*All information in the article is up to date as of May 28.
Context of the conflict in Iran
The country of Iran, settled along the Persian Gulf and bordering Iraq and Turkey, has faced a history of inner turmoil and conflict with the United States since the 1950s. In the early 1900s, Iran–then called Persia–was ruled by the Qajar Dynasty until military officer Reza Khan led a British-backed coup d’état. This coup led to Khan being crowned the Shah of Iran, the creation of the Pahlavi Dynasty and the renaming of Persia to Iran in 1935. In 1953, Iran’s Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh was overthrown in a coup by the American Central Intelligence Agency [CIA] and British Secret Intelligence Service [SIS] after a power struggle between the Iranian Parliament and the Shah concerning the nationalization of the oil industry.
Following these events, the Shah initiated the “White Revolution,” which aimed to modernize Iran and was supported by the SAVAK secret police. In response, civilian strikes and protests occurred, which led to the fall of the Shah in 1979. Subsequently, the Islamic Republic of Iran, led by the Ayatollah, Khamenei, who assumed power. This republic shifted Iran from a pro-Western monarchy to an anti-Western theocracy, which used the Shia Islam religion to enforce rigid and oppressive laws. Shia Islam is a branch of Islam that believes in divinely appointed, hereditary leadership.
According to the U.S. Department of State, the Republic and its Supreme Leader, Khamenei, who is now dead, created a terrorist and oppressive state for the Iranian people, adhering to strict religious principles, which is currently still a threat. “The Islamic Regime has rolled back human rights and routinely discriminates against and brutalizes women, children, members of the LGBTQ community, religious minorities and ethnic minorities,” The U.S. Department of State said.
As of Feb. 28, Israel and the United States have entered conflict with Iran due to large-scale operations targeting Iranian nuclear facilities. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed in a targeted strike in Tehran, and Iran’s current Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, succeeded his father. Ongoing peace negotiations between the U.S., Israel, Egypt and Iran continue as leaders decide next steps.
Professors share perspectives of the conflict
Kevin Anderson, a sociology professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara [UCSB], has extensively studied the history of Iran and has published a book, “Foucault and the Iranian Revolution: Gender and the Seductions of Islamism,” alongside co-author Janet Afary. Anderson believes that although the regime is oppressive, intervention from the United States and Israel will not be beneficial to the Iranian people.
“I don’t think the regime is at all popular, but I think it’s not going to change from external lobbying or anything. It’s not going to happen. It’s going to attract the reverse. Nobody likes to be bombed. And the government has also been unable to create a society that’s very just or humanistic,” Anderson said.
Anderson published an article entitled “Trump and Netanyahu’s Lurch Into Iran: Imperial Hubris in the Wake of a People’s Uprising.” In the article, he criticizes the actions of the United States and Israel, while also acknowledging the oppressive reality of the Islamic regime, particularly in light of the massacres executed by the government in January.
To summarize, his article says, “In the context of Iran today, this would mean the firmest opposition to both the vicious U.S./Israeli attacks AND to the reactionary, theocratic regime of the Islamic Republic.”
Anderson believes that in order to understand the Israeli government’s actions in Iran, one must consider these acts along with Israel’s proceedings across the Middle East.
“We have to view Gaza, Lebanon and Iran as kind of a continuum in the sense that Israel seems to have put up a policy that rather than negotiating with their opponents, they seek upon to destroy them. […] Israel is a tiny country on the Mediterranean, and it’s bombing all the way to the border of Pakistan,” Anderson said.
Offering a focus on the role of religion in global geopolitics, Reza Aslan, Iranian-American professor at the University of California, Riverside [UCR], writer, commentator and Emmy- and Peabody-nominated producer, describes the Iranian political system.
“In Iran, the reason we call it the clerical regime is because the clerics have direct political functions in government, so regime change fundamentally means removing the clerics from the political system. I think for most people, when they talk about regime change, what they want to replace it with is a secular democracy,” Aslan said.
Aslan confronts the idea that the regime is motivated by religion to govern the Iranian people.
“The regime essentially uses its position as the moral authority of the state in order to justify its existence. Part of the reason why, even within Iran, its legitimacy has been irreversibly damaged is because nobody in Iran actually sees the regime as that moral foundation any longer and, really, no one has for a long time,” Aslan said.
Aslan believes that although the religion of Islam provides the ideology the regime applies to government actions, Iran is not truly a theocracy.
“A theocracy is a country in which all decisions, both domestic and foreign, are predicated on the concept of divine will, that essentially God runs the country. That’s not what’s happening in Iran. [This], I think, is a sort of comical misunderstanding that outsiders have. […] I think that’s why the term theocracy isn’t the proper way of describing where power lies in Iran, but it’s also often used as a kind of excuse not to deal with Iran in the way that we deal with other enemy nations,” Aslan said.
Beyond religion, Aslan notes the integral role that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps [IRGC], a branch of the Iranian military, plays within the nation’s functions.
“All the real power, both domestically and internationally, rests in the hands, not of the mullahs, but of the IRGC, which controls the economy. It controls obviously the military, intelligence and security apparatus, but which also plays a much stronger hand in domestic policy than outside observers think,” Aslan said. “[The IRGC] is more than happy to send one old man wearing a turban after another into the front as the figurehead of a regime that they fully and completely control.”
In regard to the notion that the current conflict in Iran may lead to a regime change, Aslan discusses the improbability of this outcome.
“I would love for it to be replaced with a secular democracy, but the idea that that would happen through upheaval or revolution, or most laughably of all, some kind of military intervention by America and Israel is utterly absurd. It’s fantasy,” Aslan said. “Secular democracy is possible in Iran, but only through the way that it has arisen in every other country in the world for all of human history, which is through a gradual process in which power is transferred from institutions to individuals.”
Rather, Aslan comments on what he believes is the most likely version of regime change.
“In the short term, [this] could be a version in which the Revolutionary Guard removes itself from the shadows and steps into the forefront, removes the veneer of clerical rule that was about before and just simply transforms Iran into a military dictatorship kind of like what we saw in Myanmar or in Pakistan or in Egypt,” Aslan said.
While he is not in support of the current conflict in Iran, Aslan understands the nuanced emotions that Iranian people, particularly the Iranian diaspora, are currently facing.
“The Iranian diaspora, particularly in California, has been dealing with an enormous amount of pain and anguish and trauma and suffering and loss. I am one of those people. […] I understand the desperation that that kind of anger can create, and I sympathize with it,” Aslan said. “The question is, should desperation be how we make decisions about what is and what is not best for the people that we left behind? Our cousins, our brothers, our sisters, our fellow Iranians.”
Dr. Ahmad Atif Ahmad, professor in UCSB’s department of religious studies, focuses on medieval Islamic law and modern Egyptian law in his research and teaching. He is also a member of UCSB’s Iranian Studies Initiative. Ahmad explains nuances in the perception of Iran.
“People seem to envy Iran and also be afraid of it, because currently it’s a threat to many of its neighbors. […] One thing I also get irritated by in the media [is that] in this country, they make it sound like only in the Muslim world people have this interest in their pre-modern identity. […] It’s not just Muslims, everybody is trying to reconcile an older identity with a modern identity, and Iran is definitely seen as a successful example,” Ahmad said.
Ahmad stresses the importance of media literacy for the younger generation and the need for publications to represent multiple perspectives.
“The United States is at war with Iran, so the American media is not going to tell you the truth, it’s going to tell you what they want you to believe. […] I really would definitely [like] to see every college writer and every high school writer just think differently,” Ahmad said. “We don’t benefit from making our children close-minded.”
Former Iranian residents share their stories
*A pseudonym is indicated by an asterisk to protect the source,
Mehran Motallebi, current Newbury Park resident and former Iranian resident, has lived in America since he was 18. After leaving Iran at the beginning of the Iranian Revolution in 1978, Mehran came to the U.S. as a student. Mehran is now a computer software engineer and has family living in both America and Iran.
“I kind of knew the symptoms of [revolution]. I could see something [was] happening. So I decided to come here, and I stayed here since then,” Motallebi said.
Motallebi’s family is currently residing in Tehran, after being displaced to a village to escape recent bombings, and moving back after the ceasefire.
“[My sister] said the situation was very bad, because they were seeing bombardment everywhere, and you have no idea where it will land,” Motallebi said. “They could be attacking your neighbor, but you get infected. So they moved out of the city.”
The regime has blocked foreign communication to the Iranian people, cutting Motallebi off from his family by disconnecting the internet.
“Nobody can call from outside the country, and they allow only from inside out, because they want to monitor what’s going on,” Motallebi said. “The only contact I have with [my sister] is when she calls, and I can’t even call her.”
During the Iranian Revolution, Motallebi underwent physical and verbal abuse due to the reaction of Americans to the Iranian hostage situation under the Reagan Administration.
“I was under a lot of pressure here. […] During the hostage taking in Iran [Americans] looked at me [like] I was taking Americans as a hostage, which I obviously wasn’t,” Motallebi said.
Throughout the recent conflict, Motallebi believes that the current U.S. administration has created a better environment for Iranian people living in America.
“The [Trump] administration, even though there are differences, [and] I may not like things, [the administration] handled this situation very well, meaning they distinguish between the government and Iranian people,” Motallebi said.
Motellebi feels that there is a disconnect between the American peoples’ perception of the conflict in Iran and the reality for people directly experiencing the impacts. Considering that the Iranian people do not have access to weapons to defend themselves against the regime, Motallebi further believes the conflict’s escalation, while motivated by the U.S.’ financial desire for oil, is the only way the regime will lose power.
“If there is no force with these people, how are you going to win? For example, what the U.S. and Israel did in less than 60 days. There was no way that Iranians could do even one-tenth of that,” Motallebi said.
With the reported assassination of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as well as the deaths of multiple high-ranking Iranian officials earlier in the year, Motallebi details the reactions of Iranians and the response of the government to these reactions.
“About two, three months ago, there was a huge demonstration in Iran [for] two nights, and Iranians are celebrating. Most of us here were celebrating. I was celebrating with friends. We thought it was over. The government is going to collapse. More than a million people showed up just in Tehran, and they were celebrating in the street. The next day, we found out over 50,000 people [were] killed just to destroy, just to calm it down, so [the Iranian government] is capable of doing anything just to stay in power,” Motallebi said.
Fatemeh Mohammadi* grew up in Iran but left home at 17-years-old to finish high school in the United States; she is now in her 60s. However, her sister stayed in Iran and is still living there. Mohammadi left Iran as she craved more freedom and choice that was not available in Iran, particularly to women.
“In Iran at the time, you took an entrance exam. And based on your score, they told you what field of study you’re going to go into. And I thought, ‘Gee, I don’t know what field of study I want. How are they going to tell me?’” Mohammadi said.
Mohammadi went on to pursue multiple degrees in the United States, earning her Ph. D. at the University of California, Los Angeles. Mohammadi felt that leaving home was the only option, as she valued her independence and autonomy.
“I said, ‘No, I want to choose what my future looks like. I want to be in charge of my own destiny. And I don’t think in this country I will have that choice. I have to go somewhere where I can choose what field of study I want to do,’” Mohammadi said.
Mohammadi returned to Iran only once, in 1975. While there, Mohammadi had an interaction with the Secret Police, and faced interrogations over her past attendance at a protest and reading censored books.
“A classmate had reported that I was coming. So I was called. They knew my telephone number and called me and asked me to come in, and they interrogated me. And they said, ‘You have done enough that we could put you in jail for 15 years.’ I never knew a little fish like me would be monitored by these guys,” Mohammadi said.
Mohammadi believes that the regime’s actions are typically done under the guise of religion.
“Iranians, in general, are not very religious people. To them, it’s like religions are personal things. [….] I think what has happened now, the young people in Iran have totally turned against religion because they saw what these religious leaders would do,” Mohammadi said.
Mohammadi is not in support of the war in Iran, as she is concerned for the safety of her family living there.
“It was very scary. My sister is there, and she was saying that the sound of missiles hitting buildings and all that is very scary. Day and night. […] War is never good. Some people die. There’s a lot of damages done to the infrastructure, which costs money to rebuild,” Mohammadi said.
Mohammadi believes that, due to the large population of Iran, it will be difficult for foreign governments to negotiate with the regime. She also believes that the propaganda machine in Iran feigns civilians’ support of the regime.
“It’s not a small country, it’s a country of 90 million people. It’s not like Venezuela, where you could change and take over in three days. So I think [the US and Israel] were caught by surprise how difficult this is going to be, and now they’re kind of stuck. There are approximately 8 million people that support the regime since these people are economically supported, and they are used to demonstrate in support of the government,” Mohammadi said.
Mohammadi believes that the Iranian people are so desperate for change that sacrifices may have to occur, in order to truly facilitate a new governmental structure.
“I think in general, they are hopeful that change will occur. It’s going to take time. There’ll be a lot more suffering, economically, or maybe more lives have to be sacrificed, which is unfortunate,” Mohammadi said. “But what do you do when there is a government that’s a threat to its own people and to the world?”
The impact in Israel
The United States and Israel entered the conflict with Iran on Feb. 28 with the launch of coordinated military operations against the Iranian regime. Since then, Israeli people have experienced the consequences of the conflict.
Avi Dukler, NPHS mountain biking coach, was in Israel during the first five days of the recent conflict in Iran, visiting family. Dukler, along with his family, has been directly impacted.
“On the first day, we had 30 alerts and sirens within 24 hours, more than 1 every hour. Iran is about 1,500 miles from Israel, so it takes about 7 to 10 minutes for a missile to arrive,” Dukler said.
Following the Iraqi missile attacks on Israel during the 1991 Gulf War, the Israeli government has implemented a law requiring bomb shelters in every new building. Old buildings often have one shared bomb shelter. The sound of sirens signals Israeli residents to move to the shelters and take cover until the threat, perceived or active, is over.
“My parents, 90 years old, had to run every time from their apartment on the 4th floor, where they’ve lived for the past 55 years, down to the basement. Quite hard at their age. My nephews, ages 4 and 6, stayed on mattresses in the bomb shelter in their new apartment for 40 days,” Dukler said.
Following the announcement of the ceasefire on April 8, Dukler returned to Israel. Damage sustained during the 40 days of the conflict from Iranian airstrikes caused significant destruction.
“I returned to visit my parents after the ceasefire, and it was very hard for them, not just the pressure [of violence], but not sleeping a normal night’s sleep for 40 days […]. On the other hand, the Israelis are a resilient nation. Life is going on, people are back to normal, a Middle East normal, and businesses continued working during and after the attacks, keeping Israel an advanced technological society,” Dukler said.
Progress of the conflict in Iran
Kassra Amidi, a graduate student in the Religious Studies program at UCSB, has studied the history of the Middle East and the difficulties in Iran. He is a part of the Iranian Studies Initiative at UCSB, a chapter of professors and students specializing in Iranian history. Amidi believes that a full regime change in Iran would be difficult.
“I have a lot of family in Iran. I have dreams for what Iran could be for them. […] But the Islamic Republic is not an easy thing to change, which I think scholars could have told the Trump administration, and which many of his military officials did tell him before he initiated this horrible, horrible war,” Amidi said.
Amidi rejects the notion that the war in Iran will facilitate real change. “There has to be some cooperation to end a war. It gets harder and harder. The more leaders you kill, and the more of them that come to power, being hardliners. They’re not interested in cooperation in peacetime, let alone when there’s a brutal attack,” Amidi said.
Aslan, UCR professor, also comments on the sentiments driving the conflict today, even as peace talks begin to take form.
“Nobody […] believed that an indiscriminate bombing campaign targeting innocent women, men and children being launched by the Israelis and the Americans was going to lead to regime change,” Aslan said. “That was just a fantasy that was peddled by self-interested parties in the US and in Israel, and that was believed by a population that understandably was desperate for anything to change circumstances in Iran.”
Aslan notes that domestic oppression has intensified under military and political pressure throughout the conflict in order to deter uprisings and preserve the regime.
“The room for any kind of dissent has grown even smaller, and the regime is even further entrenched in power than it was before the bombing campaign started,” Aslan said. “So, in other words, the thing that those desperate people in the [Iranian] diaspora were clamoring for has made their hopes and dreams that much more impossible to achieve.”
At the time of publication, the peace deal is still in negotiation. It is not possible to predict all of the outcomes and implications of the conflict. However, Ahmad, UCSB professor, emphasizes that civilians bear the impact of government actions.
“This time, you, your generation, everybody will pay if we end up bombing another country,” Ahmad said.