It was silent on the night of June 13, 2025, as citizens of Tehran, the capital city in Iran, rested peacefully. However, this tranquility quickly vanished when the clocks struck 3 a.m., and bombs fell from the sky. The nation was under attack by the Israeli military after the Iranian government was found to be building nuclear weapons, resulting in a 12-day exchange of bombings between the countries.
During this time, Iman* and her family were living in Tehran.
“[On the first night], I couldn’t hear the bombings when I was asleep, but I woke up to texts from friends outside the country asking if I was okay,” Iman said. “I was really confused until my dad and I turned on the news, and we spoke with my mom, who was staying at my grandmother’s home.”
Iman’s mother and grandmother were living near one of the bombing sites.
“My mom said she could hear the bombings, and people outside were screaming on the streets,” Iman said.
As the bombings continued for days, people began to evacuate Tehran, and there seemed to be no end to the attacks.
“No one was aware of what was going on because our network had gotten cut off,” Iman said. “People started to evacuate because the city wasn’t safe anymore.”
Iman and her family decided to move to their vacation home outside of Tehran.
“We only had a few stores nearby, but it felt like the pandemic again, where everyone would go crazy and buy everything they could to stock up,” Iman said. “We still didn’t have Wi-Fi, so family from outside of Iran would text us, but our texts wouldn’t be delivered.”
Despite moving locations, Iman couldn’t escape the sound of bombings.
“The last night [of the 12-day attacks] was the worst night, and the noises of the bombings were so loud that the ground was shaking,” Iman said. “I fell asleep for a few hours, and when I woke up, I turned on the TV to see that a ceasefire was announced.”
President Donald Trump declared a ceasefire between Iran and Israel, ending the attacks on June 25. Iman and her family then returned to Tehran.
“We stayed for another night in the vacation home, and when we saw there were no more bombings, we went back to Tehran,” Iman said. “It didn’t feel real, because we were getting bombed for two weeks straight, and then a week later, we all just moved on. I would be out with my friends and would see a building destroyed on the street. But we had to move on—there was nothing else we could do.”
A month later, Iman and her family left the country and moved to the United States, which they had planned to do before the attacks had begun.
“Everything had gotten back to normal by the time we were leaving Iran,” Iman said.
While some students witnessed the attacks firsthand, others were experiencing fear for their family in Tehran.
“My mom was trying to call my grandma [during the attacks], but she wasn’t able to reach her,” junior Allen Mirzayan said. “We saw the news and found out that Israel attacked Iran, and the next day, we still couldn’t reach our grandma.”
At the time, Mirzayan and his family were on vacation in Spain, where they had originally planned to meet his grandmother.
“The entire time I was in Spain, I was trying to relax, but I was scared for my grandmother,” Mirzayan said. “My mom was really sad, and in reality, I was also sad.”
As Mirzayan’s relatives evacuated from Tehran to nearby areas, Mirzayan was finally able to communicate with his grandmother.
“Once she left Tehran for another town, we could start calling her again,” Mirzayan said. “Every time we would talk with my grandma, she would reassure us that she was okay. Soon, everything ended up being fine, and I’m grateful for that.”
Although the attacks ended days later, tensions in Iran have resurfaced. Since the end of December, violent protests have sparked in Tehran due to the country’s rising inflation and collapsing currency.
“The prices have gotten high, and people can’t really afford anything there, so people started protesting,” Iman said. “People also want change and freedom because you’re not allowed to speak badly about the government online or say you’re not Muslim and that you don’t believe in Islam, or they’d arrest you.”
Protests have spread to cities outside of Tehran, prompting the government to shut down the internet.
“My mom hasn’t been able to talk with a majority of our family in Iran for nearly a month, but two nights ago we were able to call our cousins because they had installed a VPN that let them bypass the internet blocker,” Mahmoud* said. “They were sharing stories about how the whole city shuts down every night because the protests have been huge.”
Although a significant portion of the Iranian population are Muslims, many disagree with the Islamic regime.
“Even if you’re Muslim and you connect with the government because you share the same religion, you can’t justify the killing of innocent people,” Mahmoud said. “The government is very extreme in their practices, and they’re using Islam as an excuse to control the people. By protesting, the government claims you’re going against the word of God because the government ‘speaks the word of God.’”
Iranians are calling for Reza Pahlavi, the son of the last leader of Iran’s monarchy, which was ended by the Islamic Revolution in 1979.
“Those who really enjoyed the regime of the former king of Iran would be in support of his son being the next leader,” Mahmoud said. “But thinking from a more logical perspective, we shouldn’t just pick him because he is the heir. We should pick someone who’s the most capable of leading the country.”
Despite the concerns of what would happen after the current regime, the price of this political situation has led to a notable amount of deaths and destruction. According to the Human Rights Activists News Agency, over 6,200 deaths have been confirmed since the start of the protests, with another 17,000 under investigation.
“The news on the TV about Iran shows people dying and places getting destroyed, and it’s just heartbreaking,” Hira* said. “Our horrible leaders have caused destruction, but what worries me the most is Iran being under control by the U.S. and Israel.”
On Jan. 11, Trump issued a public statement regarding possible military intervention in Iran as a result of the protests.
“If the U.S. really wanted to help Iran, they would send aid to the people and try to provide internet access for them,” Mahmoud said. “[Military intervention] would only escalate the situation.”
As Iran’s future remains unclear, many hope for an end to the violence.
“What is often misunderstood is [how] beautiful of a country Iran is despite all of these conflicts,” Hira said. “Iran has beautiful art and a fascinating history. I hope people look beyond Iran being this broken place that the news portrays and more deeply into its history and culture.”
*The names Iman, Hira and Mahmoud are pseudonyms to protect the identities of McLean students.
Nicole Johnston • Jan 28, 2026 at 8:20 pm
Excellent reporting! My husband used to attend McLean High School, glad to see students engaging with such important topics.
Shory • Jan 28, 2026 at 3:45 pm
While the personal stories in this article evoke sympathy, the piece presents a largely one-sided narrative and omits critical context that significantly alters the reader’s understanding of events.
First, the article repeatedly suggests that families were unable to communicate solely due to war. This framing is misleading. The Islamic Republic has a long, well-documented practice of intentionally shutting down the internet, particularly during protests and crises. These shutdowns are not accidental consequences of conflict but deliberate policies designed to isolate citizens, suppress information, and prevent the world from witnessing state violence and repression. Failing to acknowledge this shifts responsibility away from the Islamic Republic and misinforms readers.
Second, the article does not explain why many Iranians are openly calling for international assistance following recent mass killings of civilians. Under the international principle of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), when a state proves unwilling or unable to protect its population from mass atrocities—including crimes against humanity—the obligation to protect civilians shifts to the international community. The Islamic Republic’s sustained use of lethal force against protesters, mass arrests, executions, and information blackouts are precisely the circumstances under which R2P is invoked.
Within this context, appeals by Iranians to foreign leaders, including President Donald Trump, should be understood not as political alignment or a desire for foreign control, but as acts of desperation after internal avenues for reform, accountability, and communication have been violently closed. These appeals reflect a collapse of legitimacy, not a rejection of national sovereignty.
The article also omits a crucial political reality: Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi has emerged as the primary opposition figure with widespread public support among Iranians both inside and outside the country. Millions of Iranians openly chant his name, follow his calls for civil resistance, and view him as a unifying figure precisely because he stands outside the Islamic Republic’s power structure.
In contrast, individuals presented as “opposition” who remain active within Iran are, by definition, operating under the constraints and permissions of the Islamic Republic. Many Iranians do not view these figures as legitimate representatives of popular will, but as components of a controlled system designed to preserve the regime rather than dismantle it.
Finally, the article fails to address the broader role of the Islamic Republic in regional instability. For nearly five decades, it has openly promoted hostility toward other nations, funded armed proxy groups, and repeatedly called for the destruction of states it considers enemies. A government that incites violence abroad while violently repressing its own population at home cannot reasonably expect immunity from international consequences. Military conflict does not arise in a vacuum; it is often the foreseeable result of sustained state behavior.
Civilian suffering is tragic and must never be minimized. However, responsible journalism—especially in an educational setting—requires acknowledging cause, accountability, leadership realities, and context, clearly separating personal narrative from verified fact, and presenting multiple perspectives. By excluding these elements, the article moves away from balanced reporting and toward selective advocacy.