Transcript of Celebration and Mourning: Inside an Iran at War

From the New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. On Sunday, the United States and Israel pounded Iran with missiles for a second straight day, destroying more and more power centers of the regime, and according to rights groups, bringing the civilian death toll there to well over 100. Meanwhile, Iran unleashed a wave of retaliatory attacks that proved deadly. Three US troops were killed in action, becoming the first Americans to die in the war.

As one nation, we grieve for the true American patriots who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation.

But increasingly, Today, all eyes were on the Iranian government and the millions of citizens who have long opposed it. And the looming question became whether a weakened Islamic Republic could actually be toppled by its own people. Today, my colleague, Farnaz Fashigh, brings us the view of this pivotal moment from inside Iran. It's Monday, March second.

Farnaz, thank you for making time for us on a Sunday.

Really appreciate it.

Thank you for having me, Michael.

Farnas, for the people of Iran and for the massive diaspora of Iranians who live outside of the country, including you, Sunday, today, as we speak, it's one of those days in history. There was a before and there was an after. Right now, the after is a world in which Iran's Supreme Leader, who has been in power for over three decades, has been killed and is no longer in power.

It's one of those historic days that I think if for every Iranian, whether you're a supporter of the government or you're an opponent, whether you live inside or you live outside, this is a new day. This is a new Iran. From the moment we started hearing about Mr. Khomenei being potentially killed, my phone started buzzing. I was getting text messages and phone calls from my friends and family members. I was also getting text messages and calls from some of my sources in Iran who were asking me, Do you know anything? Is the news true? Is he gone? What have you heard? No matter what side of the divide you were on, this was a monumental moment. Today, Iranians woke up to the first day of history without Mr. Hamoudi in power. We don't know exactly what that's going to mean yet, but this figure who has loomed very large for almost four decades over the fate of Iranians is gone. Some Iranians were celebrating. People were pouring to the streets. I had several video calls with several people I know in Tehran who turned on the camera and showed me cars honking on the streets.

People cheering.

There were fireworks. People sticking their heads out of the windows and chanting, Freedom, freedom, and this visceral scream. Like a scream of relief, almost.

For the diaspora, it was scattered all over the world.

It was a similar feeling. I watched a group of family members congregate on FaceTime. Some were in the US, some were in Europe, some were in Iran, and everybody did a video call and some of them were crying. They were just these tears of relief and shock and joy, even. Then they celebrated with shots. There was a lot of cheers.

When you say diaspora, you quite literally mean families who were once together in Iran and presumably scattered to the winds across the world once the Islamic Revolution came in 1979?

Exactly. It feels like a dream for many Iranians that once they used to all live a few blocks from each other and have multi-generational family gatherings. Under Mr. Khomenei, many of them have not been able to return to Iran. Many families have just scattered like stardust all over the world and separated from each other.

That's clearly the segment of Iranians, both inside and outside the country, who may be on the celebratory side of the spectrum in the 24, 48 hours since he was killed. What about those who support him? Presumably, you've been talking to them as well. What would you characterize as their reaction?

For Mr. For Khamenei's supporters, this feels like a big loss. His supporters started to come out into the streets in large numbers, I'm going to mosques and praying and crying.. It feels like the ground is shifting under them. Not only have they lost a religious figure that they revered and believed in, but they've also lost a political leader of a system that they have ideological loyalty to.

It feels like that is in jeopardy, that they don't know whether this Islamic Republic that they believe in and they support is going to survive or not without him.

You know, This is the reality of Iran, Michael, this polarized society. One wonders whatever comes next, whatever form of government comes next, how are you going to bring these two sides anywhere close to each other, or is that even possible?

Because the people doing shots in their homes, uncorking champagne, those people would seem to have a very hard time reconciling their reactions and their whole worldview with those who are clinging to photos of the now-late Supreme Leader in the streets.

Exactly. I don't know how these two sides are going to reconcile.

If you had to estimate, Farnas, how big would you describe both of those camps as? The supporters, the mourners versus the dissidents, the opponents, those celebrating his death.

I would say that the overwhelming majority of the population in Iran are opponents of the regime, about 80%, and the core supporters are about 20%. I think we can draw this conclusion from voting patterns. In the past couple of years, when there's been presidential elections or parliamentary elections, Iranians who are hardcore believers of the regime have gone to polls around 20%. It's been 20% of the population.

Got it. You're extrapolating from that, which seems quite reasonable.

Right. We can, I think, draw from that. Also in January, literally every small and big town all over Iran saw protests against the government, including the religious stronghold of the government, where there were lots of people out calling for the end of this Islamic regime. If we look at the demographics of the protesters who were killed in January, they're from all ethnic groups, from a geographic area in Iran, and different socioeconomic backgrounds.

Well, because his death is so fresh and the reactions, as you are describing them, are so different, let's talk about this man who is inspiring such profound reactions, Hamineh, and why he inspires such strong reactions.

Mr. Hamineh is the second Supreme Leader of Iran. The first was founding Supreme Leader, Ayatollah the Roholog Khomeneh. He came to power in 1979 after the Islamic Revolution that toppled the monarchy.

Twelve days ago, the Ayatollah was operated on in an attempt to stem intestinal bleeding. Early yesterday, he suffered a heart attack. He whispered Muslim prayers and died. Iran has named a successor to the Ayatollah Khomeneh, less than a day after the Ayatollah's death in a Tehran hospital. 49-year-old Ali Khomani was today chosen Khomani's religious successor by Iran's Council of Senior Clerks. It is widely expected that Mr..

Khomani succeeded him in 1989.

Ayatollah Khomani unleashed anti-western passions throughout the Islamic world. Today, there were thinly vealed hopes that his successes would be less effective, if not more friendly.

It is said that while the first Supreme Leader led a revolution, Mr. Khomani led a state. He really is the ruler who made sure that the Islamic Republic went from a revolutionary idea into a state that entrenched power. The Islamic Republic of Iran that we know today that has influence over proxy militant groups and has a nuclear power and missile and military power was all the vision of Mr. Khamenei. Not only was he the religious leader of Shia's around the world, but his Iran would also be this country that led anti-imperialism, anti-Americanism.

Anti-israelism.

Exactly. In one of his notorious quotes, he said, The reason Hamas now has rockets and can attack Israel is because of us. We enabled them to go from rocks and arrows to missiles and guns with our training and with our funding. Of course, the thing that he is known for is his role in domestic repression.

For a few days, it looked like the start of a second revolution. Students on the campus of Tehran University demanding political and social reform, but the response was swift and violent.

Mr. Khomenei had absolute power. He is known for never giving an inch to calls for reform.

Sent in to crush this youthful idealism, not the police or army, but a militia called the Besiege, defenders of the fundamentalist revolution.

Sidelining political opponents.

This government won't allow us to say what we want.

Jailing dissidents, The government's response has been violence, armor-clad police attacking protesters from the backs of speeding motorcycles. Calling for brutal and lethal crackdowns on protesters.

These are some of the most recent images coming out of Iran.

The regime cut off the Internet in Iran on the eighth of January, hoping to prevent coverage of its crackdown on protesters. Including the recent wave in January, where he personally ordered the shoot to kill order.

That we I think, killed thousands.

Exactly. He ordered security forces to open fire on unarmed protesters with lethal force. As a result, over three days, a massacre happened because Mr. Khomeneh did not tolerate dissent and wanted to suppress any cause of change. Activists now say that more than 6,000 people were killed in Iran's recent crackdown on nationwide protests, and they warned that number could rise.

And yet despite the Supreme Leader's success in holding back protests by being so repressive, what we know, we've talked about it a lot on the show, is that behind the scenes, the regime is getting weaker and weaker because the United States and Israel, which grew increasingly tired of Iranian state-sponsored terrorism, especially after October seventh, they basically say, enough is enough.

They start unleashing waves of attacks against Iran, all of which would seem to make the regime very aware that its situation had become precarious. But over the past couple of days, we now know, because the Supreme was taken out with relative ease, it doesn't seem like they were being all that careful or cautious.

This was a surprise, Michael. Nobody thought that they would find Mr. Homeney above ground and in his compound during a time where US military had amassed warships and fighter planes all around Iran. But at the end, he was sitting in his office at 9: 30 AM, and next door to was a high-profile meeting of basically all the senior military commands strategizing for the war.

Why, though? Why were they so accessible to these attacks that, like you said, everybody seemed to know we're coming?

Well, I think that it's possible that they got a little complacent, that they got a little sloppy. I think that they calculated that strikes would happen in the middle of the night, not at 9: 30, 10: 00 AM on a work day where lots of children were in school and people were at work. They thought that they had a window to congregate and plan for attacks that they thought might be imminent in the middle of the night. I think they miscalculated gravely. It's fascinating. What many Iranian officials now say is that Mr. Khomenei had refused to leave his home and his compound and had indicated to people around him that if he's going to get attacked and war starts, he would rather become a martyr. I I think that in his mind, his legacy would be better protected if he was seen as somebody who was not in hiding, was not afraid, whereas if he would have the fate of Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro and get captured or if his regime would be toppled, he would be humiliated. I think there was this desire by him to have the ending that he envisioned and he wanted.

Which may be Iranian propaganda after the fact or may contain some shred of truth. On the subject of the regime's sloppiness or complacency, just how many of its leaders did the US and Israel kill? For those of us not as familiar with Iran's government, How big a blow to the regime does it represent?

It represents a massive blow to the regime. Putting Mr. Khomenei aside, they killed the Commander-in-Chief of the Revolutionary Guards, the Defense Minister, and some other senior officials. But Mr. Khomenei had planned for this possibility. He had instructed everyone in leadership roles to name Four layers of succession.

So they planned for the idea that three of every position in the government might end up being killed in what ended up being this weekend's attack, and there would still be someone to succeed that person.

Yes, exactly.

Wow. At this moment, and we're talking to you around 3: 00 PM Sunday, what is the state of that succession in the Iranian government?

The state moved very swiftly to project a sense of control and orderly transition while they name a successor for the Supreme Leader. That seems to be where things are standing.

Okay, well, that's the projection of a transition. But is the regime actually in control of Iran? And how do we know?

Right now, as of Sunday afternoon, the regime is still in control of Iran. We haven't seen any major defections. They are still in control of security on the streets. Their security apparatus are all over the capital. They've set up checkpoints and stopping cars and doing surveillance. They also seem to have maintained their military ability to retaliate and strike, still launching a barrage of ballistic missiles at US military targets. They are attacking Israel, and they are firing off missiles and drones to Arab countries in the Persian Gulf.

The succession is working to the extent that the people who Hamza Nighy wanted to be in place in the event of this attack are still the ones doing the job. They're pressing the button, they're firing the missiles, they're making sure the country is retaliating.

They wanted to make sure that there's no power vacuum, and at the moment, we're not seeing any evidence of a power vacuum.

I mean, the reason that matters so much, of course, is because President Trump has been so explicit about his goal here, regime change. He wants the people of Iran to anticipate a power vacuum and to fill it and to topple the regime.

Well, the majority of Iranian people have said that they want this regime toppled, that they want a new Iran. But right now, I think the priority for many Iranians is to find safety under bombs and to make sure that their families are safe and they survive and they're scrambling to find food and gasoline and shelter. We haven't really seen yet a massive domestic uprising, but it's only day two, and we don't know what's possible. Right.

And think about what was done on day one, right?

Yeah, they took out Mr. Khomenei on day one, and they're still continuing to strike. I think it's going to take some time to figure out what's going to happen in Iran and whether or not this regime will survive.

Well, after the break, we're going to talk about what it might look like if the regime does not survive and what it would take for it to be toppled by its own people. We'll be right back. Farnas, I want to return to a number you I mentioned much earlier in this conversation, 80%. Eighty % of Iranians, in theory, seem to oppose the regime and could be ready to help topple it if at the end of this military bombardment, the regime is in a shambles. Let's talk about that possibility. Based on what you know, what would it take for the opposition in Iran to become organized and confident enough to try to do what President Trump is encouraging them to do and that many of them have long wanted to do, which is take down this regime?

For the Iranian people inside Iran to be able to mobilize in a way that they would lay a central role in toppling the regime, there has to be strategy and planning and some unity from opposition leaders inside the country and outside the country, and also a sense that the regime and its oppressive tools and its means of crackdown and killing have been significantly weakened or disassembled. Otherwise, if people just come to the streets again, as they did in January, and they're unarmed, they risk lethal crackdowns and death and killings again.

Understood. But do you see any evidence that the US and Israel, in the targets that they've chosen and that they've struck, are trying to assist the opposition oppression and trying to disassemble the tools of oppression that you just mentioned?

We do. I think the difference in this current war, in comparison with the June war with Israel, is that the targets have expanded to not just military missiles and nuclear sites, to structures and buildings and institutions that the government used to oppressed and repress. What? Like the revolution Court today was attacked. This is a court that's highly notorious that tried and prosecuted political cases and dissidents. They attacked the state broadcasting, which is a tool of propaganda. They also went after two military bases belonging to the Revolutionary Guards and their underlings, Basiege, the volunteer plain-clothed militia that we see shooting and killing and beating protesters. They those two bases. There is some evidence, at least, that the target is widening, and it certainly seems that the goal of the United States and Israel is to facilitate regime change on the ground.

Which may or may not ever come to pass, of course. If there won't be any a revolution here, is there, Farnas, a leader within the regime that the US, that Israel might find tolerable, who they see as somebody who could, in theory, satisfy what remains of their regime, its loyalists, potentially be acceptable to the opposition, and that the US and Israel and its leaders feel they can do business with. Basically, the person that the US found in Venezuela after it arrested Nicolas Maduro.

It's interesting you bring up Venezuela because Iranian sources were telling me that of the conversations they're having in private about succession and about planning amongst themselves is the question of who will be the delci of Iran, referring to Venezuela's vice president. Some of the names that have come up are technocrats and former generals of the Revolutionary Guards who are seen as centrists, pragmatists, people who maybe would be open to a change of course. One of the names is Ali Larajani, the head of the National Security Council, who's effectively running the country right now. General Mohamed Baril Khalibah, a former Revolutionary Guards Commander, who's the speaker of the Parliament and has a role in commanding the war now. He's also one of the names that I have heard. I've also heard the name of former President Hassan Rohani, who's a moderate cleric, but he's been outcast from the close circle of Mr. Khomenei. So these are some of the names I've heard. But I want to mention here that for that 80% who want wholesome change and for the opposition and dissidence, no figure that is associated with the Islamic Republic's regime is going to be acceptable because every single one of these people was part of a system and had a role in those oppressions and killings and repressions that have been part and parcel of this government for 47 years.

But the question is whether the US and President Trump will ultimately decide that he doesn't want to risk instability in Iran, he doesn't want to risk civil war, and would rather engage with someone from that system that would be willing to make concessions or not. We heard President Trump say today that he's open to speaking to Iran's new leaders and that he's heard that there are some options for succession. I think he's signaling to the Iranian regime that if you do have a character who is willing to give me what I want and make the concessions that I want on nuclear and military and missiles and policies- Then I will back that leader. If not back him, at least I'll engage and entertain the possibility of that leader. That will be detrimental to the aspirations of democracy and freedom for the Iranian people. But politics are unpredictable.

In a very real sense, that would be at odds with regime change Change. President Trump is going to have to decide what really matters most to him. Changing the regime or creating a stable Iran, those may be in conflict.

Right. I think it would be hugely disappointing to many people in Iran both inside and outside, because President Trump, for all the reasons we talked about, about the 80% that are celebrating the events in Iran and the war, he's seen as a figure who has helped their aspirations for change right now But I think that that could quickly change, and they may feel betrayed if the US strikes a deal with the successors of Mr. Homony.

Well, no matter who leads Iran next, I wonder if the events of the past few days more or less guarantees that its government is really never the same, even if it's an insider from the regime running it. By that, I really mean it's hard to fathom Iran returning to the system of proxies and state-sponsored terror that really define Humaney's 35 years in power for the simple reason that over time, it resulted in his own death. It made the US and it made Israel believe that the only way to solve the problem was to take out the leader.

I think the Islamic Republic, as we knew it, is over. I think the state that Mr. Khamenei ran, which was hostile to the US, hostile to its Arab neighbors, hostile to Israel, and defined militancy and terror and hostage taking and repression of its own citizens is not sustainable. It's not sustainable and cannot survive in the new realities of the Middle East, where we've seen Israel prioritize its safety and survival above all else post October 7. I don't think it is an Iran that will be tolerated by its restive population that won't change. And given all the attacks we've seen in the region, and against Arab states, I don't think Iran's neighbors will tolerate that a state and this feeling that they're at risk of being attacked and an unpredictable government next door that nobody knows what it will do and how it will react. I don't think the United States will necessarily tolerate it either. I think all the odds are stacked against the Islamic Republic continuing as it has been for the past 47 years.

Well, just to end, Farnazh, I wonder, to that point, what members of the Iranian opposition and the expat world diaspora, you even, what you're allowing yourself to hope for and to dream of for Iran in this moment of such extraordinary flux and fear, but also possibility.

I'm Iranian-American, and on Friday, I thought that the possibility of ever visiting Iran, of visiting my father's gravesite or seeing my elderly relatives was a distant dream. Today, I have hope.

Of returning.

Of returning.

A pretty modest goal.

That's what a lot of Iranians who've been exiled and who can't go back say. They say that it's pretty bare minimum to want to see your relatives and visit your home country. It's a right that has been robbed from many people. I think many Iranians the world over have a glimmer of hope.

Well, let me ask about a perhaps less modest set of possibilities. I'm thinking about the people who were taking shots on Saturday. What do they dare to think about beyond just visiting relatives back in Iran?

They dare to dream of a free Iran where political prisoners are free, where young people who take to the to demand for a better living are not shot and killed, and people are not struggling to make ends meet because it's a resource-rich country, where parents are not mourning their children. Watching the videos of people taking to the streets and chanting, Freedom, freedom, in reaction to Mr. Khomenei's killing, It may sound to an American or Western audience that this is a modest aspiration, but I think for the Iranian people who have long aspired and worked toward having a free, democratic, secular country, this is a big dream. And as a reporter who's covered Iran for three decades, I never thought that I be writing this news or reporting this. So I looked at the front page of the New York Times today with the headline and thought, wow, this is a headline and a story I never thought I would write in my lifetime yet.

Well, Farnas, thank you very much. We really appreciate it.

Thank you for having me, Michael.

In an interview on Sunday night with the Times, President Trump said that the American military assault against Iran could last up to four to five weeks. When pressed on his plan for who should lead Iran's government, the President offered several seemingly inconsistent visions. One scenario, he said, was that the United States identified a cooperative leader from inside the regime. Another scenario, he said, was that Iran's military forces would simply lay down their weapons and surrender to the people of Iran. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today.

The Constitution can't be changed by statute. The Constitution says no declaration of war without Congress. The President has called this war against Iran.

On Sunday, Congressional Democrats question the legality of President Trump's military strikes against Iran, saying that it was a clear-cut case where he needed Congress's approval but failed to seek it. One of those Democrats, Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, has introduced a resolution seeking to end the use of American military forces in Iran.

The President not only did not come to Congress to seek a debate or vote, he acted without even notification to the vast majority of us.

This is an illegal war. And as markets opened on Sunday night, oil prices rose 10%, highlighting the economic risks of the conflict in Iran. The US Israeli attacks on Iran could severely restrict oil and gas supplies around the world. Even if the disruption is brief, it will almost certainly make energy more expensive around the world. Today's episode was produced by Jessica Cheung, Mary Wilson, and Claire Tennisgetter. It was edited by Liz O'Balen and Paige Cawit. Contains music by Alishaba Itup and Dan Powell. Our theme music is by Wunderly. The episode was engineered by Chris Wood. That's it for the Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.