Abroad and at odds: How the war has divided Iranians in the diaspora | US-Israel war on Iran News
Iranian Diaspora Divided by US-Israel Conflict
Peyvand Khorsandi was only four years old when he and his family emigrated from Iran to the United Kingdom in 1976, three years prior to the Islamic revolution. His father, Hadi, a prominent satirist and poet, survived a failed assassination attempt in 1984, reportedly orchestrated by the Iranian government. The plot was thwarted by London’s Metropolitan Police, following a tip from a senior Iranian official who subsequently entered self-imposed exile.
Despite his family’s complicated history, Khorsandi expresses opposition to the US-Israel military action against Iran, arguing it has empowered the Iranian government while undermining pro-democracy movements within the country. “It’s disappointing and depressing,” he told Al Jazeera, reflecting the sentiments of many Iranians in the diaspora who find themselves conflicted about their homeland.
The conflict, initiated on February 28 with joint strikes by the United States and Israel, has severely affected global economies, increased energy prices, and resulted in thousands of civilian casualties, primarily in Iran and Lebanon. These developments have left the Iranian diaspora divided, with some supporting the military actions and others opposing them.
Supporters of the strikes often rally behind Reza Pahlavi, the son of Iran’s last shah, who was deposed in 1979. However, Khorsandi is critical of Pahlavi’s stance, asserting, “What Pahlavi supporters represent is dangerous. I think he is a willing servant of the Israeli government.”
The military actions have sparked significant discord among Iranians abroad. “This is a racist war,” Khorsandi stated, equating the plight of Iranian civilians with that of Palestinians in conflicts fueled by colonial interests.
While US intelligence had previously determined that Iran was not actively pursuing nuclear weapons, President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu initially justified the conflict on human rights grounds, claiming it was intended to support ordinary Iranians. However, this narrative faltered soon after initial strikes, particularly following an attack on a girls’ school in Minab, which resulted in at least 170 fatalities, primarily among children. The strike, believed to be a result of a US air raid, drew widespread condemnation, particularly after Pahlavi failed to denounce the violence, shifting blame to the Iranian government for using the victims as “human shields.”
Khorsandi noted the conflict has fostered a climate of disagreement among Iranians about how to achieve positive change within their country. The international community has also responded critically, with human rights organizations highlighting Iran’s record of repression, further complicated by its use of the conflict to justify domestic crackdowns.
Political observers link the current conflict to Iran’s historical struggles, referencing the 1953 coup that overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, a move orchestrated by US and British intelligence agencies. The memory of Mossadegh’s overthrow looms large, reshaping perceptions of US intervention in Iran and contributing to longstanding animosities.
The ongoing war has precipitated an economic crisis in Iran, with many citizens feeling the brunt of international sanctions and governmental repression. Roxane Farmanfarmaian, who teaches international relations at Cambridge University, remarked that expectations for positive change among the diaspora are low, noting the fragmented views within Iranian communities abroad.
Naz Radboy, an Iranian-American, views the conflict through a lens of US imperialism. She expresses solidarity with Iran’s leadership, stating, “Iran is confronting empire, and I stand with Iran and the institutions defending it.” Her perspective highlights a broader narrative of resistance against foreign intervention.
As the war continues, Iran maintains control over critical maritime routes, particularly the Strait of Hormuz, which remains vital for global oil exports. The geopolitical stakes involved create a pressing need for diplomatic solutions to prevent further escalation.
Radboy warns against letting anti-government sentiments overshadow the importance of Iran’s sovereignty, articulating concern that some in the diaspora prioritize political aims over the well-being of the nation. “Civilians can die, the economy can collapse, and infrastructure can be destroyed as long as it weakens the government,” she asserted, emphasizing the humanitarian ramifications of such an approach.
