8 ms·

It's disheartening to hear people talk about this in terms of won and lost. Is that how you think of these events? I think of them in terms of sadness and horro

It's disheartening to hear people talk about this in terms of won and lost. Is that how you think of these events? I think of them in terms of sadness and horror. The US threatened to obliterate a country and people, because gas was getting a little expensive. If winning and losing is the way you are framing this, instead of thinking about the humans that these actions affect, then we all have lost.

aaron695 6mo ago
[dead]
RiverStone 6mo ago
That doesn’t align with the perspective of actual Iranians I know. There are news reports of Iranian expats and opponents within Iranian who are disappointed with the ceasefire. They wanted trump to go further and destroy the regime. That aligns with conversations I’ve had with Iranians friends in the US and family members within Iran who want the regime destroyed so there is a chance of removing the Islamic theocracy that governs the country currently.
- scythe 6mo ago
  > There are news reports of Iranian expats and opponents within Iranian who are disappointed with the ceasefire. They wanted trump to go further and destroy the regime. Most of them realized their mistake: https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2026/04/01/irans-opposition-in-exile-is-rethinking-its-support-for-the-war https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2026/04/01/... Iranians hoping that war and death will save them are chasing a gruesome mirage. The US has successfully liberated exactly one country by regime change since 1945: Panama in 1989. Every other intervention has either supported a rebellion (secession) instead of a revolution, or it has ended in failure (Afghanistan, Vietnam, Somalia) or a prolonged civil war (Iraq, Libya, Yemen). Anyone hoping for such a fate to befall their own country is morally compromised.
  - RiverStone 6mo ago
    Looks like an interesting article, but it’s paywalled. Would love to read it. Do you have a different link or can you summarize it? From my conversations with Iranians, they know regime change is a long shot. But what are they to do? Anti-regime Iranians literally feel like that their country was hijacked by an Islamic theocracy. 40+ years of status quo has done nothing to change that. So yes, they enjoy seeing the regime being bombed. Do they really expect a revolution? Maybe the tiniest sliver of hope in their heart believes in it. But that’s better than nothing.
    - frm88 6mo ago
      Trita Parsi recently stated in an interview that he has data showing the support for regime change among the Iranian diaspora has significantly increased from 5% to around 30% but only a minority of them accept the 'at all costs' premise: https://youtu.be/dUyJubRB-ek?si=9wl8pc3sEgTrDlql https://youtu.be/dUyJubRB-ek?si=9wl8pc3sEgTrDlql
  - hack4278 6mo ago
    Calling Iranians who are against their current government “morally compromised” is real reprehensible for someone sitting in an armchair. Hoping foreign power can help overthrow the domestic lord is nothing new. That’s literally how the U.S. gained its independence with French military assistance. And to your point, US interventions saved South Korea, Kuwait, Grenada, Bosnia, in addition to Panama. The legacy of Vietnam is complicated with the country rejecting communism, becoming capitalistic, and embracing the U.S. in recent years. This is in stark contrast to countries like North Korea. We don’t know how Iraq and Venezuela will turn out in the current timeline either. Even more problematic though, is the fact that many of the US interventions happened in countries at the brink of free fall. These are failed states who are more likely to experience turmoils with or without the U.S.. Yes, civil wars can be worse than dictatorship. But that’s one of many possible outcomes. Avoiding all changes due to the fear of the worst potential outcome is weirdly privileged view. Kurds in Iraq can attest to this. Iraq has become much better for them nowadays because the Saddam era was pure hell. They were desperate and any alternative was thought to be better. However, I don’t think intervention in Iran necessarily serves the US interest to begin with. So sure, I agree with you that the U.S. really shouldn’t waste more time in Iran.
- WarmWash 6mo ago
  Don't know why this is downvoted, people must forget that the weeks leading up the war, Iran was pulling the plug on the internet and shooting regime protestors in the street. It seems Trump and Israel expected an internal revolution once the bombing started, but it doesn't seem that manifested.
- tdb7893 6mo ago
  My general impression is many people want the regime destroyed, which seems clear from talking to people but also just all the protests. I haven't asked but I'm skeptical they are for things like attacking of every bridge, railroad, and power plant (which are important civilian infrastructure). The threat was specifically that their "whole civilization will die tonight"
  - RiverStone 6mo ago
    I will tell you exactly what my Iranian wife said when I asked her about people congregating on the bridges after Trump said he’ll bomb them: she said (paraphrasing) “bomb them, they’re all regime supporters”. The country is basically on the verge of civil war. The reason it’s not is because the anti-regime forces are disorganized with no clear leader, have no weapons, and rely on internet to organize.
    - tdb7893 6mo ago
      Sure but that response about the people is entirely ignoring the vastly larger issue of does she (or, more importantly, people actually in Iran) want every single power plant bombed because that is what the threat was (also all bridges and some railroads). This is talking about the country being without power and stable food or water infrastructure for the foreseeable future and a lot of normal people dying (not particularly regime supporters)
      - RiverStone 6mo ago
        My impression is that people don’t take Trump‘s words literally. Trump often exaggerates and plays word games. If you take every statement from Trump literally you’re going to be constantly triggered. But even so, I think the response you’ll get from most anti-regime Iranians is “go for it, if it may let us get our country back”. Iranians who wants the regime overthrown are very conflicted right now. They see their country being destroyed, but they also hate the regime and want a revolution. They literally feel that their country was hijacked by an Islamic theocracy. They want that destroyed, so they’re thankful that Trump is attacking it. How far should Trump go? I just saw news reports that Iranian expats and anti-regime Iranians were disappointed with the cease-fire. That aligns with the initial reaction from my family and the Iranian expats that I know. So it’s a complicated answer… Do Iranians want all their infrastructure destroyed? If it would guarantee the regime was defeated I think most would say yes.
- hermannj314 6mo ago
  I have friends in the US that want the US government destroyed, there are people in the southern US that think the south won the civil war. Who cares? Every government in all of human history has had its detractors and supporters, more detractors probably exist in expatriated communities, their existence does not really prove anything.
  - RiverStone 6mo ago
    I’m not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that anti-regime Iranians are a minority? I’m not sure if we have good statistics on this. So everyone may have a different perspective. All I can say is this: I’m married to an Iranian woman, and through her I’ve met many Iranian expats, and I’ve talked to her family members within Iran. I think you’ll find that Iranian expats are pretty unanimously against the regime. That’s millions of Iranians. My in-laws who lives in Tehran are anti-regime, along with every single person on my wife’s side of the family: aunts, uncles, cousins. Everybody. Thousands of protesters were killed opposing the regime. And that’s just the latest protest. This is a regime that will kill women who don’t cover their hair correctly. Dancing and singing in the street is illegal. Don’t be concerned on behalf of the regime. This is a just war supported by Iranians. You are on the right side of history to kill people who hang protestors and force little girls to cover every part of their body.
    - CapricornNoble 6mo ago
      >That’s millions of Iranians. My in-laws who lives in Tehran are anti-regime, along with every single person on my wife’s side of the family: aunts, uncles, cousins. Everybody. How do you square this with the absolutely massive pro-government rallies that we've seen all across Iran for the entire duration of the conflict? Millions of Iranians opposed to the regime, in a country of 90 million+, might still be a fringe minority. If you asked some American expat their thoughts on MAGA, and they responded "China should bomb MAGA rallies so we can be free from the Republican party, my whole family in the US agrees".....that person would be considered a fringe lunatic, even if Trump's regime has record-low approval like it does now (and rightly deserves, I hope he is impeached and jailed).
- ebbi 6mo ago
  Was one of them BBC, who quoted one Iranian resident as saying they were ok with the US nuking Iran, and then quietly removing that bit from the quotes with no note that the article was edited?
- samrus 6mo ago
  Those people didnt lose faith in the US after it bombed a preschool? At one point you have to wonder if this is good versus evil or evil versus evil
  - blitzar 6mo ago
    I have a serious problem with calling 100+ schoolgirls who - at best - got instantly dismembered by a bomb and didnt suffer (too much) and at worst were crushed to death or bled out from shrapnel wounds "evil"
    - samrus 6mo ago
      I was referring to the US government verus the Iranian government. People think its good v evil but thay bombing and the double tapping shows it might be evil v evil Obviously no one is calling the victims evil. You have to suspect thats a misinterpretation if thats what you get from a comment
  - RiverStone 6mo ago
    I will respond to your comment honestly. I have literally talked about this topic with actual Iranians. The Iranians I’ve spoken to feel that the ends will justify the means. They believe that people will die either way, protesters are dying right now. So if they can destroy the regime, then it will be worth it.
    - samrus 6mo ago
      Is this iranians in iran or the diaspora? If its people in iran then theyre walking the walk which is admirable. If its the diaspora then theyre psychopaths for sacrificing innocents for government change in a country they dont live in
    - Xixi 6mo ago
      I understand the desire to end that murderous regime. If I were Iranian, I'd want to see it ended too. But do they really think bombs will achieve that? More importantly, would more bombing actually bring the regime down? Regimes rarely fall because civilians are reduced to searching for food and water. Destroying Iran's infrastructure would be more likely to produce desperation and disorder than revolt. It would hurt the weakest most, not those closest to the regime and best positioned to shield themselves from scarcity. If outsiders want to help bring the regime down, supporting opposition forces would at least make more sense than bombing civilians into misery. This is where not betraying the Kurds (several times) would have come in handy...
- helo4362 6mo ago
  Source please. How to get informed opinion on what the actual iran people feel. It seems from new media the support for khameni family has increased after the leader was killed.
  - RiverStone 6mo ago
    My wife is Iranian, so I’m connected with a large Iranian expat community, and all my in-laws are in Tehran. The best recommendation I can give you is to connect with your local Iranian community I’m not sure where you live, but every major city has one. You will experience great food and great parties and great dancing. Iranian expats love to dance because dancing and singing in public is illegal in Iran. So they do it as a big middle finger to the Islamic republic.
    - helo4362 6mo ago
      May be the expats are doing well financially and they have different perspective, what about the majority ones , especially the students who were opposing the regime during some death of a girl, has they converted. This is what I am interested in
      - RiverStone 6mo ago
        I don’t personally know. But I don’t see why students who protested during the “woman, life, freedom” protest a couple years ago would be any less anti-regime now. If that’s what you’re asking.
- NalNezumi 6mo ago
  Your perspectives of Iranians seems to be too biased, given also that you have partner from Iran and confess that you "only" talk to their inlaws and friends. The Iranian diaspora is more divided on the matter than you think [1], and given your background, you're probably in the bubble of the diaspora that wouldn't mind sending threatening messages to anyone not being completely aligned with anti regime stance. It's like someone marrying a deep south confederate flag waving MAGA American, moving there, and judging from talking to their friends and their hate for everything not MAGA, conclude that every American is like this. Or same scenario but California and liberals. [1] https://www.culanth.org/fieldsights/on-unity-fragmentation-in-the-iranian-diaspora https://www.culanth.org/fieldsights/on-unity-fragmentation-i...
  - RiverStone 6mo ago
    I’ve never sent threatening messages to people, and would never do that, so I’m not sure what that’s in reference to? I’ve responded to this idea of bias in other threads. I’m open to the idea that I’m perhaps biased by my wife, her friends, and my in-laws. I’ll admit that it may be a little hard for me to accept that given that I’ve been to so many Iranian celebrations, and met so many different people, and heard the same perspectives again and again. I feel that what I’ve conveyed on hacker news in my comments does reflect truly the conversations I’ve had. Most importantly, my goal in making these comments is to surface what actual Iranians are thinking. Many Iranians in the US are afraid to speak out because they have family in Iran, or they’re here in the US on a visa. They fear that if they speak up, they’ll never be able to go home and see their family again. As a US citizen, who is connected with the Iranian community, I feel it’s my duty to surface these conversations I’ve had.
    - NalNezumi 6mo ago
      My apologies if it came off as I was accusing you or your wife for sending threatening messages. That wasn't the intent It was (supposed to be) a reference to the content of the linked material: >Individuals and opposition groups took it upon themselves to allege relationships between diaspora Iranians and the Islamic Republic and guided their followers to conduct purity tests that sought to target, silence, and excommunicate anyone with whom they disagreed, labeling them as apologists or agents of the Islamic Republic for having called for reform in years past (now deemed too soft on the Islamic Republic), or for being unwilling to name the then-nascent protest movement a “revolution” or, in more extreme cases, for being unwilling to support regime change by any means necessary. And a comment about the fact that you and your close Iranian relatives and friends probably hold the anti regime views strongly, and so does many (especially the ones that had to flee the revolution, or the childrens of) of their friends. I'm not questioning that fact, but pointing out that it's quite obvious that your friends and relatives probably wouldn't hang around the Iranians with different views. It's not the only group and in a political climate like the Iranian diaspora, individuals (or groups) with opposing views or nuanced views are often silenced relentlessly. It's simply unavoidable dynamics: iranian diaspora strongly wanting regime change are also not the ones that have to carry the blunt of that cost (they're outside Iran already), but reap most of the benefits. They're also spreading that message on platforms in countries that have an incentive to push for that message (USA, Israel) so the discourse will be highly amplified around anti-regime rethoric. The fact that it's not their house that is being bombed, also means that there aren't really any counteracting weight put on any potential opposing discourse, the discourse will maintain or go more extreme in is anti-regime rethoric going even more "any means necessary" route. The Iranians against the regime inside Iran, I would assume, have a more nuanced view now. They might be against the regime, but not to the point they're willing to sacrifice their children, neighbors, and society collapsing Libya or Syria style. So they're probably less "any means necessary" about regime change.
- yodsanklai 6mo ago
  > They wanted trump to go further and destroy the regime. Did they also want Trump to destroy the whole civilization and have the country back to stone age like he claimed he would do?
- benterix 6mo ago
  > There are news reports of Iranian expats and opponents within Iranian who are disappointed with the ceasefire. They wanted trump to go further and destroy the regime. And how he would do that, exactly?
  - RiverStone 6mo ago
    Good question. From the conversations that I’ve had with Iranians, it’s unclear. The regime is too embedded. There’s no easy answer. Killing Mojtaba would be a good start. Anti-regime Iranians are basically holding onto any sliver of hope that they can regain their country. Of course, it’s all very unlikely, but I can’t help sympathizing with them. I think their cause is just. I think a non-theocratic Iran that could rejoin the global economy is a dream worth fighting for.
    - simonh 6mo ago
      Wasn't killing his father a good start? If it wasn't, why would killing him make a significant difference? I'd love to see a democratic Iran, but this was was utterly pointless and counterproductive.
      - RiverStone 6mo ago
        It was a great start. Iranians celebrated his death, which made me happy. I think one idea is that if you can kill enough regime leaders, perhaps a moderate leader may emerge? Or perhaps there may be a military coup? Which may be a lesser of two evils? The Iranians I’ve spoken to don’t feel like it was counterproductive. They actually feel like Trump has done more than any other president to damage the regime. What’s the alternative? More economic sanctions? The status quo of the last 40+ years has accomplished nothing. Anti-regime Iranians want action. They want us to make a move. We killed a lot of regime leaders and destroyed their military capability. That’s something. Now we have to see how that chess move played out.
- panick21_ 6mo ago
  Destroying infrastructure and making live hell for normal people does not remove the regime. When will people learn that air-wars don't magically change governments? Also, the Iranians you likely hear, are not representative. I don't think most people who depend on energy and water don't want that infrastructure destroyed.
- littlestymaar 6mo ago
  > There are news reports of Iranian expats and opponents within Iranian who are disappointed with the ceasefire. They wanted trump to go further and destroy the regime. That's the diaspora's luxury. They don't have to endure the pain of the conflict or sanctions, and they always end up being the biggest hardliners for that reason.
- citrin_ru 6mo ago
  > They wanted trump to go further and destroy the regime. It would require a large scale ground operation which is off the table. A few more weeks of air strikes would not have destroyed the regime anyway but a few more weeks of asymmetric strikes (when Iran strikes its neighbors because it can do little about the US/Israel) would have destroyed gulf oil infrastructure inflicting lasting economic pain on the whole world.
- ruszki 6mo ago
  I’ve never seen an example when foreign news really reported what people think on the ground. Especially because people on the ground usually lie. For example in Hungary, the voters of the current “opposition” prime minister candidate would tell you that they vote for him because they want democracy. Yet, they haven’t cared about that for more than a decade. Even when the real reason: inflation was obvious that it would be enormous after the election in 2022, before the previous election. The same with the US, news across the pond doesn’t explain why people vote for Trump, I had to go to the US several times to figure that out.
  - frollogaston 6mo ago
    They really don't know with Iran. It's illegal to protest the government there, and at the same time US and UK propaganda says everyone there wants to overthrow their govt.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- aaa_aaa 6mo ago
  Those news reports must be so trustworthy (!). They drunk the kool aid and propaganda just like Iranians of the opposite idea. But the difference is your Iranian friends probably never lived in a day in Iran.
  - RiverStone 6mo ago
    Every Iranian I know is either a first generation immigrant to the US, or they live in Iran. All my in-laws live in Tehran. They’re all anti-regime.
- frollogaston 6mo ago
  That's what I hear, but it seems like pure desperation. The reality is, Israel calls the shots here, and they aren't interested in a regime change that would strengthen Iran in the long term. They weren't happy with Pahlavi either.
fernandopj 6mo ago
It's a win. The largest military the world has ever known was recklessly used towards a foe against decades of internal warning not to go there. People on both sides who didn't ask for this war paid with their lives. High gas prices might have been a great cause for it ending, but the win for the world is that a escalation towards WWIII was averted, and that even idiotic leaders have learned that the world is a complex system and there's no such thing as a far away war anymore.
- blitzar 6mo ago
  I actually think it is important to talk about winning and losing, more so when the overwhelmingly stronger party loses. > even idiotic leaders have learned Call me a cynic, but if you are dumb enough to start the war in the first place you are too dumb to learn any lesson.
vasco 6mo ago
> It's disheartening to hear people talk about this in terms of won and lost. Is that how you think of these events? I think of them in terms of sadness and horror Its because you're such a better person than them, wow, incredible. Nobody else knows what war is.
TiredOfLife 6mo ago
> The US threatened to obliterate a country and people So the same thing Iran has been chating for decades
- danans 6mo ago
  > > The US threatened to obliterate a country and people > So the same thing Iran has been chating for decades That indicates that the US has become more like Iran than Iran has become like the US. Coincidentally (or perhaps not) the US is also increasingly authoritarian and theocratic, like Iran and its regional neighbors (both friends and foes).
nslsm 6mo ago
> The US threatened to obliterate a country and people, because gas was getting a little expensive. That’s not the reason. The US is an occupied government.
- none2585 6mo ago
  Occupied by who exactly? We elected this government, we get what we deserve.
  - Tangurena2 6mo ago
    One third of the voters sat the 2024 election out. To those voters, there was no daylight between either of the 2 candidates. And to give an example of the viability of third party candidates... I used to live in Colorado. To get onto the ballot as a Presidential candidate as a minor party candidate (aka neither D nor R candidate) one needs to get 10 people to swear to be Electoral College voters (if that candidate wins). Many times, those third party candidates get less than 10 votes in the entire state of Colorado.
    - danans 6mo ago
      > One third of the voters sat the 2024 election out Not voting in an election doesn't mean you didn't participate in its outcome, especially if you normally vote but choose to sit out an election.
heresie-dabord 6mo ago
> then we all have lost. Yes, we have lost sound leadership and stability. Pakistan has brokered the cease-fire in a war started by the US for no good reason. The current US administration was supposed to be non-interventionist. It is hard to watch the grim spectacle of the US fallen to the point of simultaneously making despicable threats to destroy another country and sending love and best wishes at election-time to Hungary's anti-EU, pro-Russian Orban.
simonh 6mo ago
It is possible to deplore the human cost, while also looking at the reasons why such conflicts occur, and what the goals of those involved are.
- a456463 6mo ago
  The reason of the conflict being a lunatic and spineless supporters.
  - jon_adler 6mo ago
    I deplore the “lunatic” and also support any attempts of liberating the entire Middle East from the deplorable Iranian regime. So many of the problems of this region can be traced back to them.
    - simonh 6mo ago
      I’m probably stretching what you said beyond what you meant, but while also deploring that regime I don’t support any attempt. I support effective action. This war was not effective action. I think it was utterly counterproductive.
hermitcrab 6mo ago
In a war, usually both sides lose.
tim333 6mo ago
It's a messy situation but it basically kicked off when the Iranian people had mass protests and the government started shooting them whereupon Trump tweeted “Iranian Patriots, keep protesting – take over your institutions!!! … help is on its way" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/13/trump-promises-iran-help-tells-iranians-keep-protesting https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/13/trump-promises... Not much about gas getting expensive there. I think the recent threats were mostly hyperbole for negotiating purposes.

aaron695 6mo ago

[dead]

RiverStone 6mo ago

That doesn’t align with the perspective of actual Iranians I know. There are news reports of Iranian expats and opponents within Iranian who are disappointed with the ceasefire. They wanted trump to go further and destroy the regime. That aligns with conversations I’ve had with Iranians friends in the US and family members within Iran who want the regime destroyed so there is a chance of removing the Islamic theocracy that governs the country currently.

scythe 6mo ago
> There are news reports of Iranian expats and opponents within Iranian who are disappointed with the ceasefire. They wanted trump to go further and destroy the regime. Most of them realized their mistake: https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2026/04/01/irans-opposition-in-exile-is-rethinking-its-support-for-the-war https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2026/04/01/... Iranians hoping that war and death will save them are chasing a gruesome mirage. The US has successfully liberated exactly one country by regime change since 1945: Panama in 1989. Every other intervention has either supported a rebellion (secession) instead of a revolution, or it has ended in failure (Afghanistan, Vietnam, Somalia) or a prolonged civil war (Iraq, Libya, Yemen). Anyone hoping for such a fate to befall their own country is morally compromised.
- RiverStone 6mo ago
  Looks like an interesting article, but it’s paywalled. Would love to read it. Do you have a different link or can you summarize it? From my conversations with Iranians, they know regime change is a long shot. But what are they to do? Anti-regime Iranians literally feel like that their country was hijacked by an Islamic theocracy. 40+ years of status quo has done nothing to change that. So yes, they enjoy seeing the regime being bombed. Do they really expect a revolution? Maybe the tiniest sliver of hope in their heart believes in it. But that’s better than nothing.
  - frm88 6mo ago
    Trita Parsi recently stated in an interview that he has data showing the support for regime change among the Iranian diaspora has significantly increased from 5% to around 30% but only a minority of them accept the 'at all costs' premise: https://youtu.be/dUyJubRB-ek?si=9wl8pc3sEgTrDlql https://youtu.be/dUyJubRB-ek?si=9wl8pc3sEgTrDlql
- hack4278 6mo ago
  Calling Iranians who are against their current government “morally compromised” is real reprehensible for someone sitting in an armchair. Hoping foreign power can help overthrow the domestic lord is nothing new. That’s literally how the U.S. gained its independence with French military assistance. And to your point, US interventions saved South Korea, Kuwait, Grenada, Bosnia, in addition to Panama. The legacy of Vietnam is complicated with the country rejecting communism, becoming capitalistic, and embracing the U.S. in recent years. This is in stark contrast to countries like North Korea. We don’t know how Iraq and Venezuela will turn out in the current timeline either. Even more problematic though, is the fact that many of the US interventions happened in countries at the brink of free fall. These are failed states who are more likely to experience turmoils with or without the U.S.. Yes, civil wars can be worse than dictatorship. But that’s one of many possible outcomes. Avoiding all changes due to the fear of the worst potential outcome is weirdly privileged view. Kurds in Iraq can attest to this. Iraq has become much better for them nowadays because the Saddam era was pure hell. They were desperate and any alternative was thought to be better. However, I don’t think intervention in Iran necessarily serves the US interest to begin with. So sure, I agree with you that the U.S. really shouldn’t waste more time in Iran.
WarmWash 6mo ago
Don't know why this is downvoted, people must forget that the weeks leading up the war, Iran was pulling the plug on the internet and shooting regime protestors in the street. It seems Trump and Israel expected an internal revolution once the bombing started, but it doesn't seem that manifested.
tdb7893 6mo ago
My general impression is many people want the regime destroyed, which seems clear from talking to people but also just all the protests. I haven't asked but I'm skeptical they are for things like attacking of every bridge, railroad, and power plant (which are important civilian infrastructure). The threat was specifically that their "whole civilization will die tonight"
- RiverStone 6mo ago
  I will tell you exactly what my Iranian wife said when I asked her about people congregating on the bridges after Trump said he’ll bomb them: she said (paraphrasing) “bomb them, they’re all regime supporters”. The country is basically on the verge of civil war. The reason it’s not is because the anti-regime forces are disorganized with no clear leader, have no weapons, and rely on internet to organize.
  - tdb7893 6mo ago
    Sure but that response about the people is entirely ignoring the vastly larger issue of does she (or, more importantly, people actually in Iran) want every single power plant bombed because that is what the threat was (also all bridges and some railroads). This is talking about the country being without power and stable food or water infrastructure for the foreseeable future and a lot of normal people dying (not particularly regime supporters)
    - RiverStone 6mo ago
      My impression is that people don’t take Trump‘s words literally. Trump often exaggerates and plays word games. If you take every statement from Trump literally you’re going to be constantly triggered. But even so, I think the response you’ll get from most anti-regime Iranians is “go for it, if it may let us get our country back”. Iranians who wants the regime overthrown are very conflicted right now. They see their country being destroyed, but they also hate the regime and want a revolution. They literally feel that their country was hijacked by an Islamic theocracy. They want that destroyed, so they’re thankful that Trump is attacking it. How far should Trump go? I just saw news reports that Iranian expats and anti-regime Iranians were disappointed with the cease-fire. That aligns with the initial reaction from my family and the Iranian expats that I know. So it’s a complicated answer… Do Iranians want all their infrastructure destroyed? If it would guarantee the regime was defeated I think most would say yes.
hermannj314 6mo ago
I have friends in the US that want the US government destroyed, there are people in the southern US that think the south won the civil war. Who cares? Every government in all of human history has had its detractors and supporters, more detractors probably exist in expatriated communities, their existence does not really prove anything.
- RiverStone 6mo ago
  I’m not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that anti-regime Iranians are a minority? I’m not sure if we have good statistics on this. So everyone may have a different perspective. All I can say is this: I’m married to an Iranian woman, and through her I’ve met many Iranian expats, and I’ve talked to her family members within Iran. I think you’ll find that Iranian expats are pretty unanimously against the regime. That’s millions of Iranians. My in-laws who lives in Tehran are anti-regime, along with every single person on my wife’s side of the family: aunts, uncles, cousins. Everybody. Thousands of protesters were killed opposing the regime. And that’s just the latest protest. This is a regime that will kill women who don’t cover their hair correctly. Dancing and singing in the street is illegal. Don’t be concerned on behalf of the regime. This is a just war supported by Iranians. You are on the right side of history to kill people who hang protestors and force little girls to cover every part of their body.
  - CapricornNoble 6mo ago
    >That’s millions of Iranians. My in-laws who lives in Tehran are anti-regime, along with every single person on my wife’s side of the family: aunts, uncles, cousins. Everybody. How do you square this with the absolutely massive pro-government rallies that we've seen all across Iran for the entire duration of the conflict? Millions of Iranians opposed to the regime, in a country of 90 million+, might still be a fringe minority. If you asked some American expat their thoughts on MAGA, and they responded "China should bomb MAGA rallies so we can be free from the Republican party, my whole family in the US agrees".....that person would be considered a fringe lunatic, even if Trump's regime has record-low approval like it does now (and rightly deserves, I hope he is impeached and jailed).
ebbi 6mo ago
Was one of them BBC, who quoted one Iranian resident as saying they were ok with the US nuking Iran, and then quietly removing that bit from the quotes with no note that the article was edited?
samrus 6mo ago
Those people didnt lose faith in the US after it bombed a preschool? At one point you have to wonder if this is good versus evil or evil versus evil
- blitzar 6mo ago
  I have a serious problem with calling 100+ schoolgirls who - at best - got instantly dismembered by a bomb and didnt suffer (too much) and at worst were crushed to death or bled out from shrapnel wounds "evil"
  - samrus 6mo ago
    I was referring to the US government verus the Iranian government. People think its good v evil but thay bombing and the double tapping shows it might be evil v evil Obviously no one is calling the victims evil. You have to suspect thats a misinterpretation if thats what you get from a comment
- RiverStone 6mo ago
  I will respond to your comment honestly. I have literally talked about this topic with actual Iranians. The Iranians I’ve spoken to feel that the ends will justify the means. They believe that people will die either way, protesters are dying right now. So if they can destroy the regime, then it will be worth it.
  - samrus 6mo ago
    Is this iranians in iran or the diaspora? If its people in iran then theyre walking the walk which is admirable. If its the diaspora then theyre psychopaths for sacrificing innocents for government change in a country they dont live in
  - Xixi 6mo ago
    I understand the desire to end that murderous regime. If I were Iranian, I'd want to see it ended too. But do they really think bombs will achieve that? More importantly, would more bombing actually bring the regime down? Regimes rarely fall because civilians are reduced to searching for food and water. Destroying Iran's infrastructure would be more likely to produce desperation and disorder than revolt. It would hurt the weakest most, not those closest to the regime and best positioned to shield themselves from scarcity. If outsiders want to help bring the regime down, supporting opposition forces would at least make more sense than bombing civilians into misery. This is where not betraying the Kurds (several times) would have come in handy...
helo4362 6mo ago
Source please. How to get informed opinion on what the actual iran people feel. It seems from new media the support for khameni family has increased after the leader was killed.
- RiverStone 6mo ago
  My wife is Iranian, so I’m connected with a large Iranian expat community, and all my in-laws are in Tehran. The best recommendation I can give you is to connect with your local Iranian community I’m not sure where you live, but every major city has one. You will experience great food and great parties and great dancing. Iranian expats love to dance because dancing and singing in public is illegal in Iran. So they do it as a big middle finger to the Islamic republic.
  - helo4362 6mo ago
    May be the expats are doing well financially and they have different perspective, what about the majority ones , especially the students who were opposing the regime during some death of a girl, has they converted. This is what I am interested in
    - RiverStone 6mo ago
      I don’t personally know. But I don’t see why students who protested during the “woman, life, freedom” protest a couple years ago would be any less anti-regime now. If that’s what you’re asking.
NalNezumi 6mo ago
Your perspectives of Iranians seems to be too biased, given also that you have partner from Iran and confess that you "only" talk to their inlaws and friends. The Iranian diaspora is more divided on the matter than you think [1], and given your background, you're probably in the bubble of the diaspora that wouldn't mind sending threatening messages to anyone not being completely aligned with anti regime stance. It's like someone marrying a deep south confederate flag waving MAGA American, moving there, and judging from talking to their friends and their hate for everything not MAGA, conclude that every American is like this. Or same scenario but California and liberals. [1] https://www.culanth.org/fieldsights/on-unity-fragmentation-in-the-iranian-diaspora https://www.culanth.org/fieldsights/on-unity-fragmentation-i...
- RiverStone 6mo ago
  I’ve never sent threatening messages to people, and would never do that, so I’m not sure what that’s in reference to? I’ve responded to this idea of bias in other threads. I’m open to the idea that I’m perhaps biased by my wife, her friends, and my in-laws. I’ll admit that it may be a little hard for me to accept that given that I’ve been to so many Iranian celebrations, and met so many different people, and heard the same perspectives again and again. I feel that what I’ve conveyed on hacker news in my comments does reflect truly the conversations I’ve had. Most importantly, my goal in making these comments is to surface what actual Iranians are thinking. Many Iranians in the US are afraid to speak out because they have family in Iran, or they’re here in the US on a visa. They fear that if they speak up, they’ll never be able to go home and see their family again. As a US citizen, who is connected with the Iranian community, I feel it’s my duty to surface these conversations I’ve had.
  - NalNezumi 6mo ago
    My apologies if it came off as I was accusing you or your wife for sending threatening messages. That wasn't the intent It was (supposed to be) a reference to the content of the linked material: >Individuals and opposition groups took it upon themselves to allege relationships between diaspora Iranians and the Islamic Republic and guided their followers to conduct purity tests that sought to target, silence, and excommunicate anyone with whom they disagreed, labeling them as apologists or agents of the Islamic Republic for having called for reform in years past (now deemed too soft on the Islamic Republic), or for being unwilling to name the then-nascent protest movement a “revolution” or, in more extreme cases, for being unwilling to support regime change by any means necessary. And a comment about the fact that you and your close Iranian relatives and friends probably hold the anti regime views strongly, and so does many (especially the ones that had to flee the revolution, or the childrens of) of their friends. I'm not questioning that fact, but pointing out that it's quite obvious that your friends and relatives probably wouldn't hang around the Iranians with different views. It's not the only group and in a political climate like the Iranian diaspora, individuals (or groups) with opposing views or nuanced views are often silenced relentlessly. It's simply unavoidable dynamics: iranian diaspora strongly wanting regime change are also not the ones that have to carry the blunt of that cost (they're outside Iran already), but reap most of the benefits. They're also spreading that message on platforms in countries that have an incentive to push for that message (USA, Israel) so the discourse will be highly amplified around anti-regime rethoric. The fact that it's not their house that is being bombed, also means that there aren't really any counteracting weight put on any potential opposing discourse, the discourse will maintain or go more extreme in is anti-regime rethoric going even more "any means necessary" route. The Iranians against the regime inside Iran, I would assume, have a more nuanced view now. They might be against the regime, but not to the point they're willing to sacrifice their children, neighbors, and society collapsing Libya or Syria style. So they're probably less "any means necessary" about regime change.
yodsanklai 6mo ago
> They wanted trump to go further and destroy the regime. Did they also want Trump to destroy the whole civilization and have the country back to stone age like he claimed he would do?
benterix 6mo ago
> There are news reports of Iranian expats and opponents within Iranian who are disappointed with the ceasefire. They wanted trump to go further and destroy the regime. And how he would do that, exactly?
- RiverStone 6mo ago
  Good question. From the conversations that I’ve had with Iranians, it’s unclear. The regime is too embedded. There’s no easy answer. Killing Mojtaba would be a good start. Anti-regime Iranians are basically holding onto any sliver of hope that they can regain their country. Of course, it’s all very unlikely, but I can’t help sympathizing with them. I think their cause is just. I think a non-theocratic Iran that could rejoin the global economy is a dream worth fighting for.
  - simonh 6mo ago
    Wasn't killing his father a good start? If it wasn't, why would killing him make a significant difference? I'd love to see a democratic Iran, but this was was utterly pointless and counterproductive.
    - RiverStone 6mo ago
      It was a great start. Iranians celebrated his death, which made me happy. I think one idea is that if you can kill enough regime leaders, perhaps a moderate leader may emerge? Or perhaps there may be a military coup? Which may be a lesser of two evils? The Iranians I’ve spoken to don’t feel like it was counterproductive. They actually feel like Trump has done more than any other president to damage the regime. What’s the alternative? More economic sanctions? The status quo of the last 40+ years has accomplished nothing. Anti-regime Iranians want action. They want us to make a move. We killed a lot of regime leaders and destroyed their military capability. That’s something. Now we have to see how that chess move played out.
panick21_ 6mo ago
Destroying infrastructure and making live hell for normal people does not remove the regime. When will people learn that air-wars don't magically change governments? Also, the Iranians you likely hear, are not representative. I don't think most people who depend on energy and water don't want that infrastructure destroyed.
littlestymaar 6mo ago
> There are news reports of Iranian expats and opponents within Iranian who are disappointed with the ceasefire. They wanted trump to go further and destroy the regime. That's the diaspora's luxury. They don't have to endure the pain of the conflict or sanctions, and they always end up being the biggest hardliners for that reason.
citrin_ru 6mo ago
> They wanted trump to go further and destroy the regime. It would require a large scale ground operation which is off the table. A few more weeks of air strikes would not have destroyed the regime anyway but a few more weeks of asymmetric strikes (when Iran strikes its neighbors because it can do little about the US/Israel) would have destroyed gulf oil infrastructure inflicting lasting economic pain on the whole world.
ruszki 6mo ago
I’ve never seen an example when foreign news really reported what people think on the ground. Especially because people on the ground usually lie. For example in Hungary, the voters of the current “opposition” prime minister candidate would tell you that they vote for him because they want democracy. Yet, they haven’t cared about that for more than a decade. Even when the real reason: inflation was obvious that it would be enormous after the election in 2022, before the previous election. The same with the US, news across the pond doesn’t explain why people vote for Trump, I had to go to the US several times to figure that out.
- frollogaston 6mo ago
  They really don't know with Iran. It's illegal to protest the government there, and at the same time US and UK propaganda says everyone there wants to overthrow their govt.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
aaa_aaa 6mo ago
Those news reports must be so trustworthy (!). They drunk the kool aid and propaganda just like Iranians of the opposite idea. But the difference is your Iranian friends probably never lived in a day in Iran.
- RiverStone 6mo ago
  Every Iranian I know is either a first generation immigrant to the US, or they live in Iran. All my in-laws live in Tehran. They’re all anti-regime.
frollogaston 6mo ago
That's what I hear, but it seems like pure desperation. The reality is, Israel calls the shots here, and they aren't interested in a regime change that would strengthen Iran in the long term. They weren't happy with Pahlavi either.

fernandopj 6mo ago

It's a win. The largest military the world has ever known was recklessly used towards a foe against decades of internal warning not to go there. People on both sides who didn't ask for this war paid with their lives. High gas prices might have been a great cause for it ending, but the win for the world is that a escalation towards WWIII was averted, and that even idiotic leaders have learned that the world is a complex system and there's no such thing as a far away war anymore.

blitzar 6mo ago
I actually think it is important to talk about winning and losing, more so when the overwhelmingly stronger party loses. > even idiotic leaders have learned Call me a cynic, but if you are dumb enough to start the war in the first place you are too dumb to learn any lesson.

vasco 6mo ago

> It's disheartening to hear people talk about this in terms of won and lost. Is that how you think of these events? I think of them in terms of sadness and horror Its because you're such a better person than them, wow, incredible. Nobody else knows what war is.

TiredOfLife 6mo ago

> The US threatened to obliterate a country and people So the same thing Iran has been chating for decades

danans 6mo ago
> > The US threatened to obliterate a country and people > So the same thing Iran has been chating for decades That indicates that the US has become more like Iran than Iran has become like the US. Coincidentally (or perhaps not) the US is also increasingly authoritarian and theocratic, like Iran and its regional neighbors (both friends and foes).

nslsm 6mo ago

> The US threatened to obliterate a country and people, because gas was getting a little expensive. That’s not the reason. The US is an occupied government.

none2585 6mo ago
Occupied by who exactly? We elected this government, we get what we deserve.
- Tangurena2 6mo ago
  One third of the voters sat the 2024 election out. To those voters, there was no daylight between either of the 2 candidates. And to give an example of the viability of third party candidates... I used to live in Colorado. To get onto the ballot as a Presidential candidate as a minor party candidate (aka neither D nor R candidate) one needs to get 10 people to swear to be Electoral College voters (if that candidate wins). Many times, those third party candidates get less than 10 votes in the entire state of Colorado.
  - danans 6mo ago
    > One third of the voters sat the 2024 election out Not voting in an election doesn't mean you didn't participate in its outcome, especially if you normally vote but choose to sit out an election.

heresie-dabord 6mo ago

> then we all have lost. Yes, we have lost sound leadership and stability. Pakistan has brokered the cease-fire in a war started by the US for no good reason. The current US administration was supposed to be non-interventionist. It is hard to watch the grim spectacle of the US fallen to the point of simultaneously making despicable threats to destroy another country and sending love and best wishes at election-time to Hungary's anti-EU, pro-Russian Orban.

simonh 6mo ago

It is possible to deplore the human cost, while also looking at the reasons why such conflicts occur, and what the goals of those involved are.

a456463 6mo ago
The reason of the conflict being a lunatic and spineless supporters.
- jon_adler 6mo ago
  I deplore the “lunatic” and also support any attempts of liberating the entire Middle East from the deplorable Iranian regime. So many of the problems of this region can be traced back to them.
  - simonh 6mo ago
    I’m probably stretching what you said beyond what you meant, but while also deploring that regime I don’t support any attempt. I support effective action. This war was not effective action. I think it was utterly counterproductive.

hermitcrab 6mo ago

In a war, usually both sides lose.

tim333 6mo ago

It's a messy situation but it basically kicked off when the Iranian people had mass protests and the government started shooting them whereupon Trump tweeted “Iranian Patriots, keep protesting – take over your institutions!!! … help is on its way" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/13/trump-promises-iran-help-tells-iranians-keep-protesting https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/13/trump-promises... Not much about gas getting expensive there. I think the recent threats were mostly hyperbole for negotiating purposes.