Trapped between bombs and crackdowns: Iranians wrestle with decision to flee their home
Iranians are trapped between bombs and crackdowns.
'Where am I supposed to go?' Fatemeh asks me.
Since I first reported on Iran in 2022, I have met, interviewed and remained in touch with dozens of people in the country.
I have no answer for Fatemeh's question. I have never been to Iran. I know where she lives - the capital city of Tehran - but I have no idea where is safe and where isn't right now.
An Iranian neighbour of mine in London has been checking in on his extended family living in Tehran, every day since Friday.
"Everyone is out of harm's way. But this is all pretty awful, and sad to be honest."
This morning, he couldn't get in touch with anyone. The internet was down, and phone lines were dead.
Communication is so often patchy in Iran, and when it comes alive again, Iranians often reach out - even to veritable strangers like me - so people hear their voices, and know what is happening to them.
We can't tell the stories of the Iranian people easily, because journalists are rarely allowed inside the country, whereas we can speak directly to Israelis being attacked, because ITV News has reporters and producers there.
Since Friday, many people have been trying to escape Iran. Turkey and Armenia being the favoured routes. It's quicker to get there from Tehran, and once they're there, they can fly more easily to other countries.
Babak, who is 41, left Tehran two days ago. Today, he finally reached Yerevan in Armenia.
'I spent one day in the car,' he says. 'Tehran to Tabriz took 12 hours. I switched cars there, then another four hours to the Armenian border.
"I walked for about an hour, got another car, and it took us 10 hours to reach Yerevan. The road is narrow and dangerous. We drove through the night on dangerous roads – I wouldn't recommend it.'
Babak was visiting family in Iran on a holiday. Now, he's hoping to find a flight back to Canada.
It is Tehran that has been hit hardest so far. In the capital, there is fear of bombs, fear of arrest by the regime, and fear of silence.
Thirty-year-old Farideh crossed into Turkey on foot.
'The journey is terrifying, especially for older people. You wait in the heat for five or six hours just to cross the border. It's not something I'd recommend to anyone with health issues or kids.'
But not everyone is leaving, or able to.
'This is my home,' says Homa, who is 54. 'My daughter is in a wheelchair. I can't travel a long distance like that with her. And even if I could — where would we go?'
Kaveh is 42. He owns a small café in Tehran, and says he's staying put, even as others around him flee.
'I feel responsible for my staff. Some have young kids, others are caring for elderly parents. They can't travel. I'll stay behind to help.'
Fear doesn't just come from the skies. The government's war on dissent hasn't paused just because missiles have rained.
Hossein is a filmmaker.
He said: 'No one cares about us. I'm constantly thinking, will I be killed by a bomb? Or will I be arrested first? We, as Iranian people, only have each other. That's it.'
With the internet down and news hard to verify, people rely on scraps of information delivered via voice notes, texts, and coded messages.
My phone illuminates again. This time with an audio message from Minoo, telling me about her journey out.
Hearing the voice of a woman, of a similar age to me, recounting her journey and her thinking stopped me in my tracks. Minoo is an architect who started her escape to Armenia two days ago, never believing this would happen.
Minoo's choice to flee is one she has made reluctantly. Iran is where she was born, where she went to school, where she grew up, where she got married and where she has carved out her career.
It is the country she loves and never thought she'd leave.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ITV News
an hour ago
- ITV News
Israel and Iran launch fresh strikes as conflict enters second week
Israel and Iran launched fresh strikes in the early hours of Saturday morning as the conflict enters its second week. It comes as Iran's top diplomat, Abbas Araghchi, said Tehran would not negotiate while Israel's attacks continue. His comments followed a meeting with foreign ministers from the UK, France and Germany on Friday, which failed to make progress in de-escalating the conflict. 'Iran is ready to consider diplomacy if aggression ceases and the aggressor is held accountable for its committed crimes,' he told reporters. He added that any attack on Iran's peaceful nuclear facilities would be a grave breach of international law, reiterating that Tehran's defensive capabilities are "not negotiable". No date was set for the next round of talks. Following the meeting, US President Donald Trump said Europe can't help in brokering an end to the conflict, adding that it is a "very hard" request to ask Israel to stop. He added: "It's a little bit hard to get somebody to stop," saying, "Israel's doing very well in terms of war, and I think you would say that Iran is doing less well." He said Iran "doesn't want to speak to Europe" and that the country "wants to speak to us". He adds: "Europe is not going to be able to help at this point". Early on Saturday, Iranian missiles were intercepted over Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Ramallah in the West Bank. An Iranian nuclear site was also targeted by Israel, according to reports from local media. Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel's military operation in Iran would continue 'for as long as it takes' to eliminate what he called the existential threat of Iran's nuclear programme and arsenal of ballistic missiles. Israel's top general echoed the warning, saying the Israeli military was ready 'for a prolonged campaign.' However, Iran's underground Fordo uranium enrichment facility is considered to only be reachable by America's 'bunker-buster' bombs. Earlier this week, Trump said he will make a decision on US military action in Iran "within two weeks". The conflict erupted on June 13, with Israeli airstrikes targeting nuclear and military sites, top generals and nuclear scientists. At least 657 people, including 263 civilians, have been killed in Iran and more than 2,000 wounded, according to a Washington-based Iranian human rights group. Iran has retaliated by firing 450 missiles and 1,000 drones at Israel, according to Israeli army estimates. Most have been shot down by Israel's multitiered air defences, but at least 24 people in Israel have been killed and hundreds wounded.
Scotsman
3 hours ago
- Scotsman
Regime change in Iran? Be careful what you wish for
Getty Images History tells us that we will all pay the price for a rush to war, especially Iranian civilians Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Ten years ago, in a very different world, the SNP was adapting to life as Westminster's third party and the resulting new responsibilities. The EU Referendum Bill was still rattling its way through Parliament, with the mayhem it unleashed yet to come. As the SNP's first member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, I was working with colleagues as then Prime Minister David Cameron mulled the expansion of air strikes against Daesh. The so-called Islamic State had unleashed a wave of horrifying violence across the region that they were publicising through social media channels. The Committee had investigated the implications of any such military action taking evidence from a range of actors and experts in the UK and region. The proposed action was one of extending UK airstrikes from Iraq, where the RAF was already in action against Daesh, across the border into Syria. That would have meant the UK joining other states, as well as countless armed groups, in becoming a participant, however limited, in the ongoing conflicts across Syria. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Comparatively this was a modest proposal. Daesh was not a state actor, the UK was already involved in military action against them and there was unanimity around wanting to see an end to Daesh's murderous reign. However, there was reluctance across Parliament to sanction intervention. Even in 2015, the implications of the toppling of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, hung heavy over MPs, mindful of the consequences of the Iraq war, pursued by a Labour Prime Minister, that had led to regional destabilisation, an undermining of the international rules-based system and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis in the subsequent civil war. There were also the more recent consequences of 'regime change' in Libya where a Conservative Prime Minister had sanctioned action that led to the fall of Colonel Qaddafi's administration. Many of the mistakes that had been made on the run up to Iraq were repeated in the Franco-British led actions in Libya. The consequences of those mistakes were again felt most keenly by the innocent civilians. Given that recent history our Committee was asked to come up with a set of criteria for the House to consider ahead of the vote. Our report, written by the very talented team of clerks who assisted us, was published in November 2015. It bears re- reading today especially the short, one page section 'Enabling the House to reach a decision' that effectively provides a 'check list' for war. When teaching first years at the University of St Andrews I used to ask them to read the report, and if not the whole thing, then that one-page provided a good cheat sheet of what policy makers should look for when considering whether to sanction military intervention. It is as useful a read today as it was then. Some of the questions around international law, the role of ground troops, agreement of regional actors and the overall strategic goals meant that the Committee could not, initially, agree military action. Today as Trump considers action, and the UK is coming under pressure, I feel that the questions we posed then are relevant today and again have not been answered. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Don't get me wrong, the Iranian regime is deeply unpleasant, threatening its neighbours, murdering opponents and oppressing its citizens. The same was true for the regimes in Tripoli and Baghdad. Furthermore a nuclear armed Iran would be dangerous for the region and the rest of the world. Iran has absolutely no problem in visiting death and destruction on its citizens and neighbours including providing an arsenal for Russia and the drones that target families in their homes in Ukraine. An Iran that respects international law has huge potential as I saw for myself in 2015 when the Committee visited. Sitting around the table in the British Embassy where Churchill had celebrated his 65 th birthday with Stalin and Roosevelt during the Tehran Conference in 1943, the British chargé d'affairs and other senior diplomats updated us on the progress with the JCPOA diplomatic negotiations to limit Iran's nuclear capabilities. They were clearly making some progress until Trump brought them to an end. We were also briefed, and could see for ourselves, the economic potential of the country where ordinary Iranians were keen to rejoin the international mainstream. Iran is a complex and deeply diverse country of well over 90 million a critical part of the world. Any war and upheaval in the country would have massive implications for us all. It could also further destabilise the Middle East convulsed by the humanitarian catastrophe caused by Israeli actions in Gaza and the years of war in Syria. Over the next few days Donald Trump is considering joining Israel's military action against Iran. For now, Keir Starmer is calling for a diplomatic solution, joining President Macron, who mindful of past failures such as in Libya, warned 'the biggest mistake today would be to try to do a regime change in Iran through military means because that would lead to chaos'. The High Representative for Foreign Affairs, and no friend of Iran, Kaja Kallas also remarked that Iran must not be allowed nuclear weapons but that 'lasting security is built through diplomacy, not military action'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad However, pressure could well be brought to bear on the British by the White House. The lessons of Iraq and Libya hung heavy over MPs ten years ago. As the situation in the Middle East evolves rapidly, those lessons seem as pertinent today as they did then. Like then, we shouldn't recommend war and regime change without answering the questions we posed a decade ago. History tells us that we will all pay the price for a rush to war, especially Iranian civilians.
New Statesman
3 hours ago
- New Statesman
Where have all the anti-war Democrats gone?
To bomb or not to bomb? President Trump treats waging war with the same gravity he might deploy when deciding whether to play golf. He said this week that 'I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do'. Call it strategic ambiguity, or flagrant honesty. You get the sense that the president doesn't know himself whether he will give the order. The White House line right now is that the president will decide over the next two weeks. Cue chatter that this is a ruse to discombobulate the Iranians before an imminent American strike. Whatever he decides, Trump's attempt to save face after Netanyahu ignored his plea to leave the negotiations with Iran alone has exposed fissures between the neo-cons in his administration and the Maga isolationists. The Maga activist Laura Loomer has started a list of those who criticised the president, presumably for a future purge. What, then, are the Democrats doing to exploit this chink in the normally preternaturally cultish Maga movement which rarely turns on itself? Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader in the Senate, issued an milquetoast statement when Israel first struck Iran. Hakeem Jeffries, his counterpart in the House of Representatives, issued a similar statement but called for American troops not to be put 'in harm's way'. As Peter Beinart wrote in the New York Times, neither Democratic leader instructed the President that the authority to go to war resides with Congress. (Schumer later did, but took no action to that effect.) There is a tendency within the party to treat war as a non-partisan issue, as if bombing another country in the name of national security is a foregone conclusion. A rally-around-our-troops effect takes hold. This might be a missed opportunity for the Democrats to become the anti-war party, a position Trump has dominated since he won in 2016. A YouGov/Economist poll found that 60 per cent of Americans don't think Trump should get involved in the war, including over half of Republican voters, with only 16 per cent supporting action. Yet, the anti-war Democrats are confined to the party's populist left, or what you could more generously call the left who wants to be popular. Bernie Sanders has introduced a No War Against Iran bill in the Senate. Ro Khanna, the progressive Democratic representative, has emerged as the party's leading anti-war figure. Khanna opposed the Iraq war in 2003 and sees interventionism in the Middle East as yet another example – alongside globalisation and a pro-rich tax policy – of how communities in states such as Pennsylvania were shunted to the bottom of Washington's priorities. It's a message Trump has put to good use for over a decade. Democrats' pitch to voters could now include both opposition to Trump's militarism at home and abroad. Challenging Trump's potential strikes could become a chance for the Democrats to tap into that populist anger which Trump has so deftly mined for so long. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe [See also: Is Trump the last neoconservative?] Related
