Iran Says It Is Prepared for War Following Trump’s Threats

The Islamic Republic Stands Its Ground and Issues Threats

Faced with U.S. pressure and internal dissent, Iran has chosen to respond with a show of strength and determination. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Monday that the Islamic Republic does not seek war but is fully prepared for it. This statement, made during an interview with Al-Jazeera, reflects Iran’s determination not to be intimidated by U.S. threats while maintaining a theoretical openness to dialogue. Araghchi also claimed that the government had regained control of all cities, an assertion that is difficult to verify due to the internet blackout, which prevents access to reliable information about the actual situation on the ground.

Iran has adopted a stance of resistance against what it considers attempts at foreign interference in its internal affairs. Iranian authorities summoned the ambassadors or chargés d’affaires from Germany, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom to protest these countries’ expressed support for the Iranian protesters. During this meeting, the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs showed the diplomats footage that it claimed documented violent actions by the protesters, demanding the retraction of official statements supporting the demonstrators and emphasizing that any political or media support was unacceptable.

What strikes me about the Iranian position is this almost desperate determination to preserve the regime at any cost. One senses that Iranian leaders know they are at a tipping point, that their power is more fragile than ever, and that they are willing to do anything to stay in power. This combination of firmness and vulnerability creates an extremely dangerous situation, as a regime backed into a corner may make irrational or disproportionate decisions. And once again, it is civilians who will pay the price for this brutal power struggle between a regime that refuses to let go and an opposition that refuses to back down.

Mass Rallies in Support of the Regime

At the call of President Massoud Pezeshkian, thousands of Iranians flooded Revolution Square in the heart of Tehran, waving flags of the Islamic Republic and chanting anti-U.S. slogans. These rallies in support of the regime were presented by the regime as a demonstration of the popularity it still enjoys among the population, but international observers interpret them instead as a staged event organized by the authorities to counterbalance the anti-government protests. Addressing the crowd, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Ghalibaf declared that Iran is waging a war against terrorists, threatening to teach Donald Trump an unforgettable lesson in the event of U.S. military intervention.

These rallies of support are part of a broader strategy by the Iranian regime to try to regain control of the narrative and show that it still has a significant base of support among the population. The government has also declared three days of national mourning in honor of the members of the security forces who died during the protests—numbering in the dozens, according to official Iranian media. This attempt to mobilize public support for the regime is also aimed at creating an impression of stability and control in the face of the international community and U.S. threats.

This staging of rallies in support of the regime leaves me with a terrible sense of bitterness. It is clear that this is not a spontaneous movement or a genuine expression of popular support, but rather an event carefully orchestrated by the regime to create the illusion of legitimacy—a legitimacy that is eroding a little more each day. These waving flags, these orchestrated slogans, this collective prayer for the security forces that killed protesters… it is yet another form of violence inflicted on the Iranian people—the violence of being used in a staged spectacle that denies the reality of their suffering and their aspirations.

Hundreds Killed in a Ruthless Crackdown

Human rights organizations have painted a grim picture of the crackdown on the protest movement in Iran. The Sweden-based organization Iran Human Rights (IHR) has confirmed the deaths of at least 648 protesters since the start of the protests, with approximately 100,000 arrests. But the reality could be far bleaker, as the NGO cites unconfirmed reports of up to 6,000 deaths. The People’s Mujahedin of Iran (MEK), an organization banned in Iran, has claimed that, according to sources inside the country, more than 3,000 protesters have been killed by security forces. These varying figures reflect the difficulty of obtaining accurate information in a country where the internet has been shut down since January 8.

The crackdown has been described as a massacre by several international organizations, which have denounced it as a crime against humanity. Iranian authorities have responded to the protests with systematic violence, deploying particularly aggressive security forces to disperse gatherings and arrest protesters. The brutality of the government’s response has exacerbated tensions and led to an escalation of violence on Iran’s streets, turning peaceful protests into deadly confrontations.

When I read these figures, I am frozen in horror. 648 confirmed deaths, perhaps 6,000 in reality… How can we accept such violence against citizens who are simply demanding the right to live with dignity? Every number represents a life, a story, a shattered family, and shattered dreams. And what revolts me most is the impunity surrounding this violence—the fact that the Iranian regime can continue to kill and repress without facing any real consequences. It is this acceptance of the unacceptable that terrifies me—this gradual normalization of state violence as a tool of governance.

Overwhelmed morgues and grieving families

Images authenticated by AFP showing dozens of bodies wrapped in black bags in front of a morgue in the capital illustrate the tragic scale of this crisis. Ali Rahmani, the son of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Narges Mohammadi, pointed out that there was no more room in the morgues, forcing the families of the deceased to identify their loved ones right on the street. This unprecedented humanitarian emergency reflects the extreme violence of the government’s crackdown and the inability of public services to cope with the influx of victims of the protests.

The Center for Human Rights in Iran (CHRI), headquartered in New York, stated that hospitals were overwhelmed by the influx of injured protesters and that blood supplies were dwindling at an alarming rate. This health crisis compounds the human tragedy of the crackdown, creating a situation where victims of state violence cannot even receive the necessary medical care. Iranian authorities have also attempted to silence witnesses to this violence by cutting off internet access and harassing the families of victims who are trying to publicize the fate of their loved ones.

These images of overwhelmed morgues haunt me. They represent the ultimate outcome of state violence—that moment when death becomes so commonplace that it no longer even has a place in the institutions meant to accommodate it. I think of those families searching for their loved ones in the streets, confronted with the horror of body bags lined up as if in an absurd nightmare. How can anyone live in such a world? How can anyone accept that human beings are treated with such indifference? This organized, methodical, systematic violence makes me lose faith in humanity—or at least in our ability to protect the most vulnerable from the brutality of those in power.

Western Condemnations and Threats of Sanctions

The international community has reacted strongly to the bloody crackdown in Iran, with unanimous condemnation from Western countries. Emmanuel Macron condemned the state violence that indiscriminately targets Iranians who are courageously demanding respect for their rights, asserting that respect for fundamental freedoms is a universal requirement. British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper described the killings and the brutal crackdown on peaceful protesters as horrific, urging her Iranian counterpart to immediately cease the violence.

The European Union has also taken a firm stance, with Kaja Kallas, the EU’s top diplomat, stating that she is prepared to propose even harsher sanctions against Iran in response to the brutal crackdown on protesters. The European Parliament has even banned Iranian diplomats and officials from entering its premises, with President Roberta Metsola declaring that this chamber will not help legitimize a regime that has maintained its power through torture, repression, and murder.

These international condemnations are important, of course, but I remain skeptical about their actual effectiveness. Words, more words—while people are dying in the streets of Tehran. Sanctions, travel bans, solemn declarations… but what does any of this really change for the protester risking their life today? I sometimes get the impression that the international community has developed a ritual of condemnation that serves mainly to ease its conscience, without actually committing to actions that could truly change the situation on the ground. This gap between words and deeds revolts me.

The Divergent Positions of the Major Powers

The international community’s position is not, however, unanimous, with different approaches depending on the country and geopolitical alliances. Moscow denounced attempts at external interference in Iran’s internal affairs during a phone call between Russian Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu and his Iranian counterpart Ali Larijani. This Russian stance is part of a strategic alliance between Moscow and Tehran, reinforced by Iran’s support for Russia’s war in Ukraine. For its part, China has maintained a more reserved position, calling for dialogue and de-escalation while refraining from explicitly condemning the government’s crackdown.

This international division reflects the complex geopolitical stakes surrounding the Iranian crisis. Iran is not only an important regional actor but also a strategic ally of Russia and a major economic partner for China, which explains these powers’ reluctance to adopt an overly critical stance toward the Iranian regime. Conversely, the United States and its European allies see the Iranian crisis as an opportunity to weaken a regime that has long threatened regional stability and is pursuing a controversial nuclear program.

This international division deeply saddens me. How can we accept that geopolitical considerations take precedence over the most basic human rights? Russia defends Iran because it is its ally, China because it is its economic partner, and meanwhile, people are dying. This cold and cynical realpolitik, which sacrifices human lives on the altar of strategic interests, repulses me. I feel as though the world has become a giant chessboard where human beings are nothing more than pawns that can be sacrificed without a second thought. This dehumanization of international politics is perhaps what terrifies me the most.

The Danger of U.S. Military Intervention

Donald Trump’s repeated threats to intervene militarily in Iran raise serious concerns about the risk of an uncontrollable escalation of violence in the region. A U.S. intervention in Iran would have devastating consequences not only for the Iranian people but also for the entire Middle East region, which is already weakened by multiple conflicts. Iran has significant retaliatory capabilities and could respond to a U.S. attack by enlisting its regional allies—including Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and Shiite militias in Iraq—thereby sparking a major regional conflict.

Experts warn that a U.S. military intervention could paradoxically strengthen the Iranian regime by creating a “rally-around-the-flag” effect, with Iranians rallying behind their government in the face of foreign aggression. This scenario was highlighted by Ali Rahmani, the son of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Narges Mohammadi, who stated that a U.S. attack would be the worst possible solution because it would further endanger the lives of civilians currently in the streets and immediately put an end to the protests and uprisings that have reached an unprecedented scale.

This nightmare scenario sends a chill down my spine. A war in Iran would not be a quick and clean war; it would be a hellish conflict that could engulf the entire region for years. I think of the Iraqis, Syrians, and Yemenis who have already suffered so much from recent conflicts, and I see a new tragedy looming that could be even worse. And what revolts me is this almost fatalistic acceptance of war as a solution to international problems. It’s as if we’ve forgotten all the lessons of history, as if every generation must relearn—at its own expense—the absolute horror of modern war.

The Potential Global Economic Consequences

A major military conflict between the United States and Iran would also have significant global economic repercussions. Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz, through which about one-third of the world’s seaborne oil passes, and could block this vital maritime artery in the event of a conflict, thereby triggering a global energy crisis. Oil prices would skyrocket, with direct consequences for inflation and economic growth in all countries, particularly those that are heavily dependent on energy imports.

This prospect of a global economic crisis linked to a conflict in the Middle East is of particular concern to financial markets and governments, which fear a repeat of the oil shocks of the 1970s. Global economic interdependence means that a conflict in a remote region can have ripple effects that affect every continent, transforming a regional crisis into a major systemic crisis.

This economic dimension of war strikes me as almost absurd in its abstraction. We talk about billions of dollars, financial markets, and economic growth, while people are dying on the streets of Tehran. This disconnect between the human reality of war and its abstract economic dimension terrifies me. It is as if we have developed a parallel language that allows us to talk about war without mentioning its victims, its human cost, or the suffering it inflicts. This “economization” of violence repulses me almost as much as the violence itself.

The Internet Shutdown to Suppress Protests

The total shutdown of internet communications in Iran since January 8 is one of the most alarming aspects of the current crisis. This draconian measure aims to prevent the sharing of information about the ongoing protests and their suppression, to isolate the Iranian people from the rest of the world, and to make it impossible to coordinate the protest movements. For the first time, Iran has succeeded in jamming, on a large scale, the Starlink terminals—Elon Musk’s satellite constellation—which had allowed protesters to circumvent internet restrictions during previous crises.

Experts point out that this capacity for internet control developed by the Islamic Republic represents a troubling advance in digital repression. Kavé Salamatian, a professor at the University of Savoie Mont-Blanc specializing in the geopolitics of cyberspace, explained that this is the first time such intense jamming of Starlink has been observed and that it represents a new development in the world of jamming. Amir Rashidi, director of internet affairs at the advocacy group Miaan Group, stated that he has been working on internet access for twenty years and has never seen anything like this.

This imposed darkness on Iran breaks my heart. Cutting off the internet isn’t just a technical measure—it’s an attempt to erase the very existence of a people, to make them invisible to the eyes of the world. I think of those protesters trying to share their videos, their photos, their stories, but who are silenced by this technology of control. This ability to isolate entire populations, to make them disappear from the global consciousness, strikes me as one of the most insidious threats of our digital age. We are developing technologies that could allow oppressive regimes to commit their crimes in total darkness.

Efforts to Circumvent Censorship

Despite the internet blackout, Iranians continue to find ways to communicate with the outside world and share information about the situation in the country. The few images and videos reaching us come from protesters who manage to connect to Starlink satellites near foreign embassies. These images, which show scenes of extreme violence and bodies in the streets, are authenticated by international news agencies such as AFP and Reuters, thereby allowing the world to grasp the scale of the tragedy unfolding in Iran.

The Iranian diaspora around the world is also playing a crucial role in keeping the crisis in the international spotlight, organizing rallies in support of the protesters and pressuring foreign governments to condemn the government’s crackdown. Thousands of Iranians have gathered in front of Iranian embassies in several European capitals, waving Iranian flags from before the establishment of the Islamic Republic and calling for support for the protest movement.

The resilience of the Iranian people in the face of this imposed darkness moves me deeply. Despite all the obstacles, despite the censorship, despite the threats, they find a way to make their voices heard, to share their truth with the world. This determination not to be erased, not to be silenced, gives me a glimmer of hope in a world where technology seems increasingly used to control and oppress rather than to liberate. It is a lesson in courage that the whole world should reflect on.

A Regime at a Crossroads

The current crisis marks a pivotal moment for the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is facing one of the greatest challenges of its existence since 1979. The regime finds itself in a position of unprecedented vulnerability, confronted simultaneously by massive internal dissent and mounting international pressure. International observers are questioning the regime’s ability to survive this crisis, with some going so far as to claim that the Islamic Republic of Iran is entering its final phase, according to Farid Vahid, a researcher at the Jean Jaurès Foundation.

However, the regime still has significant resources at its disposal to maintain its hold on power, including a loyal army and security forces, a well-oiled apparatus of repression, and the support of international allies such as Russia and China. The outcome of this crisis therefore remains uncertain, with a fragile balance between the strength of the popular protest and the regime’s resilience. The coming days and weeks will be crucial in determining whether Iran embarks on a path of change or whether the regime manages to reestablish its control.

I often wonder what is going through the minds of Iran’s leaders right now. Are they aware of the gravity of the situation? Do they understand that with each passing day, their downfall draws a little closer? Or are they in that state of total denial that characterizes so many authoritarian regimes on their deathbed? I get the impression that they’re like ship captains who refuse to accept that their ship is sinking, continuing to give orders while the water rises inexorably. This ability to lie to oneself in the face of the obvious both fascinates and frightens me.

Possible Scenarios for the Coming Weeks

Several scenarios are possible for how the Iranian crisis might unfold in the coming weeks. The most optimistic scenario would see the regime gradually opening up to dialogue, allowing for the start of a peaceful political transition that would meet the aspirations of the Iranian people. An intermediate scenario could be a continuation of the status quo, with ongoing but contained repression and sporadic protests that would gradually peter out as protesters grow weary and the regime’s capacity for resistance holds firm.

The most pessimistic scenario—and unfortunately the most realistic given the U.S. threats—would be a military escalation that could trigger a major regional conflict. This scenario would have devastating consequences not only for Iran but for the entire region, potentially comparable to the conflicts that have ravaged Iraq, Syria, and Yemen in recent years.

When I look at these different scenarios, I can’t help but think about how unpredictable history is, and how turning points can arise unexpectedly. Just a few weeks ago, no one would have predicted that Iran would be on the brink of civil war and foreign intervention. This fundamental instability of the modern world terrifies me—this sense that everything can come crashing down at any time, anywhere, turning ordinary lives into absurd tragedies. We are living on a constantly erupting volcano, and we have forgotten how to get off it.

The Importance of Information During the Crisis

With Iran having cut off internet access and attempting to control the narrative of the crisis, the role of the international media has become crucial in documenting the situation and maintaining pressure on the Iranian regime. Organizations such as Radio-Canada, Le Monde, La Presse, Al-Jazeera, CNN, and many others are playing an essential role in gathering and disseminating information about events in Iran, thereby enabling the entire world to grasp the scale of the tragedy unfolding in that country.

This international media coverage helps keep the crisis in the public eye and prevents the Iranian regime from acting with total impunity. It also lets Iranian protesters know that their struggle is recognized and supported internationally, which can give them the strength to continue protesting despite the crackdown. The media also serves as a channel for the voices of the victims and their families, allowing their stories to be heard beyond Iran’s borders.

I often think of the courage of the journalists working under these conditions, risking their lives to tell us what is happening in Iran. It is a form of everyday heroism that we too often forget—this determination to bear witness despite the dangers, to prevent silence and oblivion from prevailing. Without them, these crimes would remain in the dark, without witnesses, without judgment. The importance of journalism in preserving the truth seems to me more crucial than ever in an era when authoritarian regimes have increasing means to control information.

The Challenges of Media Coverage

Media coverage of the Iranian crisis faces numerous significant challenges, including the inability of foreign journalists to enter Iranian territory and the difficulty of independently verifying the information circulating. The media must navigate between official sources from the Iranian regime—which attempt to downplay the scale of the protests and the crackdown—and information provided by opposition groups and NGOs, which can sometimes be exaggerated or difficult to verify.

This situation requires the media to exercise particular rigor in verifying information and to be transparent about the limits of their knowledge of the situation on the ground. Despite these difficulties, international media coverage of the Iranian crisis remains essential for documenting events and maintaining pressure on the Iranian regime.

This difficulty in obtaining reliable information strikes me particularly hard. We live in an age of information overload, and yet at crucial moments like this, we are like blind people trying to describe a landscape they cannot see. This uncertainty—this inability to know with certainty what is happening—seems particularly unbearable to me when lives are at stake. It is a lesson in humility for all of us, as consumers of information, regarding the limits of our understanding of the world.

The Maximum Pressure Strategy

The United States’ stance on the Iranian crisis is consistent with the maximum pressure strategy adopted by the Trump administration since it returned to power. This strategy combines severe economic sanctions, direct military threats, and explicit support for the Iranian opposition, with the aim of forcing the regime to change its behavior or facilitating its downfall. The United States has also attempted to use the crisis as leverage to secure concessions on other issues, notably Iran’s nuclear program and Tehran’s regional influence.

This aggressive approach has been criticized by some experts who believe it risks exacerbating tensions and precipitating a military confrontation rather than fostering a diplomatic solution. Others argue that this pressure is necessary to compel a regime that has shown little willingness to compromise in the past. In any case, this U.S. strategy contributes to the instability of the situation and increases the risk of military escalation.

This strategy of maximum pressure strikes me as a perfect illustration of the failure of coercive diplomacy. The idea that a regime can be forced to change through economic pressure and military threats seems to me not only ineffective but dangerous. Instead of facilitating change, this approach tends to radicalize positions and make any diplomatic solution more difficult. It is as if we have forgotten the lessons of history, as if each generation must relearn that force never resolves deep-seated political conflicts—it only exacerbates them.

Divisions within the U.S. administration

The U.S. administration is not unanimous on the strategy to adopt toward Iran, with divisions between those who advocate a more aggressive approach and those who favor a more diplomatic path. Donald Trump has taken a particularly ambiguous stance, alternating between military threats and overtures for dialogue, which reflects these internal tensions. Some advisors advocate for swift military intervention to capitalize on the regime’s current weakness, while others fear the regional consequences of such an intervention and prefer a more gradual approach.

These internal divisions risk creating inconsistencies in U.S. policy and sending contradictory messages to Tehran, which could further complicate the resolution of the crisis. The outcome of these internal debates will largely determine the U.S. approach in the coming weeks and the likelihood of military intervention.

These divisions within the U.S. administration deeply concern me. How can one formulate a coherent policy in the face of such a serious crisis when one does not even know what the guiding principles are? This potential inconsistency strikes me as particularly dangerous in a context where every word and every action can have irreversible consequences. I get the impression that U.S. foreign policy has become an arena where different schools of thought clash without any real strategic vision, with the risk of improvised decisions leading to catastrophic consequences.

The Individual Stories Behind the Statistics

Beyond the statistics and geopolitical analyses, the Iranian crisis is first and foremost a human tragedy made up of thousands of individual stories of suffering, courage, and hope. Every victim of the crackdown was a person with a story, a family, dreams, and plans. Every protester who takes to the streets is taking an immense risk for themselves and their loved ones, driven by a deep desire for freedom and dignity. These individual stories, often absent from the headlines, are nonetheless the very essence of this crisis.

The accounts of families searching for their missing loved ones, of survivors testifying to torture, of doctors treating the wounded despite threats, of young people sacrificing their futures for an ideal of freedom… these stories remind us of the human reality behind the political abstraction. They compel us to see this crisis not as a conflict between states but as a struggle by women and men for their fundamental rights.

It is this human dimension that touches me most deeply, that makes me feel this crisis not as a distant event but as a tragedy that concerns us all. When I read these individual stories, I no longer see Iranians; I see human beings like myself, with the same hopes, the same fears, the same aspirations. This ability to recognize ourselves in others seems to me to be the foundation of all true solidarity, and yet we are so prone to forgetting this shared humanity when we talk about international politics.

The Courage of Peaceful Resistance

Despite the extreme violence of the crackdown, the majority of Iranian protesters are maintaining a peaceful approach to their protest, refusing to respond to provocations and violence with further violence. This courage in peaceful resistance—in the face of a regime that does not hesitate to fire on its own citizens—is one of the most inspiring aspects of this crisis. It speaks to the political maturity and determination of the Iranian protest movement, which refuses to stoop to the level of violence employed by its oppressor.

This peaceful resistance is all the more remarkable given that it is taking place amid international isolation and a digital blackout. The protesters know they cannot count on external military support and that they stand alone against the state’s repressive power. Despite this reality, they continue to take to the streets, motivated by an ideal of freedom and dignity that transcends threats and dangers.

The courage of this peaceful resistance leaves me speechless. In the face of death, torture, and total impunity, these men and women continue to march peacefully, to sing, and to demand their rights. It is a lesson in dignity that the entire world should reflect upon—a demonstration that the ultimate strength lies not in weapons but in peaceful conviction. I often wonder if I would have that kind of courage, if I would be capable of risking my life for my convictions. This question haunts me.

Iran on the Verge of Possible Change

The current crisis in Iran represents a historic moment of truth, a moment when the future of an entire country is being played out in the streets and on the international stage. The coming weeks will be crucial in determining whether Iran embarks on a path of profound and necessary change, responding to the aspirations of its people, or whether the regime manages to maintain its grip through repression and violence. Whatever the outcome, this moment will go down in history as the moment when the Iranian people said they’d had enough.

The international community faces a crucial choice between supporting democratic change and maintaining the status quo out of fear of the consequences of a political transition. This choice will have profound implications not only for Iran but for the entire region and for the credibility of the international system in its defense of fundamental rights.

When I look at what is happening in Iran, I feel that we are witnessing one of those rare moments when history takes a turn, when the fate of an entire people is being played out in the streets. There is something tragic and yet magnificent about this struggle for freedom—this ability of human beings to rise up against oppression despite all the risks. I often wonder what history will remember about this moment, what future historians will say when they recount these days when Iran teetered between tyranny and freedom. What I do know is that we have a duty not to forget, to bear witness, and to offer our support. For in this struggle, it is not only Iran’s future that is at stake, but our very conception of what it means to be human in a world that all too often accepts the unacceptable.