‘There is no one dirtier than Trump': Some Iranians urge strong response after US strikes
US President Donald Trump 's decision to launch direct strikes against Iranian nuclear sites has sparked a wave of anger in the country, with people on the streets of Tehran telling CNN they expect their country to strike back.
'Iranian people are people of honor, and we will definitely give a strong response,' one man told CNN.
'We will stand strongly like we have been for the past 40 years.'
Large crowds gathered at the Enghelab Square in central Tehran on Sunday evening, protesting the strikes. Footage published by the state-affiliated Fars News Agency showed people waving Iranian flags and punching the air, carrying signs that read: 'Down with the USA, down with Israel.'
Hamid Rasaee, a politician, said even people critical of the regime were protesting.
'A lot of those standing here chanting slogans against the United States may have been critics of the policies of the Islamic Republic.
'But today, all of us are standing in one line behind the supreme leader,' he told CNN.
Trump ordered attacks on three of Iran's most important nuclear facilities early Sunday morning – a move that has placed the US in the centre of the conflict between Israel and Iran.
Iranians had faced the possibility of US intervention ever since Israel launched its strikes on nuclear and military targets last week – but many believed any action was days away.
That's in part because Trump said on Thursday that he would decide whether to strike Iran within two weeks, seemingly opening a window for negotiations.
That all changed early Sunday, when American bombers dropped more than a dozen massive 'bunker buster' bombs on Iran's Fordow and Natanz nuclear facilities, and Tomahawk missiles launched from the sea struck Isfahan.
One man in Tehran told CNN he believed Trump was acting in his own interest only.
'There is no one dirtier than Trump. First, he gives us two weeks' time, but then after two days he strikes us,' the man told CNN.
Like other Iranians with whom CNN spoke, he preferred not to give his name for safety reasons.
'We do not have nuclear weapons, so why does he strike us?' he added, alluding to the Iranian regime's insistence the country's nuclear program is peaceful.
Trump has claimed Iran was weeks away from acquiring a nuclear weapon, dismissing assessments from his own intelligence community that Iran was still years away from a weapon.
Qom residents slept through the attacks
While Trump has claimed the three sites struck by the US were 'totally obliterated,' his defence secretary has said the full impact is still being assessed.
And unlike the strikes by Israel in recent days, some of which targeted densely populated areas, the US attacks were concentrated in locations off-limits to most civilians.
Residents of Qom, a city some 30 kilometers (18 miles) from the Fordow nuclear site, woke to the sound of emergency vehicles' sirens and the news that the secretive complex had been bombed a few hours earlier.
Five people living in Qom said they were surprised to learn what had happened when they got up, having heard nothing overnight.
Qom does not have an aerial attack warning system, so residents would have had no warning before the strikes.
Qom is considered a holy city, home to Iran's largest and most famous Shia seminary.
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei studied at the Qom Seminary, as did several of Iran's former presidents.
Similarly, people living in a village some 35 kilometers (22 miles) from the Natanz facility said they heard nothing overnight.
In Tehran, far from the targeted nuclear sites, many were calling for Iran to respond with force.
Fars released a compilation of short interviews with people on the streets of the capital Sunday.
Each of the eight people featured urged a retaliation – with most saying Iran should strike US bases in the region and close down the Strait of Hormuz on Iran's southern shore, through which a third of global seaborne oil trade passes.
In Iran, signs of dissent tend to be quickly quashed, making it dangerous for people to express disagreement with the regime.
But Mohsen Milani, an Iranian scholar who has lived in the US for decades, said the US attack on Iran could spark more genuine support for the regime.
'It could ignite a new wave of nationalism, damage the future of U.S.-Iran relations more than the 1953 coup, accelerate Tehran's pivot to Russia and China, and fundamentally reshape Iran's defense, deterrence, and nuclear posture,' he said in a post on X.
'Will sacrifice my life'
Some of this sentiment was already on show in Tehran on Sunday.
One demonstrator at the evening protest at Enghelab Square told CNN she would stay there 'even if missiles rain down on my head'.
'I will stay here and I will sacrifice my life and my blood for my country,' she said.
Everywhere around her, people were protesting the US, many holding anti-Trump signs and posters.
Some of the posters ended up on the ground, where people stamped on them.
One resident told CNN earlier, he would support Khamenei with his life. 'He's moving forward for the sake of our land,' he said.
Speaking to CNN at a local market, a woman told CNN she believed Iran was only defending itself.
'We were living our normal lives and they attacked us. If someone strikes the United States, would they not answer? Of course they would,' she said.
Another person living in Tehran said they believed the regime was greatly weakened by the US strikes – because its opponents would now be able to call its bluff.
'The claims that the Iranian regime has always made – that it will attack all American bases and close the Strait of Hormuz – they made all these claims and the whole world saw that (the US) came and easily hit the Fordow and Natanz sites ... but Iran was completely silent and no fighter planes took off and (it) used no defenses or missiles,' the person said, adding that if there is no response in the coming days, the regime's supporters could abandon it.
'No sane person will stand by someone who is in a weak position, not even their own supporters,' they said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
41 minutes ago
- ABC News
Iran's three options after Trump's strikes
Sam Hawley: After the US bombing of key Iranian nuclear facilities, Donald Trump is now openly advocating for regime change to make Iran great again, he says. But is that really a possibility? Today, Ali Vaez from the International Crisis Group on the three options now open to Iran and why surrender is not the one it'll go for. I'm Sam Hawley on Gadigal land in Sydney. This is ABC News Daily. Ali, we're going to unpack what we should expect next in this Israel-Iran war. But first, I just want to discuss the messaging out of Washington, which is really quite mixed. Donald Trump and his defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, say the American bombing does not mean the United States has joined the war, but it's also warning Iran it could very well go further. Pete Hegseth, United States Secretary of Defense: The United States does not seek war. But let me be clear, we will act swiftly and decisively when our people, our partners or our interests are threatened. Donald Trump, President of the United States: There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days. If peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill. Sam Hawley: What do you make of that? Ali Vaez: Well, this is one of the problems with President Trump, isn't it, that he constantly moves the goalposts. And this is one of the reasons I think that the Iranians are extremely reluctant to re-engage him in negotiations. He started negotiations with the Iranians in his second term based on the goal of Iran having no nuclear weapons. Then during the course of the negotiations, that shifted to zero enrichment, meaning that Iran should completely dismantle its nuclear program. And during the war, it basically asked Iran to completely surrender and now is asking for regime change. So it is very difficult for the Iranians to look at him as a reliable negotiating partner. Sam Hawley: Because, yes, Donald Trump is now openly saying this is not just about Iran's nuclear program. On his social media site, Truth Social, he said it's time to make Iran great again, hinting at regime change. Ali Vaez: Yes, that's right. It's very interesting because in May, the president was in the region visiting Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE. And during his trip, he had a major speech in which he basically said that he believed that past regime change policies of the United States in the region were misguided and had always backfired. And the region is a better place to determine his own fate rather than it being imposed from the outside. In Donald Trump, President of the United States: In the end, the so-called nation builders wrecked far more nations than they built. And the interventionalists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves. Ali Vaez: But now he seems to be back in the regime change business, which, of course, is also something that his MAGA base, America First isolationist base, does not like to see. But I do believe that also President Trump has this approach that is based on threatening in order to get what he wants. And he might be considering that threatening Iran with regime change at a time of extreme vulnerability for the Iranian regime might actually force them to come back to the negotiating table. But it would produce the exact opposite of what he has in mind. Sam Hawley: And Ali, interesting to note that Trump opening the door to regime change actually came on the same day that his vice president, J.D. Vance, and the Defense Secretary were insisting that that was not the goal of the United States. J.D. Vance, Vice President of the United States: We don't want a regime change. We do not want to protract this or build this out any more than it's already been built out. We want to end their nuclear program. Pete Hegseth, United States Secretary of Defense: This mission was not and has not been about regime change. The president authorised a precision operation to neutralise the threats to our national interests. Sam Hawley: All right, well, Ali, of course, I want to discuss with you what could actually happen next and what Iran's response will be and the world's response to this. Can I just start briefly with the US's Western allies? Before the strikes, they were concerned, but they're now backing Donald Trump in, aren't they? Ali Vaez: That is right. The Western countries, especially European countries, they were still thinking that there is a diplomatic option that the US is interested in. And yet once the US took military action, they all supported it without condemning something that in international norms is considered a war of aggression. Sam Hawley: All right. Well, our response from our foreign minister, Penny Wong, has also shifted in this way, shifted behind Donald Trump. Speaker 3: The world has agreed Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon. So, yes, we support action to prevent that. And that is what this is. Sam Hawley: Let's turn now to what Iran might do and what support it actually has in the region, which is very limited, isn't it? Just explain that. Ali Vaez: Yeah, look, Iran is alone. It doesn't have any outside security guarantors. It's not like North Korea that can count on China. It's not a member of any kind of security alliance. It doesn't have anyone who's rushing to its rescue. It has close relations with Russia and with China. It has strategic partnerships with both of those countries. But none of it includes a security partnership that they would actually rush to Iranian defence. And I think the Russians are even secretly happy because these tensions have increased global energy prices. And that's beneficial to Russia. And anything that bugs down the United States and prevents it from pivoting to focus on China is beneficial to China, even though China, unlike Russia, doesn't benefit from high oil prices. But overall, there is no one who's standing by Iran and its non-state allies have been really decimated and are on their back foot as a result of Israel decapitating Hezbollah, degrading Hamas and the fall of the Assad regime in Syria. Sam Hawley: Yes. So the so-called axis of resistance, including Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, they're not in a position to actually help Iran at this point. Is that what you're saying? Ali Vaez: They are weakened. They can come to Iran's rescue to a certain extent. But the question is, when should that happen? At this stage, I think it is unlikely, especially for a group like Hezbollah, which has really been on its knees since last September, October, when Israel significantly diminished its offensive capabilities. But if Iran is facing an existential peril, then it is possible that these groups would also conclude that if the mothership goes down, that they will go down eventually as well. And they would decide as a last ditch effort aimed at survival to try to join the battle. There are still members of the axis of resistance that are standing, like the Shia militias in Iraq and the Houthis in Yemen. But again, I think they're keeping their powder dry for now until later stages if this conflict escalates and expands. Sam Hawley: What could they do if that does happen? Ali Vaez: Well, the Houthis have demonstrated that they can reach Israel. They just targeted Ben Gurion airport about two weeks ago. They have also effectively managed to shut down free flow of trade and energy out of the Red Sea. They can target U.S. warships in and around the region. They can shut down the key waterway of Bab al-Mandab. The Hashd al-Shaabi militias in Iraq, they can target U.S. bases and U.S. diplomatic facilities in Iraq. And there's also enormous U.S. economic interests in Iraq as well in the form of investments in the energy sector. So there are still things that they can do. But again, I think the time for that has not yet arrived. Sam Hawley: And there are 30,000 U.S. troops, of course, based in the region. So a lot of U.S. bases. A big concern, of course, Ali, as well, is the Strait of Hormuz that Iran could disrupt that, disrupt the flow of oil around the world, which could have a devastating impact. What's your view? Can it actually do that? Ali Vaez: I doubt that they would actually physically block the Strait of Hormuz because that would invite a massive U.S. military intervention that would be very devastating for the Iranians. And they have options short of blocking the strait, which is exactly what the Houthis have done in the Red Sea, which is to target shipping lanes and target tankers. That in and of itself will further rattle energy markets and would externalise the cost of this conflict, which the Iranians believe is one way of putting pressure on President Trump to pull the plug on further escalation. Sam Hawley: Hmm, all right. Well, Ali, Donald Trump says Iran's nuclear sites have been obliterated, although the Pentagon says that could be too soon to say. How is the world to know how much damage has been done? How can we be sure? Because there are reports as well that the Iranians, knowing that this could be coming, moved some of the material from these sites. Ali Vaez: That is a fantastic question and in fact, the most important question, because if we are to believe Prime Minister Netanyahu's justification for the strikes, it was primarily to prevent Iran from being able to weaponise its nuclear capabilities. Now, the two main ingredients you need for that are advanced centrifuges and a stockpile of highly enriched uranium. We know that in the past four years, Iran has produced hundreds of advanced centrifuges and probably has stockpiles of advanced centrifuges somewhere in the country. The only way of knowing where the material and the machinery are is through either having boots underground, which no one is considering at this point, or inspectors. And the UN inspectors, because these nuclear sites are war zones now, have not been able to access them in the past 10 days. And I do believe that even if the war stops tomorrow, Iran is very unlikely to allow the inspectors back in. So in the process of trying to advance the cause of non-proliferation, in fact, Israel and the United States have blinded us to the ability of having oversight over Iran's nuclear program. Sam Hawley: What about this idea of regime change? Will the Iranian people rise up, do you think, against what is a brutal theocracy? Or will they really rally around the flag and the regime while they're under attack? Ali Vaez: Look, the Iranian regime is very much de-legitimised and hated within the country. It's only a very small segment of the society, maybe 10 to 15 per cent, that has, for ideological or financial reasons, still vested interest in it. But the problem is that there is no viable, unified, organised, disciplined, united alternative available to this regime inside or outside of the country. This is not like Syria in 2024, when you had a militant group ready to march into the capital and take over power. So in a scenario of regime implosion, the likeliest alternatives to the Islamic Republic is either a military takeover of the Revolutionary Guards, which I'm not sure would be any better, or the possibility of civil strife. Iran has the same fault lines that exist in countries in the region that have descended into internal conflict, like Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon. And the Islamic Republic has mistreated Iranian minorities, ethnic and sectarian, more than other segments of the society. So the risks of that kind of instability is very high. And I do believe that even if Israel thinks that destabilising a country of 90 million is in its short-term interest, that is not something that is in the medium to long-term interest of anyone, including the United States. Sam Hawley: All right, well Ali, in your mind, Iran has three options here, fold, check or raise. Which one do you think they'll go for at this point? Ali Vaez: So I don't think surrendering is really an option, because I think the only thing that the Iranian regime sees as more perilous than suffering from Israeli and American bombs is surrendering to American terms, because then that would basically signal that this is a regime that is on the ropes and there's no reason for the US to throw it a lifeline or try to give it sanctions relief and rescue it. They would actually ask for more and they would push it over the edge. Now, the option of having some sort of controlled escalation, response, retaliation against the US, maybe sequentially after the war with Israel has ended or they have reached a balance of devastation with Israel, I think is probably their option of choice. But it is also possible that they would double down either by trying to dash towards nuclear weapons, and as I said, that pathway is still open to them, or that they would try to put the entire region ablaze as means of deterring the US and Israel from going any further. Sam Hawley: Ali Vaez is the director of the Iran Project at International Crisis Group. This episode was produced by Sydney Pead and Adair Sheppard. Audio production by Sam Dunn. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sam Hawley. Thanks for listening.
Perth Now
an hour ago
- Perth Now
Wall Street gains as oil dips while Tesla surges
US stock indexes have rallied as investors looked past worries of potential crude supply disruptions after the United States' strikes on nuclear facilities in Iran while Tesla surged after the EV-maker launched robotaxis. Tesla's shares rose 9.5 per cent after it deployed a small group of self-driving taxis picking up paying passengers on Sunday in Austin, Texas. Meanwhile, oil prices dipped more than 1.0 per cent to $US76.2 per barrel, having touched a six-month high earlier, as oil and gas transit continued on tankers from the Middle East after US air strikes against Iran over the weekend. Iran has repeatedly threatened to retaliate against the US attacks but is yet to do so in a meaningful way. Equity markets have been pressured in recent days as the Israel-Iran attacks raised concerns about a wider conflict in the Middle East, disrupting oil prices and raising concerns about a resurgence in inflationary pressures. The benchmark S&P 500 index remains about 2.3 per cent below its record level. "I think the market is certainly in a holding pattern, waiting to see the level of Iran's response to the US weekend attacks," said Ross Mayfield, investment strategist at Baird. "There's a sense that investors are conditioned not to think that geopolitical conflicts in the Middle East will have a long-term impact on the market." US business activity slowed marginally in June while prices increased further amid US President Donald Trump's tariffs, indicating that inflation might rise in the second half of 2025. However, Federal Reserve vice chair for supervision Michelle Bowman, recently tapped by Trump as the central bank's top bank overseer, said the time to cut interest rates could be fast approaching and that she is growing more worried about risks to the job market, and less concerned tariffs will cause an inflation problem. In early trading on Monday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 95.63 points, or 0.23 per cent, to 42,302.45, the S&P 500 gained 28.89 points, or 0.48 per cent, to 5,996.73, and the Nasdaq Composite gained 109.12 points, or 0.56 per cent, to 19,556.61. The focus will be on US core PCE data and final GDP reading this week, as well as Fed chair Jerome Powell's two-day semiannual testimony before Congress. The US central bank held interest rates steady in its June monetary policy meeting but flagged inflationary risks due to higher trade duties. In earnings, investors awaited fourth-quarter results from sportswear company Nike and parcel delivery firm FedEx, both expected later in the week. Among other movers, drug maker Eli Lilly rose 1.3 per cent. Its rival Novo Nordisk fell 5.4 per cent after detailed trial data on its experimental obesity drug CagriSema failed to impress investors. Fiserv's shares rose nearly 2.0 per cent after the fintech firm announced plans to launch a new digital asset platform. Northern Trust surged 8.6 per cent after a Wall Street Journal report said Bank of New York Mellon approached the asset and wealth manager for a potential merger. On the flip side, AI-server-maker Super Micro Computer dropped 4.6 per cent after it announced a private offering of $US2 billion ($A3.1 billion) five-year convertible bonds. Advancing issues outnumbered decliners by a 1.98-to-1 ratio on the NYSE and by a 1.32-to-1 ratio on the Nasdaq. The S&P 500 posted seven new 52-week highs and three new lows, while the Nasdaq Composite recorded 52 new highs and 71 new lows.
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
The airline facing a double-whammy after Trump's bunker-busting
You've probably never heard of Mike Murphy – but he is the guy who was choking on his smashed avocado toast at about 9am on Sunday when US President Donald Trump dropped his massive ordnance penetrators on three Iran nuclear installations. Murphy runs the Australian arm of Bain, the majority owner of airline Virgin, which is set to list on the Australian market on Tuesday as the highest profile ASX entrant in years. Timing is everything for investing, and for Bain, the timing of the Virgin listing looks atrocious. Those investors who bought in pre-listing and who were looking to sell out immediately – for what are referred to as stag profits – may need to rethink. Airlines, in particular, are highly sensitive to any geopolitical conflict and they are even more vulnerable to those in oil-producing territories. Loading First, this is because the oil prices surges, and for airlines, fuel is one of the major costs. Second, international airline flights can be disrupted, redirected or in some cases, those that fly over affected areas will temporarily abandon services. Already, British Airways and Singapore Airlines have suspended a number of flights to the Gulf, affecting routes to key hubs such as Dubai, Doha and Bahrain, citing safety concerns and evolving airspace restrictions.
