As protests intensify across Iran and the number of casualties continues to rise, a fundamental question is being asked both inside and outside the country: could this uprising finally bring real change? Hossein Rafipoor, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Oxford who spent three decades living in Iran and actively participated in earlier reform movements, believes the current wave of unrest represents a decisive break from the past. In an exclusive conversation with India Today Global, he explains why this movement goes beyond earlier protests, challenges the Iranian government’s claims of foreign conspiracy, examines the long-standing oil narrative used by the regime, and sheds light on why many protesters are openly chanting the name of an opposition leader who promises a democratic transition. Most notably, Rafipoor argues that many Iranians now see Donald Trump as their strongest external hope for meaningful change.
Rafipoor says the present uprising differs sharply from earlier movements because it reflects a widespread and deeply held belief that reform within the existing system is no longer possible. While past protests often revolved around specific grievances—such as economic hardship, women’s rights, minority issues, or electoral fairness—this time the anger cuts across all sections of society and all dimensions of life. Drawing on his own experience as a former reformist, he explains that years of trying to change the system from within have only led to disappointment. According to him, people are no longer asking for adjustments or concessions; they have reached the conclusion that the entire structure is beyond repair. The collapse of faith in internal reform, he says, is what truly sets this movement apart.
Addressing the Iranian government’s repeated accusations of foreign interference, particularly allegations involving the United States and Israel, Rafipoor dismisses them as a familiar and cynical tactic. He recalls being on the streets of Tehran during earlier reform protests, demanding that votes be respected and voices heard, despite having no contact with any foreign actors. Yet, even then, protesters were routinely branded as agents of the CIA, Mossad, or other external forces. According to Rafipoor, this narrative has been consistently used for decades to delegitimise dissent and justify violent crackdowns. He argues that regardless of which political party has been in power in Washington or how global oil prices have fluctuated, repression inside Iran has remained constant. In his view, the foreign interference claim is merely a convenient excuse employed by an authoritarian regime to silence opposition.
Reflecting on Iran’s historical experiences with foreign involvement—ranging from the era of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh to the fall of the Shah—Rafipoor acknowledges that concerns about external intervention are understandable. He notes that oil has long been central to Iran’s political struggles and that Western involvement has often been framed as a quest to exploit Iranian resources. While he concedes that this narrative contains elements of truth, he stresses that it tells only part of the story. Rafipoor argues that the current regime has weaponised anti-Western sentiment to justify its own misuse of national wealth, diverting resources toward ideological goals and regional militancy rather than improving the lives of ordinary citizens. Even during periods when sanctions were lifted and revenues increased, he says, the benefits never reached the public. For him, the central issue is not oil alone but the moral responsibility of standing against tyranny and defending a population that has been systematically oppressed.
Rafipoor believes the present moment holds particular significance for women and broader civil liberties. Recalling his presence in Tehran during the “Women, Life, Freedom” protests, he describes the pervasive atmosphere of fear and violence that followed the death of Mahsa Amini at the hands of morality police. He emphasises that her killing was not an isolated incident but part of a long pattern of harassment, abuse, and control imposed on women for decades. According to him, the regime’s willingness to respond to peaceful demands with lethal force exposed its true nature to the public. This movement, he says, is not limited to a single grievance; it represents a collective rejection of a system that seeks to regulate every aspect of personal life through coercion and intimidation.
When asked why many Iranians now place their hopes in Donald Trump, Rafipoor explains that this sentiment is rooted in a feeling of long-standing abandonment. He says that opposition movements inside Iran have struggled for years without meaningful international backing, leaving protesters defenceless against a heavily armed state. Trump’s public statements warning the regime against violent repression, Rafipoor argues, resonated deeply with people inside Iran. While he recognises the importance of national sovereignty, he insists that abandoning civilians to face brutal state violence alone raises serious moral questions. From his perspective, Trump’s rhetoric signalled that this time, Iranians might not be left to fight in isolation.
Finally, Rafipoor outlines why he believes this uprising has a greater chance of success than those that came before. A crucial difference, he says, is the emergence of a clearer vision for what follows the collapse of the current regime. In earlier movements, there was little consensus on an alternative, creating fear of chaos and uncertainty. Today, however, protesters are openly chanting the name of Reza Pahlavi, whom Rafipoor describes as an opposition figure promising a secular, democratic transition. The existence of a proposed roadmap for the future, he argues, has helped unify disparate groups and reassured many who previously feared instability. For Rafipoor, this combination of widespread public resolve, a shared vision beyond the regime, and the hope of external support makes this moment fundamentally different—and potentially transformative.
