The Israeli strike on bases of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and defense factories in Iran has generated unexpected reactions on official media and social networks, where a large segment of the Iranian public is active.
While the Iranian regime downplayed the attack and its impact—claiming Israel failed to achieve its objectives and that “Iranian superiority” remains intact—the public’s response was marked by disappointment. The Iranian public recognized Israel’s military and technological advantage over the IRGC and Iran’s air defenses but apparently expected Israel to also target senior officials and symbols of power, aiming to destabilize or even attempt to overthrow the regime. This disappointment likely stems from high expectations that the attack would have a significant impact on civilians’ daily lives, as shown by long fuel lines, especially during the attack hours, and reports of food stockpiling. However, forecasts of severe disruption to the regime and daily life did not materialize.
The public’s disappointment was evident in responses on Telegram and Twitter, with some Iranians even criticizing Israel for not matching the prevailing atmosphere that hinted at a regime-shaking attack. Comments included “Israel—what kind of attack was this?! It caused no damage and killed no senior official!,” “We had high expectations because Israeli government members made big promises,” and “If Israel settles for this, it will make a strategic mistake, as the Iranian regime has no regard for the lives of Iranians or Israelis.”
This sentiment seems rooted in the all-or-nothing approach of many Iranians, who favor maximal “quick knockout” style actions over gradual or calculated responses. The public is also unwilling to consider factors such as international restraints or Israeli domestic considerations. Thus, the day after the attack, the disappointed public wonders why Israel, which invested heavily in a precise attack, did not direct part of its efforts toward significantly weakening Iran’s religious leadership. Nonetheless, some voices speculate that the two countries will continue their conflict, making it likely that future exchanges will target symbols of the Iranian regime as tensions escalate further.
The Israeli strike on bases of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and defense factories in Iran has generated unexpected reactions on official media and social networks, where a large segment of the Iranian public is active.
While the Iranian regime downplayed the attack and its impact—claiming Israel failed to achieve its objectives and that “Iranian superiority” remains intact—the public’s response was marked by disappointment. The Iranian public recognized Israel’s military and technological advantage over the IRGC and Iran’s air defenses but apparently expected Israel to also target senior officials and symbols of power, aiming to destabilize or even attempt to overthrow the regime. This disappointment likely stems from high expectations that the attack would have a significant impact on civilians’ daily lives, as shown by long fuel lines, especially during the attack hours, and reports of food stockpiling. However, forecasts of severe disruption to the regime and daily life did not materialize.
The public’s disappointment was evident in responses on Telegram and Twitter, with some Iranians even criticizing Israel for not matching the prevailing atmosphere that hinted at a regime-shaking attack. Comments included “Israel—what kind of attack was this?! It caused no damage and killed no senior official!,” “We had high expectations because Israeli government members made big promises,” and “If Israel settles for this, it will make a strategic mistake, as the Iranian regime has no regard for the lives of Iranians or Israelis.”
This sentiment seems rooted in the all-or-nothing approach of many Iranians, who favor maximal “quick knockout” style actions over gradual or calculated responses. The public is also unwilling to consider factors such as international restraints or Israeli domestic considerations. Thus, the day after the attack, the disappointed public wonders why Israel, which invested heavily in a precise attack, did not direct part of its efforts toward significantly weakening Iran’s religious leadership. Nonetheless, some voices speculate that the two countries will continue their conflict, making it likely that future exchanges will target symbols of the Iranian regime as tensions escalate further.