A Dangerous Drift Toward Another Unnecessary War

Signals emerging from Washington point toward a trajectory the world has seen before: military escalation presented as strategic necessity. Reports that the United States is preparing for the possibility of sustained operations against Iran should prompt serious reflection, not only in the region but among policymakers who understand how quickly “limited actions” evolve into prolonged conflicts.

Military preparedness is routine; political judgment is decisive. Confusing the two is where danger begins.

At the heart of the debate lies an uncomfortable legal tension. Iran, as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), retains the right to pursue nuclear technology for civilian purposes under international safeguards. Disputes over compliance are meant to be resolved through verification regimes and diplomacy. When the language of air strikes overshadows the mechanisms of inspection, the credibility of multilateral agreements erodes.

History offers sobering reminders. The 2003 invasion of Iraq, justified by intelligence later discredited, destabilized a fragile state and reshaped regional security in ways few architects anticipated. The 2011 intervention in Libya, backed by NATO, removed an entrenched regime yet failed to deliver sustainable governance. These episodes illustrate a persistent reality: regime change may be swift in execution but chaotic in consequence.

Renewed rhetoric about altering Tehran’s political order risks repeating this pattern. Externally driven transitions rarely produce the institutional stability advocates promise. More often, they generate power vacuums, factional conflict, economic collapse, and long-term regional spillovers.

Moral arguments, too, demand consistency. Criticism of Iran’s domestic policies carries greater weight when human rights principles are applied universally rather than selectively. Standards invoked abroad cannot appear negotiable at home without weakening their persuasive force.

Equally problematic is the inflation of threat narratives. Iran’s regional posture is assertive and frequently destabilizing, particularly through its network of non-state partners. Yet portraying it as an imminent global menace compresses complex geopolitical realities into a binary framework that leaves little room for diplomacy. For Israel, whose security concerns are genuine, long-term stability ultimately rests on deterrence, engagement, and regional balance — not perpetual confrontation.

The risks of a sustained conflict are neither theoretical nor remote. Iran’s missile capabilities, asymmetric tools, and retaliatory doctrine make escalation highly probable. States hosting American military installations could become unintended theatres of reprisal. Energy corridors, shipping routes, and civilian infrastructure across the Gulf would face heightened vulnerability. Even a carefully calibrated campaign could trigger consequences far beyond initial objectives.

Diplomacy is slow, imperfect, and politically inconvenient. War is swift, destructive, and rarely confined to its opening script. Strategic calculations must reflect that asymmetry.

One need not be a head of state to recognize the stakes. Even an ordinary citizen can observe that conflicts launched with confidence often conclude with outcomes no one predicted — except the families, economies, and regions left to absorb the costs.

After decades marked by intervention fatigue and strategic overreach, Washington faces a defining choice: reinforce diplomacy and international law, or drift toward another confrontation whose consequences may exceed its rationale.

Strategic patience is not weakness. In a volatile geopolitical landscape, it is the most credible expression of strength.

Iran’s Revolution Endures at 47

As Iran marks the 47th anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the occasion invites more than ceremonial remembrance. It demands a sober assessment of how a political upheaval that toppled a monarchy evolved into one of the most enduring and debated state projects of the modern era.

For ordinary Iranians, the revolution’s legacy remains layered. In its formative decades, the Islamic Republic expanded literacy, strengthened primary healthcare, and extended infrastructure into rural regions long neglected under the Shah. Education enrollment surged, and social development indicators improved. Just as significantly, the revolution institutionalized a powerful narrative of sovereignty, independence, and resistance to external domination. Yet these achievements coexist with persistent challenges: sanctions-driven economic strain, inflation, currency volatility, and high youth unemployment. A younger, digitally connected generation increasingly measures progress through economic opportunity, social mobility, and personal freedoms—metrics that often fuel domestic debate and periodic unrest.

An important, often oversimplified dimension is contemporary support for the revolutionary system. While global commentary frequently highlights dissent, Iranian society presents a more complex picture. Many citizens—particularly within rural constituencies, state-linked sectors, and groups prioritizing stability and national autonomy—continue to view the revolution as a guarantor of independence and social order. Commemorations still mobilize participation. At the same time, support is rarely unconditional; it exists alongside criticism of governance, economic management, and civil liberties. This coexistence of loyalty and frustration reflects a society negotiating reform rather than uniformly rejecting the state’s ideological foundations.

Externally, the revolution has operated under the shadow of sustained US opposition. Decades of sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and strategic confrontation have sought to constrain Tehran’s regional influence and nuclear ambitions. The result has been paradoxical: economic hardship and technological constraints on one side, but also a reinforced Iranian emphasis on self-reliance, deterrence, and strategic patience.

Regionally, Iran’s emergence as a consequential power is unmistakable. Through asymmetric capabilities, calibrated alliances, and geopolitical persistence, Tehran has embedded itself deeply in West Asian security dynamics. Whether perceived as stabilizer, disruptor, or balancer, Iran today is central to regional calculations.

At 47, the Iranian Revolution stands neither as a frozen triumph nor a failed experiment. It is a living, evolving project—tested by economic pressures, shaped by generational change, and defined by a resilience that continues to confound predictions of its demise.

Should Iran Stop Entry of Ships with US Flag in the Strait of Hormuz?

The Strait of Hormuz is not just another sea lane — it is arguably the most consequential chokepoint in global energy geography. At its narrowest, the strait squeezes to just over 21 nautical miles, with segments falling within what Iran views — and much of the world recognizes — as its territorial waters. Yet, Washington, despite a policy of “maximum pressure” against Tehran, insists its vessels must transit unimpeded through these waters. This contradiction lies at the heart of the current impasse.

Under international law, coastal states exercise sovereignty over territorial waters, typically extending twelve nautical miles from their shorelines. While the regime of “transit passage” over straits used for international navigation exists, it is not absolute — especially when strategic maritime access is leveraged amid acute political tensions. Iran asserts that a combination of sanctions, military threats, and economic strangulation amounts to coercion, undermining the spirit of norms meant to protect freedom of navigation.

The US “maximum pressure” policy — a blend of sweeping sanctions, tariffs on Iran’s trading partners, asset freezes, and diplomatic isolation — aims to squeeze Tehran’s economy and force it back to the negotiating table on Washington’s terms. It has undoubtedly inflicted economic pain: deep currency depreciation, elevated inflation, and a contraction in trade with global partners. Yet, the policy has not delivered the strategic outcomes Washington seeks.

Iran has not fully capitulated on its nuclear ambitions, nor has it ceased support for networks that counter US influence in the region. Indeed, analysts argue that the policy’s unrelenting coercion without a clear diplomatic exit has hardened Tehran’s posture rather than moderated it.

Critically, this pressure campaign has complicated the very objective it claims to uphold — ensuring stable maritime traffic. Rather than diminishing Iran’s leverage, sustained economic and military posturing risks escalating incidents around the strait. Maritime advisories urging US-flagged vessels to stay as far as safely possible from Iranian waters reflect this unease.

If the United States wants unrestricted passage for its vessels, it must reckon with the paradox of demanding rights while applying relentless pressure that invites resistance. A sustainable solution demands not just naval escorts and sanctions, but a calibrated diplomatic engagement that acknowledges Iran’s legitimate security concerns without compromising global trade imperatives.

In a narrow channel where diplomacy and deterrence meet, rigidity will only make a bottleneck worse.

Does Iran Have the Right to Enrich Uranium?

Iran’s right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes is grounded in international law, not ideological sympathy. As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran is legally entitled to develop nuclear technology for civilian uses such as medical isotopes, electricity generation, and scientific research, provided it remains under international safeguards. Tehran has consistently maintained that it does not seek nuclear weapons. Distrust alone cannot nullify a treaty-based right.

For nearly five decades, Iran has been subjected to economic sanctions, covert operations, cyber sabotage, and targeted killings of nuclear scientists. These measures, justified in the name of non-proliferation, have failed to eliminate Iran’s nuclear capability. Instead, they have entrenched confrontation, weakened moderates, and institutionalized hostility as a policy tool.

Israel has played the most aggressive role in this strategy. Operating with implicit Western backing, it has repeatedly attacked Iranian assets and openly threatened pre-emptive strikes. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s recurring warnings of unilateral military action reflect a dangerous mindset: one that treats force as a substitute for diplomacy and assumes escalation can be controlled. History suggests otherwise.

Any military adventurism against Iran would not remain a limited strike. It would provoke retaliation across the region, destabilize already fragile states, disrupt global energy supplies, and risk drawing major powers into a wider confrontation. The Middle East is already burdened by overlapping crises; igniting a new war over speculative threat perceptions would be an act of strategic recklessness.

If the objective is to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation, coercion has proven ineffective. Verification, inspections, and negotiated limits offer far greater security than sanctions and bombs. The West must accept that peaceful enrichment under monitoring is safer than perpetual confrontation.

Equally important, Muslim countries must move beyond silence and ambiguity. Enabling or facilitating attacks on Iran, directly or indirectly, only accelerates regional self-destruction. Strategic autonomy demands collective restraint.

Enough is enough. Denying legal rights, normalizing aggression, and tolerating unilateral strikes will not bring stability. They will only push the Middle East closer to a conflict whose consequences no one—not even its architects—can control.

Trump’s Iran Posturing Is Not Diplomacy, but Coercion

Donald Trump’s latest threat to attack Iran unless Tehran submits to his demands is not diplomacy, it is coercion masquerading as negotiation. Washington claims the upcoming Oman talks focus on Iran’s nuclear program. In reality, Trump is exploiting military pressure and Iran’s recent domestic unrest to force sweeping political concessions. His warning that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei should be “very worried” reveals the real intent: intimidation, not engagement.

The starting point is simple. Trump himself tore up the 2015 nuclear agreement in 2018, despite Iran’s compliance verified by international inspectors. By walking away from an UN-backed deal, he forfeited any moral authority to dictate new terms. Having dismantled the framework, he now seeks to resurrect it with added demands — including Iran’s missile program, regional alliances, and internal policies. That is not renegotiation; it is strategic extortion.

If this were genuinely about uranium enrichment, talks would remain technical and narrow. Instead, US officials insist on expanding the agenda to missiles, proxy groups, and Iran’s domestic affairs. Tehran has rightly rejected this maximalist approach, agreeing only to discuss nuclear issues.

Trump’s reported preconditions — zero uranium enrichment, missile restrictions, and abandonment of regional partners — amount to demanding Iran’s strategic surrender. Zero enrichment alone violates Iran’s rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which permits peaceful nuclear activity. Iranian officials have even signaled flexibility on enrichment levels, yet Washington insists on total prohibition.

Simultaneously, the US has deployed an aircraft carrier, warships, fighter jets, and thousands of troops to the region. Drones have been shot down, naval encounters are escalating, and oil prices are rising. This is classic gunboat diplomacy.

The irony is striking. Trump warns of nuclear danger while having destroyed the very inspection regime that restrained Iran’s program. He pressures Tehran under threat of airstrikes, while Israel — a non-NPT nuclear power — remains beyond scrutiny. The double standard is glaring.

Negotiations conducted under the shadow of missiles are not negotiations. They are ultimatums.

If Trump truly sought stability, he would rejoin the agreement he abandoned, remove preconditions, and restore inspections-based diplomacy. Instead, he is gambling with another Middle East conflict — one that could engulf the entire region.

This is not statesmanship. It is brinkmanship.

Muslim World at a Crossroads: OIC Must Act Before Iran Becomes the Next Battlefield

President Donald Trump’s increasingly belligerent rhetoric toward Iran should ring alarm bells across the Muslim world. Since Washington tightened its grip on Venezuela—effectively neutralizing its oil exports and political sovereignty—the White House’s tone on Tehran has grown markedly harsher. Today, threats of regime change, military strikes, and even targeted assassinations of Iran’s top clergy are being voiced with unsettling openness.

This trajectory is neither accidental nor unprecedented.

Recent Israeli and US operations against Iran succeeded largely because of access to regional airspace and ground facilities provided by neighboring Muslim countries. That cooperation—whether voluntary or extracted under pressure—proved decisive. There is little reason to believe the next phase, should it materialize, would be any different. On the contrary, Washington is almost certainly weighing which regional capitals might again be persuaded, coerced, or compelled to facilitate action against Tehran.

Herein lies the collective failure of Muslim leadership.

Individually, many states lack the political or economic resilience to withstand sustained US pressure. Collectively they possess enormous diplomatic weight, energy leverage, and strategic relevance. Yet this collective strength remains largely untapped, diluted by divisions and bilateral calculations.

This is precisely why the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) must immediately convene an emergency summit.

Such a meeting should not be symbolic. It must produce a clear, unified resolution rejecting any military action against Iran and warning against the use of Muslim territories, airspace, or infrastructure for attacks on a fellow Muslim nation. Silence or ambiguity will be interpreted as consent.

Muslim rulers must also confront a sobering reality: Iran is not the endgame. Washington’s broader strategy has long revolved around reshaping political landscapes in energy-rich Muslim countries, often replacing sovereign governments with compliant “puppet” regimes. Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan offer painful reminders of how external intervention leaves behind fractured societies and enduring instability.

The argument here is not about endorsing Iran’s policies. It is about safeguarding regional sovereignty and preventing yet another war that would devastate Muslim populations while serving external geopolitical interests.

History will judge today’s leaders by whether they chose unity over expediency.

If the Muslim world fails to draw a firm collective line now, it risks becoming a revolving battlefield—one country at a time. An emergency OIC meeting is not merely desirable; it is an urgent strategic necessity.

US “armada” heading towards Middle East

US President Donald Trump said on Thursday a naval “armada” was heading toward the Middle East, as he renewed warnings to Tehran against killing protesters or restarting its nuclear program.

“We’re watching Iran,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One on Thursday as he flew back from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

“We have a big force going towards Iran,” Trump said.

“I’d rather not see anything happen, but we’re watching them very closely,” he said.

Trump’s announcement on the US naval buildup comes after he appeared to back-pedal last week on his threats of military action against Iran.

US officials said the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and other assets would arrive in the Middle East in the coming days.

One official said additional air-defense systems were also being eyed for the Middle East, which could be critical to guard against any Iranian strike on US bases in the region.

The warships started moving from the Asia-Pacific last week as tensions between Iran and the United States soared following a severe crackdown on protests across Iran in recent months.

Trump had repeatedly threatened to intervene against Iran over the recent killings of protesters there but protests dwindled last week. The president backed away from his toughest rhetoric last week, claiming he had stopped executions of prisoners.

He repeated that claim on Thursday, saying Iran canceled nearly 840 hangings after his warnings.

"I said: 'If you hang those people, you're going to be hit harder than you've ever been hit. It'll make what we did to your Iran nuclear (program) look like peanuts,'" Trump said.

"At an hour before this horrible thing was going to take place, they canceled it," he said, calling it "a good sign."

The US military has in the past periodically surged forces to the Middle East at times of heightened tensions, moves that were often defensive.

However, the US military staged a major buildup last year ahead of its June strikes against Iran's nuclear program.

Revoking Araghchi’s Davos invitation highlights blatant double standards

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has slammed the World Economic Forum (WEF) for revoking an invitation to the annual meeting in Davos over his country’s crackdown on recent protests, accusing the forum of applying “blatant double standards” and succumbing to political pressure from Israel.

The WEF confirmed that Araghchi will not attend this year’s summit, running until January 23, saying that “although he was invited last fall, the tragic loss of lives of civilians in Iran over the past few weeks means that it is not right for the Iranian government to be represented at Davos this year.”

Araghchi said in a post on X on Monday night that the decision was made by WEF “on the basis of lies and political pressure from Israel and its US-based proxies and apologists.”

Araghchi had been scheduled to speak on Tuesday during the summit at the Swiss ski resort town.

The Iranian minister criticized what he called the WEF’s “blatant double standards” for keeping an invitation open to Israel’s President Isaac Herzog despite international accusations of genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza.

Araghchi said the forum’s decision came even though “Israel's genocide of Palestinians and mass slaughter of 71,000 innocent people did not compel it to cancel any invitation extended to Israeli officials whatsoever.”

The WEF's decision comes as stability has been restored across Iran following a period of foreign-instigated unrest.

What began as peaceful protests late last month gradually turned violent, as rioters rampaged through cities across the country, killing security forces and attacking public infrastructure.

The foreign minister stressed that the Iranian government had to defend the people against “armed terrorists and ISIS-style killings" openly backed by the Israeli spy agency Mossad.

The US and Israel have acknowledged their direct involvement on the ground, with former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tweeting, "Happy New Year to every Iranian in the streets. Also, to every Mossad agent walking beside them."

Germany, one of the United States' closest and strongest allies in Europe, also stated its opposition to extending an invitation to Iranian officials.

The Munich Security Conference on Friday said it was also withdrawing an invitation to Araghchi. 

 

Trump's unenforceable red line with Iran

US President Donald Trump’s handling of Iran once again exposes a familiar pattern: aggressive rhetoric followed by strategic hesitation. By publicly assuring Iranian protesters that “help is coming,” Trump drew a red line that was emotionally charged but strategically hollow. As events unfold, it is becoming evident that this red line is unenforceable—not because of a lack of military power, but because of the absence of political clarity and regional consensus.

Having openly aligned himself with anti-government demonstrators, Trump boxed his administration into a dilemma. Either act militarily and risk a wider regional conflagration, or step back and invite accusations of weakness. Analysts rightly argue that this corner was self-created. Grand declarations, made without an executable plan, rarely translate into sustainable policy—especially in a region as volatile as the Middle East.

While the White House insists that “all options remain on the table,” reality suggests otherwise. The dispatch of the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group is more symbolic than operational in the immediate term. By the Pentagon’s own assessments, the United States is not positioned for a sustained campaign against Iran anytime soon. Military capability, though abundant, does not automatically equate to political will or strategic wisdom.

More telling is the diplomatic activity behind the scenes. Key regional allies—Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Oman—are reportedly urging restraint, fully aware that a strike on Iran could ignite a multinational conflict with unpredictable consequences. Even Israel, often portrayed as hawkish, appears cautious about escalation without a clear endgame. Trump’s assertion that he “convinced himself” to pause action only reinforces the perception of impulsive decision-making rather than coordinated strategy.

Crucially, Middle East experts remain skeptical that limited military strikes would achieve Washington’s stated objective of regime change. Iran’s clerical establishment has historically thrived under external pressure, using sanctions and threats to consolidate internal control. Economic hardship has not fractured the regime; it has hardened it.

In the final analysis, Trump’s Iran policy reflects a dangerous imbalance—maximum rhetoric paired with minimum foresight. Red lines that cannot be enforced weaken credibility, embolden adversaries, and unsettle allies. In geopolitics, restraint backed by strategy is strength; noise without direction is not.

Pentagon moving carrier strike group toward Middle East

According to The Hill, the Pentagon on Thursday said it is moving a carrier strike group from the South China Sea toward the Middle East as tensions between the US and Iran continue to rise. The USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier and its strike group were spotted moving west away from the Indo-Pacific region. The movement of the carrier strike group — which includes fighter jets, guided missile destroyers and at least one attack submarine — is expected to take about a week. 

This movement comes as tensions between Washington and Tehran have spiked amid unrest in Iran over its economy and questions about whether President Trump will strike the country to aid mass protests challenging the autocratic regime.

Trump earlier this week encouraged Iranian protesters to continue pressuring the regime and vowed that “help is on the way,” signaling potential US intervention. But Tehran has pushed back with its own threats.

The president so far has held off on any strikes in Iran, continuing to monitor the situation in the country. He was also advised that a large-scale strike against Iran was unlikely to topple the regime and could instead set off a wider conflict.

Advisers informed Trump that the US military would need more troops and equipment in the Middle East to launch any large-scale strike while still protecting American forces in the region from potential retaliation, according to the Journal.

A senior US official also told The New York Times that Trump is waiting to see Iran’s next move as he considers striking such targets as ballistic missile sites and Iran’s domestic security apparatus, and that any attack “is at least several days away.”

Protests have escalated in Iran since late December in response to declining economic conditions. It’s not clear exactly how many people have died in the protests because of the Iranian government’s internet blackout across the country, but the Human Rights Activists News Agency said more than 2,600 people have been killed and more than 184,000 have been detained. 

Iran has largely been restricting information in and out of the country, and Wednesday it issued a “Notice to Air Missions,” or NOTAM, that flights in and out of Tehran have been restricted.

The US administration on Thursday also announced new sanctions against “the architects of the Iranian regime’s brutal crackdown on peaceful demonstrators” and the “shadow banking networks” alleged to be helping wealthy Iranians divert funds generated by the country’s natural resources.

The USS Abraham Lincoln has been deployed since late November, after it departed San Diego with no Pentagon announcement for where it would be sent. 

 

Why Trump Refuses to Accept Failure in Iran

Once again, Iran has moved to the center of global headlines, accompanied by renewed threats from US President Donald Trump and fresh speculation about regime change. The language may sound forceful, but the strategic reality is far less dramatic. Nearly five decades after the 1979 revolution, the world’s most powerful country has failed to dismantle Iran’s clerical system. This is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of record. What remains puzzling is Washington’s persistent refusal to accept this failure.

Since the establishment of the Islamic Republic, the United States has employed every conceivable pressure tactic—crippling economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, covert operations, cyber warfare and sustained political hostility through regional allies. If the objective was to topple the “Mullah regime,” the outcome is self-evident. The system remains intact, resilient and, in some respects, more consolidated than before.

Ironically, sanctions—long projected as a non-military means of forcing political change—have produced results opposite to those promised. Instead of empowering reformist forces, they have weakened Iran’s middle class, historically the most potent driver of political evolution. At the same time, state-linked institutions, particularly those associated with security and defence, have expanded their influence over the economy. External pressure has also enabled the ruling establishment to frame dissent as foreign-sponsored, thereby justifying tighter internal control.

Washington’s reluctance to admit strategic failure is understandable, though not defensible. Acknowledging defeat would challenge the credibility of sanctions as a global policy tool and expose the limits of American coercive power. Yet denial comes at a heavy cost. Persisting with a failed approach deepens instability, prolongs economic suffering and increases the risk of miscalculation—without delivering political transformation.

Even more alarming is the absence of any credible post-clerical roadmap. History offers sobering lessons. Iraq, Libya and Syria demonstrate what happens when regimes are dismantled without a viable alternative governance structure. Iran’s opposition remains fragmented—divided ideologically, geographically and socially, with much of its leadership disconnected from realities on the ground. There is no unified transitional plan, no agreed security framework and no consensus on state reconstruction.

In this context, calls to arm “rebels” or encourage violent uprising are deeply troubling. The militarization of dissent has repeatedly produced chaos rather than peace. From Syria to Libya, weapons fractured societies, empowered militias and destroyed state institutions. Iran, with its dense urban population and complex social fabric, would be particularly vulnerable. Street violence may dismantle authority, but it cannot build a stable political order.

If peace and stability are genuinely desired, policy must shift from illusion to realism. Political change cannot be imposed through threats or sanctions alone. Gradual economic engagement, calibrated sanctions relief and regional dialogue offer more sustainable pathways. Strengthening economic normalcy and civil society may not yield immediate results, but they create conditions under which internal evolution becomes possible.

The lesson is clear. Pressure has failed, and force will fail again. Peace in Iran—and across the region—will not emerge from regime-change fantasies, but from strategies grounded in historical experience, restraint and political realism.

Trump urges Iranians to keep protesting, help is on its way

US President Donald Trump urged Iranians on Tuesday to keep protesting and said help was on the way, without giving details, as Iran's clerical establishment pressed its crackdown against the biggest demonstrations in years.

"Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING - TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!!... HELP IS ON ITS WAY," Trump said in a post on Truth Social, adding he had canceled all meetings with Iranian officials until the "senseless killing" of protesters stopped.

The unrest, sparked by dire economic conditions, has posed the biggest internal challenge to Iran's rulers for at least three years and has come at a time of intensifying international pressure after Israeli and US strikes last year.

An Iranian official said earlier on Tuesday that about 2,000 people had been killed in the protests, the first-time authorities have acknowledged the high death toll from more than two weeks of nationwide unrest.

The official, speaking to Reuters, said that people he called terrorists were behind the deaths of both protesters and security personnel. The official, who declined to be named, did not give a breakdown of who had been killed.

On Monday evening, Trump announced 25% import tariffs on products from any country doing business with Iran - a major oil exporter. Trump has also said more military action is among options he is weighing to punish Iran over the crackdown.

Tehran has not yet responded publicly to Trump's announcement of the tariffs, but it was swiftly criticized by China. Iran, already under heavy US sanctions, exports much of its oil to China, with Turkey, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates and India among its other top trading partners.

Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi told Al Jazeera on Monday that he had continued to communicate with US special envoy Steve Witkoff during the protests and that Tehran was studying ideas proposed by Washington.

Iranian authorities have accused the US and Israel of fomenting the unrest.

Russia condemned what it described as "subversive external interference" in Iran's internal politics, saying that US.threats of new military strikes against the country were "categorically unacceptable."

"Those who plan to use externally inspired unrest as a pretext for repeating the aggression against Iran committed in June 2025 must be aware of the disastrous consequences of such actions for the situation in the Middle East and global international security," the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement on Tuesday.

Despite the protests, which come at a particularly vulnerable moment for authorities given the scale of economic problems, and years of external pressure, there are as yet no signs of fracture in the security elite that could bring an end to the clerical system in power since a 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Britain, France, Germany and Italy all summoned Iranian ambassadors in protest over the crackdown.

"The brutal actions of the Iranian regime against its own people are shocking," the German Foreign Ministry said on social media platform X.

Item 1 of 4 Iranian demonstrators gather in a street during a protest over the collapse of the currency's value, in Tehran, Iran, January 8, 2026. Stringer/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS

Underscoring international uncertainty over what comes next in Iran, which has been one of the dominant powers across the Middle East for decades, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said he believed the government would fall.

"I assume that we are now witnessing the final days and weeks of this regime," he said, adding that if it had to maintain power through violence, "it is effectively at its end".

Araqchi dismissed Merz's criticisms, accusing Berlin of double standards and saying he had "obliterated any shred of credibility".

The protests began on December 28, 2025 over the fall in value of the currency and have grown into wider demonstrations and calls for the fall of the clerical establishment.

Hengaw, an Iranian Kurdish rights group, has reported that a 26-year-old man, Erfan Soltani, arrested in connection with protests in the city of Karaj, will be executed on Wednesday. Authorities had told the family that the death sentence was final, Hengaw reported, citing a source close to the family.

"The rushed and non-transparent handling of this case has heightened concerns over the use of the death penalty as a tool to suppress public protests," Hengaw said on Monday.

Parliament member Mohammadreza Sabaghian, who represents an area in Yazd, in central Iran, said the government needed to resolve people's dissatisfaction, otherwise "the same events will occur with greater intensity".

 

 

 

Iranian Foreign Minister claims situation under control

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Monday that the situation in Iran is “under control” with “many terrorist operatives” arrested.

He told foreign diplomats in a televised meeting that “confessions will be released soon” and said there is “substantial evidence of foreign involvement.”

He also said Iran is ready to negotiate with the US based on “mutual respect and interests.”

“As I have said repeatedly, we are also ready for negotiations — but fair and dignified negotiations, from an equal position, with mutual respect and based on mutual interests,” Araghchi said.

The foreign minister’s statements came after US President Donald Trump said on Sunday that Iran had “called to negotiate,” as his administration weighs potential military options for intervention against Tehran following the demonstrations.

The Iranian government has stated its readiness to negotiate several times in previous months.

Foreign ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei said the communication channel between Araghchi and US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff “remains open” and “whenever necessary, messages are exchanged through that channel.” He added that “certain points and ideas have been presented by the other side,” referring to the US.

Large crowds of people have gathered in various Iranian cities in support of the country’s regime, according to video broadcast by state media.

People can be seen carrying images of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, holding up copies of the Qur'an and waving Islamic Republic flags in demonstrations in cities including Kerman and Zahedan.

Iranian state agencies had called for nationwide marches on Monday in support of the regime which has faced down more than two weeks of growing protests fueled by spiraling anger over the economy, authoritarian rule and a deadly crackdown on demonstrators.

Iran’s Civil Aviation Organization said all flights are “operating normally and without problems” and airport services are fully functioning.

Majid Akhavan, spokesman for the organization, said travelers concerned about the status of flights because of recent internet-related issues “can obtain up-to-date information directly from airport sources”, the official Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) reported.

Iran's president said Sunday that his government is determined to address Iran’s economic problems amid ongoing protests in several parts of the country.

Iran’s “enemies are seeking to sow chaos and instability” following the country’s 12-day war last June with Israel, Masoud Pezeshkian told the state television.

His remarks were the first since protests that began last month over worsening economic conditions and the record depreciation of the national currency, the rial, turned violent last week.

Pezeshkian condemned recent attacks on public places, including mosques, in Tehran and other Iranian cities, blaming the US and Israel for the violence.

There are no official casualty figures, but some NGOs outside Iran estimate the death toll at 116, including both security forces and protesters, with over 1,000 injured.

Iranian officials have accused Washington and Tel Aviv of backing the increasingly violent protests, particularly in Tehran, where government buildings, banks, buses, and mosques have been set ablaze by armed protesters in recent days.

Internet connectivity has also been suspended across the country.

Pezeshkian accused the US and Israel of “training certain groups” inside and outside the country and bringing “terrorists from abroad” to set mosques, markets, and public places on fire.

“They have killed some with weapons, burned others, and beheaded some. Truly, these crimes are beyond our people’s nature. These are not our people. They do not belong to this country. If someone protests for this country, we listen and address their concerns,” he said.

The Iranian president said his government admits to “shortcomings and problems” and is working hard to alleviate the people’s concerns, especially regarding the economy.

“Where in the world are such protests and behaviors accepted as protests? If this happened in the US, would Americans allow it? Would Europeans allow it? If someone attacked a military base or city center, would they say, ‘Go ahead and loot it’,” he said.

He insisted that those attacking public property are not protesters, but rioters, adding that the government is willing to meet with and listen to those who have legitimate concerns.

Pezeshkian said the US and Israel tried to bring Iranians “to their knees” during the 12-day war in June but failed, and now seek to do the same through “riots.”

“We will build this country with the people’s help and stand firmly against the external conspiracies and riots, with the help of producers and merchants. We will stop them with power,” he said, offering condolences to those who have died in the ongoing protests.

Before the protests turned violent on Thursday night, US President Trump tweeted that the US would “come to the rescue” of Iranian protesters if the government used lethal force against them.

His remarks drew sharp criticism from top Iranian officials, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, security chief Ali Larijani, and Foreign Minister Araghchi.

Pezeshkian accused the US and Israel of instigating Iranian youth.

“The same people who destroyed this country and killed our youth and children now instruct these rioters to destroy more.”

He reassured the public that his government will work to solve their problems and urged families “not to let their youth mix with rioters and terrorists who kill and behead.”

“Protest if you must; we will listen and solve your concerns. Let us work together to solve problems. But worsening the country’s economic situation through chaos serves no one,” he said.

Courtesy: Saudi Gazette

 

Iran: Myth of Regime Engineering

Nearly half a century after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, one uncomfortable truth remains intact- the United States has failed to toppling Iran’s clergy-dominated political system. From covert operations to overt pressure, from sanctions to sabotage, Washington’s arsenal has been vast—but its outcomes limited. This reality challenges a deeply entrenched belief in Western policymaking circles that sustained external pressure can reengineer sovereign political systems.

The US–Iran confrontation began with high drama. The failed 1980 rescue mission to free American embassy staff in Tehran was an early signal that Iran would not bend easily. Since then, the playbook has expanded—economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, cyber warfare, targeted killings, and strikes on strategic installations. Each tactic was presented as decisive; none proved so. Even with Israel’s fullest political, intelligence, and military backing, the objective of dismantling Iran’s clerical power structure remains unmet.

Washington’s current emphasis on internal unrest follows a familiar pattern. Protests in Iran—whether driven by economic hardship, social restrictions, or political frustration—are quickly framed as precursors to regime collapse. Yet history offers little evidence that externally encouraged demonstrations can dismantle a deeply entrenched ideological state. On the contrary, such pressure often consolidates power by allowing the ruling elite to externalize blame and tighten internal control.

The comparison—explicit or implied—with Venezuela is particularly flawed. The assumption that methods used against Caracas can be replicated in Tehran ignores fundamental differences. Iran is not an oil-dependent, institutionally hollow state with fractured elite consensus. It possesses ideological cohesion, parallel power structures, and decades of experience in surviving siege conditions. The belief that eliminating a leadership figure—or fueling street unrest—can unravel this system reflects strategic illusion rather than informed assessment.

That said, dismissing Iran’s internal weaknesses would be equally misleading. Economic mismanagement, corruption allegations, demographic pressure, and social discontent are real and persistent. Sanctions have undeniably deepened hardship, but domestic policy failures have magnified their impact. Iran’s ruling establishment has often responded to dissent with rigidity rather than reform, narrowing its own margin for legitimacy. These internal contradictions—not foreign intervention—pose the most credible long-term challenge to clerical dominance.

The paradox is stark - US pressure has hurt Iranian society more than it has weakened the state, while simultaneously validating the regime’s narrative of perpetual external threat. Each failed attempt at coercion reinforces Tehran’s claim that resistance, not accommodation, ensures survival.

The lesson from five decades of confrontation is neither ideological nor moral—it is strategic. Regimes are rarely dismantled from the outside, especially those forged in revolution and sustained through resistance. Iran’s future will be shaped primarily by its own political evolution, not by foreign-engineered upheaval. Any policy that ignores this reality is destined to repeat past failures—at great human and geopolitical cost.

 

Trump’s Iran Threats and America’s ICE Reality

President Donald Trump’s reported warning to Iran — that Washington may attack if Tehran’s clergy-led regime cracks down on demonstrators — would carry moral weight if it were not so deeply undermined by events unfolding inside the United States itself. The contradiction is stark, uncomfortable, and revealing.

Over the weekend, tens of thousands marched through Minneapolis to protest the fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renee Good by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer. The protest was not an isolated outburst. It was part of more than 1,000 coordinated rallies nationwide against what the federal government calls a “deportation drive,” but what many Americans now see as state violence carried out under the cover of immigration enforcement.

Demonstrators chanted “Abolish ICE” and “No justice, no peace — get ICE off our streets,” slogans born not of ideology alone but of lived experience. Bystander video, cited by Minnesota officials, reportedly shows Good’s car turning away as the agent fired. The Department of Homeland Security insists the agent acted in self-defense, claiming the vehicle was “weaponized.” This language has become routine — and troublingly convenient.

Within days, a similar incident occurred in Portland, Oregon, where a Border Patrol agent shot and wounded two people during a vehicle stop, again citing an alleged attempt to run over agents. Two shootings, two cities, identical justifications. The pattern is hard to ignore.

What makes this moment particularly jarring is timing. These shootings followed the deployment of nearly 2,000 federal officers to the Minneapolis–St. Paul area in what DHS described as its largest operation ever. When a heavily armed state expands its enforcement footprint and civilians end up dead, the moral high ground becomes difficult to claim — especially while lecturing other nations on restraint.

Trump’s threats against Iran are framed as a defense of human rights. Yet at home, protestors braving freezing winds speak of heartbreak, anger, and devastation after witnessing a fellow citizen killed by a federal agent. The administration dismisses outrage as political noise while portraying force as necessity.

This is the duality of Trump’s America - intolerance for repression abroad, justification for it at home; outrage over demonstrators elsewhere, suspicion of demonstrators on its own streets. Until Washington reconciles this contradiction, its warnings to Tehran will sound less like principled diplomacy and more like selective morality wrapped in power.

Trump will kill Khamenei if Iranian regime continues murdering protesters

As headlines from The Jerusalem Post scream warnings of extreme US retaliation — including provocative assertions that Donald Trump might kill Ayatollah Khamenei should Tehran continue its violent suppression of protesters — it is easy to dismiss such rhetoric as hawkish posturing. Yet these headlines reflect a deeper strategic shift in US foreign policy that vindicates concerns I outlined in recent blogs that Washington’s punitive sanctions and coercive diplomacy have crafted the miseries inside Iran, and could now be laying the groundwork for external confrontation rather than domestic reform.

Iran is convulsed by one of its largest protest movements in years, driven not by some abstract ideological rebellion, but by grinding economic hardship — a direct consequence of tightening sanctions and economic isolation that have decimated ordinary livelihoods. These sanctions are widely opposed by international human rights actors because they disproportionately punish the populace rather than the political elite, exacerbating inflation and scarcity while eroding the state’s capacity to address domestic grievances.

Into this tinderbox enters a U.S. administration increasingly willing to ‘lock and load’ at the first sign of violent repression. Statements from US officials threatening lethal force against Iranian leadership if protests continue to be crushed are not isolated soundbites — they are symptomatic of a broader policy framework that conflates authoritarian repression with existential threat. The arrest of Venezuela’s president and the subdued global response appear to have emboldened hardliners in Washington who now see regime decapitation as a plausible extension of coercive diplomacy.

This is not to romanticize theocratic rule in Tehran. But conflating internal unrest rooted in economic despair with a casus belli against the Iranian state risks legitimizing harsher US interventions that increasingly look directed not at human rights but at regime change itself. The deeper injustice lies not just in Iran’s domestic repression, but in the US foreign policy calculus that has, through sanctions and threat of force, nurtured the very suffering it now claims to oppose.

Iran: US Crafts Miseries and Blames Clergy

Washington continues to promote a convenient narrative that Iran’s clergy-led political system alone is responsible for the economic suffering of its people. Recent street protests—driven by inflation, unemployment, and a weakening currency—are being projected as evidence of regime failure. What remains largely unspoken is the decisive role the United States has played in shaping Iran’s economic distress.

Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran has lived under successive waves of US-led sanctions. These measures were neither symbolic nor limited. These systematically targeted banking channels, energy exports, trade flows, and foreign investment, effectively isolating Iran from the global economy. The consequences are visible: a battered currency, chronic inflation, supply shortages, and restricted access to essential imports. Blaming the clergy while ignoring decades of economic strangulation is a selective reading of reality.

The sanctions regime has been justified primarily by allegations that Iran is developing an atomic bomb. Yet these claims remain unproven. Iran has repeatedly denied seeking nuclear weapons, and international inspections conducted under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) found no evidence of active weaponization before the agreement was unilaterally abandoned by Washington in 2018. The parallel with Iraq is difficult to ignore. There, too, unverified claims about weapons of mass destruction were treated as established facts, with disastrous consequences.

Pressure on Iran has also extended beyond economics. Cyberattacks, sabotages operations, and strikes on strategic installations—widely attributed to the United States and Israel—suggest a shift from coercion to destabilization. Such actions have not altered Iran’s strategic behavior; instead, these have increased regional volatility and reduced space for diplomacy.

If concern for the Iranian people were genuine, sanctions relief would be the starting point. Economic normalization offers a more credible path to internal reform than perpetual punishment. Five decades of pressure have neither collapsed the state nor moderated policy, but these have deepened public suffering.

The recent attempt to externally reshape Venezuela’s political order has further fueled fears in Tehran. Many now worry that Iran’s leadership could face similar tactics—arrest, assassination, or engineered collapse.

History offers a blunt lesson: sanctions punish societies, not regimes. Until this reality is acknowledged, the misery of ordinary Iranians will continue to be manufactured abroad and misattributed at home.

Will Iran Be the Next Target?

The reported capture of Venezuela’s president should not be seen as an isolated incident. It resembles a full-dress rehearsal—a live demonstration of how far the United States is willing to go to impose political outcomes beyond its borders. For those still clinging to the illusion of sovereign immunity in the international system, this episode should serve as a sobering wake-up call.

Washington has a long record of attempting regime change in Venezuela through sanctions, covert operations, and diplomatic isolation. These efforts largely failed to unseat the government, but they steadily weakened the country’s economy and institutions. When economic strangulation did not deliver political submission, escalation appeared inevitable. The capture of a sitting president marks a dangerous new threshold, one that blurs the line between foreign policy and outright coercion.

History offers unsettling parallels. One may recall the failed attempt by the US in 1980 to free its embassy staff held hostage in Iran. Though framed as a rescue mission, it underscored Washington’s readiness to violate sovereign territory when strategic or political pressure mounts.

More recently, Sheikh Hasina’s transfer to India can be viewed through a similar prism: political outcomes shaped not by domestic consensus but by external facilitation. Different contexts, same method—power over process.

Labeling such actions as “state terrorism” may sound provocative, but the term merits serious consideration. When a powerful state uses fear, coercion, and force to compel political change in weaker nations, the distinction between counterterrorism and terror itself becomes dangerously thin.

The irony is striking, the very actor positioning itself as the global guardian of democracy increasingly relies on methods that undermine international law.

Iran inevitably enters this conversation. Long under sanctions, diplomatically cornered, and persistently portrayed as a threat, Tehran fits the familiar profile. If Venezuela was the rehearsal, Iran could well be the main act. The lesson is stark - resistance invites escalation; sovereignty offers no guarantee.

The world must condemn the US actions unequivocally. Silence today signals consent tomorrow. If such precedents stand unchallenged, no regime—friend or foe—can consider itself safe. The erosion of international norms does not stop with adversaries; it eventually consumes the system itself.

US will intervene if Iran kills protesters, Trump

US President Donald Trump has warned Iran's authorities against killing peaceful protesters, saying Washington "will come to their rescue".

In a brief post on social media, he wrote: "We are locked and loaded and ready to go." He gave no further details.

A senior adviser to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei responded by saying Trump should "be careful" if he intervened, warning of potential chaos across the Middle East.

At least six people are reported to have been killed in Iran on Thursday after almost a week of mass protests sparked by worsening economic conditions.

In Friday's post on Truth Social, Trump wrote: "If Iran shots [sic] and violently kills peaceful protesters, which is their custom, the United States of America will come to their rescue."

Ali Larijani, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, condemned Trump’s remarks, saying he “should know that American interference in this internal issue is equivalent to chaos across the entire region and the destruction of American interests”.

“We consider the positions of the protesting merchants separate from those of the destructive elements,” Larijani added in a post on X.

“The people of the US should know that Trump began the adventurism. They should take care of their own soldiers.”

Larijani’s remarks likely referenced the US’s wide military footprint in the region. In June, Iran attacked Al Udeid airbase in Qatar after the US strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites during Israel’s 12-day war with Iran.

In his post, the US president did not specify what action Washington could take against the Iranian authorities.

Iranian officials earlier said a member of the country's securities forces had been killed on Wednesday in the western city of Kouhdasht.

Footage posted on social media showed cars set on fire during running battles between protesters and security forces.

The protests began on Sunday in Tehran among shopkeepers angered by another sharp fall in the value of the Iranian currency, the rial, against the US dollar on the open market.

President Masoud Pezeshkian has said he will listen to the "legitimate demands" of the protesters.

The protests have been the most widespread since an uprising in 2022 sparked by the death in custody of Mahsa Amini, a young woman accused by morality police of not wearing her veil properly. 

 

Western Media’s Selective Outrage on Iran

Protests are a natural and fundamental part of any society whose citizens care about their future and believe they can influence it. They are not a sign of systemic failure, but an indicator of civic health and the practice of free speech, assembly, and association. For Western states, their media, and their politicians, all of this holds true—except when the protests occur in Iran.

The unprecedented volatility in the currency market and the rapid devaluation of the Iranian Rial in recent weeks compelled business owners (known as bazaaris) to shutter their shops, go on strike, and gather in several of Tehran’s central squares to voice their discontent. Reports from journalists on the scene and footage shared by participants indicate the protests—spanning several days—remained largely peaceful.

Demonstrators refrained from vandalizing public property, kept pathways open for vehicles, and directed their slogans toward improved economic management. Anti-riot forces monitored the gatherings and seldom intervened. None of what has emerged from Iran would be unfamiliar in the regular protests seen across European capitals or American cities.

Yet this manner of protest does not sit well with the West or with Israel. Circulated videos show unidentified individuals urging bazaaris to vandalize property and block streets. In one instance, a young woman addressing a crowd fled after protesters refused to escalate into violence. In another, a man attempted to set a municipal trash bin ablaze before bystanders intervened and security forces arrested him. None of the bazaaris recognized him afterward.

Simultaneously, an online influence campaign has emerged, editing videos and fabricating audio to falsely suggest protesters are demanding the return of the deposed Shah’s son. A widely circulated image symbolizing the protests was later exposed as AI-generated.

Israel has openly admitted deploying agents to steer these peaceful demonstrations toward chaos. Mossad’s Persian-language account urged Iranians to “hit the streets,” while an Israeli television reporter openly called for organizing protests to justify a wider war. Iran International echoed similar narratives, promoting escalation as a pathway to foreign military action.

Political figures joined in. Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett declared his readiness to help Iranians achieve “freedom,” while US President Donald Trump warned Iran of further “turmoil,” without acknowledging that Iran’s economic distress stems largely from the “maximum pressure” sanctions he imposed in 2018.

Iranian authorities acknowledged the protests and announced steps to stabilize the Rial. President Masoud Pezeshkian and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf both described the demonstrations as legitimate while cautioning against foreign exploitation.

Ultimately, these events reveal a clear double standard - peaceful assembly is praised in one context yet exploited when it occurs in a country opposed by Western and Israeli interests. The true measure of these protests lies not in sensationalized narratives from abroad, but in the legitimate and orderly spirit shown by the Iranian people themselves.