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.
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.
I think saying diaspora “never represent” their home countries is an exaggeration.
All the Iranians in the US I know are first generation immigrants who have been here maybe 5-20 years. I’m not talking about second generation Iranians. They all still have family in Iran. And their views do not differ from their family.
My mother-in-law is the most anti-regime person I know, and she lives in Tehran. A bomb recently exploded nearby and broke all the windows in her house. But life goes on, Iranians are extremely resilient.
Purely historically too of course the USA and Israel are rhe last people whose words I'd trust about wanting to bring "freedom" to a country. The only thing they are experts at are toppling democracies and installing dictators, including in Iran itself.
I think she understands that every movement needs a leader, so she’s ok with Mr. Pahlavi leading that, i.e. a constitutional assembly. But beyond that she doesn’t recognize the monarchy
As someone from and in a thirdworld country, these expats can be even more arrogant and psychopathic than the imperialists they live under
It's all cover for IRGC and their minions in the Levant.
I've seen it go as far as Wikipedia edits and I'll always speak up.
I would have been a worse person for keeping silent
My mother-in-law is the most anti-regime person I’ve met.
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.
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.
Inculcating into young girls (and boys to some degree) that their bodies are shameful, sex is shameful, hell is real and waiting for them if they disobey, causes lifelong mental trauma.
It’s not unique to Islam. I’m sure there are extreme versions of Christianity and Judaism that also make women feel ashamed of their bodies.
Even those regime supporters are civilians. This is literally advocating for a war crime.
The point of my comment was to give a first-hand conversation with an actual Iranian.
You can react to it any way you want, but the point of my comment was to show how some Iranians are actually thinking. And yes, many Iranians want regime change and they see the supporters of the regime as the enemy.
The regime hangs protestors by the way.
I quoted an actual conversation i had with an Iranian where they said essentially “go ahead and bomb the bridges”. That got flagged for some reason.
I’m simply trying to surface conversations I’ve had with Iranians. So often these Internet conversations occur in a bubble.
My point? I guess there’s this idea that Iranians are disgusted with Trump’s comment today. That hasn’t been my experience at all. My wife is Iranian. I’m connected to a large Iranian expat community. They are very pro Trump because of the war. The initial reaction I saw was disappointment with the ceasefire. They want continued pressure on the regime, and they feel that a cease-fire works against that.
Indeed, the entitlement complex is probably why so many of them (in the iranian diaspora) were happy to rally behind an actual monarch.
This is not a normal thing to do for somebody who has supposedly adopted western values.
All my in-laws are in Tehran: aunts, uncles, cousins. Everybody is anti-regime.
It’s hard for us to understand in the west. Speaking out against the regime is not possible.
These people who congregated on the bridges were phoned up by the regime as a marketing stunt. Perhaps they were family members or friends of the IRGC. Perhaps they were forced to go, because you can’t say no to the regime. They hang protesters.
I saw someone in another thread compare it to the USSR. Or maybe North Korea.
I’m not saying that there aren’t regime supporters, there definitely are. But you have to be very suspect whenever you see videos of “grassroots” supporters of the regime and remember that opposition voices are not allowed.
All military experts agree that bombing a country isn't going to trigger a regime change, and it hasn't so far after weeks of intense bombing. So the answer should be, keep bombing more things and target civilians?
Besides, the Iranian expat community is also a bubble, maybe not representative of the ones who are actually bombed.
Another thread compared it to the USSR. Or maybe North Korea.
Opposition voices are not allowed. Protesters are hanged.
When the regime tells you to go to the bridge for a marketing stunt, you go.
I’m absolutely not saying that I believe they should be bombed!
I’m just trying to share the perspective of actual Iranians. To you, my wife wants to bomb civilians. To my wife, these are just marketing stunts that are fully orchestrated by the regime.
A casual conversation is not to be held to the rigour of legal or legislative opinion. But perspectives, like other sorts of opinions, are not all equal in value.
Some opinions are just noise and there is no value in "hearing all the perspectives" from sources that have no interest in even trying to think things through.
The worst opinions are calls to violence -- that lead to actual violence in some cases -- from people who incur zero risk from their extremism.
Idle statements about bombarding civilians, flattening countries, committing war crimes, "sending countries back into the Stone Age where they belong", are examples of arm-chair blather from people of whom the best we can say is that they have never lived under bombardment nor served in a time of conflict in any capacity whatsoever.
I still think it’s valuable to hear Iranian voices during this conflict.
I’m definitely not saying you have to follow through on what they say!
But it’s valuable to see where people are emotionally. Because when I asked my wife and she essentially said “bomb the regime supporters” it says a lot about where anti-regime Iranians are emotionally.
It also helps people understand why anti-regime Iranians have been pro Trump during this conflict.
Keep in mind that my wife is from Tehran, and has a huge network of family in Tehran. This isn’t some abstract thing to her. And it’s consistent with the other expats I know who want continued pressure on the regime.
If the huge network of family in Tehran is clamouring to be bombed, I will concede your point, Sir.
I don't think holding such views is helpful.
Besides, a few people have been prosecuted for war crimes while being on the winning side (or by their own side), some examples:
William Calley (US), convicted for his role in the 1968 My Lai massacre, in which American troops killed hundreds of unarmed South Vietnamese civilians.
Donald Payne (UK), for abuse and death of an Iraqi detainee.
Charles Graner (US), sentenced to 10 years in prison for the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison.
However, we can agree those are very few and far between, compared to all crimes committed. But it's more useful to condemn them and advocate for more accountability than to claim it's useless anyways and normalize calls for more crimes.
If you go by the definition used in online discourse, every US President this century would be prosecuted for them.
There is using nerve gas on children and there is posting a picture of Maduro in hand restraints and a blindfold. Both receive the equal screech of “war crime” by keyboard warriors.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.