The View From Under the Bombs
“We were f—ed over. It’s like we have gone back a hundred years in time.” What Western journalists are hearing from Iranians as war reshapes the country
In the aftermath of the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran, a noticeable convergence has taken hold across much of the Western press. Article after article arrives bearing essentially the same observation. The population inside Iran, we are repeatedly told, have come to oppose the war.
Even among those who once entertained the possibility that foreign military pressure might weaken the Islamic Republic and hasten change, enthusiasm appears to have curdled into unease. What had briefly been imagined, in certain circles, as a strategic lever of transformation now confronts the far more prosaic realities of war.
Civilians are killed, critical infrastructure is destroyed, the economy buckles, ordinary life disintegrates, and the horizon darkens with the possibility that a country already strained by decades of sanctions and repression could begin to fracture under the pressure of bombardment.
Throughout the growing body of reporting, one finds the same sense of the public mood. There has been no dissolving of hatred of the regime into support for the missiles sent to destroy it. Rather, the two coexist.
The idea that outside force has the potential to be the liberator of politics gives way to a more realistic calculation. War does not come as the liberator it is supposed to be. War does not come as a surgical strike, removing tyranny while leaving society intact. War comes as destruction and fear. For the people on the ground, the imagined liberatory potential of the bombs quickly gave way to reality.
What follows is not an attempt to settle the question of Iranian public opinion under wartime conditions. Such certainty would be absurd. War distorts information, constrains speech and turns every anecdote into a potential political instrument.
Instead, the more modest purpose here is simply documentary. Or, perhaps more precisely, counter-documentary, set against the barrage of claims to the contrary. A series of examples follows that illustrate how consistently this same interpretation has appeared across major Western outlets in the weeks since the attack.
Taken individually, each article presents itself as a discrete piece of reporting. Taken together, they begin to resemble a pattern in which different publications, drawing on different correspondents and sources, nevertheless arrive at a very similar description of the public mood inside Iran.
Financial Times: “Iranians rethink the price of regime change” by Najmeh Bozorgmehr, 11 March 2026
One of the earliest formulations of this theme appeared in the Financial Times. The report describes a reversal among Iranians who had briefly entertained the possibility that foreign military pressure might weaken the Islamic Republic and precipitate political change. The experience of war, however, quickly unsettled those expectations.
“Mandana”, a Tehran resident who initially believed the strikes might bring about the transformation she desired, recounts the shock of watching the attacks spread across the city:
“We weren’t supposed to be bombed. Our city, our country, this wasn’t supposed to happen.”
The article observes that the scale of destruction has led many Iranians to reconsider earlier hopes that external intervention might bring down the regime.
“The scale of destruction and the apparent resilience of the Islamic regime … has prompted many Iranians to rethink hopes that foreign intervention might bring about its end.”
The same bewilderment surfaces elsewhere in the report. One woman who had previously welcomed military intervention now asks a question that captures the mood described throughout the piece:
“If they wanted to assassinate the supreme leader, why are they waging full-scale war?”
By the end of the article the underlying sentiment is stated plainly. Even among Iranians who loathe the Islamic Republic, the desire that surfaces most clearly is not escalation but respite.
“In the end, we just want peace and welfare.”
NBC News: “In Tehran, Hope for Change Turns to Panic: US and Israel ‘Are Turning the Country Into Ruins’” by Babak Dehghanpisheh, 12 March 2026
A similar observation appeared just one day later in NBC News. The report describes residents who initially believed foreign strikes might weaken the regime but who quickly recoiled as the war spread across the capital and civilian destruction mounted.
One Tehran resident, “Hoda”, openly acknowledges that she had once accepted the idea of attacks against the regime’s security forces. The experience of living under bombardment altered that view.
“I was always against these people and thought it would be limited and finished fast. I regret that and take it back. They are turning the country into ruins.”
The article also records resentment toward diaspora figures advocating regime change from abroad. As Hoda remarks while describing the experience of living beneath constant air strikes,
“They don’t have a sense of what it feels like when a jet is on top of your house and you think you are dead every day.”
Elsewhere in the piece, the emotional register is not revolutionary expectation but exhaustion and anxiety. A filmmaker in Tehran captures the mood succinctly.
“We hear nonstop explosions. How long can this go on?”
TIME Magazine: “The Paradox of Survival in Iran” by Nazanin Boniadi, 12 March 2026
A similar observation appeared the same day in TIME. The article describes the emotional tension confronting Iranians who despise the Islamic Republic yet must simultaneously live under the bombs of a foreign war.
The piece notes that while some Iranians initially greeted the deaths of regime figures with relief, such reactions were quickly overshadowed by the reality of civilian suffering and the dangers of escalation.
“This does not mean Iranians welcome war.”
The author describes a population caught between two threats at once. Iranians, she writes, are being asked to navigate the moral and physical dangers posed both by their own government and by the war now unfolding over their country.
“Iranians are being asked to demonstrate moral clarity about a war that endangers them from two fronts.”
One Iranian woman, speaking through a rare satellite connection, captures the contradiction that runs through the article. She describes the momentary sense of justice some felt when regime figures were killed, followed immediately by fear for her children as the bombing continued.
“My children are afraid of the bombs. And I am afraid for their future if this regime survives.”
The article concludes that these reactions are not contradictions but the condition of survival in wartime Iran.
“Multiple emotions exist at the same time: fear and relief, despair and hope.”
Associated Press: “Residents of Tehran tell AP of rising fear and isolation as bombs strike without warning” by Amir-Hussein Radjy and Sarah El Deeb, 13 March 2026
Reporting by the Associated Press presents a similar picture of life inside Tehran as the bombing campaign intensifies. Residents interviewed by the news agency describe a city gripped by fear, psychological strain and uncertainty as strikes hit neighbourhoods across the capital without warning.
One Tehran resident describes the atmosphere simply.
“The psychological pressure is real.”
Another interviewee, describing the aftermath of the attacks on fuel depots in the city, recounts the scene in apocalyptic terms.
“An end-of-times scene.”
The article also records a sentiment that appears repeatedly in recent reporting. Even among Iranians who despise the Islamic Republic and welcomed strikes on its security apparatus, the widening destruction has produced growing unease.
“It’s no longer about weakening the government. It’s gone toward weakening the people of Iran.”
The same activist then poses the question that underlies much of the reporting emerging from the country.
“Do you really want to turn us into a scorched country, something the Islamic Republic couldn’t do itself?”
ABC News: “Iranians fear war with Israel and US may end with Islamic regime still in power” by Bridget Rollason and Nassim Khadem, 13 March 2026
Reporting by ABC News describes a similar reversal among Iranians who initially believed foreign strikes might hasten the end of the Islamic Republic. The article recounts how the first explosions were greeted by some as a possible beginning of political change, only for that optimism to fade as the war continued.
One Tehran resident, “Yasna”, recalls the brief moment of hope that accompanied the opening strikes.
“When US and Israeli air strikes first tore through the skies over Iran […] it sounded like the possible beginning of the end for a regime that had ruled her country with an iron grip.”
Two weeks into the war, however, that expectation has given way to anxiety about what the conflict may actually produce.
“The real fear we have is that this war might end in a way that leaves the Islamic regime in power.”
The report further notes that the continuing bombardment has made open protest less likely, with many Iranians opposed to the regime nevertheless unwilling to take to the streets while the war continues.
“As long as these forces are still armed, people are scared to go into the streets.”
An academic quoted in the article also observes growing disillusionment among those who had believed the war might quickly bring about the regime’s collapse.
“People are extremely anxious and scared […] those who thought maybe this will be over quickly are becoming disillusioned.”
The Guardian: “‘You are all worse than each other’: anti-regime Iranians turn on Trump” by Deepa Parent, 14 March 2026
A report in The Guardian describes a similar change among Iranians who had once hoped that outside intervention might weaken the regime. After weeks of air strikes hitting infrastructure, residential areas and cultural sites, the article notes that the mood among some anti-regime Iranians has shifted from expectation of rescue to anger and disillusionment.
One student in Tehran who had initially believed the United States might “come to their rescue” now expresses a stark reassessment.
“They are also lying! Like the regime has been lying to us. You are all worse than each other.”
The article repeatedly describes residents questioning the widening destruction of civilian infrastructure and the absence of a clear plan for the country’s future.
“If the regime is what you want to hit … where do you draw the line? What about us, the ordinary Iranians?”
Another student who had openly asked for outside help to remove the regime describes the moment his expectations collapsed.
“I want this regime gone. I asked for help from Trump. But when did this plan change and why are they hitting our infrastructure?”
By the end of the report, activists quoted in the article state that many people have begun to reconsider the idea that foreign military intervention will bring about political change.
“A significant portion of the people I’ve been speaking to, after witnessing the killing of civilians, have altered their perception of military intervention.”
The Wall Street Journal: “They were promised regime change. Now many Iranians feel betrayed.” by Sune Engel Rasmussen and Margherita Stancati, 14 March 2026
A report in The Wall Street Journal describes a similar reversal among Iranians who initially welcomed the offensive as a possible path toward regime change. At the beginning of the war, many residents are described as cheering the strikes in the belief that they might help bring down a government that had recently killed thousands of protesters.
Two weeks later, that expectation has largely given way to disillusionment and fear about the consequences of the conflict.
One Tehran-based civil society activist explains the shift starkly.
“Iranians were truly hopeful two weeks ago as the war began. Now they feel betrayed.”
An English-language teacher in Tehran, opposed both to the government and to the war, expresses the same sense of abandonment more bluntly.
“We were f—ed over. It’s like we have gone back a hundred years in time.”
Analysts quoted in the article observe that many Iranians now fear the conflict may produce not regime change but state devastation.
“The penny has dropped for a lot of people that this may be much more about state collapse than regime change.”
Even some Iranians who initially supported the war now worry that its outcome may leave the regime intact but strengthened by survival.
“This regime will become stronger, crueller, more monstrous even than before.”
A Convergence Difficult to Ignore
Each of these reports reads like the work of a journalist going about their job. They speak to the locals, gather a handful of quotes, paint a picture of life under bombardment. There is nothing out of the ordinary in any of the pieces.
But read together, a trend emerges that becomes difficult to ignore.
Iranians, at the very least a very large portion of them, hate the Islamic Republic. With good reason. But even the Iranians who hate the Islamic Republic hate both the idea and the experience of foreign forces bombarding their country. Some of the Iranians who thought the war would spark a much needed change in that country’s system now regret it, others are angry about it, others speak more in terms of their survival than their politics.
But none of this necessarily says anything about the Iranian people. War and dictatorship is a poor environment to gauge the opinions of a nation. Information is scarce, speech is heavily regulated, and every voice is mediated through a series of fears, censorships, and unknowns. No serious observer would suggest that a handful of quotes can begin to gauge the state of a nation’s mind.
But it can gauge what journalists repeatedly find when they make the effort to speak to the people living in the country beneath the bombs. And what they find is not the revolution the architects and agitators of the war predicted. What they find is more akin to what students of history would have predicted.
A population that may hate their government but does not wish to see their own society destroyed.