The Iranians see the strikes as a liberation, in the same way that France was liberated from the Nazis in WWII

[Endoflight]

So please do not be against the war in the name of any Iranian.

The Islamic regime purposefully shot girls in the face, chests and vaginas to destroy their beauty. This was a regime of terrorists.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2026/feb/17/x-rays-injuries-iran-protesters-hospital-birdshot-bullets

This is a regime that has massacred 30000 of its OWN people since January.

Body bags have lined the streets for months.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2026/jan/27/iran-protests-death-toll-disappeared-bodies-mass-burials-30000-dead

The strikes are targeted and destroying the regimes military bases. Iranians are celebrating and feeling support for the first time in years.

We might not want to get involved in War in the U.K., but to not understand how this is a liberation is jarring to all Iranians who do not have sympathy for the terrorist regime, so please do not speak for them

Yes it must be hard. OP has high hopes for how this might all end. I, like others on the thread, am more cynical. Perhaps we are wrong. I really hope so.

They have been given asylum. Or visas. Whichever it is, they are allowed to stay.

Is there anyone or anyway you can see peace and freedom being restored to women in Iran? Ik many have said not this way, but can you see another way?

France was only liberated by putting 2 million Allied troops on the ground. That was to liberate a country one third the size of Iran which already had an active, armed internal resistance that the liberators worked with.

You can't liberate a country from the air, least of all one which has not actually been invaded by an external aggressor.

The most you could hope for is triggering a devastating civil war I suppose.

We also have a lovely Iranian lady who lives up the road. Her sister still lives there so over the years we have heard bits and bobs about it. We also heard how ecstatic her sister and her community are at the moment. They have been waiting for this money so are extremely hopeful right now.

Usually, in the event of an oppressive regime, there is some kind of opposition movement waiting in the wings for its opportunity to sweep in and fill the power vacuum. I don't hear any mention of this in Iran- I fear because any contenders may have been killed or imprisoned?- with the exception of Reza Pahlavi, son of a ruler who led a pretty damn oppressive regime himself.

This would seem to make it even less likely that bombing Iran is going to bring about meaningful regime change, surely?

I know Americans are famous for not knowing much about history, but surely they can remember as far back as the Iraq war and its aftermath?

I wish so very much for liberation for the people of Iran.

I have absolutely no faith in Donald Trump as the person to deliver it. I think once he has achieved his aims - and I'm not even sure he has decided what these are - he will withdraw and leave the Iranian people to whatever fills the void. At the moment that appears to be Mojtaba Khameini. The first father-to-son succession in the Islamic republic indicates both a move to dynastic rule, and a consolidation of security-state power given his close ties to the IRGC. Under his rule Iranians are going to see the greater militarization of politics, greater repression, and less tolerance for protest movements.

Trump has signalled that he is not happy about the election of Mojtaba Khameini, but has made absolutely no promises of boots on the ground to support the Iranian people in overthrowing him. Even if Khameini is killed, a power vacuum only offers the possibility of liberation, not a guarantee.

Perhaps Reza Pahlavi is the solution, but many will recall that under his father Iran was deeply authoritarian, with brutal repression by the secret police. I hope it is not a case of "like father like son". It is also very unclear how much support Pahlavi has within Iran, or whether Iran's highly fragmented opposition would unite around him. Monarchists, republican liberals, leftist and socialist groups, reformists and other factions all have wildly different ideologies and goals, and it's unclear whether Pahlavi is the kind of figurehead who could unite these groups sufficiently to generate an uprising.

I hope my pessimism is proved wrong, I hope so hard that the future of Iran is brighter and safer for its people.

Firstly, the war isn't over yet despite Trump making the comment about "complete" he hasn't ended the war.

Also, the change of leadership from father to son is not all that has happened. Iran's navy has been destroyed and the Iranian regime has been prevented from supporting their proxy groups like Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in the Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen.

US/Israeli military is also working on destroying Iran's missile capabilities and have destroyed most of their missile launchers.

I'm not aware that they have prevented Iran from developing nuclear weapons yet, which was another war goal. But the war's not over yet.

All these things weaken the regime. Hopefully that will make it possible for Iranians to overthrow the horrible regime one day.

War is perhaps inevitable but western interference rarely ends well for anyone. What you are asking for is going to require a seismic shift in attitudes that extends across the region. Forcing it under threat of missile attack is unlikely to be successful without an extensive, bloody and protracted conflict. I doubt America is really up for that.

I do know - they have been granted asylum by the Australian government.

The two things are not mutually exclusive.

It is entirely possible to care about what happened to Iranian citizens under their own government while at the same time thinking that Trump going in is not the way to bring about change.

We’ve seen what western interfeerence achieved in Iraq, Afghanistan. We’ve also seen what has happened in Syria where its own people have overthrown their leader.

The reality is that many of these countries are so far gone that any kind of change is going to be questionable.

But if it is going to happen, then it has to come from within.

Usually there is an opposition waiting to take over, and here there hasn’t been.

And now Iran has a new leader. Trump has lost interest and will move on to his next goal by next week. And the Iranian people are the ones who are going to have to pick up the pieces.

I was quoting your post on wanting peace and freedom for Iranians.

Ik there’s many posts on how not to do it but is there anyone with an idea on how to get there.

Do you have any thoughts yourself on how it could be achieved?

I've yet to see anyone even attempt to answer that question.

Glad to hear the women have been granted asylum in Australia - thanks for updating me

I find it shocking that soneone here is admitting they would rather the Iranian regime 'wins' this war.

To judge evil, the methods of evil were adopted. What the war demonstrates is not the realisation of justice, but that authority and violence are power.

Trump isn't doing this for the women of Iran. Anyone who believes that should to what Trump did for Iran's neighbour to the East - a deal to put the Taliban in charge.

Triump's saying the war will be done a few days. The popular uprising hasn't happened so Trump will be happy a bit of disruption and adding it to the list of wars he has "stopped".

The answer is civil war.

There needs to be an uprising by the people.

But even if that happens, we need to realistically question whether women will benefit.

Because let’s be honest, Islam’s approach to women and women’s rights is well known. And even if there are men who oppose this regime for themselves, after all it’s not just women this has disadvantaged, many of those men will still see women as beneath them.

So while regime could change for some, I think the possibilities for women are less certain.

Literally no one thinks Trump is doing it for women. I've no idea why people keep repeating this. We know. The Iranians know. Doesn't mean if the regime falls the women might not be better off anyway.
Just like the Allies defeated the Germans for many reasons, but stopping the Holocaust wasn't one of them. Holocaust still stopped though.

Trump has now essentially said he can't help the people of Iran. When asked he said

"I'd like to, if they can behave, but they've been very menacing. You know, they're great people. They have an amazing population. It's amazing, smart, brilliant, energetic. They have a great I'd love to help them, but they have to be in a system that allows them to be helped, and right now they're in a system that only allows failure."

"And I don't want that, and I want a system that's not going to be attacking us. We want a system that can lead to many years of peace, and if we can't have that, we might as well get it over with right now," he added.

Short answer- no. There isn’t anyone who know how to get there. There is no magic solution that’s going to fix this. Don’t you think that is there was it would already have been done???
This is an incredibly complex situation with a long history and too many interested parties. Most of whom are only interested because of oil. Most do NOT have the best interests of the Iranian people at heart.
Add in the fact that there is no one end solution that’s pleases everyone. What works for some Iranians infuriates others. Or pisses off the Americans or the Israelis.

The obvious answer is that if they want change then they make that change. Pahlavi says he wants to lead Iran so maybe he could get off his butt and go over and help, use his billions, mobilise all 90million Iranians that the OP is insistent want change.

Many of the most stable and lasting regime changes tend to come primarily from within the country itself, external regime changes unless accompanied external support long term and massive reconstruction efforts which neither Israel nor the US care about doing don't tend to be successful.

For the best chance at a durable regime change it needs to be driven by internal political forces not two warmongerers who are driven by their own agendas and would happily watch Iran burn if that was the best outcome for them.

Well someone didn't want other posters to know that it wasn't Iran who bombed a girls school. Claiming to care about the people of Iran whilst suppressing information about war crimes is pretty disgusting.

It’s very hard if the regime has the ability to kill thousands when people try, mutilate or imprison. As the op says.