As Washington sharpens its threats, Iranians – still scarred by last year’s war – are compelled to confront who stands with the country, and who awaits foreign bombardment.
The Cradle
The dichotomy between war and a nuclear agreement has engulfed West Asia and Iran since the summer of last year, leaving a clear psychological imprint on society. June 2025 became a turning point in the minds of the Iranian people – when they woke up to Israeli airstrikes and the assassination of military commanders and nuclear scientists in a span of a few hours.
In 12 days, 1,200 people were killed. Tehran retaliated. The US bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Those events – alongside two years of Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza – reshaped how many Iranians view western claims of freedom, democracy, and human rights.
When protest meets foreign provocation
Since the economically-rooted protests in January, when Trump warned Iranian authorities against killing protesters and encouraged unrest by telling demonstrators to “keep protesting, help is on the way,” the country has faced an intense psychological war.
Threats of military action, harassment by elements of the Iranian diaspora, and constant western media speculation about imminent strikes have created a climate of sustained pressure. Even the resumption of negotiations between Tehran and Washington has not reduced those threats.
On the surface, life in Tehran appears normal, but beneath the surface, one can feel the hidden anxiety. The high cost of living and rising prices – coupled with market instability that triggered the January protests – remain unresolved. The violence that followed, and the subsequent police crackdown, continue to fuel dissatisfaction.
More than 3,000 people were killed during the unrest, according to the Iranian government. The violence further damaged the trust between segments of society and the authorities. It is widely believed that roughly one-quarter of the dead were mostly young citizens encouraged by diaspora media to take to the streets to topple the Islamic Republic. Many were swayed by Trump’s promise that “help” was coming.
Iranian media outlets, including the state broadcaster IRIB, largely avoid amplifying Trump’s threats or western reports of war, likely to prevent panic and market turmoil. But social media tells another story. London-based Persian-language outlets such as Iran International and BBC Persian circulate reports of impending war that are rapidly shared and repeated. Some accept these claims without question.
Word on the street
In the absence of credible surveys, it is almost impossible to determine the percentage of those who support America’s aggression against Iran. But a brief chat with ordinary citizens, however, reflects the range of sentiments circulating beneath the surface.
Speaking to The Cradle, one 80-year-old Tehran citizen hopes Trump will drop bombs on Iran and “they” (the Islamic Republic and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) will fall. “Americans want Iran’s nuclear program to be dismantled, OK, Give it up. Why do they need a nuclear program?”
Yet he cannot say who should replace the current system if it collapses. “They must go, no matter who replaces them. They killed so many children. Basijis themselves set mosques and infrastructure on fire to blame protesters.”
A woman has the same feeling, though she does not pin her hope on Trump’s attack on Iran:
“America’s attack would worsen our life. I don’t want a military attack but the regime must go. Those who shot our children were not Iranian police, they were Iraqis and Afghans. Our police and the IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] officers are joining the diaspora opposition.”
She does not offer any source for her claims.
A pharmacist in Damavand, about 70 kilometers northwest of Tehran, says this government must collapse. He does not deny that he is well-off, telling The Cradle: “I am worried about the future of my children, and only President Trump can topple the Islamic Republic. I hope he orders strikes against Iran.”
Between anger and defiance
On 12 January, large crowds rallied across the country to condemn the unrest and chaos. One month later, on 11 February, millions nationwide marked the 47th anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
The two events, held over the past two months, drew a considerable number of participants. This show of support is now accompanied by a new expression of solidarity from non-religious, secular Iranians or the critics of the Islamic Republic who openly encourage the political establishment against the US.
These voices are most visible on social media, warning authorities not to accept a disarmament deal and framing zero enrichment as capitulation. Similar sentiments can be heard offline.
Karoun, the owner of a bag and luggage shop, assumes Trump will not attack Iran. “He wouldn’t talk so much and boast if he really intended to strike Iran. He tries to intimidate us,” he says, adding, “even if they attack Iran, they wouldn’t do any harm, they tried it once in the 1980s, it was not Saddam [Hussein] alone, it was the entire west, and they failed. This time, they will fail again.”
A woman in her late 50s lambasts the Iranian diaspora, “No community is worse than them, they ask a foreigner to drop bombs on their fellow Iranians. They live a miserable life abroad, and want to see the misery of the people who are living a normal life here.”
Hamed, 24, expresses a different kind of resolve. Unemployed since graduating last year, he says he hopes Trump attacks so “we finally can finish off Israel and America together.”
“He [Trump] wants to take our nuclear program and missiles, while our nuclear program is Iran’s point of strength and is producing medicine needed for cancer treatment. He is bullying, we have very good missiles that could destroy Israel,” he adds.
Hamed also criticizes the government’s approach to negotiations. “They’ve tied everything to talks [with the US]. Nobody employs us because they are waiting for the outcome of the negotiations. [Foreign Minister] Araghchi doesn’t talk firmly to the Americans.”
Tehran’s red lines
Contrary to Hamed’s criticisms, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi actually seems to have been firm enough in his indirect negotiations with the US team led by Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. Araghchi on several occasions has made it clear that Iran will not discuss its missile program with any party “because it is simply a defensive matter.”
The Islamic Republic has also rejected the idea of dismantling its enrichment drive or reducing enrichment to zero.
On 19 February, Araghchi said, “Iran will offer its drafted version of the agreement to the American sides in the near future”. The top diplomat stressed that “there is no military solution to the current standoff and the 12-day Israeli-American strikes on Iran proved that.”
“We are prepared for war or peace, diplomacy or a military confrontation”, Araghchi emphasized.
The shadow of June
Despite official assurances, skepticism toward negotiations is growing. The trauma of the June strikes remains fresh, particularly since talks had been scheduled just days later.
Trump’s shifting deadlines – including giving Iran 10 to 15 days to reach a deal – have fueled further criticism. Iranian lawmaker Amir-Hussein Sabeti thinks, “Trump’s deadline and his threats prove for the umpteenth time that talks with the US are useless.” Sabeti argues, “Trump is either twisting Iran’s arm to agree with a deal or has made a decision to go to war against Iran but intends to blame Tehran for his decision.”
Veteran journalist Mashallah Sham al-Vaezin shares a similar view with Sabeti:
“The US administration is following the same pattern employed in June. It describes the atmosphere of the talks as positive, then sends positive signals and expresses willingness to conclude a deal but gradually raises the bar, sets a deadline for Iran to meet its conditions and when those conditions are rejected it kicks off a war.”
Iranian officials maintain that diplomacy remains possible. They have signaled readiness to dilute the 400-kilogram (882-pound) stockpile of uranium enriched to 60 percent to reassure Washington that the nuclear program is peaceful. However, they insist the missile program is non-negotiable.
After nearly two decades of intermittent nuclear talks between Iran, western state,s and the US, the gap between Trump’s demands and Tehran’s likely concessions remains wide. The path to a deal is long, and the memory of June looms over every step.
Despite the military strikes in the 12-day war, the Iranian government proved resilient and cohesive, maintaining control over domestic and foreign affairs. The conflict reinforced nationalist sentiment and social unity, even among secular and diverse political groups, while expectations of a widespread uprising did not materialize. Western analyses noted that US and Israeli attacks inadvertently unified Iranians against foreign aggression, strengthening the government’s internal position. Key institutions helped preserve state cohesion and counter internal threats; even exiled opposition acknowledged that Iranians want to determine their own future rather than accept a foreign-imposed system.
No comments:
Post a Comment