The Neocolonial Ambitions of NATO Countries

by Valeriy Krylko / January 26th, 2026

The term neocolonialism first appeared in the mid-twentieth century and was used to describe the continuing control of colonial powers (Great Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Belgium, Italy) over other nominally independent states, especially their colonies in Africa. In the 21st century, the meaning of the term neocolonialism has expanded and is now used to refer to the power of developed countries (the so-called Global North) over developing countries (the so-called Global South). In fact, neocolonialism is an indirect form of imperialism, representing a new phase of Western capitalist expansionism. It manifests itself in the manipulation of the economic, political, and cultural independence of developing countries, perpetuating long-term inequality and contributing to the unjust exploitation of developing countries.

As is well known, most countries in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America were under the direct military administration and political control (hegemony) of European Union countries for a long time.

[Source: uwidata.com]

Many experts regretfully note that in the current reality, modern neocolonialism has not only not been eradicated, but has begun to actively expand and take on various new forms. In the 21st century, most NATO countries have intensified their efforts to strengthen control over developing countries, including through the establishment of dependence, subordination, or financial obligations to the neocolonialist country.

[Source: linkedin.com]

The main purpose of this control is to exert political influence on the leadership of developing countries for the sake of enriching the US and EU countries at the expense of underdeveloped countries, including through the extraction of minerals on preferential terms (oil, gas, rare earth metals, precious stones) on preferential terms, as well as creating barriers (economic, political, financial) that hinder the development of the economies of Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. It is beneficial for the countries of the Global North that the countries of the Global South remain sources of cheap labor and raw materials, while having limited access to new technologies for the development of their own economies.

[Source: facebook.com], [Source: spsnavalforces.com]

This domination over dependent countries is exercised through military interventions, political pressure, trade policy, international sanctions, and financial leverage, among other means. For example, by imposing numerous sanctions, the US destabilizes world trade and effectively uses various tariffs to suppress the economic development of countries in the Global South. At the same time, in most cases, international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, which are effectively controlled by the US and EU countries, are often accused of involvement in neocolonialism, as they provide loans to developing countries on the condition that the recipient countries take steps that are beneficial to these institutions but harmful to their own economies. The international legal system created by the US and the European Union does not allow other countries to develop their national sovereignty, profit from the extraction of their own minerals, or use their infrastructure, railways, airports, seaports, and other enterprises. All of this has been taken over by American and European companies under various pretexts and is being used for their own enrichment.

The Donald Trump administration is relentlessly pursuing protectionist policies that destabilize global trade. The term “tariff neocolonialism” accurately reflects the current situation, in which the US and EU countries are exerting pressure, including through military blockades, various sanctions, and trade restrictions, on one-third of all countries on Earth.

For example, in order to increase control over the international hydrocarbon market, the US imposed a naval blockade on Venezuela. With the involvement of naval forces and in violation of international law, tankers carrying Venezuelan oil are being seized in a pirate-like manner. At the same time, these tankers and oil are effectively being expropriated in favor of the US.

Speaking at the 80th session of the UN General Assembly on the International Day for the Elimination of Colonialism, Venezuelan Ambassador Samuel Moncada criticized recent statements by US President Donald Trump about his country’s resources, calling them “a monstrous violation of international law.” He demanded that the US comply with the UN Charter.

His comments followed Donald Trump’s statements that Venezuela’s land and oil resources actually belong to the US and should be transferred to it. The Venezuelan diplomat called the US administration’s statements an insult to civilized norms and a return to 19th-century imperialist policies. Samuel Moncada also expressed solidarity with other countries around the world, including Palestine and Puerto Rico, which are under “foreign domination,” which is incompatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In 2025, the US leadership also repeatedly spoke about its neocolonial ambitions in relation to other countries in Latin America and Africa. Although Donald Trump’s administration is currently taking active measures involving the armed forces against Venezuela, experts say this is only part of a larger political war against Latin America. Over the past year, dozens of fishermen from Venezuela, Colombia, Trinidad and Tobago have died as a result of military strikes on boats in the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific Ocean, without any charges or trials. To put pressure on Brazil and its president, Lula da Silva, the US has imposed 50% trade tariffs. Mexico has also been hit with 30% import tariffs. In addition, the US has tightened the terms of its 60-year blockade of Cuba and announced plans to seize the Panama Canal.

[Source: geopoliticaleconomy.com]

Against the backdrop of growing US military activity in the Caribbean and Pacific regions, Colombian President Gustavo Petro Petro noted in an exclusive interview with CNN at the end of November 2025 that the Trump administration’s campaign of pressure on Venezuela and Latin American countries is in fact aimed at gaining access to South American oil. He accused the US of trying to impose its will on its neighbors, comparing its actions to imperialism and neocolonialism.

The neo-colonial ambitions of the United States extend not only to Latin America, but also to Africa. According to CNN, in early November 2025, the US president ordered the Department of War to prepare for possible military action in Africa’s most populous country, Nigeria (230 million inhabitants), as the US president continues to accuse the country of violence against Christians. On Donald Trump’s orders, the US armed forces also launched a second military strike on Nigeria on Christmas Day, December 25, 2025. Many experts agree that the real reason for the US’s close attention to this African country is the fact that Nigeria is one of the ten largest countries in terms of oil reserves and exports. In addition, it has the largest deposits of rare earth metals, which are so necessary for NATO’s aerospace and military industries.

[Source: edition.cnn.com]

Surprisingly, in addition to Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, the neo-colonial aspirations of the United States have spread to European countries, including Ukraine. With Donald Trump’s arrival in power, the US administration pushed through arms supplies to Ukraine at the expense of European Union taxpayers. Now it is EU citizens who are paying for the expansion of capacity and the superprofits of American arms and military equipment manufacturers. At the same time, in European countries themselves, starting in 2025, there have been significant negative trends in the reduction of spending on social services and support for the population, as well as an increase in household spending on electricity and heating.

Donald Trump’s decision to impose 30 percent tariffs on imports of any products from the EU was one of the measures of this neo-colonialist policy. With regard to Europe, the US administration is making tough demands that NATO defense spending be at least 5 percent of the gross domestic product of each EU country. At the same time, the European side has been explicitly told that these funds must be spent mainly on the purchase of American weapons, ranging from American F-35 fighter jets capable of carrying nuclear weapons to armored vehicles and Patriot and THAAD missile systems, some of which are also planned to be transferred to Ukraine.

[Source: globaltimes.cn]

This policy is not just a tactical maneuver; it is a deliberate series of steps to escalate conflicts and international chaos that benefit the US. In 2025, we all witnessed numerous violations of international law, manifested in the explosions of pagers in a number of Middle Eastern countries, the bombing of Iran, Yemen, and Nigeria, and the bombing of fishermen from Venezuela, Colombia, Trinidad and Tobago in the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific Ocean. At the same time, Israel’s illegal actions against the Palestinian people were unconditionally supported by the United States.

These actions bring tangible benefits to the American side. Over the past year, US arms sales abroad reached $318.7 billion, and the conflict in Ukraine contributed to a more than 2.5-fold increase in sales to Europe. According to experts, the US currently accounts for 43 percent of global arms exports.

On the one hand, the US administration positions itself as a peacemaker in resolving conflicts in Ukraine, Armenia, Iran, Palestine, and Taiwan, while on the other hand, it continues to actively supply various weapons to the warring parties, thereby pursuing its policy of neocolonialism. Although domestically, the US administration has launched a large-scale rearmament program, including nuclear weapons.

Neocolonial ambitions, manipulation of economic and cultural systems to maintain dominance over less developed countries, and the pursuit of excessive profits by American and European companies, as well as the political leadership of the US and the EU, cause significant economic, humanitarian, and environmental damage to the populations of developing countries, contribute to increased poverty and migration trends. As a result, all of this has long-term consequences for global relations between states, some of which have made a corresponding appeal to the UN.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Valeriy Krylko is a freelance journalist, and translator of news articles in online media (English-Russian). These articles are published in European and Russian-language media. He is closely affiliated with independent outlets covering the Ukrainian-Russian conflict, and can be reached at:vkrylko098@gmail.com. Read other articles by Valeriy.

 

Wealth, Authoritarianism, and Media

by Binoy Kampmark / January 26th, 2026

It’s official. This tormented, heated, traumatised planet is now home to over 3,000 billionaires. (That number was reached last year.) In October 2025, Elon Musk became the first man to have wealth exceeding half a trillion dollars. These developments could still take alongside the fact that one in four people across the globe face hunger.

Oxfam’s Resisting the Rule of the Rich has, as its subtitle, “defending freedom against billionaire power”. It’s an important link, as money, rather than knowledge, tends to be the indicator of raw power. In her foreword to the report, the Secretary General of Amnesty International, Agnès Callamard, links the stirrings of authoritarianism with the pains of inequality. They were neither “separate problems” nor “distinct dilemmas”. They were “entwined, as governments across the world side with the powerful, not the people, and choose repression, not redistribution.” Reading such words commands an echo from US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who observed in 1941 that, “We can have a democratic society or we can have the concentration of great wealth in the hands of a few. We cannot have both.” (The Oxfam authors also cite the same quote, though not its questionable provenance.)

The charity accepts that the rich influencing and moulding politics is hardly new. That scale of influence, however, has burgeoned. What took place in the US last year, with the victory of a billionaire president, supported and sponsored by billionaires, running a cabinet with billionaires, made this “viscerally clear: in country after country, the super-rich have not only accumulated more wealth than could ever be spent, but have also used this wealth to secure the political power to shape the rules that define our economies and govern our nations.”

Considering data from 136 countries, the authors confirm the thesis that the unequal distribution of economic resources correlates with unequal political power. “This leads to policy outcomes that reflect the preferences of upper-income groups more than those in lower-income groups.” Those in the highest income bracket have, by means of this fact, secured influence in purchasing political representatives, seeking to legitimise elite power, and secure direct access to institutions.

News coverage and commentary have also been infiltrated by the billionaire class, with over half of the stable of global media companies owned by it. Of the 10 top social media companies, nine are in the hands of six billionaires. A chilling nexus with artificial intelligence has also developed, with its inexorable shaping of the information environment, given that 8 of the top 10 AI companies are steered by billionaires. These are individuals who are not only affecting the nature of wealth distribution but the nature of how knowledge and understanding is sought.

The authors do not throw their hands up in despair at these dire developments. They suggest measures of amelioration. One idea, and unlikely to take off, is the proposal of “limitarianism” advocated by philosopher Ingrid Robeyns. Just as societies define a poverty line, they should just as well define an “Extreme Wealth Line”. (Robeyns puts this limit at US$10 million, an amount bound to make the tech tyrants goggle.)

More feasible is the construction of a “strong firewall between wealth and politics.” Governments can tax the wealthiest – a thorny point given the threatening influence they exert both within and outside representative chambers. Lobbying and the revolving door phenomenon between public and private interest should be regulated. Modest measures include transparent budgetary processes, reforming regulations, establishing mandatory public lobby registries and enforcing rules on conflicts of interest.

Addressing the hoary old chestnut of concentrated media ownership is another suggestion, be it through rules limiting individuals and corporations to secure a lion’s share of the market, encouraging alternative public and independent media outlets, compelling media companies to be transparent about how they use algorithms and rein in the distribution of harmful content. “Oversight and enforcement should be led by a state-funded, governmental body independent of billionaire influence.” The authors fail to appreciate that such supposedly independent bodies can come with their own problems, becoming censors in chief and paternalistic killjoys, a point aptly illustrated by the Australian eSafety Commissioner’s guerilla campaign against the Internet.

The very nature of political campaigning is also targeted by the charity’s recommendations. Political financing by the wealthy should be subject to accountability and transparency guidelines. Those running for office would have to make commitments to reduce their reliance on private donations, have such donations capped, with political parties having to abide by transparency rules regarding funding and electoral campaign financing.

While all these measures point to the drafters, regulators and lawmakers, Oxfam insists on “political power of the many” as a noble, necessary agenda, with governments needing to “guarantee an enabling civic space, in line with international legal frameworks, standards and guidance.” This would involve promoting freedom of expression, lawful assembly and association and enforcing such standards “through regular reporting and scrutiny by both state and non-state actors”.

The Oxfam report will be dismissed by the aspirational and the moneyed as the rantings of the envious and the airings of the lazy. The obscenely wealthy often assume that a mixture of hard work, prudence and basic genetics will get you the loot. In the end, it remains loot, protected by the systems that encourage it, and officials who remain complicit in weakening any mechanism that seeks redistribution and levelling.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com. Read other articles by Binoy.

World not ready for rise in extreme heat, scientists say


By AFP
January 26, 2026


Climate change could mean billions of people face extreme heat around the globe by 2050, mostly in poorer countries but also in cold-climate nations - Copyright AFP Mukesh GUPTA

Nick Perry

Nearly 3.8 billion people could face extreme heat by 2050 and while tropical countries will bear the brunt cooler regions will also need to adapt, scientists said Monday.

Demand for cooling will “drastically” increase in giant countries like Brazil, Indonesia and Nigeria, where hundreds of millions of people lack air conditioning or other means of beating the heat.

But even a moderate increase in hotter days could have a “severe impact” in nations not used to such conditions like Canada, Russia and Finland, said scientists from the University of Oxford.

In a new study, they looked at different global warming scenarios to project how often people in future might experience temperatures considered uncomfortably hot or cold.

They found “that the population experiencing extreme heat conditions is projected to nearly double” by 2050 if global average temperatures rise 2C above preindustrial times.

But most of the impact would be felt this decade as the world fast approaches the 1.5C mark, the study’s lead author Jesus Lizana told AFP.

“The key take away from this is that the need for adaptation to extreme heat is more urgent than previously known,” said Lizana, an environmental scientist.

“New infrastructure, such as sustainable air conditioning or passive cooling, needs to be built out within the next few years to ensure people can cope with dangerous heat.”

Prolonged exposure to extreme heat can overwhelm the body’s natural cooling systems, causing symptoms ranging from dizziness and headaches to organ failure and death.

It is often called a silent killer because most heat deaths occur gradually as high temperatures and other environmental factors work together to undermine the body’s internal thermostat.

Climate change is making heatwaves longer and stronger and access to cooling — especially air conditioning — will be vital in future.



– ‘Dangerously underprepared’ –



The study, published in the journal Nature Sustainability, projected that 3.79 billion people worldwide could be exposed to extreme heat by mid century.

This would “drastically” increase energy demand for cooling in developing nations where the gravest health consequences would be felt. India, the Philippines and Bangladesh would be among biggest populations impacted.

The most significant change in “cooling degree days” — temperatures hot enough to require cooling, such as air conditioning or fans — were projected in tropical or equatorial countries, particularly in Africa.

Central African Republic, Nigeria, South Sudan, Laos and Brazil saw the biggest rise in dangerously hot temperatures.

“Put simply, the most disadvantaged people are the ones who will bare the brunt of this trend our study shows for ever hotter days,” urban climate scientist and research co-author Radhika Khosla told AFP.

But wealthier countries in traditionally cooler climates also “face a major a problem — even if many do not realise it yet”, she added.

Countries like Canada, Russia and Finland may experience steep drops in “heating degree days” — temperatures low enough to require indoor heating — under a 2C scenario.

But even a moderate rise in hotter temperatures would be felt more acutely in countries not designed to withstand heat, the authors said.

In these countries, homes and buildings are usually constructed to maximise sunshine and reduce ventilation, and public transport runs without air conditioning.

Some cold-climate nations may see a drop in heating bills, Lizana said, but over time these savings would likely be replaced by cooling costs, including in Europe where air conditioning is still rare.

“Wealthier countries cannot sit back and assume they will be OK -– in many cases they are dangerously underprepared for the heat that is coming over the next few years,” he said.

The Execution of Kanno Sugako

This Day in Anarchist History

by subMedia / January 26th, 2026

On 25 Jauary 1911, in anarchist history we remember the execution of Kanno Sugako.

Kanno was a journalist, feminist and anarchist who had previously been imprisoned after a police attack on a small demonstration in Tokyo, known as the Red Flag Incident.

In 1910, police uncovered a plot to assassinate the Emperor of Japan and made mass arrests of anarchists and other leftists. Of those arrested, 26 people were brought to trial, most of them had nothing to do with it but 24 of them were found guilty on circumstantial evidence.

Kanno was alleged to be the ringleader of the plot. Unrepentant in her testimony, she said her only regret was that the plot had failed. She was executed at 29 years of age and remains the only woman executed for treason in Japan to this day.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

SubMedia is directed and produced by Frank Lopez. Read other articles by subMedia, or visit subMedia's website.

Beyond the Headlines: Why Iran’s Protest Wave Can’t Be Reduced to One Name

Monday 26 January 2026, by Siyavash Shahabi




As Iran’s new wave of nationwide protests enters its 12th day [1]—and as reports of a widespread internet blackout since last night circulate—an old debate has returned to the center of political discussion with new speed: are “calls to action” from political figures driving the streets, or are they mainly an attempt to ride a movement that is already happening?


BBC Persian tackled this question on its program Goftogoo-ye Vizheh, hosted by Farnaz Ghazi-Zadeh, in a conversation with Leila Hosseinzadeh, a former student activist and political prisoner. In recent years, Hosseinzadeh has become known for her consistent focus on economic justice and labor and professional demands, while also stressing minority rights. One of the most widely noted moments in her public story was about two years ago, when she defended her thesis without compulsory hijab and wearing Kurdish dress—an act that, many observers say, pushed the language and space of student activism into a new phase. Hosseinzadeh was born in 1991 (1370 in the Iranian calendar). She says she began political and civil activism in 2009, at age 18, and she is currently in Germany on a research fellowship.

Linking the protests to Pahlavi’s call is a mistake”

The program’s first question went straight to the core issue. Hosseinzadeh—who has long emphasized “bottom-up organizing”—was asked how she sees mass public action when it is framed through calls made by well-known political figures.

Her answer flipped the dominant narrative of these days. She argued that the protests have been underway for 12 days, while Reza Pahlavi’s call was issued only two days ago. So, she said, tying the start of the protests—or even their expansion—to his call is fundamentally wrong. In a sarcastic tone, she added that many political figures in Iran behave like the king in The Little Prince: first they watch what people are doing, and then they “announce” the same thing as if it were their own call to action. In her view, this pattern is not limited to high politics; she says it has repeated across different arenas, from resistance to compulsory hijab to labor and professional protests.

At the same time, she stressed that because the internet has been cut, the picture on the ground is still unclear. Still, she said available reports suggest turnout has been far broader than previous nights, and she sees this as a natural result of how protests have been spreading—not the product of an outside call. She does not deny that political figures have real supporters inside Iran, but she argues that the “one-to-one” link between a single figure’s call and the logic of protest expansion does not match the reality of the past decade.

From the bazaar to the streets—and the logic that “any spark can become a fire”

Explaining what she calls the internal logic of the protests, Hosseinzadeh pointed to where they began. She said the protests started from the bazaar. She noted that in Iran, bazaar protests usually stay limited to that sector, but this time they expanded with accelerating speed. In her view, conditions have become so unbearable for ordinary people that “any spark” can set off a larger blaze—and as long as protesters can push past the forces of repression, the protests will keep spreading.

Within that framework, she referred to earlier experiences and said that even the “freeing” of cities—if only for a few hours or days—has happened frequently over the past eight years. In her account, December 2017 (Dey 96) marked the start of a diverse, multi-stream anti-regime movement. She added that in November 2019 (Aban 98), if it hadn’t been stopped by what she described as a “mass killing,” the protests could have moved forward even faster than what we see today. As an example, she said that in just a few days back then, parts of major cities were effectively “freed.”

Her conclusion was clear: if you look from inside the field, what is being called “unprecedented” is not unprecedented in form or pattern. If anything, she argued, repression and social fractures have sometimes increased the protests’ “inertia,” making some groups join more cautiously or with more hesitation. But she sees the growing boldness—and the stronger emphasis on people’s “right to legitimate self-defense”—as a logical outcome of state violence: people have concluded they cannot move forward in any other way.

Today’s difference: the risk of shrinking a diverse movement into “one unity”

When the host asked what has been different over these two weeks, Hosseinzadeh highlighted one central worry: that the movement’s diversity is being taken over and reduced in favor of a forced “oneness,” a single unity, and a kind of one-power narrative. She argued that the movement that began in Dey 96 was strengthened from the very start by the entry of many different social forces—without those forces censoring themselves or shrinking their demands to fit one ideology, one faction, or one political brand.

To illustrate that diversity, she placed several images side by side: the overlap between the Dey 96 protests and protests by Arabs in Khuzestan framed as the “Dignity Uprising,” the emergence of the “Girls of Revolution Street” after Vida Movahed’s action, students standing alongside the wider public, and the sit-in by dervishes outside a prison. In her view, the movement has always advanced through this multi-voiced reality—and any project that tries to compress it into a single “figure” or a single flag will eventually crash into the actual complexity of Iranian society.

The “grey middle” argument—and her sharp pushback on leader-centered politics

In one of the tensest parts of the conversation, the host raised a familiar argument: some say that to bring in the “grey middle”—people who are hesitant or politically quiet—you need a prominent figure, and that Reza Pahlavi has now stepped into that role.

Hosseinzadeh answered that bazaar strikes in Tabriz and Isfahan happened before Pahlavi’s call, and if you want to talk about the “grey middle,” those groups are among the clearest examples. From her perspective, throwing a “rope” into the middle so people can grab onto it is an old, worn-out, and ineffective model of how street uprisings and revolutions actually organize. She said this model has repeatedly shown its failure even within this movement—but it keeps coming back, not because no other methods exist, but because “other interests” are at work that insist on keeping politics centered around famous faces.

She returned to Dey 96 to press the point: at that time, which of today’s big names truly believed this regime could be brought down? She then moved to a deeper structural factor: over the last two or three decades, the Islamic Republic has harshly cracked down on any kind of civil, labor, or professional organizing—from environmental groups and charities to student organizations—and today, she said, many of the most prominent figures in social and labor fields are in prison. Under those conditions, she asked, how can anyone expect these groups to function “normally”?

“We’ll get to democracy later”—or why democracy has to be confronted now

The host then raised another common concern: isn’t it time to move past these disputes, focus on change first, and only after the Islamic Republic is transformed deal with how to achieve democracy?

While Hosseinzadeh emotionally emphasized her personal wish to see the regime fall, she warned that the logic of “let it fall first, we’ll fix it later” is exactly where history can repeat itself with a new face. She said even if someone, crushed by unbearable conditions, says “fine—let it fall, and then we’ll see,” the approach of what she called the “main opposition,” which has become the loudest voice through media and money, shows signs of something else: it looks more like an effort to control the protests than to help push them toward genuine change.

In her view, labeling minorities and inflaming ethnic sensitivities is one sign of that controlling approach. She argued that even before anything has happened, large parts of the population get pushed aside through stigma and accusations—something she sees as directly opposed to the reality of Iran’s diverse society. Her bottom line was that this kind of politics dulls the edge of broad social forces, pulls them into doubt, and even makes people who were in the streets until yesterday worry: “What if we’re the first ones to be sacrificed?”

“Leaders get manufactured”

Asked what pro-democracy groups should do at this moment, Hosseinzadeh said the first step is to abandon old, unproductive habits—like gathering a few famous figures, announcing an alliance, and imagining that regime change will happen through that alone. She argued that many of these figures did not come from the street, and they are not connected to real networks or organized social bases.

She then gave a personal example: after being released from prison in 2022 (1401), she said she suddenly saw people presented in the media as “leaders of the movement.” Her point was blunt: leadership is being manufactured—often without a clear answer about what that person’s real relationship to the field actually is.

When the host noted that “becoming a figure” can sometimes come out of real struggle—and that Pahlavi, as the former شاه’s son, has long been a political name—Hosseinzadeh drew a distinction. She said her criticism targets figures who are “grown” through media projects and pushed into a central role in an artificial way. As for Pahlavi, she acknowledged that his family background gave him a built-in platform, but she argued that this visibility does not automatically create legitimacy for a project that tries to seize or reshape a diverse movement.

The host also pointed to pro-Pahlavi slogans being heard in the streets. Hosseinzadeh accepted that he has supporters among part of the public, but she made a provocative argument: popularity alone does not create political legitimacy, and it does not necessarily point to the most effective path toward unity that can actually bring down the regime.
Her proposed way out of the deadlock: learn from people, and give it back to people

When asked directly what the way out of the impasse is, Hosseinzadeh emphasized two paths. First: drop leader-centered politics and symbolic, media-friendly alliances. Second: do something she described as “simple, but hard in practice”—for those who want to act as guides rather than bosses. They should learn from what people are already doing, understand its strengths and weaknesses, spread what works, and “return it to the people.”

She stressed that the internet blackout happened in 2019 too, and cities being temporarily “freed” has happened many times—yet she asked: which political force, opposition outlet, or activist has seriously investigated how people organized themselves, how they confronted repression, and how they managed to move forward?

She said she tried to fill this gap herself, mentioning that she wrote two comprehensive reports on the 2019 and 2022 protests. But she added a sharper critique: opposition media, she said, have not even produced serious critical content analysis of their own performance. Without that kind of self-criticism, she argued, anxiety remains high and mistakes keep repeating.

The closing note: speaking to democratic forces, not judging people in the street

In the final part, the host returned to a practical question: isn’t it understandable that someone who is exhausted by daily pressure might be drawn to a force that offers an “emergency plan” and a concrete roadmap?

Hosseinzadeh responded that she is not trying to lecture people in the streets—people who, as she described it, are at a point where they either fight, get killed, topple the regime, or die trying. Her message, she said, is aimed at pro-democracy forces and the hesitant social groups who fear that, after so much blood and struggle, another form of authoritarianism and plunder could be reproduced.

Her core warning was stark: if democratic forces stay trapped in fragmentation and inaction, they risk recreating the same historical patterns—patterns where power slips through cracks at decisive moments, and the future gets seized against freedom.

The interview ended with thanks from the host and the hope of continuing the conversation later. But Hosseinzadeh’s main line was simple: the street is the product of a decade of accumulated pressure, repression, and scattered bottom-up organizing. Famous figures arrive late. The real danger is that, instead of strengthening the movement’s diversity and real field experience, projects emerge whose goal is not to open a road to freedom—but to manage and control a movement that has already broken out of control.(Summary and presentation of the interview, in English, by Siyavash Shahabi.

12 January 2026

Source: The Fire Next TIme.

Attached documentsbeyond-the-headlines-why-iran-s-protest-wave-can-t-be_a9383.pdf (PDF - 1007 KiB)
Extraction PDF [->article9383]

Footnotes


[1] 28 December 2025 to 12 January 2026, see the map showing the cities where protests are taking place

Iran
A new popular uprising in Iran
Iran on fire: rebellion returns to the streets
Support for the struggle of the people of Iran!
Iran’s regime in a predicament of its own making
Neofascism, Imperialism, War, and Revolution in the Middle East
Protest movements
ICE Murder of Minneapolis Woman Leads to Grief, Anger, Sparks National Protests
Support the prisoners, stop the repression in Tunisia
When past and present collide: Indonesia 1965-2025
The streets against the regime in Serbia: one year of mobilization in review
Mobilization shakes regime in Madagascar

Siyavash Shahabi, a freelance writer and journalist, is a political refugee in Athens. He writes regularly about Iran, the Middle East and the situation of refugees in Europe. He is also the author of critical reflections on religion.

Rights group says Iran protest toll nears 6,000 dead


By AFP
January 26, 2026


The death toll from Iran's protest movement has been rising, 

according to figures from NGOs - Copyright AFP Yasin AKGUL

Stuart Williams

A US-based rights group said on Monday it had confirmed the deaths of nearly 6,000 people during a wave of protests in Iran suppressed by security forces, as Tehran warned Washington against intervening.

The protests started in late December, driven by economic grievances, but turned into a mass movement against the Islamic republic, with huge street demonstrations for several days from January 8.

But rights groups have accused authorities of launching an unprecedented crackdown by shooting directly at the protesters under the cover of an internet shutdown that has now lasted an unprecedented 18 days.

The clerical leadership who took power after the 1979 Islamic revolution remains in place despite the protests, with many opponents of the system looking to outside intervention as the most likely driver of change.

US President Donald Trump had appeared to step back from military intervention, but has since insisted it remains an option.

He said last week that Washington was sending a “massive fleet” to the region “just in case”. Iran’s foreign ministry warned on Monday of a “comprehensive and regret-inducing response to any aggression”.

NGOs tracking the toll from the crackdown have said their task has been impeded by the internet shutdown, warning that confirmed figures are likely to be far lower than the actual toll.

The US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) said it had confirmed that 5,848 people had been killed, including 209 members of the security forces. But the group added it was still investigating another 17,091 possible fatalities.

At least 41,283 people have been arrested, it said. Giving their first official toll from the protests, Iranian authorities last week said 3,117 people were killed, the majority of whom it described as members of the security forces or innocent bystanders killed by “rioters”.



– ‘Reap the whirlwind’ –



Confirming that the internet blackout remains in place, monitor Netblocks said the shutdown was “obscuring the extent of a deadly crackdown on civilians”.

“Gaps in the filternet are being tightened to limit circumvention while whitelisted regime accounts promote the Islamic Republic’s narrative,” it added.

Over the weekend, Persian-language TV channel Iran International, which is based outside Iran, said more than 36,500 Iranians were killed by security forces from January 8 to 9, citing reports, documents and sources. It was not immediately possible to verify the report.

Meanwhile, the US was massing forces in the region with Trump keeping open the possibility of military intervention, having threatened Tehran at the height of the protests.

Trump said last week:”I’d rather not see anything happen but we’re watching them very closely.”

US media reported that Washington has sent the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln to the region.

The US briefly joined Israel’s war against Iran in June, striking its nuclear facilities. Israel also targeted Tehran’s ballistic missile programme and killed several senior Iranian security officials during 12 days of air strikes.

In Iran, foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei warned against intervention and said Iran was “confident in its own capabilities”.

In apparent reference to the Lincoln, he added: “The arrival of such a battleship is not going to affect Iran’s determination and seriousness to defend the Iranian nation.”

Meanwhile, a new anti-US billboard has appeared in the central Enghelab Square in Tehran, appearing to show an American aircraft carrier being destroyed.

“If you sow the wind, you will reap the whirlwind,” the English-language slogan read.

Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei last appeared in public on January 17, warning in a speech broadcast on state television that authorities would “break the back of the seditionists”.

In Lebanon, Iran-backed Shiite militant group Hezbollah, whose capabilities and leadership were severely degraded in a war with Israel in 2024, was organising a rally in several areas on Monday in support of Iran “in the face of American-Zionist sabotage and threats”, with leader Naim Qassem set to speak.

Iranians struggle as internet shutdown hits livelihoods


By AFP
January 24, 2026


Iranians shop for food at the Grand Bazaar in the capital Tehran - Copyright AFP ATTA KENARE

Ramin KHANIZADEH, Menna ZAKI

Cut off from the global internet for more than two weeks, online content creator Amir spends his days scanning the few news websites available on Iran’s domestic web for signs that connectivity to the world might return.

Amir, 32, has been unable to produce his reviews of video games and movies since January 8, when authorities imposed an unprecedented communications blackout amid mass anti-government protests that authorities acknowledge left more than 3,000 dead.

The prolonged shutdown has impacted key sectors of the economy from travel to exports, according to Iranians in Tehran who spoke to AFP, while costing the country millions of dollars each day.

“My work entirely depends on the internet… I really cannot see myself surviving without it,” said Amir, who works with social media platforms including Instagram and YouTube.

He said the restrictions had left him demotivated and increasingly concerned about his income and future.

Nationwide rallies against the rising cost of living erupted in Tehran on December 28, beginning as peaceful demonstrations before turning into what officials describe as “foreign-instigated riots” that included killings and vandalism.

An official death toll from the unrest stands at 3,117, but international NGOs have provided higher numbers.

The protests have since subsided but remaining in place are the internet restrictions, which Iran’s foreign minister has justified as necessary to confront foreign “terrorist operations”. Rights groups, however, say the shutdown was imposed to mask a government crackdown on protesters.

Millions of Iranians have been left reliant on the country’s intranet, which supports a wide range of domestic apps while keeping users isolated from the outside world.

Buses, subway systems, online payment and banking platforms, as well as ride-hailing, navigation and food delivery services, are all functioning on the intranet, along with local news websites.

Last weekend local media reported that domestic messaging apps including Bale, Eitaa and Rubika would also become functional again.

But Amir told AFP that he had “never used these apps and I will not start now”, citing privacy concerns.

– Flight disruptions –

Social media sites such as Instagram have served as a key marketplace for Iranian entrepreneurs, but the impact on the economy from the internet restrictions extends far wider.

On Sunday, local media quoted Iran’s deputy telecommunications minister Ehsan Chitsaz as saying the shutdown is estimated to have cost between four and six trillion rials per day — around $3 to $4 million.

Internet monitoring group NetBlocks has provided a much higher estimate, saying each day costs Iran more than $37 million.

A travel agent, who declined to be named for security concerns, told AFP that booking international flights has been “unstable”. Some flights had been cancelled and passengers only informed upon arrival at airports, she said.

“Business has been affected, with the number of customers calling me daily to book flights dropping,” she added, noting that “domestic flights remain easier to arrange”.

Iraj, a 51-year-old truck driver in western Iran who transports goods across the country’s borders, said administrative procedures for loading and unloading export cargo have slowed.

“Drivers have been required to wait hours to complete paperwork,” he added.

– ‘It will backfire’ –

Curbs on the internet have been imposed during previous bouts of unrest in Iran though have generally been shorter and more limited in scope.

Disruptions took place as far back as 2009 during nationwide demonstrations against the re-election of then president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Restrictions were also in place during protests sparked by rising fuel prices in 2019, rallies in 2022-2023 after the death in custody of Mahsa Amini, and during the 12-day war with Israel in June last year.

Amin, another content creator who reviews tech devices in videos posted to YouTube and Instagram, said he had anticipated restrictions this time but did not expect the shutdown to be so long or so stringent.

“We used to complain that working under these conditions was difficult, but now it’s affecting every aspect of our livelihoods,” the 29-year-old told AFP.

It remains unclear how long the blackout will last. In recent days patchy access to some foreign websites and email services such as Google has been available, but has been highly unreliable.

“The only optimistic thing I can say… is that I don’t see them keeping the internet shut completely for a long time,” Amin said.

“Otherwise, it will backfire.”

CULTURAL GENOCIDE

Russian attack damages UNESCO-listed Kyiv monastery


By AFP
January 26, 2026


The UNESCO-listed complex, founded in the 11th century, is home to more than 100 buildings

 - Copyright AFP/File Genya SAVILOV

A Russian drone and missile attack has damaged parts of the Kyiv Pechersk Lavra, Ukraine’s most famous religious landmark and a UNESCO World Heritage Site, Ukraine’s culture ministry said Monday.

The attack took place during the night between Friday and Saturday, the ministry said.

“A preliminary visual inspection revealed damage to doors and window frames,” the ministry said in a statement, sharing photos of a cracked window and an open notebook covered with specks of plaster.

AFP was not able to immediately verify the extent of the damage.

The UNESCO-listed complex, founded in the 11th century, is home to more than 100 buildings as well as a subterranean labyrinth of caves where monks stay and worship.

Orthodox Christians consider it Ukraine’s spiritual centre.

Russia’s invasion almost four years ago has damaged hundreds of historical buildings, including religious sites, museums and libraries, according to UNESCO.

The UN cultural body added the Lavra to its list of endangered landmarks in 2023, citing the “threat of destruction” from Russia’s ongoing offensive.

AFTER CANADA

UK PM Starmer heading to China aiming to reset ties


By AFP
January 26, 2026


Starmer is making the first trip to Beijing by a UK prime minister in eight years 

- Copyright POOL/AFP FLORENCE LO

Joe Jackson with Sam Davies in Beijing

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer travels to China late Tuesday for the first official visit by a British premier since 2018 as he bids to boost trade ties despite frictions.

Starmer’s visit is expected to include a bilateral meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, when some of those concerns — including Beijing’s alleged rights abuses, the war in Ukraine, and alleged spying — could be apparent.

The British leader will then travel on to Japan on Saturday for a brief stop there, Tokyo’s foreign ministry confirmed.

Starmer “will depart for his travel to China and Japan on Tuesday night”, his spokesman told reporters on Monday, without providing further details of the much-anticipated trip.

“You can expect a range of issues to be raised, including but not restricted to trade and investment,” he noted.

The visit spotlights Starmer’s ambition to reset ties with China, an economic powerhouse, as the UK economy struggles and after relations between London and Beijing sank to new lows under the previous Conservative government.

The announcement of his visit comes less than a week after the British government approved contentious plans to build a “mega-embassy” in the heart of London.

The 20,000-square-metre (235,000-square-foot) site is set to become the largest embassy complex in the UK by area, and one of the largest in the centre of a Western capital.

But it could still face legal challenges and angry residents vowed last week to act.

Starmer himself last month acknowledged that while China provided significant economic opportunities for the UK, it also posed “real national security threats”.



– ‘Rethink alliances’ –



There have also been protests by activists who fear the sprawling site in the historic former Royal Mint, next to the Tower of London, could be used to spy on and harass dissidents.

The UK government has said intelligence agencies have helped to develop a “range of measures” to manage any risks while Beijing has agreed to consolidate its seven current London sites into one, “bringing clear security advantages”.

Bilateral relations plummeted in 2020 after Beijing imposed a sweeping national security law on Hong Kong, which severely curtailed freedoms in the former British colony.

Starmer is also expected to raise the case of Hong Kong media mogul and democracy supporter Jimmy Lai, 78, who is facing years in prison after being found guilty of collusion charges in December.

Starmer’s trip follows finance minister Rachel Reeves’s visit to Beijing last year, as the centre-left Labour government looks to improve trade relations and fulfil its primary goal of boosting UK economic growth.

The reset has faced domestic pushback, in particular from UK lawmakers who have been sanctioned by China for their criticisms of Beijing’s actions in Hong Kong and over rights abuses.

Kerry Brown, who directs King’s College London’s Lau China Institute, told AFP that Starmer “may as well be getting something in return” for the flak he is taking.

“It is time for the UK government to really show that the reason for a pragmatic relationship with China is that it actually brings results that create jobs, help with the key priority of improving Britain’s economy,” he said.

Brown also noted it was an “excellent chance to try to work out the shape” of a new global geopolitics emerging due to US President Donald Trump’s policies and volatile behaviour.

“Suddenly, we need to rethink the standard patterns and blocks of alliances,” he noted.

“So in this context, China might not be an ally, but it is also not an enemy. It is a place that in some ways, has common reason to be as dismayed and appalled by the behaviour of the US as UK and other powers.”