In Los Angeles' Little Persia, US strikes on Iran met with celebration
What's less agreed upon is whether American and Israeli forces should have launched strikes on nuclear and military facilities in Iran, including the dropping of 30,000-pound U.S. bunker-busting bombs ordered by President Donald Trump on Saturday.
Within this huge Iranian diaspora in western Los Angeles, the largest Persian community outside Iran, Iranian Jews interviewed by Reuters said they are all in on Israeli and U.S. bombing raids, and want to see more.
Iranian Muslims in the area - also called Little Tehran or Tehrangeles - were more ambivalent, with many suspicious of Israel and wary of America getting embroiled in another Middle Eastern conflict.
Most of the two dozen people who spoke to Reuters did not want their full names published or their pictures taken, such is their fear of the Islamic Republic led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. All still have relatives there.
Reza, a 38-year-old college professor who left Iran 15 years ago, says he received a call from an Iranian official last year from his sister's mobile phone. He was told that if he did not stop publishing anti-Islamic Republic posts on his social media accounts, his sister could be in danger.
"It's a very sensitive topic. I am definitely happy Israel and the U.S. are destroying their nuclear program. I don't trust the Iranian regime having access to nuclear technology," said Reza, an Iranian Muslim.
"But I'm also sad for my family there. The people are suffering. It's a very scary time. And I do not like the U.S. getting involved in another war."
Three blocks away, outside a Starbucks coffee shop, seven men, mostly Iranian Jews, were discussing the war between Israel and Iran, now in its second week, and the bombing of three nuclear sites by the U.S. on Saturday.
The world braced on Sunday for Iran's response after the U.S. joined Israel in the biggest Western military action against the Islamic Republic since its 1979 revolution.
Outside the Starbucks, the mood was celebratory.
"This regime should not exist anymore, they torture their own people, they put their own people in prison. These mullahs are causing problems all across the Middle East and the world," said Shawn, 72, a mortgage broker.
Iran has so far not followed through on its threats of retaliation against the United States and has said it will consider all possible responses. Iran says its nuclear ambitions are peaceful and its U.N. Ambassador has accused Israel and the U.S. of destroying diplomacy.
Sol, 58, who left Iran in 1983 and has relatives in Iran and Israel, said the group outside Starbucks had been celebrating since Israel began striking Iran earlier this month.
"Israel is doing a very good job. God Bless them," he said. "We want those mullahs out!"
Roozbeh, 48, a mechanical engineer who left Iran in 2007, said he was worried about his parents and two brothers still in Iran and had just spoken to them.
"They are in the north. Israel bombed it for the first time yesterday," he said. "I hope the Israeli military action will bring down the regime, of course."
Younger Iranian-Americans also expressed their hatred for the Islamic Republic - but were far more skeptical about Israeli and U.S. strikes on the country.
Raha, 33, was born in the U.S. Her parents fled Iran during the 1979 revolution, which led to the overthrow of the U.S.-backed government and the creation of the Islamic Republic.
Raha has visited relatives in Iran about 10 times. On one visit she says she had an encounter with the "morality police," because her hijab headdress had slipped.
She recalled the 2022 death of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Kurdish-Iranian who died in a hospital in Tehran, the Iranian capital, after being arrested for not wearing her hijab in accordance with the Islamic government's standards.
Raha said she and her friends celebrated when an Israeli strike killed the head of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps this month. "That's a good thing. We want them all down," Raha said. "I absolutely want to see the regime in Iran fall."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
18 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Anti-Trump protests make me embarrassed to be Scottish
During a previous visit to Scotland by Donald Trump, the late comedian Janey Godley caused a stir by holding up a placard describing the president as a c-word. To many this appeared vulgar and offensive, and just a little lacking in imagination. But to many within Scotland, this insult soared into the stratosphere of Wildean pithiness, revealing Godley's genius, courage and – this is Scotland, after all – her downright goodness as a human being. To many Scots, however, the knowledge that Godley's insult was being broadcast across the globe and would be seen by our American friends was a source of embarrassment. Name-calling? That's the apotheosis of political satire in Scotland? Really? Today there will be more protests at the start of the president's five-day visit to Scotland, which will take in his two golf courses here. If only there were a way of explaining to our American cousins that such protests are less about the president himself or his policies, or even about the contempt in which the protesters hold the US citizens who voted for him last year. They are about one thing and one thing only: the protesters themselves. The Trump visit is a public relations opportunity for the likes of Scottish Green MSPs and activists, as well as a hodgepodge of the usual people: the climate change, refugee rights, trans rights and, naturally, anti-Israel activists. Perhaps they imagine that their earnest sloganising and placard-waving will have some influence on the president himself – in which case, it's disturbing that they harbour such ignorance of the nature of their hated target. More likely, they probably believe that their antics will impress and attract their fellow Scots, although to what end who can tell? When the president has dusted off his golf clubs and set off home across the Atlantic, the chief aim of the protesters will have been achieved: they will feel good about themselves. They will still retain just a modicum of the righteous indignation that motivated them to rehearse, memorise and perform the weekend's radical slogans, but the feeling will be one of overwhelming self-satisfaction that they stuck it to The Man and – more importantly – that they were captured on video doing so. For the sane majority of Scots and their fellow Brits, the visit by an American president – any American president – is a valuable opportunity to forge a deeper friendship and to develop new trade, political and military ties. Having Trump could be particularly advantageous to the UK, given the uncertainty in the global economy over the US administration's threatened and actual tariff regime. Britain has managed so far to escape the worst of the policy's impacts and even secured a comprehensive US-UK trade deal. There is far more to be gained from treating the president with respect than with derision. But that's not how our domestic army of middle-class, virtue-signalling, keffiyeh-adorned protesters see things. Their need to be seen protesting Trump – and it is a need, not a preference – simply must be sated. During the president's first term, even the House of Commons surrendered to this performative self-indulgence, with the then Speaker, John Bercow, shredding his obligations to political neutrality and announcing that he would not authorise the use of Westminster Hall for Trump to address both houses of Parliament – even before such a request was made. The announcement had its intended effect, not so much in its rebuke to the president (even if he had been aware of the Speaker's snub) but in the thousands of Twitter users praising Bercow as 'progressive'. Consider this question: were this weekend's protesters unable to share memes and videos of their activities on social media, if the TV news cameras didn't cover their activities or invite them to explain their personal animosity towards the president, would they bother to turn out at all? If a protest happens and nobody notices, does it make a sound? Fortunately for the semi-skimmed oat milk latte crowd, such a scenario is unlikely. They will have their few seconds of notoriety on the TV news bulletins and across Twitter/X and Instagram. They will not seek to try to understand why a man like Donald Trump was elected in the first place, or why their preferred candidate was so humiliatingly rejected. It is enough for them to be angry – or appear to be angry – at the president's very presence in their country. But a plea to all my American friends: please don't assume that these protests represent the whole, or even a large minority, of Scotland. They do not. They're just embarrassing attention-seekers that we all must put up with in a modern democracy. Like toddlers, they'll eventually get tired of their own tantrums and have to be put to bed, leaving the grown-ups to have an adult conversation in their absence.
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Council order owner to repaint over Palestinian flag beach hut on iconic seafront because it does not adhere to 'standards'
A Labour-led council have ordered an owner to repaint over their Palestinian flag beach hut on an 'iconic' seafront, claiming that it fails to adhere to 'standards'. Brighton and Hove City Council have declared that Alison Leasley, who has had her beloved beach hut for six years, is in breach of her beach hut licence as strictly vertical stripes or a solid colour are permitted. The retired psychotherapist, who described the decision as 'pathetic', was initially told she had just three days to remove the design, though this was later extended to a week. Were she not to remove the flag, which the council say has received numerous complaints, the public body insisted they would do it themselves and then charge her for the work. In an email addressed to Ms Lesley, a member of the council said that the body have a 'very strict policy on the presentation of beach huts'. Defending their decision, they added that the Palestinian flag 'is likely to interfere with community cohesion', with the likelihood of causing 'distress and upset'. Speaking to The Argus, Ms Leasley described the decision as 'one-sided' and 'unfair', arguing that another beach hut along the popular stretch of seafront has been painted with a French flag for the last two years. She said: 'I told the council for every one person who has made a complaint I can find ten that would approve.' The 77-year-old insisted that the beach hut was painted in a bid to show support for those in Palestine amid the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict. Local councillor Birgit Miller, cabinet member for culture, heritage and tourism, told the Argus that the public body had asked Ms Lesley to repaint the beach hut 'as the current design doesn't adhere to the licence agreement and painting standards'. Adding that the beach huts along the seafront are an 'iconic feature' and should therefore be protected as such, Cllr Miller said: 'It's important licence holders comply with their agreements'. Members of the Hove Beach Hut Association, a local forum for residents who own their own residence along the beachfront, shared mixed responses regarding the council's decision. While one declared they could 'only hope' that Ms Lesley removed her license as a result of the controversial painting, another insisted that the 'fun police' should 'get a life', arguing that the decision was unjustified. In October 2023, Brighton and Hove Council announced controversial plans for a 10 per cent effective sales tax for beach hut owners in a bid to plug a £70million black hole in its budget. The fee, based on the sale price from April 2023, was proposed by councillors in lieu of raising the annual £503.60 licence fee and ownership transfer fee of £82 if they sell up. However, owners of the iconic huts insisted that the terms of the licences amounted to 'extortion' and accused the council of 'bullying' and 'coercive behaviour'. With huts selling for up to £35,000, the decision could mean that owners have to pay the council a massive £3,500. 'This is outrageous. It is nothing other than a stealth tax,' said Paula Ford, who has owned a beach hut for 30 years, 'It's a shocking move by the council and they should be ashamed of themselves. 'The huts don't belong to the council. They are privately owned by us, but we just site them on land owned by the council.' There are 459 beach huts on Hove seafront that are privately owned by residents in the seaside resort, with the annual cost of licences generating around £192,000 for the council. According the council, the value of these huts has risen to a range of between £25,000 and £35,000, depending on their location and condition. David and Susie Howells, who have owned their beach hut for 20 years, said: 'The beach huts on the promenade are a much-photographed attraction and beach hut owners all play our part as a community that adds value to the seafront experience for both residents and visitors to Brighton and Hove.' Serena Mitchell, who bought her hut in 2017, also described the proposals as a 'stealth tax'. She said: 'They use the word 'fee' as councils are not legally allowed to charge a tax on property sales. The Government can and do.' Ms Ford (pictured) said: 'This is outrageous. It is nothing other than a stealth tax. 'The huts don't belong to the council. They are privately owned by us, but we just site them on land owned by the council' Councillor Alan Robins, chair of the council's culture, heritage, sport, tourism and economic development committee, said: 'Currently the council is not benefitting in any way from the profit made on the sale of a beach hut when most of the value is due to its prime position on the seafront. 'If the transfer fee is introduced, then the additional revenue can be reinvested back into seafront services such as our lifeguards. 'It's an extremely challenging time for local government finances, and the potential income will go towards providing essential life-saving services while offering council land for hut owners to enjoy the seafront.'
The Independent
5 hours ago
- The Independent
It's time for the UK to recognise Palestine
Time and again, the UK's actions in relation to the Israel-Palestine conflict have come too little, too late. Keir Starmer has an opportunity to act now. Britain must follow France and recognise a state of Palestine while there is still a Palestine to recognise. The position of the United Kingdom has long been that the only acceptable settlement is the two-state solution. Yet we only recognise one of those states. The recognition of Palestine has been Labour policy since I was shadow foreign secretary. It was in the manifesto on which we were elected last year. And immediate recognition is supported by the majority of the Foreign Affairs Committee, which I chair, and which publishes a report into the Israel-Palestine conflict today. When I ask the government when it will happen, they tell me they will recognise at the moment of maximum impact. But we cannot wait forever for a perfect moment that may never come. I can think of many opportunities when recognition might have had a significant effect, had we taken that step. We cannot let another opportunity pass us by. On Monday, the long-awaited French-Saudi conference on the two-state solution will take place in New York. Ahead of it, President Macron has announced that he will recognise a Palestinian state in September. It is no secret that Macron has been pushing the UK government to recognise Palestine alongside the French. He told Parliament as much when he addressed us last week. He is right. A unified move by the signatories to the secret Sykes-Picot agreement which carved up the Middle East more than a century ago would demonstrate our sincere commitment to a two-state solution. The leaders' meeting at the UN in September offers that opportunity. Of course, the most urgent need is for an immediate ceasefire and for UN-administered aid to flood into Gaza. Recognition does not secure peace on its own. But it should be the start of a renewed commitment by Britain to engage with our allies, particularly Gulf and Arab states, to build a plan for a sustainable peace. It would signal that our engagement is sustained and sincere. And it would show the Israeli government that the UK is prepared to take the kind of decisive action promised in the Foreign Secretary's statement alongside 27 allies on Monday. That must include tough and direct action on violent extremist settlers and the companies who facilitate settlements. Their behaviour imperils the two-state solution by taking over the very land which should be Palestinian. My committee's report argues that the UK must extend sanctions against them and prevent the import of settlement goods. The natural reaction of the British public to the scenes of starvation and death in Gaza is to call on their politicians to do something. The challenge for politicians is to ensure that what they do makes a real difference. The recognition of Palestine as part of a renewed commitment by the UK to work with others to build a peace process would be just that. Britain has said it wants to work with France when it comes to the recognition of Palestine. Now that France has said it will recognise in September, is it not fair to expect the government to join them? I, my committee, and the British public will be watching with anticipation. Emily Thornberry is Labour MP for Islington South and Finsbury and chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee
