In January 2026, the people of Iran literally begged the international community for help to overthrow their government. They were bleeding in the streets, facing down live ammunition, dealing with total communications blackouts. Absolute darkness. And the most shocking part was the world’s reaction – so much of the Western world, particularly the human rights advocacy networks that usually organize all this global outrage we got used to in recent years, they just looked the other way. It represents a truly massive geopolitical and moral blind spot.

Understanding Iran Beyond Headlines

The story of modern Iran is often told through the lens of geopolitics, nuclear negotiations, and regional conflicts. Yet behind the headlines lies a far more complex reality: a society marked by deep internal tensions, competing visions of national identity, recurring cycles of protest and repression, and an ongoing struggle between state ideology and public aspirations.

For decades, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been one of the most discussed yet misunderstood countries in the world. International media often focuses on Iran’s nuclear program, tensions with Israel, conflicts with the United States, and its role in the Middle East. Yet these geopolitical stories frequently overshadow another important reality: the struggle taking place inside Iran itself.

Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, millions of Iranians have experienced a complex relationship with their government. While some continue to support the Islamic Republic as a symbol of national independence and Islamic values, the vast majority view it as an increasingly authoritarian system that limits political freedoms, personal liberties, and economic opportunities.

Over the last decade in particular, Iran has witnessed repeated waves of social unrest, mass protests, economic hardship, and growing demands for change. To understand modern Iran, one must understand not only the regime, but also the people who live under it.

The History of the Persian Empire

To understand modern Iran, one must begin long before the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Iran is not merely a modern nation-state. It is the heir to one of the world’s oldest continuous civilizations. More than 2,500 years ago, the Persian Empire under Cyrus the Great became one of history’s largest empires, stretching from the Mediterranean to Central Asia.

Successive Persian dynasties shaped the culture, language, literature, architecture, science, and identity of the region for centuries. For many Iranians, national identity is rooted not only in Islam but also in a much older Persian civilization that predates the Islamic conquest by over a thousand years.

This distinction remains important today. Many opposition activists argue that the Islamic Republic does not represent the full depth of Iranian history and culture. They view the current regime as only one chapter in a much longer national story.

The Pahlavi Monarchy: the Shah of Iran

Social unrest in Iran did not begin with the Islamic Republic.

Before 1979, Iran was ruled by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The Shah pursued rapid modernization, industrialization, economic development, and close alignment with the United States. Major infrastructure projects, educational reforms, and economic growth transformed parts of the country. Cities expanded, universities grew, infrastructure improved, and Iran became one of the most influential countries in the Middle East.

Yet modernization came at a cost. These changes were accompanied by political repression, corruption allegations, widening inequality, and resentment toward perceived foreign influence. Many Iranians viewed the Shah’s government as increasingly authoritarian. Political opposition was suppressed, critics were imprisoned, and the intelligence agency SAVAK, which was a brutal secret police force in service of the Imperial State of Iran, became associated with surveillance and repression.

Religious conservatives opposed the secularization of society, Left-wing activists opposed inequality, Nationalists opposed foreign influence, intellectuals and students criticized the concentration of power and lack of political freedoms. By the late 1970s, these diverse opposition movements united around a common goal: overthrowing the monarchy.

The result was the 1979 Iranian Revolution. What began as a broad anti-monarchical movement eventually produced an Islamic Republic governed by the doctrine of Velayat-e Faqih—the rule of the Islamic jurist.

The Islamic Revolution: From the Oppressed to the New Establishment

The 1979 Revolution was built on a powerful narrative. The Shah was portrayed as the oppressor. The Iranian people were portrayed as the oppressed.

Led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, an Iranian politician and an Islamic Shia cleric, revolutionaries promised justice, independence, dignity, and freedom from foreign interference. Millions of Iranians supported the revolution because they believed they were creating a more equitable society. Khomeini transformed the country into an Islamic republic and served as the first supreme leader of Iran.

However, many of the revolutionary factions that helped overthrow the Shah—including liberals, secularists, socialists, and nationalists—were later sidelined as the Islamic Republic consolidated power. The movement that had risen against authoritarianism gradually developed its own extensive political, religious, judicial, and security institutions.

This created one of the defining paradoxes of modern Iran: A revolution carried out in the name of the oppressed eventually became accused by many citizens of becoming the new oppressor.

Who Supports the Iranian Regime?

Despite widespread criticism, it would be inaccurate to portray Iran as a country uniformly opposed to the Islamic Republic. The regime retains meaningful support from several groups:

Revolutionary Institutions

The most important pillar remains the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) which was established to protect the country’s Islamic Republic system and reports directly to the Supreme Leader, along with affiliated security services, paramilitary organizations, and ideological institutions. These organizations possess significant political, military, and economic influence. One of those is The Basij, a large, ideologically driven paramilitary militia which acts as the regime’s “iron fist,” enforcing strict moral codes and violently suppressing internal dissent.

Religious Conservatives

Many religious conservatives continue to support the Islamic Republic because they view it as a defender of Shia Islamic values and national identity and independence against foreign influences, either from the West or from the Sunni Muslim world represented by Saudi Arabia.

Rural and Traditional Communities

Support tends to be stronger in some rural regions and among older generations who lived through the revolution and the Iran-Iraq War continue to support the system.

Beneficiaries of the Existing System

A network of political, economic, and institutional stakeholders benefits directly from the current structure and therefore has strong incentives to preserve it.

Support for the regime is real, but it exists alongside significant opposition.

Who Opposes the Regime?

Opposition is broad but fragmented.

Reformists: Some seek gradual change while preserving the Islamic Republic’s basic framework.

Secular Liberals: Others advocate democratic reforms, expanded civil liberties, and reduced clerical influence.

Women and Youth Activists: Many younger activists focus on personal freedoms, gender equality, internet freedom, and social rights.

Ethnic and Regional Groups: Certain Kurdish, Baluchi, Arab, and other minority communities have periodically challenged the central government over issues of representation, economic inequality, and political rights.

Exiles and Diaspora Communities: Millions of Iranians living abroad participate in opposition movements, media organizations, and advocacy campaigns directed at Iran’s political future.

The opposition, however, remains fragmented. There is no universally accepted alternative leadership capable of uniting all anti-regime factions. What unites many opposition voices is not agreement on the future but dissatisfaction with the present. This fragmentation helps explain why large protest movements have not yet translated into a unified political alternative.

The Creation of External Enemies

After the 1979 revolution, the new Islamic Republic sought to define itself not only by what it supported, but also by what it opposed. The regime’s revolutionary ideology identified the West, and particularly United States and Israel as principal adversaries.

For decades, slogans such as “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” became regular features of state ceremonies, Friday prayers, school events, government-sponsored rallies, media broadcasts, and revolutionary commemorations. The leadership presented the United States as the embodiment of foreign domination (the “Great Satan”) and Israel as a regional extension of Western power (the “Little Satan”).

This messaging became embedded in state institutions, educational materials, official media, and political discourse. Supporters viewed this as resistance against foreign interference, but critics argued that the regime increasingly relied on external enemies to maintain internal legitimacy.

The Rise of Iran’s “Ring of Fire” Strategy

One of the most consequential developments in modern Middle Eastern geopolitics was Iran’s effort to build a network of allied armed groups throughout the region. This strategy was heavily associated with Qasem Soleimani and the IRGC’s Quds Force.

Its objective was to project Iranian influence far beyond Iran’s borders and create multiple fronts capable of threatening Israel and American interests.

The network included:

• Hezbollah in Lebanon
• Hamas in Gaza
• Iraqi Shiite militias
• Syrian pro-Iranian forces
• Yemeni Houthi forces

Israeli analysts frequently described this strategy as a “ring of fire” surrounding Israel.

Iranian leaders described it as a deterrence network designed to prevent attacks on Iran.

The result was decades of proxy warfare, missile proliferation, and regional instability. The same network was also used to pressure American military installations and personnel throughout the Middle East.

Nuclear Ambitions, Ballistic Missiles, and the Cost to Iranian Society

The Islamic Republic invested enormous resources into:

• Uranium enrichment
• Nuclear infrastructure
• Missile technology
• Drone development
• Regional proxy networks

Iranian leaders argue these programs are essential for national security and deterrence. Many Iranian critics disagree. Opposition figures frequently ask a simple question:

What might Iran look like today if similar resources had been invested in economic development, infrastructure, education, water management, and job creation?

The debate is especially powerful because Iran possesses extraordinary natural wealth, including:

• The world’s largest combined oil and gas reserves
• Significant mineral wealth
• Agricultural capacity
• A highly educated population
• Strategic geographic positioning
• Large educated population
• Significant industrial potential

Yet many ordinary citizens continue to face economic hardship.

Social Unrest in Iran Since the Revolution

The new regime quickly consolidated power. Secular liberals, leftist groups, monarchists and other revolutionary factions were eliminated from political influence. The state developed a unique hybrid system combining elected institutions with powerful unelected religious authorities.

The devastating eight-year Iran-Iraq War between 1980 and 1988 strengthened the revolutionary state’s legitimacy among many Iranians. Millions rallied around national defense, creating a generation deeply connected to the revolutionary narrative.

Yet even as the Islamic Republic survived, tensions between state authority and society never disappeared. Over the following decades, Iran witnessed recurring waves of unrest as major protest movements emerged repeatedly:

1999 Student Protests

Students demanded greater political freedoms and reforms.

2009 The Green Movement

Millions protested following disputed presidential election results.

2017–2019 Economic Protests

Rising prices, unemployment, and economic frustration triggered nationwide demonstrations.

Each wave reflected different grievances, but together they revealed a growing disconnect between significant segments of society and the ruling establishment. But we really need to focus on what happened in Iran in the last decade.

The Last Decade: Growing Frustration

The last ten years have placed enormous pressure on Iranian society. It has been particularly turbulent as more Iranians are “Questioning the System”.

Critics of the regime argue that decades of international economic sanctions, government corruption, economic mismanagement, military spending and political repression have diverted resources away from domestic development and have placed enormous pressure on ordinary Iranians, who are facing:

• High inflation
• Currency depreciation
• Youth unemployment
• Electricity and water shortages
• International isolation

Evidence suggests that Iran’s long-term confrontation with Western powers has produced substantial economic and institutional costs, affecting growth, investment, and living standards.

The country’s demographics have also shifted dramatically. Perhaps most importantly, the majority of Iranians today were born after the revolution. They have no personal memory of either the Shah or the revolutionary struggle that brought the current system to power. They evaluate the Islamic Republic not against the monarchy that preceded it, but against their own daily experiences and expectations for the future. This generational shift has transformed Iran’s political landscape.

Many young Iranians consume global media, use social networks despite restrictions, and often express priorities that differ from the ideological foundations of the state. What young Iranians are facing on a daily basis are restrictions on personal freedoms including internet restrictions and the very basic Freedom of Speech.

The internal conflict in Iran is not merely political. It is cultural, social, generational, and personal.

2022 The Mahsa Amini Protests: The “Woman, Life, Freedom” Movement

A defining moment came in September 2022.

The death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini while in custody after being detained for allegedly violating Iran’s mandatory hijab rules, marked a turning point. It triggered the largest and most geographically widespread protests in years. Demonstrations spread across major cities and smaller towns alike. Women publicly removed headscarves, students organized protests, and slogans increasingly challenged the legitimacy of the political system itself.

What began as outrage over compulsory hijab enforcement quickly evolved into a broader movement demanding dignity, personal autonomy, freedom of expression, gender equality and women’s rights, state violence and political accountability, and the right to shape one’s own future.

The slogan “Woman, Life, Freedom” became a symbol of resistance both inside Iran and around the world. For many participants, the issue was no longer simply clothing regulations. The deeper question became: Who controls an individual’s life—the citizen or the state?

The protests demonstrated that dissatisfaction was no longer confined to specific economic or political groups. Instead, opposition emerged from a broad coalition of women, students, professionals, workers, ethnic minorities, and younger generations.

The state responded with arrests, security operations, internet restrictions, and expanded surveillance. Subsequent studies documented increasingly sophisticated nationwide internet shutdowns and censorship mechanisms used to contain unrest.

While the protests did not overthrow the government, they exposed the depth of frustration within significant segments of Iranian society. The movement exposed a reality often ignored in international discussions: many Iranians see themselves as struggling against domestic oppression rather than foreign domination.

The January 2026 Protests and the Bloodiest Crackdown Since the Revolution

The protests that erupted at the end of 2025 and intensified in January 2026 may become one of the defining events of modern Iranian history.

Demonstrators protested economic hardship, political repression, corruption, and decades of authoritarian rule.

Security forces responded with overwhelming force.

Human-rights organizations documented widespread use of live ammunition, mass arrests, internet shutdowns, and lethal force by security services, including the IRGC and Basij militia. (Human Rights Watch)

The exact death toll remains disputed. Verified counts reached into the thousands, while some opposition groups and UN-linked sources suggested the final number could be substantially higher, as high as 30,000 innocent lives. Thirty thousand civilians! The true death toll remains unknown because the Iranian authorities imposed a nationwide communications blackout and restricted independent reporting.

Regardless of the final figure, the January 2026 crackdown appears to be among the deadliest episodes of political repression in the history of the Islamic Republic.

Why Western Activists Do Not Talk About Iran?

Why is the language of oppression applied so readily to some conflicts but not to citizens confronting an authoritarian regime inside Iran? This question is increasingly asked by Iranian dissidents and members of the Iranian diaspora. Several factors may explain the relative lack of attention.

Iran Does Not Fit Popular Activist Narratives

Many contemporary activist movements in Western universities and social media spaces are strongly influenced by anti-colonial frameworks. In those frameworks, conflicts are often understood through binaries such as:

• Colonizer versus Colonized
• Oppressor versus Oppressed
• Imperial Power versus Indigenous Population
• Majority versus Minority
• Powerful versus Powerless

Iran complicates these categories. The Iranian government portrays itself as resisting Western power. For some activists, that automatically places Iran within an “oppressed nation” category internationally. At the same time, many Iranian protesters describe their own government as authoritarian and oppressive domestically. Iran can be subject to sanctions, foreign pressure, and military threats while many of its citizens simultaneously experience domestic repression. Some activist frameworks struggle to hold both realities at once.

Focus on Other Global Conflicts

Recent years have seen enormous activist attention across much of the Western world shifted dramatically toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As a result, Iran’s internal struggles received much less sustained attention.

Some Iranian dissidents have argued that Western activist energy became highly concentrated on one regional conflict while giving comparatively less attention to Iranian protesters confronting their own state. This frustration appears frequently in Iranian diaspora discussions.

Fear of Supporting Foreign Intervention

Some activists worry that highlighting legitimate human rights abuses in Iran could be used to justify military intervention, regime-change operations, or geopolitical agendas.. This creates hesitation that does not exist in every international cause.

As a result, some activists distinguish between supporting Iranian civil society and supporting Western state policies toward Iran.

A Complex Iranian Opposition

Many successful activist movements rely on clear symbols, identifiable leadership, and simple narratives. Iran’s opposition landscape is fragmented, diverse, and often internally divided between Reformists, Secular democrats, Monarchists, Leftists, Feminist activists, Ethnic minority movements, Labour organizations and Exiled opposition groups. This makes it harder to build a simple international movement around a single narrative as it lacks a single universally recognized opposition leader.

However, one of the best-known opposition figures to the Islamic Republic is the son of the last Shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi, who is the most prominent member of the former Iranian royal family today. He advocates for a secular and democratic political system in Iran and has called for the end of the Islamic Republic.

Iran Challenges Existing Ideological Assumptions

Perhaps the most critical point. For some activists, Iran creates ideological discomfort because it does not fit expected political alignments. The Islamic Republic is deeply anti-American and anti-Israeli, positions that often attract sympathy from some anti-imperialist circles. Yet many Iranian dissidents describe the regime as authoritarian, patriarchal, religiously coercive, and repressive toward women, minorities, journalists, and political opponents.

This forces a more complicated conversation. Supporting Iranian protesters may require criticizing a government that also opposes Western power. For activists accustomed to viewing politics primarily through geopolitical power hierarchies, that can create tension.

“HELP IS ON ITS WAY!“

For decades, conflict between Iran, Israel, and the United States largely occurred indirectly through proxy groups, intelligence operations, cyber warfare, economic sanctions and diplomatic confrontation. However, the confrontation has become increasingly direct in recent years.

Iran’s leadership portrays these confrontations as evidence that the country faces an existential struggle against foreign adversaries seeking to weaken or overthrow the Islamic Republic. On the other hand, Israel argues that Iran’s nuclear program, missile capabilities, and support for armed regional allies pose unacceptable security threats. The United States has similarly focused on Iran’s nuclear activities, regional influence, and military capabilities.

The first direct Iranian attack on Israel was on April 2024 – Iran launched more than 300 drones and missiles toward Israel from Iranian territory. It was the first time since the founding of the Islamic Republic that Iran openly attacked Israeli territory with its own military forces rather than through proxy groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The second direct attack was on October 2024, where Iran launched approximately 180 ballistic missiles at Israel. Most were intercepted by Israeli and allied air defences. Israel responded several days later with a limited strike against military targets.

In June 2025 Israel launched extensive strikes on Iranian military and nuclear facilities, in what is known as the Twelve-Day War. Senior Iranian military commanders and nuclear scientists were killed. Iran launched large missile and drone barrages at Israel.

Then came the January 2026 protests across many Iranian cities, when US President Donald Trump publicly told Iranians:

“Iranian Patriots, Keep Protesting – Take Over Your Institutions, Help is On Its Way!”

Eventually, on the last day of February 2026, after the collapse of nuclear program negotiations between US and Iran, operation Epic Fury started. In the opening strikes Israel decapitated Iran’s political, military, intelligence, and nuclear leadership. Multiple senior figures were killed, including Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who ruled the Islamic Republic for 39 years and was widely accused of overseeing harsh repression against Iranian citizens, suppressing opposition and maintaining a restrictive political system.

Human-rights organizations, dissidents, Iranian protesters, and numerous Western governments have long argued that the Islamic Republic under Khamenei repeatedly used arrests, censorship, internet shutdowns, imprisonment, executions, and lethal force against political opposition and protest movements.

His removal gave many Iranian people hope that the decades-long totalitarian rule might be approaching its end and finally collapse. But did it?

The Outcome of the 2026 Regional Escalation and Iran’s Strategic Threat

The 2026 conflict dramatically expanded concerns about Iran’s military capabilities. Iran demonstrated:

• Advanced ballistic missile capabilities
• Long-range drone operations
• Maritime disruption capabilities
• Regional strike capacity

Recent fighting showed Iran willing and able to target multiple countries hosting American military assets – in fact 13 countries overall were attacked by Iran, while threatening shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. Disruptions around the Strait contributed to concerns about energy security and global oil markets.

The Strait of Hormuz remains one of the most strategically important waterways in the world because a substantial portion of global oil exports passes through it. These events demonstrated how decades of military investment have given Tehran the capacity to threaten regional stability far beyond its borders.

What is the Vibe among Iranian People today

What do Iranian people feel today after the promises of taking down the regime by the USA and Israel did not turn into reality? What seems clear from reporting, interviews, and Iranian discussions is that many people feel a mixture of exhaustion, disappointment, scepticism, anger, fear, and uncertainty rather than a sense of clear victory or clear defeat.

One of the biggest emotional shifts appears to be among people who hoped that external military pressure from the United States and Israel would seriously weaken or even collapse the Islamic Republic. For some of those Iranians, the fact that the regime remains in power despite repeated promises, rhetoric, and expectations of regime change has produced deep frustration. Several interviews with Iranians describe an initial sense of optimism during the strikes, followed by disappointment as it became clear that the state apparatus, security services, and core institutions remained intact.

There also appears to be a growing sense of disillusionment among some people who expected a decisive outcome. If a government survives major military pressure, it can project resilience and claim vindication. Some suggest that hard-line elements within the Iranian state emerged from the conflict, arguing that resistance rather than compromise, preserved the system. But the result can be devastating: People now fear that the outcome would be a much more aggressive and oppressive regime.

Some Iranian voices describe feeling particularly demoralized after ceasefires or de-escalation efforts because they had hoped external pressure would create a historic opening for political change. Others express the opposite view: relief that the country avoided state collapse, and potential civil war. They argue that even if they oppose the current government, uncontrolled regime collapse could produce fragmentation, ethnic conflict, or prolonged instability.

What emerges from all of this is a picture of a society that remains deeply divided about both the regime and the alternatives. Many Iranians appear to agree on one thing: dissatisfaction with the status quo, knowing things may get worse before they get better.

The Road Ahead

Today, the Islamic Republic of Iran stands at one of the most consequential moments in its history. More than four decades after the 1979 revolution, the country faces significant economic pressure, growing social unrest, generational change, and an increasingly dangerous confrontation with the United States and Israel.

To understand Iran is to recognize that its people are not merely spectators in a geopolitical conflict. They are participants in an ongoing struggle over identity, freedom, religion, power, and the future of one of the Middle East’s most important nations.

Unfortunately, given the latest development, it seems like the Islamic Republic regime is still standing, and is now managed by even more radical forces within the IRGC. Reform is not an option, and the future is unknown for about 90 million Iranian people as the struggle continues.

Iran is one of the world’s leading users of the death penalty, and recent reports indicate that executions have risen sharply. According to an annual report by the Iran Human Rights organization, at least 1,639 people were executed in Iran during 2025, the highest recorded annual total since 1989. Other organizations have reported even higher figures.

So why does the world not care enough about them? What happens to minorities like the Baháʼís, the Kurds, the Baloch and others? The Iranian people deserve much more support and empathy from world activists . It is the concept of universality – we must care about the lives of innocent people, no matter where they are – even if it doesn’t fit the narrative. When millions of Iranian people are suffering from an oppressive regime that shoots its own people on the streets, executes LGBTQ people by hanging them from construction cranes, and beats women who do not wear the hijab, we absolutely cannot look away.

We must stand with the people of Iran in their fight for freedom