An overwhelming majority of Iran’s 90 million citizens are believed to be dissatisfied with the current Islamic regime, with estimates suggesting that 80-85% of the population favors political change, according to analysts and observers. While hard data is scarce due to government restrictions, widespread protests and anti-government demonstrations in recent years indicate a deep-seated desire for a new system with many calling for a secular government. Women and youth have been at the forefront of this movement, boldly defying theocratic rule through mass protests, social media campaigns, and public acts of defiance. Chants of “regime change” have echoed through streets across Iran, particularly during the 2022-2023 uprising sparked by the death of Mahsa Amini, which evolved into one of the most significant challenges to the government in decades. The regime’s response has been swift and brutal. Security forces, including riot police and state-backed militias, have repeatedly cracked down on demonstrators with live ammunition, beatings, and mass arrests. Hundreds have been killed, thousands injured, and countless others imprisoned with reports of detainees disappearing into the judiciary’s opaque penal system. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s government has employed every available tool; censorship, surveillance, and violent suppression to maintain its grip on power, drawing comparisons to other authoritarian regimes that prioritize control over human rights. Despite the risks, dissent continues to simmer, with many Iranians refusing to remain silent in their demand for freedom and democracy.
An estimated four million Iranians living abroad are overwhelmingly united in their desire for an end to the Islamic Republic’s rule. Many were once active in Iran’s political opposition before fleeing persecution and now continue their activism from exile. Scattered across Europe, North America, and beyond, these expatriates have formed numerous political groups, each advocating different visions for Iran’s future,
Over the past two decades, Israel and Saudi Arabia have quietly invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Farsi-language TV and radio stations based outside Iran. The broadcasts, designed to shape public opinion, align with Israel and Saudi Arabia strategies in the region. Operating from Europe and US, these media outlets present news, commentary, and cultural programming tailored to Iranian audiences. While some channels claim to provide independent journalism, critics argue their primary purpose is to promote narratives favorable to Israeli and Saudi interests particularly regarding regime change, regional security, and opposition to Tehran’s current leadership. In addition to media influence, both countries have allegedly supported fringe Iranian opposition groups and individual figures, elevating them as potential “voices of the Iranian people.” However, many of these groups lack broad support inside Iran and are viewed with skepticism by mainstream activists. “This is a soft power battle,” said a Middle East analyst. By controlling the narrative, these external players hope to steer Iranian public sentiment in a direction that serves their political and security objectives. The Iranian government has repeatedly condemned the broadcasts as foreign propaganda, jamming signals and blocking access to the channels. Yet, despite restrictions, satellite dishes and online platforms allow many Iranians to access the content.
One of the groups that is allegedly financed by foreign countries is Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), an exiled Iranian opposition group with followers in the European Union and the United States, has a long and contentious history dating back to the era of the Shah. Once a formidable force inside Iran, the MEK maintained an extensive network before facing severe crackdowns by the government, leading to mass arrests and executions of its members. Forced to flee Iran, the group relocated to Iraq in the 1980s, where it regrouped under the support of the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. This alliance would later tarnish the MEK’s reputation among Iranians, who viewed Saddam as a sworn enemy, especially after the devastating Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988). On July 26, 1988, just a year after the war ended, the MEK launched Operation Mersad (also known as Operation Eternal Light, عملیات فروغ جاویدان), a military incursion into Iran from Iraqi territory. The operation, however, was swiftly crushed by Iranian forces and concluded by July 31. Reports indicate that approximately 4,500 MEK fighters were killed in the failed campaign. The operation proved to be a turning point for the group, as it led to a steep decline in its popularity among Iranians. Many viewed the MEK’s collaboration with Saddam Hussein as a betrayal, further alienating the group from the Iranian public. Today, the MEK remains a polarizing organization, with some Western nations considering it a legitimate opposition movement, while others criticize its past militant tactics. Its influence inside Iran has significantly waned, but it continues to advocate for regime change from its bases abroad.
Reza Pahlavi, the son of Iran’s deposed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, has long proclaimed himself the opposition’s leader against Tehran’s government. Since fleeing Iran during the 1979 Revolution, he has rallied support primarily among the Iranian diaspora, though his influence inside the country remains marginal. Backed by foreign government-funded Farsi-language media outlets abroad, allegedly financed by foreign states, Pahlavi maintains close ties with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United States, relationships that have garnered both support and scrutiny. His alignment with foreign powers faced fierce backlash during the recent 12-day conflict between Israel and Iran, when he openly endorsed Israeli airstrikes and urged Iranians to revolt against the Islamic Republic. The call, however, fell flat. Many inside Iran saw his stance as a betrayal of national interests, further damaging his credibility. Analysts observe that his domestic popularity has sharply declined since, with even some former supporters doubting whether Western and regional powers view him as a legitimate alternative or merely a convenient instrument for their geopolitical goals.
Beyond high-profile exile factions, Iran’s opposition movement comprises a diverse network of progressive organizations, student groups, labor unions, professional associations, and cultural activists both inside the country and abroad with decades of resistance against the Islamic Republic. Unlike some exiled figures, the overwhelming majority of these groups have firmly condemned Israel’s recent attacks on Iran, which killed civilians and damaged critical infrastructure. These organizations, ranging from socialists, secular democrats to reformist Islamists, have long advocated for change through civil resistance, labor strikes, and grassroots mobilization rather than foreign-aligned military action. Their stance reflects a broader sentiment among Iran’s opposition: that collaboration with hostile foreign powers undermines their legitimacy and betrays national sovereignty. While these groups disagree on Iran’s future governance from constitutional monarchists to federalists, their shared rejection of foreign military intervention has drawn quiet support.
The recent Israel-Iran conflict has accelerated a political realignment. Many now view Reza Pahlavi and the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq) as having supported foreign adversaries during the hostilities, a perception that has further eroded their standing. Others argue that defending Iran’s sovereignty remains paramount, even while rejecting Supreme Leader Khamenei’s government. Today, both Pahlavi and the MEK face unprecedented unpopularity. Some analysts suggest they are viewed as ‘Plan A’ and ‘Plan B’ by a U.S.-Saudi-Israeli coalition seeking to overthrow Iran’s regime, a perception that has only deepened their isolation from mainstream dissent inside the country.
Historical context matters: Iranians remember the 1941 Anglo-Soviet invasion that forced Reza Shah’s abdication and installed his son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. They recall the 1953 CIA-MI6 coup that ousted Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh at America’s behest, restoring the Shah’s absolute power. Some analysts even suggest Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1979 rise was enabled by a Cold War U.S. strategy to bolster Islamist movements against Soviet influence. This legacy has bred deep skepticism. Today, regardless of their views on the clerical regime, most Iranians view U.S. or Israeli military action as an attack on national sovereignty itself.
Iran’s Regime at a Crossroads: Israel Conflict Deepens Rifts, Sparks Fears of Crackdown
The recent confrontation between Iran and Israel has left lasting scars on both nations, but the ripple effects within Iran’s political landscape may prove even more consequential. While Iranian forces successfully struck Israeli military sites, ports, and infrastructure, forcing Jerusalem to the negotiating table. The conflict has also exposed and exacerbated deep fissures within the Islamic Republic’s leadership, weakening Ayatollah Khamenei’s grip on power. Even before the war, Iran’s ruling elite was divided. One faction argued that the government’s survival depended on relaxing strict Islamic laws such as mandatory hijab, addressing economic woes, and adopting a less confrontational stance toward foreign adversaries. The other camp insisted on doubling down on ideological enforcement, advocating for an iron-fisted approach domestically and aggressive retaliation against Israel. Now, these divisions have intensified, with analysts warning of potential power struggles. even a coup as rival factions vie for control. The Tehran regime, sensing vulnerability, is shifting into self-preservation mode. Authorities are expected to launch a sweeping crackdown, targeting not only alleged Israeli operatives within Iran but also purging suspected infiltrators within their own ranks. At the same time, the government is likely to turn its attention to progressive opposition forces, seeking to silence dissent and reassert its authority. Observers fear these measures could escalate rapidly, plunging the country into a period of heightened repression and instability.
Iran’s Opposition Faces Defining Moment After Israel Conflict
As Iran’s leadership contends with internal divisions in the wake of its confrontation with Israel, progressive opposition groups inside the country now face a critical test. Their next moves could determine not only their credibility but also the future direction of Iran’s political landscape.
The first imperative, analysts argue, is for opposition groups to unequivocally claim Iran’s successful missile offensive which forced Israel to the negotiating table despite Iran suffering significant damage from its inadequate air defenses as a national achievement belonging to all Iranians, not just the regime. They must also draw a sharp distinction between those who stood with Iran and those who, from abroad, openly cheered for Israel’s attacks. Notably, figures like Reza Pahlavi and foreign-backed Farsi media outlets were accused of siding with Israel, with one analyst branding them “self-hating Iranians.” This alignment, opposition groups argue, disqualifies such figures from any legitimate role in Iran’s future political discourse.
Moving forward, progressives must establish a unified set of core demands to galvanize public support. These may include but are not limited to the following:
- A call for national unity and an inclusive dialogue on Iran’s future, broadcast openly on state television.
- The immediate release of political prisoners and the legalization of all political parties, regardless of ideology.
- Free and fair elections within 6-12 months, overseen by an independent body.
- The formation of expert-led committees to tackle hyperinflation, currency collapse, infrastructure decay, and systemic corruption.
- …
The demands must be broad enough to resonate across Iran’s fractured society yet specific enough to serve as a rallying cry. But the real challenge lies in popularizing them, turning these demands into an undeniable public mandate. This means embedding them in everyday discourse: in universities, homes, and public forums until they become as fundamental as “commandments.”
Critically, the safety of those advocating for these changes depends on the scale and volume of public support. While this strategy alone will not topple the regime, it will create the necessary conditions for genuine political alternatives to emerge, leaders chosen by the people, not self-appointed foreign-backed figures. This is only to pave the way for the next steps toward regime change.
The lessons of recent years are clear: Change in Iran will not come overnight, through foreign intervention, or via YouTube manifestos broadcast from abroad. It must grow from within through persistence, unity, and an unwavering demand for a voice in shaping Iran’s destiny.
Article by M. Davar
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of IranOnline.com.