United States President Donald Trump says Washington had armed Iranian opposition groups and protesters during mass antigovernment demonstrations in December and January, in which thousands of people were killed during crackdowns by government forces.
Trump “confirms” so many things, but few of them are true. None of Iranian Kurdish parties have confirmed receiving arms.
The absolutely only instance I have seen of protesters in Iran being armed with firearms (and I’ve watched a lot of footage), was a day-time protest in the Kurdish-majority mountainous borderland. Since there was a risk of authorities spilling blood, 4 old guys (appearance well over 50 years of age) in traditional clothing were present at a protest in an open area, carrying hunting rifles which looked older than the guys. They could have, theoretically, bought time for others to escape by offering some counter-fire for a minute or two. But on that protest, authorities did not attack. Probably because the whole town was Kurdish and cops decided to stay home.
Also I apologize for re-posting, but:
Kurdish Iranian opposition groups deny claims of receiving weapons from US
Mohammed Nazif Qaderi, a senior official from the opposition Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI), told Rudaw that “those statements made are baseless and we haven’t received any weapons.
/…/
Kako Aliyar, a member of the leadership committee of the Kurdish Iranian opposition party Komala, told Rudaw that "as our own party, no weapons have come to us and we haven’t received anything, we’re not even aware of the matter.
/…/
Amjad Hussein Panahi, head of communications for Komala of the Toilers of Kurdistan, also told Rudaw, “We assure you we haven’t received a single bullet or weapon from any country or place, and we’re not aware of the existence of such a thing; what we have is our own.”
/…/
Hamno Naqshbandi, a member of the general command of the Kurdistan National Army affiliated with the Kurdistan Freedom Party (PAK), said that “Donald Trump’s message is unclear to us. What is there is that we as our army have in no way received weapons from the US or any other country, not even a single bullet."
Wonder how many of those guns are going to end up killing American soldiers.
As is tradition
Good? I’m confused, does anyone other than the most tankie of tankies dislike the Kurds?
No, not great. Destabilizing a region is not good foor the folks who live there.
You’re right, much better that a stateless people that are constantly massacred just lie down and take it.
Given the track record of the impact this has had on the locals whenever the US has done this, however justified the dissidents’ cause, I completely agree with you. It has brought us such beauties as Suharto, Pinochet, and the silent holocaust. Glad we could find some common ground here.
Yes, giving arms to the Kurds, who have repeatedly provided armed forces to assist us in fighting ISIL and other military operations=Pinochet 🙄
Look, each time, in the past, arguments like this existed, and each time we sent arms, the region ended up in a fucked state. But let’s not learn from history.
It’s not even about liking them or not. I would like them to have autonomy, but they’d have to be kind of stupid to fall for US “friendship” again. They have been used as pawns when convenient, and then abandoned later.
Wait, is tramp credible now if it validates your claims?
He’s a clown that’s what makes it probable he said the quiet part out loud which no other POTUS was dumb enough to admit in the open.
You got a point though, with all that bullshit coming from him we can’t decide what might be true between all those lies and shouldn’t chose based on our world view.
I bet Trump is gonna “confirm” CCP Claims that he’s “personally funding” “Taiwan Independence” so that CCP has an excuse to invade, but then he’s also not gonna help Taiwan…
Literally just playing both sides lol…
Claims that he’s “personally funding” “Taiwan Independence”
How would that materialize? Because if it’s by selling weapons, they’ve never been shy about it.
You’re justifying their executions if you claim they are being armed by foreign enemies. This helps no one but arms manufacturers.
I didn’t listen too hard because a Trump supporter provided the information… but someone told me recently (yesterday) that Trump tried to arm a militia group who’d worked with the US in the past. Supposedly that group was supposed to arm the civilians but they kept the weapons for themselves.
Honestly, would be fucking crazy either way. Because, in that case, it sounds like Trump spooked the Iranian government into its atrocities.
Edit: they were talking about Iranian Kurdish opposition factions
Edit 2: this article brings it up https://nypost.com/2026/04/05/us-news/president-trump-reveals-us-attempted-to-funnel-weapons-to-iranian-protesters-claims-regime-slaughtered-45k/
You’re justifying their executions
Only if you’re incapable of holding two thoughts in your head at the same time.
Think of your average American.
Your average American would be wrong, too.
Treating Trump as a source of any kind of truth is extremely shaky.
Aljazeera
I really believe that Trump is able to do the most stupid things, sane people cannot even come up with. But I would very much like to see a credible source before I believe that.
Al Jazeera is mot a reputable source anymore?
Like all news orginizations, Al Jazeera is shit when you compare it to the platonic ideal of news. However, when you compare it to Western media, it’s solidly middle of the pack. During the Gaza genocide, it was the Al Jazeera reporters who were on the ground and targeted for death.
The biggest criticism of Al Jazeera is the race/religion of it’s reporters. People are going to show up to tell me that it’s Qatari state-run. But those same people don’t feel the same about DW, BBC, or NPR.
The best evidence for Al Jazeera’s credibility is they are constantly being banned in Israel for reporting on that regime’s crimes.
As if them being unarmed would change your worldview, OP.
There is no protester fighting for justice alive or dead that Trump would help. He wants everyone not with him dead…
Iranian civilians.
Americans that refuse his rule.
Everyone. Everyone what opposes his little pp bullshit.
He wants all of us dead. Not calm, quiet, or silent. He wants us dead.
Well… Technically, he didn’t say they were successfully armed. He said there was an attempt made but he thought the arms didn’t make it to the protesters.
Edit: Still seems like a big deal for it to be confirmed in any sense.
Here’s how these things happen: there is dissatisfaction with the government-- in this case, yes general unhappiness with the theocracy, but acutely with severe economic strain brought about by draconian sanctions. This situation, engineered in part by external forces, is then amplified and aggravated by those same external forces. This doesn’t mean that the majority of those on the streets were agents of the US/Israel, but there were absolutely those agents there. Israel explicitly admitted as much at the time. That situation was absolutely the beginning stage of the war.
i don’t get the cope in this thread. it’s something the us does do with some regularity, and i thought you guys disliked trump’s fascism anyway.
why the desperation to vilify iran in a war you claim to not even want to enter?
Because this is one of those other cases where BOTH sides are bad. I KNOW! Who could have known that is possible, it’s unheard of!
In World War 2, the allies consisted of the following countries, among others:
- The United States, which had racial segregation and imprisoned every Japanese American at the start of the war
- Britain and France, which maintained brutal overseas empires where they de-facto enslaved native peoples. Britain had an artificial famine in Bengal that killed some 3 million people, and Churchill laughed it off, saying Indians will breed like rabbits in any case
- the USSR, which had purges and gulags
- China, which was at the time a highly corrupt basket case largely governed by warlords
Given this, would you say that BOTH sides were bad? Hopefully not. You might say that there are degrees of badness, and in some cases, as for instance in a major war, you have to choose between degrees of badness, and that the least bad side is the de-facto good side. Okay, now you’re up to speed, welcome to the world.
Uh huh?
You’re saying the obvious
Of course the allies were the “good” guys, but “good” and “bad” are not 0 and 100%, its not black and white. I remember watching this military training video from the US made for WWII soldiers sent to europe, talking about how the negro would just walk freely amongst whiteys, omg, and it is totally normal!! head explodes
There is a lot to be said about the allies back then, and there is a lot to be said about any and every country in the world. I can make that list literally for every country in this world.
So right now, for Iran vs. the US, there won’t be winners, only losers. Trump is a fucking loser and a fascist and a pedophile. The Iranian government is a theocratic dictatorship that happily murders children for protesting or maybe loving the wrong person. Both are bad, and honestly, I could not tell you who I would want to win in this case. Best case scenario we can hope for is that Iran wins (its looking like that) and that then the populace of Iran topples the regime so that they can finally start working on a democracy.
So yeah, both side are horrible here, and this particular conflict really doesn’t have any good or bad guys, they’re both horrible.
Iran’s government is quite bad on certain social issues, I won’t disagree. It isn’t a dictatorship, though. The head of government is elected and the head of state is appointed. Not a perfect democracy, but not very different from most democracies either. But I digress, because that really isn’t the main point.
If you’re equivocating them in any way you aren’t seeing the situation clearly. If Iran loses, there will be nothing left to check Israeli expansionism throughout the middle east. They will expand and drive out the Arab inhabitants out of their homes so they can create their racially pure homeland. It will be a continuous Genocide - Gaza, constantly, on a regional scale, alongside the continued American grip on the rest of the world.
On the other hand, if Iran wins, they halt Israel, stop the genocide of Palestine, and liberate the entire region from US domination. The American puppet dictatorships and absolute monarchies, much more repressive than Iran (though you never hear about it since they’re American puppets), will be left without support, and the people will actually have a chance to choose their own destiny. This will be a massive blow to the American empire, and will show the world that America can be fought and beaten.
So on one side you have the throne of fascist capital, a genocidal apartheid state, and various kleptocratic slave dictatorships, all fighting for domination. On the other, you have a semi-democratic theocratic republic, along with rag-tag resistance groups, fighting against the fascist world empire and its local cronies. Are Iran “good guys”? It’s complicated. Are they “the good guys”? Fucking unambiguously.
JFC…
Yes, Iran is a theocratic dictatorship. The government is based on Islamic law and led by religious leaders, particularly that “wonderful” Supreme Leader. The system combines elements of theocracy with authoritarian governance, limiting political freedoms and dissent, and happily tortures you for whatever reason they want.
But yeah, its not a dictatorship though, because the internet guy ™ told me so, just like he told me that if Iran wins, it will only do good things, because they are just misunderstood santa claus elves, you know! They know no wrong!
So in the real world, on the one side you have a fascist semi dictatorship with a money obsessed pedophile and on the other side you have a theocratic religion obsessed dictatorship (BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IT IS) that murders people world wide and happily tortures its own citizens. Geez, who would be the good guy ™ here!??!
So how about this: Both sides are bad and best we can hope for is Iran winning and immediately being overthrown by a coup by the citizens, so that they can finally pave a path to freedom and democracy?
Being immediately overthrown after victory isn’t realistic, but I expect that without the imperial boot off their necks, they will moderate over time. Without foreign imperialists using social issues as a cudgel while actually wanting to loot and defang Iran, change, whether revolutionary or reformist, will come more easily. In either case, this will be in the hands of Iranians, not westerners.
Certainly, I would prefer if a secular socialist government were kicking America out of the middle east. I would be hooting and hollering nonstop, unable to contain my joy. But that isn’t what we’re getting, so I’ll hoot and holler at a somewhat reduced rate as a Shia Islamist government kicks America out of the middle east. Try to look on the bright side, you’ll be happier.
Of course, Iranians have to solve this themselves, but if you think that this theocracy will only stop because the west stopped meddling then I have a bridge to sell ya
Or maybe you don’t choose the sides that are running the war (eg USA vs. Iran), but instead choose the side that is fighting it (the working class) against the side that instigated it (the global billionaires who benefit from imperialism and capitalism).
Which of the global billionaires are Iranian? You’re treating this like World War 1, which it objectively isn’t - Iran doesn’t have colonies or a global empire. Even if it was World War 1, revolutionary defeatism would still mean that you should be hoping for Iranian victory.
In fact, the Iranian and Resistance side of this war is explicitly anti-imperialist. Not just in the sense Stalin meant when he said that the Afghanistan’s struggle for independence was objectively revolutionary (in spite of the Emir being a monarchist) due to it weakening the imperialists. It’s that plus the fact that Iran is essentially an independent anti-imperialist social democracy. A religious conservative one, yes, but they have a centrally planned economy with a decent social safety net and good labour protections. The Islamists purged the socialists after the revolution, but both ideologically and for legitimacy, they maintained an economic populist program - i.e. Iran still possesses proletarian revolutionary characteristics along with all the theocratic baggage.
Thus, Iran is both waging an objectively anti-imperialist and therefore revolutionary struggle against the empire, which is to say against global capital, they are also fighting to maintain the gains of the revolution. Iran’s defeat would entail privatization and looting of its economy and immiseration of its working class, to say nothing of enabling Israeli expansionism and genocide across the region. Thus, any principled communist or socialist has the duty to support Iran’s struggle against the empire, mashallah.
That’s basically what I meant. I support the Iranian people, their war of defense, and their general stance against Western Imperialism.
That doesn’t mean I think the Iranian state are the good guys though. Some elements are doing good in the world, but it’s also a horribly repressive theocratic regime. Of course, on the list of oppressive regimes, Iran ranks far below the likes of Israel and the USA…
Honestly, comrade, I agree with you. I’m just trying to create some space for the large amount of people who would be turned away by a Stalin quote to join the left in supporting Iran’s side in this. They don’t care about the broader fight against US imperialism, but they hate how bad this war looks for America (and how expensive it is).
by the us government’s open admission, apparently not.
and they are being fine anti imperialists lately. why vilify them at precisely this moment?
Why vilify a known pedophile who is extra judicially murdering people all over the world, while putting the entire world in turmoil?
why not? are you implying iran is also waging war with the entire rest of the planet?
Wait, what are you talking about here? I feel like we’re both on the same side of the argument?
Look, they’re both fucking evil and both have to go. Trump because he is a murdering self serving pedophile, and the Iranian government because they are a theocratic dictatorship that tortures and murders their population for control.
what are you talking about? trump literally just admitted they were right in quashing the fake uprising. saudi arabia is also a theocracy and the us isn’t attacking it’s civilians.
that’s just the same narrative that was used to justify genociding gaza (but hamas!). they do not both have to go, iran is completely justified so far, and the us is the one threatening the planet with nuclear hellfire.
…
Did you miss the “Slowly string up gays with a crane” memo from Iran?
Did you miss the “Public executions” memo from Iran?
Did you miss the “Torture prisons” memo from Iran? Seriously, look up “Evin Confess” on spotify, the singer actually spent some “fun vacation” in that place because they didn’t like his music much
Seriously, the Iranian government is a fucked up government that needs to go. Same for Saudi Arabia, by the way, same shit, different name. These are repressive and violent regimes. Whatever fucked up thing the US and Israel are doing has nothing to do with that, doesn’t change anything about that. And yes, the Israeli government too is evil and fucked up and too has to go because they just seem unable to stop genociding because they like it too much.
What is up with you idiots trying to protect these horrible creatures? Why?
bOtH sIdEs!
And here on the right you can see another specimen of “idiots” who still don’t get that good and bad aren’t white and black dichotomies…
Because this is one of those other cases where BOTH sides are bad.
The thing with moral relativism is that it puts the two subjects on the same level. But are they?
One side represses legitimate but dangerous riots with violence, the other kills schoolgirls at their desks during class hours.
Meanwhile the Iranian Kurds states never receiving any such arms nor are they taking part in the US war
The Kurds should trust the US again. How does the saying go?
Trust them eight times and get betrayed every single time, trust them again and get betrayed just for old times sake - Unknown western diplomat
“Being an enemy of America is dangerous, but being its friend is fatal.”
A guilty comprador seldom admits guilt.
