I’m glad there are some western journalists in Tehran who are talking to people on the street, but I fear the result is a distorted picture. If you wanted to get a good picture of the mood of America, you wouldn’t do too well by talking only to whomever you happened to come across in Central Park. But that’s basically what was done for this Bloomberg piece:

“It’s a nerve-racking situation that only adds to the likelihood of more unforeseen circumstances,” said Hossein, 44, sitting on a park bench in central Tehran with a newspaper. “We’re in a tinderbox ready to explode. I’m afraid of a chain of aggressive reactions that will throw the political and economic situation into further chaos and uncertainty.”

…By November, the bloodiest protests since the 1979 revolution plunged the country into a state of heightened security as authorities, unable to contain the unrest, switched-off access to the internet and launched a crackdown on dissent that killed some 304 people within several days, according to the London-based Amnesty International.

“How do they expect people to rally behind them and support their cause for vengeance when they beat the same people on the streets and cut their internet just a few weeks ago?” said Atena, 30. She expects action to avenge Soleimani. “I don’t think they should or will stay silent, but I don’t want to be part of the drama because this is their loss, not mine.”

Public opinion in Tehran produces words like “likelihood,”unforeseen,” and “drama.” But the strongest supporters of the Islamic regime come from a different socioeconomic background.

It’s probably true that Iranians, as a whole, are getting restless as the country labors under severe sanctions, inflation and international isolation. But notice that even urbane Atena thinks the government should not stay silent about the assassination of Qassem Soleimani. Here is another similar example, from the same article:

“The killing of an Iranian general by a foreign government is deplorable and unforgivable and I hope that Iran will respond with tact and patience just the way they have done so far,” said Ali, 32, an economic graduate hovering near a Tehran bookstore. “But I’m scared of the breakout of a war. The United States has crossed a line that cannot be uncrossed.”

Ali is fearful and doesn’t want war, but he still sees the assassination as an unforgivable act. The responses from people who aren’t hovering near college book stores are probably a touch more bellicose.

Americans shouldn’t be confused or misled about how ordinary Iranians feel about the death of Soleimani. Whether they liked the man or not, they agree that America crossed a line and that it demands some kind of response. I don’t think it helps Americans understand the situation to read articles that downplay this fact or that suggest that the regime is so unpopular that the people don’t really care about the loss of its key enforcer.

Had Soleimani been slain a year ago, nationalist fervor may have been far more pronounced. Iranians, though, are exhausted. People routinely evoke memories of the eight-year war with Iraq and its subsequent food rationing, and ask whether their sons will soon be called-up to enlist.

I don’t think the intention of this piece is to serve as propaganda for regime change, but it could serve that purpose. The truth is quite different. The assassination reduced internal pressure on the regime and has helped them bind the country together again at a time when their grip on power was slipping. Even dissidents who might look to America for help are generally outraged by this action and recognize that national pride demands some kind of response.

We should not be confused about this or have some false hope that the regime is about to fall. The Iranians may not want war with a more powerful adversary, but they will fight.