Iran

Iran's Theocracy Will Collapse Because of People Like Kimia Alizadeh

The nation's only female Olympic medalist says she has permanently left the Islamic Republic due to the oppression of women.

|

The killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani by the United States military will understandably dominate headlines for weeks if not months to come.

But the actual demise of the authoritarian regime that's been in power since 1979 will come more from acts like the one taken by Kimia Alizadeh, Iran's only female Olympic medalist. Late last week, the bronze medalist in Taekwondo in the 2016 Summer Games announced via Instagram that she has fled her home country due to the systematic oppression of women. Via CNN:

"Let me start with a greeting, a farewell or condolences," the 21-year-old wrote in an Instagram post explaining why she was defecting. "I am one of the millions of oppressed women in Iran who they have been playing with for years."…

"They took me wherever they wanted. I wore whatever they said. Every sentence they ordered me to say, I repeated. Whenever they saw fit, they exploited me," she wrote, adding that credit for her success always went to those in charge.

"I wasn't important to them. None of us mattered to them, we were tools," Alizadeh added, explaining that while the regime celebrated her medals, it criticized the sport she had chosen: "The virtue of a woman is not to stretch her legs!"

On the heels of Alizadeh's self-imposed exile comes reports that two anchors for Iranian state broadcaster IRIB have quit over qualms about censorship and official lies. From The Guardian:

Zahra Khatami quit her role at IRIB, saying: "Thank you for accepting me as anchor until today. I will never get back to TV. Forgive me."

Her fellow anchor Saba Rad said: "Thank you for your support in all years of my career. I announce that after 21 years working in radio and tv, I cannot continue my work in the media. I cannot."

The journalists' statements are part of a crisis of confidence following the initial attempts by state officials to deny that Ukrainian jetliner 752 had been shot down by mistake by members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp (IRGC) air defence force.

A third broadcaster, Gelare Jabbari, said she quit "some time ago" and asked Iranians to "forgive me for the 13 years I told you lies."

This is all happening against the backdrop of massive protests in Iran following the accidental shooting down of a Ukrainian airliner that carried 176 people. Demonstrators protested rising gas prices late last year and in the years prior, there have been other protests and general strikes for a host of reasons, including increased dissatisfaction with theocratic rule. According to a Carnegie Endowment report, 150,000 educated Iranians emigrate each year, "costing the country over $150 billion per year" as relatively young and motivated residents leave for greener pastures elsewhere.

By all accounts, sanctions imposed by the United States in 2018 have hit Iran's economy extremely hard and are playing a role in sparking protests. It's never fully clear how those sorts of intervention, much less more militaristic actions such as the killing of Soleimani, play out—sometimes overt pressure applied by an outside power emboldens dissent and sometimes it decreases it. But when a country starts to get hollowed out from within, as seems to be the case with Alizadeh's exile and other recent and ongoing domestic developments, autocrats should start sweating.

Advertisement

NEXT: Should Wall Street Be Worried by Potential Sanders, Warren Presidencies?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. …autocrats should start sweating.

    What’s the use of being an autocrat if your power is on the negotiatiing table. These people never seem to sweat until it’s too late for them, and they continue to do damage right up until the end.

    1. Odd that she chose this moment, no?

      1. Maybe she chose this moment because they had already shot down an airliner, and she figured they wouldn’t dare shoot another one down so quickly to stop her from leaving.

      2. Wonder if the US provided a defector bonus as it used to all the former Soviet and East Block athletes during the cold war and offered millions in reward for commie pilots to fly over a Soviet jet.
        Even during the second world war, England had a secret slush fund, bribing millions to certain heads of countries to keep them from forming an alliance with Germany. When Germany defeated them, these leaders coward to England with their millions in tow, leaving their people behind.

        The Federal Reserve funded the entire Vietnam war, one South Vietnamese General openly stated he was made an instant millionaire by the US so as to wage war for the benefit of the US on his own people.

        My father once said, if you betray your country for whatever reason, even your new allies will not really respect you and deep in their minds always regard you as a traitor.

        1. Valid point. When a man leaves his wife for another woman, can his new wife really trust him not to do the same to her? All is the same in love as in war (and foreign relations).

    2. What’s this? An “Iranian Spring”? Not holding my breath since we all know how well the “Arab Spring” worked out. Sure, Iran has an educated, moderate elite that would love to ditch the theocracy, but they’re merely the shiny veneer media darlings of an otherwise overwhelmingly conservative society. If Iranian moderates were really as numerous as neo-cons and most of the media would have us believe, regime change would’ve occurred years, even decades ago.

  2. Ah, another Reason prediction – likely as valid as predictions of climate apocalypse in 10 or so years….

    1. likely as valid as predictions of climate apocalypse in 10 or so years

      Which have been made yearly since 1966 – – – – – – –

      1. Australian wild fires burn an area larger than England after the hottest and driest year on record. “Nothing to see here. My opinion is more correct than 1000’s of PhD level scientists who work exclusively in this field.”

        https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

        1. You are really ignorant on a lot of topics. You think you’d stumble into being intelligent on some point, but no.

          https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/australian-wildfires-were-caused-by-humans-not-climate-change

          Fire is a natural part of the ecosystem cycle which environmentalists have cut back on for decades in australia. This type of wild fire has been warned about for at least a decade due to accumulation of dry undergrowth due to bad land management policies. Most credible and knowledgeable scientists put the vast majority of the australian fires on land management policies. The only up tick we have seen in fires is in areas where environmentalists have undue influence on policy and practices.

          1. I direct you back to https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ .

            I’ll take research from scientists any day over an opinion piece in Washington Examiner. Written by two fellows from the fucking Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think tank that wants to abolish anti trust laws. Yeah, those anti trust guys are way smarter about climate than NASA scientists. Are you for real with weak ass source?

            Just try to find a source outside of the right-o-sphere that makes a strong argument against man made climate change driven by a 45% increase in atmospheric co2 in the last 150 years. Go ahead.

            1. You direct me to nothing of relevance because you are a know nothing dummy. The link has nothing to do with Australian wildfires dummy.

              “Just try to find a source outside of the right-o-sphere that makes a strong argument against man made climate change driven by a 45% increase in atmospheric co2 in the last 150 years.”

              The last IPCC report. I take it you didn’t even bother reading the non political sections.

              The mistake you made is “driven”. Man is a contribution to it, but not the sole driver. Likewise the IPCC gave up on the 8.5 scenario even though that is the one the media reports. Yes, I know you don’t understand what I just said.

              1. The last IPCC report that makes a very strong case for the existence and threat of man made climate change?
                https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

                Amazing how you supposedly read the same stuff as I, yet think it says the exact opposite.

            2. “Just try to find a source outside of the right-o-sphere that makes a strong argument against man made climate change driven by a 45% increase in atmospheric co2 in the last 150 years. Go ahead.”

              The Sun

            3. Those same NASA Clinate Scientists who have a direct financial stake in doomsday prophecies, and whom have to constantly amend their inaccurate predictions?

              Shut the fuck up.

        2. By the way, your 1000s of PhD level scientists who work exclusively in the field is a lie.

          1. No it isn’t.

            https://thebulletin.org/2019/08/millions-of-times-later-97-percent-climate-consensus-still-faces-denial/

            I await your source showing the thousands of peer reviewed climate papers that deny man made climate change.

            1. Might want to read pretty much any critique of the Cook paper, but it appears you can’t be bothered.

              1. Critique all you want. Until one of you produces some peer reviewed papers by PhD’s in their field that supports the case against man made climate change, then you have nothing to base your position on.

                https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

                1. You keep linking to things you don’t understand. This is hilarious.

                  1. You keep not making an argument.

                    “Nah uh” isn’t an argument.

                    The only source you’ve posted was by a right wing political think tank.

                    1. You have made no actual argument. You’ve used an appeal to authority without linking to the actual authority. You understand nothing of the actual science.

                    2. Go ahead then. I’m still waiting for a single source from you.


                2. Critique all you want. Until one of you produces some peer reviewed papers by PhD’s in their field that supports the case against man made climate change, then you have nothing to base your position on.

                  This is an example of proving a negative, but even in that vein those studies exist you just don’t look for them. Even when provided said studies, you laugh them off with an ad hominem or you repeat the ‘consensus’ as if that argument has merit in context.

                  No one really doubts that mankind has some effects on the environment. In fact, there are some area’s where it’s actually been proven. Cook took all the papers that espoused an opinion, measured only those, and then took any paper that claimed any effects as attributable to man and lumped them together regardless of the extent or actual claim.

                  So, in short, 97% of climatologists with an opinion note that some amount of changing climate could be attributable to man. Notably, that’s not a claim the bears repeating as it’s vague enough to be effectively meaningless.

                  Pretending that 97% of climatologists think the world is going to end is an outright lie. As is the notion that they all agree on some central premise. They don’t.

                  That’s before we start to talk about the general reproducibility crisis in science, and how ‘peer review’ has in general failed as of late. Combine that with ‘science’ that rests entirely on manipulated data, and you have good reason to be skeptical of doomsayers in particular.

                  And while we’re on the subject or reproducibility, what about those climate models huh? Entirely accurate, you’d say?

                  Certainly you would need to believe they are to make the claims you make. Nevermind that they have not, in fact, tracked with reality at any point.

                  1. Just a clarification on the Cook paper–

                    97% of the climatologistsscientists who responded to Cook’s inquiry (less than one third of those the inquiry was sent to) who had an opinion on climate change at all (less than one third of those who responded) note that some amount of changing climate could be attributable to man.

                    There. The biggest caveats. There are others.

              2. 3% of all climate papers go against man made climate change. A meta review of those found them all seriously flawed. There really is not much room for debate, as we can see today in these comments.

                https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

                1. Again… you dont understand what you are linking to. Did you get dropped on the head as a child?

                  Studies that purport the consensus throw out the best majority of papers. They focus solely on ones that say yes man did it or no man didnt. They ignore the vast majority of papers that explain the effects from nature. You are too dumb to even open up an abstract and see the serious flaws in what you’re linking. You’re linking to fucking social science papers, not climate science.

                  Youre an idiot.

                2. “”3% of all climate papers go against man made climate change.””

                  Some of the largest climate change events have happened prior to humans.

                  How did humans cause the ice age?

                  1. Time travel!

            2. The Cook Paper is one of the most widely debunked papers of all time. He is a social scientist. He read only the abstracts. He tossed out over 80% of the reference material. He was found to be working on coordination with reviewers. A huge subset of the paper authors said he misconstrued their abstracts.

              The fact that you went to Cook explains how stupid you are.

              1. You still can’t make a positive case for your side. Show me some peer reviewed papers that support your position. I can find 1000’s that support the case for man made climate change driven by co2. Why can’t you do the same?

                It’s easy to criticize when I’m the only presenting facts. You just tried to pass off the work of a think tank that wants to get rid of anti trust laws as equal to the work by real scientists.

                Face it, the evidence for your position is as weak as it gets. Don’t like cook? Fine. Read the 1000’s of peer reviewed papers that support the case for climate change yourself and write your own meta analysis.

                1. You dont even know what my side is dumbfuck.

                  I’m solely pointing out how dumb you are.

                2. “You still can’t make a positive case for your side.”

                  I’m sure it’s a surprise to you, but asking someone to prove a negative is not the brightest strategy.
                  It pretty much proves you’re a fucking ignoramus.

                3. Pedo Jeffy doesn’t understand how debate works. He thinks the negative has to be proven. As he is a stupid shitweasel who should commit suicide right away.

          2. Pedo Libor is known for that. Including his stolen valor when he claimed to be Special Forces.

            1. You guys have to claim I’m lying because my sourced arguments, aka facts, are hard for you to deal with. The other tact is to latch on to a pedantic point about some word definition or other. Both are coping techniques for when your argument sucks and you know it.

              1. You’ve posted no facts. You’ve posted flawed social science papers. And you dont even realize that.

                1. He expects you to prove the negative. Which is the opposite of how debate works.

        3. The last 45 years in Australia have been ‘unusually’ wet.

          Why was the last 45 years of wetness not caused by Climate Change but this one year of drought is?

          My opinion is more correct than 1000’s of PhD level scientists who work exclusively in this field

          Your link doesn’t quote “1000’s of PhD level scientists who work exclusively in this field.” It’s a grab-bag of data points cherry picked from a wide array of studies whose authors have a wide divergence of views. I would bet you cash money that the majority would draw no explicit connection between Climate Change and the Australian fires (and your link certainly makes no such connection).

          Don’t pretend you have a link to “1000’s of PhD level scientists who work exclusively in this field” confirming that Australia’s fires are caused by Climate Change when you don’t have anything remotely resembling that. It smacks of dishonesty.

          1. ‘Climate change’ is only cited when bad things can be pointed to, regardless of the cause. When one points to good changes we’re reminded that weather isn’t the climate.

            I’m constantly amazed that those who want to hold the climate in stasis aren’t laughed out of the room, but that is essentially what the ‘true believers’ want.

            Personally, these types of idiots are more likely to create an apocalypse through foolhardy geoengineering than we’re likely to see from nature. At least in the near term, anyway, given that ‘nature’ will inevitably destroy the entire solar system.

            1. When one points to good changes we’re reminded that weather isn’t the climate.

              Exactly – one year of climate event preceded by 45 years of weather.

              Personally, these types of idiots are more likely to create an apocalypse through foolhardy geoengineering than we’re likely to see from nature.

              Agreed. I’m not convinced CO2 emissions are the primary problem (or even that there necessarily is a problem), but I consciously reduce CO2 emissions anyway, at least in those ways that don’t require major sacrifices because I figure at least there’s no harm in reducing them.

              But some of geo-engineering projects people are proposing in the heat of hysterical panic are downright scary, and could do real damage to the planet. Hubris, thy name is Humanity.

              1. If CO2 emissions are the problem, than it’s hard to explain away prehistoric C02 PPM levels in the thousands range (at least ~3000PPM) versus those in the ~400 range of today. In fact, given that at least ~170 PPM CO2 is required for life to exist on Earth, you tell me if we’re closer to extinction via not enough CO2 versus dying out from levels that aren’t even in the ballpark of prehistoric levels.

                And no, those ~3000PPM levels were definately there when life was probably more diverse than it is today. So-called Climatologists don’t want anyone to consider those facts, because they cut the nuts off their dire predictions and reveal them to be histrionics over well-within-normal variations in our climate.

                Those people freaking out over CO2 would be well-served by getting involved in reducing actual pollution as opposed to the imaginary kind. Sadly, then you’d also need the balls to separate trade with China and India and that is simply a bridge too far for pretty much everyone.

                1. Yeah – I certainly don’t think we’re anywhere near problematic CO2 levels, except, as you say, insomuch as they are dangerously low.

                  Still, since we’re all actively burning something pretty much all the time, I don’t think we’re in any danger of CO2 levels going down (barring Humanity doing something stupid collectively, which is a real possibility).

                  But, really, we’ve lost sight of the fact that the original problem was the suggestion that the world is warming too quickly. It’s a serious minority that thinks the world could ever be too hot to support life.

                  And the fact is that the world isn’t warming as quickly as we once feared it was.

                  1. True enough, although the ‘too quickly’ argument rests on data that simply doesn’t exist which normally gives intelligent people pause.

                    I imagine the ‘too quickly’ angle on it getting warmer ignores the ‘too quickly’ of probably every ice age the world has endured, and will certainly be forced to endure again.

                    Ignoring the certainty of another ice age in the long term appears to be par for the course for climatology. Maybe that’s why they have to fear monger 100 years in advance, as opposed to 100,000 years in advance.

                2. The whole point of the ‘climate change’ movement is to create an global autocratic system rooted in Marxism. It is also being used to destroy American exceptionalism.

                  1. Everything is a conspiracy! Except when your chosen father figure sends his son to take a meeting with Russian spies. Then it’s “fake news”.

                    Do you really think you are an impartial consumer of facts? You start with an agenda, then decide what the facts are. It’s painfully obvious.

                    1. Patrick Moore is part of a vast right wing conspiracy! Actually you probably believe that so never mind.

                    2. So we’re going to ignore that climate alarmism is a multi-trillion dollar industry that would vanish in an instant if the scientists it funds didn’t find some sort of problem with the climate?

                      The Sun determines 99.9% of earth’s climatic conditions. Not much anyone can do about it.

                    3. You are too invested in your belief systems (climate change, politics) to be objective in your assessments of these topics.

                    4. It isn’t a conspiracy you fucking pedophile. It’s an overt global movement. And you’ve produced zero peer reviewed papers that prove it isn’t.

                3. Comparing co2 levels in the pre Cambrian to co2 levels that are compatible with modern human society unironically to support a case against man made climate change…are you for real?

                  And which is your argument? That co2 is not tied to temperature, or that co2 is tied to temperature, but higher temperatures would have no negative effects?

                  1. Guess what happens when you put in the pre Cambrian C02 levels into the models you worship…

                    I already know you have no scientific or math background… but if you actually cared about the topic you’d research system stability and immediately laugh the Climate Alarmist argument out of the room.

                    1. Some guy on the internet just told me that 1000’s of peer reviewed papers on climate are wrong. Not just wrong, but laughably wrong. Gee, you should get your honorary PhD from Yale any day now.

                      I used to deny climate change too. I used to hold all the same republican bullshit opinions you do now. I know you feel that nagging doubt. “Why are all the racists and inbreds on the same team as me? Why do scientists who aren’t paid by BP all say climate change is real? Why are all the fake looney religious types on my team? Why do people tend to agree with my positions less and less the more education they get?”

                      Eventually it just becomes unavoidable. As painful as it is, you will have to face reality and adjust your opinions to match. Or not. Just dig in deeper and get a nice head start on the crazy angry uncle personality type.

                    2. No, I didnt. This is how I know you’re fucking retarded.

                      I said Cook misconstrued the abstracts. The vast majority of climate papers present no argument on the man made question fucking moron.

                    3. And jeff, you were never republican. You’ve always sucked the tit of socialism because you fail at life and need a net.

                    4. “Some guy on the internet just told me that 1000’s of peer reviewed papers on climate are wrong.”

                      Well if there was any doubt this was Little Jeffy this comment does that in. Intentionally missing the point his opponents make repeatedly.

                    5. Pedo Jeffy is moving goal posts again. And asserting authority of his alleged ‘papers’ that all prove his premise.

                      Just take his word for it. Even though he loves child rape, lies about being American, pretended to be a SF veteran, and is just a sock of Chemjeff/Cytotoxic.

                      The little puke needs to go.

                  2. ‘Compatible with modern human society’, of course, being a non-sequitur to the point at hand. It’s meaningless hand waving.

                    One might as well blame the ancient Egyptians and Greeks for changing the environment and sinking Thonis-Heracleion.

                    This just in: building major cities on the ocean is a terrible idea, but human’s keep doing it anyway.

                  3. Comparing co2 levels in the pre Cambrian to co2 levels that are compatible with modern human society

                    Are you on drugs?

                    Do you not grasp that we can’t even begin to compare levels because they were so much higher. 3000ppm and up, sometimes to 7000ppm

                    We’re within 300ppm of a planet that is unable to support our kind of life.

                    We’re near 400ppm. Life ends around 150ppm. That’s where plants can’t photosynthesize.

                    You–and all your retarded brethren don’t seem to understand that the tipping point we’re near is not too MUCH CO2–it’s too LITTLE.

                    CO2 toxicity begins at around 15,000ppm.

                    And not one thing I’ve said is in that weird politicized science realm. Everything is a simple fact that anyone can find. Because the reality is that we’re so far OUT of danger we’re approaching annihilation through the practices we’ve undertaken to make ourselves safe from a scourge that’s never coming.

              2. “CO2 emissions are the primary problem”

                They aren’t a problem. The majority of the warming is night time winter weather which has extended growing seasons. Increased carbon offsets water consumption in plant crops. Water is a more vital resource at the moment.

          2. I like science. I trust science. You guys like your opinions better.

            Being libertarian does not mean you have to be contrarian about everything. 97% of peer reviewed papers written about climate in the last two decades support the case for man made climate change. Don’t close your eyes to the facts just because they might lead to some political issues that your chosen dogma can’t deal with.

            1. More bullshit from Pedo Libor. That 97% figure has long since been debunked you little piece of shit. Just like every other statement you’ve ever made.

              With the exception of Hihn, you are the most reviled, dishonest shitweasel to post here. Hihn is almost certainly clinically insane.

              What’s your excuse?

              1. Go on and show me the debunking then. Funny how all of your, and every other die hard right wing no nothing in here, sources evaporate when called to produce them.

                Go on. I asked for peer reviewed papers, 1000’s of them, that make a case against man made climate change. Go on, let’s see them.

                1. “According to Bahner (and I have not gone through and checked the raw data for myself), of the 11,944 abstracts that Cook et al examined, only 64 claimed explicitly that humans are the main cause of global warming.”

                  https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/03/16_not_97_agree.html

                  1. Still well within the right-o-sphere. Can you find a non political source that supports your case? It seems not.

                    Several other reviews of the Cook paper have been done, as well as other meta studies on the same topic. All support the 97% figure.

                    “Nevertheless, the existence of the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is a reality, as is clear from an examination of the full body of evidence. For example, Naomi Oreskes found no rejections of the consensus in a survey of 928 abstracts performed in 2004. Doran & Zimmerman (2009) found a 97% consensus among scientists actively publishing climate research. Anderegg et al. (2010) reviewed publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting human-caused global warming, and again found over 97% consensus among climate experts. Cook et al. (2013) found the same 97% result through a survey of over 12,000 climate abstracts from peer-reviewed journals, as well as from over 2,000 scientist author self-ratings, among abstracts and papers taking a position on the causes of global warming.

                    In addition to these studies, we have the National Academies of Science from 33 different countries all endorsing the consensus. Dozens of scientific organizations have endorsed the consensus on human-caused global warming. Only one has ever rejected the consensus – the American Association of Petroleum Geologists – and even they shifted to a neutral position when members threatened to not renew their memberships due to its position of climate denial.”

                    https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm

                    1. You are literally using a link owned and operated (skeptical science) by the same guy that wrote the Cook paper, you dunce. You can’t use the guy espousing the theory as a reliable source on the correctness of that theory.

                      That isn’t ‘peer review’ it’s ‘self review’.

                    2. When you’re a dishonest piece of shit you can. Right Little Jeffy?

                    3. “climate denial.”

                      A term that better fits people opposed to a dynamic climate

                    4. Libor cannot be trusted as he has made these topics his religion. I see it everyday over on Quora – people deny what is right in front of them. He has made climate change and orange man bad his group identified. Arguing with him further entrenches his beliefs. If it is the government’s plan to divide and conquer, Libor is the eager putty in their hands.

                    5. Can you find a nonpolitical source that supports your stance?

                    6. Why do we bother to address him? Best everyone pile on with me and convince him to drink Drano.

            2. You’ve proven to know science even worse than Tony which I thought was impossible.

              Science is not appeal to authority, especially when you don’t understand what the authority is saying.

              1. You keep saying that I don’t understand, yet you are unable to produce sources outside of some dude’s blog and a political think tank.

                If it is so devastatingly simple, as you claim, to prove climate change is a hoax, then I would expect at least one peer reviewed paper that supports that. Why can’t you produce it? There seriously has to be at least one out there. One that wasn’t paid for by BP or Exxon, that is.

            3. De Oppresso Liber
              January.13.2020 at 7:10 pm
              “I like science. I trust science…”

              You should learn something about it.

            4. Don’t you mean you fucking love science?

              Anyone who uses the word ‘deny’ can be safely ignored.

              And to still believe the 97% myth is…well obtuse. That bull shit has been so thoroughly discredited it’s no excuse to keep being ignorant about it.

            5. “Why are all the racists and inbreds on the same team as me”?

              Haha. So you like sweeping generalizations. Speaks well to your impartiality. Cuz people who hate white people cannot be racist.

              1. The problem with the psudo science climate change people is they cannot come up with a model that holds up over time.

            6. “”I like science. I trust science.””

              Science only trust science so far. One of the major components of science is that everything is challengeable. Everything is open to debate at all times. If it is true, it survives the challenge every time. Science does not say things like the science is settled. Science does nothing to stifle debate. To the contrary, it welcomes debate.

              The problem with many that believe humans are the cause of climate change will attempt to prevent debate. Climate change has always existed. Those who think the earth’s climate is relatively static in a way that supports human life is just wrong. According to the climate history of the world.

          3. The wildfires in Australia are just one piece of evidence. I could point you toward the massive coral die offs, which I’ve seen first hand, or that every single day’s mean global temperature now setting records, or that there has been an increase of 1 degree in global mean temperature just since 1979 and it correlates with an extremely high r value with the increase in co2.

            https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/are-humans-major-cause-global-warming

            1. You haven’t seen a goddamn thing you little liar. Your argument was destroyed, so now you move goalposts…….again.

              Go drink Drano.

              1. So now I couldn’t possibly be a diver? Again, you have to accuse me of lying — anything I mention, no matter how mundane and plausible– because you literally have no argument.

                You lose. Again.

                1. Jesse is a hypocrite as well as a liar… Likes to accuse OTHERS of lying, while he lies his butt off!

                  Do not be deceived by JesseAZ! JesseAZ does NOT believe that LIES are bad in ANY way! Only ACTIONS matter, ethically or morally! See https://reason.com/2020/01/01/trumps-inartful-dodges/#comment-8068480
                  “Words are words dumbfuck. Actions are where morals and ethics lie.”, says JesseAZ. When confronted with offers of hush money, illegal commands (from a commanding military officer), offers of murder for hire, libel, slander, lies in court, yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, inciting riots, fighting words, forged signatures, threatening to kill elected officials, false representations concerning products or services for sale… these are all “merely” cases of “using words”. Just like the Evil One (AKA “Father of Lies”), Jesse says lies are all A-OK and utterly harmless! So do NOT believe ANYTHING that you hear from JesseAZ!

                  Also according to the same source, JesseAZ is TOTALLY on board with dictatorship (presumably so long as it is an “R” dictator that we are talking of).
                  With reference to Trump, JesseAZ says…
                  “He is not constitutionally bound on any actions he performed.”

                  1. You’re allied with Pedo Jeffy. Possibly the only person here. More hated than you. The two of you should engage in a suicide pact.

                    And yes, that is TOTALLY libertarian.

              2. Isn’t Liquid Plumber more effective?

            2. There is no coral die off. There was literally a lawsuit in Australia last year won by a professor proving there was no die off. Coral is thriving.

              You are really dumb.

              Link to paper in article, you need an account to access which we know you don’t have.

              https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/17/remember-when-they-told-us-coral-bleaching-was-a-sure-result-of-recent-man-made-global-warming-never-mind/

              1. https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/03/21/why-is-so-much-of-the-worlds-coral-dying

                Those lefties at …the economist…er… are part of the Marxist conspiracy!

                1. Yes, the Economist is a shill for Global Socialism

              2. And allow me a moment to laugh at your right wing blog sources …

                ahahahahahahahaha

                I’ve got NASA, NOAA, and every single other association of scientists (sorry, American Oil Geologists are only neutral on the topic). You’ve got a guy called Anthony Watt’s blog and an anti-anti trust think tank.

                You’ve been duped by big oil. You might as well argue that cigarettes don’t cause cancer.

            3. Except that none of that is happening.

            4. These two things cannot be true at the same time–

              or that every single day’s mean global temperature now setting records, or that there has been an increase of 1 degree in global mean temperature just since 1979

              Thus, you are revealed to be not just a prevaricator, but a bad one.

        4. Remember: England is about the same size as Alabama and Australia is about the same size as the United States.

          I guess that doesn’t have the same level of impact for some reason.

          Also, for reference, Australia has an average population density of 3.3 persons per square kilometre of total land area vs. 92 residents per square mile of land area here in the U.S.

          Just some interesting factoids that could help explain how Australia might have some issues with rural fires growing out of control.

            1. A fire this large?

              A.
              Fire.

              Google big blow up 1910.

              Never mind that these fires never combined into one.

            2. Gee, another claim that this has never happened in the history of ever before. I suppose when you limit yourself to British record keeping of a tiny corner of continent that might even be true!

              One might be tempted to think that a mostly-desert island (35% desert classification, or 70% arid classification) the size of the United States might have had some epic fires in the past when no one was around to see them. Aborigine’s probably set more than a few of them themselves, but I doubt they used their satellites to measure them or their area.

        5. Fuck off Jeff, you dishonest piece of shit.

          1. I love it when you guys cede the argument. That was easy.

            1. You haven’t made a valid argument baby jeffrey.

              1. I most certainly have. I am still waiting for a single, solitary peer reviewed paper from you that supports your position. I’ve lost count of how many I’ve posted now.

                1. I don’t need peer reviewed papers to prove you’re a dishonest piece of shit Little Jeffy.

                  Also funny you don’t deny that you’re Little Jeffy.

                2. You talk about peer reviewed papers a lot as if it flows one way to confirm your alarmism masking as science.

                  I bet you you love Neil De Grasse-Tyson, right?

                  Has he ever written a peer reviewed paper?

                  1. No. Neil degrasse Tyson is clearly an inbred racist working for the other “team”.

                    Haha.

                    1. That was a weird response.

                    2. My option of Degrasse-Tyson started going way downhill when I saw him in Zoolander 2

                  2. Tyson?

                    The guy that runs the planetarium at the New York City Museum of Natural History?

                    Who cares what he thinks. Idiot made headlines a few years back screeching at anyone who’d listen that Pluto isn’t a planet–it’s a dwarf planet.

                    He never could understand why people were avoiding him.

                    1. I like his smarter brother Mike a lot better. That guy is one hell of a mystery solver too.

        6. Well, except that its not the hottest and driest year on record in Australia.

          And the fires are burning such a large area because of a couple decades of really bad fire management practices – like in California. You’ll notice that hotter and drier states aren’t burning.

            1. And, frankly, I can’t take NASA as a serious source – even for space stuff. This is the agency that was doing ‘Muslim outreach’. Because which way you face when praying is totally applicable to engineering.

              1. Yeh, seriously. They jumped the shark when they did that.

        7. Your link refers nothing about wildfires and your estimated size of them.

    2. This is how they pretend they didn’t just spend the better part of two weeks making the exact opposite arguments/predictions

    3. And your prediction record is …?

    4. I think this is Reason’s way of saving face considering how wrong their predictions have been regarding Iran. It appears this is consistent amongst all of Trump’s enemies.

  3. “This is all happening against the backdrop of massive protests in Iran following the accidental shooting down of a Ukrainian airliner that carried 176 people.”

    Those protests should be directed at Orange Hitler, not the Iranian government. It’s his fault the passengers died.

    #CrossFire

    1. “The killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani by the United States military will understandably dominate headlines for weeks if not months to come.

      But the actual demise of the authoritarian regime that’s been in power since 1979 will come more from acts like the one taken by Kimia Alizadeh

      This is all happening against the backdrop of … ”

      Trump offing Soleimani.

      Reason desperately trying to set The Narrative that the current unrest in Iran has nothing at all to do with Trump offing Soleimani.

      I wonder when the Iranians will start holding up posters of Trump as Rocky like the Hong Kong protestors do.

      #MAGA

      1. No, no, the strike on Suleimani and sanctions have nothing to do with the Iranian people pressuring the regime!
        Ken explained it all so well: “luck and hindsight bias” (nevermind the predictions made by others)!

  4. “late last year”

    Aka, a few weeks ago

  5. good for them. burn it down one defection at a time.

  6. The Right builds walls to keep people out. The Left builds walls to keep people in.

    If Iran doesn’t build that wall soon, it’s going to have nobody left.

    1. Iran’s theocratic regime is leftist?

      1. Totalitarianism that enforces strict dogma?
        Yes

        1. *adherence to strict dogma

          1. So religion is leftist now?

            1. Because that’s the topic, not collectivist statism that enforces its social engineering at the point of a gun…
              Be better

              1. Eric is Boehm, right? It would explain a lot.

            2. Monotheistic theocracy is leftist.

              Always has been.

              All for the central authority, nothing against the central authority.

              Where did you think Marx got the idea?

      2. “”Iran’s theocratic regime is leftist?”‘

        Who knows anymore?

        I thought the left hated theocracies, but they seem to support this one.

  7. 150,000 educated Iranians emigrate each year, “costing the country over $150 billion per year”

    Why doesn’t the all-powerful theocracy stop ’em?

    1. Their hold on power has been tenuous at best over the least twenty years or so. Maybe they just don’t have the juice to force everyone to stay.

    2. The regime can give you a decent basic education in physics, mathematics, biology, tech.

      They cannot go much beyond that. So post grads go to euro or US.

      Most do not want to go back.

      That is why the regime will fail. Like the soviets they could not invent the Walkman or Levi’s just cheap copies.

      1. “The regime can give you a decent basic education in physics, mathematics, biology, tech.”

        Pretty sure praising Allah 5 times a day limits the real education.

    3. Maybe they don’t have jobs for them beyond their nuclear weapons programs? If so, maybe the regime would rather they be gone, work in the EU and send money back to their families than to be forced to stay and cause additional unrest.

      I’m sure they don’t allow nuclear scientists and engineers to leave the country for any reason.

    4. “Why doesn’t the all-powerful theocracy stop ’em?”

      The “all-powerful theocracy” isn’t all-powerful, and putting up a wall to keep fleeing citizens from emmigrating doesn’t help their reputation, match their words, and will lead to more anger at them.

      Besides, by allowing people who don’t like them to leave, gives them a bigger majority.

      If you’re focused on Islam, do you care if people leave and the country gets poorer? I think not.

  8. the bronze medalist in Taekwondo in the 2016 Summer Games

    But when a country starts to get hollowed out from within, as seems to be the case with Alizadeh’s exile a

    You people are beyond parody.

  9. MIGA

    Trump is going to free the whole fucking world in his second term.

    1. And Reason will fight their liberation all the way.

      1. I suspect they might go batshit crazy should he be re-elected. Becoming like the democrats. Wherein if trump cured cancer, Reason would take up for the rights of malignant tumors.

  10. The nation’s only female Olympic medalist says she has permanently left the Islamic Republic due to the oppression of women.

    She’d better not go on Twitter with that shit. Oppression? Are you kidding me? Iran, like all Islamic countries, treats women far better than anything they can find in any other country. Do you know, for example, that some women in this country are refused basic necessities like menstrual products and abortions and cervical exams simply because they have testicles and scrotums and penises rather than ovaries and uteruses and vaginas? Talk about oppression! Islam treats women as precious objects to be protected and defended and cared for just as one would protect and defend and care for a camel or a rug or a favorite pair of shoes. How dare she complain!

    1. <>
      CLAP (pause)
      CLAP (pause)
      CLAP (pause)
      CLAP (pause)
      CLAP (pause)

      1. The first thing should say “standing”

    2. Islam treats women as precious objects to be protected and defended and cared for just as one would protect and defend and care for a camel or a rug or a favorite pair of shoes. How dare she complain!

      Women are freely allowed to squat and pee in the same holes the men pee into just as Allah intended.

      1. And lest we forget, the Burqa is liberating to women because they are freed from the imperious male gaze and can be judged on the merits of their personality and ability.

        True story, if western-style far-left feminists are to believed.

    3. On your game this evening.

    4. “”Do you know, for example, that some women in this country are refused basic necessities like menstrual products and abortions and cervical exams simply because they have testicles and scrotums and penises rather than ovaries and uteruses and vaginas?””

      The East Germans want their women’s Olympic team back.

  11. So I guess it is impossible that both external action to remove the masterminds of thousands of deaths AND the uprising of the people can BOTH contribute to toppling the Iranian regime?

    1. Nothing that might possibly make Trump look better must ever be entertained.

  12. Who cares? The olympics are in and on itself a problem as big as the religious right? I still have the PTSD from when It came to my country. If this woman want the status of hero, she should denunciate the olympics corruption. Why Nick always do this kind of unimportant stories?

    1. He should have written about Neil Peart and Rush.

      /lights lighter and raises it.

      1. Haha. Yeah. R.i.p. :-/

      2. This remind me, years ago I read somethings about musicians that were being repressed in Iran and other Islamic countries. https://religiondispatches.org/rage-against-the-regime-voices-from-the-iranian-underground-music-scene/ What the hell happened to these people? It would be a better reading than someone on the olympics.

        1. https://pointofinquiry.org/2011/09/austin_dacey_rock_the_theocrats/ I think I still have a video of a band mentioned on this podcast on iTunes. 😛

          1. If I ever redo my vows with the wife, I’m selecting that as the slow dance.

        2. Looks interesting. Will read later.

        3. In my experience, these people are more/mostly famous for their political plight rather than their musical talent and, once they escape oppression, their music starts to get judged on the merits.

          Not all of them, but the vast majority.

      3. >>lights lighter

        you’d scare the children but they’re in their phones recording the show

        1. Kids today. Pft.

          /waves lighter furiously.

      4. Someone else wrote about him.

        1. Yeh Christian’s token article. Weak sauce. It was as if Nick told him ‘just post anything to shut Rufus up’.

    2. It’s Nick’s way of avoiding the fact that Trump got it right. Instead of being a man and admitting he was wrong.

      1. Funny how that happens

  13. Boy, if only we could get some of that overthrow the government energy here in the United States. Some child-diddling dick is running this place and he didn’t even win the majority of the votes even if we count the places where 14-year old cousin humping is common. Geesch.


    1. …he didn’t even win the majority of the votes even if we count the places where 14-year old cousin humping is common.

      I know this is either parody or trolling, but what does Pakistan have to do with the 2016 election?

    2. Your hatred of Americans is noted.

      1. Not to mention his hatred of adulthood; ask him if he ever paid his mortgage or left the rest of us to clean up after him.

    3. The problem with getting “some of that overthrow the government energy here in the United States” is that a bunch of government insiders will be claiming they are the ones to take it over, leaving it bigger and more powerful than it was before Trump was elected.

      Same thing the GOP RINOs did to the Tea Party, claiming they were Tea Party types. At least conservatives learned and elected Trump instead, who had no government experience, but a lot of executive experience.

  14. Is there evidence of a substantial number of Iranians in Iran that are pro-freedom rather than anti-theocracy and/or anti-US? Second, is there evidence that migration from Iran to relatively free countries has increased or decreased over time? The author didn’t say.

    1. Another follow up question being that if all the ‘pro-democracy’ Iranians flee Iran…than who will remain to overthrow the theocracy?

      1. I skimmed the Carnegie Endowment Report linked in the article. So another follow up question. Brain drain is also a problem in other countries. (A) Why should we say that 150k a year leaving Iran is a big deal or magic number and (B) is the author expecting other countries with a brain drain problem to implode, like various EU countries and Australia?

    2. Relatively pro freedom in Iran.

      Almost certainly not pro freedom in the Anglo American sense, which is the extreme outlier in the world. Not a single other nation in the world has the equivalent of just the 1st and 2nd Amendment, let alone the whole panoply of private property, rule of law, separation of powers, etc.

      Import Not Americans, become Not America.

      1. “Relatively pro freedom in Iran.”

        Ask an Iranian woman…

        1. “pro freedom in the Anglo American sense”: the sense that matters

          1. It’s the sense that matters when Americans consider their immigration policy.

        2. Iranian Kimia Alizadeh is obviously pro-freedom. As are a lot of other Iranians who keep protesting their government in spite of hundreds of them being killed by Iranian government thugs, including Soleimani.

          A journalist should ask her what she thinks of Soleimani, but since that’s going to help Trump, none are.

  15. Give ’em hell, ladies.

  16. Iran’s Theocracy Will Collapse Because of People Like Kimia Alizadeh The nation’s only female Olympic medalist says she has permanently left the Islamic Republic due to the oppression of women.

    How does an Olympic athlete leaving cause a government to collapse?

    1. The smart productive people are leaving Iran. As a result, it’s going to get more primitive and poorer. The people (who know what the freedom of separating church and state is like during the reign of the Shah) won’t like it. It discredits the Islamic leaders who keep telling them God will provide for them through their government.

      Iran does have elections, though all candidates must be approved by the Guardian Council.

      Government that doesn’t have the support of the people usually doesn’t last. Often a military leader will use such a situation to stage a coup.

  17. Does this mean WWIII is over?

  18. No authoritarian regime has ever collapsed because of defectors.

    1. True enough, but all of them collapsed once the populations decided they’d had enough (signaled by defectors and protestors), and finally by a military who would not shoot their neighbors.
      The Chi Coms are dealing with this right now, and they have not sent in the military. My guess is they have not for fear the military might say “Nope”.
      The next step might be shooting the government…

  19. Er, no, people leaving the country will not cause it to collapse. People staying and fighting to overthrow the government will…

  20. De Oppresso Liber
    January.13.2020 at 7:32 pm
    “I love it when you guys cede the argument. That was easy.”

    I love it when some lefty fucking ignoramus leaves the door open this wide.
    Hint: Science ain’t a number of peer-reviewed papers; those are sort of like the popular vote which didn’t get that hag elected; you and she lost, because you ain’t smart enough to figure it out.
    Science works like this:
    Someone who practices science notices events occurring in some functional relationship, considers it and thinks s/he may have a theory for the reason those events occur in that manner.
    S/he then writes up the theory, predicting that if it is true, this event will occur as a result of that event, and if time is of value in the theory (as it certainly is here), the prediction will include the time when the predicted event follows the observed event. Are you seeing where this is going, you pathetic piece of shit?
    Search every one of those ‘peer reviewed’ participation trophies and get back to us when you find ONE (that’s all, just ONE) which has an accurate prediction. We’ll wait, ignoramus.
    You have one other problem: All those *billions* of scientists and celebrities who agree with each other that the end of the world is upon us? They don’t believe it either.
    If the claims were true, they would be searching frantically for a real solution, not windmills and solar panels. And the solution is right in front of us: Nukes. That’s all: Solves all the problems RIGHT NOW! And the watermelons (you included, you scumbag slaver) are silent.
    Further, all those H’wood watermelons lecturing us about “Climate Change”? I notice none have stopped flying around in their private jets, nor shorting their (soon to be underwater!) Malibu beachfront properties.
    I’m guessing you are stupid enough to have been conned; you’ve never shown any signs of intelligence. So we’ll forgive you for being a watermellon wannabe slaver.
    But, please, fuck off and die somewhere we can’t smell your pathetic carcass, you piece of shit.

    1. Now do deductive reasoning.

  21. Saeid Mollaei

    Iranian judoka athlete was ordered by the regime to intentionally lose so as to avoid a match against an Israeli and sought asylum in Germany. He was granted citizenship from Mongolia.

  22. I am boss of my own will. Come to join under link to earn $75 per hour by watching tv with family in spare time. Earn as much as you spent time. If so please copy the link and full fill your dream………. Read More

  23. I don’t see the defection of a prominent athlete leading to the end of this regime. There are only 2 ways regimes are overthrown from within – if the guardians turn against the regime or if the guardians are killed to the last man. This regime is backed by Revolutionary Guards, Basij Militia, and secret police, all numbering in the millions. They are fanatics who will fight to the last man standing. That would require an armed revolution with at least 10 million fighters who are just as committed to victory. Iran may have unrest, and some rebels may be under the delusion that they can overthrow the regime through street protests, so I wouldn’t be surprised if the guards kill a million or two protestors, while the regime is stronger than ever.

    1. Sobering dose of reality. As happened the last time around in 2009 when regime thugs roamed on motorcycles and offed a few hundred.

    2. Probable.
      But the ayatollah’s position may become so untenable that a change is made at the top.
      He’s old and has cancer, so might look to replace him.
      And that could be bad, or better.
      We don’t know yet

      1. Their best likely outcome is to get a sane, secular dictator like Saddam or Gaddafi. That’s the horrible thing… Those guys were about as good as it got for the Middle East and North Africa, and we took them out! I guess the powers that be didn’t like the fact that their nations were bordering on becoming 1st world, so they decided to knock them down a few pegs.

    3. Andrew’s predictions would have also applied verbatim to the Pacific Theater in July of 1945, but the August outcome falsified all such predictions.

  24. No she won’t, just like the millions of Iranians who fled before and during the revolution. So long as the only people who believe in freedom flee these nations, these nations will never be free. Let Iran rot like the cesspool it is.

  25. She can’t come here. Trump says USA isn’t accepting any more refugees.

    1. Come in as a desired athlete. We seem to make room for them.

      1. Or fashion model. Don’t forget those.

      2. I’d rather take a doctor or an engineer vs some stupid cunt karate kid wannabe.

  26. “The virtue of a woman is not to stretch her legs!”

    the virtue of a religion is not to impose its values on others.

  27. If Iran’s government did collapse, so what. Is there a vital US interest at stake if that happens? I don’t see one. Personally, I think China has way more at stake in Iran’s government collapsing than we ever will.

    The Iranians can sort out their own internal affairs. One day, Iranians may celebrate the actions of Ms. Alizadeh and people like her. That remains to be seen.

  28. Girl-bullying mystical bigots fear nothing so much as a woman able to beat the bloody stool out of them. The American version rely on local Dixiecrat porkers–and the likes of Robert Dear, now indicted on some 40 counts for cop-killing and shooting up the Colorado clinic. The LP could help be removing its recent suicidal plank demanding that we be taxed to support in perpetuity thugs that have earned the privilege of stretching a rope.

Please to post comments