Iran Is Trying To Silence Dissent. Western Media Are Breaking Through Anyway.
Satellite broadcasting is a strategic counter to state censorship.
During his inaugural address, President Donald Trump declared that under his leadership, the U.S. would "stop all wars and bring a new spirit of unity to" the world. Thus far, he has mostly failed to deliver on this promise.
Since Trump's return to the White House, the U.S. has bombed Iran's nuclear facilities, conducted drone strikes on unsuspecting boats in the Caribbean, and extracted Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro from his residence in the capital city of Caracas.
Now it appears that a new conflict could begin under Trump's watch. As Reason's Matthew Petti reported on Wednesday, "the United States is entering a self-inflicted crisis in the Middle East" with Trump ordering "a 'beautiful armada' into the region." The escalation comes after tense negotiations over Iran's nuclear program, regional policies, and domestic politics, according to Petti.
If the U.S. does intervene in Iran, it could be met with more cooperation from Iranians than it would have been in years past. In January, the country underwent weeks of protests fueled by the waning Iranian economy. "These protests are very pro-Western…and seem to be, you know, something that the United States might be able to contribute to," Iranian-British journalist Fardad Farahzad recently told Reason's Zach Weissmueller.
This pro-Western tilt has been driven, in part, by the Iranian regime's cutthroat media restrictions during this time of economic insecurity. Most outside media are censored, and Iran's domestic internet has been heavily restricted, an environment that has been amplified since January. Despite this blockade, the regime has not been able to stop all outside media from coming into the country. Farahzad's show, 24 with Fardad Farahzad, which airs on Iran International, has been able to come in with satellites. Despite the Iranian regime's attempts to jam the signal, it's technically impossible for it to block the entire country or all satellites. And even though it's illegal in Iran to have a satellite antenna, the vast majority of Iranians have one.
Farahzad's channel has been designated as a terrorist organization by the regime, namely because of its coverage of local protests and the Mojahedin-e Khalq—an Iranian opposition group with Marxist ties, which organizations such as CNN have also reported on—and the fact that Iran International takes some financial support from Saudi Arabia. This designation has endangered Farahzad, whom the regime was reportedly planning to assassinate in London in 2022. "You're basically risking your life, really," he said to Reason's Zach Weissmuller.
Iran tries to control media narratives. A recent media package by CNN's Frederik Pleitgen "gives a false picture of what's happening in Iran," according to Farahzad. In it, Pleitgen is led around in Tehran selectively and is only permitted to interview pro-regime witnesses about American intervention in the region. "This is a controlled environment; people are not free to express themselves," Farahzad said to Reason. The country is also one of the world's biggest jailers of journalists, according to Reporters Without Borders.
The situation in Iran is evolving rapidly. Amid what seem like stalled negotiations, threats of regional conflict that would further disrupt daily life for Iranians, and media and protest crackdowns, satellite network broadcasting such as Iran International and YourTime TV remain essential to everyday Iranians.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
In January, the country underwent weeks of protests fueled by the waning Iranian economy.
How can that be? I was told in this comment section they are shipping millions of barrels of oil daily.
Give him a break. He doesn't start wars, and the result is no Nobel Peace Prize. Obama gets the Peace Prize, then starts wars to earn it after the fact. What did anyone expect Trump to do?
What did anyone expect Trump to do?
It's actually really weird. When, someone, specifically Trump in this case, says they're going to end all wars, apparently Reason doesn't think "Si vis pacem, para bellum". They, apparently instead, think, specifically Trump in this case, is going to heal the sick, raise the dead, be betrayed by his own disciples, get crucified, and rise three days later to take his rightful place as king of kings.
What lines are you reading between, the ones on the back of Charles I's death warrant written in lemon juice?
Top line: Everyone's enraptured in a blissful loving peace without a shot fired. World Peace.
Bottom line: After the expenditure of billions of rounds of ammo and munitions, everyone's dead. World Peace.
No matter how repugnant you or I may find either one, everything else is going to fall somewhere in between.
"gives a false picture of what's happening in Iran,"
Well, CNN is the world leader in that process.
I really hope the mullahs are literally torn apart in the streets. Or burnt at the stake, slowly. Reason will probably be inconsolable, just like when they and the democrats were when Trump killed their hero, Soleimani.
I'm honestly getting tired of the 'Western liberal ideas are about to win v a medieval authoritarian regime' meme. At this point, it is clearly just the way for the corrupt to sell yet another war for cronies to benefit. The last time democratization was on the rise against authoritarianism was in the 1980's and 1990's.
That trend has now completely reversed. Since many of those countries that were communist then are now still democratic, what it means is that the leading (meaning the ones who spread their ideas) democracies have actually, on net, turned the world authoritarian since the early 1990s.
That is a generational and massive failure. The world has reacted AGAINST what they have to offer. Which can definitely be seen inside the West itself with the rise of authoritarian populism against a corrupt globalist establishment. Neither side has anything to offer and should be dismissed. And it is why the BRICs are winning big.
Everything is terrible and unfair.
^so terrible and unfair, indeed.