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.

Who Appointed US World’s Judge, Jury, and Executioner?

I started this blog in June 2012 believing that sustained engagement with history and facts would clarify how the world’s largest democracy conducts itself on the global stage. Over time, that clarity has led less to reassurance and more to unease.

Modern history reveals a series of conflicts in which the United States played a decisive role—sometimes directly, often indirectly. From the atomic bombings of Japan to the enduring division of the Korean Peninsula, from Cold War entanglements in Lebanon to decades-long sanctions on Iran, the pattern is difficult to dismiss. Iraq stands out most starkly: first drawn into nearly a ten-year war with Iran, then subjected to crippling sanctions, and finally invaded on claims that were later proven unfounded. The humanitarian cost was immense, while accountability remained elusive.

The Ukraine conflict must also be viewed in a broader strategic context. Russia’s military action warrants criticism, yet it did not emerge in isolation. NATO’s steady eastward expansion and Washington’s deepening involvement in Eastern Europe contributed to an environment of confrontation. Sanctions on Russia, prepared well in advance, suggest that the crisis was embedded in a wider geopolitical rivalry rather than being purely reactive.

Venezuela further complicates the narrative of a rules-based international order. Years of sanctions, open support for regime change, and sustained economic pressure were justified in the name of democracy. Yet Venezuela’s vast oil reserves inevitably raise questions about the balance between principles and interests. Sovereignty, in this case, appears negotiable.

Equally striking is the restrained response from other major powers. Russia and China voice objections cautiously. Britain, France, and Germany express concern while largely aligning with Washington. India opts for strategic restraint. This reflects less global consensus and more the realities of power asymmetry.

The central issue, therefore, is not the US influence itself, but its limits. Who defines the rules, who enforces them, and who is held accountable when they are breached? Until these questions are addressed, the international order will continue to appear selective—and increasingly fragile.

Capture of Venezuelan President: Return of Colonial Seizure Politics

If reports of the capture and removal of Venezuela’s sitting president are even partially accurate, then what is unfolding is not a crisis of governance or an overdue act of justice. It is the unambiguous return of colonial seizure politics—the doctrine that powerful states may confiscate sovereignty itself when defiance becomes inconvenient.

This is not regime change as an accidental by-product of policy failure. It is regime removal as method. The familiar language of democracy, legality, and human rights is little more than ornamental cover. Strip it away and the operating logic is brutally clear: discipline the non-compliant, seize control, and reorder ownership. This is not the breakdown of the international system; it is the system functioning precisely as intended.

Venezuela was effectively subdued long before this moment. Years of sanctions did not merely “pressure” the state; they systematically dismantled its economic sovereignty. Revenues were strangled, institutions hollowed out, and governance rendered structurally unworkable. This was not unintended harm. It was preparation. Economic suffocation created the conditions in which intervention could later be marketed as inevitable rather than chosen.

When sanctions failed to produce surrender, political fiction followed. The US-engineered experiment of Juan Guaidó was not diplomacy but theater—an attempt to outsource sovereignty without tanks. When even that farce collapsed, escalation became the only remaining option. Empires do not retreat when resisted; they recalibrate.

The capture of a sitting president is not law enforcement—it is a declaration of ownership. By asserting jurisdiction over a foreign head of state, Washington is not upholding justice; it is asserting hierarchy. Venezuela is no longer treated as a sovereign political subject but as a managed space—its leadership provisional, its future externally arbitrated. This is not international law stretched beyond recognition. It is international law discarded outright.

Oil is not the subtext of this intervention; it is the text. Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves. Governments that privatize resources on Western terms are tolerated regardless of repression. Governments that insist on national control are destabilized regardless of elections. This is not hypocrisy. It is imperial consistency.

Dismissing Latin American resistance as “anti-Americanism” is willful blindness. From Guatemala and Chile to Panama and Nicaragua, the pattern is consistent: sanctions, destabilization, leadership removal, resource realignment. Venezuela fits perfectly—except this time, the mask is off.

This moment should not be personalized. Trump is not the cause; he is the instrument. The architecture of sanctions, energy interests, and bipartisan hostility to Venezuelan sovereignty predates him and will outlast him.

What is being normalized is more dangerous than Venezuela’s immediate devastation: the idea that sovereignty exists only by imperial permission, that sanctions are preparatory weapons, and that leaders may be seized rather than negotiated with. This is colonialism without occupation—domination without apology.

Venezuela: Delcy Rodriguez Interim President

The Constitutional Chamber of Venezuela's Supreme Court ordered on Saturday that Vice President Delcy Rodríguez assume the role of acting president of the country in the absence of Nicolás Maduro, who was detained early Saturday morning in an operation by US forces.

The court ruling said that Rodríguez would assume "the office of President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, in order to guarantee administrative continuity and the comprehensive defense of the Nation."

The ruling added that the court will debate the matter in order to "determine the applicable legal framework to guarantee the continuity of the State, the administration of government, and the defense of sovereignty in the face of the forced absence of the President of the Republic."

 

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.