Three Irans: How Israel’s strikes have fractured Iran’s political discourse - opinion

The second camp includes regime loyalists, individuals, and institutions who either benefit materially from the current structure or are ideologically aligned with its worldview.

This group denounces any form of foreign pressure, particularly from Israel, framing such interventions as manifestations of imperialist or Zionist aggression. Within this narrative, the regime is cast as the victim of external hostility, thereby deflecting attention from its internal governance failures.

A third group, though opposed to the regime, holds a distinct perspective, wrongly perceiving Iran’s territorial integrity and infrastructure as being under threat.

For them, foreign military intervention only heightens this perceived danger. While they are not aligned with the regime, their focus on sovereignty can unintentionally echo state propaganda that equates the Islamic Republic with the Iranian nation.

This distinction is vital. Israel’s military actions are narrowly targeted, aiming to degrade the regime’s ability to export violence through proxy forces and weapons development. Iran’s deeper crises are rooted in the regime’s governance failures. Even if infrastructure is damaged in the process, it can be rebuilt, but the young lives we’ve lost to this regime’s brutality can never be replaced.

The regime has consistently prioritized ideological expansion and regional influence over the welfare of its population. Its vast investments in military proxies and nuclear capability have diverted resources from economic stabilization and essential public services.

A generation of educated and civically engaged Iranians, those most capable of contributing to national development, have been systematically marginalized, imprisoned, or killed.

While concerns about foreign intervention are understandable, equating Israel’s targeted actions with an existential threat to the Iranian nation blurs a critical distinction: the true source of Iran’s decline lies within.

Historically, Iran and Israel enjoyed a cooperative relationship, particularly during the Pahlavi era. While the regional context has changed, both nations now face a common adversary, one that brutally represses its people through torture, hangings, and shootings, while openly threatening to wipe Israel off the map.

Reimagining Iran–Israel relations through the prism of shared security interests and long-term regional stability could offer a more constructive framework for future engagement.

Ultimately, genuine sovereignty resides in the capacity of a people to shape their destiny free from repression, fear, and ideological coercion. Any serious analysis must draw a clear distinction between Iran as a nation and the Islamic Republic as a political construct. External actions, however contentious, should be evaluated through their tangible implications for the rights and aspirations of the Iranian people.