Talks with Iran would 'let cancer spread', dissident behind viral video says

The strongest reaction has come from people in cities where the forces have reportedly been seen, especially in the southwest.

Viewers who contacted Iran International said the arrival of Hashd al-Shaabi fighters in Abadan had made the city feel “unsafe and frightening,” and said residents were worried about their children.

One viewer described the forces as “terrorists” and said their entry into Iran, particularly in Ahvaz, Khorramshahr and Abadan, was aimed at “another massacre of the people.”

Another message asked: “Hashd al-Shaabi convoys entered Iran with armored vehicles. Why are Israel and America not targeting them?”

A message from Abadan said: “I’m sending this message from Abadan. The presence of these forces with flags and military uniforms has made the city frightening.”

Another viewer said: “These forces have come to kill people. We have not forgotten the January killings, when the government used them to help kill people.”

Anger was also directed at the cost of hosting such forces at a time of economic hardship.

One viewer wrote: “In these terrible economic and inflationary conditions that people are facing, why should the Islamic Republic pay for Hashd al-Shaabi terrorists and even house and feed their families for free?”

Other messages sent to Iran International suggested a wider pattern of deployment.

One said Hashd al-Shaabi forces had gathered in warehouses belonging to the Arvandan company in Dehloran county in Ilam province.

Another said the forces had been stationed since the previous day at the Persian Gulf Hotel in Genaveh, Bushehr province.

A more detailed message from Abadan said: “Around 1:30 a.m. on March 30, Hashd al-Shaabi forces arrived with several Hilux vehicles at the Basij base opposite the City Center to be stationed there, and along the route there were several checkpoints with a large number of IRGC forces inspecting people so they could not film.”

The reports followed footage circulated this week showing a convoy of Iran-backed militias in Iraq moving toward Iran.

Iran International audiences also reported on Sunday that Iraqi militias had been housed in residential units belonging to Revolutionary Guards personnel on Otobusrani Street in Bandar Abbas.

Dadban, a legal advisory and training center for activists, warned this week that the purpose of deploying Hashd al-Shaabi forces inside Iran was “participation in repression.”

According to its report, Iraqi militias crossed into Iran and entered Abadan and Khorramshahr in Khuzestan province, where they were received by officials of the Islamic Republic.

Dadban said the organized and armed presence of foreign forces inside the country, without going through a legal process, had no legal basis and pointed to Article 146 of Iran’s constitution, which bars the establishment of foreign military forces in Iran.

It also warned that using foreign forces to suppress domestic protests would amount to an escalation in violations of citizens’ fundamental rights, including the right to assembly and personal security.

Reaction on social media echoed many of the concerns raised in messages sent to Iran International.

Users described the presence of Hashd al-Shaabi as a violation of national sovereignty and a sign that the authorities were preparing for a harsher phase of internal repression.

One user, referring to reports of their presence in Khorramshahr, wrote: “God freed Khorramshahr, and with the help of the disgraceful Islamic Republic it has been occupied again.”

Another wrote: “Hashd al-Shaabi terrorists have officially entered Iran. This is the invasion of Iranian soil by a foreign ground force. We must stand against it completely.”

Another user mocked pro-government rhetoric by writing: “What happened to the people who said domestic problems must be solved inside the family? Is Hashd al-Shaabi family too? Here, a foreign force is acceptable? But if we ask for help, we are traitors?”

Another post said the government knew “the final battle will be decided on the streets of the big cities, especially Tehran,” and argued that Hashd al-Shaabi had been brought in to help defend the state at that front.

Together, the messages and online reactions suggest that for many Iranians, the issue is not only the arrival of an allied militia, but what its presence may signal about the Islamic Republic’s readiness to use outside forces to intimidate and suppress people at home.

• 

  Iran’s Covert War: How Iraqi Shia Militants Work With the IRGC

• 

  Iran’s security chief to push Iraqi Shia factions to approve militia integration law

Iraqi criticism of support for Iran

The backlash has not been limited to Iran.

In an exclusive interview with Iran International, Sheikh Abdullah al-Jughayfi, a member of the Security and Defense Committee and adviser to the Anbar governorate, confirmed that “Hashd al-Shaabi forces in recent days have transferred financial and non-financial aid to Iran.”

He said the aid had been sent over the past three days “with Hashd al-Shaabi flags raised.”

Al-Jughayfi criticized the move and warned that “this action could further complicate Iraq’s relations with the United States and increase the likelihood of new sanctions.”

At the same time, Jalil al-Lami, deputy head of the Iraq Center for Strategic Affairs, told Iran International from Baghdad that the move amounted politically to “a clear alignment by Iraq” and warned that it effectively ended Baghdad’s balancing policy between Washington and Tehran.

He added that “the presence of Hashd al-Shaabi forces inside Iran could expand the range of targets inside Iraq, whether through direct attacks or indirect escalation, pushing the country toward an open atmosphere of confrontation.”

The Shajareh Tayyebeh primary school, located in Minab in Hormozgan province, served boys and girls aged 7 to 12.

The school building stood in an area that once formed part of a Revolutionary Guards naval base but had reportedly been separated from the military compound by a wall for several years. Iranian officials say the school was privately run.

Research by Amnesty International’s Crisis Evidence Lab and its Iran team says US authorities could—and should—have known the building was a school and failed to take feasible precautions to avoid civilian harm.

Amnesty said the findings point at best to a serious intelligence failure by the US military and warned the strike could constitute an indiscriminate attack in violation of international humanitarian law.

Reuters has reported that two sources familiar with the matter said the strike may have resulted from outdated intelligence used during targeting, while an internal US military review found American forces were likely responsible for the attack.

The first strike occurred around 10 a.m. on February 28, when students were resting during a break. The explosion destroyed roughly half of one of the school’s buildings.

100%

Teachers gathered surviving children in the school’s prayer hall and called parents to collect them. Shortly afterward, a second missile struck the same building, killing many of the remaining children, teachers and some parents who had rushed to the scene.

Iranian officials, including the mayor of Minab and the Ministry of Education, say the school was struck three times in total.

Images published by Iranian media in the days after the attack showed rescue workers pulling remains, severed limbs and children’s backpacks from beneath the rubble.

Iranian authorities say 168 people were killed, including about 120 children, as well as teachers and several parents who had come to retrieve their children after the first explosion. Nearly 100 others were reported injured.

The Norway-based human rights group Hengaw says it has independently identified 58 victims so far, including 48 children and 10 adults.

Behind the casualty figures are the stories of children whose lives ended in ordinary moments between lessons.

Among them were three girls—Mahdis Nazari, 7, and Sonar and Niayesh Salehi, both 9—members of their school’s skating team. Photos shared online before the attack show them at training sessions and competitions.

Iran’s skating federation later confirmed their deaths.

100%

Another child whose story has circulated widely online is nine-year-old Mikail Mirdoraghi, a third-grade student. A photograph of him standing on the stairs of his home with a water bottle slung over his shoulder, waving goodbye, has been widely shared.

Mikail’s family had moved from Andimeshk in Khuzestan province to Minab because of his father’s job. After the attack, his 31-year-old mother, Shakiba Derikvand, identified his body among victims placed in refrigerated vehicles.

He was found lying beside his friend Alireza, still clutching his school backpack. His body was largely intact, though his face was bloodied, his mother said.

He was buried three days later in Andimeshk. A widely circulated image shows his grandfather lying beside the flower-covered grave.

“Mikail was afraid of the dark,” he reportedly said. “We always slept beside him. I don’t want him to be alone here at night.”

One of the most haunting details to emerge is a drawing Mikail reportedly made the night before the strike.

Found later in his backpack, it shows a school building with the Iranian flag above it, five children standing in the yard and three missiles descending toward them.

On March 20, Iran fired two long-range ballistic missiles at the Diego Garcia base, a target long considered beyond its declared range of around 2,000 kilometers.

Iran’s attempted long-range strike — which US officials say did not hit its target — marks the first time Tehran has demonstrated the ability to reach as far as Diego Garcia.

For years, Iran claimed its missile range was capped at around 2,000 kilometers. That claim now appears increasingly untenable.

The attempted strike exposes a reality that can no longer be ignored, experts told this week's episode of Eye for Iran: Tehran’s missile capabilities extend far beyond the Middle East, its hardened arsenal has withstood sustained US and Israeli strikes, and the conflict is now colliding with critical global pressure points — from the Strait of Hormuz to the growing likelihood of a broader military phase.

A threat no longer abstract

Iran’s ballistic missile threat is no longer abstract — it is real and expanding.

Both Janatan Sayeh, an Iran expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), and Farzin Nadimi, a defense and military expert with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, warned on the Eye for Iran podcast that Tehran’s capabilities now extend far beyond previously stated limits — potentially reaching as far as the United Kingdom.

“This should not come as a surprise,” Sayeh said. He noted that Iranian missiles and drones have already been used on European soil through Russia.

“The difference now is that the regime itself can launch them directly from Iranian territory," said Sayeh.

The shift marks a critical evolution — from indirect projection of force to direct long-range capability — underscoring the growing reach of Iran’s arsenal.

Even if unsuccessful, the Diego Garcia strike signals a move from regional containment to global reach — with direct implications for Europe and beyond.

In his State of the Union address last month, President Donald Trump cautioned that Iran’s missile program could soon put the United States within reach — a claim that, in light of recent developments, is no longer theoretical.

Missile cities: A durable arsenal

That expanded reach is underpinned by an infrastructure designed not just to deter — but to endure.

Nadimi said Iran has long possessed the technical ability to extend the range of its missiles, including through payload modification and dual-use space-launch technology.

More significantly, he described a vast network of hardened underground facilities — some “the size of a small city” — buried deep beneath mountainous terrain and reinforced structures, making them extraordinarily difficult to destroy.

These so-called “missile cities” are often positioned near — and in some cases beneath — civilian infrastructure, including residential neighborhoods and public spaces, complicating targeting while increasing their survivability.

“Many of these missile bases are so deep that even the most powerful bunker-buster bombs cannot reach them… some are as deep as 500 meters and the size of a small city," Nadimi told Eye for Iran.

Strait of Hormuz: Global Stakes

The implications extend far beyond military capability.

The Strait of Hormuz — through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil supply passes — has emerged as a central pressure point in the conflict.

Disruptions tied to the war have already rattled global energy markets, with prices reacting to uncertainty around shipping routes and potential escalation.

Joel Rubin, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Obama administration, warned on Eye for Iran that Iran’s actions reflect a broader strategic calculus.

“This is how Iran behaves,” he said. “They are willing to disrupt and destroy the global economy to protect themselves.”

Dr. Walid Phares, foreign policy expert, advisor to past US presidents and author, described the Strait not as a theoretical chokepoint, but as an active military theater — where Iranian missile systems along the coastline could trigger direct US intervention to secure global shipping lanes.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly said the United States would reopen the Strait “with or without” allied support — underscoring the scale of the economic stakes.

“Which tells me that ground forces, limited special forces, Marines, now we understand, may be used," said Phares, author of Iran: An Imperialist Republic and US Policy.

Talks as strategy, not solution

Even as diplomatic efforts continue, both sides appear to be using negotiations as part of a broader strategic game.

Rubin pointed to a narrowing political and economic window in Washington, suggesting the US is unlikely to sustain prolonged negotiations as domestic pressure builds.

Phares also framed talks not as a pathway to de-escalation, but as part of a parallel track where diplomacy unfolds alongside active military preparation.

In this environment, negotiations are not replacing escalation — they are occurring within it.

Toward escalation: troops and targets

On the ground, signs of a deeper military phase are becoming more pronounced.

The Pentagon is weighing sending up to 10,000 additional ground troops to the Middle East, according to reporting by The Wall Street Journal and Axios — a move that would significantly expand US combat presence in the region.

The deployment would include infantry and armored units, adding to thousands of Marines and paratroopers already moving into position.

Officials say forces could be staged within striking distance of Iran, including near Kharg Island, a critical oil export hub that handles the vast majority of the country’s crude exports.

Military planners are also reportedly developing options for a “final blow,” including a large-scale bombing campaign and the potential use of ground forces.

No final decision has been made — but the scale and positioning of forces point toward preparation, not restraint.

A region already shifting

At the same time, regional dynamics are beginning to shift.

The United Arab Emirates has publicly warned — in a Wall Street Journal op-ed by its ambassador to Washington — that a simple ceasefire is not enough, signaling growing alignment among US partners around the need for a more decisive outcome.

In Lebanon — long considered firmly within Iran’s sphere of influence — mounting pressure on Hezbollah, moves to marginalize IRGC influence, and the withdrawal of Iran’s ambassador from Beirut point to potential cracks in Tehran’s regional posture.

For many observers, the attempted strike toward Diego Garcia marks a turning point because of what it revealed: the range and the probable intent, all are now visible.

The comments come as U.S. President Donald Trump said Thursday he would pause planned strikes on Iran’s energy infrastructure for 10 days until April 6, saying the move followed a request from Tehran and that negotiations were continuing.

Iranian officials have confirmed receiving proposals for talks but say they are reviewing them while insisting Iran will not accept ultimatums.

The war, now entering its fourth week, has already drawn in multiple regional actors and heightened tensions around strategic chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz, raising concerns that a wider confrontation could disrupt global energy flows and destabilize the region further.

Saba Zanganeh, a former diplomat close to the office of Iran’s Supreme Leader, told the moderate outlet Fararu on March 25 that the conflict should prompt regional governments to reconsider their security policies and alliances.

He said regional governments have often acted as secondary players under foreign influence, worsening conflicts rather than resolving them. The current war, he added, offers a stark lesson that continuing the existing model will deepen regional crises.

He argued that decades of instability stem from what he described as “a flawed strategic paradigm shared by regional states and external powers,” which he said has repeatedly produced destruction and fragmentation in countries including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan, Somalia and Yemen.

Hossein Mousavian, Iran’s former ambassador to Germany, offered a more confrontational assessment.

Speaking to Etemad Online, he said Iranian officials increasingly view Persian Gulf Arab states as partners in the conflict, sharing what he described as a common objective of the “complete destruction of Iran.”

Mousavian said Tehran is preparing for the possibility of a broader confrontation involving the United States and its regional allies.

Another former diplomat, Kourosh Ahmadi, suggested the conflict may last far longer than initially expected.

Speaking to Fararu, he noted that both Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu first suggested the war might last only four to seven days before revising their estimates to several weeks. Even those expectations may prove unrealistic, he said.

Ahmadi pointed to Iran’s ability to restrict or control shipping in the Strait of Hormuz as a decisive factor in prolonging the conflict. As long as Tehran maintains that leverage over one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints, he argued, the war is unlikely to end quickly.

“Israel seeks the collapse and incapacitation of Iran, not merely political concessions,” he said, arguing that Washington’s goals were more limited and often diverged from that of Israel.

Despite their different emphases, the three former diplomats share a similar underlying assessment: the current conflict risks evolving into a prolonged regional crisis whose consequences could reshape the Middle East for years.

Rahim Nadali, a cultural official with the Guards in Tehran, said an initiative called “For Iran” was recruiting participants to assist with activities such as patrols, checkpoints and logistics.

“Given that the age of those coming forward has dropped and they are asking to take part, we lowered the minimum age to 12,” he said, adding that 12- and 13-year-olds could now take part if they wished.

The comments were broadcast as part of state media coverage of the war effort.

The announcement has revived concerns over the use of minors in security-related roles in Iran.

During the 2022 protests triggered by the death of Mahsa Amini, images shared on social media appeared to show children and teenagers in military-style uniforms and protective gear, drawing criticism from child rights advocates.

The move comes despite Iran’s commitments under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits the use of children in military activities.

• 

  Over 3 Million Child Laborers in Iran, Activist Warns

Human rights groups have also repeatedly accused Iranian authorities of killing child protesters during past crackdowns. The Center for Human Rights in Iran said security forces killed more than 200 children during a wave of protests in early 2026.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have also documented cases of children being shot, detained and abused during demonstrations, saying government forces have used lethal force against minors in violation of international law.