Easy to advocate from outside, but those at the heart of situations suffer
Monday, 23 February 2026
Donna Miles is an Iranian-Kiwi columnist and writer based in Christchurch, and a regular opinion contributor.
OPINION: On February 14, an estimated 250,000 diaspora Iranians and their supporters gathered in Munich to rally behind Reza Pahlavi, the son of the former Shah, and to oppose the Iranian regime, responsible for the unprecedented recent killings of thousands of protesters.
The protests began with merchants decrying the sharp fall of the national currency but quickly escalated into widespread calls for regime change.
Waving both the pre-revolution Iranian flag and, in many cases, Israeli flags, the Munich demonstrators appeared to support US military intervention in Iran. They argued it is the only way to break the tyrannical grip of a regime willing to kill its own people to retain power at any cost.
If the idea of inviting a foreign power to bomb your own country seems perverse to you, you are not alone.
Roughly 90 million Iranians live inside the country, and 5 million outside (estimates vary). Many among these nearly 95m, including myself, are both anti-regime and anti-war. We reject the illusion of a “clean” or “sanitised” war, and we refuse to believe democracy can be delivered via American F-35s or B-2 bombers.
It is all too easy to advocate swift, external solutions to Iran’s deep-seated problems from the safety of Munich, when the overwhelming human and material cost of devastation - across the region and beyond - will fall on Iranians inside Iran.
One need only look at Gaza to see how civilian deaths and infrastructure destruction are too often dismissed or justified as an acceptable price. The pattern repeats in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and elsewhere.
Those pushing for war also ignore the estimated 10-15 million committed hardline supporters of Supreme Leader Khamenei. Many in this group, steeped in the Shia tradition of martyrdom, would readily sacrifice their lives for their leader and the revolutionary cause. A significant number are battle-hardened veterans from Syria, where they fought anti-Assad forces (including jihadists and extremists). They would fight to the death against any internal uprising tied to external military action.
Despite decades of maximum sanctions, Iran has deliberately built its military capabilities in anticipation of precisely this moment. Those who claim Iran “dug its own grave” with constant chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” reveal a shallow grasp of history and geopolitics.
Iran is not a threat, it has not invaded another country for over 200 years, and it says its nuclear programme, originated under the Shah, is for civilian use only (Khamenei has declared that nuclear bombs are forbidden under Islam). Contrast this to Israel's strikes against Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iran, and Qatar in the last year alone.
The fact is that a nation’s fate is shaped far more by geography than by public chants.
Consider Reza Shah the Great (father of the former Shah), who declared neutrality in World War II - yet Iran was invaded and occupied by the Allies (Britain and the Soviet Union) because it offered a vital supply route from British-controlled India to the old USSR. The then superpowers deemed it essential to have total control over Iran’s railways, ports, and roads for strategic advantage.
Reza Shah, who had used German engineers to build massive infrastructure in the country and refused to expel them under the Allies’ orders, was considered unreliable and forced to abdicate in favour of his 21-year-old son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (the last Shah) - a profound national humiliation that deepened longstanding resentment towards foreign meddling. The source of the resentment traces back to the 19th and early 20th centuries, when Britain and Russia, in their “Great Game” rivalry for Central Asian influence, repeatedly interfered in Iran.
Iran was never formally colonised like India or parts of Africa, yet it endured massive territorial losses, exploitative concessions, and military occupations.
Today, the new superpower contest is between the United States and China - and once again, Iran sits at the heart of a modern “Great Game.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s remarks at the Munich Security Conference unabashedly revealed renewed US imperialist and colonial ambitions.
Israel remains the region’s chief settler-colonial force, ignoring international law and expanding illegal settlements on Palestinian land. By contrast, Iran has opposed colonial and apartheid practices in places like South Africa and Israel.
The former Shah maintained close ties with the US and Israel, yet prioritised building one of the world’s strongest militaries (reportedly fifth-ranked globally) precisely to deter future foreign interference and safeguard Iran’s sovereignty.
Supporters of Reza Pahlavi today should recognise that their most admired figure, the Shah, would have resolutely opposed foreign intervention and defended Iran’s sovereign rights - including its right to a missile programme and uranium enrichment.
As for Iran’s future, the regime’s unprecedented bloodshed against protesters has crossed a point of no return. What the country truly needs is a genuine renaissance - driven by the immense energy and determination of its youth inside Iran - not another war that will devastate the Middle East and likely impact us all, even in faraway New Zealand.