What outsiders misunderstand about Iranians and the war

Tuesday, 3 March 2026

Dr Forough Amin is the founder of Iranian Women in NZ.

OPINION: Since early January 2026, when a new wave of nationwide uprising began across Iran, the country has entered one of the most decisive moments in its modern history.

People from all walks of life - students, workers, women, professionals - have taken to the streets demanding the end of the Islamic Republic. The regime’s response was brutal. In just two days in January alone, about 40,000 people are believed to have lost their lives.

Then, in late February, Israel and the United States began their strikes targeting the regime’s military and political infrastructure. Those strikes have so far resulted in the death of the 86-year-old ruler, who had dominated Iran for more than three decades, and more than 40 top military and state officials.

For millions of Iranians, it was once-in-a-lifetime news — something many never believed they would witness. The reaction was immediate: celebrations in the streets inside Iran and across the Iranian diaspora.

As these events unfold, two major misunderstandings about Iranians’ position have become clear, especially among observers in the West.

The first misunderstanding concerns how the majority of Iranians interpret the strikes carried out by Israel and the United States. The second concerns the widespread support for Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi as the potential leader of a transition.

For many outside Iran, the situation is framed in a simple moral narrative: war is always wrong, therefore any military action must automatically be condemned. But this framework does not reflect the reality Iranians have lived under for decades.

Iranians are not naïve about geopolitics. We understand the dangers of war. We understand that countries act based on interests, not kindness. But we also understand something many outsiders overlook: for millions of Iranians, the greatest threat to their lives has long been their own government. No war could have killed as many Iranians as the regime killed in just two days.

For more than four decades, the Islamic Republic has maintained power through executions, torture, repression and ideological control. This is why many Iranians interpret strikes targeting the regime’s military infrastructure not as an attack on Iran itself, but as an intervention that weakens the machinery of repression.

The reaction that observers sometimes find shocking, of celebrations, relief, even joy, comes from a deep well of accumulated pain.

What many non-Iranians fail to understand is that neutrality in international politics rarely exists. Every country ultimately acts according to national interests. From the perspective of many Iranians today, weakening this regime by Israel and the US aligns with the interests of the Iranian nation.

Yet instead of listening to Iranians themselves, some commentators attempt to impose a simplified moral lens on the situation—as if the only choices are between pure moral pacifism and supporting war. That is a lazy way of looking at a complex reality shaped by decades of repression.

Another troubling aspect is the selective outrage displayed by some political groups and activists abroad. Many who now loudly condemn strikes, including the Labour Party here, remained largely silent when protesters inside Iran were being massacred only weeks earlier.

Some even tried to portray the uprising as a foreign plot, or questioned the scale of the killings; ignoring the fact that this is an authentic Iranian revolution in making for 47 years, paid for with the lives of tens of thousands of people.

The second major misunderstanding concerns the growing support for Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi (the son of the former shah, before the 1979 Islamic Revolution).

Outside Iran, this support is often interpreted as nostalgia for monarchy or a desire to return to the past. But that interpretation misses the central point.

For many Iranians today, supporting the Crown Prince is not about restoring monarchy. It is about ensuring a safe and organised transition away from the current regime.

Iran now stands at a historic crossroads, similar in importance to the moment before the 1979 revolution. But this time, many Iranians are determined not to repeat the mistakes that led to decades of authoritarian rule.

One of the biggest concerns among the population is what happens after the Islamic Republic collapses. Revolutions without clear leadership can easily lead to chaos, fragmentation, or the rise of another authoritarian force. This fear is real and widely shared.

In this context, the Crown Prince has emerged as a figure capable of helping coordinate a transition. He has been one of the most consistent opponents of the Islamic Republic for more than four decades.

The question facing Iranians today is not who should rule Iran permanently, but who can help guide the country safely through the collapse of the current system. The proposal many support is straightforward: a transitional leadership that dismantles the Islamic Republic and prepares the country for a national referendum on the future system of government — whether republic or monarchy.

Understanding why this idea resonates also requires looking at Iran’s modern history.

The Pahlavi era, despite its flaws, was a period in which Iran underwent rapid transformation—from a collapsing fragmented state into a modernising country with expanding education, infrastructure, and women’s rights. After decades under the Islamic Republic, many Iranians are reassessing that history from a different perspective.

But ultimately, this is not about the past. It is about the future.

For many Iranians today, the real danger is not the return of monarchy, as some critics suggest, as though democracy and monarchy are somehow incompatible.

The real danger is the current regime surviving by making only superficial changes and continuing the same system under a different appearance.