CIVICUS discusses conflict between Iran and Israel with Negin Shiraghaei, founder of the Azadi Network, a feminist network that supports excluded communities from Afghanistan and Iran.

In June, Israel launched a new phase of conflict with Iran, with Israeli and US airstrikes targeting Iranian nuclear facilities. The conflict put on pause negotiations between Iran and the USA towards a new agreement on limiting Iran’s nuclear programme to civilian uses in exchange for sanctions relief. A US-brokered ceasefire brought military exchanges to a halt, but there’s no peace agreement and hostilities could resume.

What do you think motivated Israel to attack Iran?

This conflict can’t be understood without looking at the decades-long tensions between Israel and Iran. Both are authoritarian and patriarchal regimes that use each other to justify repression at home. Iran relies on anti-western and anti-Israel narratives to silence dissent, while Israel invokes security threats from Hamas in Gaza or Iran’s nuclear programme to justify its actions. Each fuels the other’s hold on power.

Iran engages in so-called ‘unconventional wars’ to expand its regional influence and distract from internal crises just as Israel uses the conflict to divert attention from its domestic problems, including its treatment of Palestinians. Neither has an interest in genuine peace as they both benefit from a state of ongoing confrontation and constant sense of crisis.

During the recent phase of conflict, military targets were hit, and Iran’s intelligence services used the moment to crack down harder on activists and union workers. Daily life in Iran continues to be shaped by corruption, poverty and repression, particularly in regions that are rich in resources but lack basic services.

Some Iranians hoped the conflict might lead to regime change, but it quickly became clear this wouldn’t happen. Instead, the conflict helped both governments strengthen their grip on power. The war is unlikely to end, and will likely continue in unconventional forms, allowing both sides to maintain control under the guise of an ongoing existential threat.

What roles have outside powers such as Russia and the USA played?

Iran and Russia have maintained close ties since the 1979 Islamic Revolution and their relationship only strengthened after the imposition of international sanctions on Iran two decades ago. They’ve signed several economic and nuclear agreements, and Iran has supplied drones for Russia’s war in Ukraine. Still, Russia hasn’t fully backed Iran against Israel. It maintains ties across the Middle East and appears to be balancing its interests rather than taking sides.

On the other side, Donald Trump tried to position the USA as a powerful mediator. But Iran’s decentralised and fragmented power structure makes negotiations difficult. The Revolutionary Guard, a powerful branch of the Iranian armed forces, often undermines talks by using vague public statements and turning foreign policy into a tool for international leverage.

At the end of the day one thing is clear: both Russia and the USA are more concerned with protecting their geopolitical interests than resolving the Iran–Israel conflict.

How did the Iranian government respond to the escalation?

The state acted quickly to supress dissent. Surveillance increased, with neighbourhood units stepping up their monitoring, and repression escalated. With no space for public protests, people resorted to quiet conversations behind closed doors. The authorities warned that any criticism of the regime or expressions of support for Israel could lead to imprisonment. They sent mass text messages instructing people not to speak with anyone outside Iran about local conditions, warning that doing so could be treated as a criminal offence.

Many Iranians are disillusioned — both with their government and with the idea that external forces could support a democratic transition. As options narrow, many asked themselves what the way out was.

What role is Iranian civil society playing?

Inside Iran, civil society is heavily restricted. Activists risk being arrested for speaking out and independent organising is severely repressed. Yet voices continue to emerge. At the recent Peace, Democracy and Media Conference in The Hague, for example, Iranian Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shirin Ebadi delivered a powerful message condemning both the Islamic Republic’s oppression and Israel’s actions in Gaza.

Globally and regionally, civil society organisations are working to build a peaceful, rights-based alternative to war and authoritarianism. These efforts may not be visible in mainstream media, which tends to focus on state powers, but they’re very real and they exist in grassroots networks, alternative forums and ongoing cross-border dialogues, such as those between Palestinian and Israeli women that we support. People in Iran deserve peace and civil society is striving to make that possible.

What are the prospects for a peace agreement, and what would it take to get there?

A peace agreement could bring change, but right now it seems highly unlikely to happen because of the lack of transparency and vagueness of the ceasefire terms. It’s unclear whether this was just a pause or a step towards real negotiations, and both governments benefit from keeping that ambiguity as it allows them to spin outcomes in their favour.

For some in the region, Iran’s strikes on Israel were a symbolic revenge for the war in Gaza. But relying on violence and repression to get justice is deeply flawed. Real change must come from people, not from regimes that profit from war and oppression.

The opinions expressed in this interview are those of the interviewee and do not necessarily reflect the views of CIVICUS.