The Free Press

Iran is on fire. The regime has slaughtered protesters in the streets. It has cut internet access. It is daring the world to do something. And after more than two weeks of bloodshed, the question that raises—the essential question for outsiders looking in—is the most basic one: Is the Islamic Republic, this brutal system that has ruled Iran for 47 years, actually vulnerable? Can it be brought down?

This is not the kind of isolated flash protest that we’ve seen in the past. The scale is unprecedented: a major nationwide challenge to the regime that has brought out new constituencies that had not previously joined the protests. And the regime is responding in kind: with bullets and mass arrests.

The seriousness with which the regime is treating the threat is evident in the complete shutdowns of internet and phone connections to the outside world we saw over the past two weeks. These actions are not just meant to hide from outsiders what’s happening: the killings of thousands by regime enforcers. They’re also, and primarily, intended to stop Iranians themselves from coordinating with one another, thus making it more difficult to keep organizing new protests.

And the death toll. We don’t yet know the real number. We may never know. Multiple credible reports describe mass casualties on a staggering scale, from 12,000 to as high as 20,000, in just a few days. Israeli intelligence reportedly said a few days ago it believed the number had passed 5,000. Even the regime’s own officials actually admitted to 2,000 dead—which means it could easily be 10 times that. These numbers alone tell the story of the scale of the protests, of the rage, and of the regime’s panic.

The Islamic Republic survives not because it’s popular but because it’s built to survive. It has an ideological story that gives it an enormous advantage in moments like these, and a security apparatus specifically designed for domestic war against its own people. Indeed, it has failed at just about everything it has tried, or claimed to be trying, for 47 years: destroying Israel, delivering prosperity. Everything except the construction of an expansive and capable domestic architecture of oppression: the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the intelligence services, the paramilitary Basij Resistance Force, the police—the whole vast and overlapping architecture of coercion.

In my column last Monday, I wrote about how to make better New Year’s resolutions—ones that are less likely to flop, but that are also challenging enough to provide satisfaction. Why? Because accomplishing something with a degree of struggle is the way to realize joy. I gave the example of using GLP-1 drugs for weight loss as a bad resolution. Don’t get me wrong: These medications are a miracle, transformative for many people. But they take out the struggle—which is the point of making a resolution in the first place.

The column provoked quite a few comments. For example. . .

For your resolution to do more things you enjoy: listen to and do what Mrs. B says.

Amen to that!

But the responses also inspired for me another question: New Year’s resolutions aside, how much happiness do GLP-1s stimulate? And what about other relatively struggle-free ways to change your appearance, from plastic surgery to hair implants? Let’s have a look at the research.

1. GLP-1 Drugs

Most people who use this medication make the assumption that it will raise their well-being, at least in an indirect way, because they will look better or see health improvements. That’s a big assumption—and, as yet, it’s without much research to back it up.

Initial studies are somewhat mixed. Most research to date does suggest some positive well-being results from GLP-1 drugs, such as one review of Mendelian randomization studies (a statistical technique that allows researchers to establish causality without treatment-control experiments). They show that, on average, depression falls after people start the drugs, and their sense of well-being rises even beyond what the weight loss and health improvements would predict. In some rodent studies, researchers find that the drugs have antidepressant and anti-anxiety effects in the long term—though I question how one can tell when a rat is feeling depressed.

However, we find some conflicting evidence. One large 2024 study in Scientific Reports found that GLP-1 drugs led some patients to develop psychiatric conditions such as depression, anxiety, even suicidal behaviors. (For patients who already struggle with these maladies, GLP-1 drugs appear to increase their mental suffering.)

The bottom line is that the jury’s still out—and people using these drugs need to pay close attention to their mental health.

2. Plastic Surgery

As a general rule, cosmetic surgery has been found to raise well-being, at least in the beginning. The data on well-being reveal that people see the highest self-rated quality-of-life increases from breast augmentation, followed by rhinoplasty, liposuction, Botox, and dermal fillers. Breast augmentation improved well-being among the women who sought it for two reasons: lower self-consciousness and high self-confidence. However, longer-term studies show that the effects diminish over time, with 12 percent lower psychological well-being after three years.

3. Anabolic Steroids

Whereas most cosmetic surgery involves women, steroid use and testosterone supplementation are predominantly a male phenomenon. The research on this reveals two main patterns of outcome. First, hormone replacement under a physician’s direction (elevating unusually low testosterone) improves quality of life, by lowering depressive symptoms and raising energy levels. But steroid use (prescribed by the dude who hangs out over by the squat rack) to raise sex hormones to supraphysiological levels increases aggression and irritability, popularly known as “roid rage.” Elevated levels of depression and anxiety also tend to occur, despite the drugs’ clear success for their intended purpose (muscle strength and size).

In other words, the findings would appear to support the common contention that women’s typical cosmetic alterations raise well-being more than men’s ones do. This is consistent with the research on evolutionary psychology suggesting that aesthetic appearance is more important for female happiness, on average.

So far, I’ve written about all of these changes at a certain scholarly remove. None of them has been a part of my life. But the next one hits me more directly. . . .

4. Hair Transplants

I’m going to let you in on a secret from the Sacred Brotherhood of Bald Men: If we see a man our age with a full head of hair sent to jail for embezzlement, that feels cosmically just to us. We fight this schadenfreude internally and deny it to others, but it’s there—I’m sorry. Before you judge me too harshly, consider the words of scholars writing in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology: “Hair loss is associated with significant psychological distress and may exacerbate depression, anxiety, and social withdrawal.”

What is the answer? For some, hair transplants “can lead to improved self-esteem, confidence, and emotional well-being.” But not always. The scholars also note that for some men, mental health actually worsens after treatment. This certainly appears to be the case for men suffering from body dysmorphic disorder, a malady that might also account for some of the steroid use.

So there you have it, the happiness evidence on a few of the most popular body-aesthetic interventions. Nothing I’ve written here should be interpreted as a condemnation of these choices. I don’t judge, as I hope not to be judged. But I’d like to make one other point in closing. Whatever you do to your appearance—even adding hair [sob]—will not make you love yourself, if you don’t already do so. That requires work you do on the inside.

See you next week.

Love,

Cue Ball

The Pursuit of Happiness with Arthur Brooks will be back next week with a column on Monday. His newsletter returns next Friday. Sign up here to get both delivered straight to your inbox. And write to Arthur in the comments section with questions or suggestions on what he should cover next.

When people talk about totalitarianism, they think of gulags, George Orwell, secret police knocking on the door at night, and coercion, usually under threat of pain or death, to surrender one’s liberty.

But that’s not the only way to think about totalitarianism. When Aldous Huxley published Brave New World in 1932, he imagined a totalitarian dystopia based not on cruelty and pain, but on providing the masses with so much safety, comfort, and pleasure that they contentedly exist as slaves.

Huxley’s novel begins when one Mustapha Mond, who controls Western Europe for the global government, hears of one John the Savage, a white man raised on an Indian reservation in the American Southwest. Brought back to London, the Savage, whose mind was formed on the collected works of William Shakespeare, inexplicably refuses to join the joyful collective, which is like an endless Carnival Cruise, without the mass brawls.

The Controller, Mond, summons the Savage to an audience, not to abuse him, but to find out what on earth is wrong with the man. Who wouldn’t want peace, sex, entertainment, safety, equality, and all the benefits of a perfectly managed hedonistic society?

“Our civilization has chosen machinery, medicine, and happiness,” boasts Mond, in explaining why the authorities have to keep the Bible and other books offering a contrasting worldview locked away from view. Had there been social media, it too would have been banned, for the greater good of all in this technocratic, therapeutic, totalitarian order.

“Cool,” said my 12-year-old son as we were making our way to New York’s Metropolitan Opera on a sunny afternoon this past Sunday. He was reading about the show we were about to see on his phone. “You never told me Carmen was about ICE agents guarding a gun factory on the U.S.-Mexico border.”

I laughed, and told him he had it all wrong: When the curtain lifted, I promised, he’d be transported to Seville, to a public square thick with colors and drenched in light, to a world of music and beauty and pleasure. I gave him a brief rundown of the plot: Carmen, a carefree woman, seduces a naive soldier, Don José, and he in turn abandons the army, pursues Carmen with a mad passion, and ultimately kills her in a fit of jealous rage. Nietzsche himself, I added, launching into one of those little talks about German philosophy that seventh graders find so endearing, praised the show for being a “return to nature, health, cheerfulness, youth, virtue!” Who in their right mind would wish to risk all that only to repatriate Carmen in the far less charmed and charming climate of contemporary, contentious American politics?

Welcome back to America’s least funny news roundup. Tickets to the Free Press comedy show (with actually funny people) sold out fast, so for those writing to me: We will host more! Also, if you haven’t been following Arthur Brooks’ new column here called The Pursuit of Happiness, you really should. I love him. Lastly, thank you for all the slow cooker recipes—I’m working my way through. Happy to report that we made short ribs and they’re phenomenal.

→ No one’s popular anymore: I’m not popular, you’re not popular, neither party is popular. The Democrats have been handed Donald Trump—who spends his days shaking people down, flipping off factory workers, spinning meme coins, and embossing things in gold, like citizenships—and they still have no idea how to win over America. It’s a mystery. Democrats are still putting their political capital behind. . . wait for it. . . arguing that there are no biological differences between men and women in sports (Ketanji Brown Jackson putting up the good fight this week! Like a Japanese soldier who doesn’t know the war is over.) Here’s the latest from RealClearPolling:

Funny how even after every media company of polite society in America has spent 10 years telling people Republicans are devils, devils we say!, Americans still like Republicans more. Much to mull there. It’s almost as though the mainstream media has lost credibility? Like we’ve fractured into two completely separate information bubbles that no longer intersect at all and someone should do something about that? Ah, reporters are hitting me with brooms. Fine, fine, it is the American people who have lost credibility! From now on every story will be simple. Headline: Trump bad. Story: Trump bad. That will do it.

→ This is dark power: France delayed the G7 Summit—that noble gathering of the seven strongest world leaders, now in its 52nd year—because the White House is double-booked. They’re doing a birthday party for Trump around then. It’s cage fighting! MMA, guys. America is so powerful on the world stage right now that we can literally postpone the G7 Summit because it conflicts with a cage fight we wanted to plan that week. Désolée. Aw, don’t plan it around us. . . just do it without us. You don’t want to? Oh, okay! We’ll send some dates that work for us. How’s October looking?

Welcome back to Tough Love with Abigail Shrier, an advice column from The Free Press. Every Thursday, our contributing editor will address your conundrums, with no hesitation and no sugarcoating. This week, Abigail answers a question from Suzanne, who can’t decide whether to live near her beloved grandchildren or move across an ocean to “the place that allows my soul to sing.”

Dear Abigail,

I have lived a long, productive, happy life. After being a widow for some years, I got remarried four years ago, when I was 70, to a very special man. I feel I am in my last act. I may live to be really old, though I doubt it. Either way, I will soon be enfeebled to some degree, and not myself. Right now I’m still energetic, connected, engaged. I searched for what to do next, for fulfillment, to find meaning, to leave a mark. When my husband and I were last in Israel, it hit me. Took my breath away. I want to live in Jerusalem, as I did for a few years 50 years ago. I don’t want to never again live in Israel. But my conundrum: I have two daughters, and four grandchildren, aged between 6 and 12. They love me; I adore them. My daughters need me, and I need them. We don’t live far from one another and are together often. But I am never as alive as I am when I am in Israel, or as close to the meaning of life. My husband feels the same. What really is my legacy? If I move, I would come back often, for extended periods of two to three weeks. But it wouldn’t be the same. Should my last effort be to embed a lasting bond with my grandchildren, or should it be to be in the place that allows my soul to sing?

—Suzanne, 74, Baltimore

“War is back in vogue, and a zeal for war is spreading,” Pope Leo XIV warned in his first major address to the Vatican’s diplomatic corps last Friday. It’s hard to dispute his assessment.

In Venezuela, a U.S. operation that captured President Nicolás Maduro has sent shock waves through the hemisphere. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump is now declaring that “anything less” than U.S. control of Greenland would be “unacceptable.” In Iran, a deadly crackdown on nationwide protests has Washington threatening the possibility of direct military action. Sudan has been torn apart by nearly three years of civil war. And the conflict in Ukraine grinds on. Moscow has launched new strikes on Kyiv even as U.S.-led negotiations attempt to broker an end to the conflict.

All this instability and conflict makes now a good time to revisit the most acclaimed anti-war novel in American history: Catch-22.

In the latest episode of Old School, Elliot Ackerman—a Marine Corps veteran and former CIA special operations officer—sits down with host Shilo Brooks to unpack Joseph Heller’s classic satire, why it speaks so sharply to this moment, and how Americans have been shielded for the past few decades from the true costs of war. If you prefer to watch it on YouTube, click here.

Old School is The Free Press’s podcast about the great books that everyone should be reading. You can watch on YouTube or listen on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. And if you’re a paid subscriber to The Free Press, you can listen ad-free by connecting your subscription. Some recent episodes include Cornel West on Plato’s Republic, Fareed Zakaria on The Great Gatsby, and Ryan Holiday on The Moviegoer. Other books we’ve covered: Down and Out in Paris and London, The Leopard, A Conflict of Visions, and many more.

Why war is always absurd:

ELLIOT ACKERMAN: Catch-22 is about the circular and self-defeating nature of war. War itself is ultimately a catch-22. It is a system that contradicts itself. The comedian George Carlin put this most succinctly when he said that fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity. It just doesn’t make sense. The core of any civilization is this idea that “thou shall not kill.” For civilized people, that’s sort of the baseline. We don’t walk through the streets just slitting each other’s throat. When countries go to war, we suspend that rule. We engage in state-sanctioned violence in order to preserve our civilization. So it’s a self-contradicting action. It’s an absurd act.

SHILO BROOKS: The U.S. has just extricated Maduro from Venezuela. Do you think this book has any enduring lessons to teach us about a situation like the one we seem to have just gotten ourselves into?

EA: Absolutely. John Yossarian, the protagonist of the book, is a bombardier on a B-25 in World War II. He is fighting the Nazis, but he also feels like he’s fighting against the system in which he’s stuck. Every time he approaches the number of missions that he’ll need to fly in order to go home and survive the war, his commander increases the number of required missions. So he comes to believe that not only the Nazis are trying to kill him, but his own side is also trying to kill him.

Any time we go to war, it’s tough to have a North Star to understand what the war is about. Is the war in Venezuela about oil? Are we going to be invading Greenland, which seems completely absurd? Are we going to war with Colombia? The number of events that are washing over us, and as quickly as they are . . . sometimes you have to turn to stories that are rooted in this kind of postmodern absurdity to understand what’s going on in the world.

SB: Can you talk more about that absurdity? Joseph Heller, an extraordinary writer, is making a comedy out of something that’s very grave and very serious—namely war and men dying. And not just that, but the great moral cause of the particular war about which he’s writing: the Second World War, which was, more than any war in recent history, a spiritual war in some ways. What role does comedy have in helping us understand war, given that it’s a quite serious thing?

EA: Most of the time when I get to see my fellow veterans, usually the stories we’re telling are the funny ones. And they’re often funny stories that occur in the most tense situations because we needed the joke in that moment. World War II is probably seen as America’s most righteous war, our national Iliad, probably the least absurd of our wars, in that there were clear good guys and bad guys. But even in a war like World War II, those comedic and absurd strains continue to exist.

Why veterans get depressed:

EA: People sometimes ask me about PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) and what it’s like to come home. When you go to war, you are given this very clear sense of purpose.

You have a mission that’s relatively clear, whether you’re holding a mountaintop in Afghanistan or holding a few city blocks in Iraq. The tactical mission is clear, and you’re charged with accomplishing the mission alongside people who might become some of your very best friends.

It’s Thursday, January 15. This is The Front Page, your daily window into the world of The Free Press—and our take on the world at large. Today: Was Eric Adams’ cryptocurrency a scam? Why aren’t the Brits having babies? Why Catch-22 is the novel for this moment. Peter Savodnik talks to Vivek Ramaswamy. And much more.

But first: The cracks in the Trump coalition.

The split screen could hardly be starker: On the world stage, Donald Trump feels—and sometimes appears—omnipotent. The only thing that can stop him, he said in an interview with The New York Times this week, is “my own morality, my own mind.” (The biggest question weighing on that mind this week: whether to strike Iran.)

At home, the story is very different. It would be overstating things to call the president a lame duck, but he is weaker than you might expect, and the movement he created is cracking up.

Our first offering today is a deep dive by Michael Doran into the civil war that has broken out in the MAGA ranks, and a look at three characters who will shape the future of the movement: Elon Musk, Tucker Carlson, and J.D. Vance. This essay, first published by our friends at Tablet magazine, is an essential guide to the dynamics that will determine the future of the American right. Read it here:

Up next, Peter Savodnik talks to one of the figures who hopes to be a big part of the future of MAGA: former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. Now running for Ohio governor, Ramaswamy has recently taken aim at the “woke right” and fringe figures like Nick Fuentes. Now he must try and keep the unhappy Republican family together if he is to win what polls suggest will be a tight contest. He tells Peter why he thinks optimism is a winning message in the Rust Belt, and explains what it means to be a “Ramaswamy Republican.” Read Peter’s profile:

—The Editors

In Venezuela, a U.S. operation that captured President Nicolás Maduro has sent shock waves through the hemisphere. In Iran, a deadly crackdown on nationwide protests has Washington threatening the possibility of direct military action. All this instability and conflict makes it a good time to revisit the most acclaimed anti-war novel in American history: Catch-22. On the latest episode of Old School, Marine Corps veteran Elliot Ackerman unpacks Joseph Heller’s classic war satire, and why it speaks so sharply to this moment. Listen to his conversation with Shilo Brooks wherever you get your podcasts, or by clicking the play button below.

For the latest on Iran, listen to the latest episode of Conversations with Coleman. Niall Ferguson joins the show to help make sense of Iran’s wave of protests—and the unprecedented bloody crackdown of the last few days. Listen to Coleman and Niall in conversation below, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Tickets for the next Free Press live event go on sale this morning. On February 9 at the Comedy Cellar in New York City, Coleman Hughes will sit down with Michael Shermer—historian of science and author of Truth: What It Is, How to Find It & Why It Still Matters—for a live conversation. Click here for the full details, and to grab tickets to this intimate event before they sell out.

• Trump said Wednesday he has been told the killing has stopped in Iran. Earlier in the day, the U.S. military evacuated some personnel from the American air base in Qatar. The decision was described as precautionary and came shortly after Trump threatened to “take very strong action” against the Iranian regime if it executes any of its protesters.

• President Trump said on Wednesday that “anything less” than the U.S. taking control of Greenland is “unacceptable.” Trump said NATO would become “far more formidable and effective with Greenland in the hands of the UNITED STATES” in a post on Truth Social. Vice President J.D. Vance hosted the Danish foreign minister and a Greenlandic official at the White House later in the day.

• The FBI searched the home of Washington Post journalist Hannah Natanson on Wednesday morning, as part of an investigation into potentially leaked government documents. The agents seized several of her devices, but investigators say she is not the focus of the probe. Washington Post executive editor Matt Murray described the search as an “extraordinary, aggressive action” and “deeply concerning.”

• The UK is backtracking on a controversial policy requiring workers to register for a digital ID. The plan initially received enormous blowback, alleging violations of privacy.

• Michigan senator Elissa Slotkin is under investigation by the Trump administration for taking part in a viral video urging troops to disobey unlawful orders. The Department of Defense is also trying to demote Arizona senator Mark Kelly from his position as a retired Navy captain for his role in the video; Senator Kelly responded by suing the Defense Department on Monday.

• The Chinese government announced Wednesday that its trade surplus hit a record of nearly $1.2 trillion in 2025. The surge came on the back of a 5.5 percent increase in exports, despite President Trump’s tariffs.

• Saks Global, the high-profile department store company parent, has filed for bankruptcy. The move comes just a year after Saks agreed to a $2.7 billion merger with Neiman Marcus, designed to create a luxury super brand.

• Actor Matthew McConaughey is waging a trademark battle to prevent AI companies from using his likeness. Over the past several months, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has approved eight separate trademarks for McConaughey for clips of himself staring, smiling, and talking into the camera.

In Venezuela, a U.S. operation that captured President Nicolás Maduro has sent shock waves through the hemisphere. In Iran, a deadly crackdown on nationwide protests has Washington threatening the possibility of direct military action. Meanwhile, war rages on from Ukraine to Sudan. All this instability and conflict makes now a good time to revisit the m…

Iran is in crisis. The largest protests in years have brought millions into the streets and sparked a brutal crackdown by the regime. More than 12,000 people are reported to have been killed.

To understand what triggered the protests and why they matter so profoundly, I sat down with historian and Free Press contributor Niall Ferguson.

Niall and I discuss…