Former US President Donald Trump has reiterated his expectation that the Iranian population will imminently rise up against their government amid ongoing conflict, a stance that appears increasingly disconnected from conditions observed within Iran. In a recent post on his social media platform, Truth Social, Trump asked, “When are the Iranian people going to rise up and fight?” Yet local insight suggests such hopes for a domestic uprising may be misplaced, at least in the near term.

Hossein Hamdieh, a social researcher based in Tehran, draws on conversations with various Iranians involved in the country’s digital and entrepreneurial sectors to assess public sentiment. Prior to recent hostilities, this group of business professionals and influencers reportedly harbored critical views of the Iranian government, particularly due to repeated internet blackouts disrupting Iran’s burgeoning digital economy. However, Hamdieh notes a marked shift as anti-American and anti-war feelings have intensified among these circles during the conflict.

Prominent figures within Iran’s startup scene, including Majid Hosseini Nejad, founder of the local online travel agency Alibaba, have voiced strong opposition to foreign military actions against Iran. Hosseini Nejad, in a social media post from early September, expressed hope that any future attacks on Iran would become “a terrifying nightmare” for their instigators. While such expressions do not necessarily equate to direct support for the governing regime, they reflect a growing nationalist sentiment focused more on resisting external aggression than endorsing the current political establishment.

Hamadieh further explains that tragic incidents involving civilian casualties, such as the recent attack on a school in Minab, have tended to unify the population rather than provoke internal dissent. These events evoke painful memories of foreign interventions in countries like Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, fostering solidarity against what many Iranians perceive as imperial and regional hostility. This dynamic appears to undermine US assumptions that military pressure will catalyze an uprising against Iran’s leadership.

The researcher highlights an evolving narrative within Iran: the populace does not necessarily align uniformly with the state’s politics, but it increasingly views the nation as collectively confronted with a foreign adversary backed by powerful external forces. This nuanced understanding, he argues, challenges simplistic notions held by some in Washington that opposition to the Islamic Republic translates to support for US military intervention.

According to Hamdieh, nationalist and anti-imperialist sentiments are gaining ground, with the once-clear divide between the Iranian state and its people showing signs of narrowing amid the conflict. He suggests that continuous civilian casualties risk eroding distinctions between the population and government, thereby decreasing the likelihood that Iranians will side with foreign powers against their own country.

While the United States may be banking on a popular uprising to destabilize Iran’s regime, insights from inside Iran point toward a contrary outcome: a population poised to close ranks rather than rise up.