Iran’s spiritual leader Ayatollah Khamenei called Donald Trump a criminal. The US president responded, “Time to look for new leadership in Iran.”
Since the internal conflict between the Iranian opposition and the authorities has practically turned into a more serious confrontation – between the US president and the current Iranian leadership – the further development of the situation has become largely dependent on Donald Trump’s actions. The US president, however, is inclined to make unexpected decisions and perhaps even undertake deceptive actions amid preparations for an operation, as was the case in Venezuela.
At the end of December, protests broke out in Iran. They began with strikes by workers of bazaars, including bazaar merchants in Tehran. The official reason for the protests was the country’s economic difficulties. Just on the eve of these events, there had been a significant devaluation of the rial. On December 28, the exchange rate of the rial fell to a record low of 1.42 million per US dollar. Due to inflation, prices for everyday goods rose sharply in the country: food prices increased by 72% over the year, medicines by 50%.
Causes
The first Western sanctions were imposed on Iran after the victory of the Islamic Revolution in November 1979. In 1981, the sanctions were lifted, but then reimposed by the United States in 1987. In 1995, US sanctions were expanded, and in 2006 new ones were added by decision of the UN Security Council.
In 2015, the six world powers signed a nuclear deal with Iran, under which economic sanctions were lifted in exchange for restrictions on the country’s nuclear program. However, in 2018, during Donald Trump’s first presidential term, he unilaterally withdrew from the nuclear deal without coordinating with other countries, and the United States reinstated all sanctions against Iran. In 2019 and 2020, the United States further expanded sanctions against the country.
In September 2025, European countries also reinstated all UN sanctions that had been lifted from Iran in 2015, essentially accusing it of allegedly violating the nuclear deal at the moment when the agreement was coming to an end. Russia did not recognize the re-imposing of the sanctions, considering them to have been reinstated illegally.
Many years of multiple sanctions led to the formation of gray schemes in the country to circumvent various restrictions, as well as groups that ensured the functioning of these schemes. Gradually, these schemes acquired a corruption component. A parallel gray financial system was created in the country which, despite being under state control, generated certain problems. Today, a huge portion of the country’s revenues comes precisely through gray schemes for selling oil and petroleum products.
Sanctions caused higher costs for goods and technologies, negatively affecting an already difficult economic situation. All of this exacerbated problems with dilapidated infrastructure, logistical shortcomings, energy issues, water crises, extreme heat, uneven regional development, and ethnic and religious conflicts. Experts quite often also speak of inefficient management in various sectors of the economy. In addition, an unstable region and difficult relations with neighbors motivated Tehran to invest heavily in the so-called axis of resistance: caring for its own military potential and for arming its allies.
Despite the fact that Iran is among the world’s top five oil producers and has made significant progress in petrochemicals during the years of sanctions, it is precisely sanctions that prevent Tehran from fully realizing this potential. Iran’s oil sector is underfunded.
Today, 45% of state budget revenues come from oil and gas exports, but in the absence of sanctions Iran could earn far greater profits from them. A quarter of the country’s population is employed in agriculture, and agricultural products are also a major export item, but heat, water shortages, and lack of financing severely affect this sector as well.
In addition to economic factors, some groups in the country disagree with the official ideology of the authorities, thus, on top of economic problems, further stimulating protests.
Moreover, external agents are actively working to fuel the protests, and they do not even hide it. Thus, on January 2, former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo wished Happy Year “to every Iranian in the streets. Also to every Mossad agent walking beside them.” And on January 9, Israel’s Minister of Heritage Amichai Eliyahu directly stated about the situation in Iran, “I can assure you that our people are working there right now.”
Dynamics of Protest
December 28, 2025, can be designated as the starting point of the protests in Iran. However, protests began several days earlier, though they were very small in scale. Only from December 29 did the number of protesters begin to grow noticeably. The turning point was the night of January 8–9, when tens, and possibly hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets. The American Institute for the Study of War (ISW) counted 156 protests that night – twice as many as the previous day. Their size also increased significantly: at least 60 large actions with more than 100 participants. According to Human Rights Activists in Iran, protests covered more than 90 cities.
The protests also began to radicalize. In Isfahan, protesters set fire to the State Broadcasting building; in one district of Markazi Province, they burned down a local administration building; in the city of Esfarayen in North Khorasan Province, protesters burned the regional prosecutor’s office together with the prosecutor and several law enforcement officers; in Dezful (Khuzestan), the oldest historical mausoleum of Muhammad ibn Musa al-Kazim, the brother of Imam Reza, was vandalized. In Tehran, government institutions, residential apartments, more than 80 vehicles (including buses and fire trucks), and more than 25 mosques were damaged.
The protests took their most radical forms in the Kurdish provinces. Opposition media also reported unrest in Zahedan, the capital of Sistan and Baluchestan Province, populated predominantly by Baluchis.
Orientalist Kirill Semenov notes, “Iranian Kurdish allies of the Syrian SDF from the Iranian PJAK (part of the same PKK network) and six other Iranian Kurdish left-secularist parties are trying to turn protests in Kurdish-populated areas of Iran into an armed uprising. They have already issued a joint statement and calls for unrest.”
On January 8, IRGC special forces clashed with Kurdish separatists in Kermanshah, where two soldiers and at least seven Kurdish militants were killed, according to Middle East Spectator.
At the same time, some sources indicate that the calmest situation is in Iranian Azerbaijan Province, where a more conservative Shiite majority lives, more inclined to support the current authorities.
The growth of protests was recorded until the moment when the internet was completely shut down in the country. After that, starting on January 9, it became problematic to confirm or refute information coming from Iran. However, both pro-government and opposition media first reported a significant decline in protest numbers, and then their complete fading. The internet remains shut down in the country, and what is happening there is hidden from outside view.
Informational War
In parallel with street activity, an active informational war was waged against Iran. Protesters were convinced that the protest was actually much broader and that millions of people were allegedly taking to the streets. This stimulated further expansion of the protests. Given that on January 8–9 the son of the shah overthrown in 1979, Prince Reza Pahlavi, called for protests, attempts were made to turn him into a kind of symbol of resistance and even a leader of the protests.
Pahlavi has never been a significant figure for the opposition in Iran. He lived in the United States and actively criticized the Islamic Republic. The “crown prince” was more supported by the Iranian diaspora. He has not been to his homeland since the Islamic Revolution, when he was 19 years old. He is considered insufficiently charismatic and has no management experience. Today, he is perceived more as a human rights activist than as a politician. Therefore, slogans in support of the monarchy and the heir at the protests most likely meant “We are against the republic!” rather than “We want the shah’s rule!”
At the height of the protests on January 9, Pahlavi appealed to the US leader for help. “Mr. President, this is an urgent and immediate call for your attention, support, and action,” he wrote. The son of the overthrown shah also stated that he was ready to take over governance of the country for a transitional period. On January 13, Pahlavi even met in the United States with US presidential special envoy Steve Witkoff and discussed the situation in Iran.
For now, however, even Trump, in an interview with Reuters, expressed doubts that Reza Pahlavi, living in exile, would be able to secure broad support within Iran.
The informational war also includes claims that the country’s leadership is allegedly in disarray, has betrayed the spiritual leader, and decided to flee Iran. On January 4, the British newspaper The Times wrote that Iran’s spiritual leader Ayatollah Khamenei was preparing to flee to Russia together with his son and close associates. On January 9, leaks appeared claiming that about 20 government officials had requested French visas for their family members, including parliamentary speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf.
And, of course, US President Donald Trump himself actively participated in the informational war against Iran’s authorities. He repeatedly made statements that Washington was ready to support the protesters and deliver a powerful blow against Iran.
Authorities’ Position
Iran’s spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei addressed the nation several times since the start of the large-scale protests. In his first address on January 3, he noted that he sees the economic problems and considers the protest legitimate. However, the Supreme Leader spoke negatively about the organization of riots.
“Protests of bazaari caused by the devaluation of the national currency and unstable exchange rates are justified, but the instigators must be dtopped,” Khamenei stated.
In his second address on January 9, the Supreme Leader spoke more harshly. He noted that “the Islamic Republic will not retreat in the face of saboteurs.” He called the protesters “vandals” acting “to please President Trump.”
A similar statement was issued by Iran’s Supreme National Security Council. The actions of the rioters were described as “terrorist activity within the framework of a hybrid war against Iran by Israel and the United States.”
“The authorities of Israel and the United States are trying to use the unrest in Iran for their own purposes, in order to achieve through destabilization what they failed to do through military action,” said Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.
President Masoud Pezeshkian noted that citizens angered by economic problems should not allow agents to take over the agenda, stage pogroms, and desecrate mosques. He called on supporters of the authorities to take to the streets.
As a result, under the patronage of the authorities, mass pro-government marches were held across Iran on January 12 in various cities, including the capital Tehran. Officials also spoke at nationwide rallies. Funerals were held for killed security personnel.
Foreign Minister Araghchi also indicated that Tehran is ready to hold new negotiations with the United States on the nuclear program provided that threats against the country cease. However, Trump’s threats continued.
Support for Protests abroad
On January 10, Trump stated that the United States is ready to help Iran gain freedom. “Iran is looking at FREEDOM, perhaps like never before. The USA stands ready to help!!!” he wrote on Truth Social. “I tell the Iranian leaders: You better not start shooting, because we’ll start shooting, too,” Trump threatened.
“The United States supports the brave people of Iran,” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote on the social network X.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also expressed hope for a change of power in Iran. “We express support for the heroic and courageous citizens of Iran, and after the fall of the regime we will together do good deeds for the benefit of both peoples,” the Israeli leader said on January 10 during a cabinet meeting.
As if having received approval from such statements by the United States, the heir to the shah’s throne Reza Pahlavi on January 11 also called on Iranians to join the protests. “Our goal is no longer just to take to the streets. The goal is to prepare to seize and hold city centres,” he said.
“We already have a plan, there will be no vacuum. We have been preparing for this moment for years.… The Iran Prosperity Project is ’a project that I lead and that provides a roadmap for Iran’s economic recovery and reintegration into the international community. We already have over a hundred experts inside and outside the country,” Reza Pahlavi said on January 13 in an interview with the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera.
US media also began reporting that Washington was considering options for strikes against Iran. Trump is seriously considering the possibility of strikes in response to the government’s attempts to suppress protests in Iran; several attack options have already been presented to him, The New York Times reported on January 11, citing officials. Sources of The Wall Street Journal among White House officials stated that they consider the option of a large-scale airstrike on several military targets in Iran to be the priority.
On January 12, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that Trump would not hesitate to use US military force against Iran if circumstances required it. “The president has shown he’s unafraid to use military options if and when he deems necessary,” she said on Fox News.
On the night of January 12-13, the US State Department urged US citizens to leave Iran. They were advised to plan alternative means of communication and, if possible, to leave the country via land borders with Armenia, Turkey, or Turkmenistan. The State Department statement specified, “If you cannot leave, find a secure location within your residence or another safe building. Have a supply of food, water, medications, and other essential items.”
On January 14, Trump called on protesters in Iran to seize government institutions and announced that he had canceled all meetings with Iranian officials until the “senseless killings” of demonstrators stopped.
“Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING – TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!! Save the names of the killers and abusers. They will pay a big price. I have cancelled all meetings with Iranian Officials until the senseless killing of protesters STOPS. HELP IS ON ITS WAY. MIGA!!!” he wrote.
In response to the statements of the US president, Arab countries appealed to Trump not to attack Iran. On January 13, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Qatar explained to the US administration that such a step would shock the oil markets. According to sources from among Saudi officials cited by The Wall Street Journal, Riyadh assured Tehran that it would not intervene in a potential conflict and would not allow Washington to use its airspace to carry out strikes.
Turkey also spoke out in favor of rejecting external interference, calling Iran a “neighbor and friend.” Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan stated, “We absolutely want problems to be resolved through dialogue. The US and Iran will resolve this issue between themselves, whether through intermediaries, other participants, or through direct negotiations. We are also closely monitoring this issue.”
Ankara even demonstrated a desire to weaken the protests. Turkish intelligence warned Tehran that groups of armed Kurdish militants were attempting to cross the Iranian border from Iraq and provided assistance to prevent the incident.
Western countries, by contrast, largely supported the attempted overthrow of the Iranian authorities. On January 13, during his visit to India, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz stated that the Iranian government would fall in the near future. “If a regime can only keep itself in power by force, then it’s effectively at the end,” he said.
On January 14 (around 8:00 p.m. Moscow time), two European officials told Reuters that an operation against Iran, whatever form it might take, could occur within the next 24 hours. Reuters placed this news on its front page.
Reuters then reported, citing sources, that the United States had begun withdrawing personnel from military bases in the Middle East. Qatar’s International Information Bureau officially confirmed that US soldiers had recently left the region’s largest US air base located in the country – Al Udeid (which had housed 10,000 U.S. troops).
The United Kingdom also began withdrawing military personnel from the air base in Qatar.
Iraqi media reported that US forces had evacuated the Ain al-Asad base from Iraqi territory to the At-Tanf base in Syria.
At the same time, US warships and aircraft began moving toward the Middle East. The world froze in anticipation of a strike.
Denouement?
That same day, on the evening of January 14, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said in an interview with Fox News, “My message is don’t repeat the mistake you made in June.”
Speaking about those killed during the protests, Araghchi explained this by the infiltration of terrorist elements from outside into demonstrations and the shooting at police and security forces using ISIL methods (organization banned in Russia). He added that these elements “detained police officers, burned them alive, beheaded them, and began shooting both police and civilians.” Araghchi also added that “there are no plans to execute protesters in connection with the nationwide protests.”
Approximately three hours after Reuters reported a possible strike (around 11:00 p.m. Moscow time), Trump stated that he had changed his decision. It was announced that the United States had received information that the Iranian authorities did not plan to execute participants in the unrest and that there would be no strike.
Trump told journalists that “the killing in Iran is stopping.” He added that there are no plans for executions and that he was informed of this by good sources.
The United States requested an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council on Iran for the evening of January 15.
On January 15, The New York Times, citing a US official, reported that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had also asked Trump to delay a strike on Iran. Their conversation took place on January 14.
On January 16, an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council was held, dedicated to the sharp escalation of the situation in Iran. UN representatives expressed concern over large-scale violence, a complete internet shutdown, and reports of forced confessions by protesters. The Iranian delegation rejected all accusations, calling what was happening external interference in the country’s internal affairs. Russia and China called for restraint, while the United Kingdom and France harshly condemned the actions of the Iranian authorities.
After that, it seemed that the situation had been put on pause.
On the morning of January 17, Iran’s spiritual leader addressed the nation. He acknowledged the deaths of “thousands of people” during the unrest and blamed the United States for the number of victims. Khamenei called Trump a “criminal” and emphasized that the rioters would be severely punished.
“This was an American rebellion. The Americans planned it, they worked on it. America’s goal – I state this decisively and clearly – is to absorb Iran. This is not about the current US president. This is American policy. We consider the US president a criminal for the victims, the damage, and the slander that he has unleashed upon the Iranian people. The distinctive feature of this rebellion was that the US president himself intervened in it and encouraged the rebels,” the Supreme Leader said.
“By the grace of God, the Iranian people must break the backbone of the instigators of the rebellion, just as they broke the backbone of the rebellion,” Khamenei said.
Iranian authorities also published a selection of video materials showing people with firearms and bladed weapons alongside ordinary protesters.
That same evening, Donald Trump responded to the statement of Iran’s leader, “It’s time to look for new leadership in Iran. The man is a sick man who should run his country properly and stop killing people. His country is the worst place to live anywhere in the world because of poor leadership.”
Refusal to strike or postponement?
Since the internal conflict between the Iranian opposition and the authorities has practically turned into a more serious confrontation – between the US president and the current Iranian leadership – the further development of the situation has become largely dependent on Donald Trump’s actions. The US president, however, is inclined to make unexpected decisions and perhaps even undertake deceptive actions amid preparations for an operation, as was the case in Venezuela. Therefore, it is currently quite difficult to predict his possible actions toward Iran. The future is unclear.
Analysts have put forward several explanations for the refusal to carry out an immediate strike on Iran.
As early as January 13, the American newspaper Politico warned that the United States could not yet begin a military operation against Iran. The reason was that, due to the conflict with Venezuela, the military forces necessary for this had been withdrawn from the region, and air defense systems had been sent back to South Korea.
As a result, the Pentagon ordered the redeployment of a carrier strike group led by the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln to the area of responsibility of US Central Command in the Middle East, but this would take time – at least two weeks.
Analysts from The New York Times noted on January 14 in the article “Trump’s Gulf Allies Do Not Want Him to Bomb Iran” that “some Gulf governments have come to see Israel, Iran’s archenemy, as a belligerent state seeking to dominate the Middle East.” They believe that Israel may pose a greater threat to them than today’s Iran.
The Israeli outlet Ynet offered its own version of the delayed strikes on Iran, “Washington concluded that potential costs – harm to American bases, Israel, and energy industry in the Gulf – far outweigh any strategic gain and will return to diplomacy.”
In Tel Aviv, there are fears that strikes on Iran would cause serious damage to Israel — harm the home front and entail astronomical costs for another campaign in Iran, for which Israel is not so well prepared, the outlet writes.
Ynet also notes, “Iran’s exiled crown prince, Reza Pahlavi, who attempted to encourage protesters from outside the Islamic Republic, was not seen in Iran — nor in Washington — as a leader around whom all could rally”
On January 15, The Wall Street Journal wrote that US officials had informed Donald Trump that Washington would need more military power in the Middle East both to deliver a large-scale strike and to protect its troops in the region and allies such as Israel. In addition, a powerful strike on Iran was unlikely to lead to the fall of the regime and could provoke a broader conflict.
One concern is also that strikes at this stage could have the opposite effect and weaken the protest movement.
Despite large-scale internal unrest, the US president was briefed that key institutions of state power and the security forces – the IRGC and the armed forces of the country – had not been paralyzed, and that their loyalty to the regime, integrity, and functionality had been preserved. The current balance of forces does not ensure either the overthrow of the spiritual leader or, in the event of his death, the destruction of the country’s system of governance.
Apparently, this last assumption is one of the most important explanations for the temporary refusal to strike, if we assume that the attack was meant to be a kind of auxiliary tool, while the main role was to be played by a coup that failed.
However, all the arguments voiced by analysts indicate that this is a postponement of a strike rather than a cancellation. It is unlikely that Trump will abandon his plan to “find new leadership for Iran.” And while US military forces are returning to the region and Washington is warming up plans to seize Greenland, Iran has some time left to prepare for the coming conflict.
This is a translation of the article by Yevgeniya Shevchenko first published on Rossa Primavera News Agency web site.
