Iran has now been offline for 96 hours • Hacker News Board

Re: Iran has now been offline for 96 hours

#61

Post by Sparkle-san » Mon, Jan 12, 2026, 7:09 PM UTC

observationist wrote: post #3

This looks like it might be the end for the current regime. There are still people getting information out, and they are tearing down and burning state buildings - around 3000 protesters killed since the crackdown began, but there appear to be tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people who have risen up against the ayatollah, with an unknown number of state forces and officials killed. Crazy start to the year.

That's what I thought during the Mahsa Amini protests, perhaps this time will be different

Re: Iran has now been offline for 96 hours

#62

Post by tptacek » Mon, Jan 12, 2026, 7:09 PM UTC

ebbi wrote: post #45

observationist wrote: post #3

This looks like it might be the end for the current regime. There are still people getting information out, and they are tearing down and burning state buildings - around 3000 protesters killed since the crackdown began, but there appear to be tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people who have risen up against the ayatollah, with an unknown number of state forces and officials killed. Crazy start to the year.

I'm not so sure. There are plenty of pro-regime protests in Iran currently, and the general replies on interviews I've seen is "yes we have our problems, but we don't want Israel and the US fixing it", which tracks with a lot of sentiment I've heard from Iranian friends of mine. There was also a three year old killed by anti-regime protestors which has heightened the sentiments of pro-regime protestors.

I don't doubt this is true but would also note that high-profile online outlets --- Ryan Grim's Drop Site News, most notably --- have run pieces talking about how huge anti-government protests are in fact pro-government protests, when that has turned out to be flatly false. (I don't know where they get this stuff).

The Iranian anti-regime movement is very well established and is not the product of foreign intervention. It's actually not all that clear that foreign actors in the region favor regime change!

(I'm not holding out much hope that these protests will actually topple the regime, though it would be amazing if they did.)

Re: Iran has now been offline for 96 hours

#63

Post by alphazard » Mon, Jan 12, 2026, 7:10 PM UTC

dpoloncsak wrote: post #8

There's been some talk of people using Starlink to stay online. Is this a practical counter measure, or is Iran just not yet prepared to deal with them? It's my understanding Iran polices the ISPs, who aren't assigning IP addresses at this time. Iran could treat the dishes as contraband, but short of working with Starlink, is there a practical way for them to prevent satellite internet? You could flood all channels w…

> or is Iran just not yet prepared to deal with them? ... you could flood all channels with packets like a jammer or something

A related question that someone here may be able to answer: Who wins the jamming game in principal? Is it $JAMMER or $COMMUNICATORS?

It seems like Starlink could distribute secret codes[0] on each device, where each code is used in some kind of spread spectrum scheme, and that jamming all of the codes would be difficult, the wider the spectrum? There must be some kind of energy/bandwidth tradeoff, but what I want to understand is if the game is easier for one side in principal.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coding_theory

Re: Iran has now been offline for 96 hours

#64

Post by lbrito » Mon, Jan 12, 2026, 7:10 PM UTC

everdrive wrote: post #58

submeta wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Ask yourself why Jordan or Egypt are not tripping over themselves to accept Palestinian refugees.

If someone invades your neighbours' homes and kicks them out, you would be eager to collaborate and host them in your home indefinitely, yes?

Re: Iran has now been offline for 96 hours

#65

Post by tptacek » Mon, Jan 12, 2026, 7:10 PM UTC

literalAardvark wrote: post #59

nitwit005 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible, but remember that in an absence of any political or military rivals, you don't need the loyalty of the populace, only the military and police.

Be that as it may, Iran has plenty of rivals.

It has plenty of adversaries. It doesn't really credibly project force, can't even control its own airspace, and its proxy network is in shambles.

Re: Iran has now been offline for 96 hours

#66

Post by tptacek » Mon, Jan 12, 2026, 7:12 PM UTC

remarkEon wrote: post #40

submeta wrote: post #13

Western governments do not want democracy in Iran. They want the son of Shah back in Iran, the Shah whose father tortured and exploited Iranians, and that led to the revolution and the rise of the mullahs. The US and Israel want regime change so Israel can dominate the ME. Just like they replaced Assad in Syria by Jolani, a wanted Al Qaeda terrorist who does not oppose Israel in any way but slaughter kurds and alavit…

The US supported, albeit tacitly, the revolution that put the Ayatollahs in power in the first place.

By which you mean we withdrew support from the Shah, not so much that we supported the Iranian Revolution itself.

Re: Iran has now been offline for 96 hours

#67

Post by SoftTalker » Mon, Jan 12, 2026, 7:13 PM UTC

card_zero wrote: post #48

zjzkshz wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t get the downvotes either. Everything you’ve mentioned is pretty easily verifiable and not disputed.

Regime change might not be beneficial to the US, it might be too much trouble. https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cj691w2e840t?post=asset%3A8b0d... "... there will be plenty of voices around Trump advising him to be careful if he does go down that route. The Trump administration would be careful, because the consequences of regime change would be extremely complex ..."

Trump is going to be careful all of a sudden? That's not his MO, whether you think that's good or bad.

Re: Iran has now been offline for 96 hours

#68

Post by ebbi » Mon, Jan 12, 2026, 7:13 PM UTC

remarkEon wrote: post #31

csomar wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very unlikely. Unlike Syria or Venezuela, the Iranian regime has an ideological base and a very solid base of supporters. A civil war has more odds than that base of supporters accepting a new secular regime.

I’ve been looking for data on this. Has anyone quantified what the regime’s base of support actually is amongst the general population?

Small sample, but talking about this with my Iranian friends, the sentiment among them and their wider network is that they do acknowledge that Iran has problems, that they need a change in leadership, but that they do NOT want a regime change at the hands of the US/Israel. For them that is a recipe for disaster and more carnage.

In their view, the topology of Iranians and their political views would be: 10% - pro-US regime change intervention; 20% - ardent regime supporters; 70% - pro-regime change but without US involvement.

Re: Iran has now been offline for 96 hours

#69

Post by rngfnby » Mon, Jan 12, 2026, 7:16 PM UTC

submeta wrote: post #13

Western governments do not want democracy in Iran. They want the son of Shah back in Iran, the Shah whose father tortured and exploited Iranians, and that led to the revolution and the rise of the mullahs. The US and Israel want regime change so Israel can dominate the ME. Just like they replaced Assad in Syria by Jolani, a wanted Al Qaeda terrorist who does not oppose Israel in any way but slaughter kurds and alavit…

Dude, HN debate has held up pretty well for something thats been around for twenty years.

Criticism of Western liberalism is not one of them.

Re: Iran has now been offline for 96 hours

#70

Post by gm678 » Mon, Jan 12, 2026, 7:16 PM UTC

observationist wrote: post #3

This looks like it might be the end for the current regime. There are still people getting information out, and they are tearing down and burning state buildings - around 3000 protesters killed since the crackdown began, but there appear to be tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people who have risen up against the ayatollah, with an unknown number of state forces and officials killed. Crazy start to the year.

I don't see any news source anywhere on the internet claiming that 3000 number - anti-government sources have said 'hundreds' of protestors have been killed, whereas the Iranian state media has been silent on the death toll except confirming 109 members of security forces killed.