Netanyahu’s bombs have hampered social change in Iran
Iranians are people with their own agency, and the criterion for democratic change in Iran is the consolidation of this agency, Vladimir Mitev said in an interview for the programme ‘Alarma’ on the Bulgarian National Radio’s Hristo Botev programme, referring to the intensification of repression in Iran after the end of the 12-day war and the need to consider Iranians and Israelis as people with independent judgement and capacity for action, and not as hostages of their governments.
Ivaylo Stefanov, BNR, 2 July 2025
Tsvetan Tsvetanov:
We have listened to music from a very interesting album featuring Djivan Gasparyan. But here we mainly listened to the tar of Hossein Alizadeh, who is an Iranian musician. It is a very beautiful Iranian-Armenian album.
Ivaylo Stefanov:
With this song, we move on to my interview with Vladimir Mitev about the 12-day war between Israel and Iran, the Iranian democratic movement and the protests in Israel, which, fortunately, are intensifying and are no longer just demanding the release of prisoners, but voices are also being heard against Netanyahu and for an end to the war in general.
Ivaylo Stefanov: What is happening in the Middle East and especially in Iran after the ceasefire between Israel and Iran? Officially, there are no bombings, but we see that buildings are damaged in Tehran and there is quite severe repression on the streets, from what I understand.
Vladimir Mitev: Yes, this war has, to some extent, taken Iranian society back in time, because in recent years there have been many active protests, feminist protests, workers’ protests, etc. And, in a way, the Iranian democratic movement had achieved certain things. This created a situation where even the authorities seemed to understand that they could not continue with the strict control they had exercised until then. It was no coincidence that a pro-Western president, Masoud Pezeshkiyan, was elected. And it was no coincidence that the idea of reform was revived.
This happened not only because of the international situation, but also because certain changes have taken place within the country. But what Israel has done with its airstrikes is to consolidate the dominance of the Iranian security forces once again. A new hunt for spies and traitors has begun. There are cases of people being executed, of people being arrested, whose fate is only now being decided.
But I would like to think a little more positively than is usually the case when talking about Iran. Even under these circumstances, officials have stated that the idea of reform, of renewing the country, of opening up both internally and externally, remains relevant in some way. But these blows are probably creating obstacles to this process, and it may take some time before it materialises.
So what happened after the Israeli and American air strikes is a consolidation of power and a rallying around the idea that Iran was attacked? Now the repression is intensifying, people are being accused of being spies for Israel, the US and so on?
Yes, and unfortunately, this confirms once again the argument that the West cannot be trusted, because literally until the air strikes, Iran was negotiating with the US.
The parameters of a new nuclear agreement were being discussed which, on the one hand, would limit or freeze Iran’s nuclear programme. On the other hand, as far as I understand, the regional relations in the Middle East were being discussed in some way between the US and Iran. Not everything had been agreed. Iran was dissatisfied that it was not being allowed to enrich uranium. But the direction of the negotiations was positive.
In this context, the air strikes came suddenly. In my opinion, Iran and its leadership have a great interest in integrating the country into international relations and lifting as many sanctions as possible. They have an interest in concluding a nuclear agreement.
But we also know that Iranians are a proud people with a tendency to rely on their own resources. They are inclined to show stoicism, to endure blows, even to lose because of them. In my opinion, they are inclined to rely on themselves when they cannot count on others. And we need to see how exactly these two approaches will balance out. Because, in my opinion, it is rational and pragmatic to have negotiations, but, on the other hand, the behaviour of Iran’s partners is creating difficulties in this regard.
Incidentally, it is impressive that quite a few people who are political refugees from Iran and have left-wing convictions are not taking sides, i.e. they are also against the bombings, because this in a way contributes to strengthening the regime, and ultimately none of them obviously want Iran to be bombed.
Yes, I actually conducted several interviews with such people, political refugees in Europe, who came out on the Persian Bridge of Friendship. In my opinion, it was logical that when Netanyahu started these bombings and said that the moment of Iran’s awakening was approaching, we should ask ourselves whether the Iranians really expect to be liberated in this way. Do they need to be liberated by these forces?
I asked people who have no sympathy for the government in Iran. Maybe they even had their own problems with it, which is why they left the country. But they actually had no sympathy for Netanyahu and the idea that you can liberate someone with bombs, air strikes and war.
One of these people, whom I consider a friend of your programme, Siyavash Shahabi, who lives in Greece, said that it is offensive to think that Iranians are waiting for someone to drop bombs on them in order to be liberated. We are seeing this consolidation that we are talking about. Even people who have no sympathy for the government are loyal to their country. And when it is attacked, they cannot be against it.
I can give the example of the well-known political scientist Sadegh Zibakalam. He is a fairly well-known liberal political scientist who was arrested a few years ago and is a figure of the opposition. He is also the author of some of the most important political studies on Iranian society and the Iranian revolution. He wrote on X that he has written a lot against the Iranian government, but that he cannot be expected to side with Netanyahu against his country, against his homeland. He recalled that outside Iran there is an opposition force, the People’s Mujahideen, who participated in the 1979 Iranian revolution but later became its opposition. And when Iraq attacked Iran, they sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian government, which condemned them forever to marginalisation in Iran. They are not perceived by Iranians in Iran as trustworthy political actors.
The same is true today: regardless of your beliefs, regardless of how much you have suffered at the hands of the Iranian government, you cannot expect to be against the state and the country.
Siyavash Shahabi, whom I once interviewed on the phone and who is of Kurdish ethnicity (many Kurds are sentenced to death in Iranian prisons, including women), also does not approve of these bombings.
I can say that Siavash’s blog, The Fire Next Time, and his activity on social media in this situation have been very useful. The interview we are conducting with you now is a continuation of an interview I gave to your colleague from the programme ‘Alarma’, Assya Chaneva, about the fact that I created a channel on Viber in Bulgarian on my Persian blog, and this channel has probably played a modest but positive role but positive, during the 12-day war for understanding Iran and the fact that Iran is more complex than we are told.
Not all Iranians are on the side of the government, and not all Iranians have the same opinion, etc. Siyavash has done something in recent weeks, showing the civic dimension of what is happening in Iran.
Very often, in our media, we have military analysts or security analysts who analyse Iran in military terms, presenting it as a homogeneous whole and as a threat. The image of Iran and Iranians in our media is often dehumanised. But thanks to Siyavash, we see Iranians as a people, as citizens who have the freedom to decide and can change things. They are too often presented as some kind of appendage to their government. In this sense, Siyavash is doing something very important by translating articles, providing context and ultimately helping us understand that Iranian society is a living society, where there are voices of opposition and dissent. There are workers’ protests. There is a feminist movement. There are very diverse identities.
I am glad that at least part of what my blog does, by distributing some of Siyavash’s material, is to raise awareness that Iranians are also human beings and that they have their own agency. In my opinion, this is a logical and correct idea. If someone really wants change in Iran, if they want democracy in Iran, if they want positive developments for this country, then in my opinion, it is precisely this deliberate action that we must rely on, and it must be the criterion for determining whether something is positive or not.
At the end of our conversation, what is your comment on what is happening in Israel? A few days ago, I saw on television that there are also massive protests against Netanyahu there. This time, the protests are not only for the release of hostages or Netanyahu’s corruption, but also for an end to the war in Gaza. How would you comment on the current state of Israeli society?
I have an observation that applies to all governments in the Middle East and perhaps even around the world. It is not right and we should not consider the people hostages of their governments, mere executors without a will of their own or proxies, as they are sometimes called. Israel and Iran have their intellectuals, their thinking people, their conscious people, their people who want change and peace.
What Netanyahu has done in recent years is to subordinate the state and society to his own narrow political interests, linked to the fact that Netanyahu is the subject of certain accusations, both internationally and within his own country. Netanyahu wants to survive. I think the protests we are seeing in Israel show that people do not want to be hostages to the survival of a political leader. And, moreover, in my opinion, they are a sign that war is not inherent to the peoples of the Middle East. Perhaps they are placed in a certain context in which they feel insecure. But in the long run, their real interest is peace and coexistence with each other, not war.
Thank you to Vladimir Mitev for this discussion. We will continue to follow the topic in ‘Alarma’ and talk again.
Photo: Damage following an Israeli airstrike on a Tehran residential area (source: YouTube)
Subscribe to Cross-border Talks’ YouTube channel! Follow the project’s Facebook and Twitter page! And here are the podcast’s Telegram channel and its Substack newsletter!
Like our work? Donate to Cross-Border Talks or buy us a coffee!
About The Author
