First Raisi was in a suspicious accident after returning from Azerbaijan, a satellite state for the blue/white country with significant intelligence presence of the blue/white country. Then this imbecile Pezeshkian came in using really nice and soft language and offering gestures for the US. Later on Khamenei’s entire family was in a strike, and a bunch of hardliner commanders precisely struck as well at the same time. Reformists have not been targeted as much.

Now theres currently another war, with mostly drone strikes and a few missiles hitting only bases and weapons. Officials constantly still bring up the agreement, almost as if they are hinting they want another deal. No one cares the country is being destroyed, and that the whole region is getting away with it.

Iran promised an eye-for-eye retaliation (“burning down all the middle east infrastructure) if its own infrastructure is attacked, specifically also targeting bridges of hostile countries if its own is target. Yet in 2 waves by the US, Iran has had multiple of its own bridges destroyed - No retaliation. Avoiding escalation + bluffing.

All it takes is sending dozens and dozens of drones to the aircraft carriers and other destroyer ships in the strait all at once with some anti-ship missiles to sink or really damage ships, but they don’t do that either. A lot of options for harsher retaliation, yet just bases and military equipment are targeted whilst Iran has a lot more being targeted to them.

Does this sequence of events not raise any alarms for not just maybe us, but government officials in Iran?

Will Pezeshkian not get removed since obviously there has to be some influence in leadership of making sure the armed forces don’t strike back too hard?

Found Pezeshkian best described from this post a year ago that had 18 upvotes:

“If you're not in Iran, it's hard to understand but he really is scared of the West and also supports the Western countries. He also acts very weakly in front of the enemies. He said some things which some argue led to Sayyid's death. For example, he claimed we are also ready for brotherhood with the US. He said if Israel lays down its weapons we are ready to do it as well. He said Hezbollah is weak and can't stand alone. He said the US doesn't consider Iranians as humans therefore degrading and humilating the country and the people. And lastly, he said if war happens Iran will get torn apart. All of this sends weak pulses to Israel, giving Israel the courage to do whatever it wants.”

Unless something changes, Iran will just get bombed whenever by US/blue&white feel like because they know they don’t have to worry about getting struck back too hard. Those bases are all probably already written off. The Gulf states are all likely coordinating and giving resources with this long-term plan to chip away at Iran that the US & white/blue country wants.

They will slowly chip away at Iran at their own pace until either Afghanistan-level destruction and poverty, or collapse from within with the oil/gas is given to the Gulf countries, in which unfortunately Iran gets the same fate as Yugoslavia.

"Shipping companies are avoiding using a U.S. military-guided transit scheme through the Strait ​of Hormuz after a wave of Iranian attacks on vessels sparked safety concerns, seven maritime security and shipping industry sources said.

Since the Iran war began on February 28, Iranian forces have mined this area, forcing vessels to use one of two makeshift routes close to either the Iranian or Omani coast.

Yet shippers are evaluating the route on the Omani side of the strait as increasingly dangerous after a ⁠wave of attacks on ships.

Iran's Revolutionary Guards on Tuesday claimed responsibility for attacks on two Emirati oil supertankers.

Some five ships have been attacked since July 7 – three crude supertankers, one LNG tanker and one container ship – in ​Omani waters that fell under the U.S. scheme, according to analysis of incidents based on data from the U.N.'s shipping agency.

It was unclear if all the ships were sailing under the U.S. scheme, the sources said.

"The U.S. doesn't ​seem to have any control over the situation," one shipping source said, adding that their company had opted not to sail through the strait due to crew safety concerns and the deteriorating security situation.

"Iran’s continued ability to target ships sailing through the Omani route means the Trump administration’s proposed solution to keep ships moving is unlikely to work," said Torbjorn Solvedt, principal Middle East analyst with risk intelligence company Verisk Maplecroft.

Iran threatened on Wednesday to shut off more regional energy exports, after the U.S. re-imposed a naval blockade of Iranian ports and both sides launched more strikes as they vie for control of the strait.

Tehran is signaling it may use its Houthi allies in Yemen to shut the Bab el-Mandeb, which leads into the Red Sea, opening a new front against Washington and putting two of the world's most vital shipping arteries at risk.

Around nine Greek-operated LNG tankers, which had sailed into the Gulf via Hormuz in the past week to load cargoes, were stuck inside ​the strait due to the security concerns, another shipping ​source said.

Two further tankers have been attacked since ⁠July 7 in open waters outside the strait."

"Trump said the U.S. partnership with Iraq would shift away from military cooperation toward investment and energy development, while al-Zaidi said: "The 30th of September, the U.S. forces would be out of Iraq. While U.S. companies will be inside Iraq."

President Trump told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a phone call Thursday that Israel should start redeploying its forces out of Syria and urged him to do the same in Lebanon, according to U.S. and Israeli officials.

Why it matters: Three months ahead of an election that is existential for his political survival and personal freedom, Netanyahu is unlikely to take any significant steps to withdraw Israeli forces from territory it occupies in Syria — or to allow further redeployments in Lebanon beyond the one he's already agreed to.

Whats with this trip? What are the Saudis so angry about? statements make one think Iran has used their air space and not a sovereign nation's. Can someone give some context as to why this brought about such outrage?

Summary: On January 19, 2026, Mediapart — a French subscription-based investigative journalism outlet positioning itself as an independent, left-leaning watchdog, roughly comparable to Democracy Now! in the United States, and allowing subscribers to publish their own blogs on the platform — indefinitely suspended all participatory rights (posting articles or comments, internal messaging) on my blog, Alain Marshal, which had never previously been subject to any sanction or suspension. Such an action tramples on its stated mission to uphold free speech and encourage criticism, and silences a voice regularly amplified by the subscriber community.

This decision is “justified” on two grounds:

— the “unpublishing” of 11 comments out of approximately 400 published over more than two years, under far-fetched pretexts (“fake news,” “insults and invective,” “off-topic,” “advertisement”), solely because they criticized the newspaper’s editorial line, as several of my articles have also done;

— the translation of an article by Max Blumenthal denouncing Western propaganda against Iran, the only one out of 141 to have been removed by moderation, with no justification other than “reports” from readers that did not explain how it had violated the Charter.

A lawyer’s letter sent on February 10 requesting clarification on the grounds for the suspension and its duration went unanswered, confirming the arbitrary and unappealable nature of the decision, which violates Mediapart’s Participation Charter (“This sanction will be notified via private message, along with its grounds and duration, and may become permanent in the event of a repeat offense by the subscriber.”). This amounts to a blatant violation of the rule of law and and an infringement of freedom of expression, violations that Mediapart is usually quick to denounce when they occur elsewhere.

This censorship reveals a tendency on the part of the outlet founded by Edwy Plenel —former editor-in-chief of Le Monde, France’s newspaper of record — to validate Zionist and pro-NATO narratives, especially at decisive moments: after October 7, as the genocide in Gaza was being prepared; during the aggression against Venezuela; and then, as preparations were underway for the aggression against Iran.

A petition has been launched to demand the restoration of my blog, with more than 300 signatures so far.

By Alain Marshal

Since I created my Alain Marshal account on Mediapart in July 2023, I have published 141 articles and approximately 400 comments. Eleven of these comments, listed below, were deleted by moderation on spurious grounds.

Gaza

The first of my deleted comments was a response to an article by Rachida El Azzouzi titled “Massacres in Two Kibbutzim: ‘They Murdered Children and the Elderly in Cold Blood’,” dated October 12, 2023. Here it is:

With a barrage of epithets and hyperbolic accusations such as “It is very difficult for me to describe these horrors, this apocalypse,” “Hundreds of men, women, and children were massacred, torn to pieces, decapitated by men mad with hatred,” this sensationalist article cited only Israeli military sources, as well as the Zaka organization, which peddled the macabre fiction of 40 decapitated babies. It reported facts that have since been widely refuted. The categorical assertions and the overall tone (“Pure evil”) contributed, consciously or not, to the psychological groundwork needed to justify the planned annihilation of Gaza and its population.

The arbitrary nature of this censorship is clear: even if all the allegations regarding Hamas’s cruelty had been proven true, this comment raised only the basic journalistic question of the reliability and singularity of the sources, and the lack of perspective. Containing no misinformation, it did not deserve to be deleted in the least. It called for caution, warning that Israel was preparing to commit large-scale massacres in front of the cameras — a prediction confirmed by the facts. It is the article itself that could more justly be accused of spreading “fake news,” with the colossal responsibility that comes with it. The Charter invoked by Mediapart was not applied, but exploited to stifle a critical voice at the very moment when that criticism was most necessary and well-founded: three days after October 7, while the Israeli army’s unverified accounts were taken at face value by all Western media, Mediapart included.

This is not moderation, but political censorship disguised as an ethical imperative — the height of irony.

Note that Mediapart does not even own up to this censorship, claiming that the deletion came from the subscriber and not from moderation: my comment was the first to respond to the article, and in its place, we now read this:

It is purely Orwellian, just like the use of the term “unpublished” instead of “deleted.” It would appear that Mediapart subsequently took my criticism into account and rewrote the article to make it less categorical, as suggested by a subscriber’s comment (of which we are publishing only an excerpt) and an editorial note. Instead of censoring me, wouldn’t it have been better to thank me?

My second comment that was deleted was a response to Joseph Confavreux’s October 23, 2025, article titled “What We Are Witnessing Has Less to Do with Zionism Than with Nationalism and Racism.” Here it is:

No matter how hard one rubs one’s eyes, there is not the slightest “insult” or “invective” in this comment, only a reasoned critique of Mediapart. In fact, this comment offers a comparative analysis of how three major media outlets (The Guardian, Le Monde, and Mediapart) covered a well-documented and massive event: the return of 135 Palestinian bodies that had been tortured, mutilated, and executed. Its tone is one of indignation, not invective. It contains neither personal attacks, nor insults, nor defamatory remarks: the sole target is the newspaper’s editorial line, which every reader has the right to criticize — something Mediapart claims to encourage precisely. I did so in a footnote to the article “Tortured and Executed Palestinian Hostages: the ‘Civilized West’ Looks the Other Way.”

The Charter has once again been misused to neutralize an inconvenient demonstration. For this comment established, with supporting examples, that Mediapart applies a double standard, giving extensive coverage to alleged Palestinian crimes while downplaying documented Israeli crimes. It is precisely this kind of factual and reasoned criticism that censorship aims to stifle, especially when it is widely endorsed by the subscriber community; this comment had been recommended by at least 52 subscribers before its deletion, as demonstrated by this screenshot I had taken, which turned out to be a wise precaution. I should clarify that the “embedded media” was this tweet, which calls out a sentence from another article by Joseph Confavreux (titled, precisely, “Israeli Crimes, Western Complicity”), where the dehumanization of Palestinians is so blatant that it sparked an outcry and led Mediapart to rephrase that sentence:

This isn’t moderation: it’s PR management disguised as a demand for respect.

The third of my deleted comments responded to a November 21, 2025, article by Joseph Confavreux titled “Is the Blacklisting of Israeli Academics and Cultural Figures Legitimate?” Here it is:

This comment was by no means “off-topic”: it highlighted the blatant double standard between the “blacklisting” of Russia — zealously applauded by Mediapart — following its intervention in Ukraine and Israel’s total impunity despite the genocide in Gaza. Let me clarify that I was merely rephrasing the article’s original title by replacing “Israelis” with “Russians.” As with the Israeli terrorist attack on Lebanon using pagers — initially described as a “stroke of genius” by Confavreux (before he discreetly replaced this apologetic expression with “success”) — Mediapart seems, yet again, to have acknowledged its blunder (not to say revealing slip of the tongue from “left-wing Zionists”), as the headline was subsequently changed — the very act of referring to “blacklisting” and raising the question being a scandal in itself.

Original headline (still visible on the front page of the November 21 edition), followed by the revised headline (see original in French)

Several other subscriber comments highlighted Mediapart’s hypocrisy and criticized Confavreux’s article, likely contributing to this discreet editorial adjustment to the headline.

Throughout the duration of the genocide, numerous comments of a similar nature posted by other subscribers were censored by Mediapart, accompanied by suspensions of participatory rights on the moderation side and cancellations of subscriptions on the subscriber side. Several indicators suggest that a record number of readers turned their backs on Mediapart in protest against its coverage of events in Gaza (to conceal this, Mediapart no longer leaves any trace of deleted comments). Having been burned by the immediate deletion of my first comment on a Mediapart article, aware of previous instances of censorship, notably that of Laurent Mucchielli and Le Cri des Peuples, and believing it was important to maintain my blog where I translated essential documents overlooked by the media (South Africa’s submission to the ICJ regarding Israel’s genocidal behavior and intentions in Gaza, interviews and articles by Norman Finkelstein refuting the lies about October 7, articles from the Israeli press on the use of the Hannibal doctrine on October 7, the torture inflicted on Palestinian detainees, the targeting of children and the healthcare system, testimonies from American doctors, UN reports on Israel’s sexual crimes, an analysis by The Lancet, etc.: of my 141 articles, more than 80 were devoted to Gaza), not to mention the fact that I was consumed by my struggle to defend my rights within the CGT Union, I hardly read or reacted to Mediapart’s articles until 2025, before doing so more and more explicitly in comments and in my own articles. Notable examples include How Hamas’s Fabricated Crimes Whitewashed Israel’s Very Real Atrocities and How Our Media Contribute to the Murder of Palestinian Journalists. Clearly, Mediapart did not tolerate this, biding its time for an opportunity to kick me out of the Club.

Venezuela

The fourth of my deleted (sorry, “unpublished”) comments responded to an article by Fabien Escalona from January 4, 2026, titled “Trumpist Coup in Venezuela: The Europeans’ Doormat Rhetoric.” Here it is:

How could Mediapart dare to call others “doormats” without having the compliment returned? Is it to avoid this pitfall that moderation chose something other than “insults” or “invective”? In any case, the reason for this removal is certainly the embedded media clip below, deemed too scathing and too “irreverent” toward Mr. Plenel (not to say “blasphemous,” even if the so-called “free speech” granted by Mediapart to its subscribers prevents them from admitting it):

The proof is that when I reposted this comment without the snapshot and denounced this censorship, nothing happened to it. 40 subscribers recommended this reaction.

The fifth deleted comment was a reaction to an article from January 3, 2026, titled “Trump After Maduro’s Capture: ‘During the Transition Period, We’ll Set Up Shop There and Run Things’.” Here it is:

The reason given (advertisement) is simply absurd. To understand the real reason for this censorship, one must view this comment with the “embedded media,” which is not included in Mediapart’s automated messages informing subscribers of the deletion of their comment:

As we can see, more than 160 subscribers had recommended this comment, which was a scathing demonstration of Mediapart’s hypocrisy — something moderation did not appreciate. Unable to come up with a valid reason for this deletion, it opted for the grotesque excuse of “advertisement,” as if it were an ad for typewriters (the embedded link led to a Mediapart article on Ukraine). By deleting this comment, Mediapart simultaneously tramples on freedom of expression, the intelligence of its subscribers (and the respect due to their opinions, as this comment was the most endorsed of all), and the primary mission of a newspaper that proclaims itself independent of the narratives emanating from those in power — and even dissident — while censoring those who remind it of this requirement.

Once again, this is not moderation. It is image management disguised as a defense of the integrity of the debate.

The 6th deleted comment was a reaction to an article by Justine Brabant from January 10 titled “We Must Not Abandon Crimea to Putin.” Here it is:

Does this comment contain even the slightest “”insult” or “invective”? If not, is it the denunciation of the terrorist acts perpetrated by Israel and the Al-Qaeda/ISIS network that seized power in Syria — admittedly to the applause of Mediapart? Once again, the comment merely highlighted the double standards in effect, and no valid reason can justify this censorship.

Iran

The 7th, 8th, and 9th deleted comments were in response to an article by Jean-Pierre Perrin dated January 14, 2026, in the midst of the “color revolution,” titled “In Iran, a Massacre Behind Closed Doors,” and were all deleted on the grounds of “fake news.” They denounced a sensationalist and one-sided narrative in the vein of the post-October 7 period (the main source was Iran International, the UK-based, Washington-funded opposition outlet, which put forward the outlandish figure of 12,000 and then 30,000 victims), without any nuance, even as the United States and Israel publicly boasted of being involved in this bloody attempt at “regime change” and of being present on the ground (see tweets from the Mossad and Mike Pompeo). Here they are:

The tweets embedded in the comments came notably from Israeli journalist Tamir Morag, who stated:

They also showed massive pro-regime rallies, which clearly proved that the Iranian people stood with their leaders, not with the terrorists. The aggression launched against Iran by the United States and Israel only confirmed that these events were orchestrated from abroad in order to subject Iran to the fate of Libya and Syria — which is manifestly all that Mediapart wishes for it.

The 10th deleted comment, also on the grounds of “fake news,” was a reaction to an article by François Bougon dated January 18 titled “Faced with the Iranian Crisis, Beijing Settles for Token Support.” Here it is:

English screenshot

Thus, while absurd staged scenes were sufficient to denounce “chemical attacks by the Assad regime” in Syria, the videos attached to this message — showing a civilian being beaten or a man on the ground being lynched and struck with machetes by the “peaceful protesters” praised by the West — were disqualified as “fake news.” Once again, when the moment of truth arrives, Mediapart aligns itself with the pro-NATO editorial line and allows no questioning of the dominant narrative, despite decades of similar manipulations (Kuwaiti incubators, Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, etc.).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eS6EnfNfw0

When will this so-called “left” recommend the use of flamethrowers against our own riot police? See Failing Solidarity: How Cultural Prejudice Shapes Leftist Narratives on the War Against Iran

The 11th and last deleted comment responded to Fabien Escalona’s January 18 article titled “‘Godfather’ Trump Threatens European States Supporting Greenland.” Here it is:

English screenshot

The arbitrary nature of this deletion is obvious and requires no comment.

I should note that in addition to these 11 deleted comments, 28 others were deleted on the grounds that “the comment was a reply to a comment that violated the Participation Charter.” As stated in Mediapart’s Participation Charter, “When a comment has been unpublished by the Moderation team, replies to that comment are automatically unpublished as well.” These 28 deleted comments therefore involve no violation of the Charter whatsoever; Mediapart deleted them on the pretext of insufficient context resulting from the deletion of an initial message to which subscribers were responding; this constitutes, in my view, a form of contempt for readers, whose entire discussion threads are deleted without valid reason (or rather, for a valid but unmentionable reason: if a comment is deleted, it is generally because it says uncomfortable things, which are likely to be echoed in the reactions of other subscribers).

Finally, while my comment count stood at 373 when my participatory rights were suspended, it now stands at 371, suggesting that Mediapart has deleted two more without deigning to inform me, even though I remain a paying subscriber. The moderators’ pettiness goes so far as to prevent me from seeing how many people recommend a given comment — a very interesting piece of data, since the comments most endorsed by subscribers are often highly critical of the article, one of the signs of the rebellion brewing within the reader community. However, I suppose that far from complaining, I should thank Mediapart for allowing me, in its great magnanimity, to consult my internal inbox, even if I cannot reply to the messages sent to me.

Max Blumenthal’s Article and the Revocation of My Participatory Rights

On January 15, 2026, I translated Max Blumenthal’s article from The Grayzone titled “Western media whitewashes deadly riots in Iran, relying on US govt-funded regime change NGOs.” My commented translation, titled “Deadly Riots in Iran: The Complicit Silence of Western Media”, remains accessible on Mediapart in the cache (I had taken the precaution of saving it), as well as on my WordPress blog where I had published it with a more direct title (“Color Revolution in Iran: The Western Media’s Abject Complicity”), not having to concern myself with the sensitivities of Mediapart’s censors.

As can be seen at this link, this article — which compiled evidence of the terrorist nature of the riots in Iran and of Western interference — was among the most commented on in the Mediapart Club, and was therefore automatically highlighted for all readers on the Club’s front page, much to the chagrin of moderation (and certainly of the editorial staff, whose biased coverage was outrageous).

English screenshot

Both its content and the introduction I wrote were damning for Mediapart:

This perspective was clearly intolerable, especially at a time when Iran was about to be attacked and public opinion needed to be prepared for it. Mediapart therefore decided to strike me with a blow so severe that, reading the newspaper, one would only imagine it could happen in China, Russia, or Iran. Here is the message I received on January 19:

This Kafkaesque message violates Mediapart’s Participation Charter in two ways, which stipulates that in the event of suspension of participation rights, “This sanction will be notified via private message, with its grounds and duration, and may become permanent in the event of a repeat offense by the subscriber.” On the one hand, the reason for the article’s removal is not specified, as “reports” must be filed for a specific reason. Rather than informing me of the violation this article is alleged to have committed, Mediapart prefers to reel off the entire litany of possible and imaginable violations, without telling me which one(s) concern me. On the other hand, the duration of the suspension is not specified, but since it has lasted more than 3 months, everything suggests that it is permanent, even in the absence of a “repeat offense.”

Finally, it is indeed the letter and the very spirit of Mediapart’s Charter that are violated by this arbitrary suspension. Let us recall that its Manifesto proclaims:

Far from doing it credit, these fine principles on display severely condemn Mediapart’s practices, so blatantly are they flouted by these arbitrary decisions that unmask a mere facade of rhetoric. By indefinitely blocking an account without grounds or time limit, even as it translates valuable documents that elevate the debate; by arbitrarily deleting comments that denounce double standards and highlight the flaws in its editorial line; by abruptly cutting off a subscriber from their contacts, who have no way of knowing why he has “disappeared,” Mediapart is adopting precisely the methods it denounces in the mainstream media and in so-called authoritarian regimes.

Call to Action

That is why I am calling for the restoration of my blog and my participatory rights, through this article and this petition open to all — Mediapart subscribers, former subscribers, and others (if applicable, please specify that you are or were a subscriber). Failing that, the least Mediapart could do is own up to its editorial choices instead of concealing them behind arbitrary moderation, and amend its Charter accordingly — or at the very least be exposed for its hypocrisy. Among the legitimate demands of the reader community must be an end to these arbitrary deletions, the requirement to indicate “Comment unpublished by moderation” each time this occurs, and to make it known that a blog is inactive because it has been “frozen” by moderation (for a given period or permanently), stating the reason, rather than leading readers to believe it was a “voluntary departure.”

The silence of Mediapart’s moderation in response to my lawyer’s letter is already an answer, but it is not an acceptable one. Anyone wishing to contribute to this fight can do so by writing to the Mediapart Club (by email To [contact@mediapart.fr](mailto:contact@mediapart.fr) and [lamoderation@mediapart.fr](mailto:lamoderation@mediapart.fr), or directly via the internal messaging system for subscribers, ideally copying me in both cases: [alainmarshal2@gmail.com](mailto:alainmarshal2@gmail.com) / Alain Marshal).

And any Mediapart subscriber or former subscriber who has experienced similar inconveniences is invited to share them. In the meantime, all those who followed me on Mediapart can subscribe to my blog on WordPress and follow me on X.

Being gagged for having expressed one’s disagreement and given voice to alternative voices challenging the dominant narrative — this is what Mediapart’s “participatory journalism” has become in practice. We prefer this quote from Jean Jaurès:

To support me, you can make a donation and subscribe to my blog to automatically receive my new posts.

Mrs. Shakerdoost will be obliged to prove forty thousand dead in the events of day.

https://en.mehrnews.com/news/246118/Anti-Iran-senator-Lindsey-Graham-dies