What does the United States military action currently underway in Iran mean to you?
For Americans, it might be payback 47 years in the making, dating back to the 1979 revolution and the captivity of the 52 U.S. Embassy employees held hostage for 444 days.
But for those who suffered oppression under the theocracy, whether personal or that of family members, there is optimism of a new birth of freedom in ancient Persia.
We asked a pair of Iranian expatriates for their comments on the changes underway in their native country.
One requested anonymity out of concern for reprisals against family members still in the country:
How did Iran change for its people after the Shah was overthrown?
“The revolution of 1979 was a historic mistake for Iran. A nation that was progressing towards prosperity and development succumbed to the control of extremist fanatics, who introduced only conflict, economic decline, and a deterioration of civil liberties within the country. Even now, discussions persist regarding the causes of the 1979 revolution, yet no definitive answers have emerged.”
Do you support the joint U.S./Israeli incursion?
“Yes. Iran’s current situation resembles occupied France; Iran needs to be liberated. The brave people of Iran protested against this brutal regime in January. What was the response from the regime? Machine gunning 36,000 people in 30 hours! Yes, 36,000! Reports include snipers shooting people from the rooftop of the hospitals and dragging injured protestors out of the hospitals and shooting them.
“The national interests of the people of Iran, USA, Israel, Europe, and the Middle East region all align with the removal of the current regime. It’s a historic moment! President Trump promised help and delivered. So did Senator Graham and some other Republican lawmakers. Iranians will be forever grateful for that. They name streets in Tehran at night as “Donald J. Trump” and in the morning the regime’s agents remove the plate! The current campaign is focused on destroying political and military sites of the regime, and Iranians are in full support. Obviously, no one enjoys being bombed, but when you have a tumor that needs to be removed, the operation will cause pain and suffering, but you can’t blame the surgeon for it.”
Is there competent political leadership-in-waiting to lead the country once the theocracy is overthrown?
“First, I would like to emphasize that Iran’s greatest asset is its large population of highly educated individuals, both domestically and abroad, who are eager to assist. Iranians represent the most educated immigrant subgroup in the United States. When you combine this with the country’s abundant natural resources—such as oil, natural gas, and lithium—along with its strategically advantageous geographical position and a tourism sector rooted in 3000 years of history, you have a formula for success.
“However, your question was about political leadership. The answer to that question is also a definitive Yes! By their very nature, Iranians are moderate, and there are strong elements of political leadership present both within Iran’s academic sector and among the diaspora in the USA, Canada, and Europe. At present, Prince Reza Pahlavi is regarded as the people’s choice to guide the nation towards a democratic transition.”
Concluding thoughts?
“Iran will be free of this dictatorial regime and will be back as a friend and ally of the USA, the same way it was pre-1979. Iranians are a proud nation, and they strive to find their rightful place back in international society. When this regime is gone, Iran would be on the path of development and democracy in the same manner as Germany or Japan after the Second World War. This would be greatly beneficial for the whole world in general and for the national interest and security of the USA specifically.”
Dr. Mohammad Basir is a professor of physics at the University of Central Missouri in Warrensburg:
When did you leave to pursue an academic career in the U.S.?
“I left Iran in 2007 to continue my education and professional career in the United States. I completed my Ph.D. in four years, and for the past twelve years, I have worked as a science educator at the University of Central Missouri. Like many members of the Iranian diaspora, my path was shaped by a desire to pursue academic and professional opportunities while maintaining a deep connection to the Iranian people and concern for their future.
Are you generally supportive of the American action?
“Based on my understanding of the Islamic Republic over the past 25 years, I have come to believe that although a majority of Iranians oppose the Islamic regime, it is extremely difficult for them to topple it without some form of international pressure or support.
“Iran has been a country where many citizens have repeatedly demonstrated—often at great personal risk—that they desire greater political freedom and accountability from their government. Any international action should ultimately be evaluated in terms of whether it helps create conditions in which the Iranian people themselves can complete that process and change the Islamic regime.”
Please explain your view about the possibility of limited “boots on the ground” without repeating the mistakes of Iraq or Afghanistan.
“Many Americans, including myself, worry about repeating the long and costly military commitments seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, in my view, the key distinction lies in the scope and objective of any involvement. Limited, clearly defined operations—focused on protecting international waterways such as the Strait of Hormuz or securing critical infrastructure—are fundamentally different from large-scale occupation or nation-building efforts.
“Hypothetically speaking, one possible approach could involve establishing control over a strategic coastal region such as Hormozgan Province, which surrounds the Strait of Hormuz. Securing that area could help guarantee freedom of navigation in the strait while also creating a protected zone where Iranian opposition forces could organize. Such an area could serve as a safe space for Iranians who wish to oppose the Islamic Republic, where they could coordinate, receive limited training, gradually expand their support within the country, and eventually move toward broader political change in Tehran.
“Similarly, securing Kharg Island—one of Iran’s main oil export terminals—could significantly reduce the regime’s primary source of revenue. Iranian opposition forces could potentially maintain control of the island with limited external support. The broader idea would be to keep any military presence limited and strategic, while empowering Iranians themselves to play the central role in liberating Iran and determining the country’s political future.”
Additional comments?
“One important point that is often overlooked is the distinction between the Iranian people and the Iranian government. Over the past decades, especially in recent years, millions of Iranians have risked their safety to call for greater freedoms and reforms.
“Any international action should take great care to avoid harming ordinary Iranians while applying pressure on the ruling Islamic system. The Iranian people themselves could become one of the most natural allies of democratic countries in the Middle East if they are given the opportunity to determine their own political future.
“For many Iranians in the diaspora, the hope is that after decades of hardship and repression, with support from democratic countries and the international community, the Iranian people will eventually be able to change the Islamic regime.”