Iran Uses US Conflict to Distract From Internal Unrest, Activist Warns

The calculus of survival for Iran's leadership has shifted, according to one prominent human rights observer. The regime, he argues, now fears its own population far more than it fears American bombs. This inversion of threat—where internal discontent poses a greater existential danger than external military pressure—explains why Tehran continues to provoke confrontation in the Strait of Hormuz even after the United States offered diplomatic off-ramps.

Dr. Majid Sadeghpour, a human rights activist and political director of the Organization of Iranian-American Communities, laid out this logic in recent remarks. He pointed to a specific moment that crystallized his argument: the U.S. had extended guarantees to Iran, pledging not to pursue regime change. Yet Tehran responded by attacking commercial vessels and striking American military installations in Jordan and Bahrain. The pattern suggested something counterintuitive. If the regime's primary concern were American military capability, it would have seized the opportunity for de-escalation. Instead, it chose confrontation. "The real threat to the regime is not the bombs from outside, but rather the population uprising," Sadeghpour said.

This assessment rests on recent history. Iran has endured major waves of internal unrest in recent years, driven by economic collapse, soaring inflation, and widespread alienation from the government's strict religious governance. The regime has responded to these challenges with documented brutality—suppressing protests with lethal force, conducting arbitrary arrests, and detaining dissidents. These are not the actions of a government confident in its legitimacy. They are the actions of a government under siege from within.

For a militarized regime that depends on external friction to justify its grip on power, sustained conflict with the United States serves a crucial domestic function. It redirects public anger outward. It allows leaders to frame dissent as disloyalty during wartime. It transforms economic failure into a consequence of foreign aggression rather than regime mismanagement. In this framework, peace becomes dangerous—not because it would weaken Iran militarily, but because it would remove the nationalist cover under which the government operates. "For a regime that's militarized and requires friction, its survival now depends on that friction," Sadeghpour explained.

Vice President JD Vance, speaking Thursday, confirmed that Iran continues to target commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz despite prior agreements not to do so. He suggested the regime's leverage in the region is eroding. "Their control over the Strait of Hormuz is effectively gone, and it's a diminishing asset," Vance said. Yet even as Iran's military position weakens, the regime shows no inclination to negotiate. This apparent contradiction—escalating despite declining capability—makes sense only if the conflict itself, rather than any prospect of military victory, is what the regime needs.

Sadeghpour argued that effective American strategy should reflect this reality. Rather than pursuing further military strikes or waiting for Tehran to come to the negotiating table, the U.S. should focus on supporting the Iranian population's own desire for change. The regime will drag out conflict indefinitely, he suggested, because the alternative—a period of calm in which Iranians can focus on domestic grievances—poses an existential threat. "The regime is thinking about the day, the hour after the exhausted population gets calm, and will immediately look around, 'how am I going to get rid of this regime?'" Sadeghpour said. "That is what the regime is afraid of."

President Trump, for his part, signaled no interest in negotiation. On Wednesday, he wrote on Truth Social that he "couldn't care less" whether Iran signs what he called a "worthless" agreement. Instead, he posed a direct question to the Iranian people: "When are the Iranian people going to rise up and fight?" The statement reflected the emerging consensus among some analysts that the path to change in Iran runs through its own citizens, not through American military pressure or diplomatic channels. Whether that pressure from within can materialize remains an open question—one that will likely define the trajectory of U.S.-Iran relations in the months ahead.