
Iran-Israel conflict leaves Iranian Americans feeling helpless, hopeless
Iranian Americans with loved ones in Iran fear reignited war and say conflict could endanger those living in the US.
The texts began coming late one night from somewhere outside Tehran, shaking Shaghayegh Cyrous from her sleep. For more than two weeks, the Los Angeles-based artist had tried in vain to reach her parents, retired designers who live near the capital city of Iran, the country she left 14 years ago.
Israeli bombs had been hitting oil depots, military installations and nuclear facilities. The U.S. had just launched its own attack and worries were rising about a full-blown Middle East war.
Cyrous frantically made a video call. Her parents kept saying they were OK, but the Internet signal was so weak, she could barely see them.
'It's very terrifying,' said Cyrous, 38, who left for America in 2011 and declined to provide her parents' names, fearing for their safety. 'We're just trying to send prayers for peace. Sometimes, I feel both helpless and hopeless.... I don't want them to be in danger.'
As the conflict between Israel and Iran rests on a fragile ceasefire, Cyrous and other Iranian Americans expressed dismay at American involvement and fear for loved ones still in Iran, saying a resurgence in violence could ripple around the world.
'Iranian Americans are worried, obviously, about their loved ones,' said Neda Bolourchi, executive director of the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans.
Bolourchi said the national advocacy organization, based in Washington, D.C., has lobbied Congress to help Iranian Americans stay in touch with family and friends in Iran during times of crisis.
Reza Rajebi, an Iranian-born novelist and physician who now lives in Houston, said he worries daily about loved ones still living in his homeland.
'Like many in the diaspora, I live in two worlds,' said Rajebi, who came to the U.S. in 2005 and writes under the pen name Diako Hazhir. 'One is here in the U.S, where I work, making a living and care for my family. The other is in my mind, always carrying the weight of anxiety for those I love and all the people in Iran who have no escape.'
Those claiming to protect the oppressed have turned into oppressors
The situation, Rajebi said, represents a 'national tragedy' with roots in the 1979 revolution that vaulted Iran's theocratic regime to power.
'The leadership has made it clear that they would rather see the country burn than surrender their grip on power,' he said. 'Step by step, cell by cell, soul by soul, the holy men who once claimed to protect the oppressed transformed into oppressors.'
Trump this week told reporters he was not seeking regime change in Iran and scolded both sides for violating the ceasefire.
Lana Silk, the Iranian-born CEO of Transform Iran, an international Christian humanitarian organization with offices in Glendale, California, said among the broad emotions unleashed by the U.S. airstrikes were feelings of relief from those who resent the longstanding regime.
'These past days have felt surreal,' Silk said. 'What once seemed like a distant hope now feels within reach …. While any form of military engagement brings with it the heavy burden of civilian suffering, many Iranians are acknowledging that the strikes have delivered the most significant blow to the Islamic Republic in over four decades.'
Silk said the Iranian regime 'does not negotiate in good faith' and employs diplomacy as a deceitful stalling tactic designed to preserve the Islamic theocracy. 'As war unfolds and daily life is disrupted by severe shortages of essential resources, many Iranians are facing displacement and growing fear,' she said. 'In the midst of this suffering, there is a desperate cry not only for freedom but for a swift end to the violence – even if that means welcoming further international intervention.'
Firuzeh Mahmoudi, of Berkeley, California, agreed.
"It is well established that the Islamic Republic of Iran does not mind killing civilians indiscriminately," Mahmoudi said. "We saw this during the Women, Life, Freedom movement and again in Iran's attacks on Israel."
'Historical precedents don't show anything favorable'
War is not the means through which many Iranians want to achieve freedom after decades of undemocratic regimes that have combined religion and authoritarian control, said Nahid Siamdoust, a former journalist who grew up in Iran and is now a professor of media and Middle Eastern studies at the University of Texas, Austin.
'It's a very depressing moment for Iranians right now,' said Siamdoust, who left Iran at age 10 with her family. 'They are not happy with the Islamic Republic, and they do not want war and destruction, but the historical precedents don't show anything favorable.'
More than a third of the nearly 400,000 Iranian immigrants in the United States live in the Los Angeles area, and more than half overall are in California, according to the Migration Policy Institute, a non-partisan think tank based in Washington, D.C.
A national poll conducted last year by the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans said Iranian Americans were nearly divided on the 2024 presidential election. About 45% of Iranian Americans voted for Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, and 41% percent for Trump, the GOP nominee.
40,000 reasons to worry: U.S. troops in Middle East could face Iran blowback
Until last weekend, Trump had pursued negotiations to end Iran's nuclear enrichment program but began warning of annihilation after Israel's June 13 attacks on the country's nuclear and military operations killed multiple military leaders and nuclear scientists.
Siamdoust said she is "saddened for my people," believing America's involvement further complicates matters.
"It does not appear to be the case of a one-and-done," Siamdoust said. "Trump said he would keep the U.S. out of these 'forever wars,' and the U.S. has just engulfed itself in yet another war in the Middle East that will cost Iranians dearly."
Fear that Iranian Americans could become targets
Persis Karim, an Iranian American and professor of comparative and world literature at San Francisco State University, said that as much as her family dislikes the regime, they've already lived through a war between Iran and Iraq in the 1980s that killed more than a million people combined. They don't want another one.
'They know what war looks like,' Karim said. 'It's messy, it's ugly, and it does not resolve a situation.'
While Karim, 63, doesn't believe Iran is innocent, "I think the negotiating table is the only wise choice,' she said.
However, she fears Iranians in the U.S. will be vilified "just like Latinos are vilified, just like Arabs were vilified and like we were vilified after 9/11."
That concern is shared by Bolourchi, of the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans, which had worked with the U.S. Justice Department's civil rights division to help fight discrimination and hate crimes against Iranian Americans. She worries the Trump administration's elimination of that unit earlier this year may put the community at risk of increased targeting should the conflict escalate.
'Iranian Americans constitute the fabric of our American society,' she said, and risk 'getting caught up in a resurgence of post-9/11 Islamophobia and hate, even though Jews, Christians and Baha'is make up who we are.'
A 'good omen' or 'more perilous than ever'?
Despite the dire situation in Iran, Mahmoudi said, many Iranians remain cautiously hopeful about the potential for change.
"It is heartwarming to see how unified Iranians (in Iran) are becoming, helping each other wherever they can," said Mahmoudi, founder and president of United for Iran, a non-governmental organization working to improve civil liberties in Iran. "Doctors are offering free medical support, strangers are opening their homes and assisting the elderly, and restaurant owners are providing free food. It's a good omen of what the future could bring."
Siamdoust said she feels for those back home just struggling to live normal lives.
'The country has among the best-educated young people in the Middle East," she said. "They don't deserve the tightrope they have been put on and … the devastation that is yet to come. They've worked so hard to bring about changes to their political and social circumstances.'
"#ww3"?: Gen Z, Iran and the mass panic happening on TikTok
Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council, urged restraint and expressed concern for people living in the region who will suffer the consequences should tensions reignite.
'Our hearts are with everyone in Iran who has been impacted by this horrific war already and could soon be put at risk by the consequences of this outrageous choice to broaden the war,' he said in a statement. '… The way ahead seems more perilous than ever.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
24 minutes ago
- New York Post
Joe Rogan says MAGA ‘very divided' over Trump strikes on Iran: ‘They voted for no war'
Joe Rogan painted a picture of a 'very divided' MAGA on his podcast this week, saying that many Trump supporters are outraged over the US strikes on Iran since they voted for an end to 'forever wars.' 'I think the whole MAGA thing right now is very divided, particularly because one of the things they voted for was no war. Well, now it seems like we're in a war,' Rogan said Tuesday during an interview with Bernie Sanders. 'It's quick, six months in and that's already popped off, and then people are very concerned with now – what happens to our troops overseas that are in these bases in very vulnerable positions?' Advertisement 3 Podcast host Joe Rogan said MAGA is 'very divided' over the US strikes on Iran. YouTube/PowerfulJRE Rogan also shared fears that 'documented terror cells' might have snuck in over the border over the last four years, putting citizens at risk after the US led strikes on three key Iranian nuclear facilities. Iran allegedly sent a message to Trump threatening to activate sleep-cell terror inside the US prior to the attacks, NBC News reported over the weekend. Advertisement Rogan praised Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who has long opposed Trump and most recently decried his attacks on Iran as unconstitutional. 'When a guy like Thomas Massie steps up and says something, he's going to have a lot more support as well,' Rogan said. Trump has hit back at Massie on social media and launched a PAC that aims to unseat him – but Rogan questioned whether 'there's a Streisand effect to that.' 3 The New York Post's front page after the US strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities. Advertisement 3 President Trump holds up a closed fist after arriving at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland on Wednesday. AP 'Don't you think that there's a blowback for that kind of thing? When people recognize that this guy should be allowed to have his own opinions, and [he] makes some reasonable points, and then people are gonna reject this idea,' Rogan said. It's not the first time Rogan has questioned Trump's tactics during his second term – even though he famously hosted Trump on 'The Joe Rogan Experience' before the presidential election last year. That episode racked up 20 million views on YouTube just 20 hours after its release. Advertisement But last week, Rogan took aim at the ICE blitzes led by Trump across Los Angeles. 'If the Trump administration, if they're running and they said, 'We're gonna go to Home Depot and we're gonna arrest all the people at Home Depot. We're gonna go to construction sites and we're going to just tackle people at construction sites,' I don't think anybody would have signed up for that,' Rogan said on his podcast.

Los Angeles Times
39 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Social Security is headed for a cliff. When will voters care?
Considering recent news, you may have missed that the 2025 trustees reports for Social Security and Medicare are out. Once again, they confirm what we've known for decades: Both programs are barreling straight toward insolvency. The Social Security retirement trust fund and Medicare Hospital Insurance trust fund are each on pace to run dry by 2033. When that happens, seniors will face an automatic 23% cut in their Social Security benefits. Medicare will reduce payments to hospitals by 11%. These cuts are not theoretical. They're baked into the law. If nothing changes, they will be made. I have nothing against cuts of this size. In fact, if it were up to me, I would cut deeper. Medicare is a terrible source of distortions for our convoluted healthcare market and needs to be reined in. Social Security was created back when being too old to work meant being poor. That's no longer the case for as many people. Thanks to decades of compound investment growth, widespread homeownership and rising asset values, seniors are no longer the systematically vulnerable group they once were. The top income quintile includes a growing number of retirees who draw substantial incomes from pensions and investment portfolios with Social Security benefits layered on top. These programs have become a transfer of wealth from the relatively poor to the relatively wealthy and old. Of course, America still has some poor seniors, so cutting across the board is bad. This is why the cuts should be targeted, not the automatic effects in 2033. And Congress should get started now. The size of the problem is staggering. Social Security's shortfall now equals 3.82% of taxable payroll or roughly 22% of scheduled benefit obligations. Avoiding insolvency eight years from now would require an immediate 27% benefit cut, according to former Social Security and Medicare trustee Charles Blahous. Alternatively, legislators could raise the payroll tax from 12.4% to 16.05%. That's a 29.4% increase. Or they could restructure Social Security so that only people who need the money would receive payments. But because facing this problem in an honest way is politically toxic, legislators are ignoring it. Blame does not rest solely with Congress. The American public has made it abundantly clear that they don't want reforms. They don't want benefit cuts or tax increases, and they certainly don't want higher retirement ages. So politicians pretend everything is fine. Congress does deserve fresh criticism for making things worse. Last year, legislators passed the misnamed 'Social Security Fairness Act,' giving windfall benefits to government workers who didn't pay into the system — which enlarges the shortfall. This year, the House proposed expanded tax breaks for seniors in the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' which would further worsen the problem. The cost of political giveaways is steep. Social Security's 75-year unfunded obligation has now reached $28 trillion, up from $25 trillion just a year ago. Medicare is no better. Its costs are projected to rise from 3.8% of gross domestic product today to 6.7% by the end of the century (8.8% under more realistic assumptions). Most of the additional spending will be financed through general revenue, meaning more borrowing and more pressure on the federal budget. As Romina Boccia of the Cato Institute has documented, other countries have taken meaningful steps to address similar challenges. Sweden and Germany implemented automatic stabilizers that slow benefit growth or raise taxes when their systems become unsustainable. New Zealand and Canada have moved toward more modest, poverty-focused pension systems that offer basic support without bankrupting the state. A few weeks ago, Denmark increased the retirement age to 70. These are serious reforms. The U.S. has done nothing. Options exist. Policymakers could gradually raise the retirement age to reflect modern, healthier, longer lives. They could cap benefits at $2,050 monthly, preserving income for the bottom 50% of beneficiaries while progressively reducing benefits for the top half. They could reform the tax treatment of retirement income to encourage private savings, as Canada has done with its tax-free savings accounts. Any combination of these reforms would help. But that would require admitting that the current path is unsustainable. It would require telling voters the truth. It would require courage. So far, these admirable traits have been sorely lacking in our politicians. The programs' trustees have made the stakes clear: The only alternatives to reform will be drastic benefit cuts or massive tax hikes. Waiting until the trust funds are empty will leave no room for gradual, targeted solutions. It will force crisis-mode slashing that will hurt the most vulnerable. The ultimate blame is with voters who continue to reward politicians for promising the impossible. A functioning democracy cannot survive if the electorate insists on voting benefits for themselves to the point of insolvency. At some point, reality asserts itself. That moment is rapidly approaching. Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate.


Fox News
42 minutes ago
- Fox News
President Trump to be interviewed by Fox News host Maria Bartiromo on Sunday
President Donald Trump will sit down for an exclusive interview with Fox News Channel host Maria Bartiromo on this Sunday's "Sunday Morning Futures", the network announced. This will be the president's first interview since brokering a ceasefire between Israel and Iran on Tuesday. Trump will also discuss the latest following the U.S. strikes on three of Iran's nuclear facilities in Operation Midnight Hammer last weekend. Trump and other top officials defended the strikes as successful, despite media reports of a leaked US intelligence assessment that questioned the effectiveness of the strikes. Bartiromo will also ask Trump about his "Big Beautiful Bill," which passed in the House last month by just one vote. The sweeping tax and spending cuts package advances the president's agenda on taxes, immigration, defense and energy and would add trillions to the national debt. Conservatives in the Senate told Fox News Digital they have "real problems" with the bill, after the Senate made key changes to the legislation, such as deferring the expiration of certain green energy tax credits put in place by the Biden administration. Trump has pressured Congress to get the legislation to his desk by July 4.