Across mountains, deserts and valleys, the Islamic Republic built a hidden missile network meant to project power from Israel to the Persian Gulf. Iran International maps the bases, tunnels, shafts and missile lineage behind Tehran’s arsenal, and how two wars exposed its limits.
Iran’s World Cup match with New Zealand was not just a football game but a rare glimpse into the trauma and deep divisions many Iranians carry at home and abroad.
As Iran twice came from behind to draw 2-2 at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, California, fans cheered different goals for different reasons. Some celebrated every Iranian attack. Others openly rooted against a team they view as inseparable from the Islamic Republic.
The divided reactions reflected a question that has become increasingly fraught since January 8-9, 2026, when the Islamic Republic launched a nationwide crackdown on anti-regime protesters that killed tens of thousands of unarmed civilians: can one support Team Melli without supporting the state it represents?
The trauma of those events continues to reverberate far beyond Iran's borders.
At SoFi Stadium, one fan wore a custom jersey marked "8-9," a reference instantly recognizable to many Iranians as the dates of the deadliest two nights in Iran's modern history.
"I felt proud to be Iranian, but with a mixed bag of emotions, carrying the weight of everything that the regime has done and what the people have suffered," actress and activist Nazanin Nour told Iran International.
Nour said she ultimately decided to attend the game despite her conflicted feelings because the regime has taken so much from Iranians worldwide, and she did not want it to deprive her of the joy of the sport as well.
"I think everybody's feelings are informed by their pain and trauma and everything that we've witnessed over the last not just few months but 47 years," she said. "It makes sense that everybody feels like this is a really weird time but still a time to be proud of who we are and where we come from."
A team added
Since the 2022 Woman, Life, Freedom protests, players have faced scrutiny over whether they sing the national anthem, meet state officials or publicly support protesters.
Supporters and critics alike increasingly view the national team through a political lens because it officially represents the Islamic Republic.
While some players and football federation officials have shown alignment with the state, others have faced pressure for expressing solidarity with anti-government protests or refusing to sing the national anthem.
Former Iranian national team goalkeeper and coach Mohammad Rashid Mazaheri has been held by Iranian authorities since late February 2026 after criticizing the leader in an Instagram post.
For many Iranians, his case is another reminder of how even prominent athletes can face severe repercussions—even death—for expressing dissent.
"We're a world away from past World Cups, when, regardless of politics, Iranians inside the country and across the diaspora were united behind Team Melli," said Holly Dagres, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute.
That unity was perhaps best illustrated in 1998, when Iran's victory over the United States sparked celebrations from Tehran to Los Angeles.
Pride and protest
Before kickoff, hundreds of protesters gathered outside SoFi Stadium waving anti-government signs and the pre-revolution Lion and Sun flag in a city home to one of the world's largest Iranian diasporas.
Despite FIFA's ban on the Lion and Sun flag, videos circulating online showed numerous fans displaying it inside the stadium.
Among those in attendance was activist Mersedeh Shahinkar, who was blinded in one eye after being shot directly in the eye by security forces during the 2022 protests. Shahinkar, who later fled Iran and now lives in the United States, arrived carrying a Lion and Sun flag.
Shahinkar confronted supporters of the Islamic Republic both inside and outside the stadium, where tensions at times spilled into verbal confrontations and some spectators called fans carrying Iran’s current flag "terrorists."
At times, Shahinkar pointed to the empty eye socket left after she was shot during the 2022 protests, a reminder of the price many Iranians have paid in opposing the state.
Iranian-American news anchor Shally Zomorodi later posted a video to Instagram with tears in her eyes, saying two men confronted her husband over his Lion and Sun logo.
"The hardest part of tonight," she wrote. "Two Iranian men saw my husband with the Lion Sun logo on his shirt and started cursing at him and tried to start a fight with Bruce."
But the atmosphere was not uniformly hostile, said Nour, who witnessed fans carrying Lion and Sun flags sitting near supporters displaying Iran’s official flag.
"I just saw people enjoying a game and being respectful of each other's opinions," she said.
Inside the stadium, boos rang out during the national anthem while many fans appeared to cheer individual players rather than the state they represent.
After the match, Iranian goalscorer Ramin Rezaeian pushed back when asked by a US journalist about fans whistling and booing during the national anthem.
"That's none of your business," he said. "What happens between Iranians is our own matter, and we will resolve it ourselves."
The same arguments played out far from California.
In North Vancouver, home to a large Iranian Canadian community, some crowds—even those displaying Iran's pre-revolutionary flag—erupted in cheers when Iran scored against New Zealand.
A sign of just how complicated the issue can be.
"We're here for the players only," Zina Monjazeb of Los Angeles told Reuters. "We're not here supporting the regime, at all."
Others rejected that distinction entirely.
"We believe that this is not the Iranian team. This is the Islamic regime," Naderi Alizadeh, 39, of San Diego, told Reuters.
In one scene captured on social media, Iranian player Mehdi Taremi is seen handing his shirt to a fan displaying the Lion and Sun flag.
For some Iranians, Team Melli remains a source of national pride distinct from the state it represents. For others, the jersey has become inseparable from the government behind it.
Ninety minutes of football did not resolve the argument. But for one night, it revealed just how deeply it now runs.
G7 leaders welcomed on Wednesday the announcement of a deal between the United States and Iran, saying it offered a major opening to prevent Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and address regional and missile-related threats.
“We welcome the announcement of a deal between the United States and Iran, secured under the strong leadership of President Trump, with the support of mediating countries,” the leaders said in a statement on geopolitical issues.
They said the agreement provided “an historic opportunity to prevent Iran from acquiring any nuclear weapon and tackling the threats related to its regional and ballistic activities.”
“We support and are ready to contribute to its implementation,” the statement said.
The Group of Seven also backed further diplomacy after the US-Iran memorandum of understanding, saying any follow-on negotiation should address threats posed by Iran “in the region and beyond” and include relevant partners, including the International Atomic Energy Agency.
“We reaffirm that Iran will never obtain a nuclear weapon,” the leaders said.
On Lebanon, the G7 tied its support to an immediate ceasefire and the disarmament of Iran-backed Hezbollah.
“In Lebanon, we support, through an immediate robust ceasefire, the Lebanese leadership’s efforts to achieve the disarmament of Hezbollah and the monopoly of arms, and to protect Lebanon’s territorial integrity and sovereignty with the appropriate international security guarantees,” the statement said.
The leaders also backed the resumption of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, saying “the right of transit passage without restrictions or tolls is the bedrock of international trade.”
They said a multinational defensive initiative led by France and the UK could help protect merchant vessels, reassure shipping operators and verify the removal of mines.
The G7 also pledged to reduce global vulnerability to the Strait of Hormuz by accelerating the diversification of energy supply routes and increasing energy stocks.
The digital signing of a memorandum of understanding between Tehran and Washington to end the war and open a new round of negotiations, including on Iran’s nuclear program, has triggered sharply divided reactions across Iranian social media.
The MoU is expected to be formally signed on Friday and followed by 60 days of talks aimed at reaching a final deal, leaving many Iranians torn between relief over the end of fighting, hope for sanctions relief, anger over years of delay, and distrust of both Tehran and Washington.
Regime supporters say Iran forced concessions
Some government supporters argued that Iran emerged from the conflict without losing territory and succeeded in compelling its adversaries to accept its demands through resistance.
A review of public comments posted in response to a Khabar Online survey on reactions to the end of the war showed both pride and anger among users.
One user wrote that they were “very happy” about the end of the war while also feeling “a sense of pride.”
That view was quickly challenged by others. Responding to the comment, another user wrote: “Exactly what is there to be proud of? The destruction of military and technical infrastructure? Crushing inflation that is breaking people's backs? Or the fact that countries in the region are no longer willing to maintain relations with Iran? What pride are you talking about?”
Another user was even more critical, writing: “They struck our leader and senior officials. Several layers of leadership were hit from top to bottom. Our skies had become a thoroughfare for Israel and the United States. I am not proud of this situation.”
Relief mixed with anxiety
Many users said they welcomed the end of the fighting but remained pessimistic about the future or fearful that war could erupt again.
Responding to Khabar Online, one user wrote: “I am happy the war is over, but I do not have an encouraging outlook for the future.”
The user added that prospects would remain bleak as long as some groups could freely gather in the streets under the protection of security forces and express their views, while criticism of government policies by others was treated as opposition to the entire political system and met with “insults, reprimands, prison, and torture.”
Another user described their feelings as “a measure of calm accompanied by anxiety about another war in the future.”
Some users expressed hopes that a final agreement and the lifting of sanctions could improve living conditions.
Dorna Afshinfar wrote on X: “If a final agreement is reached and sanctions are lifted, what changes do you expect to see? I expect dramatic falls in the prices of essential goods such as rice, meat, chicken, dairy products, and fruit; sharp declines in housing, dollar, and gold prices; medicines and healthcare becoming much cheaper; the arrival of new airplanes, buses, and ships; and lower ticket prices for all of them.”
Critics say the deal came too late
A recurring theme among users was criticism of the government for resisting negotiations with Washington for years before eventually returning to the negotiating table after a costly conflict.
One user named Mojtaba wrote on X: “After all this war and misery, we are back to nuclear negotiations again. My God, what sin did we commit that negotiations never leave us Iranians alone?”
He added: “If you were going to make all these concessions, you should have accepted them from the beginning and not let people be crushed under the burden of inflation.”
The same user accused officials of ruining lives through years of insistence on the nuclear issue, writing: “You destroyed people's lives through all these years of absurd insistence on nuclear energy. Now you have accepted it. You should have made a rational decision from the start. I feel bitter that my past, present, and lost youth have been wasted.”
Another user wrote: “What do we feel? We feel inflation, helplessness, and a lost future. Why did you choose this path from the beginning, create all this damage, and then return to where you started? Why all these costs and wasted opportunities?”
Opposition lashes out at Trump
Many opponents of the Islamic Republic reacted angrily to Washington's decision to reach an agreement with Tehran, saying they felt abandoned by President Donald Trump and his administration.
One user wrote on X: “Shame on Trump for making a deal with the killers of 50,000 martyrs.”
Another user, referring to reports that Trump prevented Israel from targeting Ali Khamenei during the 12-day war in 2025, said: “This agreement is a betrayal of the Iranian people. They told us not to come out into the streets until the right time arrived, but it never came. Why did they not allow Khamenei to be targeted during the 12-day war? There are many other questions that I know will never be answered. They played with our blood.”
Yet another user wrote: “Forty thousand martyrs are the light that guides us, and avenging them remains our goal. Whether America wants it or not, whether it makes a deal or not, what matters is what the people of Iran want.”
Others insisted that the opposition movement would continue regardless of diplomatic developments.
“One way or another, they will reach an agreement and remain in power, but we will still be here. We will confront them in the streets. We swear by the blood of the slain that we will not go back,” one user wrote on X.
Another added: “Despite this agreement, I have never been more certain that this regime will fall. We have a king, and we will stand by our king and our flag until the end. We will reclaim Iran ourselves.”
Hardliners reject negotiations
Hardline government supporters who oppose any negotiations with the United States and believe the conflict should continue until the defeat of the United States and Israel also expressed anger at the agreement.
In recent days, hardline demonstrators have chanted slogans such as “Death to the compromisers,” “What happened to the blood of the martyred Leader?” and “We do not accept the agreement.” They have also launched a campaign under the slogan “We Do Not Accept” in an effort to halt the deal.
Videos and posts circulating on social media appeared to show security forces trying to prevent some of these gatherings and, in some cases, using force against demonstrators in Tehran and Mashhad. Iran International could not independently verify the footage or the circumstances.
Among the posts shared on X was one by Mohammad-Taher Rahimi, who wrote: “May the hand be cut off of anyone who shakes hands with the killers of the martyred Imam and poses for a commemorative photograph with them.”
A hardline user named Mehrdad wrote: “After the enemy gains access to uranium, we will enter a difficult existential war. Do not forget that Ghalibaf and Pezeshkian paved the way for this conflict.”
Another user, Hessam Mahmoudi, argued that Iran's uranium stockpile was a key deterrent. “The enemy needed to destroy missile cities with tactical nuclear bombs to force Iran's surrender. The only thing stopping them was uranium. If we give up our uranium stockpile or destroy it, next time they will do something unprecedented to us.”
A user posting under the name Bi Behnam on X wrote: “Let me be very clear. Trump's primary and ultimate goal in accepting this agreement is to remove Iran's uranium reserves. After that, the rest of the path will not be difficult for him. The moment the reserves are handed over or diluted, they will come down on Iran in a way that will become a lesson for history.”
Iran's hardliners have erupted against the US-Iran MoU with death chants against chief negotiators Abbas Araghchi and M. Bagher Ghalibaf, but experts say the backlash is unlikely to derail a deal the ruling elite sees as essential to the regime's survival.
The public anger from some regime supporters has exposed real divisions within Iran’s political and media establishment. But those divisions appear to be less about whether to preserve the Islamic Republic than about how best to preserve it.
That is the assessment of several Iran experts who spoke to Iran International following the announcement of the US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding.
Hardliners protest the deal
Much of the dissent appears to be coming from the hardline Paydari Front, which sees itself as a guardian of the values of the 1979 revolution that established the Islamic Republic. The faction has long opposed engagement with the West and advocates a more ideological vision of the state rooted in Shia Islamist principles.
Ahead of the signing of the MoU, prominent hardline lawmaker Mahmoud Nabavian warned that accepting the agreement would effectively turn Iran into “a colony of the United States.” He also criticized provisions related to the Strait of Hormuz, arguing they would amount to surrendering one of Iran’s most important strategic levers.
The rhetoric spilled into the streets. At rallies in Tehran over the weekend, protesters called for the resignations of Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. Some invoked the memory of the late Supreme Leader, chanting: “Ghalibaf, Araghchi — what about my Leader’s blood?”
Some went even further, calling for their death and execution.
Opponents of the deal have also launched a “we will not accept” campaign.
The question now is whether these internal fractures could eventually weaken a system that, while more resilient than many anticipated, remains under significant strain. For now, experts say the divisions do not appear sufficient to break the system from within.
“The hardliners are loud, but they have a weak case to make,” said Alex Vatanka, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute.
“This regime has now proven beyond doubt that they’re much more entrenched and resilient than people thought they were. That doesn’t make them nice, just makes them harder adversaries.”
Survival over ideology
Arash Azizi, an Iran analyst and author of What Iranians Want: Women, Life, Freedom, argues that the Islamic Republic is shifting from ideological hardliners toward a more pragmatic — though still authoritarian — collective leadership focused on regime survival.
“They are authoritarian and they’re thugs, to be clear. But they care about keeping their own economic interests, which means social peace as much as they can, and which means deals with the US,” Azizi told Iran International.
In other words, the Islamic Republic is not moderating. It is acting pragmatically — and, as Azizi argues, cynically — to survive.
According to Azizi, the hardliners around Saeed Jalili are important precisely because they have revealed their weakness. They loudly opposed the deal but appear unable to stop it.
Real power, he argues, lies with a collective leadership centered around Ghalibaf, the IRGC leadership and the Supreme National Security Council. That leadership appears to view a deal with Washington as necessary to protect the system.
The deal’s progress, despite Mojtaba Khamenei’s continued absence from public view, has fueled speculation that a new power structure may be consolidating inside the Islamic Republic.
Jason Brodsky, policy director at United Against Nuclear Iran, notes that such divisions are not new.
Similar opposition emerged during the 2013–2015 negotiations that led to the JCPOA, when hardliners attacked then-President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.
“The Supreme Leader made a decision, and that’s going to carry the day,” Brodsky said.
But Brodsky argues the real struggle may begin if sanctions relief materializes.
“There will be those who want to use resources toward economic rebuilding, but there will be a very hardened IRGC contingent ... who are going to want to rebuild their military, rebuild the nuclear program, and rebuild the terror apparatus.”
Media split reflects political divide
Iran’s media landscape reflects the same tensions.
Hardline newspaper Kayhan has denounced the MoU as surrender to the United States. Khorasan has framed it as a temporary pause rather than peace. Hamshahri has argued that diplomacy was made possible by Iran’s military deterrence.
Meanwhile, reformist and moderate outlets such as Shargh, Etemad and Khabar Online have presented the agreement as a state-backed effort to end the war, ease economic pressure and stabilize the country.
Some supporters of the deal have gone further, arguing that the agreement is superior to the 2015 nuclear accord because Iran has retained strategic leverage, including influence over the Strait of Hormuz.
Government supporters have also pushed back against the Paydari Front, arguing it does not represent ordinary Iranians, many of whom have grown weary of war and economic hardship.
Taken together, the reactions suggest that few inside Iran view the MoU as a peace agreement.
Instead, supporters and critics alike largely see it as a mechanism for preserving the Islamic Republic, though they disagree sharply on what kind of compromise would best serve that goal.
For hardliners, the agreement risks being remembered as a retreat from revolutionary principles. For pragmatists inside the establishment, it is a necessary concession aimed at keeping the system intact.
The domestic battle over the MoU may ultimately prove just as consequential as the negotiations themselves.
Former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett says he has drawn up a detailed plan to help Iranians topple the Islamic Republic, addressing growing frustration among dissidents that an emerging US-Iran deal could save and embolden Tehran’s hardline rulers.
“We’re going to do everything in our power to ultimately topple this horrible regime,” Bennett told Iran International correspondent Babak Eshaghi. “And I want to tell the Iranian people, the wonderful Iranian nation: Don’t lose your hope.”
“This terrible, disconnected, corrupt and evil regime will fall. You will be free,” he said.
Bennett, who is positioning himself as one of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s main challengers, said outside powers must be ready to help Iranians the next time they rise up against the Islamic Republic.
“What we’re going to do is ensure that next time the people of Iran rise up, we provide them the tools to win, communication and other tools,” he said. “This rotten regime will fall at some point.”
“Our job is to accelerate that,” Bennett added.
His comments come as many Iranians opposed to the Islamic Republic have voiced frustration over the expected signing of a US-Iran memorandum on Friday, fearing that Washington and Tehran are moving toward an agreement that would preserve the ruling system after months of war, repression, blackouts and sanctions.
After the January crackdown, in which security forces killed thousands of protesters and detained tens of thousands, both Donald Trump and Netanyahu promised to support Iranians seeking to bring down the regime.
But the emerging deal has deepened concern among many anti-government Iranians that ordinary people paid the heaviest price while Tehran’s more hardline leadership survived and may now gain breathing space through diplomacy.
Bennett sought to answer that concern by saying he had prepared “an elaborate and detailed plan” aimed at bringing down the Islamic Republic.
“I’ve put together an elaborate and detailed plan whose goal is to ultimately topple this Ayatollah regime,” he said.
He said the plan would rely on “many tools, not only war,” including “economic tools, diplomatic tools, covert, overt operations,” as well as efforts to empower the Iranian people.
Bennett also warned that the expected US-Iran memorandum should not lead to an easing of pressure on Tehran unless any final agreement fully dismantles Iran’s nuclear and missile programs and regional proxies.
“It’s a temporary agreement. It’s far from over,” he said.
“We have to ensure that the final agreement is a good one,” Bennett added. “That totally dismantles the Iranian nuclear program, the ballistic missile program, the regional terror program.”
“That’ll be the ultimate test,” he said. “We can’t let up on the sanctions and on all the pressure on this horrible regime until that’s achieved.”
His remarks come amid unease in Israel over the emerging agreement. Channel 12 reported that Israeli officials asked Washington to see the draft memorandum, but the United States refused to share the text before the signing ceremony.
The reported refusal has fueled concern in Israel that the deal could fall short of Netanyahu’s stated demands, including the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear capabilities, curbs on its missile program and limits on Tehran’s regional network.
Message to Iranian people and leaders
Bennett compared the Islamic Republic to the Soviet Union in its final years, saying authoritarian systems can collapse faster than expected.
“This regime will fall,” he said. “It’s a corrupt, disconnected and incompetent regime, very similar to the Soviet Union regime of the 1980s.”
“If you had asked me in 1985, will the regime fall? Who knows? But just four years later, it fell,” Bennett added.
“My message to the Iranian people is: Raise your heads. Be proud. Be strong. We are looking after you.”
He also issued a direct warning to Iran’s rulers.
“I would tell those leaders, those ayatollahs: Your time is running out. We are after you. We know exactly who you are. And you will not remain in power for long,” Bennett said.
“It might take a bit of time,” he added. “But your time is over.”
