Nearly two weeks after the United States and Israel launched airstrikes on Iran that killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and thousands of Iranians, Tufts students and faculty have questioned the war’s motive and the federal government’s messaging while acknowledging the repressive nature of the Iranian regime.
In its response to the attack, Iran struck more than a dozen Middle Eastern neighbors and killed at least seven U.S. military personnel. It also closed the Strait of Hormuz, a major shipping passage, leading to a global economic crisis.
Students involved in the Persian Student Association at Tufts, which held a vigil for Iranian protestors killed in December and January, broadly supported the prospect of change in Iran while expressing concern about the United States’ motives.
Laila Azari, a junior and the president of the PSA, said outside intervention may be necessary to achieve reform for the Iranian people.
“The people come first, rather than politics or anything else,” she said. “Changes need to be made, and if this is the way that changes are made, then I am happy to see it and hopeful for what’s to come next.”
Daniel Porteous, a sophomore and the club’s treasurer, also acknowledged the need for change, but said he remains cautious about U.S. motives.
“Direct involvement in the regime is not necessarily a bad thing, because in order for things to improve, you need change,” he said. “However, I am always worried about U.S. involvement. … When a major power involves itself in the affairs of another country … there’s always going to be self-interest involved.”
President Donald Trump and other top administration officials have faced criticism for shifting rationales for the war, including preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, achieving regime change and thwarting a looming Iranian attack.
Americans have shown a general opposition to the war. Polling from NBC found that 52% of registered voters believed the U.S. should not have taken military action, while 41% supported it.
Malik Mufti, a professor of political science who focuses on the Middle East and international relations, said high levels of opposition from the American public to conflict were unusual, attributing it to the Trump administration’s lack of clarity.
“Usually when the U.S. gets into … military action [against] another country at first, the majority of the population is very gung ho and [initially] supports it,” he said. “But now we have a very high level of opposition to this war already, right from the beginning, because people can’t understand what it’s for.”
Political groups on campus have also voiced their concerns about the ongoing conflict.
David Seaton, a sophomore and president of Tufts Democrats, expressed his frustrations over the Trump administration’s conflicting justifications, harkening back to prior U.S. interventions in the Middle East.
“Donald Trump and the administration didn’t even try to convince Americans that this is a good idea,” he said. “It was very clear that there wasn’t any support from members of our club for President Trump’s war of choice in the Middle East. There was a lot of fear that boots will be on the ground and that … people we know who are entering the military are going to be put in harm’s way.”
Tufts Republicans president Charley Ota, a junior, conveyed his opposition to the strikes but said many of his club members had conflicting views, in part due to support for Israel.
“Personally, I think the strikes were disastrous,” he said. “I think [Iran] might be a threat to some of our allies in the Middle East, but that doesn’t mean we necessarily have to get directly involved in the conflict.”
“A lot of the members of the club have a belief that our relationship with Israel is really important to the United States,” Ota wrote. “I would say most of them are for intervention in even preemptive cases like this one.”
In a joint statement with dozens of university pro-Israel groups, Tufts Friends of Israel did not explicitly endorse or condemn the strikes but expressed support for U.S. and Israeli military personnel as well as the Iranian people’s pursuit of freedom, calling the end of Khamenei’s rule “a pivotal moment.”
The university’s adoption of a policy of institutional pluralism deters administrators “from making statements attributable to Tufts as an institution about political or social matters that do not bear directly upon the university’s core teaching, research, and service mission or its corporate responsibilities.”
A statement from Global Tufts, however, issued guidance on university-related travel, including safety while abroad and travel planning, in a Friday email to students.
The war has also had a direct impact on the families of Iranian students at the university.
Sepideh Azizi, an Iranian graduate research associate at Tufts, said it has been difficult to stay in contact with family members in Iran because of internet shutdowns.
“I was only able to make a brief call with a friend and ask him to check on my mom,” Azizi said. “She’s very old, she’s sick and living alone, and there are places in our neighborhood that have been bombed.”
An Iranian graduate student who requested anonymity out of fear of retaliation said that there is no “cost-free” liberation.
“This is a regime that massacred over 40,000 of its own people just this past January, following decades of executing, torturing, imprisoning, and killing thousands more simply for expressing their opinions. They will never step down peacefully,” they wrote in a statement to the Daily.
Kian Ahmadi, a sophomore and the events planner for the PSA, emphasized the need for curiosity from the Tufts community, calling for genuine care and support.
“I do not want somebody to only speak up for my people when it’s politically convenient,” he said.
