

luckylion · 6h ago
Russian soldiers chatting with their family know what precisely happens in the Ukrainian military HQ the next day? That sounds too crazy to be even remotely true, and too convenient a story ("they are harassing your family, go murder someone").
mousethatroared · 2h ago
The Ukrainians had a unit that would call soldiers families and harass them.

This was back at the start of the war. Now this bullshit mind trick employs too much cannon meat best allocated on the front.

bartekpacia · 6h ago
> Russian soldiers participating in SMO

Russian soldiers participating in the invasion of Ukraine. FTFY.

Zaylan · 1h ago
I’m not sure if Iran’s claim is true, but honestly, I’ve always felt uneasy about what these apps actually log. End-to-end encryption is great, but it doesn’t protect metadata.

The real issue is that we’re still guessing. Does anyone actually feel confident about any of this?

BLKNSLVR · 1h ago
Nope. If Meta is involved they're getting their beak wet in as many ways as they can. Promoting the fact that WhatsApp has "end to end encryption" may be true, but that just means all the other good, privacy promoting, consumer-oriented things they could also be doing: they're not doing.
bravoetch · 8h ago
Anyone in Iran that can comment on this? What are citizens there thinking about WhatsApp?
hexomancer · 8h ago
Iranian here. Most Iranians use Telegram or Whatsapp, both of which are blocked right now and can only be used using VPNs (they have been blocked for years, though whatsapp was unblocked a few months ago, but it is blocked again after the Israel attack). I don't think many Iranians believe, or care about what the regime says, though there is a small minority of regime supporters that might, but they probably were not using whatsapp to begin with.

Though I must say, the regime itself seems to really believe this, for example there was some news that high-ranking officials are now banned from using electronic devices that connect to the internet like mobile phones.

dash2 · 8h ago
Do you think it’s likely the regime will fall?
hexomancer · 8h ago
I have no idea but I sure hope so.
MoonGhost · 7h ago
Will this result in bloody civil war like in Iraq and minimal dysfunctional central government after?
swat535 · 6h ago
I’m another Iranian but I’m not actively living in Iran.

I agree with others here that regime really needs to go but I of course share your fear of what could happen to Iran once the central government is weakened. Currently there are multiple tiers of special forces keeepinf various groups in check, however once this is gone, things could get ugly.

I worry about my family living there, we have been having a hard time time reaching there since the attacks started and there is no way of telling what is going to happen next.

whatshisface · 6h ago
You may know more about this than I do, but what happened in Iraq was that the first military governor held together the same people who were under Saddam in a semi-stable arrangement, but was replaced with someone else that had instructions from Washington to conduct "De-Ba'athification," for some reason. This lead quickly to the collapse of the state due to the persecution of everyone who had any authority, and the replacement of Iraqi systems with military administration at all levels down to the villages as far as it could be maintained, which created the ten year war.

I do not think it would be to the benefit of people who live in Iran, even if they were Christian, to live through the bombings and mass destruction of the proposed war in exchange for life under US territorial administration, which has not been very good historically.

FridayoLeary · 3h ago
i don't get that. Saddam Hussain was a genocidal, fascist lunatic. The world is certainly a better place with him gone. Even if America didn't handle the subsequent occupation too well, i would argue (and you are free to disagree) that Iraq was still better off.

But an American occupation isn't even on the table. Nobody is interested in that. The most anyone wants at the moment is for the US to drop a MOAB on fordo and mop up the rest of Irans military from the air.

shihab · 1h ago
opinion like this can only come from someone who have lived a life of privilege, thousands mils away from systematic violence or hunger someone in a war torn country constantly have to face.

For an average individual going about their day, lack of political freedom is a 100x better option than lack of food or security that Iraq (or Libya or Afghanistan) went through.

worik · 3h ago
> Saddam Hussain was a genocidal, fascist lunatic.

Yes.

> The world is certainly a better place with him gone. Even if America didn't handle the subsequent occupation too well, i would argue (and you are free to disagree) that Iraq was still better off.

That is mad talk. Things have been much worse, so much worse for almost everyone in and around Iraq since that war.

ISIS for one thing, was a direct result of the perfidious actions of foreigners in Iraq.

So much chaos was created, there is no way the invasion of Iraq improved the world

FridayoLeary · 2h ago
It's like saying that russia is worse off after the collapse of communism and attributing that to capitalism.
hexomancer · 7h ago
What’s the alternative? Live under the delusional islamic theocratic dictatorship forever? If you think the islamic republic can be replaced through peaceful protests you have another thing coming, they have already killed thousands of protestors and they have no problem killing because they actually believe they are doing god’s work and the protestors are infidels that deserve to die.

I take my chances for a probable dysfunctional government rather than a definitely dysfunctional one.

MoonGhost · 6h ago
If ayatollah gets nuke regime becomes forever like in North Korea. And Israel may suffer first because nuke strike is the only chance for Iran right now. Hope they don't have it and ayatollah goes to Moscow.
pcthrowaway · 4h ago
The thing about nukes is that they're completely useless at defending against an internal revolution
exolymph · 7h ago
Best of luck to you, sir. Thank you for sharing your perspective.
cced · 3h ago
I didn't know we were short of examples of what happens when regime-change operations are conducted or when governments get toppled.

You don't need to guess as to what happens; there are examples.

FpUser · 2h ago
>"I take my chances for a probable dysfunctional government rather than a definitely dysfunctional one."

I hear tickets to Libya are cheap lately. You can visit and compare.

quickthrowman · 7h ago
I’m hopeful for the Iranian people, thanks for your perspective.
scythe · 1h ago
I would expect that the end of the current Iranian regime brings about a heavily military-influenced fake democracy that structurally resembles the current government of Pakistan.

The clerics are a paper tiger. Their domestic support base has been almost fully eroded. The Islamic Revolution had proclaimed the hijab as a cause célèbre; today, Iranians generally ignore it when the government isn't looking, after decades of protest and suppression.

But the Iranian military controls a vast amount of the country's economy (by comparison to normal countries) and retains popular support as an opponent of the West. It won't go quietly, and Israel lacks the resources and the United States lacks the will to dismantle it, which anyway would be a Herculean undertaking and cost millions of innocent lives. Military dictatorships are usually pragmatic on social issues, economically protectionist, and politically repressive — making the hypothetical new Iran look more like China's ideal ally than America's.

The most likely vector of regime change is a military coup that produces a government which sues for peace. They may agree to dismantle the nuclear program, but there will be a sense of "for now", and they will cultivate alliances with an eye to protection from the West. We may then see real nuclear weapons in Iran, but with red flags and yellow stars on them, instead of the imaginary nuclear weapons that were invented to keep Bibi out of prison.

pphysch · 7h ago
That's sadly the goal
nine_k · 7h ago
I suppose you're a city dweller. Do people in more rural areas share this sentiment?
SSLy · 7h ago
the diaspora seems to overwhelmingly do so, at least.
nine_k · 6h ago
The diaspora is a very self-filtered subset though. Say, the Russian diaspora overwhelmingly opposes the Russia's aggression in Ukraine, while the population within Russia is mostly indifferent enough, and often supports it. (Note that all the Russian troops in Ukraine are not taken by military draft, but went to war voluntarily, for a generous fee, or in exchange for release from prison.)
Macha · 6h ago
Did they release the conscripts from 2023? Or are you assuming they've all died by now?

It's true that new soldiers are not conscripts, but I'd assume there's still some survivors from the earlier mobilisation and as far as I know once you're in, you're in, until death, incapacity or the war ending.

axus · 2h ago
No this contradicts other stories about them committing crimes after returning from military service.

https://archive.ph/KwGgv

tguvot · 5h ago
as this is not war, conscripts aren't supposed to be sent to battle (there were a few cases when it did happen).

but what happens, it's that conscripts are convinced/forced to sign contracts to serve in army, and in this they are sent to face ukrainian drones.

those that were mobilized, iirc not released.

tguvot · 7h ago
in discussion next door (got flagged) people are claiming that Iran is peace seeking nation that has amazing relationship with it's neighbors and that it amazingly geopolitically positioned and that USA should team up with current Iranian regime and dump Israel.

What's your take on it ?

No comments yet

cess11 · 8h ago
I don't know but they have local alternatives, the iranians have a bridge protocol that federates several services:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Message_Exchange_Bus

demarq · 8h ago
I’m guessing there’s no encryption?
cess11 · 8h ago
If you want actual security, don't use a phone and run your own server, likely Matrix.
yuvalr1 · 8h ago
Security strength is not a binary measure, there are many levels of security between "no encryption at all" to "run your own server".
MoonGhost · 7h ago
Or endnode in Tor. Not sure it's secure enough against US which operates it.
throw123xz · 3h ago
I mean, from a security point of view, those related to the government should use something they control. This goes for all countries.

For the population in general though and in special those who don't like the people in charge of the country, WhatsApp is a great tool. I have to worry about WhatsApp and Meta as I'm in the "west", but there's no chance in hell Meta's going to provide data on any user to the Iranian government... it's a good option for Iranians.

CommanderData · 7h ago
There's good reason to believe lots of western apps have back doors, if not backdoors served to countries like Iran from app stores.

Also car tech and cameras. Literally a wet dream if I worked at a three letter agency, real time surveillance of streets which is actually extremely difficult normally. Can't think of how many times I've wanted a recent picture of a street or house miles away, with 360 car cameras you can track people, see changes maybe from just minutes ago.

I don't know why these countries don't block or mandate these features are completely turned off.

bevr1337 · 7h ago
> There's good reason to believe lots of western apps have back doors

A common sentiment in this thread. My gut and practical experience both tell me this is true on some level, but how do folks distinguish tinfoil hat conspiracy from legitimate speculation?

mousethatroared · 2h ago
Because it'd be gross negligence for a security agency not to collect this information?

I mean, nothing Snowden revealed was shocking to anyone in IT at the time. He just brought receipts.

CommanderData · 7h ago
Probably because it's fairly difficult to detect. I doubt the code imports backdoor.dll.

The UK now has laws to gag domestic companies and force them to implement backdoors.

mousethatroared · 2h ago
And Australia has a law forcing its citizens, around the world, to code in backdoors.
BLKNSLVR · 1h ago
The fact that both parties were on the same side of this argument just sickens me. Same with metadata retention.

I vote thusly.

v5v3 · 6h ago
Did you read all the Snowden files?

The NSA, and it's partners, capabilities and the lengths it is willing to go to are staggering.

krapp · 7h ago
>but how do folks distinguish tinfoil hat conspiracy from legitimate speculation?

Plausibility and evidence, for which there's plenty in this case.

Although it seems less likely to me that Western apps have backdoors and more likely that Western law enforcement and intelligence have free access to the data, but it's probably both.

bevr1337 · 7h ago
> more likely that Western law enforcement and intelligence have free access to the data

This I have firsthand experience with and agree. Why invest effort when agencies can simply take what they want?

ppnpm · 2h ago
I wish that to happen to everybody
mupuff1234 · 7h ago
I'd like to think that it's because WhatsApp is adding ads.
rasz · 4h ago
9 out of 10 dentists recommend overthrowing your oppressive regime.
Jotalea · 8h ago
There's another country that asked its people to delete WhatsApp from their devices too. That's right, I'm talking about Venezuela, the country led by Nicolás Maduro, a dictator. This immediately raised red flags for me.
sergiomattei · 7h ago
Iran being an authoritarian regime is not new.
platevoltage · 6h ago
Maybe Mark should just open up his pocketbook for Maduro and the Iatola like he did for Trump.
Lordarminius · 8h ago
All the major social media and messaging platforms are compromised and serve as tools for surveillance, so the Iranian government isn't wrong.
mkoubaa · 8h ago
Not wrong, but Meta in particular is uniquely compliant to the wishes of state actors.
ty6853 · 8h ago
Iraq and Gaza was an absolute joke compared to what it would take to topple the Iranian militants, militias, and government.

Much of the terrain is similar to Afghanistan. Tribal islamic alliances are resilient against loss of central governance. There is a massive porous mountainous border to 2+ countries that conceivably will look the other way for certain islamic militants.

I know everyone wants to gobble down the campaign about complete air superiority and toppling of leaders, and that WhatsApp may be separating the regime from 52 virgins, but realize this is a propaganda campaign. This initial propaganda only serves to manufacture consent long enough to buy citizens in to blood so they can't back out. We're in the process of being tricked.

Buttons840 · 8h ago
Iran has their terrorist group proxies throughout the region. I think there's some truth to this, although the actions of some truly rogue terrorist groups probably get blamed on Iran because it's been the zeitgeist for a few decades to find reasons to attack Iran.

Whatever the case, the current Iran regime hasn't given nuclear material, chemical weapons, or biological weapons to these terror groups.

If the current Iran regime is eliminated from afar, with some fly-by bombings or whatever, what happens in the chaos that follows? Nuclear material and other weapons do not poof out of existance when the government that created them falls. Which group will control the nuclear material going forward? Roll the dice to find out.

FridayoLeary · 3h ago
America and Friends. And by that i include russia and china, because even they care about other countries not having nukes. If/when the regime falls nobody will be able to stop them. Just look at Syria.
mousethatroared · 2h ago
And it's larger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Both in population and surface area
seydor · 8h ago
Tribal?
mousethatroared · 2h ago
About 10-20% of the population.
fakedang · 8h ago
LoL exactly what I thought. Persians are extremely proud of being NOT tribal, unlike their Azeri, Afghani, Turkmeni or Tajik neighbours. Most Persians consider themselves proud inheritors of the Achaemenid and Sassanid Empires.
Aloisius · 7h ago
There are in fact tribes of Turkmen, Shahsevan, Lurs, Qashqai and various Kurds in Iran.

No comments yet

JumpCrisscross · 8h ago
> Iraq and Gaza was an absolute joke compared to what it would take to topple the Iranian militants, militias, and government

It wouldn't be a cake walk. But America could topple the government in Tehran about as easily as it did in Baghdad or, frankly, Kabul. The problem in Iraq and Afghanistan wasn't a failure to decapitate the opposing state. It was in filling the vacuum that left.

msgodel · 8h ago
Why are we toppling all these foreign governments and creating instability that breads terrorism in places that otherwise have nothing to do with us?

This seems so exceptionally counter productive.

gspencley · 8h ago
> Why are we toppling all these foreign governments

I don't want to speak to the other foreign governments, and I think there is a LOT of room for healthy criticism of how the USA handles its foreign policy, past & present.

But to answer the question directly with respects to Iran, specifically: the leadership has been repeatedly chanting "Death To America" for its 45 year history and have been actively trying to develop a nuclear weapon program. It calls Israel the "Little Satan" and America the "Big Satan." A mantra often repeated: "First we come for the Saturday people, then we go for the Sunday people."

Say what you want about the USA. I'll be the first to join you in criticism of many of it's foreign policy actions, including the 1953 CIA-backed Iranian coup that arguably led to the Islamic revolution in 1979 and got us the Iran we have today. And if people want to express concern for what evils could fill the vacuum if the current regime falls... fair.

But I'm certainly not going to blame any free country for responding to an enemy state vowing to destroy it while actively trying to develop the means to do so. If there is ever any moral justification for going to war - that's it. It's defensive. That's arguably the only justification for going to war.

Feel free to disagree with me about the threat that Iran poses to the western world. Maybe it's all propaganda and overstated. You're welcome to that theory. But this is the answer to the question: "Why should the USA get involved?"

Buttons840 · 8h ago
> have been actively trying to develop a nuclear weapon program

The US Director of National Intelligence testified to congress a few weeks ago that no US intelligence agency believes that Iran is developing a nuclear bomb, and that they believed Iran was at least 3 years away from having the ability to build a nuclear bomb even if they tried.

What you are saying directly contradicts what US intelligence agencies have said.

A couple sources: https://jewishinsider.com/2025/03/gabbard-iran-is-not-curren... https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-iran-nuclear-weapon-2...

dttze · 7h ago
Not to mention the Ayatollah has had a long standing fatwa against the procurement of nuclear weapons.
alephnerd · 5h ago
> US Director of National Intelligence

The US Director of National Intelligence (Tulsi Gabbard) has a very public history of backing Assad and Iran during the Syrian Civil War, and any mention of the DNI without mentioning it's currently Tulsi Gabbard is clearly a bad faith discussion.

Buttons840 · 5h ago
Is there a better representative of the US intelligence agencies than the Director of National Intelligence? Maybe a true Scotsman?
alephnerd · 4h ago
At this moment no. Most administrative and strategy positions for Intel and Foreign Service seats have remained unconfirmed. Maybe the head of the CIA - John Ratcliffe, an avowed Iran+China Hawk - but this administration is hard to read given how disjointed and domestic-driven decisionmaking is.

Furthermore, the DNI is at the lowest rung of the intel hierarchy on the Hill, as it is a post-9/11 invention, and faces inter-service competition from the CIA, FBI, and NSA.

dragonwriter · 4h ago
> Furthermore, the DNI is at the lowest rung of the intel hierarchy on the Hill, as it is a post-9/11 invention, and faces inter-service competition from the CIA, FBI, and NSA.

The DNI is by law [0] the head of the intelligence community; the role was created to separate that function from the CIA Director (formerly, "Director of Central Intelligence"), who previously was the head of the intelligence community as well as the head of one of the major constituent agencies within that community. The CIA, FBI, and NSA or components of the intelligence community, not "competitors" with the DNI.

(And all of those are executive branch positions, so not in any hierarchy "on the Hill", which is a metonym for the Legislative branch because of the location of the Capitol complex on Capitol hill.)

[0] 50 U.S. Code § 3023(b)(1) Subject to the authority, direction, and control of the President, the Director of National Intelligence shall— (1) serve as head of the intelligence community; (2) act as the principal adviser to the President, to the National Security Council, and the Homeland Security Council for intelligence matters related to the national security; and (3) consistent with section 1018 of the National Security Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, oversee and direct the implementation of the National Intelligence Program. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3023

alephnerd · 4h ago
By law sure, but in action the DNI has little-to-no staffing, and the heads of the other agencies are represented in the NSC and JCS, so the DNI tends to be an afterthought.

> which is a metonym for the Legislative branch because of the location of the Capitol complex on Capitol hill.

IK. I used to work there. It is the general denonym for working in either the Executive or Legislative.

> And all of those are executive branch positions, so not in any hierarchy "on the Hill"

Strongly disagree from personal experience. Just like any organization, resourcing gives certain groups or agencies more heft and leeway than others.

ngruhn · 5h ago
No idea whether that estimate is accurate but 3 years doesn't sound long for an existential risk. If a large astroid hits earth in 3 years, I better do something now. Should probably have invaded 10 years ago.
mousethatroared · 2h ago
Bibi has been saying that Iran is weeks away from the bomb since the 80s.

Meanwhile, he's the only megalomaniac in the region with a Bomb.

whodidntante · 3h ago
So, is Tulsi Gabbard now considered a reliable source of intelligence ?

And that it should be no one's concern about a regime that is stretched for resources yet has over a dozen very expensive facilities working on militarizing nuclear technology that also publicly and repeatedly calls for the destruction of not just Israel but also America ?

mousethatroared · 2h ago
This wasn't Tulsi saying it, but the intelligence community going back to the dubbya administration.

Some of us are old enough to remember.

In honor of W. "fool me one, shame on you. Fool me twice? Well you cant fool me twice"

whodidntante · 2h ago
I think this is quite different than Iraq. We know Iran has many sites were they are developing nuclear technology, sites that they not only do they not let inspections happen, but that are literally buried deep in the ground. We also know they are acquiring or have acquired the technology to enrich to weapons grade, and they themselves have said they will continue to enrich beyond what a civilian program needs.

In other words, this is not a civilian energy program.

Maybe they can build a bomb in 1 month, maybe three years. You may not agree whether or not action should be taken, but I do not see that agreement/disagreement based on the difference.

In any case, our "intelligence" community has lost a lot of credibility, and has been politicized for decades. I would not bet my life, let alone an entire nation, on what they have to say.

Buttons840 · 18m ago
If the intelligence community is not trust worthy, then upon what are you basing the claims in your post?
mousethatroared · 2h ago
We dont care about Iran having a nuke any more than we care about Pakistan's or N. Korea.

N. Korea has said mean things to us too.

The only thing we care about is Iran's resources and support for the Palestinians.

Centigonal · 8h ago
> the leadership has been repeatedly chanting "Death To America" for its 45 year history

This is a good read: https://www.mypersiancorner.com/death-to-america-explained-o...

The phrase is ugly, but it's how you say "fuck the US government" in a very melodramatic and poetic language where the most common way of calling your friend's baby cute translates to "let me martyr myself for this child."

jfengel · 6h ago
I am not an expert in the language or the culture, so I'm willing to accept that as the truth.

Nonetheless... they've had 45 years to figure out what it sounds like to us. Those 45 years started with actual violence, and has continued with various forms of proxy conflict. So I don't think it's 100% on us to de-escalate the situation.

(That said... they had been working on that de-escalation, and we're the ones who threw that in the bin about a decade ago. So I'd say the burden has shifted substantially back in our direction.)

porridgeraisin · 26m ago
The reason you guys threw it in the bin is here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossad_infiltration_of_Irani...

reillyse · 8h ago
The USA created the current Iranian regime by installing a puppet and then getting butt hurt when their puppet was ousted. A real freedom for us tyranny for you situation.

Then the USA created the Saddam regime in Iraq to fight the Iranian regime and that went great.

And now the USA is supporting Israel to terrorize the Middle East in their name and with their bombs and that’s going swimmingly too. Top job everyone.

msgodel · 7h ago
It seems like an infinite pit we throw money and lives into only to make things worse.
figmert · 5h ago
Well the nearly $900 billion dollars budget the US military has, has to be spent somehow.
Aloisius · 7h ago
What puppet did the US install?
JumpCrisscross · 7h ago
They’re being dramatic. We installed the Shah [EDIT: as an autocrat] with the ‘53 coup [1]. That was our original sin.

But the Islamic Republic wasn’t an American creation. Neither was Saddam’s Iraq or the Mujahideen or Al Qaeda. We variously facilitated, opposed and ignored these elements, mostly the last. Ignoring the Soviet history in the region, together with the fact that Iranians aren’t automatons, but human beings with agency and preferences, continues this tradition of American fatalism that ignores how complicated (and independent of ourselves) these systems are.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9ta...

Aloisius · 6h ago
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi became Shah of the Imperial State of Iran in 1941, succeeding his father after the British forced him out.

I'm unsure as to how the US installed him in 1953. He had been Shah for 11 years.

rKarpinski · 5h ago
-> I'm unsure as to how the US installed him in 1953. He had been Shah for 11 years.

Operation Ajax

JumpCrisscross · 6h ago
> Mohammad Reza Pahlavi became Shah of the Imperial State of Iran in 1941

Sorry, you’re correct. We installed him as an autocrat in ‘53.

Aloisius · 4h ago
He already had immense power prior to the coup. At best, his autocratic power was strengthened. Calling him installed by the US is a misrepresentation.

Iran was not a British-style constitutional monarchy. The Shah was not a ceremonial position. His father ruled with even more power than he did. He was just an absentee ruler for the first part of his rule until someone tried to assassinate him.

Never mind that Prime Minister Mosaddegh had dissolved parliament and had been ruling by decree for a year also acted as an autocrat. Even his own party turned against him for abuse of power.

At best, one could argue the British installed the Shah. They are, after all, the people who made him Shah in the first place.

reillyse · 6h ago
If describing events that took place is being dramatic , then I guess so?

Imagine if someone installed a puppet king in the USA to exploit the resources of the US for their gain, would you think that would be dramatic?

As for the Islamic revolution, it was a reaction to being colonized and subjugated, and I would argue it’s still around because the only other option is being a puppet of the US.

JumpCrisscross · 6h ago
> Imagine if someone installed a puppet king in the USA to exploit the resources of the US for their gain

Literally the colonial governors.

> it’s still around because the only other option is being a puppet of the US

Iran didn’t have to become a hardline theocracy, or a state sponsor of terror, or a nuclear pariah. The IRGC didn’t have to be corrupt and autocratic [1].

The tragedy of the present is it still doesn’t have to be. And while we contributed to the malaise that gave rise to the Islamic Republic (and continue to contribute to its geopolitical insecurity), it’s a step too far to say we caused it.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_th...

dragonwriter · 5h ago
> But the Islamic Republic wasn’t an American creation. Neither was Saddam’s Iraq

Saddam's Iraq was, though; Saddam's rise to power in Iraq was backed actively by the US because he was seen as a useful anti-Communist, and once in power he was backed by the US government (to the point of rushing Donald Rumsfeld out as Reagan's special envoy to assure both Saddam and the world of our support for him after he used chemical weapons) in its long war of aggression against Iran in the 1980s.

JumpCrisscross · 5h ago
Backed actively, not caused by [1]. (And then promptly abandoned by Johnson.)

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/17_July_Revolution

keybored · 6h ago
I like this new trend of defending American Imperialism by claiming that the other side doesn’t recognize the human beingness of the Other.
JumpCrisscross · 6h ago
> new trend of defending American Imperialism by claiming that the other side doesn’t recognize the human beingness of the Other

It’s not defending or supporting but pointing out that not every foreign policy choice made on the planet is a result of our actions. There is a mixture of culpability, credit and thus obligation to fix things.

And I’m not going off on a humanistic arc. The criticism is in line with that of Big Man historical models, or conspiratorial ones involving all-knowing shadow governments. These models are simpler to apply than reality, which involves imperfect (and changing) actors acting through the fogs of war and history.

ty6853 · 8h ago
I don't pretend this is an argument at all in towards the situation in Iran, so don't quote me as justifying action or inaction there in regards to this, but it is interesting to take note North Korea actually has dozens of real nuclear weapons and the death to America rhetoric and all we seem to do is laugh at them. Of course NK has no real ability to blow up the US, but they could likely nuke or at least obliterate a sizeable piece of ally South Korea no problem.
dralley · 35m ago
North Koreans are (mostly) not subject to death cult mentality in the same way that the Iranian leadership is. Note: Iranian leadership, not the people.
gspencley · 8h ago
That's a very fair point.

I think the difference is that Iran has been actively trying to follow through with its threats and this has been demonstrated through its actions towards an American ally over the past year. This gives reason to believe that Iran's threats are both credible and, while a full-scale war between Iran and the USA might not fare well for Iran ... you don't need to demonstrate that you are capable of wiping out a population or winning a war in order to represent a credible threat. If only one of Iran's missiles manage to land in a densely populated area... people die. And that's enough to warrant a response IMO.

dttze · 7h ago
> this has been demonstrated through its actions towards an American ally over the past year.

And what about that ally's actions towards Iran? Like assassinating political and military figures inside the country? Which would traditionally be considered an act of war. If anything, Iran has been too passive.

1659447091 · 7h ago
> Of course NK has no real ability to blow up the US, but they could likely nuke or at least obliterate a sizeable piece of ally South Korea no problem.

They could hit any number of US bases, they also have ICBMs "estimated to be at least 15,000 km (9,300 mi), allows it to reach targets anywhere in the contiguous United States."[0]

"Kim announced a Five-Year Defense Plan that said the country would field a new nuclear-capable submarine, develop its tactical nuclear weapons, deploy multiple warheads on a single missile, and improve its ICBMs' accuracy, among other goals. The plan includes development of an ICBM with a range of 15,000 km for "preemptive and retaliatory nuclear strike," and ground-based and sea-based solid-fueled ICBMs. Some analysts predict an increase in missile testing this year in order to meet these goals by 2026." [1]

They are also working with Russia now. "Russia is increasingly supporting North Korea’s nuclear status in exchange for Pyongyang’s support to Moscow’s war against Ukraine."[2]

The threat assessment[2] says about Iran: "We continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003, though pressure has probably built on him to do so."

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwasong-19

[1] https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF10472

[2] https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/...

chasd00 · 7h ago
The artillery aimed at Seoul was equivalent to nuclear deterrence. Before North Korea had a nuclear bomb it was widely known that any military action against it meant the complete destruction of Seoul. The artillery in place, armed, and staffed was basically equivalent to having nukes so neither the US nor anyone else could stop them from pursuing nuclear weapons.
snypher · 1h ago
They still needed a second strike option. Since the MIRV arrived the possibility of the whole artillery being destroyed was getting greater.
mensetmanusman · 7h ago
NK isn’t paying people to bomb SK every other week.
whodidntante · 3h ago
My only quibble with what you said is that this war was started by Iran on 10/7/23. Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, etc - these were all part of the self proclaimed "Axis of Resistance".

People may disagree on the ethics of who is the "right" side, if the war was fought "fairly" and according to the "ethics of war", but you would have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to believe that Hamas and Hezbollah and Houthis were not Iranian proxies armed and funded by Iran and acted independently from Iran's goals.

As a corollary, I do not buy into the idea that this Israel/Iran war was/is being fought (only) because of the nuclear issue. It is being fought because it is the last (hopefully) part of the larger war of Israel vs Axis of Resistance, which can only be resolved through the defeat of either Israel or Iran.

If Israel is defeated, the Muslim world can then go on to fight their Shia vs Sunni war, if Iran is defeated, Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, Iran in Iraq, and Houthis will basically go away and those nations/territories will need to determine their future, both internally and their relationships with Israel and the Muslim world.

latentcall · 5h ago
You think all of that is unjustified? You think USA and Israel are just innocent babies? Israel’s been antagonizing its neighbors since its foundation and committing a genocide since 2023 and USA has destabilized the entire region. What was the Iraq war? WMD’s? Did they find any? Iran’s nuclear ambitions are the same thing as Iraq’s supposed WMD’s. Just more manufactured consent BS.

Iran has a right to defend itself.

keybored · 7h ago
On the one hand you have a country which has nuclear weapons with a regional ally that doesn’t want to say whether it has nuclear weapons or not that has in real life couped the other country’s government. On the other hand you have the country which Israel lies about getting nuclear weapons (et tu?) very soon and that says mean things about Israel and the West. Conclusion: there is “certainly” no blame for responding (invading) that other country.

Thank you for the opportunity to engage in healthy criticism of rogue states.

platevoltage · 6h ago
I'm willing to bet that the majority of Americans can't connect the dots between the Iraq War and the creation of ISIS.
ngruhn · 5h ago
I bet. The middle east is more complicated than quantum mechanics. There are like gazillions of factions, local and foreign. You would think you can roughly group them into Israel+US, Russia, Shia, Sunni. They surely all hate each other. But there are still constantly shifting alliances. At some point Iran (Shia?) was funding ISIS (Sunni?) only to later team up with the US and Israel to fight them. Sometimes all these islamist groups have a dude who looks like the leader but it's actually the guy two levels down who is the real puppet master. And everybody is known under at least three different names all of which are Al-something. I tried to read a book on this but you become this manic investigation board meme guy.
chimineycricket · 2h ago
Iran did not fund ISIS.
dralley · 33m ago
Right, they do fund Sunni Palestinian groups, especially Hamas, but mostly they stick to Shia paramilitaries.
platevoltage · 13m ago
In fact, Trump randomly assassinated an Iranian General while he was fighting ISIS.
noworriesnate · 8h ago
Because 1) America won’t allow nations near Israel to be successful, it’s too much of a threat to our greatest ally and 2) war is incredibly profitable.
eddythompson80 · 3h ago
> nations near Israel to be successful,

I'm guessing that doesn't include Turkey or the rich oil arab states.

fortzi · 8h ago
IRGC is known for funding and training militant and terrier groups globally. They also call for the annihilation of the Big Satan (USA) and the Small Satan (Israel). All the while running for The Bomb. I wouldn’t call the present sutuation stable.
greiskul · 8h ago
> known for funding and training militant and terrier groups globally

So does the US.

> They also call for the annihilation of the Big Satan (USA) and the Small Satan (Israel)

You are literally calling for the annihilation of their state here.

> All the while running for The Bomb.

Only one country has ever used nuclear weapons in war.

There is definitely a cold war going on between Israel and Iran. I'm not sure if it escalating to a hot war would be better. The 20th century Cold War had all the same things you mentioned, with both sides fighting proxy wars, calling for the annihilation of the other side, and had atomic weapons. And I think everyone agrees that the end of the cold war that we had was definitely better than nuclear Armageddon.

And I don't know if the 20th would have been better if only the US had atomic weapons. MAD might have saved millions of lives in both sides.

msgodel · 8h ago
Oh no! Mean words!

Anyway we have plenty of people here that hate the US and are far more likely to actually create a problem.

Furthermore I'd argue the deficit spending (a very large portion of which is defense) is a much more serious existential threat.

toast0 · 8h ago
A stable Iran seems to be doing a pretty good job of breeding terrorism, too though.

If we're being extremely generous, the goal of regime change would be to bring a new stability with economic prosperity and inclusion as well as more meaningful political inclusion, so as to reduce the amount of marginalized population with nothing to loose that are easy to recruit for terrorism.

Of course, when the nation building fails or is never even tried, it's pretty easy for recruiters to say "look around, they destroyed our country (with bombs or embargoes or tariffs or resource exploitation or offensive media), we have nothing to live for, and it's their fault; let's make them pay"

I don't think you can stop all terrorism, but if you want to put a dent in it, you need to give the broad population hope for prosperity, and you need to fulfill that hope on the regular.

reillyse · 7h ago
What if we instead we were just responsible for killing all of their kids, would that work? I could see that working in the US just randomly kill a bunch of peoples kids and that would calm everything down.
platevoltage · 6h ago
You've got to be kidding me. The US actively supports and runs interference for the biggest terror state in the Middle East right now. We are also buddy buddy with another country in the Middle East that dismembered one of our journalists and provided most of the 9/11 high jackers.

No comments yet

dash2 · 8h ago
Can you give an example since 2003?
reillyse · 6h ago
The only explanation that makes sense to me, is that there are some psychopaths in charge of American foreign policy and their thinking goes like this.

1) we want to control oil and oil prices because it’s crucial to our bank accounts. 2) if the Middle East unites we will lose control over oil 3) we must make sure they never unite 4) we need to support varying regimes to increase instability in the region. If we keep the Middle East fighting we can continue to extract oil.

Lots has changed since 50s so one would think this strategy would get updated, but it seems it has not.

(Also for the record I think this is abhorrent, but I think some people do think like this)

mandevil · 7h ago
Afghanistan was in the middle of a semi-active civil war when the US joined the fray, and by providing large scale air support to Northern Alliance troops on the ground, the situation changed abruptly. Iraq involved multiple US divisions of troops, which took months to get into position to launch a large scale ground invasion. Libya was in the middle of a very active civil war when the US started Operation Odyssey Dawn(1).

All of those cases involved a whole lot of troops on the ground, which is something that I see as notably missing from any plans discussed so far. Outside troops invading seems like a very bad idea, because Iran's population is about that of those other three combined. Operating sufficient outside country ground troops to topple the existing government would quickly lead to friction between civilians and the outside troops, which would almost certainly quickly turn into a revolt of some kind, and fatally undermine any government they attempted to put in place. Also, it would take a very long time for sufficient US force to topple the Iranian government to arrive in the area, and then either launch a D-Day style opposed amphibious assault or operate from one of Iran's neighbors with sea access (2). But because there is no preexisting Iranian civil war, there is no local source of ground troops either.

I don't think we've ever seen a government toppled by external air-strikes alone. The general consensus from research is that being bombed makes citizens support the government more, not weaken their resolve.

1: It didn't lead to change of government, but Operation Allied Force- the NATO bombing of Serbia helped the Kosovo Liberation Army achieve their independence- again air-power supporting troops on the ground to achieve an aim, not air-power alone. What eventually toppled the government of Serbia was the Bulldozer Revolution a year later, with no outside military force involved.

2: Your choices are not going to be good ones. Iraq? Turkey through Kurdistan? Pakistan?

JumpCrisscross · 7h ago
> All of those cases involved a whole lot of troops on the ground, which is something that I see as notably missing from any plans discussed so far

Oh absolutely. I compared it to Kabul and Baghdad (and not Libya) for a reason. There is not a mobilised resistance in Iran.

The lack of boots-on-the-ground plans is why I don’t see us teetering towards Iraq 2.0, but instead the U.S. eventually using bunker busters at Fordo and calling it a day. (To the extent we’re seeing the right recipe “liberation” rhetoric, it’s in respect of domestically deploying the military.)

alephnerd · 5h ago
^ This

There will be no nation building component. Israeli leadership has no interest, nor does American leadership. And the Gulf States, Turkiye, Russia and China lack the capacity and/or manpower.

Sadly, I feel Iran will most likely teeter into a Libya or Myanmar style Civil War with the Army, IRGC, Basij, and local police at each others throats in the heartland, and ancillary regions like Iranian Azerbaijan, Iranian Kurdistan, Khuzestan+Ilam, and significant portions of Balochistan and Khorasan becoming de facto autonomous and meddled in by regional powers.

nine_k · 7h ago
The thing is that the population of Iran is not being bombed, except a few high-ranking military personnel. It's the nuclear facilities, air defense sites, and some electrical power facilities that have been bombed.

A number of meetings / manifestations of expatriate Iranians happened around the world, supporting the Israeli actions. The current regime earned no love from most of the population, it seems; massive anti-government protests happened in Iran for last few years, sometimes lasting for months.

If there is no civil war and no actual troops on the ground, the regime may still be unstable enough, its pillars like IRGC being paper tigers, and willing to defect. It can still fall. An example: the Soviet regime fell in 1991 within a week, basically without any war, and the USSR split into its formal constituent republics, most of which stayed peaceful since then. Another example: the Portuguese regime fell within a week in 1974, with zero shots fired.

mandevil · 6h ago
Governments do fall to internal revolt/collapse regularly. I mean, Iran has done so within the memory of most of its senior leadership! They understand this much better than I do- Khamenei himself played a major role in toppling the Shah. Just generally that doesn't happen while being attacked by other countries air-power, which as a general rule makes populations support their governments rather than start marching in the streets against them.

Thanks to historians, we can understand things like the collapse of the USSR better (my favorite English language book- I am sadly monolingual- would be Plokhy's _The Last Empire_) and see the personal and impersonal forces that ended up tearing the country apart, and doubtless some of those are present in Iran right now. But I personally would not bet on these strikes helping to topple the existing government.

alephnerd · 5h ago
I tend to disagree. Iran was already on the verge of a succession crisis, as Khamenei only rose to power by viciously putting down Khomeini's allies after his passing, and the inter-service rivalry between the Army (leaning towards reformers like Khomeini's grandson), IRGC (autonomous), and the Basij (lead by Khamenei's son). This is the forcing function.

Iran had a very violent succession crisis in the late 80s-early 90s, but the titans of the revolution and rallying behind the flag due to the Iran-Iraq war helped ensure some base amount of unity.

There is a vacuum in Iran's elite, as most of the upper and mid-level echelons are those who solidified their fiefdoms in the 1990s.

v5v3 · 6h ago
Iraq and Afghanistan lacked friends though.

Iranian Regime has strong backing from Brics and others.

JumpCrisscross · 5h ago
> Iranian Regime has strong backing from Brics and others

The BRICS meme from a security standpoint is hollower than the financial one.

Russia and China have no interest (the former, ability) in getting enmeshed in another Anglo-Iranian war. Most of the oil travelling through the Strait of Hormuz goes to Chinese refineries; they really don’t want this to escalate. Both would probably make the occupation phase painful for Americans. Like we did for the Soviets. And the Iranians did for us. But that’s again post-regime change, the part we’ve never figured out how to do since the Marshall Plan, and not in the toppling of the regime bit, which we’re ridiculously good at.

The evidence for the above is the current lack of military or intelligence support anyone is providing Iran.

v5v3 · 5h ago
Not true.

Chinese planes with transponders being turned off are landing in Iran with unknown Cargo on board. (Reported across the news). Iran is supplying Russia with Drones for Ukraine so strategic partner.

Russia recently lost Syria as an ally with the change in government, they will not want to lose Iran to the USA too.

If the West can back Ukraine to the level they have done, then no different for Iran's friends to do the same.

JumpCrisscross · 5h ago
Everything you’re describing fits prolonging a guerilla conflict. That is, planning for post collapse influence.

There is really only one thing Iran would sell its soul for right now, and it’s Russian or Chinese troops announcing that they’ve stationed themselves at Fordo. (Thereby turning an attack on the regime’s nuclear ambitions into an attack on a nuclear state.)

> If the West can back Ukraine to the level they have done, then no different for Iran's friends to do the same

Excluding China, orders of magnitude of differences in capability.

eddythompson80 · 3h ago
They are turning off their transponders?! No way.
candiddevmike · 8h ago
America really can't afford this right now. We spent _trillions_ on the last middle east operation.
anadem · 8h ago
I don't think our current administration cares what we can afford
noisy_boy · 8h ago
Money has never been a problem for America; it can just create it as per its needs.
FpUser · 2h ago
When every country lining up to buy US debt they can print as much money as they wish. Lately however that buying of the US debt does not seem as attractive as it used to be.
platevoltage · 6h ago
America can ALWAYS afford war.
krapp · 7h ago
We can totally afford it, DOGE deleted a bazillion dollars worth of waste, so we have plenty of money to burn on another crusade in the Middle East! /s
Lordarminius · 8h ago
Baghdad and Kabul had nowhere near the military capabilities of the Iranians who can close shipping lanes, sink US warships and attack military bases and oil installations in the region, in addition to devastating all the major Israeli cities. In the chaos that ensues, the Chinese and Russians would move in and take advantage. The global economy would grind to a halt and America would spiral into a depression that would take at least a decade to recover from.
tguvot · 4h ago
how the "devastating all the major israeli cities" going ? or they didn't start yet
kibibu · 8h ago
Those things didn't seem very easy.
keybored · 8h ago
> I know everyone wants to gobble down the campaign about complete air superiority and toppling of leaders, and that WhatsApp may be separating the regime from 52 virgins, but realize this is a propaganda campaign. This initial propaganda only serves to manufacture consent long enough to buy citizens in to blood so they can't back out. We're in the process of being tricked.

Everyone wants to gobble down... I.e. here’s another invasion war but it’s our ally this time so it’s good actually. They’re gonna dezanify^W de-islamism Iran.

ranger_danger · 8h ago
Source:
Synaesthesia · 8h ago
The Snowden leaks revealed the PRISM program, whereby major tech companies like Facebook, Apple etc all collaborate with the US government. No reason to believe that's still not in place.
hypeatei · 8h ago
FISA, Room 641A, Patriot Act.
Jackpillar · 7h ago
lol "source?" man I really hate you nerds. Idk read a book or an article since like 2008 that isn't tech crunch. Keep up so we can have adult conversations
rasz · 4h ago
Delete this app that lets you organize aka "please dont overthrow us".
meepmorp · 4h ago
yeah, Israel don't need WhatsApp chats to bomb shit, this is about internal threats.
tehjoker · 2h ago
Thinking of all the people in Gaza that are communicating on WhatsApp while being basically defenseless against assassination or massacre by Israel unless they are a resistance fighter that's underground (in which case they use a wired internal phone network).
ranger_danger · 9h ago
Anyone have a non-captcha-looped source?
geor9e · 8h ago
It's the Associated Press, so googling the headline will reveal hundreds of syndicates. Same for Reuters.
lordofgibbons · 6h ago
> WhatsApp uses end-to-end encryption, meaning a service provider in the middle can’t read a message.

I wish this meme that "whatsapp is secure because it uses e2e encryption" would die.

Why does it matter if the messages are e2e encrypted if the messages are managed on the two ends of the channel by a closed source binary that does who-knows-what.

The whatsapp app itself sees the clear text message. What it does with that information... or what "metadata" it extracts to send to their servers.. who knows.

miki123211 · 5h ago
Considering how popular WhatsApp is, it's very hard to believe that there are no security researchers reverse-engineering its crypto code.

Because WhatsApp uses end-to-end encryption, any backdoor must necessarily be on the client side, and all client-side code can ultimately be reverse-engineered. This makes such backdoors very tricky to implement.

With that said, while I think a "general backdoor" (one that weakens the crypto algorithms so much that all messages can ultimately be read by Meta) is super unlikely, a "vulnerability" in some image parsing library, designed and implemented by the NSA, and only used on the most interesting targets... now that's a different story.

bufferoverflow · 3h ago
> any backdoor must necessarily be on the client side

True, but it might be a part of an update that only hits a white-list of users, so you won't find the actual code that steals your private keys if you're on that list.

pvg · 3h ago
If the messages are managed on the two ends of the channel by a closed source binary that does who-knows-what.

The meme/trope is that you can't possibly know what such an app does without the source. It just isn't true. There'd be no meaningful phone vulnerability research if it was.

lordofgibbons · 7m ago
You're assuming the vuln researcher has access to the backdoored binary. That's not necessarily the case.

Imagine if they pushed an update of the app out with the vuln to only some users, or users in {country} in their app release configs

simpaticoder · 5h ago
I think the real reason people don't take supply chain endpoint security seriously is that it too quickly regresses to distrust of the OS and hardware. At that point you abandon smartphones entirely.
SecretDreams · 5h ago
> At that point you abandon smartphones entirely.

Right into my veins

Am4TIfIsER0ppos · 4h ago
You should! They are government surveillance devices that broadcast their position at all times along with every bit of data they gather from their array of sensors: gyro, mic, camera, radio
stefan_ · 5h ago
Thats the paranoid answer. The much simpler answer is that you don't maintain the software on it; updates are done silently by whatever the hardware vendor decides passes their muster (or motive).
ajross · 5h ago
> Why does it matter if the messages are e2e encrypted if the messages are managed on the two ends of the channel by a closed source binary that does who-knows-what.

Would you prefer your dissident messages be read by Meta Corporation or the Islamic Republic of Iran? That's the difference.

No, there's no technical difference in the sense that neither solution can be verified to be probably secure vs. third party inspection. But in the real world the specifics of who the actors are are and the tactics they are known to employ are absolutely part of the threat model.

tmnvix · 4h ago
> Would you prefer your dissident messages be read by Meta Corporation or the Islamic Republic of Iran?

I'd prefer my messages to not be available to an actor shown to be using AI to select targets for bombing campaigns.

MitPitt · 5h ago
> read by Meta Corporation or

Neither please! Corpos can obviously sell out or be pressured into giving out info to all sorts of agencies

ajross · 5h ago
That's not responsive, though. The point is there are actual human beings in a war zone under a repressive regime making decisions about software. And they aren't interested in your abstract idea about "corpos" being "pressured". They want not to be snatched by the secret police. Please.
pxc · 4h ago
How is this "abstract"? Corporations being pressured can directly lead to being snatched by the secret police.
ajross · 3h ago
Can you cite the specific instance of Meta (or whoever) receiving pressure that led to an extrajudicial arrest (or whatever)? Or at least the specifics of the sharing that would enable it? Because if you're not talking about specifics your point is "abstract" by definition.

Repression in Iran is real, not abstract. It happens, the state wants to monitor internet use to enable it, and the linked article is very specific about them wanting to disallow Meta's product.

zeroq · 8h ago
Sounds like a psyop article designed to make you feel like wanting to keep WhatsApp yourself. xD
kelipso · 8h ago
You kind of lose that desire after they start hinting that you can get droned because you’re using whatsapp..
esafak · 8h ago
More like a broken clock being right twice a day.
almosthere · 8h ago
Which means one thing: The people will absolutely keep using WhatsApp, as they hate their gov.
lenerdenator · 6h ago
All of this to avoid saying "We'd be fine with you existing within your pre-1967 borders."
JumpCrisscross · 5h ago
Do you see an out for Khamenei et al? They can’t credibly dismantle their nuclear deterrent and expect to keep their heads. Israel and America cannot accept it, particularly now that its conventional defences have been shown ineffective.

The classic approach, airlifting the Ayatollah to a dacha in Moscow while the IRGC saves face and plots a forever path to new elections, falls apart when you consider how Iran’s internal security and geopolitical alignment would need to be sculpted in a way that would satisfy the great powers. (Iranian crude fuels China’s refineries.)

lenerdenator · 3h ago
> Do you see an out for Khamenei et al? They can’t credibly dismantle their nuclear deterrent and expect to keep their heads. Israel and America cannot accept it, particularly now that its conventional defences have been shown ineffective

Honestly, I don’t think the American people have the stomach for another Middle Eastern war, and Israel has shown in the past that if you recognize their right to exist in some form, they’ll leave you the hell alone - see Egypt, Jordan, etc.

So if he pulled back from those two rivalries, I doubt that hurts him much. I’d see it as riskier because of internal power struggles and possibly from regional rivals, but who knows.

Guy’s in his mid 80s and there’s a decent chance Mossad knows exactly where he is. He’s got one foot on a banana peel and the other foot in the grave regardless.

JumpCrisscross · 2h ago
> don’t think the American people have the stomach for another Middle Eastern war

We don’t. That’s why the only plausible escalation here is we bomb stuff and go home.

> if he pulled back from those two rivalries, I doubt that hurts him much

Hmm, I wonder if this could work together with IAEA denuclearisation. Possibly with Chinese help. They, too, have an interest in Iran remaining deradicalised and flowing.

krisoft · 5h ago
> They can’t credibly dismantle their nuclear deterrent

Mainly because they don’t have one and never had one. Hard to dismantle something you don’t have. Even harder to do so credibly.

They had programs to obtain a nuclear deterrent. They can dismantle those programs. But they never had the actual nuclear deterrent itself.

lenerdenator · 3h ago
They’re sure refining a lot of material for a country that doesn’t have any plans for putting any of it in a nuclear or radiological weapon.
JumpCrisscross · 5h ago
Sure, I mean that Khamenei can’t come out and say he’s shutting down enrichment, letting in the IAEA, actually do it and expect to stay in charge.
anon291 · 4h ago
I'm not sure why we should be 'fine' with people existing in their pre-1967 borders. I'm not advocating any military action, but the idea that we should just shrug while a great classical civilization's entire history and archaeology are being held hostage by iconoclastic religious zealots is not something any humanitarian should just shrug at.
lenerdenator · 3h ago
It’s a reference to borders that do not include Gaza, the Golan Heights, or the West Bank.

It’s likely that any two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine crisis would roughly look like how things were before the Six-Day War.

However, I’m getting more at the fact that Iran is unwilling to accept a two-state solution because necessarily, one of those two states would be Israel.

dralley · 29m ago
The 1967 borders don't include Gaza or the West Bank, though?

Israel isn't giving up the Golan Heights for basically any reason, and the Druze living there don't really seem to want to be part of any other country either.

tguvot · 3h ago
so, gaza is going back to egypt and everybody is locked there behind fence. and west bank is annexed by jordan ?

sounds good

lenerdenator · 1h ago
Gaza and West Bank as Palestinian territory. That means that Israel would have to retreat to its 1967 borders.
dralley · 27m ago
There was no "Palestinian territory" in the 1967 map. Gaza was part of Egypt, the West Bank was part of Jordan.

But neither Egypt nor Jordan want anything to do with them now because of the internal instability it would inevitably result in.

tguvot · 1h ago
at 1967 west bank was annexed by jordan and all Palestinians had jordanian citizenship and Gaza strip was part of Egypt, surrounded by barbered wire with military issued permits to enter or exit it.

this is what 1967 borders are. feel free to check maps, wiki, etc. There are no palestinian territory on map at 1967 borders

twodave · 8h ago
WhatsApp is already banned in Iran. It's difficult to see this as anything but another attempt by them to gain control over private communications involving their own people.

To me, the most interesting thing about this conflict is the side-choosing of the other nations, because that reveals what kind of games they're playing.

miloignis · 7h ago
The article mentions the ban was lifted late last year:

"It banned WhatsApp and Google Play in 2022 during mass protests against the government over the death of a woman held by the country’s morality police. That ban was lifted late last year. ( https://apnews.com/article/iran-social-media-whatsapp-google... ) "

flyinglizard · 8h ago
> the most interesting thing about this conflict is the side-choosing of the other nations

Could you elaborate on that? Is anyone behaving out of the totally expected?

MoonGhost · 7h ago
Russia and China totally expected, they don't help much. Except for Turkey NATO on Israel's side, not surprising. Iraq open sky used for airstrikes. Muslim 'allies' probably help refueling Israelis planes. The rest of the world doesn't care much.