"Happy New Year to every Iranian in the streets. Also to every Mossad agent walking beside them..." - Mike Pompeo

They're a total non-player on the world stage. They completely kowtow to the US. Hardly a good example

The war has record low approval ratings, even among Trump's base.

In a matter of months: Paramount, CBS, TikTok, CNN, FreePress...

The way I see it, any support for Iranians will be co-opted to start a war with Iran, which will be a disaster.

This isn't the case for Israel / Gaza, which is what I assume you're alluding to when you talk about activism.

I do think there are particular aspects about US support for Israel, outside of humanitarian concerns, that lead to people being more critical about US involvement in the conflict.

Beyond that, the Houthi / Saudi conflict is a lot less asymmetric, which I think plays a factor in people's response to it. The Houthis have more territorial control, weapons, agency. It's closer to a state-state war. Gaza is quite literally boxed in--air, sea and land.

Considering that reality, does it not make sense that Americans would be more vocal when it comes to this conflict, because we actually have agency to affect it?

I genuinely want to know what your response is to that argument, because it's not a new one, and seems very obvious to me.

And the executed protesters are a bad thing. But I don't think military intervention will lead to a better outcome.

Supporters of Palestine had pretty specific requests, none of which apply to Iran (conditioning weapons sales, divestment, etc...)

The activists want the excessive death and suffering to end in Palestine, and they want to avoid death and suffering in Iran.

Many politicians want to use the protests as a pretext for military intervention in Iran, and my blunt opinion is that they don't actually have the interests of Iranians in mind. There are many reasons to believe it will end up worse for both America and the Iranians than our interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A valid response would be to say that you think abuses in Iran are bad enough that a military intervention is justified and that it will lead to a better outcome for Iranians. My intuition would be to disagree with that, based on the results of past interventions, etc...

The state of the country seemed quite beautiful to be honest. I have a hard time thinking it's a total disaster right now

Here's Hillary Clinton onstage a week ago: https://x.com/prem_thakker/status/1995961131215847749

But really, when banning a large portion of the population from social media, political motives should absolutely be entertained. Politics is inextricably related to social media in 2025

I've seen plenty of real information, from non-anonymous American journalists that I'm certain are the largest factor in any sea-change amongst Americans.

And despite the claim, I've yet to see solid evidence of large, pakistan-based accounts wielding massive influence on twitter. Most anonymous accounts that focus on current events tend to be located in America, Europe, or Canada from what I've seen.

I think phones and social media are harmful, but I get the sense there's a political motive behind this. We've been hearing politicians complain for years that they're losing the youth when it comes to long-standing foreign policy positions, etc... And suddenly they ban social media. Rahm Emanuel is campaigning for the same thing in America.

I don't believe they're overly concerned with "helping the kids" unfortunately