Is Trump about to topple the Iran regime?
01:08:20 Share

The Telegraph. Out here, we feel things. The sore calves that lead to epic views. The cool waterfall mist during a hot hike. And the breeze that hits just right at the summit.

But hey, don't just listen to us. Experience it for yourself. AllTrails makes it easy to discover the best of the outdoors. With more than 450,000 trails around the world, points of interest along the trail, and offline maps for always-on navigation. Download the free app today and find your next outdoor adventure. This is Car Trax with Turtle Wax. Your car says a lot about you. So if we asked your car what it would say about you, what would it say?

Listen, you dropped one of those tiny cheeseburgers under the seat like last week, and now we're both dry heaving at the stench. Do us a favor, grab some turtle wax, and let's get to work. This has been Car Tracks with Turtle Wax. You are how you car.

It's horrifying for Iranians because they don't know what's next and they're not even getting accurate information from this authoritarian regime that they live under. They don't have air raid sirens, they don't have shelters. We will measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars we end. Right now, all eyes are on Washington. But who's actually watching Europe at the moment?

to the Middle East now. And more than 50,000 people have been killed in the Gaza Strip since the war began. That's according to the territory's Hamas-run health ministry.

I'm Roland Oliphant and this is a special edition of Battlelines. It is Wednesday the 18th of June 2025, the sixth day of Israel's war with Iran. On Monday we reported from the site of Iranian missile strikes in Israel. We talked about the details of the Iranian nuclear program and why Israel wants to destroy it and we talked about whether the air campaign will be enough to do that.

In today's episode, we are talking to Iranians themselves, those both inside and outside the country, pro and anti regime, to get a sense of how that country is responding to this attack, what the war could mean for both the regime and ordinary people, and what comes next.

Now, before we go any further, I'd just like to say not all of the conversations I had over the past few days made it into this episode. But I would say that pretty much everyone I spoke to was...

Very short of sleep. Most Iranians seem to have been up or staying awake for most of the past four or five days. And emotions are running high. And the stakes are high. Israeli strikes have hit targets across the country, but also in populated parts of Tehran and other cities. Huge traffic jams have formed as people have tried to flee the capital.

There are petrol shortages, shops are closed, and overall, Iran hasn't seen this kind of attack since the war with Iraq in the 1980s. I started by speaking to Farashta Sadeghi, a freelance Iranian journalist based in Tehran who considers herself a supporter of the regime. I asked her what she'd heard and seen since the Israeli bombing campaign began on Friday. It was in the middle of the night that I heard very loud explosions.

Then I heard two or three back-to-back explosions, and suddenly I woke up and I said, oh, it was Israel. Because a few days before that, a journalist from Serbia, a journalist from England, they have messaged me and they say that here we are hearing that Israel wants to attack you. And I said, no, I don't think it would happen because Iran is supposed to go to talks with the United States. And as long as Iran and the U.S. are in the talks...

Israel won't start attacking Iran. At least it would wait for the end of the talks to see what happens. And then suddenly in the middle of the night when I woke up and I noticed that it was Israel and I said, oh, so everything on Diplomacy Society is up in the air. So we were just waiting for the news and then we turned on the Iranian state TV and we saw that they are confirming the sounds of explosion and

And we noticed that they have attacked several locations inside Tehran, and they have killed high-ranking military officers, nuclear scientists.

And even ordinary people, I mean, when we talk about ordinary people, we talk about the families of the people that Israelis took them as legitimate target. Imagine one was a defense ministry scientist, a defense ministry expert, and he was living in his house. It was in the middle of the night. It was him and his children and his wife and his neighbors and all of them perished in a moment.

So from that day we are here, we just hear sounds of explosion. For example, today morning, today is Tuesday, today morning, just at six, I suddenly woke up and I think it was at 6.03 when I heard three explosions, sound explosions. And you know, for example, yesterday you saw that the IRID, State TV complex was hit. It is a big area in north of Tehran. It's a posh area from

From before the revolution, that area had been the state TV. So it is not like that, that you say, for example, because I know that sometimes Westerners say that, oh, they take people as human shield. No, it's not like that. We are living next to each other. So the targets they are hitting happen to be in very built up areas, basically. Exactly. They are, you know, they are...

civilian populated area. You live, I think, in North Tehran, I think, in the third district. Of course, you live there. And Israel said yesterday, evacuate the third district. And then they bombed the state TV outfit, as you were saying. I was wondering if you could just tell us about that. How did you learn that they were telling you to evacuate? Did you think about going? I was just browsing Twitter.

It was just by chance because after two or three hours, internet was down for, I think, several hours. So I was just browsing through internet and then suddenly I saw that tweet by the spokesman of the Israeli army. He usually speaks English and Arabic, but I think it was with Farsi. I mean, he had written the wording was in Farsi. My first reaction was that, oh, district three is too big to attack it.

Then I just sent messages to two or three friends and I said, I live in this area and I'm here. And then I tried, I decided to tweet it. And I wanted to know if they are threatening what they are doing or if they just threaten.

And then there were some messages, too many messages. Some of them then told me, leave the area. I said, it is not a small area to leave. It's a very big area. It is called District 3. And it has various small districts inside. For example, imagine 15 small districts in a big area called District 3.

So I was not sure that if they want to, I mean, exactly hit the area which I live. Really, you know, what people think about Iran or about Tehran is that they think that Tehran is a small city. Tehran is a metropolitan of 9 million, 9 million people. It's enormous. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It is enormous. So when President...

When President Trump says evacuate Tehran, it seems as if he's ordering, for example, Khan Yunus in Gaza to evacuate. It is impossible to evacuate such a big city. And nowadays, you know, some people have left the city. There is nothing to hide about it.

Some people have gone to the outskirts of Tehran. Some people, because it's a metropolitan, people have come from other cities. So they are working here, living here, but they have their own houses, their family members in other cities. So they have gone to other cities too. So, for example, some people, they have, for example, additional house in other cities. They have gone to other cities too. But, you know, this Israel, which has attacked...

almost every city, then you can say, oh, nowhere is safe if you want to pay attention to safety. Today, a friend called me and she was saying that I'm worried Trump has said that he evacuated Tehran. I said, don't worry about it. There is nothing to worry about because Tehran is not a small city to hit. So for now, these are the, I mean, these are the experience of life. Yesterday, I went out to east of Tehran where my brother's business is.

Another street exactly before them. They had hit them a day before. I went and I saw the buildings, all the buildings. The doors and the windows were out of the frame. They had shattered out of the frame. And then all the glass were shattered. And then there was a big hole before that house. The building that had collapsed, it was exactly the same thing that you have seen in Gaza for the past two years. And then now you are seeing them in Tehran.

So the building was in total collapse, street in full rubble. So this is the daily life that we see. But, you know, people are, I mean, I think they are feeling it. There are sometimes some people, for example, yesterday on the street that I've been, a person came and he said they are leaving. He meant the Islamic Republic and what they call the Mullahs, the Mullah regimes. I say it in code because I don't agree with it.

And then suddenly I started attacking him verbally. I said, no, they are not living. You're just dreaming of it. Then there were two very young men and they were very stylish young men. I mean, they didn't even look religious. They came and then they started fighting.

I mean, Harling swears that the first guy who had said they are the regime is leaving. And they say that, no, we are supporting the regime. But, you know, there is this, I can say, I can tell you that there is this, I mean, sentiment among the Iranians that they really love the motherland.

So even if you criticize the system, if you are dissatisfied with the economic mismanagement, with the economic situation, with the mismanagement of the officials, sometimes with the corruption, because there is rampant corruption. At the same time, what Israel has done, because it was unprovoked, if it was provoked, you would say, okay, you deserved it. But it was because it was totally unprovoked. I feel that it had a...

boomerang effect and it backflashed, it backfired. Now people have rallied around the flag and they feel that, oh, if Israel can do anything to the country, then their ultimate goal is disintegration and nobody wants the disintegration of Iran. But I have to admit that there are some people that they are against the system, what you call it, regime or whatever,

They are happy about it. They are happy about what is happening. They say that, for example, these people who are killed, if they are IRGC members, if they are Defence Ministry members, they deserve it. They openly tell you that they deserve it. And I say, OK.

You feel he deserves it. But what about his wife and his children? Did they deserve it? He says, okay, because it is his wife, because they are his children, they deserve it too. You know, you feel that they are free of humanity. So with these people, I don't discuss anything anymore. I say, okay. Hmm.

I mean, you openly describe yourself as pro-government or pro-regime, or whatever you want to call it. But you acknowledge there that there are people who are like this man you met in the street who said the regime is going to go, that there are people who would like to see the back of the regime. Even yesterday, I went to the butcher's.

And then there was a young girl without a young lady without scarf. And then she said that Israel is very strong. Israel is very powerful. I said, how do you know? She said, because the U.S. is supporting Israel. And I said, OK, Israel has the U.S. We have God. And she said that, no, I don't believe in these things, in this rhetoric. I don't believe in that God would help us. And then she said that, oh, don't look at me that I am without a job. My mom is hijabi.

But I want the regime back to the time of Shah. But, you know, the problem with some Iranians, I just open the premises here. You say you are pro-government, pro-regime. You know, at times I am really critical of them.

If you have seen my previous tweets, sometimes I'm totally critical of their mismanagement. I mean, but you know, nowadays it is not the time to call for the regime change because regime change, we are living in the Middle East in an area that we have seen the fate of regime changes that happen in Syria, in Libya, even in Iraq. So regime change doesn't bring prosperity to any country, let alone Iran. And these people,

People sometimes just feel that they live in a fantasy. For example, a woman who is, say, I think 40, 42, she has never seen the time of Shah. But my mom and my dad, they have seen it. They have felt the time of Shah. My mom is 72, 73. So my dad is about 80. So they have seen it.

And they know that at the time of Shah, which some people look at it with a fantasy, it was not that shining. It was very shining why people revolted against Shah. I mean, it sounds like from what you're saying, that that debate is live on the streets of Tehran. You are meeting people who are quite prepared to say openly that they want the regime to go or they want the Shah to come back. Do you feel like that division...

has grown sharper since the bombing began, because there is a lot of talk or speculation that the regime's failure to defend Iran against the Israelis could delegitimize it and might lead to their downfall. You seem to be suggesting the opposite. Yeah, I suggested opposite because, you know, during the 2021, I think it was,

the woman lost freedom. Everybody was saying that the regime is falling down. I said, no, it is not falling down. You know, you can't say a country with 85 million people, which you can say at least, and I can say it with certainty,

that 40 to 50 million of the people support it can fall easily. You know, it won't fall easily. Regime has money, has weapon, has internet, has core supporters. So how do you expect some people who...

escaped from Tehran in the first place, how do you want them to revolt against it and make it collapse? I remember, I think on the first or second day of the Israeli attack, Prime Minister Netanyahu came and said, people of Iran, it's time for you to rise up and leave yourself from the Islamic Republic, from the Mullah regime, as he quoted. So I'm quoting him.

So where are those people to revolt against? How do you expect people who leave their city with their first sound of explosion, how do you expect them to rise against the system? I think actually Israeli attacks against Iran has reduced that rift to some extent because the people have rallied around the flag. The Iranian journalist Farishteh Sadeghi there.

Fereshteh is, as she said, a supporter of the regime. I should say, shortly before I spoke to her, I also spoke to another Iranian woman who told me she was literally celebrating when she heard the names of the top military officials who were killed in the first wave of attacks. So the gap between those views is, as you heard, difficult to bridge. And it's difficult for outsiders to judge the many currents of Iranian society without some help.

Holly Dagres is one of the people who provides such help. She was raised in Tehran, went to school there, but now lives in America where she authors The Iranist, a foreign policy newsletter for Iran watchers, including me, to be honest. She's one of the people who explains the country to outsiders. I asked her how she was coping. I mean, I know it's been a few days since the war began, but I'm still in shock.

I think many of us are still in shock because we never thought we'd see this day. Putting my analyst hat on for a second, when we talked about strikes on Iran, it was always on Iran's nuclear program. It wasn't...

on other parts of the country, it was military infrastructure, the capital Tehran, to see Tehran, the place I spent my formative years in, to see parts of places that are just so familiar, like the back of my hand have bombs. I was told that one of the buildings that they hit was just three doors down from an apartment I once lived in.

And I was also telling a friend, everybody saw that viral footage of state media being hit. Next to state media was the hip place to hang out when I was a teenager. And I would go on secret dates with my boyfriend and then walk past state media to Parc Melat, which is this famous massive park.

and just hang out and talk for hours. So, you know, that's the personal side from it. But when I talk to my family, it's so heartbreaking. One of my relatives who's elderly was like, I'm not going to flee. I'd rather die in my home. I feel very privileged to have a Western passport and to live in the United States. And even though I am Iranian American, I will never know what it's like to be an Iranian person

that has had to live under an Islamic Republic and not have options for 46 years, and then now have to be in a situation where they're caught up in two wars, one against their regime, not one that they've chosen. Their regime has been at war with the Iranian people for 46 years, but also now a war of survival, at least in the capital, Tehran. You talked about an elderly relative who doesn't want to leave.

Which, I mean, is familiar to me from lots of places I've worked, actually, especially Ukraine. It's always elderly people don't want to leave and often their younger relatives are quite frustrated. What's your sense? I know you're not there, but from the conversations you've had, we've had reports of

long queues of people trying to get out of Tehran and so on. What's your sense of how the city is reacting? Especially to Donald Trump saying evacuate the whole city. The Israelis saying evacuate District 3, which is that district you were talking about up north. Yes, District 3 was exactly what I was referring to. Well, before Trump put out that tweet that was just really shook many people because they assumed that meant the United States was entering the war and that

Tehran was going to be the target. It suggested to many Iranians, not just in Iran, but even in the diaspora, that this war that they've said that's been with the Islamic Republic, that it's now at war with the Iranian people. Because when you talk about Tehran, the capital,

It's a little over 10 million and Outer Tehran's roughly about 17 million. So that's just the number. So we're just going to go with the first number. That's the size of the Los Angeles metropolitan area. So you're telling that many people do evacuate. Before the evacuation notice was being put out, Iranians were trying to evacuate, but these are relatively, some are relatively privileged areas.

And even those that had left before the evacuation were caught up in hours-long traffic. Some ran out of gas and decided it was better to maybe stay at home than actually stay in your car when you're not even moving blocks.

But a lot of people didn't leave. They stayed at their homes because they don't have the savings. They don't have second homes by the Caspian Sea. They're elderly or they feel like, well, if it's their time, then it's better to be amongst family and in the comfort of their own home. But it's horrifying for Iranians because they don't know what's next and they're not even getting food.

accurate information from this authoritarian regime that they live under. They don't have air raid sirens. They don't have shelters. Days after the fact, they designated mosques and schools as shelters, which won't do anything. And then metro stations, and I'm learning the metro stations don't have bathrooms. So where are you going to go? And so that is kind of the climate on the ground for Iranians right now.

Going back to the kind of analytical side of things, you run a really, really useful newsletter called The Iranist, which I read because it's been following the nuclear diplomacy in quite good detail for the past, I don't know how many weeks or months or so on. And you talk about, you just mentioned there,

that, you know, when we talked about the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iran, it was kind of imagined of as, I don't know, maybe a one night operation that hits the nuclear facilities and that's it. And you didn't conceive of

of it ever looking like what it is now? So it's not just analysts, like me as an analyst saying this. I mean, I've been doing this for well over a decade and I don't think anybody in their wildest dreams were imagining what they're seeing unfold in Iran right now. And even in Israel, this is a war. Even when we would talk about war,

It almost, it's just unfathomable to see the things that we're seeing come out of, especially Tehran. And so I don't think anybody war-gamed this, honestly, this kind of level of response from at least the Israeli side on what they were going to do when they decided to go in. So what's noteworthy is President Donald Trump has said that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.

And the Israelis have been saying that. And so we've seen them go after top military brass, IRGC, nuclear scientists, some parts of the nuclear program, not the crown jewel of the nuclear program, which is Ferdow, which is a deep underground facility that the Israelis don't have the bombs for. And that's where the U.S. comes in. That's why this conversation about the past four hours that's been unfolding is a key is if the U.S. enters, then

presumably they would be using their bunker buster bombs to take out Fordow. But if they don't, the Israelis have other options, which is that they send commandos on the ground or they keep bombing Fordow in hopes that it'll lead to something. And this has been the long theory about how this would play out. So having the U.S. enter Israel

is a big deal. And it's not just a big deal because of the ramifications of what it would mean for Iran's nuclear program, but I think it's a big deal for the president himself. This is a president that has campaigned on ending forever wars and avoiding them, who's gone after people that have pushed against that narrative. And his MAGA base is isolationist, and you're seeing them actually question his politics the past few days. People like

commentator Tucker Carlson, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene. And so I think that if the U.S. decides to enter, there's going to be a real rift in the Republican Party and he's going to lose a lot of his popular support because this is doing exactly what he said he wasn't going to do.

It's a big rift for you said this president. I make clear in case it wasn't obvious. You're talking about President Donald Trump of the United States, not President Pesachian of the Islamic Republic of Iran. I hope that was redundant. But that's a that's a that's a good point about this. This kind of blowback. There are those.

who have argued that all it would take was a bombing campaign like this to demonstrate the weakness of the regime, to discredit it and to trigger an uprising and a change of regime. And there are those who say, no, it will cause Iranians to rally to the flag and it'll actually play into the regime's hands. Which of those two is the most likely scenario?

I'm going to unpack it a bit because it's a complex question. Had you asked me this question pre-signing of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, popularly known as the Iran nuclear deal, I would have told you 100% rally around the flag event. We're dealing with a population that doesn't want this regime. Their support is dwindled, historic lows. And I'm not just saying it. We had a 2022 uprising called the Women's Life Freedom. And

didn't succeed in its goal for positive change. In part, some of that was because of the international community's lack of support. So there is that sentiment there. I'm not sure exactly what the Israelis are calculating here, but the looks of it looks like regime collapse if they continue the way they're going.

And I think a part of them thought, well, given the messaging and the operations called Rising Lion, which harkens back to pre-1979 Iran, to the de facto Iranian flag, Iranian history and culture, and the commentary coming out from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett is talking about Iranians taking control of their own future.

And I think there was a hope that maybe the rest of the work would be done by the Iranian people. But it seems like that theory is now shattered because they are fleeing. They're trying to fight for their survival.

But I think it's also noteworthy that we're talking about this evacuation of cities. I think there was some commentary from an Israeli official that said that part of destabilizing the regime was telling people to leave the capital. So I don't know what the method is to this madness. But right now, people are worried about living, not about rising up. I had a conversation this morning with a self-described pro-regime journalist into Iran called Fereshteh Sadegh.

And she said that she's had two arguments in the streets with kind of opposition minded people since the bombing began. She was arguing that actually the rift between pro regime and anti regime Iranians is kind of being closed slightly by being under attack by a foreign power. I don't know what you make of that.

Iran's a country of roughly 90 million people. You're going to get all shades of gray in the country. So I think that if civilian casualties do grow, and I've said this actually publicly, that I think that the tide could change. The thing is, like, Iranians are caught up in two wars. They're caught up in a war that the Islamic Republic's been waging on them for 46 years. And now they're caught up in a war for survival. And...

So I think that moods change very quickly in Iran, just like it does everywhere, depending on what's happening. People are not beholden to their beliefs forever. They change, and especially in moments of crisis. Some Iranians were celebrating the assassinations of these top military brass. Some of those Iranians now are angry. They're like, oh my God, now I have to flee my home. I'm so angry that...

I'm worried about my family now. Like their focus is not about the regime. So you're going to get a diversity of opinions there. And I just want to emphasize Iran's not a monolith. I mean, is there a diplomatic path out of this? Because you were, you know, you were down in Muscat, you're down in Oman kind of following these talks. And that's where all our focus was, right? You know, on the talks. And everybody thought if Israel is going to bomb Iran, it's not going to be now. They're going to wait for the talks to fail or something. Yeah.

I mean, I think you hit the nail on the head. I was like, when the news was about this imminent attack on Iran and that forces were getting withdrawn, I thought to myself, okay, if we're going to take this serious, it's not going to happen till... So that was Thursday. The talks were supposed to be on Sunday and they were confirmed by the Omani government. And I thought to myself, okay, if the talks fall apart then...

maybe we'll see an escalation. But it didn't even get to that point. There was a chance to actually sit and hash this out. Trump said that 60 days have passed, and since the 61st day, this is what happened. To your question, though, about diplomacy, I think there's always room for diplomacy. This is what the international community does. But I really don't

know or think that in this moment there is room because President Donald Trump has reiterated his claim that Iran can't have a nuclear weapon. Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon. U.S. intelligence has publicly said that. But what he's been hinting at also is that Iran cannot enrich uranium, 0% uranium on Iranian soil.

And the Iranians, given the situation on the ground, especially now, I just don't see them surrendering to that. And unfortunately, because of that mentality, they're going to be dragging the Iranian people down with them. Because Iran Wire was reporting, citing some anonymous, they said their source was a senior Iranian diplomat saying, basically, we'll do the deal. We'll give up enrichment. We just need some kind of face-saving solution.

Well, what would be the face-saving solution? The only face-saving solution is Israel stops what they're doing. I don't know. How does one save face when they're getting pummeled and they're being told by the U.S. president to give up enrichment? And for them, that's very humiliating. I don't agree with their worldview, but I think just knowing how they think and operate, they've spent billions of dollars on this nuclear program.

they've had their nuclear scientists assassinated long before this war has happened or began. So to them, the reason that they haven't wanted to give up the nuclear program is because they saw what happened in Iraq and Libya, what happens when you give up your nuclear weapons. In this case, they won't want to give up the option of obtaining a nuclear weapon.

You don't think they're gonna back down?

Not for the time being, and Trump certainly isn't either, it sounds like. I would take his words seriously when he's talking like that on Truth Social, frankly. Thank you, Holly.

One of the things that's been almost universal in the conversations I've had with Iranians over the past few days is that sense of shock and surprise expressed both by Holly and Fereshteh there, simply because most people thought that the diplomatic option still had a way to go before it ran out of track. And that includes me, by the way. Just two weeks ago,

I was asked to write a feature about the Iranian-American nuclear talks between Donald Trump's envoy, Steve Witkoff, and the Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Arachi. You can still read that on the Telegraph website if you're interested, though I must admit it does now seem a little out of date. One person I spoke to for that piece was Ali Veyes, the Iranian-born director of the Iran program at Crisis Group.

So I decided to ring him back and ask why the diplomacy had fallen apart so suddenly and dramatically, and whether there was any chance to get it restarted. The reality is that President Trump had not indicated that he believed that the diplomatic option was exhausted.

He had set an arbitrary 60-day deadline, but he had also scheduled his special envoy, Steve Witkoff, to go to Muscat and meet with the Iranian foreign minister on day 63.

So clearly, President Trump, until a day before Israel started this war against Iran, had not indicated in any way that he believed that the diplomatic option was exhausted and now is the time for a military option. In fact, he had said the opposite on Thursday, a few hours before Netanyahu started bombing. Trump said that he hopes that Netanyahu doesn't do anything that would blow up his diplomacy with Iran.

So, you know, obviously one expects the president of the United States to have a degree of credibility that he would not be hoodwinked by a foreign leader.

So, no, I did not believe that diplomacy was exhausted. Now, I knew diplomacy was going to be, by definition, very difficult. These are complex issues. Iran's nuclear program and sanctions relief, years of mistrust, and also indirect negotiations, by definition, are not quick. So it was obvious that both sides would not be able to reach a durable, comprehensive agreement in the course of two months.

But they were also not too far apart on the possibility of agreeing to some kind of a political framework that would then allow them to negotiate a more comprehensive agreement. That door, I think, is now shut until and unless President Trump pursues a dual track approach along the following lines. Number one, he has to create distance between the position of the United States and Israel.

Because otherwise, if the Iranians believe that Trump was complicit in Israel's war against them, that the entire negotiating process was a ruse for Israel to be able to take them by surprise, then there is no point for them to negotiate with Trump because they would not trust that he would be a reliable negotiating partner and he would deliver on whatever they agree.

So he first has to create that distance. And the way of doing it is to tell Netanyahu that he has to stop, that he has already achieved enough, that he has to stop because the escalation of this conflict puts American lives at risk. There are 40,000 American troops in the Persian Gulf. There are hundreds of thousands of Americans in Israel. Obviously, if this goes on and escalates further and expands, eventually there would be American casualties.

And if he interferes directly into this conflict, then obviously there is mission creep and loss of American blood and treasure without any doubt. So he can say to Netanyahu that he has to stop. That would require also using the most important leverage that the United States has, which is the delivery of offensive weapons to Israel.

And this is a card that President Biden failed to use to stop the war in Gaza, get a ceasefire or get humanitarian aid into Gaza. But President Trump has in the past demonstrated that he's not as subservient to Israel as President Biden was. So then the next step in this approach would be for him to turn to the Iranians and to say to the Iranians that if you don't stop, the U.S. will get involved.

into this war. And of course, that would completely change the dynamic of this conflict. And the Iranians, I think, would step back. But he first has to buy credibility that he's actually playing the intermediary here and not just acting as an agent of Israel.

And then on top of that, he can offer a reasonable deal to Iran in which Iran would obviously roll back its nuclear program without giving up on its legal rights under the Nonproliferation Treaty in order to obtain sanctions relief. That's the only off-ramp, but everything President Trump has said and done in the past few days indicate that he's moving, in fact, in the opposite direction.

So just to summarize, Donald Trump uses various tools of coercion to force both sides to stop fighting. Then he basically comes to a deal with the Iranians to curb their nuclear program. The diplomatic track...

It really ran into the sand when this happened over this question of enrichment. The Iranians were saying we have to retain some kind of enrichment. The Americans and the Israelis were saying, no, you can't have any enrichment at all. I think when we last spoke, you were making the point that, look, the Iranians had never, ever, ever agreed to give up enrichment. And that's been an issue through, I don't know, 20, 30 years of this kind of discussion, this topic. I'm wondering whether you think...

This war, I think it's reasonable to use the word war, will have changed the Iranian position on that. There's been some reporting in Iran Wire citing anonymous senior Iranian diplomats saying, look, we are ready to consider that now just as long as this stops. Do you think the Iranians might make that concession now, given all the punishment they've taken?

Look, I think these rumors are part of the psychological warfare that is happening in parallel to the actual war. I see no scenario in which the Iranians would surrender on the right to enrichment.

Because from the Iranian perspective, the only thing that is more dangerous than suffering from Israeli bombs is surrendering to American terms. And the reason I say this is that, you know, it's not hard to try to put yourself in the shoes of the weaker party here, which is Iran.

And imagine that if, you know, while you're being bombed, you surrender to the other side's terms. You're basically signaling that, you know, once you bomb me, I do whatever you want. So if you want me to concede on the nuclear issue, fine, I'll do it after you bomb me. Now you want me to concede on my missile program? Sure. You know, you bomb me, I'll do it.

do it. You want me to give up on my regional policy? Sure, just bomb me, I'll do it. It sets a precedent that I think is very problematic from the perspective of the Iranian leadership in terms of lessons that it would teach to Israel and the United States. But also, it would make it extremely difficult for the Iranian regime to save face with its core constituents. And this is a regime that has lost

tremendous amount of legitimacy at home. So it really relies on the 10 to 15 percent of the Iranian population that support it. And they expect this regime to resist. You know, it's the same concept that President Trump does not want to be seen as betraying his MAGA base. The Iranian regime also cannot be seen as betraying its base, because if it does so, then it has no foot to stand on, basically.

So I don't see the Iranians conceding. In fact, I expect them to adopt even a tougher position. Hold on, hold on, hold on, Ali, hold on, hold on. This is I think this is really important. Just let me get this straight. Despite the massive punishment they've taken, despite the Israeli Air Force having air superiority over Tehran itself, despite the successive targeted assassination of senior military leaders,

you know, command and control has gone to hell. The missile answers on Israel, yes, they've inflicted damage, but certainly not of the kind that would deter Israel from prosecuting the war. Despite all of that, you're saying they're going to double down. Correct. Yes. I mean, we've seen this. This is 1945, right? With all the costs that the Japanese had suffered, they were not willing to give up until nuclear weapons were used on them.

You know, same in Germany. These kind of regimes, when they don't see an exit ramp, they double down. And I just don't see the possibility that the Iranian regime would do anything like this. And there is also, you have to remember that the formative experience of the current Iranian leadership is the Iran-Iraq war.

In the Iran-Iraq war, they prolonged the conflict for six bloody years at enormous astronomical cost for the country because they wanted to gain the upper hand before they would go back to the negotiating table. Now, finally, in 1988, after six years, the Supreme Leader at the time drank the so-called poison chalice and agreed to a ceasefire.

But at that moment, they were at an equal footing with Iraq. They had not lost territory. They didn't have the upper hand, but also they weren't in a position of weakness.

It is completely unrealistic and against everything that the Iranian psyche stands for to imagine that they would under Israeli bombardment throw the towel and basically declare that they're surrendering. In that case, it sounds to me from what you're saying that actually, effectively, given what you laid out as the conditions for the diplomatic track to get started, given what your interpretation of the Iranian position is, it doesn't sound like there is any room for diplomacy at the moment, really.

Does that suggest that really the... There is room for reasonable diplomacy. You know, Iran giving up its enrichment program entirely is not necessary for preventing them to develop nuclear weapons. You know, they can have a very limited, constrained, highly monitored enrichment program, which would, you know, not allow them to go nuclear. That was and is and remains the most reasonable path to a deal.

Given all that, do you think that's the Israeli objective here or is the Israeli objective here regime change or regime collapse? Israeli objective is definitely regime destabilization.

I don't believe that Israel is naive enough to believe in this kind of magical thinking that the Iranian regime could collapse and be replaced by an order that was similar to status quo anti pre-1979, a pro-Western, pro-Israeli government in Iran. There is no viable alternative available to the Islamic Republic ready to march into Tehran and take over power.

And Israel surely understands this because of the degree of penetration that they've had in the Iranian system. They know and understand that society well. So I think what they are looking for is basically destabilizing the regime so that it is bugged down in civil strife and internal chaos, so that it no longer can challenge Israel in the region. I think that's the objective. Now, obviously, creating, destabilizing a country of 90 million

in a region that is already in so much turmoil, I do not believe serves anyone's long-term interest, including Israel's. But Prime Minister Netanyahu often thinks in short term, not in long term. Ali Vias of Crisis Group there. After the break, could this war bring down the Iranian regime and what might replace it?

Picture this, you're halfway through a DIY car fix, tools scattered everywhere and boom, you realise you're missing a part. It's okay, because you know whatever it is, it's on eBay. They've got everything, brakes, headlights, cold air intakes, whatever you need. And it's guaranteed to fit, which means no more crossing your fingers and hoping you ordered the right thing. All the parts you need at prices you'll love, guaranteed to fit every time. eBay, things people love.

Ready to level up your everyday? Quince makes premium essentials without the premium price tag. From quality clothing and stylish accessories to travel staples and high-end home goods, Quince has it all. And by partnering directly with top artisans and ethical factories, Quince delivers high quality at half the cost of similar brands.

Shop elevated essentials without the markup at Quince. Go to quince.com slash level up for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com slash level up. Out here, it's not only the amazing views, but the way time stretches out a little longer and how the breeze hits just right at the summit. With all trails, you can discover nature's best with over 450,000 trails around the world. Download the free app today. Welcome back.

With the Iranian, Israeli and American positions so far apart, the prospects for a diplomatic solution seem dim. So what happens if the Israeli bombardment continues but the Iranian regime refuses to back down? Well, the Israeli government seems to believe, or hope, that the government will simply collapse. That after more than four decades, this war will mark the end of the radical experiment called the Islamic Republic.

Is that really possible? One opposition-minded Iranian I spoke to before recording this podcast told me the answer is hopefully, and that it is especially likely if the Supreme Leader himself, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is killed. I should make clear that that person also expressed immense anger at the Israeli bombing of Tehran. On the other side of the aisle, there are regime supporters like Farash De Sadeghi who insist that Iranians are rallying to the flag and that the opposition, not the regime, is on the back

foot. Who is right? Can the regime survive this war? And if it falls, what comes next? To answer those questions, I turn to the Tehran-born historian and writer Arash Ezezi, who is also conveniently the author of a book called What Iranians Want. I started by asking him if the sheer scale of the Israeli assault had shocked him as much as it had me.

Let me start by saying that, you know, when it comes to the Iranian-Israeli shadow conflict that has gone for some years, at every stage, we always had a few different possibilities in mind. And this scenario of Israel doing a long attack, trying to hit everywhere and potentially even going to change the regime was always on the cards. I would say that, you know,

Usually, if you ask me at any given day, what percentage do you give it? You know, sometimes it was 30 percent, sometimes it was 10 percent, but it's always there. And actually, it has been clear for a very long time that there is no surgical way. This is not Osirak. This is not Syria. You cannot just go and bomb it in one day or even two days or even a week and go. It has always been clear. Those of us who opposed Israeli attacks won miserably.

argument we always had was this, that there is no way that they can just go and destroy it because of the multiplicity of the Iranian program, because of how spread out the sites were. And as a result, it was clear that you're going to have to have a long operation. They're going to keep mowing the grass, as they say. So that part is not surprising. Unfortunately, it was always clear. And in fact, it's also clear that

From the Israeli perspective, if you want to destroy this program for good and make sure Iran doesn't sort of weaponize, you have, you know, really a couple of ways, but you have two general ways, you know, if you want to go for a maximus option. Either one is you change the regime, but that's easier said than done because it's not clear what it means. It's easy to kill a lot of people, but like, how would you actually bring a new government to power? Or the second option,

which is what I'm worried about and I think is the worst case scenario, is that you keep hitting, you keep the place weak and divided and sort of low capacity. This Iraq of the 1990s, Libya of today, you keep it sort of in a place that is unable to basically come together to do anything. And for that, you would hit them regularly and you operate regularly there and all that.

So what you're describing is basically creating a failed state in a way. Exactly. Yeah. And unfortunately, I think Israel is led by a very irresponsible government whose vision of future is

is basically 100 years of wars and failed slates. I mean, if you look at every other question, right? It used to be that decision makers in Israel had sort of a clear vision of what they wanted in the region. And usually if there was a chance of, for example, being accepted begrudgingly,

they'd really go for that. They'd see it as an achievement because I think the founders of the state of Israel remembered when there was no state and take it for granted and they saw it as a great achievement. Today, we see with Netanyahu, Syria, for example, the new Syrian administration comes out and says, you know, we don't want anything against you. In fact, we just overthrew your biggest enemy and we will not, we'll make sure no one attacks you and we're even happy to have relations with you, potentially. And still, Israel goes, attacks it, tries to

tore the country up, tries to support different, you know, Druze and the Kurdish sort of militias in the country to keep it divided. And so, unfortunately, I think the vision for some in the government of Israel is, you know, as eternal, you

Basically, war and mayhem so long as Israel can maintain superiority as opposed to a durable peace anytime soon. And unfortunately, I think if they bring that vision to Iran as well, that would be a problem. I would say, though, that I think the five days of war has been much more costly to Israel itself than they would have imagined also.

there is some estimate out there that netanyahu said acceptable casualties for the israeli start are 800 to 4 000 which is really horrendous that means netanyahu is ready for more israelis to die than they have for decades in all israeli conflicts combined but nevertheless i think a lot of people in israel are shocked i mean you look at tel aviv now and you know tel aviv is becoming gaza is is not true obviously but it's it's a

that some are saying on social media, some Israelis, and it's become a phrase that they use. And no, Israel is not becoming, Tel Aviv is not becoming Gaza, but there are parts of it where it's entirely destroyed. So many civilians have already died. The number, I think, is already, you know, well into the 20s. It is, though, true also that Iran's capacities there can't be continuously like that. I mean, Iran could hit hard for a few days. It can produce maybe 50 ballistic missiles a month. Hmm.

I wanted to get into this question of regime change, actually, because it seemed clear to me they're attacking a lot of things which go well beyond the nuclear program. They hit state TV. They've hit oil and gas. They've hit, obviously, high-ranking, basically, military, but also political officials. And Netanyahu is talking about the collapse of the regime. All of that seems to be... That idea seems to be positive on the idea that the Iranian people are just waiting for the Israelis to...

to open the path for them by, you know, decapitating the regime or decapitating the repressive apparatus, I suppose, to allow a popular revolution to happen. You literally wrote a book called What Iranians Want. So could you please tell us, to the best of your effect, what do Iranians want? Is this strategy of expecting the Iranian public to bring down the regime got any kind of road in it?

So both, there are two false ideas, two false binary ideas here. One is that Iranians will come and rise up to the occasion and rage a social uprising now and support the attacks and they're very happy that they're being attacked.

And the other is that they're rallying around the flag. So the differences are gone and they're supporting the regime. So I'll start with the first one. It's in an absolute baseless fantasy that anything like that is happening. There's no evidence. There's nothing to point out that

That something like that can happen, even frankly. I mean, think about it. I mean, I've been speaking to like a dozen of activists for this recent story, you know, I did. And well, first of all, they're literally running for their lives. I mean, they live in Tehran, the city in which it's the city of death now because bombs could fall anywhere. You know, Israel at any given moment declares, oh, we're going to hit this huge area. So evacuate.

And this is almost a parody. And of course, as you know, Trump at 3 a.m. threatened the whole city with evacuation. He sort of said the whole city should evacuate. So they're literally running for their lives. You can't both run for your lives and stage a revolution.

And Iran's civil society and sort of democracy movement was never organized, is never organized, not even to the 5% of what it takes to do these kind of things anyways. If they could, you know, they would have done it repeatedly over in other times. It's not clear. And it's very sort of frustrating because

There were those who were saying, well, when the IRGC regime is hit, their job would be easier. It's not clear how. Like, okay, you hit 10, 20 people at the height of the IRGC. Security forces are there. Every revolution is successful in one particular way, which is when you have the massive security forces defect to somewhere. But in order for them to defect somewhere, they need an address. They need leadership. They need an opposition.

So in other words, what I'm trying to tell you is that the problematics of

revolution and uprising, the reason 2023 movement failed, you know, so many other movements have failed, the problematics remain. There is no organized opposition. There's no organized alternative to the regime. So you cannot have a social uprising in these conditions. And the war makes it less likely, not more likely. At the same time, you don't really have a rally around the flag. I mean, you have it with some, I would say there were some. I'll give you an example. This tape TV was hit and this anchor,

who is shouting things on the TV and after the studio is bombed, she kind of goes to a side but doesn't lose herself and then resumes the broadcast in like five minutes from a different location.

She becomes a symbol for some. You start having some respect for her, you know, because she has stood up and she continued doing it. Now, I don't think this means people will have respect for State TV as a whole, but I mean, I think there is a constituency of those who are really interested. The story is not really that they are pro-regime in any ways, but that they're patriotic Iranians who want to defend their country. And when your country is going to be attacked on air by an Israel which basically says, you

You know, fuck you to civilians. You know, Israel cuts the Israeli defense ministers that Tehran is burning. The people of Tehran are going to pay the price. They don't even hide the fact that they're hitting people right from the center. So, you know, you want to defend your country. I mean, you want to defend your country. You feel a solidarity with anyone who is defending it.

including segments of the population that might be pro-populations, pro-regime. So there is an element of that, but this has not really helped increase the popularity of the regime because I think there's so many reasons for people to be mad at the regime, including the very fact that they're in this war.

It's very clear for them. Iranians know instinctively, unlike, you know, idiotic commentators in other places who can just sort of forget this. Iranians don't forget that the regime is the one who has said death to Israel and death to America for decades, that it's tried to get them in a way in this war for decades. And that's why Iranians, whenever they've gone to the polls, whenever they voted, whenever they have spoken out, they've always been against this war, against anti-Westernism, against the orientation of this government.

So I don't think, I think rally around the flag and social uprising are both sort of, it's a false binary. You raised something I want to talk about though. You talked about the defection. Okay, revolutions work when security forces defect and there is no address to go to. One thing that's been suggested to me is, look, if you look at the level of intelligence penetration by the Israelis, that raises the possibility that

that actually they do have a plan. Actually, potentially, there are people cooperating with them fairly high up and that potentially maybe what they're relying on is, I don't know, a delegation of high-ranking IRGC generals kind of go around to see the Supreme Leader and tell him, look, the game's up, it's time to retire. Yeah, I think it's a very plausible scenario.

So I think it's entirely possible. There are different versions of how this could happen. But I think a likely scenario, and frankly, probably the best case scenario, actually, of how this ends is an internal coup, is that a section of the Iranian regime

comes to power, makes peace with Israel and America, make truce with Israel, and deal with America. And I mean, I want a democratic transition, but barring that, the best case scenario, I think, is an internal coup of people who want to put Iran out of the war path, basically. They end the war, then they start going a different path. And there are several versions this could happen.

you know, it is possible that Israel was already working with some and they'll basically pull this out as a pre-planned coup. I don't see that happening, to be honest. I mean, I think it's not impossible, but one thinks, well, if it was, you know, when exactly that's going to happen. I mean, also Israelis don't strike me as having had that kind of

tactical ingenuity, even political matters. They're good at military stuff, but to have actually organized a coup like this to understand there's some section of the regime that are different, I mean, I haven't seen it there. Or it could be that this is just a natural result of things, i.e. Israel is going to have planned it, as in Israel didn't need to talk to person A and person B and say, you go do it, but their plan might have been, we hit hard enough, at some point this is going to happen.

which you know just like that's my analysis right it could be also theirs they think at some point surely these generals will go up to harmony and say it's enough i should say that there's a third scenario though there's another scenario which is that this happens

But it ends up in a sort of more belligerent Iranian in some ways, not ideologically, not in the sort of ideological Islamist anti-Israel way, but in an Iranian nationalist patriotic way. This group would say, let's keep on fighting Israel. We'll keep on fighting it or we stop fighting now, but we'll go back to fighting Israel.

later, something like that. So the consequences there are a little unpredictable. But yeah, I do believe this ending in some sort of internal coup. And if you look, by the way, the demand being put out by a lot of Iranians is effectively this. And I mean, very interesting. I don't mean your usual anti-regime Iranians. I've seen people in the Chamber of Commerce in Iran. Effectively, what they're saying is, do something, man, finish it up. And they're not going out there to say Khamenei should resign, although some are.

But basically, that's the only conclusion you have. Basically, the jig is up. You could say this is a moment of truth. This is a zero hour for this decades-long crusade that the Khamenei has been attempting and claiming to run against Israel and the United States. This ends in Iran burning.

And Iranians don't want Iran to burn. Iranians are not interested, by and large, into this long anti-Western war. They might be very patriotic in defense of the country now, right? But even those who are very patriotic in defense of the country, they're saluting the servicemen, they're saluting the air defense. You know, all of them, you look at what they say publicly, at some point it does include some sort of, okay, we need peace. We need you to go and speak to America, you know, give it all up.

Give up what you need to give up to prevent war. They're not saying, you know, we'll fight them to the last drop of our blood type of things. That is not a very common sentiment. And I don't think the IRGC rank and file and stuff would stand for that either, frankly. Could you then, let's assume this is

the end for Hamaneh. Let's assume either it's an Israeli bomb or it's a polite offer he can't refuse from the IRGC or the army or somebody or something else. Help our listeners out a bit. Who are the individuals, perhaps within the regime or perhaps outside it, who you would be watching, who you think might emerge as power brokers in the turmoil that will follow that?

There are some candidates, are people who could be sort of Iran's strongmen. And by the way, none of this actually is directly about the current war. This has been my prognosis for a while that this will happen. You know, that either when Khamenei dies or before he dies, some group of people will effectively do some sort of a coup or a mini coup or a semi coup inside the Islamic Republic and come to power. Now, one of the top men was Ali Shamkhani.

Ali Shamkhani, former national security advisor, who is the head of a really financial, political, military empire. He is really one of those sort of people who actual power with his person and his network.

Not the case with a lot of others. And Ali Shamkhani, interestingly, was killed on the first day of the Israeli attacks, except that, like Lazarus, he rose from the dead. So everyone in the news said he was killed. And then they said he was alive, which already, you know, then people ask, why are Iranians prone to conspiracy theories? I mean, where else do you have someone...

dead and then alive so it's not clear what exactly happened there it might have been the media jumped the gun in that first day a little too fast like someone said it and then everyone quoted them it's interesting actually for i don't know future media to actually study how that happened how did we all think shamkhani is dead and then two days later they said he was alive isn't he in hospital i've read i think he's in hospital and i think he's

leg has been amputated. So he's probably not in a very good conditions to lead a coup, but you know, he is the kind of guy who could do it. My money would have once been on Qalibaf, who is now Speaker of the Parliament. Similar profile, former RIGC guy, definitely a strong man wannabe. I mean, Qalibaf has been very bad at hiding his ambitions to be exactly that, instead of a strong man. But he's also failed. I mean, he's like lost several presidential elections and he's

He's not quite the man in the spotlight right now, and I'm not sure that he has what it takes. It could also be a group of people, of course. It could be a group of people who come together and do it. Other candidate that is important one would be my pick in many ways, if I want to pick from these top guys in the regime, is Hassan Rouhani, former national security advisor, old establishment guy,

I voted for him for president in Iran. And, you know, this is, he's really the leader of what you can call a centrist pragmatic camp. He's Iran's Deng Xiaoping in many ways. He's a successor to President Rafsanjani, who was the epitome of,

this Iranian centrist pragmatism. You know, Rafsanjani's famous saying was the future are not built by missiles. I mean, this was a guy who basically said Iran shouldn't go out after building missiles, should develop its economy. These opinions really do exist in the regime. So these are exactly the kind of guys who would be like, instead of building more missiles and fighting everybody, we need to sort of call it a day and preserve Iran and go back to our economic development. So somehow Rouhani, if he's able to put together a

a coalition to come to power. The problem is, of course, Rouhani is, he's a mullah, not a guy with guns. He's not an IRGC guy. The question is, can he, as a political leader, put together enough of a coalition that includes some in there? People with butter and gun is how I like to call it. Like people who have the money and guns, these are the ones who would need to actually step up to do the actual coup, right? You can't do a coup by reading a statement. So

I think these are some of the folks who could do that. And there are very subtle ways of doing it. I mean, they might basically say that the Supreme Leader is a little unwell, so he'll actually be home and day-to-day affairs will run, will be with this committee. Or Rouhani could be appointed deputy commander-in-chief. That's my suggestion. I mean, he could be, you know, they could declare him deputy commander-in-chief who's effectively in charge.

During the first decade of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Khomeini was supreme leader, but he was an old man who had never run and done anything like that. So effectively, he didn't run the country. He intervened when the different sides fought and they would go to him to get his assent. And his son was very important. But effectively, the deputy commander-in-chief then was Ayatollah Rafsanjani, actually, who ran the war. He ran Iran's war effort.

So basically, one thing that would happen is Rouhani as deputy commander in chief, who effectively runs Iran's war effort, and in this case, most importantly, Iran's peace effort, i.e. bringing a diplomatic solution. I think there are enough people in this regime to do this. Unfortunately,

You know, the image that a lot of Iranian oppositionists have given is that, oh, everybody in this regime is messianic and bloodthirsty and they're always running to the last drop of their blood. I don't have that idea at all. I think actually that's not even true about most of them. I think real ideological commitment is gone and, you know, it's not very common. I think what you have much more is a version of patriotism and basically pragmatism, actually. Pragmatism for their own benefit also.

That's why they don't sell their children to become revolutionaries. They send them to study in Switzerland and Canada and the United States and Britain almost exclusively. It's actually sort of crazy the degree to which this is the case. They're not in Russia or China or literally Iraq.

You know, so it really tells you what their outlook on life is. So I think that's entirely possible. I know that you speak to people in the regime as well, or close to the regime as well as other people. And of course, you have friends and family in Tehran. I was wondering if you could just tell us kind of what they've been saying to you over the past few days. You know,

It's very hard. All of us are calling our loved ones as much as we can to get through all the internet problems and everything. First of all, to make sure who's alive, frankly. It's just so, it's a terrifying time. I personally have been trying to help my family get out of Tehran. It's just an instinctive thing you do. And, you know, some of them have, some of them want to and cannot go, which is terrifying, but it's the case. Because if you don't have a car, you cannot go. And even if you have a car,

Petrol is very hard to find. The roads are blocked. I mean, the roads, you know, I had a family member who got to the north of Iran after a 16-hour drive. You know, usually it's like a three-hour drive.

This gives you an idea of what kind of traffic there is, but it's impossible. The petrol is very hard to find and everyone can only do 15 liter a day, I think. It's the sort of how much is allowed. So they have to go get on the black market. So it's a terrible, terrifying time for everybody. And it's actually kind of when I call the activists to talk to them about politics, I'm a little ashamed, frankly, because I call them and...

You know, they're like, oh, wait, I'm just coming from my brother's house was destroyed in a drone. And I'm, you know, going somewhere else and I'm trying to do this. And there's medicine I need to go for my mother, which I cannot because the place is shot. You know, so this is really a sort of a city in crisis. I mean, not just one city. I mean, all over the country, actually already like something like 19 provinces have been attacked in some capacity. Tehran is the scariest one.

So frankly, they're terrified more than anything, uncertain about the future. But in no way are they jubilant. I mean, you know, there were those who were happy in the first days, not even days, first hours, frankly, when some military leaders were hit. But that same night they found out, oh, Iranian civilians did die. And I have to also say something, as the last person said, is that it's been very hard for me not to be a bit of a I told you so,

guy, to those who were sort of semi-supportive attacks. But this is what we always said. Actually, and also to all those who say, why are we supporting the talks? Well, we supported the talks because we knew the alternative is dead Iranians in hundreds. And unfortunately, that's exactly what we're seeing now. And it was always clear to me that if there is an Israeli attack, this won't be a pretty affair, as some had a question that hundreds of Iranians, hopefully not more, but at least hundreds of Iranians will die

And they have, unfortunately. It's already clear. Iranian civilians of all walks of life are amongst them. The historian Arash Azizi, the author of the book What Iranians Want.

That's all for today's episode. Before we go, I'd like to thank once again all the other Iranians inside and outside the country who spoke to me over the past couple of days. You may not have heard their voices, but everyone we talk to informs our reporting in one way or another. I'm very grateful to them all. This is, of course, a very, very fast-moving story. As I speak, there is increasing speculation that Donald Trump may order American forces to join the war.

which would obviously change things dramatically. We will, of course, be following all of those developments as closely as we can, and we'll be back on Friday with our next episode to explain all of that. Until then, that was Battlelines. Goodbye. Battlelines is an original podcast from The Telegraph, created by David Knowles and hosted by me, Roland Oliphant, and Venetia Rainey. If you appreciated this podcast, please consider following Battlelines on your preferred podcast app.

And if you have a moment, leave a review, as it helps others to find the show. To stay on top of all our news, subscribe to The Telegraph, sign up to our Dispatches newsletter, or listen to our sister podcast, Ukraine The Latest. You can also get in touch directly by emailing battlelines at telegraph.co.uk or contact us on X. You can find our handles in the show notes. The producer is Peter Shevlin and the executive producer is Louisa Wells.

Quince believes that quality products shouldn't be a luxury, whether it's a breathable 100% European linen shirt or effortless stretch cotton pants. All of their high-end, top-quality pieces are about half the cost of similar brands. Yes, really. By working directly with top artisans and cutting out the middlemen, Quince gives you luxury pieces without the markup. Get the high-end goods you deserve at quince.com slash upgrade for free shipping and 365-day returns.

And now, a few words from finance. Marketing just gave me their campaign report and they are obsessed with likes. Generating likes. Counting likes. I mean, don't get me wrong, I like being liked. But you can't pay employees with likes or follows. I've never seen either of those on a P&L report. The point is we have to get our customers to buy stuff. And...

like visit the stores. Ground Truth, the advertising platform for when you need real business results. Visit us at groundtruth.com.