“Do you think I’ll get to see Iran again?” The question hangs in the air—quiet, fragile, heavy, with longing. My father asks it in the twilight of his life, as he battles the cancer that seeks to weaken him. It is not his voice alone I hear, but the echo of millions: those who fled the land they loved, and those who remain behind, still waiting for the day Iran might be Iran again. He fled to London in the aftermath of the 1979 revolution, narrowly escaping the noose of a theocracy that replaced a fallen monarch. My father served this monarchy with loyalty, believing that for all its faults as an autocracy, it was modernizing, socially liberal, and politically reformable: the very antithesis of the Islamic Republic.

Advertisement Advertisement

Once my father left Iran, he never returned. In exile, he bore witness to a regime that mercilessly imprisoned, tortured, and murdered. A regime that severed him from his soil, but could not break his hope. And what of the others? Those who stayed. Our families and loved ones. Those who endured the lash of repression and five decades of near constant insecurity. They too ask: When will we reclaim our country from this long dark night? I grew up between the nostalgia of a homeland lost, and the reality of exile. The chants outside the Islamic Republic embassy, the clatter of Persian tea glasses at gatherings of dissidents in our cramped government housing, the news of bombings and assassinations that stole friends and fellow dreamers. That haunting blend of sorrow and defiance shaped us. And now, as war darkens our skies, we feel it again: sorrow for the innocent, hope for the fall of the tormentors.

Advertisement

When speaking with civil society leaders inside Iran, it seems few Iranians squarely blame foreign hands for this war. Although there is a diversity of voices in any country, many Iranians ultimately believe that the Islamic Republic was never a guardian of the nation, but a keeper of its own revolution. Even its Revolutionary Guards bear no name of Iran—only of a violent ideology that devours its children and invites war upon them. In a joint statement, Iran’s Nobel laureates Narges Mohammadi and Shirin Ebadi, filmmakers Jafar Panahi and Mohammad Rasoulof, and civil society voices urged world leaders to halt uranium enrichment and end the bloodshed of innocents in Iran and Israel. Inside the country, optimism and dread wrestle for the soul of a people. For decades, many of us pleaded with world leaders: reject both appeasement and war with the Islamic Republic. There was another path—to strangle the regime and empower the people. Few chose it. Too many asked the question, “Do the people of Iran really want change?” as if they did not hear waves of Iranian protestors chant, “Death to the dictator” and “Death to Khamenei” on the streets. Perhaps now—as these cries echo from the rooftops of Tehran, even under the specter of war—they will finally listen.

Advertisement

Since the fighting began, several of the regime’s architects of terror have been killed in their bunkers and beds. But with them have perished a poet, an athlete, and children—the bright promise of tomorrow extinguished alongside the darkness of the old guard. Many of us watch in anguish as our compatriots abandon their homes, desperate for a safe haven beyond the reach of oppression and destruction. As dissident rap artist Toomaj Salehi asks: “How are over 9 million people—without fuel, often without enough savings to relocate, and with no second home in another city—supposed to evacuate Tehran?” Iranians see through the hollow outrage of regime officials who weep for civilians today, yet spilled the blood of 1,500 protesters in 2019, over 500 more during the Woman, Life, Freedom uprising of 2022, and countless others over four decades of tyranny. And yet, the regime clings to its authoritarian script: shutting down the internet, censoring its news. Instead of offering citizens protection or safe harbor in the midst of war, it forces university students to take their exams as if nothing has changed, and intensifies its crackdown on free speech.

Advertisement

The Islamic Republic’s illegitimacy is laid bare not only in its horrific human rights record but in its strategic failures. In the words of Kylie Moore-Gilbert, “Repressing dissent, putting innocent people in prison, flubbing operations abroad—Iran just can’t seem to get out of its own way.” And recently, Israeli spies and pilots have managed to cripple Iranian counterstrike capabilities. True advocates of peace reject both wars of aggression and terror in all its forms. Indifference to the latter undermines any genuine commitment to the former. No external power will rescue Iran. The age of foreign saviors is over. We do not live in a world of singular empires or simple alliances. Every nation must tend its own garden. But no soil stands apart. For nearly half a century, the regime in Iran has poisoned more than its own land—its blight has spread to Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon.

Advertisement

Iran’s fate will, and should, be written by Iranians—not in foreign capitals or closed rooms, but on their own streets, with their own voices, and through their own struggle. And as long as those who dream of liberal democracy remain divided, as long as personal ambitions, old wounds, and ideological divides stand in the way of common purpose—I fear the answer to my father’s question.

For the sake of a free Iran, a stable region and a world at peace—as we urge restraint and adherence to international law—we must also ensure the sovereignty of the Iranian people, not their oppressors.

The war has paused, but the collapse has not. Shaken by defeat in the streets, across the region, and from the skies, the Islamic Republic now stands weakened and exposed. The pillars that once held it up, ideology, reach, and fear, are cracking.

The Islamic Republic has begun sealing itself off from the world.

Today, Iranian state media announced that President Masoud Pezeshkian signed a law suspending cooperation with the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog, the IAEA. Inspectors will no longer be allowed access to Iran’s contested nuclear facilities. This decision comes just days after Israel and the United States inflicted unprecedented damage on those very sites during a 12-day campaign.

The move heightens the risk of war but also underscores a deeper truth: something irreversible is unfolding.

What began as a 12-day campaign of missile strikes, drone attacks, and air raids has paused, but only just. A ceasefire is in place, yet it may be more fragile than ever, liable to collapse at any moment. Most of Iran’s nuclear facilities were struck during the offensive, but the true extent of the damage remains unclear. If Iran still retains sufficient capacity, it may now accelerate uranium enrichment, not only to gain leverage in future negotiations but to reestablish deterrence in the face of overwhelming vulnerability. With inspectors barred under the new law, suspending cooperation with the IAEA, the next phase of this confrontation may shift from visible strikes to hidden centrifuges.

Yet, beneath this high-stakes brinkmanship, lies a regime already in retreat. The Islamic Republic’s collapse is no longer a distant scenario; it is underway. Over the past three years, Iran has suffered three strategic defeats: one from below, one abroad, and one from above. Each shattered a pillar of its power, ideological control, regional reach, and deterrent capacity.

Blow from above

The most recent blow came from the skies.

In a twelve-day campaign, Israel, joined in the final phase by the United States, inflicted the most severe damage the Islamic Republic has endured since its founding. Iran’s air defenses were dismantled, missile infrastructure crippled, and its nuclear program set back by years. Senior IRGC commanders and nuclear scientists were killed in strikes deep inside Tehran.

What shocked Iran wasn’t just Israel’s reach, it was Washington’s decision to join in. For decades, Tehran’s core strategic doctrine rested on the belief that the United States would avoid direct confrontation. That doctrine, built on proxy warfare, ambiguity, and the assumption of American restraint, has now collapsed. The red lines Iran once counted on no longer exist.

It wasn’t just military damage; it was a collapse of assumptions.

The Islamic Republic will attempt to rebuild. But its adversaries, having demonstrated their reach, might not allow it. The ceasefire is brittle. More fire will follow.

Symbolically, the clerical establishment is entering a new phase of uncertainty. During the war, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei went underground and has only appeared through pre-recorded messages from undisclosed locations. Even if he reemerges, the precedent has been set: the threat to his personal safety is now constant. Israel has changed the rules of the game. Nowhere, and no one, is beyond reach.

That new reality is already reshaping how the Islamic Republic functions. Khamenei has quietly appointed a new commander to lead the Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, the central entity in the command chain of Iran’s armed forces. Yet the Islamic Republic has withheld his name; two of his predecessors were killed within days of each other. For the IRGC, long accustomed to operating in the open, this marks a profound shift. At least for now, it must act like a force in hiding.

Collapse abroad

But the unraveling didn’t begin in the air.

In December 2024, Iran was forced to withdraw from Syria after the fall of its last meaningful ally, Bashar al-Assad. Years of investment, billions of dollars, thousands of fighters, and hundreds of IRGC casualties vanished in weeks. Israeli airstrikes, shifting Arab alliances, and regional backlash reversed a decade of expansion.

This was Iran’s Afghanistan moment.

Just as the Soviet retreat in 1989 exposed the limits of empire, Iran’s expulsion from Syria marked the collapse of its revolutionary reach. It wasn’t a tactical withdrawal. It was a reversal of ambition.

The retreat also delivered a psychological blow to the Islamic Republic’s support base. Analysts and ideologues who had long defended Iran’s presence in Syria as a strategic depth and moral imperative suddenly found themselves without a narrative. On state media and affiliated platforms, questions began to surface, not from critics, but from within: Why did we fail? What was the sacrifice for? This erosion of confidence among Islamic Republic loyalists has further hollowed out the ideological core that the system depends on to survive.

Revolt from within

But the deepest rupture came from inside.

In 2022, the death of Mahsa Jina Amini in custody sparked the Women, Life, Freedom movement. Since then, women across Iran have discarded the hijab in open defiance, and the Islamic Republic has not been able to stop them.

Today, unveiled women walk freely in major cities. The morality police, reactivated to enforce hijab laws, are failing. A regime built on obedience can no longer uphold one of its core pillars.

This wasn’t reform; it was rout.

Western governments largely missed it. Even amid the recent war, foreign correspondents in Tehran walked past unveiled women and reported nothing about it. Some even appeared on camera in hijab, respecting the Islamic Republic’s rules while ignoring the population’s defiance and a newly established norm.

But Iranians have not been silent.

During the Woman, Life, Freedom movement, the diaspora flooded the streets from Berlin to Washington. Berlin alone saw 100,000 protesters. These weren’t rallies about sanctions, they were calls for liberation. After the June strikes, Islamic Republic loyalists abroad attempted anti-Israel rallies. They failed. Iranians know the enemy isn’t Israel, it’s the Islamic Republic.

Inside Iran, the clerical establishment’s grip on public mourning has weakened. Funerals of IRGC commanders, once orchestrated as national rituals, drew subdued crowds. The state sought grief. It was met with apathy.

Still, in Western capitals, some continue to echo the Islamic Republic’s slogans. Cloaked in the language of “resistance,” they defend a system that even Iranians have rejected. As the Islamic Republic’s pillars crumble, these foreign sympathizers cling to a myth its own people have already abandoned.

A regime in freefall

Three defeats. Three broken pillars.

The clerical establishment has lost its ideological hold, its regional reach, and its deterrent capacity. It still censors, still imprisons, but no longer inspires fear or belief. What remains is brittle. What’s emerging is not reform. It’s freefall.

Diplomatically, Iran is more isolated than ever.

The suspension of cooperation with the IAEA may be aimed at gaining leverage, but it risks backfiring. A renewed referral of Iran’s nuclear file to the UN Security Council looms. European powers are considering triggering the snapback mechanism under the 2015 nuclear deal. Despite tough talk, Tehran is likely to return to negotiations with Washington, but from a position of historic weakness.

Its nuclear program is damaged. Its missiles have been exposed. Its leverage is gone.

This is not a regime to be recalibrated. It is one in structural decline, squeezed from above by military humiliation and from below by cultural revolt. To analyze today’s Iran using yesterday’s paradigms is to misread a rupture that is already underway.

Beyond Iran

The consequences won’t stop at Iran’s borders.

The 1979 Revolution reshaped the Middle East. It empowered political Islam, displacing secularism and nationalism. From Beirut to Baghdad, the Islamic Republic exported a militant, ideological model.

Its collapse could reshape the region again.

Today, Persian Gulf states are racing to modernize, digitize, and diversify their economies. Massive investments are flowing into infrastructure and artificial intelligence. Western governments are betting on a post-ideology Middle East. A transformed Iran could be the region’s missing piece.

Iran is not a failed state in waiting.

It is literate, urbanized, and cohesive. Islam shapes its culture but doesn’t define its identity. Even the Islamic Republic’s base lacks the fanaticism seen in other collapsing states. Iran is filled with engineers, doctors, and entrepreneurs, people who have thrived everywhere except at home.

They are not the risk. They are the alternative.

The fall of a repressive regime aligned with Moscow and Beijing would not bring chaos. It would bring renewal, for Iran, for the region, and for a world that has waited too long for both.

Israel-Iran War: In just three days into the war with Israel, Iran said 224 of its citizens lost their lives and over 1,200 people were injured. Meanwhile, in Israel, 17 people have been killed and 390 wounded since the conflict escalated on Friday (June 13).

“After 65 hours of aggression by the Zionist regime, 1,277 people have been injured. 224 women, men, and children have been martyred,” Iran’s health ministry spokesman Hossein Kermanpour wrote on the social media platform X.

The minister said that among the killed, 90 per cent were civilians.

Moreover, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard said that the intelligence chief, Mohammad Kazemi, and two other generals of the Islamic state were killed in the Israeli attacks. Iran has also lost its other top officials and nuclear scientists.

‘Whatever is necessary to achieve our dual aim’

Meanwhile, in Israel, despite 17 people dying and 390 being injured, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said his country would continue the war. During an interview with the American news agency Fox News, Netanyahu said Israel would continue its military campaign against Iran in order to dismantle their nuclear facilities. He said Iran’s nuclear facilities are a threat to Israel and its allies.

“We’re geared to do whatever is necessary to achieve our dual aim, to remove … two existential threats – the nuclear threat and the ballistic missile threat,” Netanyahu said.

“We did act, to save ourselves, but also, I think, to not only protect ourselves but also protect the world from this incendiary regime. We can’t have the world’s most dangerous regime have the world’s most dangerous weapons,” he added.

‘Dragging conflict to Persian Gulf is strategic mistake’

Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said on Sunday (June 15) that Iran does not want its conflict with Israel to expand to neighbouring countries unless the situation is forced.

“Dragging the conflict to the Persian Gulf is a strategic mistake, and its [Israel’s] aim is to drag the war beyond Iranian territory,” Araghchi said during a meeting with foreign diplomats broadcast on state TV.

At the G7 in Canada, differences within Europe about the wisdom of regime change in Iran could not have been more stark.

The French president, Emmanuel Macron, warned against toppling a government “when you have no idea what comes next”. Insisting that he had no time for the Iranian government, Macron argued that it was for the people of Iran to choose their rulers.

“The biggest mistake today is to seek, through military means, to bring about regime change in Iran, because that will lead to chaos. Does anyone think that what was done in 2003 in Iraq [against Saddam Hussein] was a good idea? Does anyone think that what was done in Libya the following decade [the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011] was a good idea?”

View image in fullscreen Tehran has faced five days of Israeli bombardment. Photograph: Social Media/Reuters

Regime change with no plan is a strategic mistake, Macron said.

By contrast, Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, said: “We are dealing with a terrorist regime both internally and externally. It would be good if this regime came to an end.”

He admitted: “Regime changes have not always led to the outcomes we desired, but we have positive examples. In Syria, the Assad regime was overthrown and since then there has been a new government trying to bring peace to the country.”

He omitted to mention the change of government in Damascus was preceded by nine years of bitter civil war – hardly a model of smooth democratic transition.

As Tony Blair was warned by Iraq experts in 2002 – but decided to ignore – the removal of a longstanding authoritarian government unleashes unpredictable suppressed forces.

At least in the run-up to the Iraq war, there were “day after” planning cells in both the US state department and the Foreign Office – only for the planning to be wrenched from the diplomats and handed to the Pentagon.

View image in fullscreen The Woman Life Freedom movement was a recent example of internal discontent in Iran. These placards are being held up by Iranian football fans during a 2022 World Cup match in Doha, Qatar. Photograph: Neil Hall/EPA

In the case of Iran – a country of vastly diverse ethnicities, religions, politics and incomes – no western planning for the aftermath of the regime’s possible collapse has been made. Balkanisation is a real possibility. Iran is not an artificial state drawn up by foreign office planners, but the fear of separatism stalks the leadership of a country in which Persians make up only 50% of the country. About a quarter are Azeri or Turkic people (including the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei), and there are Balochs, Kurds, Arabs, and smaller groups of Jews, Assyrians, and Armenians.

If implosion happened, the Baku regime in Azerbaijan and the many Kurdish militant movements might see a chance to carve out ethnic enclaves from Iranian territories. Indeed, the Jerusalem Post has urged Benjamin Netanyahu to make a federalised Iran a policy objective, on the basis Iran cannot be reformed.

Nor is there any internal organised government in waiting. Political parties are effectively banned, many of the best voices are either in jail, ageing, exiled, under house arrest or working in the margins as lawyers, artists or trade unionists. Revolts have been mercilessly repressed.

The 2022 Woman Life Freedom movement was famed for its lack of leadership and left a cultural rather than institutional or leadership legacy. The subsequent implosion of the movement’s support network showed how quickly divisions can overtake a common cause.

Identifying a successor regime in Iran’s case would also depend on whether a revolution or a transition occurred. That will depend on who might take the blame for a military defeat – and how complete any defeat would be. At present there is a rallying round the flag effect, on which the government rides by emphasising the defence of Iran and not the Islamic Republic.

View image in fullscreen Reza Pahlavi, the son of Iran’s toppled shah, has put himself forwards as a candidate, should the current regime topple. Photograph: Jacques Brinon/AP

A revolution would probably see the collapse of Iran’s unique religious governing structure topped by the supreme leader, a clerical figure. If it was clear that the 86-year-old supreme leader was refusing all concessions on its nuclear program, and was seen to have lost touch with reality, he could be removed either from the streets or in a more orderly way by factions in the army.

It is true much of the key Revolutionary Guards leadership has been killed. But there may be junior officers, critical of regime corruption and Mossad penetration, who could lead an internal coup in part to forestall a full revolution. They might offer a more secular, non-ideological, insular – but no more liberal – regime. Such a regime would accept that Iran’s security strategy no longer relies on proxy armies across the Middle East. In other words, Iran would become a country, not a crusade.

It may also be true that inside the army – where the greatest knowledge about the true military balance of forces exists – some officers know that prolonging the war will cause avoidable destruction. During its war with Iraq, Iran sustained unfathomable losses among its ground troops, but this is an air war that it has already lost.

If implosion occurs, the person who would most like to return in triumph is Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran’s last monarch, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was overthrown during the 1979 revolution. The crown prince has name recognition and some older monarchists recall the Shah’s rule through rose-tinted glasses. He has been touring the US TV studios saying the regime is on the brink of collapse and offering himself as the figurehead of a democratic transition.

He sounded confident this week, saying that elements of the regime were already talking about defection: “We see a leader who is hiding in a bunker like a rat whilst many high elements are taking flight from Iran. I have stepped in to lead this campaign at the behest of my compatriots. I have a plan for Iran’s future and recovery.”

But there are doubts about his understanding of contemporary Iran, a country he left aged 17. His close association with the Israeli government, and his near-celebratory messages at a time when innocent civilians were being killed and maimed by Israel has led to vitriolic criticism. The jailed human rights lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh said: “We must defend Iran’s soil – not its rulers’ mistakes.”

Rumours have spread of an emergency government, with talk that two of Iran’s most sophisticated leaders, former president Hassan Rouhani and former foreign minister Javad Zarif could form a tandem – possibly alongside the former speaker of the parliament Ali Larijani.

Another signal of change would be the release from house arrest of former president Mir Hossein Mousavi and his wife, Zahra Rahnavard, who have been under house arrest since 2011.

Rahnavard has attacked “the criminal hand and aggressive nature of Netanyahu, through blatant violation of all international norms”, but also said as “a patriotic woman, I warn the rulers not to allow the war to become protracted and consume the land and the people in flames”.

In the case of a full political collapse, Iran’s new leadership might emerge from among the political prisoners in Evin jail. In statements from the prison, Mostafa Tajzadeh, the political deputy for the interior ministry in the 1997-2005 Khatami administration, has frequently attacked the supreme leader for “closing his eyes to the disastrous [situation]”.

In the past few days he wrote: “I know that some segments of the people are happy with the [Israeli] attacks, because they see it as the only way to change the failed clerical government.”

He added: “But even assuming that the war leads to such an outcome, Iran will be left in ruins, where, most likely, statelessness and chaos will prevail – if the country is not torn apart.”

Tajzadeh added: “I believe that for a peaceful transition to democracy, we can insist on the formation of a Constituent Assembly to amend/change the constitution and force the government to establish it.”

The Coordinating Council of Iranian Teachers’ Trade Associations – another potential source of alternative authority – said: “We disavow any warmongering policy, whether by the Iranian government or by other regional governments, and declare that war is neither a blessing nor an opportunity, but rather a calamity.”

View image in fullscreen The notorious Evin prison in Iran. Photograph: Roger Parkes/Alamy

The anti-war message is also coming from women in Evin.

Anisha Asadollahi, Nahid Khodajoo, and Nasrin Khazrajavadi, in a joint letter this week said: “Neither the Iranian people nor other nations want war. Devastating and destructive wars imposed on government dragging the existence of thousands of defenceless people into decline by fuelling violence and conflict.”

Narges Mohammadi, the 2022 Nobel peace prize winner, has suffered for her opposition to the regime, but mocked Trump’s call for 10 million people to evacuate Tehran. She told the BBC: “I deeply believe that democracy, human rights, and freedom cannot come through violence and war.”

Ultimately if the structures of repression fray it will depend on the Iranians themselves. Many Iranians detest the regime – for a variety of reasons – but they equally detest what Israel is doing.

Iranians say they feel caught in a war that is not theirs, waiting for the deaths of those who brought them nothing but silence, torture, and poverty.

But Iranians also say they have seen what Israel has done to Gaza, and they do not want Tehran to become another Gaza.

There have already been enough images of fathers carrying bloodied babies through the rubble. Even now, as the regime totters, the uncertainty about what may come next may be its best chance of survival.

Iranian opposition leader Ashkan Rostami, a representative in exile of the Constitutionalist Party of Iran, paints a complex, uncertain picture of the mood in Iran—one marked by mixed emotions, crushing repression, and hope tempered by fear.

“Some people are happy because they think the war is finally over. Others are disappointed because they saw it as a golden opportunity to defeat the regime,” Rostami said in an interview on Tuesday. “And many are just confused. They don’t know whether the war was good or if peace now is better.”

The ceasefire follows an extensive Israeli military campaign that targeted key Iranian regime infrastructure, including nuclear sites, the Ministry of Defense, and state TV headquarters. Yet, Rostami warned that the regime may now turn its fury inward.

3 View gallery Iranian opposition leader Ashkan Rostami ( Photo: Courtesy )

“People are afraid the regime, having lost many of its top commanders and facilities, will retaliate by intensifying repression inside Iran,” he said.

Communication has become nearly impossible in recent days due to internet shutdowns imposed by the government, according to Rostami.

“The regime cut off the internet to hide their losses and prevent people from organizing. Without the internet, someone in Isfahan doesn’t know what’s happening in Tehran,” he said.

While an estimated 7 million Iranians fled Tehran during the conflict, many are now returning, facing uncertainty and possible crackdowns. Rostami described widespread checkpoints and an increased military presence in the capital, including minors armed with assault rifles manning roadblocks.

“They’re concentrating all their forces in Tehran,” he said. “But if protests begin in other cities, the regime will have to divert resources. That might give people in Tehran a chance to act.”

Despite the surge in anti-regime sentiment, Rostami acknowledged the Iranian opposition is deeply divided—a reality that could undermine any momentum for real change.

Asked about the role of the Woman, Life, Freedom movement, which led mass protests following the death of Mahsa Amini in 2022, Rostami said their absence during the conflict was noticeable but understandable.

3 View gallery A demonstrator carries the portrait of Mahsa Amini, who died in detention following her arrest by the Iranian morality police in September 2022 ( Photo: Teresa Suarez )

“It began as a civil movement, not a political one. Many of its supporters are on the left and were against both the war and Israel,” he said. “But I believe they will rejoin the broader opposition soon.”

He described a broad spectrum of opposition activists, ranging from Marxists to monarchists. “Some claim to be liberal but are really the opposite, even Marxist-Islamist. These divisions are a major obstacle,” he explained. “But most Iranians—70% to 80%—support the main opposition groups that want to end the Islamic Republic.”

Since regular Iranians are not armed, it was “not possible” to rise up against the regime, he said.

He explained that many were hoping for a nonviolent revolution. “They wanted some kind of a pacifist transition, some kind of a pacifist revolution without arms,” he said. “We know that if it’s not impossible, it will be really difficult.”

Rostami considered outside assistance in the struggle and suggested: “Maybe the IDF or some other people will help some of the opposition forces inside Iran to get armed, and maybe could help a revolution.” However, he added, “Right now, my information tells me that there aren’t any armed forces inside Iran.”

Get the Ynetnews app on your smartphone: Google Play : https://bit.ly/4eJ37pE | Apple App Store : https://bit.ly/3ZL7iN

Reflecting on the military accomplishments of Israel within Iran during the current conflict, Rostami noted that a key to the success was assistance from inside Iran.

“We know that what Israel did in these 12 days was not possible without the help of someone inside. So, we certainly know that there is someone inside the Revolutionary Guards, this army or the security, the intelligence of the Islamic Republic, who works with Israel. And I think if someone works with Israel, they could … put himself beside people and fight with people and not against them,” he said.

The period of Israel’s direct conflict with Iran has been characterized by a reign of terror, as the regime accuses citizens of spying and executes them. Rostami reported that in the past 12 days alone, the regime executed roughly 30 people under vague espionage charges.

“They were political prisoners. The regime used the war as an excuse to kill them,” he said.

“Now they’re talking openly in parliament about making it easier to execute dissidents,” Rostami said, adding that lawmakers want to change the laws on espionage “so we could process and kill people that we want much easier than before.”

3 View gallery Tehran after the ceasefire ( Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS )

Rostami said that among the regime’s first internal targets was the building of the morality police in Tehran, which was destroyed in an Israeli strike. “Most of the people were talking about, yeah, this is the building where Mahsa Amini got killed. So we are happy that it is destroyed now,” he said.

He detailed the threats the regime made about terrorizing the populace at the conclusion of the war with Israel. “They were saying during these 12 days that if the war stops, the moment the war stops, we are going to kill so many people,” he said. “They said directly that they were going to hang and kill people, even mass graves, and that they would have to dig additional mass graves.”

For that reason, he said, “People of Iran actually right now are more horrified of this ceasefire than of the war.”

In light of attacks by Iran and Israel after the ceasefire was supposed to begin, Rostami said he does not think it will last. “I don’t think the ceasefire will hold,” he said, adding that internal divisions within the regime may be fueling conflicting strategies.

“One faction wants to preserve the Islamic Republic. Another wants to escalate with Israel and continue the nuclear program.”

Despite the chaos, Rostami insisted Iran is not at a lost moment—yet.

“There’s still a window,” he said. “But the opposition must act quickly, and we need unity. This could be the beginning of real change if we don’t waste it.”

This article is written by Felice Friedson and published with permission of The Media Line