Despite claiming dominance and success in the attack on Venezuela and kidnap of the president and First Lady, the US has found itself outmanoeuvred, argues Sandew Hira. The increasing lawlessness of the US within and without its borders heralds both its end and an opportunity for activists to bring into being a new world.
Introduction
The shocking attack on Venezuela and the kidnapping of president Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores have deep political significance for Venezuela and the world on many fronts. It has opened a new chapter in the confrontation between the US empire and the Bolivarian revolution, in which Trump is maneuvered in a position of disadvantage, although many observers think that this is not the case.
The U.S. administration has now turned to more extreme confrontational approaches in its policy, that could ultimately break US hegemony in different parts of the world and also lead internally to the disintegration of their political base.
The perspectives for the anti-imperialist and decolonial movement for big strides are now even better than ever before, because of Venezuela. Let me develop these points.
A new chapter in the history of Venezuela
Maduro and Flores become the new Mandelas
On January 3, 1990, the U.S. army on the instruction of president George H.W. Bush kidnapped the military ruler of Panama, general Manuel Noriega, and brought him to stand trial in the United States. Guillermo Edara, the leader of the opposition against Noriega, was installed by the Americans as the new president. Noriega, a former CIA agent, was recruited by the CIA while still a young military officer in Panama. Panama was a hub for regional intelligence gathering for the CIA. Noriega allowed the U.S. to use Panamanian territory and resources for operations against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and other anti-communist movements. But then Noriega transformed Panama into a narco-state. He provided safe passage, money laundering, and protection for the Medellin Cartel led by Pablo Escobar. The CIA suspected him of selling information to Cuba’s intelligence service. The CIA’s internal view shifted from seeing him as a difficult but useful asset to an uncontrollable rogue agent and a direct threat to U.S. foreign policy objectives.
Maduro and Flores are a different ball game. They are leaders of a popular anti-imperialist revolution and socialist revolution called the Bolivarian Revolution. They have a high international standing in the Global South. Their leadership is based on high moral, ethical and ideological values. They should be compared with Nelson Mandela, not with Manuel Noriega. And that is how their stature will grow in the coming months and maybe years. The call “Free Nelson Mandela” resonated in the hearts of progressive people in the world. The call “Free Maduro and Flores” will do the same.
The way both Maduro and Flores carried themselves in the wake of the kidnapping and trial preparations filled many people in and outside of Venezuela with an immense pride because of their courage, dignity and character. On January 6, the Secretary General of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) and Minister of Interior, Justice, and Peace, Diosdado Cabello, gave a speech at the National Women’s March in Caracas in which recounted an anecdote that elicited a loud ovation from the demonstrators. Cabello recalled that Cilia Flores stood up to the aggressors and declared that if they took President Maduro, they should take her too, a gesture he described as a demonstration of the courage, dignity, and bravery of Venezuelan women. While Maduro was captured largely uninjured, Cilia Flores suffered visible injuries during the struggle, later appearing in court with bandages and suspected fractured ribs. Cabello: “That is what Venezuelan women are: courageous, dedicated, clear-headed, and willing to defend their people, their land, and their loved ones with their own lives.” That story will be engraved in the memory of generations to come. And so is the stance of Maduro during his ordeal of imprisonment.
Initial reports from the warship indicated that Maduro was “combative and non-communicative” during the flight to New York, refusing to acknowledge the authority of his captors. A photo posted by President Trump on Truth Social on January 3, showed Maduro blindfolded, handcuffed, and wearing noise-canceling earmuffs. These measures are standard for high-value targets who are resisting or who military personnel wish to keep disoriented to prevent further resistance or communication during transit.
After landing at Stewart Air National Guard Base in New York, a video released by the White House “Rapid Response” team showed Maduro being escorted by DEA agents down a hallway. In the 12-second clip, he is seen in handcuffs, looking at the camera, and saying “Happy New Year” and “Good night” in English. Upon entering Judge Alvin Hellerstein’s courtroom in Manhattan for his indictment, Maduro again looked toward the public gallery and the jury box (where reporters were seated) and said “Happy New Year!” in English before sitting down. He immediately informed the judge, “I am a kidnapped president” and “I consider myself a prisoner of war”. This is a strategic refusal to cooperate with the U.S. criminal justice system, as it frames the event as an illegal military abduction rather than a lawful arrest. He also gave the V-sign (victory, peace) and he made a fist to indicate that he will keep fighting. The V-sign was accompanied by the index finger of the other hand, which refers to Hugo Chávez’s signature. It was a sign of defiance.
In the coming months and maybe years Maduro and Flores will use the courtroom as a theatre of resistance that will inspire millions across the world. And their actions will be supported by the framework that the Bolivarian government has set up for their release. On her first day as acting president, Delcy Rodriguez established a special commission that will seek to secure the release of Constitutional President Nicolás Maduro Moros and First Lady Cilia Flores. The cry for freedom will be heard in all government dealings of Venezuela and in popular movements against imperialism.
On April 22, 2002, Hugo Chávez was kidnapped during a coup d’état by a section of the US trained army and transported to La Orchila Island off the coast of Venezuela. He passed a written message that said: “I haven’t resigned. I’m still the president.” Hundreds of thousands of Chávez supporters from the poor neighborhoods surrounded the Miraflores Palace, demanding to see their president. Middle-ranking officers who remained loyal to Chávez staged a rebellion against the coup leaders and retook the palace without firing a shot. Loyalists flew to La Orchila, rescued Chávez, and brought him back to Caracas on April 13th. And now in the street of Caracas you can hear the slogan “Every 11th has its 13th,” expressing the hope that one day Maduro will return home.
The kidnapping of Maduro and Flores might become a hot potato in the mouth of American policy makers that could backfire in such a way, that they might want to get rid of them as soon as possible.
The Bolivarian leadership has passed the test of history: revolutionary leadership in times of crises
The US attack was shocking in many ways. The U.S. utilized electronic warfare to “turn off the lights” in Caracas, disabling the city’s power grid and jamming Venezuelan military communications. The radar and communications systems were disabled by electronic warfare before the raid began. The guards were paralyzed by the use of “acoustic devices” (sonic weapons) that caused intense pain, vomiting, and disorientation, leaving Maduro’s personal security unable to mount an effective defense despite being hundreds in number. U.S. aircraft (including F-35s) and Tomahawk missiles struck air defenses and hangers at La Carlota Air Base to ensure no Venezuelan jets could scramble to protect the President.
Immediately after the kidnapping president Trump cried victory. He assumed that the Bolivarian leadership had undergone a psychological shock that made every resistance futile. Vice-president Delcy Rodríguez supposedly had called Marco Rubio to discuss the transfer of power. The U.S. was going to run Venezuela.
Within an hour after this announcement Delcy Rodríguez denounced the U.S. operation as a “barbaric” and “illegal kidnapping” insisting that Maduro remained the “only president of Venezuela.” She declared that Venezuela would “never again be anyone’s colony” and called for the immediate release of Maduro and Flores . On Monday, January 5, she was formally sworn in as Interim President before the National Assembly. During the ceremony, she swore an oath to the legacy of Hugo Chávez and Maduro, framing her role as a “caretaker” of the revolution while they are held as “hostages.”
But the Bolivarian leadership did not limit her actions to these types of statements. It acknowledged that in this phase there is a need for unity, stability and security. The Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López, and the Minister of Interior, Justice, and Peace, Diosdado Cabello declared their support for Rodríguez. The National Assembly stood solidly behind her. The American attack that has killed around one hundred people including 32 Cubans and wounded many more, caused grave indignation in the population of Venezuela. Jorge Arreaza, former Minister of Foreign Affairs, said of the impact:
“I can say that the popularity of President Maduro and of the Venezuelan government is much more important and big today than it was on 31st of December. So that’s something: we are coming together. We are uniting even more than I thought that it would happen. I have family who are people that had never supported the government of the revolution and they have called me and they tell me ‘Jorge what do I have to do? Where is my weapon? What do I have to do to defend my people? Where do I go to a demonstration to support President Maduro? Even they say that they miss President Maduro and they didn’t like him but they miss him.”
The Bolivarian leadership has to take into account that there are great opportunities to unite a big part of the population, especially those who had doubts about the revolution. This unity depends on how the government navigates during these uncertain and very dangerous times. And they choose a pragmatic and yet principled approach.
The principled approach was to insist on safeguarding the sovereignty of Venezuela. The pragmatic approach was to derail the warmongers in the U.S. administration that advocated a second strike, that would have killed many more Venezuelans. The leadership did it in a very clever way.
Rodríguez released an open letter to Trump proposing a “balanced and respectful” relationship. She invited the U.S. to collaborate on a development agenda. She proposed talks to allow U.S. energy companies to help rebuild the Venezuelan oil infrastructure. Some people on the left have interpreted this as a capitulation of the Bolivarian leadership. But look at the practical side. Trump wanted 30-50 million barrels of oil for free. Now he has agreed to pay market price for this oil. This is effectively breaking the U.S. sanctions against Venezuela.
Trump has demanded that Rodríguez give U.S. energy companies total access to the country’s oil fields. The U.S. expects these companies to invest approximately $100 billion to modernize Venezuela’s oil and gas infrastructure. Rodríguez welcomed these investments which would be a further dismantling of the sanctions regime. But here is the clever part of the strategy of Rodríguez. It put the U.S. and Venezuela in the process of negotiation and not in a process of military confrontations.
In 2007 Hugo Chávez expropriated more that US$ 12 billion in assets from companies like ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips. Since then these companies have refused to work in Venezuela. In the negotiations Rodríguez demanded a “clean slate” policy to which Trump agreed. What does this mean?
- Prioritizing New Growth Over Old Debt: Trump has urged CEOs to focus on future profits rather than dwelling on past losses. During the January 9 meeting, when ConocoPhillips CEO Ryan Lance mentioned the $12 billion his company is owed, Trump reportedly joked that it was a “good write-off” and emphasized that the U.S. would now act as the direct “gatekeeper” for new deals.
- Direct U.S. Custodianship: Trump told executives, “You’re dealing with us directly and not dealing with Venezuela at all.” By having the U.S. Treasury and Department of Energy manage the contracts and the bank accounts, the “clean slate” removes the risk of the Venezuelan government seizing assets again.
- Legal Immunity from Creditors: On January 9, 2026, Trump signed an Executive Order that shields all Venezuelan oil revenue held in U.S. accounts from “judgment creditors.” This means the thousands of people and companies Venezuela owes money to (in total US$ 150 billion, including Exxon and Conoco themselves for their past losses) cannot sue to seize the new oil money being generated. As the former Oil Minister, Rodríguez has the technical expertise to deal with these matters. She knows how to make deals in the interest of her country and people.
Trump has a hard time convincing American companies to invest in Venezuela. And the reason is simple. Despite his claims that the US runs Venezuela, the actual practice is very different. On January 10 the US State Department issued a warning that all Americans in Venezuela must leave the country immediately. Now that international flights from Venezuela have resumed, the department urges Americans to leave as soon as possible. According to the department, Americans are at risk at roadblocks where armed militias are reportedly checking vehicles for Americans or signs of support for the US. Apparently the U.S. is not running Venezuela, so the oil companies are hesitant to invest in a sovereign country.
So far, the Bolivarian government has demonstrated a revolutionary leadership that has avoided a military confrontation and yet safeguards the sovereignty of the country. The Venezuelan army and police are in full control of the security and stability. The opposition was unable to stage violent attacks against the people, as they used to do in other periods of sharp political confrontation. The government has focused on ensuring food production and distribution. Rodríguez presented a summary of the country’s agro-industrial performance for 2025 in her first speech as acting president. She reported 8.12% growth in the agri-food sector, 10.37% growth in the agricultural sector (with a direct impact on GDP), and 9% growth in the livestock sector. She announced a goal for 2026 to activate 200,000 hectares dedicated to communal production and small-scale farming. The main objective is to replace imports of legumes, such as black beans, kidney beans, mung beans, and soybeans, to guarantee food sovereignty.
Today the Bolivarian leadership has maneuvered Trump in a position of cooperation instead of confrontation and is in effect dismantling the economic boycott bit by bit. It has to be seen how long this can be continued in the coming months and years. Meanwhile Venezuela is building its alliance with China, Russia, Iran and Cuba and is preparing for the next confrontation.
The volatile character of the Trump administration: Gangster, clown, fascist
Donald Trump acts as a gangster, a clown and a fascist at the same time.
The killing of one hundred fishermen suspected of carrying drugs in their boat without any proof, the violent kidnapping of a head of state of a sovereign nation and the killing of approximately one hundred persons are fascist acts of terrorism. His blatant announcement of his intent to steal the resources of Venezuela is an act of a gangster. His claim that he is running the government of Venezuela is an act of a clown. Yet, he heads the most powerful military machine in the world.
The U.S. administration operates in close coordination with the Zionist government of occupied Palestine. The genocide in Palestine and the strategy of decapitation of the leadership of the axis of resistance has instilled in them a sense of victory. They feel that they are able to dictate their agenda to the rest of world. Contrary to his promise to put an end to endless wars, Trump has found himself in a position to wage endless wars on different fronts: Latin America, Eastern Europe, Western Asia, South East Asia and recently even in Africa (the bombing of Nigeria).
Inside the U.S. he started a war against his own population. Trump has deployed federal forces to several Democratic-led cities, citing high crime rates and domestic terrorism. In August 2025, he signed an order directing the National Guard to create specialized “civil disturbance” units that can be deployed at his direct command to quell protests or dissent. In early 2026, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has undergone a massive transformation, shifting from a standard law enforcement agency to the primary engine of the Trump administration’s “Mass Removal” campaign.
The attack on Venezuela was a tactical victory, but also a strategic defeat. The gangster cried victory because of the successful kidnapping of Maduro and Flores. The strategic goal, however, was regime change. And that did not occur, despite the claims of the clown of the contrary. He does not run Venezuela. In fact, he is changing the sanctions regime that was imposed on Venezuela in order to foster the illusion of controlling the country.
The road to a strategic defeat for Trump
Greenland
With a tactical victory in his hand Trump though that he had won. But it had the opposite effect. The threats to occupy and annex Greenland has led to opposition from his NATO allies in Europe. NATO is a key element of U.S. foreign policy. His Greenland intimidation is breaking this alliance, which is a good thing for the world. If the U.S. army actually puts boots on the ground in Greenland, it may lead to the killing of NATO personnel. It will further strengthen the already negative view of the U.S. in Europe. All peace loving people should pray for an invasion of Greenland by the U.S. army (“PLEASE, INVADE GREENLAND!”), because this might end the American influence on the European continent.
Russia
Trump boasted that he could end the war in Ukraine in a day. His personal relationship of trust with Putin would make this possible. One year later, the war is still going on and Ukraine is losing land and people. Putin shows no willingness to compromise and Trump is getting frustrated by the day. The attack on the palace of Maduro has put a similar event in Russia in a peculiar perspective.
On December 29, 2025, Ukraine launched a massive wave of over 90 drones targeting the residence of Putin in Valdai. Putin was not at the residence during the attack and all drones were intercepted by electronic warfare and air defense systems. On December 30, after a phone call with Putin, Trump told reporters he was “very angry” at Ukraine for the alleged attempt. By January 5, 2026, after being briefed by CIA, Trump reversed his stance, stating, “I don’t believe that strike happened”. He accused Putin of standing in the way of peace. But the Russians had collected the debris from the drones. The navigation systems were well preserved. They showed that the drone’s ultimate target was a specific facility within Putin’s residence. Furthermore, these plan’s could not have been made without the actual cooperation of the CIA. Trump has found himself in a position of deep mistrust between him and Putin. Russia now knows that decapitation is not limited to weaker adversaries of the U.S.
Iran
On June 13, 2025, Israel launched an attack on Iran, that led to the killing of thirty senior military commanders and fourteen scientists. Iran recovered within eight hours and started an air campaign in which some thousand ballistic missiles and drones were fired at military targets in Tel Aviv and Haifa. On June 22, 2025, U.S. B-2 Spirit stealth bombers dropped bunker buster bombs on Iran’s nuclear facilities in Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. Iran attacked the U.S. military base in Qatar, the largest U.S. base in Western Asia. The Iranian counterattacks were devastating and Israel and the U.S. begged for a ceasefire through Qatar. Some 1,200 Iranians were killed during the 12-day war.
Beginning on 28 December 2025, mass demonstrations erupted in Iran about the economic crisis with rising food prices and the severe depreciation of the Iranian rial. The protests were hijacked by terrorists supported by the Mossad and the CIA, who started a violent campaign against the population and the government. It was a follow-up of the 12-day war. The riots peaked on the evening of January 8, when at least 13 civilians, including a child, were killed. Authorities reported the deaths of 38 law enforcement officers. Tehran Mayor Alireza Zakani stated that rioters burned 25 mosques, damaged 26 banks, three medical centers, 10 government buildings, more than 100 fire trucks, buses, and ambulances, as well as 24 apartments. Across the country over 100 officers of the law have been murdered. Some of them have been beheaded or burned alive. This was not reported in the Western media.
Trump threatened Iran with military action. And Iran responded immediately. The chair of Iran’s parliament, Mohammad Bagher Ghaliba, said that if the Trump administration makes any even indications that it’s going to strike, any preparations for a strike, that Iran will act with a preemptive strike. It could hit all U.S. military bases in the region. It could bomb Tel Aviv. Everything is on the tabl
The Western narrative of the riots is that Iran is on the verge of regime change. Like in Venezuela, they don’t know that Iran has a revolutionary population that largely supports the Islamic Republic, although they might be critical of their government. The rioters were quickly brought down and on January 12, millions of Iranians took to the street to express their condemnation of the riots and their support for the Islamic Republic. In Venezuela mass demonstrations were a response to the American attacks. They showed that the Western narrative about a system in crisis does not hold. Venezuela had declared a week of mourning on January 6. On January 11, Iran declared three days of mourning for the martyrs in the new front in the war against Iran[i].
The illusion of regime change is fed by Western media as part of a new type of war that has emerged in the past decades.
New type of war
In 2013, the chief of the Russian General Staff, General Valery Gerasimov, published an article entitled “The Value of Science Is in the Foresight: New Challenges Demand Rethinking the Forms and Methods of Carrying out Combat Operations”. His opening sentence is: “In the twenty-first century we have seen a tendency toward blurring the lines between the states of war and peace. Wars are no longer declared and, having begun, proceed according to an unfamiliar template.” Gerasimov asserts that the policy of U.S. sponsored regime change had changed from overt military invasion (i.e., Operation Desert Storm) to a new kind of hybrid warfare. In the countries that the U.S. target for regime change, they install political opposition using mainstream media outlets like CNN and BBC which act like state-control propaganda organizations, the Internet and social media (“soft power”, or “digital democracy”), and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). He concludes: “ In terms of the scale of the casualties and destruction, the catastrophic social, economic, and political consequences, such new-type conflicts are comparable with the consequences of any real war. The very ‘rules of war’ have changed. The role of nonmilitary means of achieving political and strategic goals has grown, and, in many cases, they have exceeded the power of force of weapons in their effectiveness.”
Another military analyst from Russia that deals with this topic is Andrei Ilnitsky, a retired Lieutenant General of the Russian Armed Forces. Ilnitsky served for 10 years as a Senior Advisor to the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation, Sergei Shoigu. In an interview with Scott Ritter, Ilnitsky explains the nature of the new war: “If in classical wars the goal is to destroy the enemy’s manpower and in modern cyber wars is to destroy the enemy’s infrastructure, then the goal of the new war is to destroy self-consciousness, to change the civilizational basis of the enemy’s society. I would call this type of war ‘mental.’ Moreover, while manpower and infrastructure can be restored, the evolution of consciousness cannot be reversed, especially since the consequences of this ‘mental’ war do not appear immediately but only after at least a generation, when it will be impossible to fix something.”
When Russian generals, who study war extensively, come to a conclusion that the decolonial movement had reached decades ago, then we can be assured that we have entered a new phase in social movements that fight for a better world. Their conclusion that the control of the mind is a new form of war aligns with the conclusion of the decolonial movement that the challenge of the future is the challenge for decolonizing the mind.
The war in Iran and Venezuela is not a classic war like the current war in Ukraine, where armies are engaged in military confrontations. Media are used to manipulate the minds of the people in and outside these countries. This brings the most important question for the 21st century: what can we, activists and revolutionaries, do about it?
Revisiting Lenin’s “What is to be done”
The classic
In 1902, Russian Marxist Vladimir Lenin published a book with the title “What Is to Be Done?” in which he outlined a strategy to bring down capitalism and establish a new world order based on socialism. The dominant strategy for socialism until then was articulated by German Marxists at that time, who argued that capitalism was characterized by periodic economic crises. During one of these crises the working class would be in a position to take state power by elections.
Lenin’s critique was that the working class would only develop “trade union consciousness” (a desire for better conditions within capitalism). He said that political class consciousness can be brought to the workers only from without, specifically by the Marxist intelligentsia. He called for a highly centralized organization of “professional revolutionaries”. These individuals would dedicate their entire lives to the revolution, acting as a “vanguard” to educate and lead the masses. The organizational structure was based on the concept of Democratic Centralism. It became the engine of the October Revolution. Democratic centralism is the foundational organizational principle of Marxist-Leninist parties. It is summarized by the slogan: “Freedom of discussion, unity of action.” At its core, it is a dual system designed to balance democratic participation (to ensure the party reflects the will of its members) with strict centralization (to ensure the party can act effectively and decisively).
While other parties were decentralized or indecisive during the revolution of 1917 in Russia, Lenin’s party operated as a disciplined unit, allowing them to seize and hold power against overwhelming odds. Lenin’s model became the basis for communist parties that aspired to lead the socialist and national democratic revolution in their countries.
What is to be done in the 21st century?
We live in a different era with five distinctive features that will determine the answer to the question: what is to be done in the 21st century?
First, after the fall of the Soviet Union, the worldwide decline of many socialist systems and the rise of private enterprise economy in China, Marxism lost its dominance in the anti-imperialist movement. Other theories of liberation have gained more prominence (Islamic Liberation Theology, Decolonial theory, Indigenous knowledge systems). The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran positioned Islamic theology as an anti-colonial theology and Iran as one of the most important forces in the struggle against imperialism and for decolonization. The positive relationship between the governments of Iran, Venezuela and Cuba has opened the doors for a dialogue between Marxist, decolonial and Islamic thinkers about a new world civilization.
Second, Western societies are in decline and decay on many fronts: economically, politically, socially and culturally. The distrust of the masses of people of their government can be seen in the rise of the extreme right. The dominant liberal media have contenders from the extreme right. There is a growing anger in these societies. The challenge for the progressive movement is to capture it and divert it towards something positive: build a better world. If we look at the anger only from a negative side (the rise of the extreme right), we lose sight of the fact that it also offers a positive challenge: the system is collapsing and we need to push the collapse in another direction.
Third, we now have a theoretical framework that enables us to engage in the new war effectively. Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) introduced the concept of “cultural hegemony” to understand how the mind of the people are manipulated by the ruling class. He argued that in stable capitalist societies, direct force (the police, army, laws) is a last resort. The primary tool is consent, engineered through civil society with institutions such as the media, arts, literature, popular culture, family, trade unions, political parties, religious organizations and the educational system.
But his framework of class analysis is insufficient to understand the impact of the colonial world civilization on knowledge production. That understanding came from decolonial theory. And with the theoretical framework of Decolonizing The Mind (DTM), we now have elaborate tools to understand the mechanisms of how mental slavery operates and how the mind is colonized. We have the tools to engage in the new mental war.
Fourth, modern technology has fundamentally changed the nature of information sharing and education. Internet, social media and Artificial Intelligence have created new opportunities for small groups, even individuals, to exert great influence in shaping the narratives in the world. With the tools of DTM and the new technological environment we can achieve great successes in the struggle for a new world civilization.
Finally, we live in an era in which there are state actors – progressive governments – that can work together with social movements in the struggle for a better world. It is not always the state against social movements. If we are able to cement this coalition, we are in the best possible position to win the war of mental slavery.
The attack on Venezuela and the kidnapping of Maduro and Flores have stirred a lot of pessimism in some parts of the activist movement. That is understandable, but when you take a broader look from a DTM perspective, it is just another phase in the global war against a dying imperial power. And now we are even in a better position than ever to fight this war if only we understand its nature.
Sandew Hira is Secretary of the Decolonial International Network Foundation based in The Hague, The Netherlands. He is a well known activist, author and researcher. He heads the editorial board for Amrit Publishers, and is the founder of the International Institute for Scientific Research. You can find many videos of his lectures on Decolonising the Mind and related topics on DIN.today, the IHRC website and IHRC Tv.
[i] Editor’s note: Since this article was written the official death toll including civilians, rioters and security personnel killed in the violence in Iran was given as 3111 with confirmed names and details of those deceased.