Hope is followed by fear: How Iranians perceive Israel's attack

For days, Israel has been attacking military positions in Iran. Initially, many voiced joy at the elimination of high-ranking members of the Revolutionary Guards—particularly those who had played a key role in the violent suppression of recent freedom movements. Videos of cheering regime opponents on the streets of Tehran circulated. The reactions were hardly surprising: After decades of oppression, the mullah regime is hated by broad sections of the population, and many long for a change of power; Israel's attacks therefore came at just the right time.

But the more intensively Israel attacks the country's infrastructure and the more civilian casualties are reported, the more disillusionment sets in. The mood is changing, and there's little left of the jubilation over the elimination of high-ranking members of the Revolutionary Guard. Once again, it becomes clear: when bombs are falling and people fear for the lives of their loved ones, love for their homeland and fear are stronger than hatred of the regime.

Many people I've spoken with in recent days are displaying an inner conflict: On the one hand, they place their hopes in Israel's attacks, which they can't prevent anyway, in the expectation that they could weaken the regime and ultimately trigger a national uprising. The long-awaited overthrow finally seems within reach. On the other hand, many fear the worst-case scenario: that the country will be completely destroyed, but the regime will survive. As can be seen in Gaza, where Hamas also holds power despite widespread attacks.

The founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Khomeini, once said that the regime must be preserved at all costs—even if that meant abandoning certain aspects of his faith. Maintaining power was his top priority. Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, and the other high-ranking rulers in Iran will behave no differently than their predecessor when push comes to shove.

Shortly after the war began, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the Iranian people in a video message. The video, with Persian subtitles, quickly circulated in Iran via apps like WhatsApp and Telegram, and was widely shared. In his address "to the proud Iranian people," he first addressed the reasons for the war: "The Islamic regime (...) has threatened to destroy my country, Israel. The goal of the Israeli operation is to neutralize the Islamic regime's nuclear threat and ballistic missiles against us." He added that achieving this goal would also open the path to freedom for the Iranian people.

Netanyahu clearly distinguished between the regime and the Iranian people: "As I said yesterday and many times before, Israel's struggle is not against the Iranian people. (. . .) Our struggle is against our common enemy, the criminal regime that has oppressed and impoverished you. Courageous Iranian people (. . .). I am with you, and the Israeli people are with you too." Referencing holy scriptures that cite the name of the Persian King Cyrus the Great as the savior of the Jewish people, he emphasized: "The Iranian people and the Israeli people have been friends since the time of Cyrus the Great. Now the time has come for the Iranian people (. . .) to rise up and rebel against the evil, tyrannical regime." This regime has never been as weak as it is now, Netanyahu continued. Now the people have the opportunity to send their message – woman, life, liberty – to the world.

Netanyahu's message allows only one interpretation: that he is not only concerned with eliminating the nuclear threat and ballistic missiles, but above all with a change of power. The nature and scale of the attacks make it clear that Israel is seeking the complete destabilization of Iran. At the same time, he is aware that an external attack accompanied by significant destruction could result in the Iranian people showing solidarity with the regime – something he attempted to prevent with his video message. Whether he will succeed is rather questionable. The people of Iran have closely observed what has happened in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria. The destruction of their infrastructure and the civilian casualties also do little to build confidence.

In a situation of fear, a country usually sticks together, and criticism of the regime decreases. This is now also evident in Iran. However, I am convinced that this effect is not sustainable. The Iranian people of today are fundamentally different from those who voluntarily went to war during the first Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988). People now know that the leadership in Tehran cares neither for the well-being of its own people nor for genuine patriotism. Too much has happened since then: hundreds of opposition figures have been murdered, women oppressed, and the country economically ruined.

What also gives Iranians little reason for hope: Even after some five decades, the opposition abroad has failed to establish a genuine secular-democratic alternative – a force that could act as a link between the West on the one hand and the population and the middle ranks of the military and the Revolutionary Guard on the other. This deficiency raises concerns among some of the population that Iran's future could resemble that of Syria or Afghanistan. Therefore, I have the impression that, a few days after the start of the Israeli attack, a significant portion of the population is increasingly leaning toward the lesser of two evils: preferring the hated mullah regime to a completely destroyed country sinking into chaos.

However, the question arises as to which regime could replace the current system in Iran if it were to collapse. What might an alternative to the current regime look like? According to the will of the majority of Iranians at home and abroad, this alternative should be secular and democratic, according to my many years of research. It also seems to me that Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, who lives in exile, could play a significant role in a transitional phase. He has always set three conditions for cooperation: the preservation of the country's territorial unity, the establishment of a secular-democratic system, and a referendum on the future form of government—that is, whether Iran should become a republic or a constitutional monarchy.

Mahdi Rezaei-Tazik is an Iranian-Swiss political scientist and Iranist.