Over the past 24 hours, diplomatic and military developments between the United States, Israel, and the Islamic Republic of Iran have intensified. While the headlines are shaped by threats of war, military buildups, and indirect diplomatic signaling, the underlying dynamics point to deeper strategic tensions that require clear and grounded analysis.
Islamic Republic’s Dual Messaging
Statements by the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic, confirmed that the regime leader, Ali Khamenei, directly drafted the official response to Donald Trump’s letter. The message emphasized distrust of the US president, described him as the most unreliable negotiating partner, and underlined Iran’s preparedness to respond to any threat.
At the same time, Iran’s foreign minister announced conditional willingness to resume negotiations over the nuclear program—on the basis of sanctions relief. He also consistently emphasizes indirect negotiations. These conflicting signals reflect a dual strategy: projecting deterrence abroad while preserving some room for diplomatic de-escalation.
Domestically, however, this rhetoric continues to serve a repressive function. The concentration of decision-making in the hands of the Supreme Leader and the IRGC sidelines public debate, elected institutions, and popular opposition to war. Over the past decade, civil society and many reformist and dissident voices inside Iran have criticized the militarization of foreign policy (particularly in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen) not only on ethical and human grounds but also because of its cost to Iran’s social and economic fabric. These criticisms have been consistently repressed.
It is essential to recognize that the Islamic Republic’s regional interventions have not been a reflection of popular will but rather of an authoritarian state structure with little tolerance for dissent or pluralism. The current military posture is not separate from the state’s broader authoritarian strategy.
The commander-in-chief of the IRGC, in a rather telling interview with the regime-aligned website Entekhab, tried to reframe the Islamic Republic’s military failures in Syria through an elaborate tapestry of justifications. He claimed that “factors related to the Syrian regime do not concern Iran,” an effort to distance Tehran from the consequences of its prolonged and costly intervention. According to him, Iran was not directly responsible for Syria’s defense, but merely offered support in “critical moments” to eliminate the “sedition of Daesh and takfiris”—a narrative that has been reimagined time and again to mask strategic setbacks.
This public statement is a window into the labyrinth of ideological and strategic contradictions that underpin the IRGC’s regional agenda. While Salami insists on the regime’s triumphs, the ground realities—especially the rising anti-Iranian sentiment in parts of Syria—suggest otherwise. He describes their involvement as support for the so-called “axis of resistance,” a mosaic of paramilitary alignments that has increasingly alienated local populations and placed Iran in direct confrontation with regional and global powers.
In an even more enigmatic passage, he declares: “We are not worried about war. We will not start it, but we are prepared for any kind of war. Whether psychological operations or military action—we are ready.” His tone doesn’t merely reflect military bravado; it’s an ideological crucible that fuses Shi’a martyrdom, militarism, and geopolitical aspiration into a singular narrative. He speaks of not retreating “a single step,” drawing on the imagery of Karbala and declaring: “We are students of that school, though Ashura shall not be repeated.”
Such declarations beckon us to delve deeper into the kaleidoscopic blend of religion and nationalism that orchestrates the Islamic Republic’s military identity. It is a discourse that transcends ordinary political logic, instead positioning war as an almost sacred inevitability—one that ignores the growing internal dissent, the economic burdens on ordinary Iranians deprived of victuals and basic freedoms, and the regional exhaustion from endless conflict.
The U.S. and Israel: Escalating a Regional War Agenda
Meanwhile, the United States continues to expand its direct military presence in the region. In the past day, a second THAAD missile system was delivered to Israel. Over 100 US troops have reportedly arrived to operate it. This comes amid reports of more than 300 US airstrikes against Houthi targets in Yemen over the past two weeks. The latest strikes reportedly killed dozens, including IRGC-linked personnel, despite official denials from Tehran.
The Israeli government has also escalated its pressure campaign. Prime Minister Netanyahu is traveling to Washington to meet Donald Trump for a coordinated discussion about Iran. According to multiple sources, both sides are reviewing military options in case diplomacy fails. Israeli officials have expressed open intent to strike Iranian nuclear facilities, with or without US participation.
Israel’s regional policies—particularly in Gaza and southern Lebanon—are deeply embedded in a logic of military domination, displacement, and in the current moment, mass violence. Since October 2023, the Israeli government’s operations in Gaza have caused the brutal massacre of more than 60,000 people and displacement. The continued military buildup against Iran must be seen in this broader context of aggression and regional destabilization.
While it is both necessary and urgent to criticize and oppose the war-mongering strategies of the United States and Israel—especially from the perspective of people outside the region—it is a political and ethical mistake to ignore or downplay the internal dynamics of the Iranian state. Criticism of US military policies should not come at the expense of Iranian voices who are themselves under repression.
Calls for demilitarization in the region must also recognize that the Islamic Republic has used the cover of “resistance” to silence domestic dissent, suppress protests, imprison journalists, execute political prisoners, and violate the rights of ethnic and religious minorities. Rejecting war should not require political silence on these realities.
Towards a Regional Alternative
Progressive forces in the Middle East—women’s movements, labor groups, youth activists, anti-war coalitions, and independent intellectuals—are not aligned with either side of the current militarized standoff. Their vision points toward demilitarization, popular sovereignty, and democratic governance. In Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, and Iran, these actors have opposed both foreign intervention and domestic authoritarianism. The future of peace in the region depends not on high-level negotiations alone but on the convergence of these grassroots actors.
A sustainable alternative requires:
- Withdrawal of US military forces from the region. The military presence serves neither democracy nor stability.
- Cessation of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza and its broader militarist policies.
- Demilitarization of Iranian foreign policy and the protection of political freedoms inside the country.
Politically, socially, and culturally, the Islamic Republic is in a state of deep internal deadlock. It has lost the capacity to mobilize society—even in the name of war. The regime today finds itself isolated, not only regionally and internationally, but also domestically, where a growing public discontent has stripped its ideological symbols of meaning.
Recent weeks have once again revealed the scale of this alienation. As external pressure from figures like Donald Trump escalates, the regime’s leadership has been confronted by an unexpected wave of public defiance—sparked not by overt political protest, but by the revival of Nowruz celebrations across cities and villages. The population turned these events into acts of social resistance: dancing in the streets, rejecting the aesthetics of mourning and religious imposition, and publicly mocking the regime’s ideological codes.
This spontaneous social mobilization—without slogans, leaders, or coordination—has made one thing clear to the regime: it cannot rely on this 86-million-strong population to back it in case of war. On the contrary, the fear inside the ruling elite is that war could trigger a domestic rupture far more dangerous than foreign military strikes. They have seen the revolutionary potential of mass disobedience, and they know their security apparatus cannot contain it forever.
Media Narratives and the Normalization of War
One of the more disturbing elements of the current moment is how mainstream and part of oppositional media alike are contributing—directly or indirectly—to the normalization of war as an inevitable outcome. In recent coverage, reports on the deployment of US forces, from strategic bombers to aircraft carriers and missile defense systems, are presented in a tone of technical inevitability. The message, whether intended or not, is clear: regardless of what the Islamic Republic says or does, the people of Iran should begin to accept that war is now the only option on the table.
This framing not only reduces public agency, but also silences the plurality of positions within Iranian society—particularly those that reject both the regime’s foreign policy and the militarism of foreign powers. It serves to paralyze public debate and push populations into a corner, where critical thinking is replaced by fear, fatalism, or forced alignment with one militarized camp against another.
At the same time, media outlets continue to circulate horrific images from Gaza and Yemen—evidence of the brutality of today’s wars. But these images, rather than fueling a broad anti-war response, are being instrumentalized by right-wing militarist actors across the spectrum. On one end, hardline elements within the IRGC use them to justify further regional interventions and violence under the banner of “resistance.” On the other, far-right exiled forces—including segments of monarchists and nationalist opposition groups—publicly cheer for US or Israeli airstrikes on Iranian cities, openly fantasizing about regime change through bombs.
Despite having very different political goals, both these forces share a disturbing commonality: war is not a danger to be avoided, but a desire to be fulfilled. This convergence between the most authoritarian elements of the regime and the most reactionary segments of the opposition reinforces the militarization of political imagination. Instead of organizing around political transformation, democracy, or justice, war becomes the shortcut they are all willing to take—even if it means sacrificing ordinary lives along the way.
It is here that critical media responsibility becomes vital. Reporting on military deployments and diplomatic maneuvers cannot be reduced to technical data or geopolitical chess moves. Journalism must reflect the real costs of war and amplify the voices—inside and outside Iran—who reject both the regime’s authoritarianism and the logic of war as politics by other means.
What is Next?
No to war must also mean yes to political freedom. Yes to social justice. Yes to accountability. The Iranian state’s record of regional intervention is inseparable from its authoritarianism at home. But the responsibility for militarization does not lie equally with all states. The United States and Israel must be held accountable for their disproportionate power and the long-term destruction caused by their interventions.
At the same time, defending the people of Iran from foreign aggression must not require silencing those who resist the Islamic Republic’s own violence. Peace will not come from negotiations between powerful elites, but from a rebalancing of power in favor of those who have suffered most—from Tehran to Gaza, from Baghdad to Sana’a.
This means creating pressure from below—not through governments, but through unions, universities, artists, and civil society—against those in power in Tehran who are responsible for imprisoning journalists, executing dissidents, silencing workers, and exporting militarism in the name of “resistance.” Such a campaign should focus on amplifying the voices of Iran’s grassroots: feminists, students, labor organizers, ethnic and religious minorities, and all those struggling against authoritarian rule.
At the same time, this effort must not be isolated from the broader regional context. Progressive and anti-war forces cannot remain silent in the face of the crimes of the Israeli government, especially its ongoing siege and devastation of Gaza. Criticism of the Islamic Republic should not mean political alignment with Israel, just as condemnation of Israeli militarism must not become an excuse to romanticize Iran’s role in the region. The logic of choosing “the lesser evil” among authoritarian regimes or military powers has only deepened suffering and postponed justice.
Instead, solidarity should be anchored in principles, not alignments: opposition to occupation, opposition to authoritarianism, support for self-determination, and support for the democratic aspirations of peoples across the region. Anti-war movements in the Global North, Middle East, and beyond must work together to reject state-led militarism in all forms—whether it comes from Washington, Tehran, or Tel Aviv—and help create the political space for democratic, anti-authoritarian alternatives to grow.
This convergence, across borders, struggles, and languages, is not only possible, it is urgently necessary.
What you think?