You argue that strikes have unified the country, but the evidence from the ground in March 2026 shows a massive psychological divide: Many Iranians do not see the strikes as an attack on "Iran," but as a dismantling of the IRGC "occupying force" that killed over 7,000 to 36,000 of its own citizens during the January 2026 protests. Reports from border crossings and anonymous texts from Tehran indicate a surprising level of "relief" and even clandestine celebration at the decapitation of the leadership, with many Iranians fearing that a "peace deal" would only leave their oppressors in power. The idea that the IRGC will fight to the last man as "diehard supporters" is being overridden by material exhaustion: With the rial at 1.4 million per dollar and the banking system paralyzed, the regime has failed to pay many security units for three months. Morale cannot be sustained on "martyrdom" alone when soldiers are starving. Reports of 90% desertion in some local units suggest the "diehard" shield is actually a series of disconnected, failing cells Why "more" could not be achieved without war. Previous diplomatic efforts were used by Tehran as stalling tactics for their nuclear program. We know the regime/IRGC lies consistently about what they are doing, they cannot be trusted. The regime is "broken" because it has lost the ability to govern, and no amount of nationalist rhetoric can fix a system that has fundamentally disconnected from its own power source—the people.
Create an account or sign in to comment