# Iranian Americans in San Francisco rally against an immediate end to the Iran war
On 2026-05-24, Iranian Americans gathered at San Francisco’s Ferry Building to argue against a rapid end to the Iran war, saying any settlement that leaves the Islamic Republic in power would sacrifice the chance for real change.
The rally, described in CBS San Francisco’s report, brought together people who said they were torn between the human cost of war and their belief that a negotiated stop now would preserve the ruling system in Tehran. Many speakers said they would not support a peace deal that simply halts the fighting without changing the regime.
That position framed the event around a blunt political calculation. Rally organizer Sophia Rahimi said it would be a major disappointment if the conflict ended before the leadership in Iran was removed, arguing that too much has already been spent and that the opposition was close to toppling the government. Other speakers echoed that view, saying they saw the war as painful but necessary because they believed long-term stability in the Middle East depended on regime change.
The emotional center of the rally came from personal stories of departure and exile. Mahsa Garakani said she had fled Iran for safety reasons and recalled being jailed at 19 after attending a school party with boys. She described the government as brutal and said women and girls in Iran still lacked basic freedoms. Her message was not just about politics but about the fear many attendees said they associated with the current system.
Narges Kashani, another organizer, said the regime could not be trusted and warned against any deal that did not address the broader political order. Tannaz Rahimipour questioned what the point of military action would be if the current government remained in power after the fighting ended. The rally therefore combined anti-regime politics with anxiety about the likely shape of a ceasefire.
The report also showed that the debate was not purely ideological. Some demonstrators acknowledged the economic consequences of the war, including higher costs linked to global instability. Even so, they said those costs were worth bearing if the result was prevention of a greater threat later. Kashani warned that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose danger to the world, while Rahimi used even harsher language to describe the Islamic Republic.
The rally took place against a live diplomatic backdrop. According to the packet, officials had said the emerging deal would open the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for lifting the US blockade, followed by further negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program. On the same day, a senior Trump administration official said Iran had agreed in principle to dispose of highly enriched uranium. The protest therefore sat between the street and the negotiating table, with ordinary supporters of regime change trying to shape public pressure from outside official channels.
Organizers said the San Francisco rallies would continue weekly. They described the gatherings as a way to speak for relatives and others they say cannot do so safely inside Iran. That gives the demonstration a diaspora dimension: it was not only a protest against a possible ceasefire, but also an attempt to keep the political future of Iran open in a moment of war and diplomacy.
The evidence in the packet supports a clear conclusion. The rally was not a call for endless conflict so much as a refusal to accept a peace deal that, in the protesters’ view, freezes the current order in place. Whether that stance influences policy is unclear. But it shows that any settlement on Iran will be judged not only by governments, but by communities that see the war through the lens of exile, loss and the possibility of change.
