Iranian Citizens Claim Regime Wages War on Its Own People

Background The Islamic Republic of Iran has long portrayed itself as a bastion against perceived external threats, chiefly the United States and Israel. Since the 1979 revolution, the regime's rhetoric has emphasized resistance to Western influence and support for the Palestinian cause, framing foreign policy as a defensive jihad. However, a growing chorus of domestic dissent suggests that many Iranians now view the government's priorities as misaligned, believing the state is waging an internal war against its own citizens. This sentiment has been amplified by a series of economic shocks, including a re‑escalated U.S. sanctions regime in 2018, a severe COVID‑19 pandemic, and rampant inflation that has eroded real wages for the middle and lower classes.

Domestic Discontent Protests that erupted in late 2022 after the death of Mahsa Amini— a young woman detained by the morality police—reignited nationwide anger over civil liberties and state violence. While the protests initially centered on women's rights, they quickly broadened into a wider condemnation of the regime's authoritarian mechanisms. Demonstrators have taken to social media, bearing slogans such as "the regime is at war with us" and chanting in public squares that the government’s foreign adventures divert resources from basic public services. According to a poll conducted by the Tehran Institute for Social Research in May 2024, 68% of respondents believe the regime prioritizes external conflicts over domestic welfare. Moreover, the crackdown on dissent—including mass arrests, internet blackouts, and lethal force—has deepened the perception that the state treats its own people as adversaries.

International Tensions Simultaneously, Iran's external posture has hardened. In early 2024, Tehran escalated its rhetoric against Israel, accusing the Jewish state of perpetrating "genocide" against Palestinians and warning of a "regional confrontation". The United States, responding to Tehran's continued ballistic missile development and alleged support for militant proxies, increased sanctions targeting Iran’s steel, oil, and banking sectors. These moves have intensified diplomatic isolation and heightened market volatility, especially in the Persian Gulf, where naval skirmishes between Iranian and U.S. vessels have become more frequent. The dual pressure of international antagonism and internal unrest creates a strategic paradox: the regime's external aggression appears to fuel domestic grievances, while domestic instability constrains its ability to project power abroad.

Expert Analysis Political scientist Dr. Leila Najafi of the University of Exeter argues that the regime’s narrative of a perpetual external war serves as a "psychopolitical tool" to justify repressive measures. "When the state frames ordinary citizens as potential fifth columnists, it legitimizes surveillance, curfews, and arbitrary arrests," she notes. Security analyst Amir Hosseini adds that the regime’s strategic calculus is shifting. "Iran's leadership is aware that sustaining a costly regional agenda while the domestic economy collapses is untenable. The ruling elites are now weighing whether to double down on external confrontations to distract the populace or to recalibrate their posture to avert a systemic crisis."

Potential Outcomes Three plausible scenarios emerge from the current trajectory. First, the regime may double its external aggression, hoping that a heightened sense of national emergency will rally popular support despite economic hardships—a strategy reminiscent of Iran’s response to the Iran‑Iraq war. Second, Tehran could pursue a limited diplomatic overture with the West, seeking sanctions relief in exchange for curbing missile programs and limiting support for proxy groups, thereby attempting to ease domestic pressure. Third, sustained internal unrest could catalyze a more substantial political opening, potentially leading to concessions such as the release of political prisoners, reforms to the electoral system, or even a negotiated transition. Each scenario carries distinct risks: increased militarization could trigger regional escalation, while premature concessions might embolden opposition groups and destabilize the regime’s power base.

Conclusion The perception among many Iranians that the regime is simultaneously at war with the United States, Israel, and its own citizens reflects a deepening crisis of legitimacy. Economic mismanagement, authoritarian repression, and an aggressive foreign policy have converged to create a volatile environment in which the state's survival hinges on its ability to balance external ambitions with internal stability. As the international community monitors Tehran's next moves, the internal narrative—captured in street chants and polling data—will likely shape the calculus of Iran’s leadership. Whether the regime chooses to intensify its external confrontations, seek diplomatic relief, or confront internal demands for change will determine not only the future of Iranian society but also the broader security dynamics of the Middle East.