[Unicironic]

It's disheartening to hear people talk about this in terms of won and lost. Is that how you think of these events? I think of them in terms of sadness and horror. The US threatened to obliterate a country and people, because gas was getting a little expensive. If winning and losing is the way you are framing this, instead of thinking about the humans that these actions affect, then we all have lost.

[RiverStone]

That doesn’t align with the perspective of actual Iranians I know.

There are news reports of Iranian expats and opponents within Iranian who are disappointed with the ceasefire. They wanted trump to go further and destroy the regime.

That aligns with conversations I’ve had with Iranians friends in the US and family members within Iran who want the regime destroyed so there is a chance of removing the Islamic theocracy that governs the country currently.

[tdb7893]

My general impression is many people want the regime destroyed, which seems clear from talking to people but also just all the protests. I haven't asked but I'm skeptical they are for things like attacking of every bridge, railroad, and power plant (which are important civilian infrastructure). The threat was specifically that their "whole civilization will die tonight"

[RiverStone]

I will tell you exactly what my Iranian wife said when I asked her about people congregating on the bridges after Trump said he’ll bomb them: she said (paraphrasing) “bomb them, they’re all regime supporters”.

The country is basically on the verge of civil war. The reason it’s not is because the anti-regime forces are disorganized with no clear leader, have no weapons, and rely on internet to organize.

[jamaliki]

With all due respect to you and your Iranian wife, just because someone has these views, does not mean that it represents the majority of the people of Iran. I am also Iranian and find support for war crimes, even if you disagree politically with the victims, to be horrendous.

[RiverStone]

That’s fair! I would love to hear your thoughts as an Iranian.

My only goal has been to surface conversations I’ve had with actual Iranians. I think that’s been missing from these Internet conversations, and I think it’s really helpful that people know what actual Iranians think.

Otherwise, you fall into the funny situation like what happened with Maduro, where Internet commentators were upset, while ordinary Venezuelans (and expats) were celebrating.

[dbdr]

> “bomb them, they’re all regime supporters”

Even those regime supporters are civilians. This is literally advocating for a war crime.

[grumple]

War crimes as a concept was invented by the current US hegemony to punish others, not to be bound by.

I think about it this way: would I have had any problem with the allies bombing Nazi rallies, even though they were mostly civilians? My answer is absolutely not. I feel the same way when I see pro-Islamic regime or pro-Hezbollah rallies. In fact, I think the limited repercussions for these extremist civilians - and their very tangible support for the regimes - is what keeps these movements alive and powerful. Cost to civilizations - military and civilian alike - is what ends wars.

[Arodex]

We agreed on the concept of war crimes after the horrors of WWII, so that it wouldn't happen again.

If you think bombing them is ok, then bombing you (or e.g. Trump supporters - you know, the ones who tried to throw the 2020 election) is ok too.

It cuts both ways.

[archagon]

I gotta say, that's really fucked up. Like, I'm Russian, I hate what Russia is doing, I think support for Putin in Russia is far higher than it has any right to be, but I'd never casually throw out a "bomb them all, they're all complicit." I think people with these sorts of opinions need therapy.

[throwawayheui57]

The other side (regime) publicly state “execute them all” and the response is “bomb them all”. To be clear, I’m not agreeing with the sentiments and agree that bombing the infrastructure is awful, just stating my observation of the state media vs opposition voices.

[gryzzly]

even Putin’s FSB with all its arbitrary arrests and torture in jail is very very far away from public lashing and hangings, from using actual children in real fighting (beyond kindergartens dressed as tanks which is disgusting but different than sending kids to demine fields or be used as human shields). The scale of torture and jailing is also different with Iran probably being closer to Stalin’s 1937.

[RiverStone]

I think that makes sense.

My impression is that Iran is much closer to a civil war than Russia is. It’s very polarized.

You have to put yourself in the mindset of someone against the regime. They feel that their country was hijacked by an islamic theocracy.

This is a regime that forces little girls to cover their body. Dancing and singing in public is illegal. Protesters are hanged.

My wife was sent home from school as a kid because her headband didn’t properly cover her forehead. At the age of 30 my wife still has trouble wearing shorts because she is self-conscious about showing her legs.

This is the kind of mental trauma that women have to recover from after leaving Iran. And I’ve only skimmed the surface.

There is zero sympathy from the anti-regime side for those who support the theocracy.

[gwd]

> At the age of 30 my wife still has trouble wearing shorts because she is self-conscious about showing her legs.

Just as an extra data point: I (a man) still feel weird about going running with a tank-top, because nearly 3 decades ago at a gym in Turkey I was politely asked to cover my shoulders.

I'm sure she and other Iranians have endured far far worse; my only point is that "Is uncomfortable showing skin" isn't necessarily evidence of that, as it doesn't necessarily take much to trigger.

[tdb7893]

Sure but that response about the people is entirely ignoring the vastly larger issue of does she (or, more importantly, people actually in Iran) want every single power plant bombed because that is what the threat was (also all bridges and some railroads). This is talking about the country being without power and stable food or water infrastructure for the foreseeable future and a lot of normal people dying (not particularly regime supporters)

[RiverStone]

My impression is that people don’t take Trump‘s words literally. Trump often exaggerates and plays word games. If you take every statement from Trump literally you’re going to be constantly triggered.

But even so, I think the response you’ll get from most anti-regime Iranians is “go for it, if it may let us get our country back”.

Iranians who wants the regime overthrown are very conflicted right now. They see their country being destroyed, but they also hate the regime and want a revolution.

They literally feel that their country was hijacked by an Islamic theocracy. They want that destroyed, so they’re thankful that Trump is attacking it.

How far should Trump go? I just saw news reports that Iranian expats and anti-regime Iranians were disappointed with the cease-fire. That aligns with the initial reaction from my family and the Iranian expats that I know.

So it’s a complicated answer… Do Iranians want all their infrastructure destroyed? If it would guarantee the regime was defeated I think most would say yes.

[amritananda]

I have never seen any diaspora have more contempt for their own people than Iranians. Thankfully more recent diaspora in the US are both more level-headed and diverse (coming not just from Tehran and a few other major cities but many other places and ethnic groups). I know an Azeri Iranian who was nothing but contempt for the regime (especially after thousands of protesters were murdered) but is horrified by what the US/Israel has been doing.

Diaspora communities are never representative of their home country. This is something I know from my own community, since selection bias leads to a very particular (and privileged) set of people with the means to emigrate, almost universally from a single ethnic group that is less than 11% of the total population. Perhaps you should consider whether the Iranians you know are representative of the Iranian population as a whole.

[joejohnson]

It's a good thing the people of Iran are not represented by these diaspora Iranians then

[pydry]

This is what a lot of diaspora are like when a country has had a western friendly puppet regime overthrown.

The people who left tend were often in a privileged position under the previous regime and the bitterness at having their privilege revoked often echoes through the generations.

They might feign concern for human rights when the regime they hate is violating them (i saw a lot of that when the alleged killing of tens of thousands of protestors) but it's the bitterness of lost privilege which truly drives them.

Ive seen it with Cubans, Venezuelans, Angolans, even the odd Russian.

[RiverStone]

I’m just giving my personal experience as a comparison.

I have not met a single Iranian expat who was in a privileged position. All the Iranian expats I know are in their 20s and 30s and were just very lucky to get a visa, many in the Obama years. I suppose there were some changes during Obama that allowed more Iranians to immigrate?

For my wife, her family is actually very anti-monarchist. Exactly because of the feeling that there were privileged and unprivileged class during the Shah monarchy.

My wife grew up middle/lower middle class in Tehran and did not have any privileges in life. She was lucky to get a visa to the US, worked 2 jobs + odd jobs all through college to afford it. Constantly scrounging and networking to survive.

That’s why I love first generation immigrants. I think they’re the hardest working, most resilient people you’ll ever meet.

[samrus]

Your wife doesnt live in iran im assuming? She wont risk her child being killed in preschool by a tomahawk, or having to live without electricity or transportation or drinking water because trump bombed it?

As someone from and in a thirdworld country, these expats can be even more arrogant and psychopathic than the imperialists they live under

[RiverStone]

My in-laws all live in Iran. My wife has many aunts, uncles, and cousins. I don’t even know how many people - it’s probably 20 to 30 people at least. All in Tehran.

My mother-in-law is the most anti-regime person I’ve met.

[hermannj314]

I have friends in the US that want the US government destroyed, there are people in the southern US that think the south won the civil war. Who cares?

Every government in all of human history has had its detractors and supporters, more detractors probably exist in expatriated communities, their existence does not really prove anything.

[dionian]

the No Kings movement doesnt seem to care about Ayatollahs

[arbitrary_name]

the no kings movement draws a line between no kings in the USA, and leaving other countries to pursue the same.

didn't Donald Trump campaign on no more foreign wars? doesn't America First mean not starting some forever war?

and if there is a good case for intervention: then make it! what are the objectives? Regime change? we killed most of their leadership, and they are still running the show. We killed Osama... and then fled Afghanistan decades later. why is there such a short memory in this case? these dudes HATE US: their recruiting propaganda gets more effective with every bomb we drop on them.

and if regime change is so important, than surely we will invade North Korea next right? and Russia? what about them? how about Venezuela? ohhh, yeah we left the regime in place, with no change for the people living under it.

perhaps was controlling oil the key objective? well... we stopped sanctioning the Iranian regime, and they are still in a position to stop traffic in Hormuz: the current terms they are asking gives them more control over the strait, rather than less?

so what the hell is our objective? can we just admit that we have no idea what we're doing, because we have no strategy?

Be an apologist for something that isn't truly riddled with internal inconsistency.

[RiverStone]

I’m not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that anti-regime Iranians are a minority?

I’m not sure if we have good statistics on this. So everyone may have a different perspective.

All I can say is this: I’m married to an Iranian woman, and through her I’ve met many Iranian expats, and I’ve talked to her family members within Iran.

I think you’ll find that Iranian expats are pretty unanimously against the regime. That’s millions of Iranians. My in-laws who lives in Tehran are anti-regime, along with every single person on my wife’s side of the family: aunts, uncles, cousins. Everybody.

Thousands of protesters were killed opposing the regime. And that’s just the latest protest.

This is a regime that will kill women who don’t cover their hair correctly. Dancing and singing in the street is illegal.

Don’t be concerned on behalf of the regime. This is a just war supported by Iranians. You are on the right side of history to kill people who hang protestors and force little girls to cover every part of their body.

[CapricornNoble]

>That’s millions of Iranians. My in-laws who lives in Tehran are anti-regime, along with every single person on my wife’s side of the family: aunts, uncles, cousins. Everybody.

How do you square this with the absolutely massive pro-government rallies that we've seen all across Iran for the entire duration of the conflict? Millions of Iranians opposed to the regime, in a country of 90 million+, might still be a fringe minority.

If you asked some American expat their thoughts on MAGA, and they responded "China should bomb MAGA rallies so we can be free from the Republican party, my whole family in the US agrees".....that person would be considered a fringe lunatic, even if Trump's regime has record-low approval like it does now (and rightly deserves, I hope he is impeached and jailed).

[RiverStone]

We have limited data on this. There have been surveys, but survey data isn’t always very accurate.

Here was one survey that showed 81% disapproval of the Islamic Republic: https://gamaan.org/2023/02/04/protests_survey/

In a country of 90 million, if the regime has 20% supporters, that’s 18 million supporters.

Tehran population is 9 million, 20% of that is 1.8 million.

So it’s easy to understand why you might see videos of hundreds or thousands of regime supporters in the streets. That doesn’t mean they’re the majority.

[krainboltgreene]

Hey man, 60% of americans disapprove of the current government, that doesn't mean they want to nuke Washington DC.

[CapricornNoble]

Mint Press News has a good article about why Gamaan's methodology is unsound:

https://www.mintpressnews.com/gamaan-iran-polling-regime-cha...

[mlrtime]

I trust the people who are close to this more than what you hear on the news. My guess is 90%+ of the readers here know nothing of Iranians except what they read or hear on the news.

How many of you have been to Iran, have family members there, etc? I'm guessing very few.

[klustregrif]

> that anti-regime Iranians are a minority?

A majority of Americans want Donald Trump removed https://www.newsweek.com/majority-americans-want-trump-compl...

And a significant portion of the opposition wish he was dead.

It’s not about “minority vs majority” it’s the very biased phrasing of “we should bomb Iran because people want regime change” Imagine if Iran was bombing USA because the majority of Americans want regime change.

[samrus]

Those people didnt lose faith in the US after it bombed a preschool? At one point you have to wonder if this is good versus evil or evil versus evil

[RiverStone]

I will respond to your comment honestly. I have literally talked about this topic with actual Iranians.

The Iranians I’ve spoken to feel that the ends will justify the means.

They believe that people will die either way, protesters are dying right now. So if they can destroy the regime, then it will be worth it.

[Xixi]

I understand the desire to end that murderous regime. If I were Iranian, I'd want to see it ended too. But do they really think bombs will achieve that? More importantly, would more bombing actually bring the regime down?

Regimes rarely fall because civilians are reduced to searching for food and water. Destroying Iran's infrastructure would be more likely to produce desperation and disorder than revolt. It would hurt the weakest most, not those closest to the regime and best positioned to shield themselves from scarcity.

If outsiders want to help bring the regime down, supporting opposition forces would at least make more sense than bombing civilians into misery.

This is where not betraying the Kurds (several times) would have come in handy...

[RiverStone]

I don’t think civilians are being bombed into misery. My in-laws live in Tehran.

During the entire war, life goes on. The bakeries are open. They go about their life. My in-laws were driving back-and-forth across the city throughout the entire war. They recently bought a fridge.

They were seeing bombs and smoke from the city, sure. But it’s like living in uptown Manhattan, and seeing smoke come from the financial district. It doesn’t really affect your life, although it may be scary.

Only after a month of war did a bomb finally go off in their neighborhood. The shockwave broke the windows in their house. But the Red Crescent was in the neighborhood to support.

I agree with you that arming the opposition is probably the best move. All I can say is that whatever we’ve been doing the last 40+ years has accomplished nothing. Anti-regime Iranians want action.

[samrus]

This feels out of touch. Your in laws might be privilaged enough to not suffer, but they arent the only people in the country. There are people suffering from this, even if you onky jsut count the 160 girls who were murdered. When we have confirmed civilian deaths its a bit messed up for you to say "the bakeries are open and my in laws only had a window break, so it must be fine to keep bombing to change the regime"

[samrus]

Is this iranians in iran or the diaspora? If its people in iran then theyre walking the walk which is admirable. If its the diaspora then theyre psychopaths for sacrificing innocents for government change in a country they dont live in

[blitzar]

I have a serious problem with calling 100+ schoolgirls who - at best - got instantly dismembered by a bomb and didnt suffer (too much) and at worst were crushed to death or bled out from shrapnel wounds "evil"

[samrus]

I was referring to the US government verus the Iranian government. People think its good v evil but thay bombing and the double tapping shows it might be evil v evil

Obviously no one is calling the victims evil. You have to suspect thats a misinterpretation if thats what you get from a comment

[citrin_ru]

> They wanted trump to go further and destroy the regime.

It would require a large scale ground operation which is off the table. A few more weeks of air strikes would not have destroyed the regime anyway but a few more weeks of asymmetric strikes (when Iran strikes its neighbors because it can do little about the US/Israel) would have destroyed gulf oil infrastructure inflicting lasting economic pain on the whole world.

[frollogaston]

That's what I hear, but it seems like pure desperation. The reality is, Israel calls the shots here, and they aren't interested in a regime change that would strengthen Iran in the long term. They weren't happy with Pahlavi either.

[ruszki]

I’ve never seen an example when foreign news really reported what people think on the ground. Especially because people on the ground usually lie. For example in Hungary, the voters of the current “opposition” prime minister candidate would tell you that they vote for him because they want democracy. Yet, they haven’t cared about that for more than a decade. Even when the real reason: inflation was obvious that it would be enormous after the election in 2022, before the previous election. The same with the US, news across the pond doesn’t explain why people vote for Trump, I had to go to the US several times to figure that out.

[frollogaston]

They really don't know with Iran. It's illegal to protest the government there, and at the same time US and UK propaganda says everyone there wants to overthrow their govt.

[panick21_]

Destroying infrastructure and making live hell for normal people does not remove the regime. When will people learn that air-wars don't magically change governments?

Also, the Iranians you likely hear, are not representative. I don't think most people who depend on energy and water don't want that infrastructure destroyed.

[littlestymaar]

> There are news reports of Iranian expats and opponents within Iranian who are disappointed with the ceasefire. They wanted trump to go further and destroy the regime.

That's the diaspora's luxury. They don't have to endure the pain of the conflict or sanctions, and they always end up being the biggest hardliners for that reason.

[ebbi]

Was one of them BBC, who quoted one Iranian resident as saying they were ok with the US nuking Iran, and then quietly removing that bit from the quotes with no note that the article was edited?

[aaa_aaa]

Those news reports must be so trustworthy (!). They drunk the kool aid and propaganda just like Iranians of the opposite idea. But the difference is your Iranian friends probably never lived in a day in Iran.

[RiverStone]

Every Iranian I know is either a first generation immigrant to the US, or they live in Iran.

All my in-laws live in Tehran. They’re all anti-regime.

[scythe]

> There are news reports of Iranian expats and opponents within Iranian who are disappointed with the ceasefire. They wanted trump to go further and destroy the regime.

Most of them realized their mistake:

https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2026/04/01/...

Iranians hoping that war and death will save them are chasing a gruesome mirage. The US has successfully liberated exactly one country by regime change since 1945: Panama in 1989. Every other intervention has either supported a rebellion (secession) instead of a revolution, or it has ended in failure (Afghanistan, Vietnam, Somalia) or a prolonged civil war (Iraq, Libya, Yemen). Anyone hoping for such a fate to befall their own country is morally compromised.

[RiverStone]

Looks like an interesting article, but it’s paywalled. Would love to read it. Do you have a different link or can you summarize it?

From my conversations with Iranians, they know regime change is a long shot. But what are they to do?

Anti-regime Iranians literally feel like that their country was hijacked by an Islamic theocracy. 40+ years of status quo has done nothing to change that.

So yes, they enjoy seeing the regime being bombed. Do they really expect a revolution? Maybe the tiniest sliver of hope in their heart believes in it. But that’s better than nothing.

[frm88]

Trita Parsi recently stated in an interview that he has data showing the support for regime change among the Iranian diaspora has significantly increased from 5% to around 30% but only a minority of them accept the 'at all costs' premise: https://youtu.be/dUyJubRB-ek?si=9wl8pc3sEgTrDlql

[hack4278]

Calling Iranians who are against their current government “morally compromised” is real reprehensible for someone sitting in an armchair. Hoping foreign power can help overthrow the domestic lord is nothing new. That’s literally how the U.S. gained its independence with French military assistance.

And to your point, US interventions saved South Korea, Kuwait, Grenada, Bosnia, in addition to Panama. The legacy of Vietnam is complicated with the country rejecting communism, becoming capitalistic, and embracing the U.S. in recent years. This is in stark contrast to countries like North Korea. We don’t know how Iraq and Venezuela will turn out in the current timeline either.

Even more problematic though, is the fact that many of the US interventions happened in countries at the brink of free fall. These are failed states who are more likely to experience turmoils with or without the U.S.. Yes, civil wars can be worse than dictatorship. But that’s one of many possible outcomes. Avoiding all changes due to the fear of the worst potential outcome is weirdly privileged view. Kurds in Iraq can attest to this. Iraq has become much better for them nowadays because the Saddam era was pure hell. They were desperate and any alternative was thought to be better.

However, I don’t think intervention in Iran necessarily serves the US interest to begin with. So sure, I agree with you that the U.S. really shouldn’t waste more time in Iran.

[scythe]

>Calling Iranians who are against their current government “morally compromised” is real reprehensible for someone sitting in an armchair.

What I said was that anyone who wants their country to meet the fate of other countries the US has attempted to regime change is morally compromised. Simply hoping that the Islamic regime will go away is completely rational. Knowing that it will definitely fail and wanting to try it anyway is insanity.

And the diaspora fools cheering for more bombs and destruction are also in armchairs. They have no sympathy from me.

>Hoping foreign power can help overthrow the domestic lord is nothing new. That’s literally how the U.S. gained its independence with French military assistance.

Not regime change, a rebellion.

>And to your point, US interventions saved South Korea, Kuwait, Grenada, Bosnia, in addition to Panama.

South Korea was a response to invasion, Kuwait was a response to invasion, Grenada was a coup (response to a coup — edge case because the end state was much easier to define and also the country is minuscule), Bosnia was a rebellion. None of these are regime change.

>Kurds in Iraq can attest to this.

Also a rebellion. You might want to recheck the criteria.

>We don’t know how Iraq and Venezuela will turn out in the current timeline either.

23 years of civil war is too many. You can't just say "well eventually it worked out", that could justify anything. Other dictatorships have ended faster without violence. Venezuela was not a real regime change war because a deal was made with the VP before the invasion and also the Bolivarians are still in power.

[benterix]

> There are news reports of Iranian expats and opponents within Iranian who are disappointed with the ceasefire. They wanted trump to go further and destroy the regime.

And how he would do that, exactly?

[RiverStone]

Good question. From the conversations that I’ve had with Iranians, it’s unclear. The regime is too embedded. There’s no easy answer. Killing Mojtaba would be a good start.

Anti-regime Iranians are basically holding onto any sliver of hope that they can regain their country.

Of course, it’s all very unlikely, but I can’t help sympathizing with them. I think their cause is just. I think a non-theocratic Iran that could rejoin the global economy is a dream worth fighting for.

[simonh]

Wasn't killing his father a good start? If it wasn't, why would killing him make a significant difference?

I'd love to see a democratic Iran, but this was was utterly pointless and counterproductive.

[RiverStone]

It was a great start. Iranians celebrated his death, which made me happy.

I think one idea is that if you can kill enough regime leaders, perhaps a moderate leader may emerge?

Or perhaps there may be a military coup? Which may be a lesser of two evils?

The Iranians I’ve spoken to don’t feel like it was counterproductive. They actually feel like Trump has done more than any other president to damage the regime.

What’s the alternative? More economic sanctions? The status quo of the last 40+ years has accomplished nothing.

Anti-regime Iranians want action. They want us to make a move. We killed a lot of regime leaders and destroyed their military capability. That’s something. Now we have to see how that chess move played out.

[yodsanklai]

> They wanted trump to go further and destroy the regime.

Did they also want Trump to destroy the whole civilization and have the country back to stone age like he claimed he would do?

[WarmWash]

Don't know why this is downvoted, people must forget that the weeks leading up the war, Iran was pulling the plug on the internet and shooting regime protestors in the street.

It seems Trump and Israel expected an internal revolution once the bombing started, but it doesn't seem that manifested.

[NalNezumi]

Your perspectives of Iranians seems to be too biased, given also that you have partner from Iran and confess that you "only" talk to their inlaws and friends.

The Iranian diaspora is more divided on the matter than you think [1], and given your background, you're probably in the bubble of the diaspora that wouldn't mind sending threatening messages to anyone not being completely aligned with anti regime stance.

It's like someone marrying a deep south confederate flag waving MAGA American, moving there, and judging from talking to their friends and their hate for everything not MAGA, conclude that every American is like this. Or same scenario but California and liberals.

[1] https://www.culanth.org/fieldsights/on-unity-fragmentation-i...

[RiverStone]

I’ve never sent threatening messages to people, and would never do that, so I’m not sure what that’s in reference to?

I’ve responded to this idea of bias in other threads.

I’m open to the idea that I’m perhaps biased by my wife, her friends, and my in-laws.

I’ll admit that it may be a little hard for me to accept that given that I’ve been to so many Iranian celebrations, and met so many different people, and heard the same perspectives again and again. I feel that what I’ve conveyed on hacker news in my comments does reflect truly the conversations I’ve had.

Most importantly, my goal in making these comments is to surface what actual Iranians are thinking.

Many Iranians in the US are afraid to speak out because they have family in Iran, or they’re here in the US on a visa. They fear that if they speak up, they’ll never be able to go home and see their family again.

As a US citizen, who is connected with the Iranian community, I feel it’s my duty to surface these conversations I’ve had.

[NalNezumi]

My apologies if it came off as I was accusing you or your wife for sending threatening messages. That wasn't the intent

It was (supposed to be) a reference to the content of the linked material:

>Individuals and opposition groups took it upon themselves to allege relationships between diaspora Iranians and the Islamic Republic and guided their followers to conduct purity tests that sought to target, silence, and excommunicate anyone with whom they disagreed, labeling them as apologists or agents of the Islamic Republic for having called for reform in years past (now deemed too soft on the Islamic Republic), or for being unwilling to name the then-nascent protest movement a “revolution” or, in more extreme cases, for being unwilling to support regime change by any means necessary.

And a comment about the fact that you and your close Iranian relatives and friends probably hold the anti regime views strongly, and so does many (especially the ones that had to flee the revolution, or the childrens of) of their friends. I'm not questioning that fact, but pointing out that it's quite obvious that your friends and relatives probably wouldn't hang around the Iranians with different views.

It's not the only group and in a political climate like the Iranian diaspora, individuals (or groups) with opposing views or nuanced views are often silenced relentlessly.

It's simply unavoidable dynamics: iranian diaspora strongly wanting regime change are also not the ones that have to carry the blunt of that cost (they're outside Iran already), but reap most of the benefits. They're also spreading that message on platforms in countries that have an incentive to push for that message (USA, Israel) so the discourse will be highly amplified around anti-regime rethoric. The fact that it's not their house that is being bombed, also means that there aren't really any counteracting weight put on any potential opposing discourse, the discourse will maintain or go more extreme in is anti-regime rethoric going even more "any means necessary" route.

The Iranians against the regime inside Iran, I would assume, have a more nuanced view now. They might be against the regime, but not to the point they're willing to sacrifice their children, neighbors, and society collapsing Libya or Syria style. So they're probably less "any means necessary" about regime change.

[RiverStone]

I think that’s fair. You’re probably right that the diaspora is more anti-regime than people inside Iran.

I will say that my in-laws live in Tehran, and last week a bomb blew up near their house, and the shockwave broke all the windows in the house.

They had been seeing lots of bombs dropped onto Tehran, but this was the first one near their house.

My mother-in-law is very anti-regime and was actually in the streets during the protests. I don’t think that’s changed at all since the war.

It’s hard to speak for all Iranians. I wish we had better surveys and statistics to understand public opinion.

[helo4362]

Source please. How to get informed opinion on what the actual iran people feel.

It seems from new media the support for khameni family has increased after the leader was killed.

[RiverStone]

My wife is Iranian, so I’m connected with a large Iranian expat community, and all my in-laws are in Tehran.

The best recommendation I can give you is to connect with your local Iranian community

I’m not sure where you live, but every major city has one. You will experience great food and great parties and great dancing.

Iranian expats love to dance because dancing and singing in public is illegal in Iran. So they do it as a big middle finger to the Islamic republic.

[helo4362]

May be the expats are doing well financially and they have different perspective, what about the majority ones , especially the students who were opposing the regime during some death of a girl, has they converted. This is what I am interested in

[RiverStone]

I don’t personally know. But I don’t see why students who protested during the “woman, life, freedom” protest a couple years ago would be any less anti-regime now. If that’s what you’re asking.

[simonh]

It is possible to deplore the human cost, while also looking at the reasons why such conflicts occur, and what the goals of those involved are.

[a456463]

The reason of the conflict being a lunatic and spineless supporters.

[jon_adler]

I deplore the “lunatic” and also support any attempts of liberating the entire Middle East from the deplorable Iranian regime. So many of the problems of this region can be traced back to them.

[simonh]

I’m probably stretching what you said beyond what you meant, but while also deploring that regime I don’t support any attempt. I support effective action. This war was not effective action. I think it was utterly counterproductive.

[heresie-dabord]

> then we all have lost.

Yes, we have lost sound leadership and stability. Pakistan has brokered the cease-fire in a war started by the US for no good reason. The current US administration was supposed to be non-interventionist.

It is hard to watch the grim spectacle of the US fallen to the point of simultaneously making despicable threats to destroy another country and sending love and best wishes at election-time to Hungary's anti-EU, pro-Russian Orban.

[hermitcrab]

In a war, usually both sides lose.

[TiredOfLife]

> The US threatened to obliterate a country and people

So the same thing Iran has been chating for decades

[danans]

> > The US threatened to obliterate a country and people > So the same thing Iran has been chating for decades

That indicates that the US has become more like Iran than Iran has become like the US.

Coincidentally (or perhaps not) the US is also increasingly authoritarian and theocratic, like Iran and its regional neighbors (both friends and foes).

[tim333]

It's a messy situation but it basically kicked off when the Iranian people had mass protests and the government started shooting them whereupon Trump tweeted “Iranian Patriots, keep protesting – take over your institutions!!! … help is on its way" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/13/trump-promises...

Not much about gas getting expensive there. I think the recent threats were mostly hyperbole for negotiating purposes.

[fernandopj]

It's a win.

The largest military the world has ever known was recklessly used towards a foe against decades of internal warning not to go there. People on both sides who didn't ask for this war paid with their lives.

High gas prices might have been a great cause for it ending, but the win for the world is that a escalation towards WWIII was averted, and that even idiotic leaders have learned that the world is a complex system and there's no such thing as a far away war anymore.

[blitzar]

I actually think it is important to talk about winning and losing, more so when the overwhelmingly stronger party loses.

> even idiotic leaders have learned

Call me a cynic, but if you are dumb enough to start the war in the first place you are too dumb to learn any lesson.

[nslsm]

> The US threatened to obliterate a country and people, because gas was getting a little expensive.

That’s not the reason. The US is an occupied government.

[none2585]

Occupied by who exactly? We elected this government, we get what we deserve.

[Tangurena2]

One third of the voters sat the 2024 election out. To those voters, there was no daylight between either of the 2 candidates.

And to give an example of the viability of third party candidates... I used to live in Colorado. To get onto the ballot as a Presidential candidate as a minor party candidate (aka neither D nor R candidate) one needs to get 10 people to swear to be Electoral College voters (if that candidate wins). Many times, those third party candidates get less than 10 votes in the entire state of Colorado.

[danans]

> One third of the voters sat the 2024 election out

Not voting in an election doesn't mean you didn't participate in its outcome, especially if you normally vote but choose to sit out an election.

[vasco]

> It's disheartening to hear people talk about this in terms of won and lost. Is that how you think of these events? I think of them in terms of sadness and horror

Its because you're such a better person than them, wow, incredible. Nobody else knows what war is.