That's not what's hypocrisy. Human rights, civil rights are on a whole other scale better in the west, than in a country like Iran. This is not just about hijab, it's about general tyranny.

What is hypocrisy is when we in the west talk about human rights, but go do business deals with dictators. Then human rights become all talk.

The Iranian people have a right to fight for freedom and dignity, and not supporting this would be hypocrisy.

Also this is not something the Iranian people have chosen. This is not a democracy where a majority can choose the direction. Is the legitimacy of a government in your opinion, just whoever have the biggest hammer to beat the population into submission, they should then rule?

Yes, it's difficult. To actually revolutionize it, the government have to be forced out in one way or another, or be forced to change the system fundamentally. There are several ways this can happen in a revolution.
No doubt it's very difficult, the question is if it's within the realm of the possible or not.

South Korea got it's democracy from the military dictatorship when 5 million people went on the streets. They simply surrendered to the giant sea of people.

In other cases the pressure leads to an inside coup, though the Islamic republic has done a lot to avoid this scenario from happening.

A general nationwide strike could also be something that could put immense pressure on the regime.

Another question though. If revolution doesn't come now, does it come later by pure demographic tendency. The protesters are very young, many teenagers, where as the rulers are old men with the supreme leader being 83 years old. If the younger generations, generally despise the regime then the pressure might simply grow and grow over time.

I actually came here to see if anybody were talking about this.

Let me first say that I have a bias because I have an Iranian wife, and I know a number of Iranians trough her. All of the ones I know wishes for regime change. The group around me is of course not representative of the population as a whole.

I would also say it's extremely hard to make opinion polls inside Iran. If you call phone numbers, they can easily be scared to answer honestly, and if you use internet polls there can be bias in who takes the poll.

However there is a data point that proves massive dissent towards the current regime. In the last general election in 2021 (Let's be clear, this is not an actual democratic election system) there were a movement among people that were fed up with the current regime, and that movement agitated for vote boycott. If you compare to the former turnout numbers plus the increase in blank votes, it's actually 32% of the population who participated in the boycott. On top of that, it is unknown how many actually already didn't vote in the former 2017 election, for  the same reason. which had a turnout of 70%. But it's probably a good share of the last 30%.

This is already a big share of the population, based on the official numbers. This is of course if you even believe that the numbers are accurate and the boycott weren't even larger. It's very embarrassing for the regime and this is a country where the press is highly state controlled, and propaganda driven and you might be prosecuted for political view which the regime deems threatening.

Official numbers show 32% boycott + N% of the ones already not voting (The elected president got 35% of the populations votes). I think the the number is most likely significantly higher but I can't prove it. No matter what it's a massive amount of people who actually very well could decide the outcome of a presidential election if they were actually allowed to vote for any candidate they wanted.