分类： politics

Iranian security forces are employing a disturbing tactic of deliberately targeting protesters’ eyes with projectiles and buckshot, according to extensive evidence and historical analysis. This systematic approach to ocular violence represents more than mere police brutality—it constitutes a calculated political strategy rooted in ancient Persian power dynamics.

Recent protests, including the nationwide Women, Life, Freedom movement in 2022 and demonstrations in late 2025, have seen an alarming frequency of eye injuries. Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi reported on January 9 that at least 400 people were hospitalized in Tehran alone with firearm-related eye injuries since the beginning of the year’s protests. The victims predominantly include women, youth, students, and even bystanders.

This practice finds disturbing parallels in Iran’s political history. Ancient Persian culture historically linked vision with power—”I see, therefore I govern”—making blindness synonymous with political disqualification. The Shahnameh (Book of Kings) from the 10th century depicts blinding as narrative marker of political decline, while historical records show Persian rulers like Abbas the Great (1588-1629) and Nader Shah (1736-1747) routinely blinded relatives perceived as political threats.

The contemporary Islamic Republic continues this symbolic violence through modern means. While authorities deny systematic blinding, the widespread use of so-called “non-lethal” weapons against demonstrators’ eyes serves similar political purposes: neutralizing dissent without killing, preventing documentation of protests, and eliminating the independent gaze that challenges official narratives.

Women particularly face targeted ocular violence, as their liberated gaze represents a fundamental threat to the regime’s ideological control. The mutilated faces of injured protesters have become powerful symbols of resistance, transforming victims into living evidence of state brutality despite government attempts to conceal violence through internet blackouts.

This systematic blinding campaign reveals Iran’s profound democratic legitimacy crisis, demonstrating how ancient techniques of political neutralization persist in modern repression tactics. The destroyed eyesight of protesters represents both the regime’s brutality and the resilience of those who continue to challenge its authority.

British military veterans and families of fallen soldiers have expressed profound outrage following controversial remarks by former U.S. President Donald Trump regarding NATO allies’ combat roles in Afghanistan. The dispute centers on Trump’s assertion that American allies “stayed a little back, a little off the front lines” during the conflict.

Andy Reid, a triple-amputee veteran who lost both legs and an arm to a Taliban IED in Helmand Province, has emerged as a leading voice calling for a formal apology. “I remember working with American soldiers in Explosive Ordnance Disposal teams,” Reid stated. “If they were on the front line, and we stood next to them, clearly we were on the front line as well.” He characterized Trump’s comments as “disrespectful, inappropriate and unexpected.”

The United Kingdom maintained the second-largest military deployment in Afghanistan after the United States, with troop levels peaking at approximately 11,000 in 2011. British forces experienced some of the most intense combat operations in the volatile Helmand region, where they faced a resurgent Taliban and devastating IED attacks that claimed numerous lives.

Andy Allen, a Northern Ireland assembly member who lost his right leg and suffered severe damage to his left leg in a 2008 IED explosion, confirmed the frontline nature of British operations. “It was the front line in which I was injured, and it was the front line of the battle in Afghanistan,” Allen emphasized, noting that he plans to write to the White House to correct the historical record.

The controversy has particularly affected families of the 457 British service personnel killed in Afghanistan. Diane Dernie, mother of Britain’s most severely injured surviving soldier Ben Parkinson, described Trump’s statements as “the rantings of a child.” Her son sustained catastrophic injuries when his vehicle struck a mine in Helmand in 2006 while serving from forward operating bases established near combat zones.

Monica Kershaw, whose 19-year-old son Christopher was killed alongside five other British soldiers when their armored vehicle hit an IED in Helmand, expressed visceral anger: “I think they should put Donald Trump in a uniform and put him on the front line, instead of pushing a pen behind a desk.”

The NATO alliance had invoked Article 5—the collective defense clause—following the 9/11 attacks, marking the first and only time this provision has been activated. Multiple nations including the UK, Denmark, Estonia, and Canada contributed forces to the Afghan campaign.

U.S. Navy veteran Shawn VanDiver, who now leads an organization assisting Afghan allies, offered a contrasting perspective to Trump’s remarks: “We see you. We know you were right there with us. We could not have accomplished what we did without them.” Addressing British families who lost loved ones, VanDiver added: “They would likely feel betrayed. What I would say to those families is I’m sorry.”

The 56th World Economic Forum in Davos became a stage for contrasting visions of global leadership as China and the United States presented fundamentally different approaches to international cooperation. Chinese Vice-Premier He Lifeng articulated Beijing’s commitment to multilateralism and inclusive economic globalization, while US President Donald Trump emphasized nationalist priorities and questioned longstanding alliances.

He Lifeng’s address positioned China as a stabilizing force in global affairs, advocating for cooperative solutions to shared challenges. “The world must not return to the law of the jungle, where the strong will eat the weak,” He stated, directly addressing concerns about rising unilateralism and protectionism. The Chinese delegation emphasized economic interdependence, noting that China had imported over $15 trillion in goods and services during the past five years while generating substantial tax revenue and employment opportunities abroad through overseas investments.

The vice-premier outlined China’s domestic policy focus on boosting consumption and incomes, explicitly inviting international businesses to access the Chinese market. He further committed to cooperation in technology innovation, artificial intelligence governance, and climate action, reiterating China’s dedication to its carbon neutrality timeline.

In stark contrast, President Trump’s appearance highlighted America’s reconsideration of traditional alliances. During his hour-long address, the president questioned NATO’s funding structure, criticized European energy policies, and revisited his controversial proposal to acquire Greenland from Denmark for security purposes. Trump asserted that European allies owed the United States for decades of protection, claiming without American intervention, Europeans “would all be speaking German and a little Japanese.”

European leaders responded cautiously to Trump’s remarks, with French President Emmanuel Macron and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen both emphasizing the necessity of strategic autonomy and effective multilateralism. Von der Leyen characterized current geopolitical shifts as creating “a necessity to build a new form of European independence.”

Analysts observing the forum noted that the divergent presentations reflected broader transformations in global power dynamics. McKinsey’s China chairman Joe Ngai observed that China’s consistent messaging at recent Davos meetings positions it as a advocate for stable global order, while the US appears to be reevaluating its traditional international responsibilities.

In a significant political development, Israel’s four primary Palestinian political factions have reached a groundbreaking agreement to reunite under the Joint List alliance for the upcoming parliamentary elections. The landmark decision emerged Thursday following intense public pressure and widespread protests against escalating gun violence in Palestinian communities.

The party leaders – Sami Abu Shehadeh (Balad), Ayman Odeh (Hadash), Ahmad Tibi (Ta’al), and Mansour Abbas (Ra’am) – formalized their commitment through the signing of the ‘Joint List Now’ declaration in Sakhnin, where mass demonstrations had been ongoing. This reconciliation marks a pivotal moment in Arab-Israeli politics, resurrecting an alliance that previously dissolved in 2021 when Ra’am departed to pursue independent political partnerships.

The reunification movement gained momentum amid dual crises: the ongoing Gaza conflict and record-breaking criminal violence within Palestinian communities. According to the Abraham Initiatives NGO, 2025 represented the most lethal year on record for Palestinian citizens of Israel, with 252 fatalities from criminal incidents surpassing 2024’s 230 deaths.

Current polling indicates a reunited Joint List could emerge as Israel’s third-largest parliamentary bloc if elections occur by October as anticipated. The agreement materialized during coordination meetings addressing expanding protest actions against gun violence and allegations of state complicity in organized crime.

While a party spokesperson characterized the agreement as somewhat coerced by public pressure, Balad leader Abu Shehadeh celebrated the development as restoring ‘hope and spirit to our people everywhere.’ The signed pledge establishes a framework for renewed cooperation, though specific electoral details remain subject to further negotiation.

British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has characterized former U.S. President Donald Trump’s comments regarding NATO troops in Afghanistan as “insulting and frankly appalling,” triggering widespread condemnation across the United Kingdom’s political spectrum. The controversy emerged following Trump’s Fox News interview where he suggested NATO allies remained “a little off the front lines” during the conflict and questioned their reliability if the U.S. required assistance.

The remarks have particularly stung British veterans and families of the 457 UK service personnel who lost their lives in Afghanistan, the second-highest casualty rate among coalition forces. Corporal Andy Reid, who lost both legs and his right arm to an IED explosion, countered Trump’s assertions by recalling his direct combat experience alongside American soldiers: “If they were on the front line and I was stood next to them, clearly we were on the front line as well.”

Diane Dernie, mother of severely injured veteran Ben Parkinson, described Trump’s words as “so insulting” and characterized them as “the rantings of a child trying to deflect from his own actions.” She joined growing calls for Starmer to directly confront the former president with demands for an apology.

The political response has been notably unified, with Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch calling the comments “a disgrace to denigrate their memory” and Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey referencing Trump’s five deferments from Vietnam military service. Reform UK’s Nigel Farage, typically a Trump supporter, also broke ranks stating unequivocally that “Donald Trump is wrong” about British military participation.

The White House has doubled down on Trump’s position, issuing a statement defending his criticism of NATO spending contributions while avoiding direct address of the apology demands. The controversy highlights ongoing tensions within the transatlantic alliance as Trump continues to question traditional military partnerships and European defense commitments.