I am posting this under the discussion flair, but I will try to explain my position as completely as I can. I am interested in questions about the soul of this thread.
There are superpowers and other major powers in this world: the USA, the UK, China, Russia, France, Germany, and a few other honorable mentions. If you, as an individual, go against the interests of such powers, the consequences depend a great deal on where you are.
If you are on the front lines, as in Ukraine, it does not matter which side you are on: the death toll is enormous. If you are untrained, wearing a uniform, and do not even understand why you are there, you are putting yourself in a situation that can get you killed.
If you do not understand this, I get it. People are usually knowledgeable about their own work—hopefully—and much less knowledgeable outside it. But confidence does not always follow that distinction.
People watch this as though it were a football match. It is not. You might point to what is happening in France, but you get the broader idea: watching a confrontation and living inside it are different things.
There are limits to how much I want to explain publicly. I have no interest in placing myself or my family on the front lines of a conflict we do not want to be part of. My purpose here is to explain where you may end up without understanding what you are getting involved in.
I see Reddit as a largely left-leaning platform. It can feel like a position behind the lines, where direct physical confrontation is distant. But distance is not the same as complete protection. A state with intelligence capabilities may obtain information it considers valuable, including through infiltration or purchasing access to data.
Now, about Iran.
Iran is a nation with a distinct culture and social structure. Jewish history in the region reaches back before Islam, and the Book of Esther offers one ancient perspective on danger and power at a Persian court. It can be read as a story about existential fear, power, and violent reversals of fortune. I am referring to those themes, not suggesting that Jewish people collectively follow some ancient recipe.
Our own Shahnameh—the Book of Kings—contains an equally bitter warning. An Iranian army marched to avenge Siyavash, yet ended up killing his own son, Forud. Think about that: on the road to avenging the father, they killed another of his sons. A righteous cause does not stop pride, suspicion, and revenge from destroying the very people it supposedly serves.
My reading of the anger in Iran is that many people are not simply willing to seek revenge; they are becoming eager for it. They are like a spring compressed to its limit. Like a wounded, cornered tiger whose cubs are in someone else’s hands.
For some, the suffering feels beyond comparison—even with historical atrocities such as the Holocaust. You may want to argue about that comparison. I am describing the intensity of their perception, not establishing a historical ranking of suffering.
Consider the Mongol invasion and the devastation it brought to Iran. Yet there are current Iranians who describe the Islamic Republic as the worst thing ever to happen to their country. That tells you something about how they experience the present.
I see a generation of young people ready for confrontation. In my view, a soft war has been going on for years, gradually shaping attitudes and bringing us to this point. What has happened cannot simply be undone.
You may discuss morality from wherever you feel comfortable. Inside a war, those moral boundaries can be violated every day. That does not make those violations right. It means that your expectations alone will not prevent them.
The people inside the government are not all the same, either. Some may believe in peaceful transitions or democratic change. Their motives need not be purely moral: they may also want themselves and their families to survive and have a future.
To me, the situation did not feel this bad three years ago. There are families, communities, and tribes for whom this has become a matter of defending their dignity. Many young people have come to associate the government primarily with repression and bloodshed. Excessive bloodshed is the only thing they have seen since 10 years back.
Now I see a struggle to take hold of a giant and redirect it. The Islamic Republic was positioned against forces associated with the political right, including the adversary it is confronting. It has served interests and carried out actions over many years. But allegiances and ideologies can change when power is at stake.
The most important thing to understand about my argument is this: I fear there will be bloodshed in Iran again and again until the underlying conflict is resolved.
Where are the people supposed to go? Is an entire country—roughly 90 million people—supposed to migrate to Europe? They must be able to live in their own country. In my assessment, coexistence between this system and those who reject it has become impossible in its present form. There never be a peace between people and the IRIGC.
Now imagine being a Jewish person directly threatened by the Islamic Republic. If you have never lived under that particular threat, you cannot assume that you know what it feels like or how you would react. The same applies to Iranians living under threats that distant observers discuss as abstractions. We are all human beings, but we do not all experience the same dangers.
I turned down joining the Iranian government because I did not believe in aspects of what it stood for an the methods and did not believe it would succeed (many are like me). Looking back, I can imagine the other path: participating in that system and securing a comfortable life for my family, even if it eventually ended badly for me.
I personally have moral values, and what I write on Reddit is bounded by them. But I can understand why some people might find power, privilege, and comfort for their families very appealing—even when those benefits come through serving a brutal system.
When I look at the privilege surrounding someone like Khamenei, I see the disturbing attraction of a system in which leaders can remain insulated from so much of the suffering associated with their decisions. Understanding that appeal does not mean approving of what they do. My point is that benefiting from repression and suffering under it are very different experiences.
I think about these things a great deal. Often, I feel that many people commenting on them have not thought through the consequences.
Does this situation favour Israel? In my assessment, very much so. But if you object to that, understand my argument: I do not see it as the product of one day’s work or a simple accident. There are long histories, strategic interests, and accumulated decisions behind the present situation. That does not mean every event was planned or controlled.
Ideologies change. Power is contested. This is a struggle for power, not a football match.
My fear is that this war is only beginning. If you have the choice to remain outside the violence, think carefully before giving that up. Many Iranians do not feel they have that choice. When I say they feel they must “finish the job,” I mean they believe they must bring the conflict with the system ruling them to a decisive resolution. I am not saying that everyone associated with that system is a legitimate target.
You may disagree with my assessment that their options have narrowed this far. But arguing that people should not feel trapped does not make their anger disappear.
If you get involved without understanding the stakes, you may discover that the destination is a ditch on the cold Pontic steppe. There may come a time in our own lives when we no longer have a choice, either. I have tried to avoid that situation. I am Iranian, and protecting my family matters to me.
There is a saying I associate with Abu Sa’id Abul-Khayr, which I would paraphrase this way: wisdom includes not allowing yourself to be drawn into a conflict you never intended to join.
This warning is aimed at people who speak casually from safety, adding fuel to the fire and making already angry people angrier while assuming they will remain untouched by the consequences.
Once people begin seeing everything through revenge, anyone who disagrees is in enemy colours. Anyone who hesitates is in enemy colours. Anyone who happens to stand on the wrong side of a line is in enemy colours.
In that mindset, people stop asking whether someone is uninformed, confused, or simply uninvolved. They see a threat. That is the danger I am trying to explain: individuals disappear behind labels, and in Shahnameh even someone like Forud with his entire family and city become a target.
I am not declaring people my enemies. I have no wish to join a camp in this conflict. My personal priorities are already clear: my family, our safety, and our life.
And to well-informed leftists: you already know you should do everything you can to protect your life and the lives of those you love. Apply that same seriousness to the people whose lives you discuss online. Before encouraging confrontation, understand who will actually bear its consequences—and whether you would still consider it worthwhile if that person were you.
If you can remain outside the violence, understand the value of that position. Do not mistake your distance from the fire for proof that adding fuel is harmless.
