Latest news with #Iran-IraqWar
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
'The Better Sister' star Bobby Naderi on 'changing the dynamic of protective power' in thrilling show
Jessica Biel and Elizabeth Banks play sisters in the new crime thriller series The Better Sister (on Prime Video), based on the novel by Alafair Burke. In the mysterious new show, a puzzling death brings Chloe (Biel) and Nicky (Banks) back together unexpectedly. The sisters live very different lives, Chloe is a journalist, married to her husband, lawyer Adam (Corey Stoll), while Nicky is a recovering addict whose teenage son Ethan (Maxwell Acee Donovan) is being raised by Chloe and Adam. Yes, Chloe married her sister's ex-husband. But when Adam unexpectedly dies, the estranged sisters work together to get answers about Adam's death, and to be there for Ethan. Among the cast is Bobby Naderi who plays Matt Bowen, who one of the detectives working on the case, alongside his partner Nancy Guidry (Kim Dickens). Their dynamic is one of the highlights of the show. There's this really appealing, sarcastic banter that they have with each other. Nancy, in particular, is always ready to be a little bit critical of her partner's approach. Naderi told Yahoo Canada that these great were a great balance to the more dramatic moments in a show tackling such "heavy" subject matter. He also praised the script for The Better Sister as a solid foundation for the actors to work from. "If it's a bad script, I don't believe that you can be amazing," Naderi said. "For me, what attracted me to [The Better Sister] was kind of changing the dynamic of protective power. ... And I've played police officers and FBI in the past, this was so different. The show's very heavy. ... There's something to grow in that is exciting. His backstory, with his family, it's all that stuff." With so much of this story resting in the twists and turns, Naderi very much went on the ride of trying to figure out what happened as well, looking for clues. But the actor also stressed how interesting it is to see the little nuggets of information throughout the series. Looking at Naderi's career more broadly, born in Tehran during the Iran-Iraq War, he stressed that he started from a place so far away from the world of acting and entertainment. "I was so far away from acting. I grew up in Iran during the Iran-Iraq War and we got out of there," Naderi said. "I was so far away from the arts." "My mom was an artist, she's incredible writer, ... but with the circumstances of life, that wasn't a reality. I thought I was going to play in the NBA. I still think I could have, which is complete delusion. And then when I was like 19, I got approached to just go into a class, and that really shocked me. And it was from there I somehow and it's still kind of unclear how I ended up in Phantom Love, which went to Sundance in 2007, and that's what kind of opened me up to indie films." Naderi stressed that it was these independent films that were critical because they taught him about cinema. "I'm getting older, but I have that passion for film and storytelling in general," he said. While we won't spoil how The Better Sister ends, we'll tease that Naderi's character is critical, opening up a whole host of details to explore for this character if the show continues.
Rudaw Net
5 days ago
- Politics
- Rudaw Net
$73 million in development projects approved for Halabja province
Also in Kurdistan Kurdistan people's livelihood not a tool for political leverage: KDP leader Rwanga plants 20,000 olive saplings in Erbil President Barzani says Erbil wants stronger ties with Japan US senators meet with Iraqi, Kurdistan leaders A+ A- ERBIL, Kurdistan Region - The Kurdistan Region's Council of Ministers on Sunday granted approval for nine major development projects in Halabja province, valued at approximately 96.65 billion Iraqi dinars ($73.3 million), including the construction of a free trade zone, multiple infrastructure upgrades, and a new provincial building. The decision followed a meeting between Halabja Governor Nuxsha Nasih and Omed Sabah, head of the Council of Ministers' Presidency Office. Commenting on the decision on her Facebook page, Nasih described the projects as 'necessary' to 'better serve citizens.' The projects include several road projects worth around 50.9 billion Iraqi dinars ($38.8 million), a combined road and sewerage project worth 14.4 billion Iraqi dinars ($10.9 million), and a memorial construction project budgeted at $16.3 million. An additional 10 billion dinars ($7.6 million) was allocated to support border departments, including bulldozers, loaders, trucks, excavators, road rollers, water tankers, shovels, bobcats, graders, and trailers. In April, Iraq's parliament officially recognized Halabja as the country's 19th province and the Kurdistan Region's fourth, passing a long-awaited bill during a session attended by 178 of the 329 lawmakers. The Iraqi Council of Ministers had initially approved Halabja's status change in December 2013, separating it from Sulaimani province, but political disputes delayed the formalization for over a decade. Halabja stands out as a potent symbol of Kurdish resilience. On March 16, 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq War, the forces of toppled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein bombed Halabja with chemical weapons. The gruesome attack claimed the lives of at least 5,000 people - mostly women and children - and injured thousands more. Of note, the Halabja chemical attack was part of the Baath regime's broader Anfal campaign in which more than 182,000 Kurds were killed.
Shafaq News
6 days ago
- Politics
- Shafaq News
Iran vows 'strong response' to any attack
Shafaq News/ On Sunday, the Commander of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard (IRGC), Hossein Salami, declared that despite facing a formidable global coalition of adversaries, Iran continues to enjoy internal peace and stability. Speaking at a ceremony honoring veterans of the Iran-Iraq War, Salami reaffirmed the IRGC's 'unwavering stance', stating, 'The Revolutionary Guard will stand powerfully against the enemies.' Earlier, Iran's military warned that any threat or act of aggression would be met with a decisive response. 'We will not allow the enemy's illusions to materialize,' the army stressed in a statement, emphasizing the full preparedness of Iran's armed forces to defend the nation's territorial integrity, sovereignty, and national security. The remarks come amid growing tensions, fueled by reports of Israeli preparations for a swift strike on Iran's nuclear facilities should US-Iran nuclear negotiations collapse.
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Don't invade Iran: Trump must avoid Saddam's mistake
On April 26, a devastating explosion tore through Iran's bustling port city of Bandar Abbas, claiming 57 lives and injuring over 1,200 people. The blast was centered at the Shahid Rajaee port, Iran's largest container hub, and sent shockwaves through the city, shattering windows and damaging infrastructure for miles. Authorities are still investigating the cause, with preliminary reports pointing to mishandled chemicals, though speculation about sabotage persists. Amid this tragedy, the Iranian people's response has revealed a critical lesson for American policymakers. Iran's capacity for unity in the face of crisis should not be underestimated, as it was decades ago by Saddam Hussein. Despite economic hardships and political discontent, Iranians have rallied together in the wake of the Bandar Abbas explosion. Across the country, citizens lined up to donate blood for the injured A grassroots Iranian folk music festival in Bushehr was transformed into a mourning solidarity show, with organizers cutting it short out of respect for the catastrophe. Doctors and psychologists across the country offered to help the injured and those traumatized by the catastrophe. Auto mechanics volunteered to repair damaged vehicles for free, while others sent glass to repair broken windows in homes. This response challenges the narrative propagated by some Iranian opposition groups and Western analysts, who argue that public dissatisfaction with the government renders Iran vulnerable. They suggest that internal divisions could lead Iranians to welcome foreign intervention as an opportunity to overthrow the government. But the outpouring of support following the explosion suggests otherwise. Iranians, regardless of their grievances, appear to prioritize national cohesion when confronted with external or catastrophic events — a 'rally-around-the-flag' effect of citizens uniting behind their government in times of crisis. The unity displayed in Bandar Abbas echoes the public response during the Iran-Iraq War, a historical precedent that offers a stark warning to those advocating for aggression toward Iran. In September 1980, Saddam Hussein, perceiving Iran as weakened by the 1979 Islamic Revolution, launched an invasion, expecting a swift victory. He believed that Iran's internal turmoil and ethnic divisions would prevent a cohesive defense. Saddam's miscalculation was influenced by Iranian opposition groups and some other forces, who suggested that Iranians were too dissatisfied to defend their country. Instead, Iranians — including revolutionary militias and regular volunteers — united to repel the Iraqi advance. By 1982, Iran had regained nearly all lost territory, turning the conflict into an eight-year stalemate that cost over one million lives. Saddam's error stemmed from underestimating the Iranian people's resilience and their willingness to set aside internal differences to defend their homeland. This is not an anomaly but a recurring feature of Iran's response to external threats. Certain Iranian opposition groups and Western hawks keep pushing a narrative that mirrors Saddam's flawed assumptions. They argue that widespread dissatisfaction — fueled by economic sanctions, inflation and political repression — has left the regime on the brink of collapse. These groups interpret such discontent as an opportunity, suggesting that foreign intervention, whether through military action or covert operations, could trigger a popular uprising against the government. Historical and contemporary evidence contradicts this view. During the Iran-Iraq War, internal divisions did not prevent a unified defense. Similarly, the port explosion has not led to calls for protests but to acts of national solidarity. Even amid speculation of mismanagement, the public response has focused on supporting the victims rather than blaming the government. This suggests that foreign aggression would likely strengthen the government's domestic position by rallying Iranians against a common external enemy. The strategic risks of misjudging Iranian unity are significant. Iran today is not the isolated nation of 1980. It has developed a relatively sophisticated army and missile program and wields considerable influence through a network of allies across the Middle East. A military intervention or escalation could ignite a broader regional conflict, drawing in these actors and complicating U.S. interests in the Middle East. For U.S. policymakers, particularly those advising President Trump, the Bandar Abbas incident serves as a warning. The forces pushing for aggressive policies risk repeating Saddam's grave miscalculation. The assumption that Iranians would welcome foreign intervention ignores evidence of national unity displayed in times of crisis. Public opinion data further complicates the hawkish narrative. While some Iranians express frustration with their government's policies, they also value their nation's sovereignty. Recent polls indicate support for Iran's regional military presence, suggesting a preference for national strength over foreign interference. These sentiments align with the solidarity seen in Bandar Abbas, where the focus has been on collective recovery rather than division. Rather than pursuing policies that assume Iranian fragility, Western policymakers should prioritize diplomacy, engaging Iran through negotiations that address mutual concerns, such as nuclear proliferation and regional stability. Aggressive actions could derail negotiations, undermining diplomatic efforts to address Iran's nuclear program and the possibility of improving relations between Iran and the U.S. A military misstep would not only fail to achieve regime change but also risk entangling the U.S. in a costly conflict with far-reaching consequences. Iran is not a house of cards waiting to collapse, as hawks continue to argue, but a nation capable of rallying against external threats. To avoid the pitfalls of past miscalculations, the U.S. must approach Iran with a clear-eyed understanding of its resilience and a commitment to dialogue over confrontation. Engaging Iran through diplomacy instead of confrontation is not only prudent but necessary for regional stability. Barzin Jafartash Amiri is chief editor of Voice of Manufacturing in Iran. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
23-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Don't invade Iran: Trump must avoid Saddam's mistake
On April 26, a devastating explosion tore through Iran's bustling port city of Bandar Abbas, claiming 57 lives and injuring over 1,200 people. The blast was centered at the Shahid Rajaee port, Iran's largest container hub, and sent shockwaves through the city, shattering windows and damaging infrastructure for miles. Authorities are still investigating the cause, with preliminary reports pointing to mishandled chemicals, though speculation about sabotage persists. Amid this tragedy, the Iranian people's response has revealed a critical lesson for American policymakers. Iran's capacity for unity in the face of crisis should not be underestimated, as it was decades ago by Saddam Hussein. Despite economic hardships and political discontent, Iranians have rallied together in the wake of the Bandar Abbas explosion. Across the country, citizens lined up to donate blood for the injured A grassroots Iranian folk music festival in Bushehr was transformed into a mourning solidarity show, with organizers cutting it short out of respect for the catastrophe. Doctors and psychologists across the country offered to help the injured and those traumatized by the catastrophe. Auto mechanics volunteered to repair damaged vehicles for free, while others sent glass to repair broken windows in homes. This response challenges the narrative propagated by some Iranian opposition groups and Western analysts, who argue that public dissatisfaction with the government renders Iran vulnerable. They suggest that internal divisions could lead Iranians to welcome foreign intervention as an opportunity to overthrow the government. But the outpouring of support following the explosion suggests otherwise. Iranians, regardless of their grievances, appear to prioritize national cohesion when confronted with external or catastrophic events — a 'rally-around-the-flag' effect of citizens uniting behind their government in times of crisis. The unity displayed in Bandar Abbas echoes the public response during the Iran-Iraq War, a historical precedent that offers a stark warning to those advocating for aggression toward Iran. In September 1980, Saddam Hussein, perceiving Iran as weakened by the 1979 Islamic Revolution, launched an invasion, expecting a swift victory. He believed that Iran's internal turmoil and ethnic divisions would prevent a cohesive defense. Saddam's miscalculation was influenced by Iranian opposition groups and some other forces, who suggested that Iranians were too dissatisfied to defend their country. Instead, Iranians — including revolutionary militias and regular volunteers — united to repel the Iraqi advance. By 1982, Iran had regained nearly all lost territory, turning the conflict into an eight-year stalemate that cost over one million lives. Saddam's error stemmed from underestimating the Iranian people's resilience and their willingness to set aside internal differences to defend their homeland. This is not an anomaly but a recurring feature of Iran's response to external threats. Certain Iranian opposition groups and Western hawks keep pushing a narrative that mirrors Saddam's flawed assumptions. They argue that widespread dissatisfaction — fueled by economic sanctions, inflation and political repression — has left the regime on the brink of collapse. These groups interpret such discontent as an opportunity, suggesting that foreign intervention, whether through military action or covert operations, could trigger a popular uprising against the government. Historical and contemporary evidence contradicts this view. During the Iran-Iraq War, internal divisions did not prevent a unified defense. Similarly, the port explosion has not led to calls for protests but to acts of national solidarity. Even amid speculation of mismanagement, the public response has focused on supporting the victims rather than blaming the government. This suggests that foreign aggression would likely strengthen the government's domestic position by rallying Iranians against a common external enemy. The strategic risks of misjudging Iranian unity are significant. Iran today is not the isolated nation of 1980. It has developed a relatively sophisticated army and missile program and wields considerable influence through a network of allies across the Middle East. A military intervention or escalation could ignite a broader regional conflict, drawing in these actors and complicating U.S. interests in the Middle East. For U.S. policymakers, particularly those advising President Trump, the Bandar Abbas incident serves as a warning. The forces pushing for aggressive policies risk repeating Saddam's grave miscalculation. The assumption that Iranians would welcome foreign intervention ignores evidence of national unity displayed in times of crisis. Public opinion data further complicates the hawkish narrative. While some Iranians express frustration with their government's policies, they also value their nation's sovereignty. Recent polls indicate support for Iran's regional military presence, suggesting a preference for national strength over foreign interference. These sentiments align with the solidarity seen in Bandar Abbas, where the focus has been on collective recovery rather than division. Rather than pursuing policies that assume Iranian fragility, Western policymakers should prioritize diplomacy, engaging Iran through negotiations that address mutual concerns, such as nuclear proliferation and regional stability. Aggressive actions could derail negotiations, undermining diplomatic efforts to address Iran's nuclear program and the possibility of improving relations between Iran and the U.S. A military misstep would not only fail to achieve regime change but also risk entangling the U.S. in a costly conflict with far-reaching consequences. Iran is not a house of cards waiting to collapse, as hawks continue to argue, but a nation capable of rallying against external threats. To avoid the pitfalls of past miscalculations, the U.S. must approach Iran with a clear-eyed understanding of its resilience and a commitment to dialogue over confrontation. Engaging Iran through diplomacy instead of confrontation is not only prudent but necessary for regional stability. Barzin Jafartash Amiri is chief editor of Voice of Manufacturing in Iran.
