Sono usciti in queste ore due nuovi bilanci delle vittime delle proteste che da settimane stanno riempiendo le strade di oltre 400 città in Iran, entrambi pubblicati il 25 gennaio 2026, che parlano di oltre 30.000 morti. Numeri che in queste ore vengono ripresi automaticamente e senza alcun controllo da molti media italiani e che, anche per questo, meritano di essere analizzati da vicino, soprattutto per capire da dove provengono, su quali fonti si basano e quanto siano affidabili.

È fuori discussione che il regime iraniano stia reprimendo con estrema brutalità. In rete circolano centinaia di fotografie e video che mostrano blindati delle forze di sicurezza sparare con armi automatiche contro la folla, irruzioni negli ospedali, e ragazzi colpiti al volto da pallettoni d’acciaio che hanno provocato danni permanenti agli occhi. Reuters ha documentato l’apertura di sessioni d’emergenza dell’ONU sulla repressione in Iran.

Proprio per questo, nel caos informativo attuale, riteniamo necessario fare un controllo serio sulle due cifre che stanno dominando il dibattito: i 36.500 morti sostenuti da Iran International e i 30.000 morti riportati dal TIME.

Lo facciamo perché crediamo che un’informazione sana abbia bisogno di chiarimenti, soprattutto quando le fonti primarie lavorano in un perimetro poco chiaro e non forniscono documentazione concreta. I numeri alimentano conflitti, ne creano di nuovi e, in un momento in cui l’asse israelo-statunitense discute apertamente pressioni e ipotesi di regime change in Iran, cifre di questo tipo possono diventare strumenti politici.

Per Iran International i morti sono oltre 36.500. Ecco cosa non torna

Il primo numero arriva da Iran International, testata di informazione in farsi e inglese che il 25 gennaio ha pubblicato un articolo esclusivo sostenendo che oltre 36.500 iraniani sarebbero stati uccisi nella repressione delle proteste solo nelle giornate dell’8 e 9 gennaio, definendola il più sanguinoso massacro di civili in due giorni nella storia recente dell’Iran.

Secondo la testata, il proprio Editorial Board avrebbe ottenuto “documenti classificati”, “rapporti dal campo” e testimonianze di personale medico, famiglie e testimoni oculari. Tuttavia nessuno di questi materiali viene reso pubblico, nemmeno in forma parziale o oscurata, e non viene fornito alcun elemento verificabile esternamente. La catena delle fonti dichiarata è la seguente: le informazioni proverrebbero dall’Organizzazione di Intelligence dei Pasdaran (IRGC) e sarebbero state trasmesse al Supreme National Security Council. Due fonti anonime interne al Consiglio iraniano avrebbero riferito che in due report datati 22 e 24 gennaio il numero dei morti era rispettivamente “oltre 33.000” e “oltre 36.500”.

In sostanza, parliamo di documenti interni non pubblici, attribuiti a un apparato di sicurezza, raccontati da fonti confidenziali e “verificati” solo dalla redazione stessa. Dal punto di vista del fact-checking, si tratta di una verifica chiusa, non replicabile.

Il problema maggiore riguarda la rapidità con cui il bilancio è esploso. Solo pochi giorni prima, la stessa Iran International aveva parlato prima di 12.000 morti, poi di 16.500 morti, sempre citando fonti confidenziali e report non pubblici: In appena due giorni il bilancio retrospettivo dell’8-9 gennaio è stato raddoppiato fino a oltre 36.500.

La domanda resta evidente: se le fonti confidenziali sono le medesime, com’è possibile che un conteggio riferito a eventi già avvenuti venga raddoppiato nel giro di qualche giorno senza spiegare il meccanismo del ricalcolo? E se davvero emergono nuovi dati, perché non fornire almeno una metodologia, criteri geografici, estratti ospedalieri o altre evidenze che costruiscano un impianto accusatorio solido?

A questo si aggiunge il contesto di fiducia: Iran International è una testata con sede a Londra su cui negli anni sono emerse questioni legate a finanziamenti e influenza saudita. Il Guardian ha riportato preoccupazioni sui legami con ambienti vicini alla corte reale saudita e su flussi di denaro offshore. Questo non invalida automaticamente le notizie, ma aumenta la necessità di trasparenza quando si lanciano cifre che possono avere un impatto geopolitico enorme.

Time: il bilancio è di 30.000 morti. Ecco cosa non torna

Il secondo numero arriva dal TIME, che lo stesso 25 gennaio ha pubblicato un articolo titolando che “oltre 30.000”persone sarebbero state uccise in Iran tra l’8 e il 9 febbraio.

Il numero viene attribuito a due fonti:

– due funzionari anonimi del Ministero della Salute iraniano

– a un conteggio basato su dati ospedalieri redatto dal dottor Amir Parasta, chirurgo iraniano residente in Germania, che avrebbe prodotto un report con 30.304 vittime. Lo stesso TIME però scrive chiaramente:
“TIME has been unable to independently verify these figures.”

In altre parole, non si tratta di un’indagine del TIME, ma di un numero fornito da fonti che la redazione non è riuscita a verificare in modo indipendente.

Anche qui manca un elemento fondamentale: il presunto report di Parasta non è pubblico, non viene mostrato, non se ne conosce la metodologia, le strutture coinvolte, né i criteri di conteggio.

In più emerge un potenziale conflitto di interessi che il TIME non evidenzia in modo adeguato. Sul profilo Instagram riconducibile ad Amir Parasta compaiono numerose foto in cui partecipa a eventi pubblici con Reza Pahlavi, lo scià esiliato e figura centrale dell’opposizione iraniana che in queste settimane ha chiesto aiuto a Israele e USA per effettuare un regime change in Iran.

Nel link in bio del medico su Instagram compare inoltre un’organizzazione iraniano-americana di lobbying, in cui molti eventi vedono la presenza dello stesso Pahlavi. Questo non significa che i numeri siano falsi, ma indica chiaramente che la fonte è politicamente schierata e con interessi diretti nel processo di delegittimazione del regime. In un contesto così, questo andava dichiarato con molta più forza.

Gruppi indipendenti interni all’Iran che da anni combattono contro le violenze del regime di Khamenei, analizzando le violazioni contro i civili hanno riportato al 25 gennaio 2026 circa 5.400 vittime confermate. Gli stessi numeri di Hrana sono stati utilizzati appena 4 giorni fa dalla Reuters. Anche il New York Times ha deciso di non utilizzare la cifra del Time e Iran international scrivendo che il bilancio delle vittime aggiornato al 25 gennaio 2026 “è di 5.200 persone, tra cui 56 bambini, secondo l’agenzia di stampa degli attivisti per i diritti umani con sede a Washington” usando i dati dell’ong HRANA.

E se il New York Times e la Reuters hanno deciso di non fare affidamento sui report del Time e dell’Iran International, lo stesso non é stato per gran parte della stampa italiana che é corsa al copia/incolla riportando senza alcuna verifica i numeri analizzati in questo approfondimento.

L'articolo Iran: tutto quello che non torna sul bilancio di 30.000 morti diffusi dal Time e dall’Iran International proviene da InsideOver.

Massive crowds of protesters rallied in central Berlin on Saturday, Aug. 29 to protest coronavirus lockdown measures. Police ordered the crowd to disperse for breaking distancing rules and at least 300 arrests have been made.

How Big Was the Protest?

There were only 18,000 protesters present according to Deutsche Welle and 38,000 according to Reuters, although one protester who was at the protest called Andrea, who preferred that her full name not be used, said she estimated there were definitely hundreds of thousands and as many as 500,000 protesters. She believes the mainstream media was deliberately downplaying the amount of support for the protest.

Andrea said she and other protesters walked 8 kilometers around the city center because there were so many people and police had cordoned off the overcrowded central area and blocked a planned parade from taking place.

“At the main demo there was a huge crowd of people around the Brandenburg Gate,” Andrea said. “It was really dramatic because when we came past the embassy of the Americans and the Russians there were people outside who were demanding a peace treaty and a new constitution for Germany. Police came and arrested some of them and the others went away.”

Who Organized the Protests?

As a fairly grassroots protest there were various groups involved, but the main initiator of the protest was a Stuggart-based group called Lateral Thinking 711 which mobilizes followers online via social media like Facebook and Telegram.

The event had protesters from across the political spectrum from right to left and had a common theme of not believing that restrictions on freedom are necessary or valid and that the government is lying about many aspects of coronavirus and the reasons for the lockdown.

Protester: ‘Last Chance for Germany and the World to Remain Free’

Andrea said she attended because she no longer trusts her government to uphold basic democratic freedoms and does not believe the virus is as dangerous as health authorities claim.

“We could end up in authoritarian or even totalitarian surveillance and hygienic state without freedom and humanity. We need free media, but nobody listens, so we demonstrate,” Andrea said. “For me this is the last chance for Germany and the world to remain free, for our children to remain healthy and not get vaccinated, not get forced under a mask, not get quarantined all the time, locked down, not get all our basic economy and basis of living destroyed even further by all these lies the media and politicians tell us. They are all very corrupt.”

“This is the last chance for our freedom. If it doesn’t work out now, we are lost,” she added.

RFK Jr.: Lockdown Part of a Shift Toward a ‘Totalitarian’ World System

Remarks were made by Robert F. Kennedy Jr, the son of the late RFK and nephew of JFK, who stated that a powerful medical lobby wants to force unsafe vaccines on children and citizens and that the demonstration in Berlin was the site of an uprising against the new totalitarianism of worldwide surveillance and tyrannical global government which RFK Jr. terms a “bio-security agenda” run by Bill Gates and powerful political and corporate figures.

“They are in the process of shifting us towards a digital currency, which is the beginning of slavery,” Kennedy told the assembled thousands. “Because if they control your bank account, they control your behavior.”

Kennedy made further remarks that the pandemic is being intentionally used by plutocrats to crush the middle class.

“The pandemic is a crisis of convenience for the elites who are dictating these policies. It gives them the ability to obliterate the middle class, to destroy the institutions of democracy, to shift all of our wealth to a handful of billionaires to make themselves rich by impoverishing the rest of us,” Kennedy stated.

Germany and Coronavirus

Germany has recorded 240,986 cases of coronavirus and 9,289 deaths, many occuring with comorbidities. The country has seen less coronavirus-related fatalities than other European nations of a similar size.

Experts have credited this to Germany’s high testing rate, strong institutional and hospital capacity, rapid response once outbreak occurred and emphasis on preventing elderly patients from contracting the disease.

L'articolo Germans Flood the Streets of Berlin to Protest COVID-19 Restrictions proviene da InsideOver.

As protests continue to grow in Belarus, Russia has offered its support for embattled Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko. Moscow already has a military base in the neighboring state, which would enable it to provide rapid military support.

Moscow Could Lend a Hand

Doing so could tip the scales in Lukashenko’s favor as western powers increasingly call for new and fair elections.

Russia’s offer for help came during discussions between Lukashenko and Russian President Vladimir Putin, Bloomberg reported. The Belarus leader requested the help as the number of protestors swells. In response, Putin said he could help militarily, which would recall memories of Russia’s annexation of Crimea.

Putin has longed to rebuild the Soviet Union, but couldn’t exactly seize states as he pleased without international pushback. Instead, he has had to wait for opportunities to present themselves, as they did in the case of Crimea and Ukraine. Using 2014 Ukrainian revolution as justification, Putin successfully managed to carve off a piece of Ukraine while instigating a still ongoing battle for the rest.

Putin’s Potential Rationale for Intervention

Now, Belarus’ time might be up. The election fiasco and protests that have followed present a chance for Putin to mobilize the Russian military in order to reclaim former Soviet land. Lukashenko might have already offered a rationale for summoning Moscow troops, as CNBC reported.

“NATO troops are at our gates. Lithuania, Latvia, Poland and our native Ukraine are ordering us to hold new elections,” Lukashenko said. “If we kowtow to them, we will go into a tailspin,” he told supporters at a rally on Sunday. “We will perish as a state, as a people, as a nation.”

However, there are no NATO forces to be seen and the alliance denied that it was preparing to attack Belarus, Deutsche Welle reported.

“There is no NATO buildup in the region. NATO’s multinational presence in the eastern part of the Alliance is not a threat to any country. It is strictly defensive, proportionate, and designed to prevent conflict and preserve peace,” NATO said in a statement.

Putin Has Options

A lack of evidence notwithstanding, Putin could capitalize on Lukashenko’s fear-mongering and appears to be heading down that path. The Kremlin said external pressure is the source behind Belarus’ troubles. Although he didn’t mention where that pressure comes from, it is obvious that Putin was putting blame on the West.

Putin could act to strong arm protestors into submission by supporting Lukashenko militarily. Another option would allow him to reuse a successful tactic, Russian expert Julia loffe wrote for The Washington Post.

“Now Putin has a choice,” loffe wrote. “Does he repeat his 2014 maneuver [in Ukraine]—letting Lukashenko flee while gobbling up Belarus, risking a backlash from the West—or does he allow the situation to play out and modulate his interference? The fate of Belarus depends on what he decides.”

She noted the difference between Ukraine and Belarus — the former expressed support for rejoining Russia while Belarusians prefer their independence. However, that is likely a trivial detail to Putin as he marches toward his goal of rebuilding the Russian empire.

Planting the Seeds for Annexation

Lukashenko himself has avoided forging closer ties with Putin out of fear the Kremlin would try to instigate a takeover. At this point, however, Putin may be his only chance to retain any semblance of power.

There’s evidence Moscow was already preparing for a seizure of Belarus. Last month, 33 Russian mercenaries were detained near Minsk. Although the Kremlin asserted they were making their way to Venezuela, the mercenaries were part of The Wagner Group — the same outfit that has a hand in Russia’s operations in Ukraine and Syria.

It would not be above Putin to dispatch a small force to lay the groundwork for a possible takeover in Minsk.

The West Refuses to Act

The West may be unable to stop Putin from pursuing his designs on Belarus. Although the Russian military may not come to Lukashenko’s aid and the protestors may win this time, the successor would be prone to Putin’s plots. And if the Kremlin decides to harness its military to restore order, western powers are not in a position to act.

“Military interference in other states is not acceptable at all and breaks all the rules we have set ourselves under international law,” said German Finance Minister Olaf Scholz.

The problem is that Putin doesn’t mind breaking international rules, as in the case of Ukraine. China has recently proved that these actions of this sort can be taken without consequence, as it did with Hong Kong. How did the West respond? It took not substantial retaliatory action against Beijing for the Hong Kong takeover, just like Moscow’s seizure of Crimea.

The West, for all its military buildups and pacts simply won’t aid Belarus if it comes down to a Russia takeover. Putin understands this and the Kremlin will be the deciding factor in Belarus’ future.

L'articolo Russia’s Offer of Military Support for Belarus Could Be Part of Takeover Plans proviene da InsideOver.

Whether or not Belarussian president Aleksandr Lukashenko succeeds in stifling the protests in Belarus with violence, the writing is on the wall: his regime has lost all support.

Moreover, Lukashenko should not put his faith in Moscow, as the Kremlin may not be inclined to continue its support.

Belarus in Chaos

The footage in the news over these last days has shown the carnage currently occurring in Belarus. So far, security forces have been able to drive the demonstrators in Minsk and other cities from the streets. It may be a temporary success but it’s not a win. In fact, the current situation is testimony that the regime’s time might be over.

The recent election Day made it apparent that Lukashenko no longer has any significant support in the population – despite the rather dubious election results claiming he won with 80 percent. However, the regime is cognizant that, in reality, it does not carry 80 percent of the public’s support – arguably not even close. Moreover, by placing Minsk in a state of siege long before the polls closed on Sunday and severely obstructing the internet, it admitted that it could only stay in power by force and not via democratic processes. The latter is hardly a promising recipe for sustained success. Naturally, reliable information about the actual election result is not yet available.

How Far Will Lukashenko go to Hold on to Power?

However, autocrats enjoy few privileges more than being in power. Thus, opponents of the regime have never had any illusions: Lukashenko would also shoot demonstrators to defend his power. On the weekend, it was rubber bullets, but worse must be expected. Furthermore, even if Lukashenko should manage to crush the demonstrations by force again, the fact that he has lost the country remains.

One reason the lack of support is so notable now is that the protest movement is broader than ever before. When the regime violently crushed a massive demonstration against Lukashenko’s electoral fraud ten years ago, it was a single protest march of 50,000 people on the central street of Minsk to the government building. On the outskirts of the capital and in the rest of the country, things remained calm.

On Sunday evening, however all over Belarus people gathered in front of the polling stations and demanded an honest count; there were demonstrations in all of the larger cities, which the security forces initially found helpless in some places. Moreover, in Minsk itself, the protesters challenged the security forces in many different places until the early hours of the morning.

Opposition candidate Svetlana Tichanovskaya and her colleagues have announced that they are ready for permanent protests. However, their success or failure does not depend primarily on their political skills. The demonstrations on Sunday had no apparent organizers and no leaders. One of the crucial questions now is how far the security forces are prepared to follow Lukashenko.

Moscow’s Perspective on Lukashenko and Belarus

Just as much now depends on how Moscow behaves. For them, a weakened Lukashenko as Belarusian president would be ideal in the short term. The not precisely warmhearted telegram of congratulations from Russian President Vladimir Putin to Lukashenko shows what he expects in return for support: closer political, economic and military integration — de facto Putin wants an extensive abandonment of the country’s independence.

Nevertheless, it could be that the Kremlin will be doubtful about whether it is worth it to pay a high price for supporting Lukashenko in the long run: If Putin keeps his neighbor in power, he will gamble away the still strong ties of the majority of Belarusians with Russia. After Russia lost Ukraine because it wanted to keep a corrupt and violent regime in power, it could also lose Belarus.

It will thus be interesting to see how and if the Kremlin decided to support Lukashenko. In any case, Belarus may be on the precipice of change – one way or the other.

L'articolo Lukashenko’s Future is Uncertain as Belarus Hangs in the Balance proviene da InsideOver.

Mass protests are once again shaking Lebanon, resuming after rallies ended in October following the installment of a new government. Activists are upset with what they allege is a corrupt government responsible for the state’s tanking economy and are demanding a transitional government and new elections.

Lebanon’s Economy Slips Away

Demonstrations have impacted not only Lebanon, but also World Food Program shipments to Syria. Activists blocked a road which delivery trucks use to pass through with humanitarian aid.

The brutal decline of the Lebanese pound (LBP) against the US dollar has sent the cost of living soaring. On Friday, $1 USD equaled 6,000 LBP, a 300% increase over the past 23 years. Since October, the pound has lost 40% of its value, the National Interest reported, causing trouble in the state that is highly dependent upon imports. 

The World Bank estimates the nation’s poverty rate will be 50% this year, underscoring just how bad the situation has become. After October’s demonstrations, President Michel Aoun’s solution was to sack Prime Minister Saad Hariri, with the government choosing Hassan Diab as his successor.

The Lebanese have given Diab three months now to prove himself, but are not satisfied with the lack of results. Diab now serves as the target for the protesters’ blame. When he took office with the support of a Hezbollah-backed coalition, Diab assured the Lebanese that he would introduce reforms. Those promises have never z.

Lebanon’s situation reminds many of the days leading up to the 1975 civil war, as BBC reported. Unemployment sits at 35% and the state is in default on its national debt, which totals 170% of its GDP.

Diab Blames Opponents

Beirut is in panic mode as it searches for solutions. On Friday, it announced the central bank will pour dollars into the economy this week, Reuters reported. Already, banks have locked people out of dollar accounts and set low withdrawal limits to prevent bank runs.

Diab also implicated unspecified political opponents, saying they are essentially staging a “coup.” 

“The state and the people are being subjected to blackmail,” he said. “Some have tried to exploit the situation again …They have thrown lies and rumors, have contributed to deepening the Lebanese pound crisis, have caused a major crisis and have pushed people onto the streets.”

However it might not be Diab’s political foes, who he refrained from naming, who are blackmailing the economy into failure, but rather Hezbollah. Its top ranks have been filled with self-serving officials who are unwilling to do anything to help the Lebanese economy.

“Hezbollah is a big obstacle in the rescuing of Lebanon and is a big contributor to where we have reached in Lebanon—Hezbollah’s own personal involvement in corruption,” said Professor Habib Malik of the Lebanese American University. “The mere fact that they actually protect and cover up for well-known corrupt individuals and groups, that’s enough to implicate them in the whole corruption thing.”

As long as Hezbollah is calling the shots in Beirut, the people will suffer. It simply does not have their interests at heart and cannot be trusted to make sound economic decisions. After all, this was the group that backed Diab’s appointment as premier and absolutely nothing has materialized from it that would help the economy.

IMF Could Change Corrupt Ways

The EU has helped keep Beirut afloat with 580 million euros since 2011, but that could change soon as the government shows no signs of trying to cure the problem. 

Iran was previously a go-to financier, but it cannot even afford to pay its own proxy militias in Iraq anymore, so Beirut is unlikely to find help from it. The only solid chance Lebanon has is accepting assistance from the International Monetary Fund. 

Previously, Hezbollah rejected help from the group, but this time it has no choice. The IMF has conditions, however, that Beirut crackdown on fraud and corruption, and the government would be accountable to IMF oversight.

The IMF bailout might be the first chance the Lebanese people have at becoming free from Hezbollah’s grip. It won’t be free to abuse its position of power to enrich itself and money might actually go to the right causes.

However, nothing is finalized yet, as talks with the IMF are still taking place. Until Beirut secures funding, protests will continue as the Lebanese run out of options. Their frustrations are understandably high and some have become violent in expressing them.

Few Options 

The question now is not how much further the economy can collapse, but how long Aoun and Diab can maintain their hold on power while the state is consumed by unrest. There are few peaceful solutions at the government’s disposal to placate the people, and fewer still that would lead to economic recovery.

If Diab was dismissed like his predecessor, what would happen next? The corrupt bureaucrats would simply appoint another premier like him.

The only practical solution is for Beirut politicians to end the practice of corruption before it is too late. The IMF may be that way forward as Lebanon is forced to change the way it operates. In truth, that is the only option now for Aoun and Diab before protesters run them out of town.

L'articolo Protests Return to Lebanon as Economy Continues to Crumble proviene da InsideOver.

As the Italian Government begins to ease its country out of the recent lockdown designed to deal with the coronavirus pandemic, thousands of right-wing protesters took to the streets of 70 Italian cities on Tuesday, demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte’s government. They accused his administration of being incapable of handling the COVID-19 crisis. They also demanded that Italy readopts the lira currency and drops the euro.

The demonstrations were staged to coincide with Italy’s Republic Day.

What is the Orange Vest Movement?

The rallies were organized by right-wing opposition parties to give voice to what they referred to as “the country that does not give up,” referring to Italian citizens devastated by the virus and struggling to cope with its substantial consequences. The protest took place in Rome’s central Piazza del Popolo.

Many of Italy’s right-wing leaders joined the demonstrations, including the League’s Matteo Salvini, Georgia Meloni, the leader of the far-right Brothers of Italy party, and Forza Italia’s Antonio Tajani. They joined together with hundreds of protesters to unfurl a 500-meter long Italian flag.

This protest was later joined by “Orange Vest” protesters, who are led by former army general Antonio Pappalardo.

Born on social media, the orange vests’ membership includes conspiracy theorists, anti-vaccination activists as well as ordinary Italian citizens who have seen their economic fortunes hindered by the lockdown. Many of their members also oppose Italy’s EU membership.

This is Just the Beginning for the Orange Vests

Pappalardo told protesters that children should not be made to wear masks and threatened to slap anyone who did. He argued that only he will take care of his lungs, stating that such containment measures infringe upon his freedom.

The Orange Vest movement insists that it is not going away. Organizers told the Daily Express that Tuesday’s rally was only a rehearsal for one that they have planned for July 4th. They intend to shape the future direction of Italian politics. It is too early to judge how successful they may be, but in order to gain an insight into what sort of impact these protests have, the Gilets Jaunes movement is a good example.

Inspired by the Gilets Jaunes

The number of protests in France has diminished, but the Gilets Jaunes still forced the French Government into providing billions of euros of tax breaks for French citizens, and they put neglected swathes of the country back on the map. Frédéric Gonthier, a political scientist at the Pacte research center and the School of Political Studies in Grenoble, told France 24 that they have put the working classes back at the heart of France’s political debate.

If the Orange Vests pursue their aims successfully, they are likely to have a similar impact on Italian politics. Euractiv reports that Giovanni Orsina, professor of politics at Rome’s LUISS University, told AFP that right-wing propaganda will become more attractive if people begin to suffer throughout the country.

How Will Conte Respond?

There are plenty of reasons to believe the Orange Vest movement may continue to grow in numbers. Already, millions of Italians have lost their jobs and the Italian economy is likely to contract by 9.1 percent this year- the worst peacetime decline in nearly a century.

A Tecne poll conduced on April 9th-10th found that support for leaving the EU was as high as 49 percent.

But the Orange Vests’ true impact on Italian politics will be measured by how Conte’s government responds to this movement. Considering he is a fervent supporter of the euro, he is unlikely to take Italy out of the eurozone. Assuming he stays in power, he may be forced into making further concessions to speed up Italy’s economic recovery if the orange vests succeed, which is what he did earlier this year by providing a €4 billion tax break for businesses.

If the League regains power, then Salvini will attempt to please the orange vests as much as he can, more so than Conte.

Either way, the Orange Vest movement represents significant dissatisfaction and anger towards Italy’s political establishment. Ordinary Italians are beginning to witness the potential they could have to transform Italian politics forever, but that depends on whether the Orange Vests succeed in expanding their membership and whether they continue to boost their visibility in the long-term.

L'articolo What Impact Could the Orange Vests Have on Italian Politics? proviene da InsideOver.

There are fears of a spillover into violence from a mutiny by some units of the Sudanese intelligence in some parts of the Sudanese capital Khartoum, including an area near Khartoum International Airport.

The mutiny erupted on January 14 when several armed units of the intelligence agency took to the streets, blocked them and started shooting into the air. This show of force came against the background of refusal by the members of the units involved in the mutiny of the ongoing reform of the intelligence agency, the Sudanese cabinet said.

Sudan’s cabinet has decided to reform the intelligence agency as part of ongoing efforts in Sudan to end the presence of the loyalists of ousted President Omar al-Bashir in Sudanese institutions, including inside the security and military establishments.

Sudanese Information Minister, Faisal Mohamed Saleh, said the reform would include ending the service of some of the workers of the intelligence agency, including the members of the units staging the mutiny.

Nonetheless, these members are rejecting the end of service gratuity offered them by the government, Saleh said. Nevertheless, those following the new development in Sudan point to more than just a refusal of an end of service gratuity, amid reports of Sudan’s transition staggering because of Bashir’s loyalists and the Sudanese deep state, which is controlled by members of the ousted president’s party as well as the nation’s Islamists.

Over 30 years of rule, Bashir succeeded in making the members of his Islamist National Congress Party in control inside all Sudan’s institutions, especially inside important state agencies, including the intelligence agency.

These people – some of them are not known to be backers of Bashir’s regime – will prove a hard nut to crack for the new administration in Sudan and as the poor African state tries to chart a new future.

The same post-revolution transition difficulties were manifest in Arab Spring states Tunisia and Egypt where the followers of the Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and the Hosni Mubarak regimes tried to hamper progress in the two states after the downfall of the two regimes in 2011.

The ongoing mutiny by the members of the intelligence agency threatens to morph into a wider confrontation, especially after the deployment of Sudanese army troops around the areas where the mutiny is taking place.

Sudanese Prime Minister, Abdalla Hamdok, tried to assure Sudanese citizens that his government can bring the situation under control.

“They will not stop us and our mission nor will they be a reason for us to retreat from the goals of this revolution,” Hamdok said.

“This situation stresses the need for the current partnership and the need to push it forward to achieve our higher goals,” Hamdok wrote on Twitter.

Sudan has already taken several precautionary measures, including the closure of its airspace and Khartoum International Airport. Sudanese citizens have started descending on the streets and some public shows of anger are in the making.

A Sudanese citizen has been injured by gunfire and other human casualties are expected to happen in the coming hours, especially if the members of the units staging the mutiny refuse to surrender to the Sudanese army or lay down their arms as the Sudanese government asks them to do.

The Sudanese Professionals Association, the umbrella coalition of Sudanese political forces during the uprising against Bashir, has called on Sudanese citizens to stay at home or at least away from the areas where the mutiny is taking place.

It said it rejects attempts to terrorize Sudanese citizens. The association also called on Sudanese state authorities to intervene. The situation is still unfolding, and this opens the door for all possibilities in the coming hours. The Sudanese army will be trying to contain the mutiny and prevent it from developing.

A member of the Sudanese Sovereign Council, a body made up of Sudan’s political forces and the military, did not rule out political motivations behind the mutiny.

“Some security officials are not happy with the reform of the intelligence agency,” Shams Eddine al-Kabashi said. “Nevertheless, the army will take the whole matter into its own hands if this group refuses to surrender.”

L'articolo Violence Erupts In Sudan Amid Fears of Nationwide Confrontations proviene da InsideOver.

After three days of denial, Iran finally came clean on Saturday about the downing of a Ukrainian civilian airliner earlier on Wednesday, January 8, which it said its forces had shot down errantly while on the alert over Tehran’s recent perilous escalation with the United States.

In a tweet, Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif called the incident a “crisis” caused by “US adventurism”. Hassan Rouhani, the country’s president, called it a “great tragedy” and an “unforgivable error”.

A Boeing 737-800, the airliner crashed a few minutes following its takeoff, leaving all 176 passengers dead. Iran said on Saturday that its air defenses were fired in error as it was expecting a retaliation from the United States after Tehran had ordered, a few hours earlier, the striking of two Iraqi military bases housing US troops.

Tehran’s downing of the commercial airplane rekindled a new wave of protests during the weekend, a few days after Iranians appeared to unite over the death of Iran’s highest-ranking general, Qassim Soleimani, in a US drone strike on Friday, January 3.

Now Iranians chanted slogans against Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, calling for his immediate resignation.

Iran’s Fars news agency reported that the anti-government protesters numbered about 1,000 people, whereas banners depicting the assassinated General Soleimani were torn.

Videos posted on social media showed protesters calling Ayatollah Ali Khamenei a murderer. Other footage showed people shouting “death to liars” and “death to the dictator” Such statements could get individuals executed in Iran.

The protests started as vigils, where people mourned the victims who were mostly students. People first gathered near the University of Amir Kabir in Tehran, many carrying candles and placing flowers at the gates of the university and in other public spaces, reported the New York Times.

But the gatherings soon turned into a public objection against the authorities. Iranians were enraged that Tehran had lied about the incident for so long, although a top Revolutionary Guards commander said on Saturday that he had soon informed authorities about the missile strike.

“When the US shot down an Iran plane in the Persian Gulf in 1988, they immediately announced that they were responsible,” a protester told the BBC. “I had hoped the Iranian authorities would have told the people from the very first day,” he added.

Iran previously said the incident was caused by the aircraft’s mechanical problems, as Boeing itself suffers a growing general criticism over reported mechanical failures that had caused several civil airliners to crash recently.

Critics said Tehran only admitted it carried out the strike after an international investigation – which it was leading – neared the conclusion that the Ukrainian airliner was hit by a missile.

Ukrainian officials said on Saturday that they could determine that the crash was due to a missile strike as soon as Thursday, a day following the incident, when they said they found enough evidence, although Iran tried to hinder the investigations, in efforts such as sweeping debris into piles instead of cautiously documenting it.

Ukraine called for compensation, and President Volodymyr Zelensky said his country insisted “on a full admission of guilt”.

Protesters in Tehran and other cities also blamed Iran for allowing commercial aviation to proceed normally, whereas Tehran had announced security measures over risks of reprisals from the United States.

The international reaction to the crash also overshadowed the sympathy Iran had gained after the killing of Soleimani. Canada, which was the most affected by the incident as 57 of its nationals died, said many questions remained.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Saturday in a news conference that “Canada and the world still have many questions, questions that must be answered.”

Although Canada has not had diplomatic relations with Iran since 2012, Trudeau said he spoke with President Hassan Rouhani, who committed to collaborating with Canadian investigators.

Britain’s Boris Johnson also said that Iran’s “admission that Ukrainian International Airline Flight 752 was shot down by mistake by its armed forces is an important first step.”

Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the commander of the Revolutionary Guards’ airspace unit, said he deeply regretted the incident for which he said he takes full responsibility. Rather than having the incident taking place, Hajizadeh told local media outlets he wished he “was dead”.

On Thursday, January 9, the White House passed a resolution to limit President Trump’s military powers against Iran, giving more authority to Congress to ease tensions in the Middle East. The United States also declared that it was stepping back from military action against Iran, but Trump still seeks direct involvement, even if internally.

“To the leaders of Iran – DO NOT KILL YOUR PROTESTERS,” Trump tweeted on Sunday. “Thousands have already been killed or imprisoned by you, and the World is watching,” the tweet read. “More importantly, the USA is watching.”

Even as many countries have called for a de-escalation in regional tensions with Tehran, Iran now faces a bigger internal turmoil. On Sunday, January 12, more demonstrators were reported to have taken to the streets in Tehran and other cities.

Security forces used tear gas on protesters and cracked down on them, not allowing the mourners to hold vigils, critics said, even as Tehran admitted its wrongdoing. As many as 1,500 protesters were said to have been killed in the protests that erupted in November 2019.

L'articolo In Prospects of Easing Regional Tensions, Tehran Faces Internal Turmoil proviene da InsideOver.

When the entire nation including the northeastern states of India, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh that border Bangladesh, is reeling under violent protests over the passage of the Citizenship Amendment Act, in a strange turn of events, Bangladesh’s telecom regulatory authority has ordered operators to shut down services along the Indian border out of fear that Indian Muslims might seek to enter Bangladesh after the act.

It may be recalled that despite agitation by people of northeastern states of India, like Assam and Arunachal Pradesh, and protests by Congress-led opposition parties, the Indian Parliament passed its Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) on December 11, 2019. The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill will grant citizenship to the non-Muslims – Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians, Jains, and Parsis – from Bangladesh, Afghanistan, and Pakistan on the plea that they fled their parent countries on account of religious persecution and arrived in India before December 31, 2014.

The Citizen Amendment Act has not only rattled Indian Muslims, but neighboring Muslim nations are also apprehensive of the fallout of the CAA. Bangladesh, Afghanistan, and Pakistan have expressed displeasure over the exclusion of Muslims from the act. They said that the law is against the secular fabric of the Indian constitution, and it is anti-Muslim, meant to deprive Muslims of Indian citizenship.

Why Are Muslim Nations Unsettled?

Their primary worry is that as per the CAA, India is the homeland for Hindus, and for the other five religions, it is a country that will offer them sanctuary. Hindus from Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan are charged $2.79 for overstay of more than 91 days, and for more than two years, it is $6.97. Muslims, overstaying up to 90 days, are charged $400, and for those overstaying for more than two years, the cost is $500.

Whereas Ambassador of Afghanistan to India, Tahir Qadiry publically stated that his government has been “respecting the minorities, especially Sikh brothers and sisters”, Bangladesh suddenly canceled two scheduled ministerial visits. Pakistan has passed a resolution in the National Assembly, condemning the CAA as discriminatory. Imran Khan, Prime Minister of Pakistan, declared that the CAA would create fear among Muslims in India, and they will leave in droves.

What has puzzled India is Bangladesh telecom regulatory authority’s order to shut down services along the Indian border. The fact is that there has always been a flow of illegal migrants into India from Bangladesh, as India has been a safe sanctuary for them. Most of the Bengali-speaking Hindus and Muslims who have settled in Assam over the past decades are from Bangladesh. The infamous 1983 Nellie massacre in Assam, following the ‘Bongali Khedao’ or ‘Drive Out the Bengalis’ agitation, led to the killing of over 2,000 illegal Bangladeshi Muslim migrants. The National Register of Citizens (NRC) in the state of Assam contains 1.9 crore names of unlawful migrants, mostly from Bangladesh.

Why is Bangladesh Scared?

The Citizen Amendment Act has raised the spectre of a mass exodus of illegal Bangladeshis back to their homeland, Bangladesh. According to political observers, instances of reverse migration of hundreds of Bangladeshis who were arrested after the crossing of the border into Bangladesh have sent alarm bells ringing in the political corridors of Bangladesh. Reportedly, these people confessed that they are ‘Bangladeshi Muslims’ and have returned home because they no longer see any hope of getting Indian citizenship after the CAA.

According to political analysts, Bangladesh is also scared of  1983, Assam type violence due to reverse migration on account of the CAA. The CAA can encourage the Islamists and anti-Indian lobbies in Bangladesh to target the Hindu minority. The political leaders fear that Islamist propagandists may paint India as anti-Muslim; this may become a tool to target Hindus.

Reports of large detention centers being built in Assam have unnerved Muslim migrants who see no hope of citizenship after the CAA. Bangladesh is already finding it difficult to cope with the 4 lakh plus Rohingya Muslims who fled from Myanmar. Bangladesh is now concerned over the possibility of a larger influx of Bangladeshi Muslims, who are illegal migrants in India. India has been on good terms with Bangladesh in recent years. So now, the million-dollar question is how the Indian government will deal with lakhs of illegal, stateless Muslim migrants at the same time keep Bangladesh and neighboring Muslim nations happy.

L'articolo Bangladesh Fears Muslim Influx After Indian Citizenship Bill proviene da InsideOver.

In Iran, attention is now shifting onto elections being held in February as all 290 parliamentary seats are being contested. The standoff between the US and the Islamic Republic is likely to influence voting intentions, and whatever the result, it will determine the future direction of US-Iranian relations.

President Hassan Rouhani’s landmark achievement was the 2015 Iran Deal he signed with former US President Barack Obama, but since Donald Trump scrapped the agreement, America’s campaign of ‘maximum pressure’ has led to anger at the establishment among many citizens.

The mid-November protests, which resulted in hundreds of demonstrators being killed by security forces, showed that this event drastically changed the attitude of many politicians and people towards elections in their country. Radio Farda reported that on December 8th, a pro-reform website called Asr Iran ran an opinion poll asking voters which candidates they are likely to vote for. Over 63 percent of the 24,000 people who participated in the poll ticked ‘none of the above’, which was their way of saying they will not vote at all.

Some reformist politicians like Mostafa Tajzadeh and Abbas Abdi insist that there is no way out of Iran’s ongoing problems other than resorting to ballot boxes. But it is hard to make this argument to people when they perceive Rouhani as a liar.

During the 2017 presidential election, the current President said if Iranians re-elected him, every single sanction that has been imposed on their country by the US will be lifted. Since then, the opposite has happened.

Furthermore, the reformists are losing celebrity support. A former football player called Ali Karimi and Reza Sadeghi, a famous singer, both wrote on social media that they regret supporting Rouhani two years ago. If Trump wanted his sanctions to decrease support for Iran’s government, he has succeeded in achieving his aim.

However, if ultra-conservatives, or principlists, perform well in February’s poll, the stalemate between Tehran and Washington is only likely to intensify. Those who fundamentally oppose Trump’s policy of lifting sanctions in favour of reducing Iran’s nuclear weapons are finding that their position is being strengthened. Jalal Mirzaei told an OPEC meeting that Trump becoming US President has weakened the reformists.

But Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said US sanctions had been ‘incredibly effective’, so there is no chance of the Trump administration shifting its current stance any time soon.

Some of the principlists’ most notable candidates include a former military officer and an ex-mayor of Tehran named Mohammad-Bagher Qalibaf; Vahid Yaminpour, a TV personality; and legal scholar Hamid Rasaei. If they win February’s election, then a lurch to the right risks emboldening the security services’ proxy forces in Yemen and Syria, raising the chances of a confrontation with the US.

Oil Minister Bijn Namdar Zanganeh, one of Rouhani’s closest allies, is being targeted by the ultra-conservatives for impeachment since a US ban on critical oil exports tipped the country into recession. This could cause the government to be overwhelmed by interrogations and weaken the Iranian President at a time when he is attempting to repair US-Iranian relations.

Mohammadali Abtahi, a reformist cleric jailed in 2009, told Shargh newspaper that ‘unpopular conservatives would only emerge as victorious if turnout is low.’ This is because hardliners traditionally vote under instruction from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Another factor going against the reformists is that Iran’s Guardian Council disqualified almost 3,000 of their candidates. Only 30 have been approved. Therefore, it will be harder for the reformists to contest all the 290 seats on offer.

Trump would do well to engage with Rouhani before February’s poll. Unfortunately, the US President’s actions are only likely to increase support for those who are principally opposed to American intervention at all, and that will make it harder for the Trump administration to reach an accord with Iran.

L'articolo What Impact Could Parliamentary Elections Have on US-Iranian Relations? proviene da InsideOver.