Iranians at home divided between hope for regime change and war fears
Iranians at Home Divided Between Hope for Regime Change and War Fears
Iranians at home divided between hope – In the wake of recent tensions, Iranians remain split in their perspectives on the ongoing conflict, reflecting a complex interplay of aspirations and anxieties. Two months after the initial strikes by the U.S. and Israel, which targeted Iran on February 28, many who once viewed military action as a catalyst for change now find themselves in a state of uncertainty. The strikes came amid a backdrop of prolonged discontent, as citizens had endured years of governance under the Islamic Republic’s clerical system, compounded by the trauma of January’s protests, during which security forces reportedly killed thousands of demonstrators. For some, the bombardment seemed inevitable, a final push to topple the regime. Yet, as the ceasefire agreement emerges, a new wave of doubt has taken hold, leaving the population questioning whether the violence was truly the answer.
The Resilience of the Regime
Despite the initial optimism, the Islamic Republic has shown remarkable resilience. The strikes, though disruptive, have not dismantled the core of the government. This has led to a shift in sentiment among some citizens, who now ponder whether the war has merely intensified their struggles rather than resolved them. Euronews conducted interviews across multiple cities, including Tehran, Karaj, Kerman, Tabriz, and Shahroud, to capture the diverse voices of Iranians. Each participant offered a unique lens into their experiences, highlighting the contradictions between hope and fear that define their current reality.
Interviewees described a landscape shaped by strict media controls and limited access to information. The Iranian government has imposed stringent internet regulations, silenced domestic outlets, and detained journalists documenting the conflict and protests. As a result, most respondents rely on Persian-language satellite channels from abroad, which the authorities classify as adversarial, alongside fragmented social media updates and informal conversations. These sources, though vital, are often filtered, leaving room for interpretation and debate.
The Ambiguity of Casualty Numbers
The toll of January’s protests remains a contentious topic, with varying estimates of the number of casualties. Some interviewees cited figures as high as 40,000 deaths, a number previously shared with Euronews by insiders in the country. However, international reports typically offer lower but still incomplete tallies, and the regime has yet to release comprehensive data. This discrepancy fuels uncertainty, with many questioning whether the strikes were sufficient to shift power dynamics or if they merely escalated the crisis.
Among those interviewed, a few expressed continued support for the military action. Mehdi, a 44-year-old publisher in Tehran, asserted that the strikes were necessary. “The Islamic Republic had placed immense pressure on the Iranian people,” he explained. “The January protests were the last effort of the populace, but the regime’s leaders had sealed off all avenues for reform. The attack, while uncertain in its long-term impact, brought about some change at the top.” He emphasized that the strikes, though risky, were better than stagnation. “If a full naval blockade is imposed, the pressure on the people will be even greater,” he argued. “Thus, I prefer war to a ceasefire that leaves us in economic limbo.”
“The Islamic Republic had put enormous pressure on the people of Iran and, in response, people used the last of their strength in last year’s January protests,” said Mehdi. “After that it became clear that apart from external pressure there was no way to hurt the Islamic Republic. The regime’s leaders had completely blocked any path to change. The military attack did at least bring about some change at the top.”
Others, like Mohammad, a 39-year-old mountaineer, acknowledged the war’s limitations. “The strikes didn’t go far enough, and they didn’t achieve the expected result,” he admitted. “Still, they were better than nothing. I believe the attack partly avenged those killed in the protests, holding the Leader and senior officials accountable.” When asked about the possibility of another war, he said, “I want this regime gone, either by the people or through force. But if revolution is impossible, then war must be guaranteed to bring it down. Otherwise, people may turn against it.”
Support and Skepticism Amid Uncertainty
Mohsen, a 37-year-old shop owner in Karaj, reflected the growing sentiment that 70% of Iranians support the war. “This war was about 40% useful,” he stated. “The rest must be done by the people. I want war again, but with better planning.” His words underscore the belief that while the conflict has stirred some change, more is needed to sustain momentum. The war, he argued, is a tool for the people to push against the regime, but its success hinges on strategic execution.
Yet, not all initial supporters remain steadfast. Yeganeh, a 46-year-old resident of Tehran, initially backed the strikes but now expresses reservations. “I was pro-war, but I didn’t think it would be so intense,” she said. “Many people were killed, and I wonder if this eliminated the regime’s leaders effectively. In fact, I think their removal strengthened the Islamic Republic, as supporters began to view them as almost invincible.” Her perspective highlights how the war’s outcomes may have backfired, reinforcing the regime’s grip rather than loosening it.
“I think eliminating the (Supreme) Leader (Ali Khamenei) did not work out well for Iran’s future, because his son replaced him. Nothing really changed,” Yeganeh explained.
Fatemeh, a 50-year-old driver in Kerman, offered a more pragmatic view. She noted that the rising costs of living over the past year had made her believe war could force change. “We always owed tomorrow’s money to today,” she said. “But now, the war no longer brings that hope. The economic strain is still there, and the regime continues to hold power.” Her words reveal a growing disillusionment, as the benefits of the conflict fail to materialize for the average citizen.
Leila, a 43-year-old translator in Tehran, took a contrasting stance. From the beginning, she opposed the strikes, citing her family’s reformist leanings as a key factor. “An attack on Iranian soil has always been my red line,” she told Euronews. “My family and close friends are reformists, and they opposed the war. For me, war is a threat to the stability we’ve fought to maintain.” Her perspective reflects a broader fear that the conflict could destabilize the country further, especially if it leads to prolonged economic hardship or political upheaval.
As the situation evolves, Iranians grapple with the duality of their experience. The war, once seen as a beacon of change, now looms as a source of uncertainty. For some, it has reignited hope for a new era, while for others, it has deepened concerns about the future. With the regime still in place and the ceasefire agreement in place, the question remains: will this conflict serve as a turning point, or merely a test of resilience? The answers lie in the voices of those who have been affected, their stories revealing the fragility of a system that has endured for decades yet remains under siege from within and without.
The Road Ahead
As the war continues to shape daily life, Iranians await clarity on its long-term impact. The strikes have exposed vulnerabilities in the regime, but they have also demonstrated its ability to adapt and endure. For those who once saw military intervention as a path to transformation, the lack of clear outcomes has sparked new debates. Is the war a necessary evil, or a misguided gamble? These questions, echoing through homes and streets, underscore the ongoing struggle for change in a nation where hope and fear remain intertwined.
The interviewees’ varied opinions illustrate the complexity of the situation. While some see the conflict as a stepping stone toward revolution, others fear it will deepen divisions. The regime’s ability to maintain control, despite the initial shock of the strikes, has left many questioning whether the path to change is truly open. As the war persists, the balance between hope and fear will likely define the next chapter of Iran’s evolving narrative.
