News for Normies: Vol. 17
Iranians march and die for freedom; Trump wants to "take over" Greenland; and more ICE agents headed to Minneapolis
Welcome back to News for Normies!
For those new to my Substack, hello and welcome!
Here’s a little more about what you’ll find in News for Normies, the serious part of this otherwise-lighthearted space.
News for Normies comes every Monday and is a post on three important news stories, served up with context, insight and some things to follow in the coming week.
Who are you? A normal person who has a whole life to live, and not a lot of time to read or watch news.
What is this? Your go-to newsletter that highlights a few big stories to keep you a little more informed in an ever-saturated news world.
So if you want to know what’s happening in the world but don’t have the time to monitor the headlines, you’re in the right place!
To say this past weekend was news packed is an understatement, but I really enjoyed boiling down these stories for you.
Today we’re talking about the ongoing protests in Iran as citizens fight for their freedom; President Trump’s threat to “take over” Greenland and what that could mean for the U.S.; and a surge of ICE agents in Minneapolis, just days after a deadly shooting there.
Let’s get your week started with some simple, thoughtful, and unbiased info. Please share with a fellow news-loving friend!
Story 1: Iranians Struggle for Freedom as Riots Grow Nationwide, World Watches
Last week in NfN I told you to keep an eye on what’s happening in Iran, as Iranians fight to topple the ruling Islamic Regime and move toward a more democratic state.
Limited internet access has stifled information sharing, but videos and images that have made their way through the blockade show streets packed with protestors fighting to overthrow the regime—lighting cigarettes with on-fire pictures of the Iranian supreme leader; ripping Iranian flags; marching and chanting on the streets, and more.
Cut internet access also made it difficult to get accurate reports on a death toll or injuries, but one outlet based in Iran says at least 2,000 people have died, with that number expected to rise.
Context and Background
These protests and marches erupted across Iran over a week ago, initially centered around Iran’s failing economy, but evolved quickly into a rebuke of the country’s oppressive theocratic government and have now spread to nearly 200 cities.
As we discussed in last week’s NfN, this isn’t the first time we’ve seen Iranians protest their government; the difference is this time, many geopolitical experts think this one could actually topple the regime.
What could happen next?
If the regime falls, many geopolitical experts expect it will take time to set up a more fair governing body. This has a lot to do with recent history.
The 1979 Iranian Revolution replaced a monarchy with a theocratic system, and rather than power remaining pluralistic, consolidated into a tight group of clerics who ruled based on strict and oppressive Islamic teachings.
Further complicating things, the system of power in Iran is spread across multiple entities—the Supreme Leader, a legislative branch, a president, as well as appointed leaders and the brutal Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the military branch responsible for enacting harsh punishment against dissenters. Just because one element of these is removed doesn’t necessarily mean the whole system disappears.
If the regime falls, who could take over?
It’s impossible to say for sure, but Iran’s exiled Prince Reza Pahlavi is one name you might hear. He’s the son of the last shah of Iran, and has been in exile in the United States since the late 1970s.
In an interview with Fox News, Pahlavi said:
“Your words of solidarity with the Iranian people .. [have] had tremendous positive effect. Let’s hope that we can permanently seal this legacy by liberating Iran, so we and you can make Iran great again.
“I know Iranians are prepared to die for this cause, and so am I.”
Another name you might hear is Maryam Rajavi, a dissident politician from Iran who heads up the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, an organization that advocates for the overthrowing of the current Iranian government. Her political philosophy is aimed at a secular, democratic Iran, and support for her varies across the Iranian diaspora.
Why should you care?
You can think of Iran, under its current leadership, as a hub for nefarious activity, to put it mildly.
In addition to enriching uranium to work toward a nuclear bomb (a project the U.S. and Israel dismantled last year with a bomb dropped at their enrichment facility), they’re also widely believed to be the primary funding source for some of the world’s most dangerous terrorist groups—Hamas, ISIS, Hezbollah and more. Basically, they’re bankrolling terror region-wide.
So when you’re talking about Iranian civilians toppling this regime, it’s not just those citizens who will presumably benefit from the change; the impact would ripple far beyond Iran’s borders.
Who ends up in power will impact not only things like Iran’s nuclear future and oil prices, but also the future of conflicts in Gaza, Israel, Lebanon, Syria and Ukraine.
Then there’s the issue of freedoms. Women and minority groups—as well as anyone who dissented from the strict rules of the Islamic regime’s power—will all undoubtedly benefit, should the regime fall. These groups have lived in fear of torture, arrest or death for violating rules as simple as letting their hair show in public (women), protesting the regime, practicing journalism, or simply adhering to another faith.
So ultimately, whoever ends up leading Iran next is ushering in not only a new governmental era, but also holds the hopes of the world for a move toward freedom and democracy. Those are some high stakes.
What to Follow
How much will these protests spread? Again, it’s hard to keep track of real-time numbers due to the continued internet outage, but these protests are showing no signs of slowing.
Speaking of the internet blackout, also keep an eye on how the regime responds to the growing protests. Will they keep the blackout going, and for how long?
Solidarity protests abroad. The U.N., most notably, remained silent until last night when it issued a bland statement calling on Iranian authorities to allow citizens to “exercise maximum restraint and to refrain from unnecessary or disproportionate use of force.” (Iranian authorities don’t appear to be listening.) What other groups will speak out on behalf of Iranians? As far as individuals, multiple countries have seen people come out in support of the Iranian people.
Story 2: Talk of Trump Taking Over Greenland
You may have heard or read about President Trump’s desire to “take over” Greenland. Although Trump first mentioned it last year, he began discussing it again publicly just days after U.S. troops forcefully removed Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro from power in a stunning operation.
In the latest iteration, Trump has discussed taking the country the “hard way” if necessary, angering Greenlanders and some Americans alike.
Context and Background
Let’s back up a bit. Currently Greenland is a semi-autonomous Danish territory, which means their leaders govern their day-to-day affairs and it has its own parliament and ruling bodies. But Greenland technically remains part of the Kingdom of Denmark, subject to their national defense, economic and foreign affairs policies.
Why would the U.S. want to annex Greenland?
The idea of the U.S. annexing Greenland has perplexed even Trump’s most fervent supporters, as “America First” has been one of his primary talking points on both the campaign trail and in office, and this feels to some, well, not that.
However, the logic behind the potential move, Trump supporters say, lies in the economic and strategic benefits America could see:
Limiting Rival Influence
Acquiring Greenland as a U.S. territory means more U.S. influence and power in a part of the world where multiple countries—namely Russia and China—want influence and power.
As President Trump explained at a recent meeting with oil executives: “If we don't do it, Russia or China will take over Greenland, and we're not going to have Russia or China as a neighbor.”
Also along that line of thought, acquiring Greenland could mean expanding American hard power in the Western Hemisphere. Should Greenland become a U.S. territory, there’s talk that even more military bases would be stationed there.
Access to Natural Resources
Greenland is also believed to have vast, untapped natural resources—rare earth elements used in “green” technology; minerals and metals; and of course, oil.
Easy Access to Sea and Shipping Routes
Greenland lies in the Arctic Circle, and climate change means new shipping routes have opened up there. These newly-clear pathways have multiple countries will be jockeying to use them. And whoever is in control of Greenland would control those routes.
Increasing U.S. Military Presence
What’s scarier for Russia and China than the U.S. military and defense system? Another U.S. military and defense station, even closer to them.
The geographic location of Greenland, between the U.S. and Russia, could be a deterrent for foreign aggression, and acquiring the country would also presumably open up the possibility to set up more military bases. Already the U.S. has a “space base” located on the island.
Just last year Denmark’s parliament approved a bill to allow more U.S. bases on Danish soil.
Part of the “America First” campaign
Even though it might sound counter-intuitive, some geopolitical experts say this is all part of President Trump’s “America First” initiative, which has the ultimate goal of dominating the Western Hemisphere.
How could it even happen?
So far discussions have centered around the U.S. “buying” Greenland, using diplomacy, or—the most unlikely of the scenarios—using military force to take over.
What are experts and leaders saying about this?
As with other foreign interventions that President Trump has headed up lately (Venezuela), this push isn’t without criticism.
At least one critical opinion piece said that while annexing Greenland would give them nonvoting representation in Congress, it would also be “wildly detrimental to American interests and influence.”
Another foreign policy expert says that U.S. expansion into Greenland would be moot, as, “the U.S. already has a considerable presence in Greenland, and the ability through various agreements, not least NATO, to assign more personnel and material.”
Yet other critics say this move would be an unwelcome return to old-school dominance tactics that violate international norms of sovereignty.
As for Greenland’s own prime minister, he said last April that Greenland, “will never, ever be a piece of property that can be bought by just anyone.”
It still remains unclear how NATO members would respond to a takeover move, but some European leaders have warned that it could have serious implications for military alliances.
Why should you care?
Like most of the international stories we’re following lately, this story forces us to consider the type of world that President Trump appears to be building, both through new policies and military moves. Greenland is just one more part of the President’s strategy to change the geopolitical landscape in favor of the United States.
Ultimately, “taking over” Greenland isn’t about acquiring more territory, but rather who holds the power in a rapidly-changing Arctic—a region vital for shipping and military strategy.
What happens will shape alliances and possibly re-write the rules on national sovereignty before our very eyes.
What to Follow
Foreign response: How will Denmark and Greenland respond, beyond statements they’ve already made? Will their leaders raise the issue with NATO and the European Union?
What will DC say? Will the Trump administration’s messaging shift? Will the discussion remain focused on annexing, or move toward discussions about building up more U.S. military infrastructure on Greenland instead?
Reaction from U.S. politicians: What will Congressional leaders say about this push?
A possible change in approach? Will the U.S. shift toward a soft power (economic partnerships, infrastructure development, scientific cooperation) push, rather than a hard power (military force) tactic?
Story 3: A Surge of ICE Agents in Minneapolis Following Deadly Shooting
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is sending hundreds more officers to Minnesota, just days after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent shot and killed a woman in Minneapolis, and thousands of protestors take to the streets.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said yesterday that the ICE officers will be deployed this week to bolster the safety of agents already on the ground. Around 2,000 agents have already been dispatched to Minneapolis in what DHS said is its largest operation ever.
Context and Background
These new deployments come in the wake of the shooting death of 37-year-old Renee Good, who died after an ICE agent, later identified as Jonathan Ross, shot her in an encounter
The encounter has sparked nationwide debate as to whether or not Good was killed in self-defense. Trump administration officials, including Secretary Noem, have defended Ross’ actions and say that Good attempted to run him over with her SUV. Good’s supporters use video footage to claim that she was not driving toward Ross and posed no threat to his life in driving from the scene.
In the meantime, more information is emerging about networks of an anti-ICE countermovement that sees protestors haranguing and recording agents as they carry out their work. Minneapolis officials say that’s why Good was at the scene of the ICE operation last week where she was killed.
Good’s death comes during a surge of federal immigration arrests, particularly in “blue” cities where ICE’s street level presence has increased. In response, so-called neighborhood watch groups have popped up in an effort to alert residents to federal agents’ presence. The heightened tensions that resulted from the combination of these two factors most certainly played a role in Good’s death, and will continue to fuel debate on not only the safety and legitimacy of the operations themselves, but the forces behind the protestors as well.
What to Follow
Investigations into Good’s death: Both state and federal officials will look into the circumstances surrounding her death, so expect preliminary information or reports on what they find. Footage recorded by the agent was already released; keep an eye on if other videos emerge as well.
Expansion of ICE activity: In addition to more agents being dispatched to Minneapolis, will DHS surge them in other cities as well?
Legal boundaries of “ICE watching:” Expect conversations about what constitutes peaceful protesting. How can citizens protest ICE activity without putting themselves, or others, in danger?
Federal-Local government tension: The mayor Minneapolis already said to ICE at a press conference, “Get the f*** out of [Minneapolis],” so don’t expect much kumbaya between local and federal agents as they figure this case out. How will these tensions fuel further issues, or will leaders find a way to come together to accomplish ICE’s mission without hurting or killing more citizens?
Political fallout: It’s almost inevitable that politicians will refer to this incident when campaigning for their side. Pay attention to how the storyline is warped to support either side, and be aware that it will definitely be used as political debate fuel in upcoming elections.
If objective, nuanced news makes you smile, can I ask you a small favor?
Please consider forwarding this newsletter to a friend who wants to be a little more informed, without losing their sanity.
Every Monday I drop into your inbox with three news stories—that’s it—to make you smarter, more informed, and more able to engage in conversation about what’s happening in the world.
If the mission of simple, unbiased news appeals to you, I’m grateful for a forward to a friend, a click on the heart icon below, or anything else.
Thanks so much for helping me to grow this community.
Good coverage. Now that's what I call great journalism!!