British-Iranians struggling to contact friends and family who fear punishment by Tehran regime
With Iran now in the midst of a near-total internet blackout, communication is dire - but we've managed to piece together a picture of a country where there is fear and panic, but where activists say the ruling regime is still in control.
We meet British-Iranians Amir Javadzadeh and Attieh Fard in the UK - struggling to get through to their friends and family in Iran. Hour by hour, it's getting harder and harder.
Amir finally makes contact with a friend in the eastern city of Mashhad. We are calling the friend "Ali" to protect his identity. Ali paints a worrying picture of people struggling to get hold of basics like bread and fuel.
Middle East latest: Trump says he 'may or may not' strike Iran
He later sends us a video he's taken of a huge fuel queue in the city.
"My wife is in hospital and I have to go there all the time and I don't have any fuel or medicine for her.
"Really it's a difficult time for us, and we don't have gasoline, we have problems preparing food. All the people have fear,' he adds.
Not only is there a shortage of fuel - but some people who have fled the capital Tehran are coming to Mashhad, he adds.
'I'm really angry… we're actually, you know, we are stuck in the middle of a war between our government and the Israelis,' Ali said.
People in Iran are terrified to speak to Western media - afraid of being punished by the Iranian regime. Although some have been prepared to share videos with us anonymously, like the one below, that they've filmed of the bombing in Tehran.
Attieh Fard shared with us a message exchange between her and one of her relatives, one says: 'Everyone has worries and stress….They (the Israelis) won't stop until they hit the target.'
Despite the dangers, one member of a group of anti-regime activists agreed to speak to us from the capital Tehran - we have changed his name to "Sam", to hide his identity.
Read more:
With America threatening to bomb Iran, Sam described the ongoing conflict as a "very historical moment in our Iranian history'.
Asked if he is afraid of US intervention, he said: "Not at all because the Americans, we believe, are not going to fight with the people, they are fighting with the Islamic Republic. They're against the ideology of the Islamic republic. So that's why we're not afraid.
'The view from inside Iran is that if a US attack happens, I think it will result in the fall of the Islamic Republic. I think these are the tools and the people inside are ready to take over the situation once the regime is weakened."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
12 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
U.A.E. Shuts Its Airspace, Flight Tracker Says
The United Arab Emirates has closed its airspace, amid ongoing attacks in the Middle East, Flightradar24 said, citing flight path diversions and air traffic control audio. The closure comes shortly after Qatar shut its airspace ahead of an attack by Iran on a U.S. base in that country.
Bloomberg
15 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Victoria Coates on Diplomatic Pathway's Available to US
Former Trump Adviser Victoria Coates outlines the possible diplomatic pathways still available to the US following strikes targeting Iran nuclear facilities over the weekend. She speaks with Scarlet Fu on "Bloomberg Markets." (Source: Bloomberg)
San Francisco Chronicle
19 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
As Trump floats regime change in Iran, past US attempts to remake the Middle East may offer warnings
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — As President Donald Trump floats the idea of 'regime change' in Tehran, previous U.S. attempts to remake the Middle East by force over the decades offer stark warnings about the possibility of a deepening involvement in the Iran-Israeli conflict. 'If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???' Trump posted on his social media site over the weekend. The came after the U.S. bombed Iran's nuclear sites but before that country retaliated by firing its own missiles at a U.S. base in Qatar. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Monday insisted that Trump, who spent years railing against 'forever wars' and pushing an 'America first' world view, had not committed a political about-face. 'The president's posture and our military posture has not changed,' she said, suggesting that a more aggressive approach might be necessary if Iran 'refuses to give up their nuclear program or engage in talks." Leavitt also suggested that a new government in Iran could come about after its people stage a revolt — not necessarily requiring direct U.S. intervention. 'If they refuse to engage in diplomacy moving forward, why shouldn't the Iranian people rise up,' she asked. That's a perilous path that other U.S. administrations have taken. And it's a long way from Trump's past dismissal of " stupid, endless wars," and his scoffing at the idea of nation-building championed by his Republican predecessors — including in Afghanistan and Iraq, where the U.S. helped overthrow governments. Initial success is often fleeting U.S. special forces and Afghan allies drove the Taliban from power and chased Osama bin Laden into Pakistan within months of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. American tanks rolled into Baghdad weeks after the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein in Iraq. But then, both wars went on for years. The Taliban waged a tenacious, two-decade insurgency and swept back into power as the U.S. beat a chaotic retreat in 2021. The overthrow of Saddam plunged Iraq into chaos, with Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias battling each other and U.S. forces. Israel has so far largely succeeded in taking out Iran's air defenses and ballistic missiles and the U.S. strikes on three sites with missiles and 30,000-pound (13,600-kilogram) bunker-buster bombs has wrecked its nuclear program, Trump says. But that still potentially leaves hundreds of thousands in the military, the Revolutionary Guard and forces known as the Basij, who played a key role in quashing waves of anti-government protests in recent years. Ground forces are key — but don't guarantee success Airstrikes have never been enough on their own. Take, for example, Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. His forces withstood a seven-month NATO air campaign in 2011 before rebels fighting city by city eventually cornered and killed him. There are currently no insurgent groups in Iran capable of taking on the Revolutionary Guard, and it's hard to imagine Israeli or U.S. forces launching a ground invasion of a mountainous country of some 80 million people that is about four times as big as Iraq. A split in Iran's own security forces would furnish a ready-made insurgency, but it would also likely tip the country into civil war. There's also the question of how ordinary Iranians would respond. Protests in recent years show that many Iranians believe their government is corrupt and repressive, and would welcome its demise. But the last time a foreign power attacked Iran — the Iraqi invasion of 1980 — people rallied around the flag. At the moment, many appear to be lying low or leaving the capital. Be wary of exiled opposition groups Some of the biggest cheerleaders for the U.S. invasion of Iraq were exiled opposition figures, many of whom had left the country decades before. When they returned, essentially on the back of U.S. tanks, they were marginalized by local armed groups more loyal to Iran. There are several large Iranian opposition groups based abroad. But they are not united and it's unclear how much support any of them has inside the country. The closest thing to a unifying opposition figure is Reza Pahlavi, the son of the shah who was overthrown in the 1979 Islamic Revolution that brought the theocracy to power. But many Iranians have bitter memories of repression under the shah, and others might reject Pahlavi over his outreach to Israel, especially if he tries to ride to power on the back of a foreign invasion. Chaos is practically guaranteed In Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya — and in Syria and Yemen after their 2011 uprisings — a familiar pattern emerged when governments were overthrown or seriously weakened. Armed groups emerged with competing agendas. Neighboring countries backed local proxies. Weapons flowed in and large numbers of civilians fled. The fighting in some places boiled over into full-blown civil war, and ever more violent extremist groups sprouted from the chaos. When it was all over, Saddam had been replaced by a corrupt and often dysfunctional government at least as friendly to Iran as it was to the United States. Gadhafi was replaced by myriad militias, many allied with foreign powers. The Taliban were replaced by the Taliban.
