When the United States and Israel launched strikes against Iran on 28 February, many Iranians—exhausted by decades under the clerical regime and traumatised by the January crackdown that killed thousands—saw military action as the last remaining hope for change. Two months on, with the Islamic Republic still standing and a ceasefire taking shape, that conviction is fraying.
In conversations with residents from Tehran, Karaj, Kerman, Tabriz, Shahroud and other cities, a complex picture emerges: a population caught between the desire for liberation and the fear of what war brings. All spoke under severe restrictions; Iran maintains tight internet controls, censors domestic media, and has arrested journalists covering the conflict and protests. Most rely on Persian-language satellite channels broadcast from abroad—branded enemy media by the government—alongside fragmented social media and word of mouth. Pseudonyms are used throughout to protect their safety.
Casualty figures from the January protests remain contested. Several interviewees cited estimates of up to 40,000 killed, a figure previously shared with Euronews by insiders in Iran. International tallies are lower but incomplete; the government has not released comprehensive data.
Support for Intervention: A Necessary Evil
Among those interviewed, several said they supported the strikes before they began and still do. Mehdi, 44, a publisher in Tehran, had no doubts. “The Islamic Republic had put enormous pressure on the people, and in response, people used the last of their strength in last year’s January protests,” he said. “After that, it became clear that apart from external pressure there was no way to hurt the regime. The military attack did at least bring about some change at the top.” He added bluntly: “I don’t know the consequences, but it was better than no change. There was no alternative left other than war.”
Mohammad, 39, a mountaineer, said he had supported a limited war before it started. “It didn’t go far enough, and it didn’t achieve the expected result, but it was still better than nothing. I think it partly avenged those killed in the January protests.” On whether he wants war again, he said: “I want this regime gone, either by people or by war. But if revolution is impossible, then only if war is guaranteed to bring it down. If the US has a clear plan, I support war—but not without a clear objective.”
Mohsen, 37, a shop owner in Karaj, estimated that “about 70% of people support war because they cannot fight this regime empty-handed. This war was about 40% useful. The rest must be done by the people. I want war again, but better planned.”
Second Thoughts: The Cost of Conflict
Not everyone who initially backed the war still holds that view. Yeganeh, 46, a Tehran resident, said she had wanted the strikes to happen. “I was pro-war, but I didn’t think it would be so intense and that so many people would be killed,” she told us. “I think eliminating the regime’s leaders actually strengthened the Islamic Republic because in the minds of its supporters it turned them into superhuman figures. Getting rid of the Supreme Leader did not work out well for Iran’s future, because his son replaced him. Nothing really changed.”
Fatemeh, 50, a driver in Kerman, said rising prices over the past year had convinced her that war might bring change—but no longer. “I’m a single mother with two children. The three of us work, but even so, we always owe tomorrow’s money to today. I don’t think war will create a better future for us.”
These shifting views reflect a broader European concern: the economic spillover from conflict in the Middle East. The Eurozone inflation rate hit 3% in recent months, driven partly by oil price spikes linked to the Iran strikes, while the ECB held rates at 2% amid mounting stagflation fears across the eurozone.
Opposition from the Start: Nationalism and Deterrence
Leila, 43, a translator in Tehran, said she had opposed the strikes from the beginning. “An attack on Iranian soil has always been my red line. My family and close friends are reformists and oppose war. War is generally destructive, especially when it leads to mass casualties and the destruction of infrastructure.” Yet the war has also awakened nationalist sentiment—shared across Iran’s political spectrum—that often adopts the same vocabulary as regime propaganda, even among those who oppose the Islamic Republic. “When the Islamic Republic stands up to the world’s dominant power for about two months and even forces the United States to accept part of its demands, to agree to a ceasefire and, more importantly, to watch its economy affected, that shows it has deterrent power,” Leila said.
For Europe, the Iranian dilemma is not abstract. The continent’s energy security, migration pressures, and diplomatic credibility are all tied to stability in the Persian Gulf. As Iranians continue to debate the merits of war versus revolution, European policymakers must navigate a landscape where hope and fear are inextricably linked.
