Introduction

During the illegal invasion of Iraq by the US and its European proxy states in 2003, carried out in accordance with a Western agenda of pillaging natural resources as well as Israeli regional strategy, Iraqis cheered at every bomb dropped on their country, hopelessly believing that the West would deliver liberation, freedom, democracy, and a better life, yet those laughter soon turned into tears, those hopes into bloodshed, and that imagined bright future into civil war and fragmentation. Iraqis were not alone in this deception: Libyans and Syrians went through the same process, and now it is the Iranians’ turn.

 

On 13 January 2026, Donald Trump published a message on Truth Social declaring: ‘Iranian patriots, KEEP PROTESTING – TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!!’ and ‘HELP IS ON ITS WAY’ (Trump, 2026). The immediate consequence was a further escalation in the regime’s security crackdown, with the number of slaughtered Iranians correspondingly increasing. The authorities had already framed the uprising as an Israeli and American orchestrated plot, a narrative to which the conduct of Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi conveniently lent itself, given that he travelled to Israel in 2023, and that his advisers, and those surrounding him politically, are widely perceived as Israeli lackeys (Suren-Pahlav, 5025a; 2025b). Trump’s message has now reinforced that narrative and supplied the regime with an even more convenient justification. Already willing to kill, it has simply expanded the scale and brutality of its violence. Simultaneously, segments of the Iranian diaspora cheer and invite Trump to undertake military action against the regime in Iran, in a manner uncannily reminiscent of the appeals once made by Iraqis, Libyans, and Syrians before the destruction of their respective states.

 

​

 

What is unfolding before our eyes therefore is not merely another episode of rhetorical encouragement issued by a foreign political figure, but the reappearance of a historically recognisable script in which the language of liberation is mobilised to produce expectation, emotional alignment and strategic anticipation among a population confronting authoritarian rule. The sequence has become almost formulaic within the political history of the contemporary Middle East: external signals of support generate internal optimism, optimism transforms into mobilisation, and mobilisation proceeds under the belief that geopolitical forces will intervene decisively at the critical moment.

 

Yet the empirical record of the last two decades demonstrates that this script has rarely produced the emancipatory outcomes that its advocates promise. Instead, it has repeatedly inaugurated processes in which the destruction of an existing regime apparatus, once celebrated as the threshold of freedom, becomes the starting point of institutional collapse, civil fragmentation and geopolitical competition over the ruins of the state. The distance between the promise of liberation and the reality of post intervention disorder is therefore not accidental but structural, reflecting the profound asymmetry between narratives of rescue and the political consequences of externally engineered regime change.

 

Understanding why such narratives continue to resonate among politically conscious populations, despite the historical experiences of Iraq, Libya and Syria, requires an examination not only of geopolitical strategy but also of the informational and psychological mechanisms through which hope itself can be mobilised as a political instrument.

 

The present essay therefore examines the emergence of what may be described as ‘weaponised hope’ within the contemporary Iranian political discourse and situates it within a broader strategy of perception management designed to recode foreign intervention as the horizon of national liberation.

 

 

A Prelude to War and Destruction

In early 2025, the Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi publicly declared that more than 100,000 members of the Islamic regime’s security and military apparatus, including elements of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), had aligned themselves with him and would protect protestors in any forthcoming uprising. The claim did not merely circulate as an item of political information within exile media ecosystems and diaspora networks but assumed the character of a strategic narrative, one whose political significance resided less in its empirical credibility than in the psychological and behavioural effects it was capable of producing among a population exhausted by decades of repression. Therefore predisposed to interpret any signal of elite fracture as the long-awaited prelude to regime collapse (Suren-Pahlav, 2025a). The claim implied that the coercive infrastructure sustaining the Islamic regime was disintegrating from within, thereby inviting the conclusion that the next uprising would unfold under a protective umbrella of insider defection and that the violent asymmetry which had historically doomed Iranian protest movements might finally be reversed. In practice, however, the declaration functioned as a calculated instrument of what may be termed ‘weaponised hope’, a narrative mechanism designed to recalibrate expectations, induce mobilisation, and persuade citizens that the structural conditions of confrontation with a militarised state had fundamentally changed when, in reality, no verifiable evidence existed to demonstrate that such a transformation had occurred (Suren-Pahlav, 2025b).

 

The discursive architecture that made such a narrative intelligible had not emerged spontaneously in the months preceding the declaration but had been constructed gradually through a decade-long process in which certain exile organisations and political actors cultivated the proposition that the Iranian nation, notwithstanding its historical capacity for political mobilisation, lacked the internal resources necessary to overthrow the Islamic regime and therefore required external military intervention to achieve liberation. Within this discursive framework, originally advanced by Farshgard  (Suren-Pahlav, 2018) before its subsequent integration into Israeli-US security networks associated with FDD, liberation ceased to be conceptualised as a sovereign political act arising from the agency of the nation and was instead recoded as an externally delivered event, an outcome bestowed by geopolitical patrons whose intervention would accomplish what domestic struggle allegedly could not.

 

​

 

The political logic of this formulation, which I previously described as the ‘External Liberation Strategy’, performs a profound epistemological displacement by relocating the site of political agency away from the nation itself and assigning it instead to foreign actors imagined as rescuers, thereby transforming the Iranian people from historical subjects capable of constituting their own sovereignty into objects awaiting deliverance through the instruments of external power (Suren-Pahlav, 2016; 2017).

 

Within the broader field of contemporary information warfare such narratives correspond closely to what strategic communications scholars describe as perception management, a practice through which political actors seek to shape the interpretive environment within which events are understood by projecting images of imminent transformation before the material conditions capable of producing that transformation exist. Strategic narratives operate by collapsing the distinction between aspiration and reality, saturating the cognitive space of the audience with emotionally resonant signals that simulate momentum and thereby encourage behavioural responses which would otherwise appear irrational or premature (Miskimmon, O’Loughlin and Roselle, 2013; Rid, 2020). When the Crown Prince’s declaration of mass defections is examined through this analytical lens, it becomes evident that its primary function was not descriptive but performative, since the claim projected the image of a collapsing regime apparatus and invited citizens to behave as if that collapse had already begun.

 

The political danger inherent in such narratives arises from the asymmetry between expectation and reality that they produce, for when mobilisation is induced under the belief that internal protection exists and that the coercive apparatus of the state is fragmenting, citizens are encouraged to undertake risks that would appear intolerable if the actual balance of power were clearly understood. The protestor who confronts a militarised regime believing that elements of the security forces will defect at the critical moment behaves differently from one who recognises that those forces remain intact and loyal to the state. In the absence of the promised defections, however, the individual who has acted under this illusion finds themselves exposed to the full coercive capacity of the regime. Weaponised optimism therefore transforms hope into vulnerability by persuading individuals to undertake acts of defiance under conditions that have not materially changed.

 

The persistence of belief in such narratives among politically conscious Iranians, particularly within diaspora communities whose access to information and historical memory would appear to immunise them against such illusions, requires explanation that extends beyond the conventional categories of misinformation or political naivety. An illuminating analytical framework may be found in Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s wartime reflections on what he termed the sociological phenomenon of ‘stupidity’, a concept frequently misunderstood as an insult directed at intellectual deficiency but which Bonhoeffer himself developed as a diagnosis of moral and cognitive deformation produced by the overwhelming impact of concentrated political power (Bonhoeffer, 2010). Bonhoeffer’s argument proceeds from the observation that societies subjected to sustained propaganda and ideological mobilisation often display a paradoxical condition in which individuals of considerable education and technical competence become incapable of exercising independent political judgement because the social environment within which they operate systematically rewards conformity to slogans while punishing deviation from them (Suren-Pahlav, 2014).

 

Under such circumstances, Bonhoeffer observed, the individual gradually relinquishes the inner independence necessary for responsible judgement and begins to repeat narratives that have taken possession of their cognitive environment, thereby substituting formulaic expressions for genuine reflection. What appears to the external observer as irrational stubbornness is, in fact, the consequence of a sociological process through which individuals become embedded in discursive communities where certain claims acquire the status of moral orthodoxy and are defended with emotional intensity irrespective of their empirical plausibility. The condition cannot easily be corrected through argument because argument presupposes the existence of a shared epistemic framework in which evidence and reasoning are capable of influencing belief. When that framework has already been replaced by ideological slogans, attempts at persuasion frequently provoke irritation or hostility rather than reflection.

 

The diaspora reaction to calls for military intervention against Iran provides a striking contemporary illustration of this phenomenon (Suren-Pahlav, 2014). Across social media platforms and exile broadcasting networks one encounters a chorus of voices celebrating the prospect of American or Israeli military action as the sole remaining path to liberation from the Islamic regime, a conclusion often expressed with an air of strategic realism that disguises the extraordinary historical amnesia upon which it rests. The argument advanced by these voices follows a deceptively simple structure: the regime has demonstrated an ability to suppress internal uprisings, therefore domestic mobilisation alone cannot achieve regime change, and consequently foreign military intervention becomes not merely desirable but historically necessary. What disappears within this reasoning is the overwhelming empirical evidence demonstrating that foreign-imposed regime change has repeatedly produced outcomes radically different from the emancipatory visions invoked to justify it.

 

The recent history of the Middle East provides sobering illustrations of the structural dynamics unleashed by external military intervention. In Iraq the invasion of 2003 was justified through a moralised narrative combining security concerns with the promise of democratic transformation, yet the dismantling of state institutions and the abrupt removal of the existing political order generated a prolonged period of instability characterised by sectarian conflict, militia proliferation, and the erosion of central authority (Dodge, 2005; Downes and Monten, 2013). Libya followed a comparable trajectory after the 2011 intervention that removed Muammar Gaddafi, with the collapse of central authority producing a fragmented political landscape in which competing armed factions and external patrons contested control over the territory. In both cases the language of liberation that accompanied the intervention gradually gave way to the reality of prolonged instability and institutional fragility.

 

These outcomes are not accidental but reflect structural dynamics inherent in externally engineered regime change. Military intervention may succeed in destroying the existing regime apparatus, yet the destruction of that apparatus simultaneously dismantles the administrative and security structures upon which state authority depends. The resulting vacuum invites competition among armed factions and external actors seeking to shape the emerging political order, thereby transforming what had been presented as a moment of liberation into a protracted struggle over sovereignty. In such contexts the promise of democratic reconstruction frequently remains subordinate to the geopolitical interests of the intervening powers.

 

The prospect of similar dynamics unfolding in Iran carries implications of far greater magnitude because Iran’s geopolitical position, demographic scale, and historical integration render it qualitatively different from the states whose fragmentation has already destabilised parts of the Middle East. Iran occupies a strategic corridor connecting the Persian Gulf to Central Asia and the Caucasus while possessing vast energy resources and a population exceeding ninety million. The collapse of Iranian sovereignty would therefore produce a geopolitical shockwave extending across multiple regions, transforming the balance of power in West Asia and inviting external actors to compete for influence within the resulting political vacuum.

 

Within this broader strategic context the persistence of the external liberation narrative acquires a troubling significance because it suggests that a portion of the Iranian diaspora has internalised a vision of political transformation that aligns more closely with the geopolitical interests of external actors than with the historical experience of the Iranian nation. The celebration of a possible foreign military intervention as the precondition for liberation reflects not merely political desperation but the success of a narrative strategy that has gradually persuaded segments of the diaspora that sovereignty itself must be delivered from outside.

 

The digital environment within which diaspora politics now unfolds has further amplified this dynamic by creating discursive spaces where the repetition of emotionally charged slogans produces the illusion of consensus while marginalising dissenting analysis. Patterns of coordinated amplification surrounding certain political initiatives have generated online environments in which critique is frequently met with accusations of disloyalty or collaboration with the regime, thereby discouraging the kind of analytical scrutiny necessary for responsible political judgement (Suren-Pahlav, 2025b). Within such environments the boundary between genuine political mobilisation and orchestrated narrative management becomes increasingly difficult to discern.

 

When Bonhoeffer warned that stupidity spreads most effectively under conditions of rising power and ideological mobilisation, he was describing precisely the type of discursive environment in which slogans replace reasoning and where individuals become vehicles for narratives they have not critically examined. The resulting political culture is characterised by emotional intensity and moral certainty combined with a striking absence of strategic reflection.

 

For those Iranians who celebrate the prospect of war from the safety of exile, the lessons of recent history demand sober consideration. The rhetoric of liberation that accompanies calls for military intervention invariably begins with promises of hope, renewal, and historical transformation. Yet the trajectory of such interventions across the Middle East reveals a consistent pattern in which the initial language of emancipation gradually dissolves into the realities of infrastructural destruction, civil conflict, and the fragmentation of state authority.

 

In this sense the narrative arc of externally engineered regime change follows a tragic progression that may be summarised in starkly human terms. It begins with laughter, hope, and the intoxicating promise of liberation. It ends with tears, blood, and the slow Balkanisation of the state whose destruction was once celebrated as the birth of freedom.

 

For the Iranian nation, which has endured centuries of geopolitical competition and foreign interference while preserving a remarkable continuity of civilisational identity, the prospect of such a fate should serve as a warning rather than an aspiration. Liberation from authoritarian rule remains a legitimate and urgent political objective. Yet liberation that arrives through the destruction of the nation itself cannot meaningfully be described as freedom.

 

Therefore, when a vile narcissist, accused of sexual relations with underage girls and implicated in allegations of paedophilia, rape, prostitution, fraud, and other criminal activities, a man for whom humanity, dignity, and integrity amount to nothing more than decorative vocabulary in the English dictionary, announces ‘HELP IS ON ITS WAY’, any intelligent Iranian should read the phrase as what it effectively means: ‘BOMBS ARE ON THEIR WAY’, bombs that would inevitably yield internal war, bloodshed, death, destruction, and, in the final instance, the Balkanisation of Iran.

 

​

 

Conclusion

The historical verdict on foreign imposed liberation is no longer speculative. It is written in the ruins of Baghdad, Tripoli and Aleppo. Each began with the same intoxication: crowds cheering the prospect of foreign bombs, convinced that external power would accomplish what domestic struggle had failed to achieve. Each ended the same way: the state dismantled, society fractured, sovereignty auctioned to militias and foreign patrons. Laughter first, then tears. Hope first, then blood.

 

Those whom Bonhoeffer described as ‘stupids’ now invite foreign military intervention into Iran and repeat precisely the same political delusion. They imagine that the destruction of the regime will somehow spare the nation, that bombs will fall only on tyranny and not on the institutional fabric that holds a country together. This belief is not strategy but a foolish fantasy sustained by historical amnesia.

 

Foreign powers do not wage war in order to deliver sovereign democracy to other nations. They wage war to secure interests, reshape regions and impose geopolitical outcomes favourable to themselves. The language of liberation is therefore not a guarantee of freedom but a rhetorical instrument that precedes intervention. Once the state collapses, the promises evaporate, leaving behind power vacuums, armed factions and the slow erosion of national sovereignty.

 

Anyone who believes that Iran will be the miraculous exception to this pattern is chasing fool’s gold. It glitters in moments of desperation, but it leads only to catastrophe. The Iranian nation will not be liberated by foreign missiles. It will be broken by them.

 

The lesson could not be clearer. The wolf never arrives announcing conquest. It arrives wrapped in the fleece of liberation. Those who welcome it through the gates do not defend Iran. They open the door for its dismemberment.

 

 

References

• Bonhoeffer, D. (2010) Letters and Papers from Prison. London: SCM Press.

• Dodge, T. (2005) Iraq’s Future: The Aftermath of Regime Change. London: Routledge.

• Downes, A. and Monten, J. (2013) ‘Forced to be free? Why foreign-imposed regime change rarely leads to democratization’, International Security, 37(4), pp. 90–131.

• Miskimmon, A., O’Loughlin, B. and Roselle, L. (2013) Strategic Narratives: Communication Power and the New World Order. New York: Routledge.

• Rid, T. (2020) Active Measures: The Secret History of Disinformation and Political Warfare. London: Profile Books.

• Suren-Pahlav, S. (2014) ‘Bonhoeffer’s On the Theory of Stupidity and the Moral Sociology of Compliance in Islamic Iran’, suren-pahlav.com (14 June). Available at: https://www.suren-pahlav.com/en/bonhoeffer-on-theory-of-stupidity-and-the-moral-sociology-of-compliance-in-islamic-iran.html [Accessed: 14 January 2026].

• Suren-Pahlav, S. (2016) ‘The ‘External Liberation’ Narrative As Information Strategy: The Normalisation Of War And The Hollowing Of Sovereignty’, suren-pahlav.com (26 December). Available at: https://www.suren-pahlav.com/en/external-liberation-narrative-as-information-strategy-the-normalisation-of-war.html [Accessed: 14 January 2026].

Suren-Pahlav, S. (2017) ‘Xenophilia, Self-Contempt and Treachery: How the Islamic regime and Exilic Dislocation Produced a Nation Estranged from Itself’, suren-pahlav.com (7 January). Available at: https://www.suren-pahlav.com/en/iran-and-xenophilia-self-contempt.html [Accessed: 14 January 2026].

• Suren-Pahlav, S. (2018) ‘The Farashgard Phenomenon: Instrumental Defection and the Regime’s Final Strategy’, suren-pahlav.com (8 October). Available at: https://www.suren-pahlav.com/en/farashgard-phenomenon-instrumental-defection-and-the-regime’s-final-strategy.html [Accessed: 14 January 2026].

• Suren-Pahlav, S. (2025a) ‘The Garrison State Gambit: Why Betting on Israel Imperils Iran’s Liberation’, suren-pahlav.com (18 July). Available at: https://www.suren-pahlav.com/en/the-garrison-state-gambit-why-betting-on-israel-imperils-iran-s-liberation.html [Accessed: 14 January 2026].

• Suren-Pahlav, S. (2025b) ‘Constructed Traitors: NUFDI and the Crisis of Trust,’ suren-pahlav.com (30 September). Available at: https://www.suren-pahlav.com/en/constructed-traitors-nufdi-and-the-crisis-of-trust.html [Accessed: 14 January 2026].

• Suren-Pahlav, S. (2025c) ‘Weaponised Optimism and the Strategy of Perception Management: How the Claim of ‘50,000 Defectors’ Undermines Uprisings and Serves Foreign Destabilisation Agendas in Iran’, suren-pahlav.com (31 July). Available at: https://www.suren-pahlav.com/en/iranian-opposition-weaponised-optimism-and-the-strategy-of-perception-management.html [Accessed: 14 January 2026].

• Suren-Pahlav, S. (2025d) ‘Simulated Consensus: Digital Policing and the Crisis of Dissent in Iran’s Exilic Opposition,’ suren-pahlav.com (18 September). Available at: https://www.suren-pahlav.com/en/simulated-consensus-digital-policing-and-the-crisis.html [Accessed: 14 January 2026].

• Trump, D. J. [@realDonaldTrump] (2026) 'Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING - TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!! Save the names of the killers and abusers. They will pay a big price. ... HELP IS ON ITS WAY. MIGA!!!' [Truth Social post], 13 January. Available at: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115888317758045915 [Accessed: 14 January 2026].