‘Trump wasn’t victorious – it was a major defeat’: protestors inside Iran speak out

‘Trump wasn’t victorious – it was a major defeat’: protestors inside Iran speak out Amirhossein Miresmaeili hears from unimpressed protestors within Iran who feel betrayed by Donald Trump’s promises of regime change - Bookmark - CommentsGo to comments This article first appeared on our partner site, Independent Persian The signing of a memorandum of understanding between US president Donald Trump and Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian was seen by many Iranians not as the end of a crisis, as portrayed by Washington and Tehran, but as a symbol of “political betrayal” and “America’s historic failure”. In messages sent to Independent Persian, readers from various cities across Iran said that after 39 days of war, Trump ultimately agreed to a deal with the Islamic Republic while the core power structure in Tehran remains intact, the influence of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has grown, and ordinary Iranians have been left to cope with economic hardship, destroyed homes, unemployment and a new wave of executions. Their anger is directed above all at the gap between the rhetoric that accompanied the start of the war and its eventual outcome. They note that after the brutal protests earlier this year, Trump repeatedly portrayed himself as a defender of the Iranian people, claiming that more than 40,000 people had been killed and that the objective of US military action was to bring an end to the rule of the Islamic Republic. Yet now, the same president who spoke of “regime change” is sitting at the negotiating table with representatives of that very system. Paria, a resident of Isfahan, wrote to Independent Persian: “Trump lied to the Iranian people. He said that once he struck the leaders and infrastructure of the Islamic Republic, he would call on the people to come out and take power. But now Khamenei the father is gone, and Khamenei the son, who is younger, more hardline and full of energy, has taken his place. How is this ‘regime change’?” Paria believes that not only has the Islamic Republic survived collapse, but that the officials and commanders who were killed have been replaced by “more hardline and more IRGC-loyal” successors. In her view, “Trump says he has won, but the Iranian people see that the IRGC is still in power and has even gained the upper hand.” Another major source of criticism concerns the terms of the memorandum, including the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for lifting the naval blockade, sanctions relief and the establishment of a $300bn (£227bn) reconstruction fund. Many of those who wrote to Independent Persian ask a simple question: wasn’t the Strait of Hormuz already open before the war? Why is Trump now presenting its reopening as an achievement? Maria, a Tehran resident who also participated in the January protests, wrote: “Trump said he commanded the most powerful military in the world and would destroy the Islamic Republic. What happened in the end? The Strait of Hormuz was already open before the war. Now he presents that as an achievement and wants to lift sanctions. This isn’t a victory; it’s a major defeat.” She added that discussions around sanctions relief and a multi-billion-dollar reconstruction fund, while the Islamic Republic’s political structure remains intact, amount to “life support for the regime” and assistance to its proxy forces rather than help for ordinary people. “People’s homes have been destroyed, they have lost their jobs, prices have soared, and now the reconstruction money is also supposed to pass through this same government. That means the IRGC and regime institutions will once again get their share.” The same sentiment appeared repeatedly in other messages. The 39-day war, protestors argue, brought neither freedom for Iran, nor the collapse of the IRGC, nor an end to executions, nor even a reduction in domestic repression. On the contrary, they say, the Islamic Republic has tightened its security grip and increased the execution of young protesters and political prisoners after the end of the war. Kaveh, from Kermanshah in western Iran, wrote: “Two months ago, Trump said that if the Iranian regime executed protesters, it would face consequences. Now several young people are being executed every day, and he says nothing. Worse still, he praises officials of the Islamic Republic and says they are acting wisely and love their country. How can a government that executes its own people in droves be said to love its country?” In his view, Trump’s stated human rights policies are “nothing more than a propaganda tool”. He added: “When he needed the support of the Iranian people to launch the war, he talked about freedom and human rights. Once he reached an agreement, he forgot those same people.” Some readers also believe that Israel played a far greater role than the United States in targeting senior IRGC commanders and high-ranking officials of the Islamic Republic. They argue that most of the regime’s military and security figures were killed in Israeli strikes rather than direct US operations, and that Washington ultimately halted the war and prevented further military pressure on the regime. Sara, from the city of Rasht, which is located on the Caspian Sea, wrote: “Every senior regime official and IRGC commander who was killed was taken out by Israel and Netanyahu’s military. What exactly did the United States do, other than eventually stopping further Israeli attacks and saving the Islamic Republic?” She said that during the first weeks of the war, many Iranians, despite concerns about civilian casualties, had hoped that attacks on command centres, checkpoints, security institutions and key regime figures would lead to the internal collapse of the Islamic Republic. Instead, Trump’s threats to target “all of Iran’s infrastructure and civilisation” gave the regime an opportunity to portray itself, through extensive propaganda, as the defender of Iran against complete destruction. This has become another major point of criticism. Trump’s threatening rhetoric about Iran’s infrastructure and civilisation alarmed many ordinary Iranians while simultaneously giving state media the opportunity to channel public anger in favour of the regime. One question appears repeatedly in messages sent to Independent Persian: if the Islamic Republic is still in power, the IRGC remains active, executions continue, Khamenei the son has replaced Khamenei the father, the heads of the three branches of government remain in office, sanctions are on the path to being lifted and a multi-billion-dollar reconstruction fund is included in the memorandum, then what victory is Trump actually talking about? Mohammadreza, from Tehran, concluded his message by writing: “We hate the Islamic Republic, but now we are angry with Trump as well. He told us he stood with us, but at the most critical moment, he reached an agreement with the same regime that killed our people.” This anger reflects a deep divide between the expectations that parts of Iranian society placed on foreign intervention and the realities of power politics in Washington. Reviewed by Tooba Khokhar and Celine Assaf Join our commenting forum Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies Comments