In Tehran
67 points
1 hour ago
| 5 comments
| lrb.co.uk
| HN
ClarityJones
19 minutes ago
[-]
How should readers assess the credibility of these claims that 12k, 36k, or 100k have been killed? I'm not there. I haven't seen anything with my own eyes. Should I expect that if the death toll reaches X, then Y form of evidence would make it out?
reply
observationist
12 minutes ago
[-]
Credible reporting puts the number somewhere between 30-40k among the intelligence community - comments and discussions have happened in public, and various officials around the world have repeated that range several times over the last week or so.

The information and sources are there for you to search, and it's up to you to determine who you find credible and why.

reply
margalabargala
8 minutes ago
[-]
Iranian Ministry of Health officials have put the number at ~30k. So I would take that as a likely lower bound.

https://archive.ph/2026.01.25-142822/https://time.com/735763...

reply
culi
2 minutes ago
[-]
The article contradicts what you said. It cites "two [unnamed] senior officials" and then goes on to say:

> The 30,000 figure is also far beyond tallies being compiled by activists methodically assigning names to the dead.

The official government estimate is still 3,117 btw.

The truth is we'll likely never know for sure the real number and any outlet reporting anything else without qualifications is being dishonest.

reply
aprilthird2021
4 minutes ago
[-]
This is not an official count. It's some officials speaking through anonymity with their own personal estimates
reply
regularization
5 minutes ago
[-]
They have almost no credibility.

Gazan health authorities were releasing the names of their dead, and this was met with great skepticism and qualification in Israel and the West (until this week when Israel just accepted at least tens of thousands died).

Random, inflated numbers from anonymous sources pop up on Iran and they're instantly quoted as fact.

Also - some of the rebels have guns and have been using them, so some of these dead are from shootouts.

reply
judah
1 minute ago
[-]
> "Random, anonymous sources"

Time Magazine is reporting[0] that local Iranian health officials have given that number.

[0]: https://time.com/7357635/more-than-30000-killed-in-iran-say-...

reply
shmerl
8 minutes ago
[-]
With nazi type regime, always assume the worst.
reply
aprilthird2021
9 minutes ago
[-]
You honestly cannot know and anyone who claims you can should be suspected. It's probably between what the government claims (which will tend to be lower) and what people estimate. Some groups are only logging confirmed deaths are around 12k+ probably increasing by the day.

But if it's 5-10-20 or even more k, how much difference does it make? The crime of mass killing and collective punishment is still as gruesome either way

reply
laweijfmvo
25 minutes ago
[-]
I assume that the economic conditions are caused by the sanctions designed to force Iran to give up their nuclear ambitions? But that only works if the country actually cares about its people. Iran seems content to let them suffer (or kill them themselves). Is Iran destined to become the next North Korea? Will their oil save them from that?
reply
throw310822
11 minutes ago
[-]
Nevermind that Iran's nuclear ambitions had already been kept in check by a thorough program of inspections. Trump walked back on that, because the sanctions are an end in itself.
reply
behnamoh
22 minutes ago
[-]
> I assume that the economic conditions are caused by the sanctions designed to force Iran to give up their nuclear ambitions?

No, that's the regime's excuse. Most electricity in the country is used by the regime to mine crypto (!).

reply
bigyabai
40 minutes ago
[-]
> The people who had been called ‘rioters’ the day before were now labelled ‘terrorists’.

A familiar tactic to many governments around the world.

reply
indoordin0saur
37 minutes ago
[-]
Iran is operating in at a scale so far beyond anything ever seen in the US that it's completely dishonest to compare the two.
reply
mikestew
29 minutes ago
[-]
No comparison was made, you're just reading a lot into one sentence.
reply
jonas21
24 minutes ago
[-]
The top-level comment was edited. It originally said that it was chillingly familiar to us or something along those lines.
reply
mikestew
15 minutes ago
[-]
Ah, thanks for pointing this out.
reply
aprilthird2021
7 minutes ago
[-]
I mean, that's because the US and UK are doing that right now. I don't agree they cannot be compared
reply
cinntaile
3 minutes ago
[-]
[delayed]
reply
ekjhgkejhgk
31 minutes ago
[-]
> indoordin0saur

> Iran is operating in at a scale so far beyond anything ever seen in the US that it's completely dishonest to compare the two.

The person you're responding to didn't mention the US, but it's telling that that's where your mind goes to.

reply
behnamoh
37 minutes ago
[-]
It's troubling that most of the free world stands by and watches as a genocidal-level massacre takes place in Iran. Persians don't expect China/Russia to respond, but come on, no action from the West?

Imagine negotiating with Hitler to give up his V2 missiles and nuclear plans while the Holocaust was taking place. History will judge us for negotiating (and therefore, legitimizing) with the islamic regime that's occupied Iran for 47 years.

reply
ndiddy
13 minutes ago
[-]
The West already has Iran under crippling economic sanctions, has intelligence operatives undermining the Iranian government, and funds military attacks by proxies. What more do you expect them to do apart from direct military action (which would be deeply unpopular)?
reply
1over137
9 minutes ago
[-]
Deeply unpopular? I suspect many Iranians would welcome the regime being toppled. Or do you mean unpopular in Western countries?
reply
ndiddy
26 seconds ago
[-]
I'm sure that many Iranians would support the regime being toppled, and so would the Iranian diaspora (understandably, since most of them were either forced out of the country or chose to leave due to the revolution, so of course they won't support the Iranian government). However, it would be extremely unpopular in general in the West. One recent poll indicated that 7 out of 10 Americans don't want the US government to take military action against Iran for killing protesters who demonstrate against the Iranian government. https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3945
reply
margalabargala
18 seconds ago
[-]
Yes, deeply unpopular in the countries who would be providing the militaries. The countries in question tend to be democratic, thus unpopular decisions that have no real benefit to that country are unlikely to be made.
reply
bobthepanda
4 minutes ago
[-]
How well did that work out in Libya?
reply
aprilthird2021
5 minutes ago
[-]
It would be unpopular in Iran to have a war. If you think otherwise you read too many Enlgish-language diaspora / filtered sources.
reply
stuckinhell
8 minutes ago
[-]
AMERICANS aren't the world police. Americans are starving, can't afford medical care, being shot at, and tons of atrocities to deal with AT HOME RIGHT NOW.
reply
hearsathought
4 minutes ago
[-]
> It's troubling that most of the free world stands by and watches as a genocidal-level massacre takes place in Iran.

"Free world". Man you sure do hit them propaganda talking points.

> Persians don't expect China/Russia to respond

"China/Russia". Keep hitting those propaganda talking points. I'm sure the persians appreciate that "China/Russia" isn't sanctioning and destroying their economy. Not to mention bombing them.

> Imagine negotiating with Hitler to give up his V2 missiles and nuclear plans while the Holocaust was taking place.

"Hitler" and "Holocaust". The mother of all propaganda talking points.

> History will judge us for negotiating (and therefore, legitimizing) with the islamic regime that's occupied Iran for 47 years.

"Islamic". Take a bow. Nobody can doubt you've studied your zionist handbook. For extra credit, tell me how "israel" genociding palestinians isn't a genocide.

Another israeli slimeball trying to get us into another war.

reply
viccis
32 minutes ago
[-]
>genocidal-level massacre

"Genocidal" is not an order of magnitude; it's a description of purpose. What's going on in Iran is an atrocity, but it's not "genocidal."

>History will judge us for negotiating

We're not the world police.

reply
notaustinpowers
19 minutes ago
[-]
If we want to have the almost 800 military bases stationed in about 80 countries around the world, then there are some responsibilities that come with that.
reply
pesfandiar
15 minutes ago
[-]
> We're not the world police.

That has been the bargain since WWII though. Pax Americana meant the US owned and enforced a global order, in return international trade and finance ran on its platform. Most Americans can't fathom how bad the alternative is to not being the world police.

reply
throw310822
7 minutes ago
[-]
The US have a good share of responsibility for what's going on in Iran, first by overthrowing the democratic government of Mossadegh, then by imposing crippling sanctions (reneging on a previous agreement) that brought the population to this level of desperation.
reply
viccis
9 minutes ago
[-]
The US doesn't make foreign policy decisions altruistically. If we are involved somewhere, it's solely because it's to our benefit. The idea that we enforce order is childish; we do nothing that doesn't enforce our own international supremacy.
reply
willturman
8 minutes ago
[-]
The bargain? A bargain implies agreement. A one sided forced hegemony is not a bargain.
reply
ghusto
23 minutes ago
[-]
> "Genocidal" is not an order of magnitude; it's a description of purpose. What's going on in Iran is an atrocity, but it's not "genocidal."

Oh, well that's alright then. Hey fellers, we got off on a grammatical technicality.

> We're not the world police.

It's your mess, now clean it up.

reply
viccis
5 minutes ago
[-]
It's not a "grammatical technicality" to misuse a word. Iran is not carrying out a genocide.

>It's your mess, now clean it up.

The US is under no obligation to the people of Iran whatsoever. If we take action in Iran, it will be solely to our benefit, and it may or may not improve those peoples' lives. In all likelihood, it will be another Libya or Afghanistan situation in which we take what we want and leave a power vacuum in our wake.

reply
fragmede
26 minutes ago
[-]
Yes we are. You may not like it, you may not want to pay for it. You may even have voted to not be. But we have been in the past so the US will be judged for not picking up the mantle this time.
reply
BrandoElFollito
24 minutes ago
[-]
And yet we are everywhere.
reply
E-Reverance
21 minutes ago
[-]
I get the US has done much wrong before, but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with world policing,

we share a planet

reply
abainbridge
26 minutes ago
[-]
The British government continued to negotiate with Hitler after Kristallnacht (November 1938). They only stopped once he invaded Prague in March 1939.
reply
2OEH8eoCRo0
5 minutes ago
[-]
Talks with Iran were just called off and the US continues to flow military hardware to the area. I hope they take action against the regime soon.
reply
ekjhgkejhgk
28 minutes ago
[-]
> It's troubling that most of the free world stands by and watches as a genocidal-level massacre takes place in Iran. Persians don't expect China/Russia to respond, but come on, no action from the West?

I find it surprising that you're troubled. The West helped Israel with its genocide in Gaza; why did you expect that the West would intervene in what's happening the Iran, which by death count is significantly smaller?

reply
fragmede
23 minutes ago
[-]
Because Iran has oil, which makes it far more interesting to the West than Yugoslavia and Kosovo, where the west did intervene.
reply
behnamoh
24 minutes ago
[-]
> which by death count is significantly smaller

In 48 hours, the islamic regime in Iran massacred more than 40,000 protestors (and left tens of thousands of people blinded/wounded, often "finishing them off" by raiding hospitals...). Some figures even show more than 40,000, but even assuming the low-park, that's 833 people per hour, or 13 people per minute who got killed.

Whatever Israel did (to defend itself) was by no means even near those numbers.

reply
ekjhgkejhgk
12 minutes ago
[-]
> In 48 hours, the islamic regime in Iran massacred more than 40,000 protestors (and left tens of thousands of people blinded/wounded, often "finishing them off" by raiding hospitals...). Some figures even show more than 40,000, but even assuming the low-park, that's 833 people per hour, or 13 people per minute who got killed.

> Whatever Israel did (to defend itself) was by no means even near those numbers.

Israel killed about 300,000 people in the first month. Sure, it's a lower count per day, what a low bar.

From now on, every time anyone says anything about Iran, I'll be pushing the narrative that "whatever Iran did, it was to defend itself".

reply
clucas
8 minutes ago
[-]
300,000? Can you cite something for that?

Edit to add: Also, Israel was actually attacked, and civilians were raped, kidnapped, and murdered. Did any of the protestors in Iran kill, rape, or murder any of members of the regime who subsequently slaughtered them?

reply
ekjhgkejhgk
4 minutes ago
[-]
> Edit to add: Also, Israel was actually attacked, and civilians were raped, kidnapped, and murdered. Did any of the protestors in Iran kill, rape, or murder any of members of the regime who subsequently slaughtered them?

Just to be clear. You're arguing that if a country is attacked, it's ok to kill civilians that are unrelated to the attack? Or are you arguing that those 300,000 were somehow involved in the killing of the 3,000 Israelis that died in the Hamas attack?

reply
esafak
1 minute ago
[-]
reply
throw-the-towel
22 minutes ago
[-]
> Whatever Israel did (to defend itself) was by no means even near

Now that's a record fast jump between "it never happened" and "they deserved it".

reply
ekjhgkejhgk
15 minutes ago
[-]
The best thing about zionism zealots propagandists is they can't hide it. I guess it's the effect of decades of having the West self-flagellate over "antisemitism", they got used to getting away with everything.

Also funny the wording "whatever they did", as if it's a mystery.

reply
aprilthird2021
6 minutes ago
[-]
> come on, no action from the West?

Most action from the West is likely to make things worse. Can you give a scenario where that's not the case?

WWII did not happen because of the Holocaust and nations around the world being outraged at that. In truth, the US and many other countries rejected Jewish refugees from Germany

reply
MengerSponge
21 minutes ago
[-]
"Pol Pot killed one point seven million Cambodians, died under house arrest, well done there. Stalin killed many millions, died in his bed, aged seventy-two, well done indeed. And the reason we let them get away with it is they killed their own people. And we're sort of fine with that. Hitler killed people next door. Oh, stupid man. After a couple of years we won't stand for that, will we?" -Eddie Izzard
reply
regularization
30 minutes ago
[-]
The EU and US have imposed sanctions on Iran, crippling its economy, Israel has killed much of its military high command. The US and Israel have rallied the usual internal opposition. Joined no doubt, by some who have been hit in the wallet and stomach by crippling sanctions. Just like the Scandinavians focused on Venezuela with their prize and Trump murdered Maduro's bodyguards and whoever else was standing around in an attempt to wrest Venezuela's sovereignty, or now Cuba's or even Greenland's, Iran is a current focus of western imperial focus to destroy their sovereignty. The US and UK succeeded in the 1950s when the Iranian parliament tried to nationalize Iran's oil, but they were tossed out in 1979 and the imperialists have been hell bent to put Iran under their thumb again.

While children in Gaza starve, ICE roams the streets killing even non-immigrants, and Greenland is in the crosshairs, white, professional-managerial put their focus on replacing Iranian sovereignty with being under the West's boot, for very liberal, humanitarian reasons of course.

reply
ghusto
25 minutes ago
[-]
Talk to some Iranians. We would _welcome_ "imperialist" intervention.

The black and white "west is bad" narrative you're being fed isn't accurate.

reply
twister727
21 minutes ago
[-]
How can you welcome imperalist intervention when the imperialists are the ones purposely causing (to a large extent) the economic instability?

Just trying to understand.

reply
emilsedgh
16 minutes ago
[-]
They are not. It's the eastern imperialists that are causing this. And if it's a choice between eastern imperialists (China and Russia) and western ones, it seems that Iranian people by far prefer the western ones.

For three main reasons.

1. Culturally Iranians are way more aligned with west.

2. Western imperialism results in more democracy. Not 100%, but not this bad.

3. Economically countries under west's influence do much better. Iran is extremely poor right now.

reply
twister727
9 minutes ago
[-]
Interesting perspective!

Why do you think China and Russia are causing the economic instability? I thought it was because of US sanctions and currency manipulation.

reply
kuboble
5 minutes ago
[-]
Ask Poles.

Some "west bad" rhetoric is that the fall of communism was orchestrated by Americans and not of organic local origin.

In reality the communist regime protected by Russian/ soviet violence had no legitimacy or support from the population.

Perhaps Poles could not free themselves without the western , maybe Cia played active role in organizing solidarity movement.

If this is true then we Poles are forever grateful for orchestrating regime change in Poland in 1989.

reply
judah
5 minutes ago
[-]
Iran's government is an Islamic fundamentalist dictatorship. It has imprisoned and killed protestors[0], it hung over 700 political dissidents last year[1], it has imprisoned and executed people who have left Islam[2], it has beaten and imprisoned women who refused to wear hijab[3]. As for LGBT rights, Equaldex lists Iran 190th out of 197 nations[4]. Time Magazine reports[5] that some 30,000 people were killed in January for protesting the government.

Even the parent article reports first-hand that the Iranian regime is now labelling protesters as terrorists and calls for their arrests.

This, combined with the draught and economic collapse, has pushed the Iranian people towards revolt.

This is not the fault of Israel, America, Trump, Greenland, white people, or any other boogeyman. It's a feature of Iranian government, and the Iranian people want change.

[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2026/jan/27/i...

[1]: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/07/iran-horrifyi...

[2]: https://persecution.exmuslims.org/countries/iran/

[3]: https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/10/14/iran-new-hijab-law-adds-...

[4]: https://www.equaldex.com/region/iran

[5]: https://time.com/7357635/more-than-30000-killed-in-iran-say-...

reply
_DeadFred_
6 minutes ago
[-]
nice casual racism.
reply
andrepd
20 minutes ago
[-]
I get anti-West sentiment. I get anti-US imperialism. I get pointing out the double standard of the West regarding Israel, their atrocities and genocide. I get looking with cynicism at the great powers' manouevers.

I don't get—never have, probably never will—painting the Islamic Republic of Iran as saviours, freedom fighters, or the last bulwark of an axis of resistance.

If the Boston strangler was anti-imperialist, would you claim he was a hero? It feels like you would.

reply
regularization
11 minutes ago
[-]
If the mullahs are so bad, why did the UK and US back them against the democracy of Mossadegh in the 1950s? Then the CIA and Savak slaughtered the secular left in Iran into the 1970s.

Westerns work to slaughter the secular left in a country, then use that as their entitlement to take over the country - "there is no secular force to take over".

This just happened in Syria - the West forced out a secular leader to replace him with a now celebrated al-Qaeda leader who the US had a $10 million bounty on fourteen months ago.

reply
twister727
17 minutes ago
[-]
Sure, Iran isn't exactly the best country, but they're still a sovereign nation right? Let them figure their own problems.

Just because they have a shitty government doesn't mean we (USA) have the right to their oil.

reply
twister727
25 minutes ago
[-]
Why are so many Iranians (like the author of the article) repeating the Western propaganda though? That confuses me.
reply
1over137
16 minutes ago
[-]
Iranians hate the dictatorship they live under. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
reply
ghusto
21 minutes ago
[-]
If that's sarcasm, it's British levels of dry.
reply