logo
Why Iranians Are Standing With Their Regime - Even When They Hate It

Why Iranians Are Standing With Their Regime - Even When They Hate It

NDTV27-06-2025
Once again, regime change is back on the agenda. What began as a military operation by Israel for the destruction of Iran's nuclear facilities soon morphed into calls for a regime change in the country. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recorded video messages directly appealing to the people of Iran, assuring them that Israel had nothing against them and that it was their regime that Israel was against. Even the US joined in the chorus with President Donald Trump saying on Truth Social, "It's not politically correct to use the term, "Regime Change," but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!"
Meanwhile, missiles and drones flew back and forth between the Jewish state and the Islamic Republic till the US intervened. It first bombed the three main nuclear sites, including Fordow, buried under a mountain - the effectiveness of these strikes is still being analysed - and then declared a ceasefire, bringing the 12-day war to an end, at least for now.
Who Wants A Regime Change?
What did we see after the declaration of the ceasefire?
The visuals emerging from Tehran were of jubilation and celebration. If there are those mourning that a regime change had not been effected, we do not see them - at least not inside Iran. Most of those unhappy remain outside of Iran. Amongst these, the most vocal and arguably the best known is Prince Reza Pahlavi II, the descendant of the last Shah of Iran.
Here, my Iranian friend X comes to mind. In her sixties, a divorcee, a single mother and with dual Iranian-American citizenship. She hated the regime and is an atheist. I remember the first time I went to pick her up from the airport in Delhi. Mahan Air had arrived from Tehran, and what amazed me most was how the women passengers on the flight took off their hijabs the moment they entered the Delhi airport terminal. My friend did the same. But here's the twist: she blames the West for the theocratic regime and dislikes Israel even more than she dislikes the regime. Why? Not because she is anti-Semitic; she has Jewish friends. But, she says, because of what Israel has done to the Palestinians, and how it keeps provoking countries in the region.
Iranians Want Change
Why do I bring up this example? Because she represents a large chunk of Iranian opinion. Her son and his friends - a generation younger - are as critical of the regime. They dislike how the regime has frittered away billions by maintaining proxies across the region - traditional ones like Hamas and Hezbollah, more recent ones like the Houthis, and the numerous Shia militias in Iraq that are on Iran's payroll. Of course, they are empathetic towards the Palestinians, and Iran, they think, must do its bit to help them, but not by training and arming Hamas. Instead, they say, the money could have been used to take care of Iranians, reeling from sanctions and unemployment, with many having to seek jobs in countries like the UAE, which, till a few decades ago, were themselves impoverished and far more backwards than Iran. Yet, they are united in their opposition to the return of the Shah's descendant. Why was the Shah deposed in the first place, they ask.
That an increasing number of Iranians want change was evident in the presidential elections that took place in Iran last year. The tragic death of President Ebrahim Raisi notwithstanding, Iranians going to the polls chose a person who had promised them change and personal liberties: Massoud Pezeshkian. That he was chosen not too long after riots and protests over women's attire and the death of Mahsa Amini testifies to the change that many Iranians longed for. In fact, for many years now, Iranians in cities like Tehran have been engaging in activities like western dancing and yoga - in secrecy. Many have converted to other religions - but have gone overseas to do so. On their return, they once again resume life as Muslims are required to in the Islamic Republic, practising their new faith in secret.
West's Misadventures Must Be A Lesson
And yet, a forceful, imposed regime change may not be the answer.
Over the last two decades, such (mis)adventures in the region have only birthed chaos, violence, and destruction, not only in respective countries but across the region.
For 20 years, the US waged a war against the Taliban inside Afghanistan, only to hand back power to them. In the process, however, neighbouring countries felt the heat of radicalism and terrorism. Here, too, plans and talks to bring back the King came to nought.
A regime change in Iraq, on the false premise that the country had weapons of mass destruction, sowed tensions and created the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Paradoxically, it also increased Iranian influence in Iraq. Iraq has yet to find stability and security.
The most recent regime change, in Syria, has brought a former ISIS member to power. While it is true that few shed tears for the fallen regime of Bashar Al Assad, the six months that the interim government of Ahmed Al Shara has been in charge - with ample support from the Arab world, Turkiye, the EU and the US - the most significant events have been the massacres of Allawite and Christian minority communities in the coastal region, and the recent church bombing by an ISIS suicide bomber that claimed at least 25 lives.
Similarly, a regime change in Libya again sowed chaos and emboldened ISIS, paving its way into North Africa, and plunged the country into a civil war that continues to burn.
Iran Is Different
Iran, on the other hand, has a large territory, a far larger population than all the above, is educated and has a worldview of its own. Moreover, the ruling regime is not a minority one like that of Saddam Hussein or Al-Assad. Neither can the Supreme Leader, whatever his shortcomings may be, be compared with someone like the late Muammar Gaddafi.
Any attempts at a regime change engineered by external forces, and Western ones at that, are sure to trigger far more chaos and disruption. Like many Indians, many Iranians distrust the West. That's because in public imagination, they see the West as being guilty of propping up the degenerate regime of the last Shah; engineering the 1953 coup against the democratic government of Mohammed Mossadegh, which in turn paved the way for the Islamic regime of Ayatollah Ruhullah Khomeini to seize power in Tehran; supporting Saddam Hussein against Iran in the eight-year-long Iran-Iraq war; and now supporting Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands. Neither the military nor the elite guards would give up without a fight, while we are confronted with ghosts such as groups like ISIS, which sprang up from the remains of the Iraqi military.
Nation, Not Regime
Moreover, while the recent conflict has exposed the frailties of the theocratic regime in Iran, there is no proper alternative inside or outside the country to supplant it. On the other hand, to see the destruction of one's country, to see nuclear scientists being assassinated with impunity or public broadcasts being bombed is to see one's own nation being attacked, not a regime. This usually results in the public closing ranks around its government, no matter how disliked otherwise.
There is, thus, all the more reason to believe that Iranians will not take kindly to a West-manoeuvred regime change. Moreover, no proper alternative has been offered by the US. The only alternative so far seems to be the descendant of the last Shah, but most Iranians view him as distant and cut off from the ground realities inside Iran.
Remember Tunisia?
A regime change also has the potential to widen fault lines and spur minority communities such as the Baloch, the Kurds, and the Azeris to seek greater autonomy, or even secession. This is sure to spill over across the borders of Iran into the territories of neighbouring countries such as Pakistan, Turkiye, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Azerbaijan. That's a clear recipe for disaster, to which India will not be immune.
Any transformation, therefore, should be effected from inside, from within Iranian society, by Iranians themselves. This is what has made the regime change in Tunisia, for instance, far more effective and stable. Tunisia, where the Arab Spring began, did not wait or depend on external forces to engineer a change. It was implemented by Tunisians themselves. Any Iranian Spring, too, must begin in Iran.
(The author is a journalist and political analyst)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
Share
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

OPEC+ to hike oil output again in September amid Trump push to cut Russian imports
OPEC+ to hike oil output again in September amid Trump push to cut Russian imports

First Post

timea minute ago

  • First Post

OPEC+ to hike oil output again in September amid Trump push to cut Russian imports

OPEC+ agreed on Sunday to raise oil production by 547,000 barrels per day for September, the latest in a series of accelerated output hikes to regain market share, as concerns mount over potential supply disruptions linked to Russia. read more A brief virtual meeting among eight OPEC+ countries on Sunday ended with an agreement to sharply increase oil production in September, even as the United States steps up pressure on India to curb imports of Russian oil, part of Washington's broader strategy to push Moscow towards peace talks with Ukraine. President Donald Trump has said he wants progress by August 8. In its post-meeting statement, OPEC+ pointed to strong global economic indicators and low inventory levels as key drivers behind its decision. Crude prices have remained robust, with Brent futures closing near $70 per barrel on Friday—up from a low of about $58 earlier this year, buoyed in part by seasonal demand. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'Given fairly strong oil prices at around $70, it does give OPEC+ some confidence about market fundamentals,' said Amrita Sen, co-founder of Energy Aspects, adding that the market structure was also indicating tight stocks. The eight participating nations will raise their collective output by 547,000 barrels per day in September, completing the accelerated reversal of a 2.2 million-bpd supply reduction imposed in 2023. The increase also accounts for a phased-in boost from the United Arab Emirates. OPEC+ sources told Reuters that the same group would reconvene on September 7, when they may evaluate whether to reintroduce another layer of cuts amounting to roughly 1.65 million bpd, measures that are officially extended through the end of next year. The broader OPEC+ coalition, comprising 10 non-OPEC producers including Russia and Kazakhstan, has historically curbed production to stabilise prices. However, the alliance pivoted this year, aiming to reclaim lost market share, a move aligned with calls from Trump urging the group to increase supply. The phased hikes began in April with a 138,000-bpd boost, followed by steeper increments of 411,000 bpd over the next three months, 548,000 bpd in August, and now 547,000 bpd for September. 'So far the market has been able to absorb very well those additional barrels also due to stockpiliing activity in China,' said Giovanni Staunovo of UBS. 'All eyes will now shift on the Trump decision on Russia this Friday." As well as the voluntary cut of about 1.65 million bpd from the eight members, OPEC+ still has a 2-million-bpd cut across all members, which also expires at the end of 2026. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'OPEC+ has passed the first test,' said Jorge Leon of Rystad Energy and a former OPEC official, as it has fully reversed its largest cut without crashing prices. 'But the next task will be even harder: deciding if and when to unwind the remaining 1.66 million barrels, all while navigating geopolitical tension and preserving cohesion." With inputs from agencies

Trump vs Senator: US President tells Chuck Schumer to 'go to hell' amid nominations row
Trump vs Senator: US President tells Chuck Schumer to 'go to hell' amid nominations row

Hindustan Times

timea minute ago

  • Hindustan Times

Trump vs Senator: US President tells Chuck Schumer to 'go to hell' amid nominations row

Amid the row over nominations in the Senate, US President Donald Trump told Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer to "go to hell." In a Truth Social post, Trump slammed Schumer's demand for federal funds to be released and called on Republicans to avoid striking a deal in the Senate. Hours after President Trump told Schumer to "go to hell," the Senate headed for its August recess and failed to reach a deal over Trump's nominations.(AP) "Senator Cryin' Chuck Schumer is demanding over One Billion Dollars in order to approve a small number of our highly qualified nominees, who should right now be helping to run our Country. This demand is egregious and unprecedented, and would be embarrassing to the Republican Party if it were accepted," Trump wrote on Truth Social. The president further alleged that Schumer was under "tremendous political pressure from within his own party, the Radical Left Lunatics." "Tell Schumer, who is under tremendous political pressure from within his own party, the Radical Left Lunatics, to GO TO HELL! Do not accept the offer, go home and explain to your constituents what bad people the Democrats are, and what a great job the Republicans are doing," Trump added in his post. Schumer responded to Trump's social media post and told reporters that the President "did not get his way." "He bullied us, he cajoled us, he called us names, and he went home with nothing," Schumer further said. Senate heads for recess after nomination bid fails Hours after President Trump told Schumer to "go to hell," the Senate headed for its August recess and failed to reach a deal over Trump's nominations. The house is now set to resume in September and Republicans are expected to change Senate rules to speed up the pace of confirmations for Trump's nominations. Since the start of his term, Senate Democrats have blocked many nominees this year as part of an attempt to block out unanimous consent votes. Amid this move, Trump has added pressure on GOP senators to move quickly. The latest tussle between Democrats and Republicans comes amid Trump's nominations to the judiciary. Ahead of Saturday's session, Trump had placed great pressure on Republicans to reach a deal and cancel the August recess if needed. However, after his public attack on Schumer, Trump told Republicans to pack it up and go back to their respective states.

US tariffs should not be cause for disengaging from trade talks, blocs
US tariffs should not be cause for disengaging from trade talks, blocs

Business Standard

timea minute ago

  • Business Standard

US tariffs should not be cause for disengaging from trade talks, blocs

The fundamental challenge for the Indian economy is to increase productivity and competitiveness premium Business Standard Editorial Comment Mumbai Listen to This Article The tariff rate of 25 per cent, which United States (US) President Donald Trump has decided will be applied to Indian exports to the US, may not, eventually, be the final rate. It may effectively wind up being higher if he carries out his threat to add a surcharge related to India's increasing purchases of Russian oil. It may be lower if New Delhi's negotiators pull some sort of a broader deal together. It is also worth remembering that there will be multiple exceptions to this headline tariff rate. Some goods that compose a large part of India-US trade —

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store