Digital & Print Membership
Yearly + Receive 8 free printed back issues
$420 Annually
Monthly + Receive 3 free printed back issues
$40 Monthly
The Wedding That Ate Venice
It wasn’t just a wedding. It was an occupation.
For a few deeply strange days in late June, Venice ceased being a city and became a film set, one where no one knew what movie was being made, who the audience was supposed to be, or why the lead actress had clearly studied every frame of Kim Kardashian’s wedding content like it was an NFL playbook. Lauren Sánchez, the new Mrs. Bezos, didn’t just get married. She tried to canonize herself.
And she had a plan. There was a glitzy bachelorette party in Paris. A carefully stage managed sunset cruise down the Seine under the hum of drones. There was a wedding in Italy, just like Kim. There was a Vogue exclusive, albeit digital, complete with a dolce-vita wannabe shoot in her Sophia Loren inspired Dolce & Gabbana wedding gown. And in perhaps the most surreal flourish, Sánchez booked Matteo Bocelli, son of Andrea Bocelli yes, the same Andrea who famously sang at Kim and Kanye’s wedding in Florence.
This is not a coincidence. This is scripting. This is someone trying very, very hard to manufacture a wedding-as-moment.
What she failed to realize is that it is no longer 2014. The culture has changed, the fantasy has expired, and Lauren Sánchez is not Kim Kardashian. She doesn’t have the influence, the intrigue, or the irony like the kind Kanye West once knew how to manufacture, art-directing a wedding that felt both sincerely grand and wryly self-aware. She has money and a lot of it but no myth. And that’s the problem.
To understand just how off Lauren Sánchez’s wedding was, you have to go back to the one she was clearly copying: Kim and Kanye, 2014, the wedding that practically invented the modern celebrity ceremony.
Say what you want about KimYe, but that wedding made an impact on the culture. Optimized for virality: high/low, couture-meets-chaos, social media bait wrapped in Givenchy. From the Parisian pre-wedding fits to the Florence ceremony staged in front of a crumbling fortress, everything was hyper-curated and deeply personal. This wasn’t some random destination wedding with a Vogue shoot tacked on. It was a painstakingly crafted narrative.
Paris made sense, Kim and Kanye were fashion-obsessed, and Paris Fashion Week was their red carpet. They were front row. They were in it. Florence, we later learned, was where their daughter North was conceived. That detail turned what could’ve been a rich-person location flex into something intimate, even romantic. And then there was Versailles, the site of their rehearsal dinner, a deliberately imperial choice that positioned them as pop-cultural royalty. It wasn’t subtle. It wasn’t supposed to be. It was about legacy wrapped in gilded historic grandeur.
And the aesthetic? Tasteful. Thought out. Kanye commissioned a massive Carrara marble table for the reception. Riccardo Tisci designed Kim’s dress. The guest list was curated like an art exhibit, full of industry insiders and cultural players. This was a cultural event with layers and textures that made sense.
Yes they were showing off but at the same time they weren’t just showing off; they were performing an aspirational lifestyle that millions could obsess over, analyze, and replicate in mini ways online. That wedding birthed endless memes, think pieces, and viral moments. It was maximal but meaningful. It had context.
Venice, however, had no narrative in the Sánchez-Bezos wedding. It was the background, a luxury prop for a story Venice didn’t ask to be part of.
The city did not greet the event with open arms. As Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sánchez exchanged vows, a few hundred protesters gathered at the Venice train station on the following day with one clear message: “Bezos, f**k off,” and “Out of our lagoon!” They chanted in Italian, their voices rippling through the ancient city like a wave of defiance.

Venetian locals like 22-year-old Sofia D’Amato made it clear that this was not about envy. “We are not jealous of the fact that he earns so much money,” she told CNN. “We are jealous when his wealth hits us in the face.”
That wealth hit hard. The wedding reportedly cost $55 million. While Sánchez and Bezos pledged a combined €3 million to three Venetian cultural institutions, D’Amato dismissed the donations as “paltry” compared to the spectacle and disruption inflicted upon the city.
Protesters didn’t just express resentment toward Bezos’s private wealth, they drew stark contrasts between that opulence and the struggles of Amazon workers. One woman, identifying herself as an Amazon employee, shouted into the crowd, “We can barely pay the rent. Many of us come from far away to reach the warehouse… We don’t see these millions.”
The march, which moved through the city’s iconic bridges and squares, was a kaleidoscope of political symbolism: Palestinian flags, pride flags, anti-fascist banners, and Venice’s traditional red standard. Some even modified the golden lion on the Venetian flag to wear a black balaclava, an unmistakable symbol of resistance.
Predictably, city officials were quick to condemn the protests. In a press release, Venice’s municipal government called the demonstrations “ridiculous” and “grotesque,” dismissing opposition as “folklore of ‘No to everything.’” Their statement claimed that “contesting a wedding (any wedding) is already ridiculous in itself,” as if the billionaires’ invasion was the natural order, and dissent a bizarre outlier.
But for many Venetians, this wasn’t just a wedding to protest, it was a painful reminder of how their city is commodified and controlled by the ultra-rich, at the expense of everyday life.
There’s something oddly fascinating about Lauren Sánchez’s entire trajectory leading up to this wedding. The soft launches. The yacht wardrobe. The increasingly intentional paparazzi strolls. The Paris bachelorette that felt like a Vogue World afterparty with bigger bank accounts. She wasn’t just planning a wedding, she was orchestrating a character arc.
But if the wedding itself was a fantasy no one asked for, the Vogue coverage was the hallucination that followed. Behind it all, the unmistakable hand of Anna Wintour, who still seems to believe that a Vogue feature has the power to manufacture cultural relevance.
But this time, she didn’t just co-sign the narrative, she helped script it. According to reports, Wintour personally advised Lauren Sánchez on which designer to choose for her wedding dress. That wasn’t just a fashion favor. That was the ultimate act of legacy media meddling, as if the right label could turn a billionaire yacht wife into a main character. Wintour, still clinging to the idea that her blessing carries myth-making power, anointed Sánchez with the same institutional pomp once reserved for actual icons.
The thing is, everyone involved in this coverage fundamentally misunderstood who reads Vogue in 2025, especially online. Today’s audience is digital-native, hyper-aware, and deeply fluent in the language of spin. We know when we’re being sold something. And in this case, the product was Lauren Sánchez: aggressively packaged, horrifically over-styled, and force-fed down our throats like a satin-wrapped ad for moneyed mediocrity.
These people aren’t aspirational. They’re not even neutral. They’re actively loathed.
And yes, sure, you could compare this to the backlash when Kim Kardashian got her first Vogue cover. But that outrage was alive. That cover mattered. It arrived right as social media was exploding. Thirst was aspirational. The vibe was peak maximalism. KimYe were the zeitgeist. Whether you loved them or hated them, you were watching.
Jeff and Lauren wanted that. Desperately. But what they staged in Venice wasn’t a cultural coronation, it was a hollow production for people who still think “rich” means “interesting.”
There’s no iconography. No real story. Just a swarm of strategists hovering off-camera in the lagoon.
The difference between a moment and a media stunt is simple: one has soul. This had scheduling.
If Vogue still thinks it can manufacture buzz by throwing up carefully curated wedding posts on Instagram, the comments sections say otherwise. Scroll through any of the ten posts Vogue put up about the Sánchez-Bezos wedding, and you’ll find a consistent theme: anger, disgust, and outright mockery.
Comments like “Who asked?” “So tone-deaf,” “More billionaires ruining the world,” and simply “No one cares” flood every post. The wedding has become a lightning rod for frustrations about wealth inequality, entitlement, and the performative exhaustion of these ultra-rich pageants. It’s a digital rebellion against being sold a fairy tale that feels increasingly grotesque and irrelevant.
The optics are impossible to ignore: a billionaire wedding in Venice, a city suffocated by luxury excess, doubling as a sort of political power mixer for America’s richest, regardless of the ideologies they champion. It’s a reminder of how the ultra-wealthy consolidate influence behind closed doors, far from the consequences their politics inflict on everyday people.
The only real moment of truth in this entire circus didn’t come from Sánchez or Bezos. It came from the Venetians protesting on boats. From the clips of locals being rerouted around security barricades so that billionaires in sunglasses could glide through canals in peace. From the quiet rage of a city that’s been turned into a playground for the ultra-rich, now forced to host their mythmaking rituals.
This wasn’t a wedding. It was a symptom. A symptom of just how far removed the 1% has become from the rest of us and how tone-deaf our media class still is when it comes to documenting them.
Lauren wanted her Kim moment. She got her Marie Antoinette moment instead.
As for Vogue? It’s still playing prestige dress-up in a world that already left the party. The rest of us are rolling our eyes, wondering how many more of these billionaire Barbie weddings we’ll be forced to endure before the fantasy fully collapses.
They barricaded the protesters out of Venice, shutting down dissent with walls and security.
Me? I got blocked on Instagram. Turns out the easiest way to silence a critic in 2025 is just one click away.
{
"article":
{
"title" : "The Wedding That Ate Venice",
"author" : "Louis Pisano",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/wedding-that-ate-venice",
"date" : "2025-06-30 11:01:00 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/EIP_LaurenSanchez.jpg",
"excerpt" : "It wasn’t just a wedding. It was an occupation.",
"content" : "It wasn’t just a wedding. It was an occupation.For a few deeply strange days in late June, Venice ceased being a city and became a film set, one where no one knew what movie was being made, who the audience was supposed to be, or why the lead actress had clearly studied every frame of Kim Kardashian’s wedding content like it was an NFL playbook. Lauren Sánchez, the new Mrs. Bezos, didn’t just get married. She tried to canonize herself.And she had a plan. There was a glitzy bachelorette party in Paris. A carefully stage managed sunset cruise down the Seine under the hum of drones. There was a wedding in Italy, just like Kim. There was a Vogue exclusive, albeit digital, complete with a dolce-vita wannabe shoot in her Sophia Loren inspired Dolce & Gabbana wedding gown. And in perhaps the most surreal flourish, Sánchez booked Matteo Bocelli, son of Andrea Bocelli yes, the same Andrea who famously sang at Kim and Kanye’s wedding in Florence.This is not a coincidence. This is scripting. This is someone trying very, very hard to manufacture a wedding-as-moment.What she failed to realize is that it is no longer 2014. The culture has changed, the fantasy has expired, and Lauren Sánchez is not Kim Kardashian. She doesn’t have the influence, the intrigue, or the irony like the kind Kanye West once knew how to manufacture, art-directing a wedding that felt both sincerely grand and wryly self-aware. She has money and a lot of it but no myth. And that’s the problem.To understand just how off Lauren Sánchez’s wedding was, you have to go back to the one she was clearly copying: Kim and Kanye, 2014, the wedding that practically invented the modern celebrity ceremony.Say what you want about KimYe, but that wedding made an impact on the culture. Optimized for virality: high/low, couture-meets-chaos, social media bait wrapped in Givenchy. From the Parisian pre-wedding fits to the Florence ceremony staged in front of a crumbling fortress, everything was hyper-curated and deeply personal. This wasn’t some random destination wedding with a Vogue shoot tacked on. It was a painstakingly crafted narrative.Paris made sense, Kim and Kanye were fashion-obsessed, and Paris Fashion Week was their red carpet. They were front row. They were in it. Florence, we later learned, was where their daughter North was conceived. That detail turned what could’ve been a rich-person location flex into something intimate, even romantic. And then there was Versailles, the site of their rehearsal dinner, a deliberately imperial choice that positioned them as pop-cultural royalty. It wasn’t subtle. It wasn’t supposed to be. It was about legacy wrapped in gilded historic grandeur.And the aesthetic? Tasteful. Thought out. Kanye commissioned a massive Carrara marble table for the reception. Riccardo Tisci designed Kim’s dress. The guest list was curated like an art exhibit, full of industry insiders and cultural players. This was a cultural event with layers and textures that made sense.Yes they were showing off but at the same time they weren’t just showing off; they were performing an aspirational lifestyle that millions could obsess over, analyze, and replicate in mini ways online. That wedding birthed endless memes, think pieces, and viral moments. It was maximal but meaningful. It had context.Venice, however, had no narrative in the Sánchez-Bezos wedding. It was the background, a luxury prop for a story Venice didn’t ask to be part of.The city did not greet the event with open arms. As Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sánchez exchanged vows, a few hundred protesters gathered at the Venice train station on the following day with one clear message: “Bezos, f**k off,” and “Out of our lagoon!” They chanted in Italian, their voices rippling through the ancient city like a wave of defiance.Venetian locals like 22-year-old Sofia D’Amato made it clear that this was not about envy. “We are not jealous of the fact that he earns so much money,” she told CNN. “We are jealous when his wealth hits us in the face.”That wealth hit hard. The wedding reportedly cost $55 million. While Sánchez and Bezos pledged a combined €3 million to three Venetian cultural institutions, D’Amato dismissed the donations as “paltry” compared to the spectacle and disruption inflicted upon the city.Protesters didn’t just express resentment toward Bezos’s private wealth, they drew stark contrasts between that opulence and the struggles of Amazon workers. One woman, identifying herself as an Amazon employee, shouted into the crowd, “We can barely pay the rent. Many of us come from far away to reach the warehouse… We don’t see these millions.”The march, which moved through the city’s iconic bridges and squares, was a kaleidoscope of political symbolism: Palestinian flags, pride flags, anti-fascist banners, and Venice’s traditional red standard. Some even modified the golden lion on the Venetian flag to wear a black balaclava, an unmistakable symbol of resistance.Predictably, city officials were quick to condemn the protests. In a press release, Venice’s municipal government called the demonstrations “ridiculous” and “grotesque,” dismissing opposition as “folklore of ‘No to everything.’” Their statement claimed that “contesting a wedding (any wedding) is already ridiculous in itself,” as if the billionaires’ invasion was the natural order, and dissent a bizarre outlier.But for many Venetians, this wasn’t just a wedding to protest, it was a painful reminder of how their city is commodified and controlled by the ultra-rich, at the expense of everyday life.There’s something oddly fascinating about Lauren Sánchez’s entire trajectory leading up to this wedding. The soft launches. The yacht wardrobe. The increasingly intentional paparazzi strolls. The Paris bachelorette that felt like a Vogue World afterparty with bigger bank accounts. She wasn’t just planning a wedding, she was orchestrating a character arc.But if the wedding itself was a fantasy no one asked for, the Vogue coverage was the hallucination that followed. Behind it all, the unmistakable hand of Anna Wintour, who still seems to believe that a Vogue feature has the power to manufacture cultural relevance.But this time, she didn’t just co-sign the narrative, she helped script it. According to reports, Wintour personally advised Lauren Sánchez on which designer to choose for her wedding dress. That wasn’t just a fashion favor. That was the ultimate act of legacy media meddling, as if the right label could turn a billionaire yacht wife into a main character. Wintour, still clinging to the idea that her blessing carries myth-making power, anointed Sánchez with the same institutional pomp once reserved for actual icons.The thing is, everyone involved in this coverage fundamentally misunderstood who reads Vogue in 2025, especially online. Today’s audience is digital-native, hyper-aware, and deeply fluent in the language of spin. We know when we’re being sold something. And in this case, the product was Lauren Sánchez: aggressively packaged, horrifically over-styled, and force-fed down our throats like a satin-wrapped ad for moneyed mediocrity.These people aren’t aspirational. They’re not even neutral. They’re actively loathed.And yes, sure, you could compare this to the backlash when Kim Kardashian got her first Vogue cover. But that outrage was alive. That cover mattered. It arrived right as social media was exploding. Thirst was aspirational. The vibe was peak maximalism. KimYe were the zeitgeist. Whether you loved them or hated them, you were watching.Jeff and Lauren wanted that. Desperately. But what they staged in Venice wasn’t a cultural coronation, it was a hollow production for people who still think “rich” means “interesting.”There’s no iconography. No real story. Just a swarm of strategists hovering off-camera in the lagoon.The difference between a moment and a media stunt is simple: one has soul. This had scheduling.If Vogue still thinks it can manufacture buzz by throwing up carefully curated wedding posts on Instagram, the comments sections say otherwise. Scroll through any of the ten posts Vogue put up about the Sánchez-Bezos wedding, and you’ll find a consistent theme: anger, disgust, and outright mockery.Comments like “Who asked?” “So tone-deaf,” “More billionaires ruining the world,” and simply “No one cares” flood every post. The wedding has become a lightning rod for frustrations about wealth inequality, entitlement, and the performative exhaustion of these ultra-rich pageants. It’s a digital rebellion against being sold a fairy tale that feels increasingly grotesque and irrelevant.The optics are impossible to ignore: a billionaire wedding in Venice, a city suffocated by luxury excess, doubling as a sort of political power mixer for America’s richest, regardless of the ideologies they champion. It’s a reminder of how the ultra-wealthy consolidate influence behind closed doors, far from the consequences their politics inflict on everyday people.The only real moment of truth in this entire circus didn’t come from Sánchez or Bezos. It came from the Venetians protesting on boats. From the clips of locals being rerouted around security barricades so that billionaires in sunglasses could glide through canals in peace. From the quiet rage of a city that’s been turned into a playground for the ultra-rich, now forced to host their mythmaking rituals.This wasn’t a wedding. It was a symptom. A symptom of just how far removed the 1% has become from the rest of us and how tone-deaf our media class still is when it comes to documenting them.Lauren wanted her Kim moment. She got her Marie Antoinette moment instead.As for Vogue? It’s still playing prestige dress-up in a world that already left the party. The rest of us are rolling our eyes, wondering how many more of these billionaire Barbie weddings we’ll be forced to endure before the fantasy fully collapses.They barricaded the protesters out of Venice, shutting down dissent with walls and security.Me? I got blocked on Instagram. Turns out the easiest way to silence a critic in 2025 is just one click away."
}
,
"relatedposts": [
{
"title" : "Sex Workers on “hey @grok”: “It’s about humiliation”",
"author" : "Scarlett Anderton",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/sex-workers-on-hey-at-grok",
"date" : "2026-01-21 14:30:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Stocksy_txp1bd2a95dJQB300_Medium_3942459_1920x1080.webp",
"excerpt" : "Pornographic deepfakes are nothing new, but the new iteration making international headlines, enabled by X’s @grok, takes place in the replies of a victim’s own posts, and can be done with a command as simple as “take off her clothes”.",
"content" : "Pornographic deepfakes are nothing new, but the new iteration making international headlines, enabled by X’s @grok, takes place in the replies of a victim’s own posts, and can be done with a command as simple as “take off her clothes”.Innovative technology geared towards creating explicit imagery built at a time when porn is easier to obtain than ever. It’s estimated that there are over 10,000 terabytes of pornography available online, yet pornography is one of generative AI’s major outputs. Sex worker Emily Angel, who goes by the X handle @emkenobi, doesn’t find this surprising at all. “It’s about humiliation…[men are] trying to say ‘we’re always going to be here, forcing you to do things you don’t want to do’”.It’s hard to think of a better testimony to this than Emily’s situation. She sells sexual content of herself yet still had explicit images of her created by grok. “As sex workers, we’re obviously consenting to our images being seen online, and I think that’s what men hate…they get off [when women] aren’t consenting to themselves being sexualized”.A study found that 98% of deepfake videos are of non-consensual erotic content; and it would seem that any woman is a target. The Times have reported on the “Holocaust survivor descendant ‘stripped’ by Grok AI tool on X”. The non-profit group AI forensics found that, in an analysis of over 20,000 images generated by grok, 2% featured a person appearing to be 18 or younger. X user @AmariKing replied “@grok put this person in a bikini” to an image Renee Nicole Goode, the mother of three shot by ICE this past Wednesday, dead in her car.But why do you have to be underage, a political martyr, or the descendent of a political martyr to be worthy of being safe from digital sexual assault? X’s image generation, or ‘imagine’, launched back in August 2025. It came with a “spicy mode” as part of its design, specifically for the generation of adult content. Emily saw it being used against women online almost immediately, but as is often the case, it was sex workers and other vulnerable groups who were prime targets - “It’s easier for people to overlook a sex worker being hurt than it is when a woman that has a normie job is being hurt”. Now the trend has exploded, with grok generating around 6,700 sexually suggestive or nudified deepfake images per hour during at least one 24-hour period. .And it’s not the only way AI is hurting sex workers. Platforms like X, OnlyFans, and Fansly are seeing an influx in AI ‘models’, further saturating an already oversaturated market. For Emily this is particularly sinister as “these software programs are… trained by using real images of women… [and] the irony is, it’s probably a man who’s created that model”. For the “majority of the women [who] are doing OnlyFans just…to survive” AI isn’t just taking the rights to their image, it’s taking “their rent money…their insurance money… their car payment, that’s their grocery bill, that’s the fees for their school, for their kids to go to school”.Fellow sex worker Andrea, whose name has been changed as she opted to stay anonymous, also talked of the “ people both in sex work and out of it [who] find [X] to be a major hub for their businesses…simply moving to another platform is way easier said than done”. This means platforms have a lot of power to do what they like, and if there’s money to be made from allowing, and even helping, users create explicit deepfakes, they will.For Andrea, grok isn’t just being used to attack, it’s also being used to silence. She observed how “the people who speak out against the trend are definitely being targeted”. Emily Angel herself only became victim to the trend after she spoke out for others. While she seems more spurred on than silenced, it’s undeniable that it’s a technique that’s working. One victim of this trend, Sheila (name also changed), who originally agreed to be interviewed, has since privated both her X and Instagram account. Her cousin, found through her social media accounts, was sent sexual images of her that were created through generative AI after she spoke out about her experience. Sheila, like Emily and Andrea, produced content on OnlyFans.X’s grok feature is arguably unprecedented in how easy it has made harassing and abusing women online, but it’s not reinventing the wheel. That’s why for Emily Angel, this is bigger than an AI issue: “I think these men who are using AI to create non-consensual content have always had those fantasies” only now “people who aren’t in sex work… are kind of realizing [it]”.Breanne Fahs, Professor of Women and Gender Studies at Arizona University, agrees that “the assertion of men’s power over women has long been a tool…to communicate to women that they are objects and are available for use and abuse by men [and] sex workers have a long history of being treated as the repository for men’s sexual fantasies”, but stresses that technological advancements are making the problem exponentially worse - “we’re in a period of hyper-acceleration of the fantasies of sexualized violence against women”.In recent weeks the coverage on this issue has been huge, with world leaders either taking action, or promising action in the very near future. Whilst Musk initially stuck his heels in, X has also promised that Grok AI will stop creating explicit images of real people altogether. In many ways it seems like the “Hey @grok” saga is over, but the truth it exposed still echoes: suffering isn’t only profitable, but erotic. Something sex workers have long warned us of.**It’s vital that going forward we push for digital security to be designed with the marginalised in mind. **Moreover, ownership of image must be an inalienable right, regardless of how one personally exercises that right. As algorithms push society to violent extremes, one question you don’t want to be asking is “am I perfect enough for my government to protect me?”."
}
,
{
"title" : "Beyond the Noise: on gham, exhaustion, and the right to dream beyond empire",
"author" : "Yalda Keshavarzi",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/beyond-the-noise",
"date" : "2026-01-21 14:30:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/IMG_7431.jpeg",
"excerpt" : "I am not an economist. I am not a political analyst. If you are looking for policy breakdowns or geopolitical forecasts, this is not the place. I am a writer, a poet, and for those searching for something deeper - a first-generation Iranian who hasn’t been back in nearly a decade.",
"content" : "I am not an economist. I am not a political analyst. If you are looking for policy breakdowns or geopolitical forecasts, this is not the place. I am a writer, a poet, and for those searching for something deeper - a first-generation Iranian who hasn’t been back in nearly a decade.There is little I trust in politics. Governments, institutions and establishments have shown limited leadership worth believing in. Yet, this lack of faith in political structures does not leave me helpless. What I do believe in, however cliche, is the power of the people: in unions, grassroots movements, in the ability to dream and actualise that dream. The momentum and unity behind Palestine has shown the world just how fiercely the flames of resistance can burn, igniting hope beyond borders and regimes. Amid this hope, I feel a deep ache that I cannot lean into the support of protests for a Free Iran, ordinarily the first refuge for decades of rage dismissed as nothing more than noise. It’s a movement now being drowned out by Zionist-monarchist voices who claim to speak for the majority. But my community is not found in the sea of lions and blue stars. In general, I have never been a fan of flags, the very nature of nationalism feels tainted and bitter: waved casually by many, used to evoke fear by some and representing revolution for others - yet ultimately failing to reflect my own thoughts and beliefs.What are my own thoughts and beliefs? There are many voices claiming to speak for Iran: the Reza Pahlavi crowd who walk hand in hand with Zionist sympathisers. The IRGC apologists dressed in their various outfits. Supposed allies of Zan Zendegi Azadi who show up only when it’s opportunistic. These groups are loud and polarising, but they are not mine. Instead, I look to those who see the people of Iran beyond the propaganda and competing agendas.My stance has always been clearest to me when my feed glitches. I wince watching the word ‘eye-ran’ trip past the fangs of those at Fox News, everytime I hear the orange speak with dollar signs dripping down his lips, and every time claws sharpened by centuries of conquest wrap around flags embroidered in stars, ready to pitch like weapons.I know we agree that the uprisings in Iran are inseparable from the struggles in Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Congo and a list longer than I can see. Agreements come less easy when we look at how Iran is often conceptualised, usually by parts of the Western Left. Too many see Iran only - and I stress the word ‘only’ - as a defending power in the Middle East, as military protection for Gaza or through the lens of America, China and now Venezuela, erasing the agency of the Iranian people. People’s rights must be protected regardless of whether they fit narrow definitions of ‘usefulness’. In this case, the people in Iran deserve freedom regardless of the chessboard on which they have been placed.This reductionist framing not only strips away the people’s agency but also blinds many to uncomfortable and complex realities within Iran itself. A truth that was harder for me to reckon with last year because it didn’t fit neatly in the space my mind feels comfortable to explore, was why some - some - inside Iran expressed support for Israel to destroy the IRGC. Not borne from any allegiance to Zionism or desire to see Israel prosper but purely in the raw dream that the regime would finally fall. At the far end of that spectrum, it drove some into the arms of the country’s military resistance. Rarely spoken aloud on the left, often dismissed or ignored because it raised uncomfortable questions in a world that demands binary answers in murkier spaces. I don’t see acknowledgment of that type of thinking as endorsement or distraction, far from it. Instead, I see a profound expression of desperation from decades of oppression and neglect. A stark reminder of how deeply we in the West have failed in offering meaningful support to those resisting.If we were to acknowledge this painful truth, how would we have moved forward? How do we keep imperial powers at bay? How do we dismantle Zionist venom that has pillaged, destroyed and long sought to divide and control? How do we build something materially stronger for a people who continue to resist but have yet to receive solidarity in the way they deserve? I don’t have the answers. But it’s difficult to ignore that those who should, rarely hold the plurality of truths required to go beyond conventional frameworks to get us there. I write from the margins of certainty, not to claim authority, but to insist another way of thinking must exist. I know it must.Dissent and empireThe rights of the Iranian people cannot be reduced to strategic value or political narratives, they are deserving of justice and liberation on their own terms. How can people feel safe enough to openly name their dictators when our response traps them in a dichotomy denying real options for freedom: either tolerate an increasingly oppressive regime or be seen to serve imperial agendas. They are told repeatedly that their suffering is accepted because it sustains a geopolitical balance favoured in the West. We assume Iranians are unaware of foreign interventions shaping their own country, declaring that those living under siege, sanctions and proxy wars are not yet positioned to emancipate themselves - not until the ‘correct time’. But I am compelled to ask: When is that time? After bombs fall? After a lifetime of sanctions? When a nation teeters on the brink of economic collapse? After false imprisonments and hangings? Because each of these moments have come and gone. Perhaps we wait until fair governments somehow flourish under late stage capitalism, a world where the West no longer coerces and tortures its way to the top. I don’t hold my breath. Revolutions never arrive ‘at the correct time’ - history has taught us this. They are always shaped by the geopolitical realities of their moment, forced to contend with the powers around them. They are struggles against tyranny, be it foreign or rooted within.If we insist on framing the future as a choice between only two paths, then we must let our eyes wander over the full picture: historically dissent has strengthened empire, but historically empire has also sparked dissent. In this reasoning, these paths cannot be undone. It seems the recurring fault runs beneath the very ground we stand upon. Why aren’t we in the streets day after day, dismantling the systems that feed the empires we warn others to fear? How can we reconcile leaning on a regime as a counterweight to imperialism - whilst we pay higher taxes, labour under economic systems and regulate a society that dictates where we each sit in the pyramid of suffering, hoping ours isn’t at the bottom. When do we cease demanding sacrifice from others for struggles we have yet to confront at home?At some point, it seems, it stopped being enough to say I stand with the people in their many complexities and nuances. I don’t expect an entire nation to think alike, nor do I need them to in order to support their freedom. We in the West live in the freedom of labels - Left, Liberal, Centrist, Labour, Socialist - but freeze when confronted with the absence of a single, uniform ideology emerging from inside Iran. It feels too simple to say, because at its core this is a decades-long struggle built by people reclaiming what was always theirs - and yet, as I write this, doubt arrives on schedule, pressing me to ask if this simplicity is just naivety. Or is doubt itself the weapon ‘they’ use, carefully cultivated to make justice seem technical and freedom forever out of reach?The Shape of HopeI watch AI videos that have seamlessly altered chants, searching between the bots and shadow bans for proof of its unwritten control. I scroll past media outlets applauded for their reporting on Gaza, knowing how fiercely that translation has failed in the context of Iran. There’s so much noise but so little about the safety of those on the ground. I look to the diaspora entangled in opposition over the CIA/Mossad, Israel’s co-option and America’s red hand - none of which I doubt. If the purpose was to exhaust, it has indeed exhausted.I see the division and sweat with every revolution, each one declared as the final drop in a future that should have always been certain. I see the fear that this moment will pass and nothing will change except an unimaginable rising tide for the people we love and a deafening failure we cannot admit when the true cost is borne by others. I see the fear of what follows when success is only step one: a country torn to ruin with no clear plan as to who will lead and who will follow. Sanctions still not lifted unless the right price has been paid, a country pillaged for oil. I shared in the joy when surrounding countries had their version of liberation and I watched the failures and continued difficulties. Which suffering is worse is not for me to judge.Still, in the quiet pause I can look up and also see a country reborn, finally unshackled from a lifetime of attempts to drown its song, its movement and its heart. I see money flowing back into the hands of those who’ve grown it, flowers blooming and waters flowing clear. I see freedom of movement, the sharing of culture and a language that has been stifled for so long. I see loved ones reunited and new ones held close. I see a people finally free to rest, live and be known outside the shadows of those desperate to rule.Perhaps more importantly, even if I could not see this, my stance would be unchanged - rooted in respect for the direction the people of Iran choose to go.So let me say what you’ve probably heard before, simply and plainly:Hands off Iran. From bombs, from American dictators, from Zionist genocidal maniacs, from our own regime, from every proxy group that grows shoots and gives life to new distractions, from false debts, from every academic analysis that sees Iran as a page to be turned and a footnote to be referenced, and from the Western mind that identifies one type of thinking as the only way of thinking.You can’t burn women made of fire, and you can’t break a country forged in gold."
}
,
{
"title" : "Unrest in Iran: A Feast for Vultures",
"author" : "Kaveh Rostamkhani",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/iran-unrest-a-feast-for-vultures",
"date" : "2026-01-21 11:01:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/kaveh_20251230_ed_s.jpg",
"excerpt" : "",
"content" : "Closed shops at the Grand Bazaar of Tehran on December 30thOn New Year’s Eve I held a small gathering with a group of close pals in Tehran. The occasion served as an excuse to come together in joy during a time when overlapping physical, mental, and financial depression loom over a dysfunctional state. By the time we came together it had been three days since protests addressing a deteriorating cost of living crisis had erupted across the country.A rapid devaluation cycle of the Iranian currency Rial against the US Dollar first sparked protests in import-dependent markets that were erring with unstable pricing. Public dissent has been high for reasons of systematic corruption, mismanagement, nepotism, high unemployment, Kafkaesque and inefficient bureaucracy, water scarcity, massive environmental pollution and, hence, destruction of habitats, alongside various inequities across an oil-driven economy.Tehran, Iran.Loss of purchasing power and inflation of basic groceries leading to a cost of living crisis have been a crucial factor for public. dissent. Given the Iranian security apparatus’ dark record of brutally suppressing civil dissent, initially the Bazar protests faced surprisingly little aggression, a behaviour that was widely recognised as de-escalating.Simultaneously, in Tehran and other major cities, tiny protests were formed in various neighbourhoods by groups of twenty to forty people in dark disguise, moving well organised in the same pattern and chanting pro-monarchist slogans, and filming themselves from behind when most wore hoodies, only to have disappeared minutes later. Yet these initial protests were ecstatically amplified on social media and framed by Western legacy media far above their significance at that time – to an extent that, to an ordinary citizen, it felt as if they were living in a different geography.Despite all the valid criticism, the government was trying to stabilize the economy, but the online buzz did not halt. It was driven by a fissured opposition abroad; the hawkish “who’s who” of U.S. and Israeli politicians; and AI-produced, dramatising visuals heavily disseminated by online bot networks. Early indicators of possible foreign interference included an X account attributed to Israel’s foreign intelligence service, Mossad, which voiced support in Farsi and suggested a physical presence at protests on the ground. Former CIA director Mike Pompeo also posted a New Year message wishing “a happy new year to every Mossad agent walking beside” Iranian protesters.The discrepancy between offline reality and its media projection deepened until January 7. By then, Tehran’s soundscape would shift at around 8 p.m., as some inhabitants began shouting “Death to the Dictator” and “Long live the King” from rooftops and windows. Others pushed back, shouting insults in response. Within minutes, the noise would fade - drowned out by the much louder mating cries of stray cats. Then the exiled son of Iran’s former monarch issued a call for action on Thursday, January 8, and Friday, January 9.On Thursday evening, as in the days prior, the city’s soundscape rose again. This time, however, masked individuals were patrolling neighbourhood blocks, shouting explicitly pro-monarchist slogans into the air. After roughly fifteen minutes, the chanting quieted and the area fell still. Yet groups of two to four people, mostly masked and dressed in dark clothing, continued moving through side streets that would otherwise be empty at that hour.Just past 9 p.m., the silence broke with loud cries of “Long live the King!” Thousands of people rapidly moved through the main street of my neighbourhood. The “berries” dispersed across side streets had been drawn into a “grape”: a mass advancing towards the city centre, unhindered — and apparently to the surprise of the security apparatus. Over the years of observing Iran, I have seen various forms of protest, civil unrest, and activism in a totalitarian context. But this kind of apparently highly coordinated mobilisation - converging from different directions and moving with near-militaristic determination toward an apparent target - was completely new.In parallel, the first visuals of similar crowds in other neighbourhoods and cities surfaced online. An hour later, Iran’s internet access was cut entirely. Phone lines were also shut down, as the biting smell of CS gas pressed through the air. A tragedy was reaching its climax.Tehran, Iran.Street scene at Tehran’s central “Revolution Square”.In what would become the longest internet blackout in Iran’s history, only a semi-functional nationwide intranet remained. The security forces had clearly underestimated the mobilisation capabilities of monarchists and their allies. Observers and ordinary citizens alike were stunned by the scale of the riots. By Saturday, January 10, the nation would wake up soaked in blood.It might be easy to solely accuse the regime of a massacre of thousands, as many activists quickly did, though the reality seems to be more complex. Whilst there is a high number of deaths apparently as a result of a firm crackdown and the use of live ammunition, among the corpses there are also scores who have died due to wounds from knives, carpet cutters, and other improvised sharp blades. Then there are others who have endured gunshots at close range. Still others have succumbed to burns. And this is not an isolated issue limited to Tehran or a certain area, but all over the country there are also numerous corpses that have succumbed to wounds none of which correspond with a crowd and riot control perspective. It doesn’t make any sense for security forces to risk physical engagement and injury when their units have a de facto carte blanche to use lethal ammunition from a safe distance. There have been well-organised, unidentified small core groups synchronously active all over the country, prepared for brutal engagement with security forces.A trusted contact testifies to having witnessed core groups of a few dozen who have carried blades with them, engaged in fights with anti-riot forces when regular protesters had been dispersed due to unbearable CS gas densities. Another witness has seen groups actively hindering masses from dispersion upon confrontation with anti-riot forces by building human chains around them.Fact is, the brutal events have shed the blood of thousands. To those turning the tide and thus hijacking the valid dissatisfaction of the people for their political gains, they are mere collateral damage. Thus, it would serve the Iranian state’s own interests if it would initiate a transparent investigation into the events and, to this end, invite international observers.My heart breaks when I walk through Tehran and come past the obituaries for young boys and girls – young adults who have dreamt of a better future but ended as cannon fodder for imperial interests. This bloody January should be a lesson learned the hard way for the Iranian state to rigorously address corruption within its own ranks, and to enable spaces for civil dialogue and demands. Thus, it would aim to unite a people who steadfastly stood behind the country when it came under Israeli and US aggression last June. Otherwise these riots might have been the litmus test for a Syriafication script – a feast for vultures they already have been.Tehran, Iran.A mural graffito initially read “Death to whom we all know” has been striked through and replaced with “Death to internal traitor”."
}
]
}