Dark hearts can't hide.

Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

Remember, that without We The People and men like Patrick Henry, who stood up against government overreach within the original constitution, we would not have the checks and balances in the form of our Bill of Rights. The 1A, 2A etc He redpilled the people and exposed the Illuminati plan and caused push back and to force the addition of the Bill of Rights within the constitution or the people will not allow the constitution to be drafted. It wasn't the Masonic founding Fathers who gave us our freedom, it was We The People who fought a monarchy and an infiltration after the victory. It is We The People who hold the key to our destiny.

The leading narrative about the Black Hills, a range stretching across the border of South Dakota and Wyoming, most famous for Mount Rushmore, is as simple as it is compelling.   It was an American intervention to protect a tribal ally from a power far more expansionist than the United States. As typically told, the Lakota, Nakota, and Dakota nations together form the Sioux people. They held the Black Hills from time immemorial as the center of their civilization. The United States guaranteed it to them via treaty, tried to steal the land, and was initially defeated at the heroic 1876 Battle of the Little Bighorn until finally overwhelming the Natives.  The above story is patently false. The Battle of the Little Bighorn wasn’t an American invasion into Native land; it was an American intervention to protect a tribal ally from a power far more expansionist than the United States. Lakota Sioux activist Jesse Short Bull produced a documentary several years ago titled Lakota Nation v. United States. Co-produced with Mark Ruffalo, it purports to tell the story of a fight to win back their rightful heritage through a case that made it to the Supreme Court in 1980. There, justices ordered a financial settlement. The Sioux refused, as it would legally end their land claims.  The documentary and its reception were emblematic of the misunderstanding of the situation by mainstream media. CNN glowingly wrote of the director that “the ground [Short Bull] was stepping on was once soaked with the blood of his ancestors.” If the claim is true, that blood is more likely to have been shed in self-defense.  Oglala Lakota Poet Layli Long-Soldier described the Black Hills as “our cradle of civilization.” This theme has been echoed by countless media outlets, and even the ice cream company Ben & Jerry’s.  The Sioux were not the original inhabitants of the Black Hills. Their people were originally from the Northern Great Lakes and moved westward. Beginning in the early 18th century, the Sioux engaged in rapid military expansion from Wisconsin and Minnesota to the modern-day Dakotas. The Black Hills had been the territory of a number of groups prior, including the Arikara, Crow, Kiowa, Arapaho, and Cheyenne from at least 1500 onwards. Of these, the Cheyenne held the Hills in the highest renown, giving them the same sacred status that the Sioux later did.  French traders François and Louis de La Vérendrye explored the Black Hills in 1743, forming particular ties to the Arikara people. The Lakota conquest began 30 years later. By 1776, as the United States declared its independence from the British, the Lakota decisively defeated the Cheyenne and began to center their culture around the Black Hills. This was not the “cradle” of Sioux civilization. In fact, Sioux control of the Black Hills lasted only 101 years. In comparison, it has been American territory for 146 years. Conflict between the United States and the Sioux began in 1851, but the usual narrative misses that the Sioux were an expansionist force for the entire period of their control of the Black Hills. Before, during, and after the initial 1851–1868 period of American-Sioux conflict, Lakota and Dakota warriors launched raids on neighboring tribes. Activists are correct when pointing out that the U.S. bequeathed the territory in perpetuity to the Sioux in 1868 with a Sioux victory and the ensuing Treaty of Fort Laramie. They are, however, missing the rest of the story.  The Sioux victory in 1868 was not an anti-imperialist triumph against an invading United States; it was expansion into the historic lands of the Crow (Apsáalooke) people. In the following 1868 treaty, the United States “in effect betrayed the Crows” and ceded their land to the actual imperialists, the Lakota. Immediately afterwards, the Sioux began a bloody campaign of expansion westward against the tribes of Wyoming and Montana.  In one notorious 1873 incident, Lakota warriors massacred at least 100 women and children from the Pawnee tribe, with some estimates closer to 200. Victims were mutilated, sexually assaulted, scalped, and burned alive. The treatment of those captured was so brutal that the Pawnee leader, Sky Chief, went down fighting the invaders. He took his own son’s life rather than let him fall into the torturous hands of the Lakota. This was the most infamous raid among years of attacks by Sioux warriors on Pawnee innocents and local pacifist Quaker communities.  The greatest force pushing for a United States war against the Sioux was the Crow tribal chief, Blackfoot. He sought an American intervention to guarantee the Crow their own historic land that had been legally guaranteed by treaties with the United States, as the Sioux perpetrated raids and massacres against his people. The flow of American miners into the Black Hills finally brought federal attention to the issue. Lakota and Dakota leaders refused their attempts to buy the land and proceeded to form an alliance with their old enemies, the Arapaho and Cheyenne, to counter the United States and their Native allies. Thus began the Great Sioux War of 1876.  Chief Plenty-Coups led the Crow for a half century, during which he chose to protect their culture through peace with the Americans and eventually even converted to Catholicism. From his perspective, the Sioux-Cheyenne-Arapaho alliance meant “the three worst enemies our people had were combined against us.” From the Crow’s point of view, the Great Sioux War was actually an American fulfillment of their treaty obligations to protect Crow reservations, not an expansionist conquest.  American involvement lifted the spirits of their besieged nation. Hundreds of Crow scouts joined the U.S. Army, enlisting with a zeal to join their American allies to finally defeat the Sioux after decades of bloodthirsty expansion. For the Arikara and Crow, the Great Sioux War was “a war for survival.” Most of the battles in the ensuing conflict would actually be fought on lands the Sioux had taken from the Crow within the two preceding decades. This includes the famous Sioux victory at the Battle of the Little Bighorn, directly located on the Crow reservation, where American soldiers had moved at the behest of Crow leaders to repel the Sioux invasion.  Two hundred and sixty eight Americans, Crow, and Arikara under the command of General George Armstrong Custer were killed. They were traditionally seen as heroes and have always been one of the most enduring stories of Americana. Every child of the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains heard the story growing up. The cultural revolution of the 1960s brought the false narrative that Americans at the Little Bighorn had arrived as conquerors. This false revision of history was widely popularized as the theme of the 1970 film Little Big Man.  Take it from Crow Chief Plenty-Coups again. He remembered bitterly the despair felt across the Crow Reservation when they and their American allies met defeat against the Sioux invasion, recounting that “there were none in this horrified nation of forty millions of people to whom the tidings brought more grief than to the Crows.” Future Crow medicine woman Pretty Shield remembered that when her village learned about the American defeat, it cried for both the dead Crow scouts “and for Son-of-the-morning-star [Custer’s Indian name] and his blue soldiers.” The Crow would celebrate with other Americans as later engagements routed the Sioux. The Great Sioux War concluded after less than a year with a military victory for the United States and the diplomatic efforts of anti-war Lakota leaders Spotted Tail and Red Cloud. Included in this victory was the seizure of the Black Hills, only 101 years after the Lakota and Dakota themselves seized the Black Hills from the Cheyenne. The righteous moral order America has fostered and spread leads us to contemplation of our past, particularly in engagements where our opponents did not share this morality. However, a look at the historical record disproves the common simplistic narrative of colonialism and demonstrates clearly that the Sioux, not the Americans of the Little Bighorn, were the invaders of the Black Hills. Shiv Parihar is an editorial intern at The American Spectator. Follow him on X @ShivomMParihar. READ MORE from Shiv Parihar: What Zohran Mamdani Does Right An Afrikaner in America Laments for His Homeland New Biography Paints Rainbow Over Charles Sumner The post %POSTLINK% appeared first on %BLOGLINK%.

Among Democrats, honesty is a relative term. Their candidates usually hide what they believe and trust to the party faithful to explain things for them. Zohran Mamdani appears to be the exception, being a thorough scoundrel but a candidate whose words can be taken literally. His victory would result in a lawless city, a place that no one would want to call home. Mamdani is the Democratic Party’s candidate for the mayoralty of New York City. He’s more than likely to be elected in November by the liberal elite and the ignorant of the city, who are interchangeable. Mamdani is a Democratic Socialist, which means he favors defunding the police, establishing city-run grocery stores, freezing rents, and making the subways a free service. He says things that Bernie Sanders would love to say but won’t. We should remember the axiom that free people are unequal and equal people aren’t free. Asked whether billionaires have the right to exist, Mamdani said, “I don’t think that we should have billionaires because, frankly, it is so much money in a moment of such inequality.” In other words, he believes that billionaires shouldn’t exist because they represent the outcome he opposes for equality among the people. Or at least some people. According to Mamdani’s campaign website, he wants to shift the tax burden so that whites are taxed more than other races. The website explains that he wants to shift the city’s tax burden, “to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods.” That, of course is hilariously unconstitutional and, obviously, precisely racist. You can’t tax people at higher or lower rates based on their race. It’s common for the media and the Dems to say that Republicans are racist, but here’s an undeniable proof that a Democratic candidate is. Mamdani should be declared a racist at every step of his campaign. Despite his racism, he can still win in New York. That’s because of his fashionable anti-Semitism. The phrase “globalize the intifada” is defined as a call to kill and injure Jews. Mamdani denies that he uses that term but has, in the past, defended it as a “desperate desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights.” Mamdani has compared the phrase “globalize the intifada” to Jews being released from Nazi death camps. The illogic of that statement is breathtaking. That is a completely dishonest characterization of the words. He has, then, defended violence against Jews as a defense of “Palestinian human rights.” That is apparently one of his core beliefs. He often accuses Israel of being an “apartheid” state which, given the Arab — even Palestinian Arab — presence in the Israeli Defense Forces, is a complete lie. (One need not take my word for it. You can easily look up the fact that Arabs — Muslim Arabs — are welcomed into the IDF and Israel’s parliament. Mamdani is apparently confused about his own origins. In an application to Columbia University when he was a high school senior, according to the New York Times, he said he was “black” and “Ugandan” in order to gain a step on other less “diverse” applicants. He was born in Uganda but has no ancestry there. Both of Mamdani’s parents are of Indian origin. His mother, a film maker, owns a $2 million home in New York City. His father is a Columbia professor. Together their net worth is between $2 million and $10 million. Mamdani reportedly owns a lot in Uganda valued at about $200,000. Coupled with his elite education, Mamdani is a cliché of the wealthy elitist candidate loudly promoting socialism and the redistribution of wealth. As listed in an article in the Jerusalem Post, Mamdani has: Refused to condemn the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023; A failed rapper, he has starred in music videos praising the “Holy Land Five,” all convicted Hamas funders; Attacked Israel and the U.S. for trying to stop Iran from making nuclear weapons; Supported legislation that would deprive Jewish nonprofits of their tax-exempt status; Said he wouldn’t send New York police to protect Jews from harassment on college campuses; and Built his political career on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement which demands, as the name implies, a political campaign to bar Israel from the community of nations. Mamdani has also reportedly threatened to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he sets foot in New York. In short, Mamdani is an anti-Semite who would use the power of the mayoralty against Jews. The mayoralty race in New York is entirely confused. The current mayor, Eric Adams, is both foolish and corrupt. Mamdani defeated him and former Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the city’s primary election. One or both will probably run as independents. The only Republican running against him, Guardian Angels founder Curtis Sliwa, has no chance to defeat Mamdani. There’s an excellent chance for Mamdani to win the mayor’s race. If he does there should be an exodus of businesses, perhaps even Wall Street, as well as Jews from the city. His victory would result in a lawless city, a place that no one would want to call home. READ MORE from Jed Babbin: Trump’s Declawing of Iran Is Reshaping the Middle East MOPping Up Iran The post %POSTLINK% appeared first on %BLOGLINK%.

In January 1989, I was too busy playing soccer in the schoolyard. But something astonishing happened. Ronald Reagan gave his farewell address from the White House, and nobody wanted him to go. Most politicians don’t leave; they’re kicked out. Nobody wanted to kick Reagan out, except for fools and communists, which are one and the same. Reagan did his job. America shone. And it was free. And the West was illuminated by the light of America’s freedom. Mission accomplished. The great Republican president simply had to leave because of the law, but the America he left behind was infinitely better. His farewell speech feels more like an effort to comfort and keep citizens from crying over his absence than an attempt to justify himself. Maybe because when you do things right, you don’t need to keep insisting on how well you did them — unless you’re a writer or journalist (without an OnlyFans channel) in the 21st century, in which case you have no choice if you want anyone to pay attention. Even the most hostile media reported that Reagan’s approval rating at the end of his presidency was over 60 percent. That’s more than you’d find in the happiest marriages if you asked people how much they value their partner’s actions. That’s more than your best friend loves you. That’s more than the joy a cold beer brings in the middle of a desert. Reagan said goodbye, claiming he had achieved a restoration of traditional American values. I can’t think of anything more urgent today. Conservatism is simple: less government, lower taxes, giving wings to individual initiative, and rediscovering pride in your own flag. It’s simple, but you have to want to do it. “And how stands the city on this winter night?” Reagan said, “more prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was eight years ago. But more than that: After 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she’s still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home. We’ve done our part.” On patriotism, the president admitted that younger generations didn’t always receive patriotic fervor through the usual channels: family, school, or popular culture. That’s why he wanted to make freedom the banner of patriotism: “America is freedom — freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise.” However, he was also very clear about how young people should be educated: “We’ve got to teach history based not on what’s in fashion but what’s important.” It’s a good reminder for American conservatives. Reagan knew that America’s light was freedom, not old, heroic history books. Maybe because freedom endures over time and we all experience it throughout our lives. Nazism was horrific, the Soviet revolution was abominable, and defeating those totalitarian regimes was an immense feat, but without survivors of those great victories, new generations can only form a strange, distant idea of what they meant. It’s nothing like their lives. Freedom, on the other hand, is their lives. Teenagers understand freedom better than anyone, as soon as Dad tells them they can’t stay out past 10 at night unless they want to sleep in the doghouse. The thoughtful kid glances at the dog for a moment, and the dog, in cahoots with Dad, lets out a growl, showing a fang. The kid then realizes he’s completely free to do everything Dad tells him to. But above all, he understands that freedom is a conquest. That one day, when he’s an adult, Dad will hand over the freedom he’s been holding in trust, and it will forever be the most precious thing to protect. Seen this way, I can’t understand how some people end up giving up freedom to embrace socialism. It’s like coming home before 10 and choosing to sleep in the doghouse. Maybe we should all read more Reagan: kid, “man is not free unless government is limited.” Reagan did his job. America shone. And it was free. And the West was illuminated by the light of America’s freedom. Mission accomplished. Now more than ever: Donald Trump has a great opportunity to leave the White House in a few years the same way. READ MORE from Itxu Díaz: Spy Technology No Longer Leaves Anything to the Imagination. An Honest Reflection on Summer America’s Enemies Are Back (And There Are Fewer of Them Than Before) The post %POSTLINK% appeared first on %BLOGLINK%.

Since the ceasefire between Israel and Iran came into effect life in Israel has more or less returned to normal. Reserve soldiers who have been in the field for months on end have returned home to their families and many are now taking well-deserved vacations. All this would not be happening if not for the fact that, by any reasonable and objective standard, Israel’s operation Rising Lion, together with America’s Midnight Hammer strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, had not been a spectacular success. Some critics have claimed that this blindness is due to the fact that both Trump and Witkoff have financial interests in Qatar. Think of it: during a period of 12 days, the Israel Air Force (IAF) made a thousand sorties moving from west to east ever deeper into Iranian airspace. It destroyed nuclear installations, missile launchers, missile and drone factories, anti-aircraft batteries, fighter jets and took out numerous high ranking military commanders and nuclear scientists all without losing a single aircraft. Similarly, with complete impunity the USAF’s Midnight Hammer strikes dealt a crippling blow to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. But it must be noted that despite President Trump’s bravado, Midnight Hammer probably would not have taken place had the IAF not laid the groundwork. As distinguished military historian Victor Davis Hanson noted in his Blade of Perseus blog of June 26, “For Supreme Leader Khamenei, it was hard to swallow that U.S. bombers got their permission to fly into Iranian airspace from the Israeli air force.” Given the ongoing necessity of playing to the audience back home, where naysayers are forever predicting another forever war, Trump’s renaming of Israel’s Rising Lion operation as the “12 Day War” is understandable. But it is nevertheless unfortunate because it distorts reality. Israel’s hot war with Iran and its proxies has been going on now not for 12 but rather for some six hundred days. And while America has been involved from the get-go, the immediacy of the Iranian threat to Israel’s existence has mandated that Israel do the heavy lifting. While the U.S. helped block some of the Iranian missiles shot at Israel in April and October of 2024, Israel, by necessity, intercepted the vast majority. It is with the resupply of critical military hardware that America has played its most crucial role. It must be remembered that during the Biden administration bought and paid for munitions and spare parts were withheld or slow walked. It was only after Trump took office that the IDF was massively resupplied, speeding up shipments and, consequently, bringing the war to its present point. That being said, it is impossible to exaggerate the amount of effort that it took for the IDF to plan and coordinate operation Rising Lion. Preparation for this operation had been going on for 30 years and every branch of the Israeli military and security apparatus, especially Mossad intelligence and special ops, were intensely involved. In practical terms this means that many personnel spent entire careers in the planning effort. Now that that mission has been accomplished all efforts are focused on Gaza which is the last meaningful front in the war that started on 10/7. Formerly, Israel’s tactic in Gaza was essentially one of raiding and then retreating. Its new tactic is to take and keep ground while at the same time taking control of the distribution of humanitarian aid in order to help starve Hamas. At this point Israel controls about 75 percent of the Strip and has moved most of the civilian population out of harm’s way. Hamas’s last stronghold is Gaza City where its last effective leader, Izz al-Din al-Haddad, is holed up. Though his whereabout are known to Israeli intelligence, he never appears in public and has ruthlessly surrounded himself with hostages which makes him very difficult to eliminate. One cannot predict how Trump’s new ceasefire proposal will play out, but we’ve seen this movie before. The bottom line is that for Israel to achieve its war aims Hamas must be completely destroyed. It is impossible to overstate the importance of achieving this goal. The whole world is watching. Other states such as Saudi Arabia and Indonesia will probably not make peace with Israel until she finishes the job. Hamas is not merely a terrorist organization. It is also an embodiment of the extreme Islamic ideology known as Wahhabism, and ideologies are much harder to eradicate than men and military equipment. That is why it is shocking that President Trump keeps inviting Qatar, which is the foremost fount of Wahhabism to the negotiating table between Hamas and Israel. Egypt also does not come to the table with entirely clean hands — who can forget that she smuggled arms into Gaze — but at least Egypt abhors the Muslim Brotherhood which is one of Wahabism’s main conduits and organizing mechanisms. The Qataris are the guys wearing nice suits but, as Khaled Abu Toameh wrote at Gatestone on June 3, “After America’s attack on Iran’s nuclear sites on June 22, journalists and those who shape public opinion in Qatar condemned the U.S. and President Donald J. Trump…. Qatar’s government newspapers took to social media to slam the U.S. and Trump, calling him a ‘brazen liar, ‘the leader of a modern crusade,’ and a ‘war criminal’ who has ‘revealed his ugly face’ and is ‘looking for false personal glory.’ By now in the Middle East few entities like Iran, but neither do they like Qatar. In 2017 four Arab states — Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates — severed ties with Qatar and imposed a sea, land, and air blockade on it. They accused Qatar of supporting various terrorist groups and extremist movements, including the Muslim Brotherhood, and demanded the closure of Al-Jazeera. However, without American support nothing came of it. However this war ends, whether through the implementation of President Trump’s most recent ceasefire proposal, which calls for Hamas to release all remaining hostages, lay down its arms, and leave the Gaza enclave, or when the IDF has achieved these goals by force, it is obvious that Israel will have to retain security control of the strip for the foreseeable future. Now that their Hamas jailers no longer control the exits, Gazans have already been leaving the Strip for other parts of the world. Part of Trump’s ceasefire proposal is that a number of Arab nations will oversee and administer the postwar rebuilding. These legitimately include the UAE and Egypt, but Qatar has also been mentioned. Under no circumstances should Qatar be included. Its true colors have been known to its neighbors for decades, and by now America also knows or should know what they are. For some reason President Trump and his envoy Steve Witkoff have turned a blind eye to what Qatar really is, a state sponsor of terror equal to Iran but with a pretty face. Some critics have claimed that this blindness is due to the fact that both Trump and Witkoff have financial interests in Qatar. One would like to think that this criticism is baseless. Whatever the case may be, the constant engagement with Qatar has become a blot on Trump’s legacy and, if it continues, will make Israel’s job after the war much more difficult and dangerous. For those who have eyes to see, there will be a cloud over Trump’s foreign policy until the end of his term — and it just ain’t worth it. READ MORE from Max Dublin: Leaders of the Free World: We’ve Been at War With Iran Since 1979 Elections Have Consequences for Canada The post %POSTLINK% appeared first on %BLOGLINK%.

With the end of the 12 day war, the question of regime change in Iran remains central. There are many scenarios, highlighting different factors and views. Analysts contrast the sweeping 1979 revolution that deposed the Shah and brought the Islamic Republic to power with the failures of major protest movements to trigger a counter revolution. Pessimists predict that the regime will survive, continuing to impose its control over the lives of 90 million citizens, while attempting to rebuild the military and terror capabilities to attack Israel. In the case of the Soviet Union, the erosion of legitimacy took place steadily during four years until the final collapse. Alternative scenarios highlight the humiliation following the war in which the Israeli Air Force had complete freedom of action over all of Iran. As the scale of damage, in contrast to the regime’s propaganda, becomes apparent across the country, the challenges to the legitimacy of the leadership are likely to increase. This process could trigger a collapse from within, including defection by officials of the regime, and eventually, a loss of control. To assess and analyze this scenario, it is useful to consider the collapse of the Soviet Union that began with the catastrophic accident at the nuclear reactor at Chernobyl in April 1986. The Kremlin leadership was already ossified at the time, much like its Iranian counterparts now. The explosion and its aftermath, including many deaths and large-scale radiation exposure, were clearly visible throughout the area and far beyond the borders of the USSR, but Moscow tried to cover-up the disaster to avoid embarrassment, like the response in Tehran. Immediately after the explosion at Reactor No. 4, authorities sent teams of technicians and firefighters without protection, who were immediately exposed to lethal radiation. Moscow’s foolish attempt to control the narrative meant that the nearby city of Pripyat (with 50,000 residents) was not evacuated for 36 hours, despite extremely high radiation levels. Media coverage within Russia was heavily censored, but as casualties increased, word of the disaster spread quickly. It was only on the third day that the USSR leadership issued a formal public statement, announcing what everyone already knew — that a “nuclear accident” had occurred. General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev did not publicly address the Soviet people until over two weeks after the explosion. The Chernobyl catastrophe symbolized a closed and incompetent political system that endangered the entire population, and the institutions lost legitimacy, power, and control. Estonia and Lithuania moved out of the Kremlin’s orbit; in 1989, Germans broke down the most visible symbol of repression — the Berlin wall — without any resistance or response. Less than two years later, what remained of the Soviet Union imploded and disappeared.  As Gorbachev, the last Soviet leader, acknowledged, the collapse began with Chernobyl. In examining the prospects of a similar scenario in Iran, many of the factors are evident. The regime maintains power through repressive power and secrecy, but the Israeli military and security forces quickly destroyed Iran’s defenses, followed by 12 days of continuous attacks, highlighting the government’s vulnerability and incompetence. Numerous Iranian military and security officials, including in the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and key figures in the nuclear weapons program, were targeted in the first hours of the Israeli operation, and the regime could do nothing to protect them. For a political collapse, millions of Iranians would have to overcome decades of fear and repression, and join the courageous protestors — particularly the women who have defied the regime and led the opposition. Seeing the ruins of bombed-out military installations, interior police headquarters, and destroyed walls of the infamous Evin prison where regime opponents were tortured, could, like the images of the Chernobyl catastrophe, empower the protest movements. Similarly, in the coming weeks and months, the damage to basic services such as gasoline supply and the banking system will make day to day life far more onerous, and add to the anger at the regime’s failures. As in the Soviet strategy after Chernobyl, Tehran’s propaganda platforms, including statements by the Supreme Leader, are desperately attempting to control the narrative by denying the blatant failures and making absurd claims of a great victory over the Zionist enemy. In Russia, the public greeted such efforts with sarcasm and derision, and the same might well occur in Iran. In the case of the Soviet Union, the erosion of legitimacy took place steadily during four years until the final collapse. For Iran to follow this route, signs of opposition could emerge in the coming months, leading to an accelerating spiral. And while there is no guarantee of regime change, the openings have been created. READ MORE: Basic Thoughts on Iran Exclusive: Anti-Regime Iranians Speak Out, Discuss Widespread Discontent With the Mullahs’ Rule The writer is President of NGO Monitor and emeritus professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University, Israel. The post %POSTLINK% appeared first on %BLOGLINK%.