Times of London: Iran Killed 16,500 in Suppressing Protests – 330K Wounded

At least the British media still thinks that the massacres perpetrated by the Iranian regime rate headlines and front-page treatment. 

The Times of London published stunning new estimates of the carnage wrought by the mullahs and the IRGC over two weeks of massive protests against the regime. Yesterday, working from estimates provided by Iranian doctors networking over Starlink to collect the data, the Sunday Times reported that the regime killed 16,500 people and wounded more than 330,000 with both targeted and indiscriminate fire into the crowds. The regime killed children and pregnant women as part of their cruel and savage suppression tactics:

But The Sunday Times has obtained a new report from doctors on the ground, which says at least 16,500 protesters have died and 330,000 have been injured, most of them in two days of utter slaughter in the most brutal crackdown by the clerical regime in its 47-year existence.

Most of the victims are thought to have been younger than 30. Heartbreaking Instagram posts record deaths of a female fashion designer of 23, three young footballers — including one who was just 17 years old and captained a youth team in Tehran — a champion basketball player of 21, a fledgling movie director and a student hoping to study for a doctorate at Bristol University, whose first protest was his last.

“This is a whole new level of brutality,” said Professor Amir Parasta, an Iranian-German eye surgeon and medical director of Munich MED, which treated many of those injured during the Women, Life, Freedom protests in 2022 and helped create a network of doctors across Iran that produced the report. “[In 2022] they were using rubber bullets and pellet guns taking out eyes. This time they are using military-grade weapons and what we are seeing are gunshot and shrapnel wounds in the head, neck and chest.

“I’ve spoken to dozens of doctors on the ground and they are really shocked and crying,” he added. “These are surgeons who have seen war.”

The estimate of those killed runs in the range of estimates seen before the protests faltered, between ten and twenty thousand, based more on loose anecdotal information than true data. The estimates of those wounded are shockingly higher than imagined, although perhaps because the focus had mainly been on deaths of unarmed civilians until now. These are figures more associated with wars rather than police actions, and the scope of the carnage makes clear that the mullahs have indeed declared war on the Iranian people. 

Oddly – or not – these new figures from more reliable sources barely showed up today in American media. The front pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post, and CNN didn’t have a single mention of the casualty figures as of 9:30 AM ET. Most of the foreign-policy headlines focused on Greenland and Europe’s dissatisfaction with Donald Trump. So much for If it bleeds, it leads.

Even the Wall Street Journal skipped this as a front-page headline, but they did have one entry down the page about the regime’s imposition of martial law in Tehran:

The protesters who filled the streets of Tehran are gone, replaced by security forces and reminders of the violence used by the regime to suppress a national uprising aimed at ending its rule.

Members of the Basij pro-government militia patrolled the streets of Tehran on motorbikes in recent days, with some shouting, “Don’t come out! We’ll shoot you!” according to residents of the capital. A medical student in Tehran said he counted the charred remains of at least five banks. Many shops remain closed. Universities, a hotbed of protests, are still closed.

The quiet reflects the success of the regime’s quick and deadly efforts to stop the biggest challenge to its four decades in power. There have been only two new protests across Iranian cities since Monday, according to Human Rights Activists in Iran, a U.S.-based group. At least 3,308 have died in the unrest, almost all of them protesters, and more than 24,000 have been arrested, the rights group said.

The article does not contain a single mention of the Times of London’s figures, at least as of 10 AM ET.

That silence is somewhat ironic, since these new estimates will put even more pressure on Donald Trump to act in accordance with the red line he issued ten days ago. According to Fox News, Trump has not yet decided whether to strike Iran over its attacks on protesters. A military strike may emphasize to Russia and China that the US has returned to a muscular single-superpower position, although that may not be quite what Trump’s base had in mind in 2024:

While Russia and China have sought to make inroads in areas of Africa and Latin America — presenting themselves as partners for infrastructure and military equipment — both Russia and China did not intervene to defend their ally Venezuela when the U.S. took action Jan. 3 to topple dictator Nicolás Maduro’s regime. 

Potential strikes in Iran, coupled with the strikes in Venezuela to overthrow Maduro’s regime, would drive home just how formidable the U.S. is and even near-peer adversaries like Beijing can’t compete, according to experts. …

Venezuela has had longstanding ties to Russia and has purchased Russian military equipment — yet Russia was not there to safeguard Caracas, Venezuela, from U.S. strikes or prevent the U.S. from capturing Maduro, Cancian said. Another military strike in Iran would only expose those limitations from Russia and China further, Cancian said.

“I think many countries are seeing that Russia and China can’t protect them, that those alliances have severe limitations,” Cancian told Fox News Digital Friday. 

“I think that a strike on Iran would make the same point,” Cancian said.

True enough, until Russia and/or China decide to start intervening. How likely is that, though? Russia is burning itself to the ground in its attempt at the conquest of Ukraine. China is better positioned financially to respond, but their military is not able to sustain a projection of power in the Middle East. They are focused on the Pacific Rim, and now even those ambitions are almost certainly tampered by the demonstrations of power in Venezuela earlier this month, and in Iran last June. 

Some expected Trump to act this weekend, but thus far, Trump has waited. For what? The Israelis and our allies in the region cautioned against strikes that could either strengthen the regime or create a failed state that could metastasize risks in the region. The main issue, though, could be preparation for a retaliation by Iran. The preparation for that potential response may be within a day or two of completion:

US President Donald Trump stated repeatedly over the past week that Iran had halted executions of citizens and postponed the hanging of hundreds of protesters. This was read by some as a temporary pause in a plan to strike the extremist regime in Tehran. However, in the last two days, foreign outlets reported intensified, covert preparations for a large-scale operation.

American media, including Gulf-based outlets, reported that the United States confirmed the USS Abraham Lincoln had sailed from the South China Sea toward the Middle East, a clear statement of intent. The carrier is accompanied by destroyers and missile ships equipped with hundreds of launchers capable of striking targets across Iran with unprecedented force. Despite the reports, no official US confirmation of the arrival of guided-missile submarines in the area was found.

Additional reports said bombers landed at the joint US-UK base on Diego Garcia. The base has unusually long runways that enable heavy strategic bombers, such as B-2-class aircraft, to launch long-range strike sorties across the Middle East, with emphasis on hardened and underground targets and regime command centers. 

Open-source tracking of regional air traffic indicated that, in the past two days alone, more than a dozen US heavy military transport aircraft flew toward the Gulf. According to assessments, they carried substantial logistics, rescue components, and munitions systems.

It certainly appears that Trump may have something significant in mind as a result of the massacres. Perhaps that will put the story back on the front pages of American media outlets.