By Dr Eriny Saied, Egyptian academic and political analyst
The underlying drivers of protest in Iran remain firmly in place. Whether expressed through calls for the restoration of the monarchy or demands to end support for armed factions abroad, the roots of popular anger lie elsewhere: corruption, repression and, above all, prolonged economic decline. These grievances continue to shape public discontent, despite official attempts to deflect responsibility.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has claimed that calm has been restored nationwide following recent unrest, which he attributed to the incitement of “terrorist elements” backed by Israel and the United States. According to the official narrative, public vigilance and the actions of security forces have stabilised the situation. This account, however, has been widely circulated to shift attention away from the regime’s own failures and its longstanding neglect of popular demands.
The scale and organisation of recent protests suggest something deeper. Participation has reflected structured networks and systemic coordination, underscoring the depth of social and economic suffering endured by large segments of the population. Yet Iranians face a profound dilemma: how to challenge a regime that has imposed sweeping surveillance and repression, particularly against activists and opposition figures advocating regime change. Several United Nations bodies have documented these abuses in successive reports.
Against this backdrop, US President Donald Trump’s posture towards Tehran appears markedly systemic and consistent. From his first term (2016–2020) to the present, Trump has maintained a hard line on Iran’s domestic repression, nuclear programme and regional conduct. His strategy rests on several pillars: political pressure, diplomatic isolation and the credible threat of military force. Above all, however, economic sanctions remain Washington’s principal instrument in dealing with the Islamic Republic.
Trump has also demonstrated awareness of the risks inherent in direct military intervention. In the aftermath of the brief but intense confrontation between Israel and Iran — described by some as a “12-day war” — Washington and its allies were confronted with Iran’s capacity for cohesion and mobilisation under the firm control of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This has contributed to Trump’s hesitation over launching large-scale strikes.
Nonetheless, limited or symbolic military action cannot be ruled out. Targeted strikes against sensitive nuclear facilities remain within the bounds of Trump’s strategic calculus. As he has repeatedly stated, all options remain on the table. His declaration that a US “armada” was heading towards the Middle East, coupled with assertions that Washington is closely monitoring developments in Iran, reinforced this message. At the same time, activists have reported rising death tolls from Tehran’s crackdown on protesters.
In parallel, Trump signed a National Security Presidential Memorandum reinstating a policy of “maximum pressure” on Iran. The directive mandates rigorous sanctions enforcement aimed at denying the regime — and its allied militias — access to vital revenue streams.
International concern has also intensified. The UN Human Rights Council has condemned Iran’s violent suppression of protests, adopting a resolution on the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic, particularly in relation to nationwide demonstrations that began on December 28, 2025.
The resolution, adopted by 25 votes in favour, seven against and 14 abstentions, deplored the killing of thousands of protesters, including children, the injury of many more, and the arrest of thousands. It urged Tehran to meet its human rights obligations and to halt extrajudicial killings and arbitrary detentions.
Iran’s internal landscape is thus growing ever more complex. A reassessment of the policies and governing mechanisms imposed by the ruling clerical establishment is no longer optional, but essential, if further instability is to be avoided.
About the Author
