A History of Uprisings Crushed by Brute Force
I think of these nationwide protests, which date back more than 25 years, as waves crashing against the Iranian shore. There was a first wave in 1999, which began in the universities, calling for political and social freedoms. Ten years later, there was a much larger wave—the largest since the 1979 Islamic Revolution—after the regime rigged the 2009 presidential election. These uprisings were brutally crushed by a regime that never hesitates to use the most extreme violence to maintain its grip on power.
In 2019, the protests centered on economic conditions, particularly the prices of gasoline, food, and essential goods. It took only three years for the next wave to emerge: the 2022 marches, which lasted for months, calling for women’s rights, life, and freedom. Each time, through a combination of lethal force, detentions, communication blackouts, and the elimination of opposition leaders, the regime has suppressed public demonstrations. But discontent and the desire for freedom remain just beneath the surface, waiting to fuel another wave. The resilience of the Iranian people in the face of this systematic repression is a testament to a moral strength and a desire for freedom that cannot be extinguished indefinitely.
This relentless cycle of uprisings and crackdowns breaks my heart every time I think about it. How can a people endure so much suffering and continue to rise up again and again? The determination of the Iranian people is both admirable and terrifying. They know that every protest risks resulting in hundreds of deaths and thousands of arrests, and yet they persist. This strength born of despair is the most beautiful proof of the indestructibility of the human spirit in the face of oppression. But I wonder how many more lives will have to be sacrificed before the world decides to truly take action? This collective powerlessness in the face of this recurring tragedy makes me want to scream in frustration.
December 2025: Economic Collapse as a Catalyst
December 2025 brought the catalyst for the currency’s collapse, which fueled inflation that threatened both households and merchants. The Iranian currency, the rial, plummeted to unprecedented lows, wiping out the purchasing power of millions of Iranians. Prices for basic necessities skyrocketed, making daily survival impossible for a large portion of the population. This unprecedented economic crisis served as a trigger for resentment that had been building up over decades of misery and oppression.
However, the broader aspirations of many Iranians quickly expanded this movement into a renewed challenge to the regime’s legitimacy. What began as economic protests has transformed into a broader movement demanding political freedoms, respect for human rights, and an end to religious tyranny. The slogans have become more radical, shifting from economic demands to direct calls for the overthrow of the regime. This evolution shows that Iranian discontent is deep-seated and structural, transcending mere economic hardship to strike at the very foundation of the legitimacy of the current political system.
Iran’s economic collapse is not just a matter of numbers and charts; it is a human catastrophe that is destroying lives. I think of those families who can no longer feed their children, of those young graduates whose dreams are being shattered by rampant inflation. The regime has stolen not only the freedom of the Iranian people, but also their economic dignity. This dual oppression—political and economic—creates unbearable pressure that is bound to erupt sooner or later. The world cannot continue to ignore this silent suffering, which is intensifying every day.
Section 3: Ali Khamenei and the Survival of the Theocratic Regime
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FAdobeStock_1230466512-optimized-madmax-mkfyedpa.jpeg)
The Supreme Leader Refuses to Step Down
Personally, I don’t think the Supreme Leader will step down until he is too ill to continue. Ali Khamenei, who has ruled Iran since 1989, seems determined to go down fighting, holding on to power until his last breath. Although less visible in day-to-day affairs, he remains at the helm of the regime for the foreseeable future. His iron fist continues to dictate the country’s direction, with no regard for the aspirations of his people. This stubborn refusal to relinquish power despite massive opposition highlights the complete disconnect between the leader’s will and that of the people.
Rumors of his imminent retirement have circulated repeatedly, but each time they have been disproved by reality. The system he has built is so deeply personalized around his figure that it seems impossible to separate him from power without causing the entire edifice to collapse. This concentration of power in the hands of a single man, without any mechanism for democratic transition, condemns Iran to a dangerous political impasse. The country remains trapped in a system that can neither evolve nor change without violence and bloodshed.
This elderly man’s ability to cling to power despite everything both fascinates and repulses me. Ali Khamenei embodies everything that is harmful about authoritarian rule: boundless arrogance, utter contempt for the will of the people, and an extraordinary ability to ignore reality. He has transformed a country rich in history and culture into a giant prison where every citizen is a suspect and under surveillance. His senile obstinacy in clinging to power despite the opposition of millions of people is a tragedy unfolding in real time. I cannot help but wonder how many lives have been destroyed by his determination to preserve a system that has long since lost all legitimacy.
The regime isn’t adapting; it’s cracking down even harder
The other question is even easier to answer because the regime has already provided its answer. It does not adapt: it follows the same playbook it has used since the first major wave of student protests in 1999. Intimidate the opposition and protesters. Detain them. Mistreat them. Force them to confess. Kill them if necessary. Restrict communications. This method of brutal repression has not changed in nearly 30 years, demonstrating the regime’s fundamental inability to evolve or to meet the needs of its people other than through force.
Next, it calls on its supporters to take to the streets. It uses state media and its spokespeople—one of whom, the main unofficial English-language spokesperson, is a former colleague from the University of Birmingham, Seyed Mohammad Marandi—to insist that true Iranians support the regime and that the protesters are puppets of the United States and Israel. This constant propaganda aims to delegitimize the protest movement by portraying it as a foreign conspiracy rather than a spontaneous uprising by the Iranian people themselves.
This constant reliance on propaganda and lies to justify the unjustifiable makes me sick. How can these spokespeople sleep at night knowing they are defending a system that tortures and kills its own people? The way they distort reality to serve the interests of an illegitimate regime is an insult to the intelligence of everyone observing this situation. Iranians are not foreign puppets; they are human beings who have the courage to stand up against tyranny. Reducing them to tools of foreign powers is a form of dehumanization that reveals the absolute cynicism of this regime.
Section 4: Regional Allies and Their Geopolitical Calculations
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FAdobeStock_1348092378-optimized-madmax-mkfyegc2.jpeg)
Israel and the Arab states oppose U.S. intervention
Although Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and the other Gulf states benefit from a weakened Iranian regime, they do not want a regime that collapses without a clear successor. The power vacuum that would result from the sudden collapse of the Iranian system would be just as dangerous as the continuation of the current regime. Regional stability, however imperfect, is preferable to the total chaos that an uncontrolled collapse could cause. These regional actors seem to have realized that the risk of chaos far outweighs the potential benefits of regime change.
Paradoxically, they also know that U.S. military intervention could strengthen the Iranian leadership. Since 1999, the regime has relied on portraying its opponents as American and Israeli agents. A U.S. attack would reinforce this narrative. The regime could present itself as the defender of national sovereignty against foreign aggression, thereby rallying part of the population behind it. This dynamic explains why even Iran’s sworn enemies prefer a strategy of containment rather than direct military intervention.
The cold and calculating realpolitik of these regional actors leaves me perplexed. How can one weigh the pros and cons of human intervention as if it were a simple mathematical problem? The fact that they are more concerned about regional instability than the suffering of the Iranian people reveals a cynicism that makes my blood run cold. Geopolitical calculations should never take precedence over the fundamental rights of human beings. This prioritization of stability over justice is the reason why our world remains so unjust and violent.
The Risks of a Military Confrontation in the Region
But the fundamental calculation is likely that a U.S. assault would lead to instability throughout the region. Iran could retaliate against U.S. positions or those of the Gulf states. It could threaten the Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately 20% of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and 25% of oil are transported by sea. Such a disruption to global energy flows would have catastrophic economic consequences for the world economy, affecting billions of people who have nothing to do with this conflict.
Although its allies in the Middle East—from Hezbollah to the Houthis—have been weakened, there could still be repercussions in Lebanon, Yemen, and other countries. Iranian militant groups in the region could launch attacks against U.S. and Israeli interests in retaliation for military intervention. The risk of an uncontrollable regional escalation is real and terrifying. A U.S. attack could trigger a chain reaction of conflict that would engulf the entire region in violence and chaos.
This prospect of a devastating regional war terrifies me. The cold, rational calculations of military strategists never take into account the human suffering their decisions cause. A war in the Strait of Hormuz would not simply be an energy crisis; it would be a humanitarian catastrophe that would destroy millions of lives. How can we accept that economic or geopolitical interests take precedence over the value of human life? This logic of using potential destruction as a bargaining chip repulses me to the core. We must find another way to resolve international conflicts that does not involve the threat of mutual destruction.
Section 5: Reza Pahlavi and the Question of Succession
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FAdobeStock_734378383-optimized-madmax-mkfyeizi.jpeg)
The Shah’s Son: A Solution Imposed from Outside
I am skeptical of the idea of parachuting the son of the late Shah into Iran as its leader, whether on the throne or in some other seat of power. Reza Pahlavi left the country at the age of 18 in 1979. Since then, having declared himself Shah and leader of a government-in-exile, he has forged ties with monarchist groups but has been rejected by others in the opposition. His prolonged absence from the country and his lack of direct experience with contemporary Iranian reality make him ill-suited to lead such a complex and divided nation.
Some groups within the Iranian diaspora and their foreign supporters are ardent supporters of Pahlavi, and some within Iran would undoubtedly favor him as an option. But according to my personal contacts, all the evidence reported in the media, and in polls such as the one published in The Conversation on January 12, most Iranians do not want a return to the monarchy. The traumatic experience of the previous monarchy remains too vivid in the collective memory for a restoration to be acceptable.
The idea that we could impose a leader on a people who did not choose him revolts me. Reza Pahlavi may be a charming and cultured man, but he remains the representative of a system that Iranians rejected more than 40 years ago. How can we think we know better than Iranians what is good for them? This Western arrogance—this tendency to choose the leaders of other countries—is the root of many of the world’s ills. Through their protests, the Iranian people have shown that they want to determine their own future, not have a monarchy imposed from outside.
Lessons from Iraq: The Dangers of Imposed Regime Change
People also know from the experience of neighboring Iraq in 2003 that imposing a leader from outside may not go well. The U.S.-supervised administration under Ahmad Chalabi—who, like Pahlavi, had spent more than 40 years outside the country—quickly collapsed. Iraq endured an insurgency and a civil war in which hundreds of thousands of people were killed. This traumatic experience illustrates the deadly dangers of imposing external solutions on complex societies without understanding their internal realities.
This raises a broader and more important question in which Pahlavi should be sidelined. For all the scale and potential of the protests, the opposition lacks the organization to carry out its political, social, and economic ambitions. The regime has ensured this through its “decapitation” strategy, imprisoning prominent activists from all spheres of Iranian society. How can the protesters and the opposition be supported in developing this organizational capacity? The fundamental question is not who will lead, but how to build an opposition capable of leading.
The failure to learn the lessons of Iraq terrifies me. We have already seen what happens when external solutions are imposed on complex societies: hundreds of thousands of deaths, years of chaos, and instability that persists to this day. How can we risk repeating the same mistake in Iran? Western hubris—which leads us to believe we can remake the world in our own image—is the cause of so much unnecessary suffering. Instead of seeking to impose solutions, we should listen to the Iranians themselves and support them in their own process of building a better society.
Section 6: Iranian Political Prisoners
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FAdobeStock_1755711158-optimized-madmax-mkfyeljy.jpeg)
A roster of potential leaders behind bars
I don’t think of this in terms of leaders, but in terms of the organization I just referred to. Long-term political prisoners include politicians such as Mostafa Tajzadeh, the former interior minister who has been behind bars for most of the past 16 years. Then there are human rights activists such as Nobel Peace Prize laureate Narges Mohammadi and Majid Tavakoli. There are also lawyers such as Nasrin Sotoudeh, as well as labor activists, students, and journalists.
Mir Hossein Mousavi served as prime minister from 1981 to 1989, when the regime abolished the position, and is the man who is believed to have won the first round of the 2009 presidential election before the regime intervened. Mousavi has been under strict house arrest with his wife, the artist, scholar, and activist Zahra Rahnavard, since February 2011. These prisoners represent the best of Iranian society—men and women who have dedicated their lives to fighting for freedom and justice in their country.
The list of these prisoners breaks my heart. Each name represents a life destroyed by the cruelty of a regime that has no regard for human dignity. Narges Mohammadi, Nasrin Sotoudeh, Mir Hossein Mousavi: these are heroes and heroines who have paid a terrible price for their courage. Their imprisonment is not only a personal tragedy; it is an immense loss for all of Iranian society, which is being deprived of its finest minds. This war against intelligence and courage reveals the fundamentally malevolent nature of the Iranian regime.
The Release of Prisoners as the Key to Change
Mousavi’s release would be symbolically significant. Freedom for the others would provide a practical boost to the opposition: they could lay the groundwork for an organized movement capable of engaging with the regime to bring about the necessary political, economic, and social changes. These prisoners possess the experience, legitimacy, and charisma needed to unite the various factions of the opposition and present a credible alternative to the current regime.
That is why, rather than focusing on Donald Trump’s threatening remarks about military action, I hope people will concentrate on the release of these prisoners as well as on opening up communications within Iran and between Iran and the outside world. The release of political prisoners would be a concrete step that could pave the way for genuine dialogue and a peaceful transition to a more democratic system. It is a concrete and achievable demand that could have a real impact on the situation.
Prioritizing the release of political prisoners strikes me as the only rational and moral approach. Instead of threatening mass destruction, we should demand the release of these extraordinary men and women who represent Iran’s hope. Their prolonged imprisonment is an insult to justice and human decency. If the world truly wants to help the Iranian people, it must begin by demanding an end to this systematic repression of the courageous voices that dare to defy tyranny. The release of these prisoners would be the first step toward a peaceful and lasting solution.
Section 7: The Regime's Strategy in Response to Protests
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FAdobeStock_865338475-optimized-madmax-mkfyeo4o.jpeg)
The Systematic Suppression of the Opposition
Despite the scale and potential of the protests, the opposition lacks the organizational capacity to achieve its political, social, and economic ambitions. The regime has ensured this through its decapitation strategy, imprisoning prominent activists from all spheres of Iranian society. This systematic strategy aimed at eliminating any potential leadership of the opposition has been remarkably effective in its cruelty. By systematically targeting natural leaders, the regime ensures that the protests remain disorganized and thus easier to suppress.
How can protesters and the opposition be supported in developing this organization? This is the fundamental question that will determine the future of the protest movement. Without a solid organization and clear leadership, even the most massive protests will eventually run out of steam in the face of the regime’s determination to maintain power by any means necessary. The development of a structured and capable opposition is a prerequisite for any meaningful change in Iran.
This strategy of methodical decapitation reveals the sophistication and cruelty of the Iranian regime. It does not merely suppress protests; it preempts any possibility of future organization by systematically eliminating potential leaders. It is a war of attrition against the very spirit of Iranian resistance. I am both horrified by the effectiveness of this strategy and in awe of the resilience of the Iranian people, who continue to protest despite everything. The regime’s ability to systematically destroy any form of alternative organization is the greatest obstacle to change in Iran.
Communication Strategy and State Propaganda
The regime uses sophisticated propaganda to discredit the protests and portray them as foreign conspiracies. It then calls on its supporters to take to the streets. It uses state media and its spokespeople—one of whom, the main unofficial English-language spokesperson, is a former colleague of mine from the University of Birmingham, Seyed Mohammad Marandi—to insist that true Iranians support the regime and that the protesters are puppets of the United States and Israel. This disinformation campaign aims to divide the population and isolate the protesters.
At the same time, the regime maintains strict control over internal and external communications. The internet is regularly shut down or heavily restricted during periods of protest, preventing demonstrators from organizing and communicating with the outside world. Social media is blocked, cell phones are monitored, and foreign journalists are prevented from covering the events. This strategy of isolation allows the regime to carry out its crackdown behind the scenes, far from international cameras.
The way the Iranian regime manipulates information and controls communications repulses me. This crude propaganda, which portrays protesters as traitors to their country, is an insult to the intelligence and dignity of the Iranian people. The fact that it can block access to information for its own citizens and the entire world reveals its fundamentally malicious nature. This control over information is a tool of tyranny as powerful as physical repression. By preventing Iranians from communicating with one another and with the world, the regime aims to break their spirit of solidarity and their capacity for resistance.
Conclusion: The Uncertain Future of a Divided Nation
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FAdobeStock_767350314-optimized-madmax-mkfyeqpc.jpeg)
The International Community’s Abandonment of the Protesters
Avoiding what could have been a disastrous confrontation between the United States and Iran is a relief for the region and the entire world. But the Iranians risking their lives in the streets will feel abandoned and discouraged. This sudden about-face by the Trump administration has created a sense of deep betrayal among those who had believed in the promises of U.S. support. The silence following the initial threats is almost as devastating as the crackdown itself, as it sends a clear message: the world does not really care about their plight.
This sense of abandonment is not new to Iranians. They have already seen the world remain silent in the face of other waves of repression in the past. But this time, the Trump administration’s explicit promises of support raised hopes that have now been dashed. This betrayal of hope is likely to have lasting consequences for Iranians’ trust in the international community. Why would they risk their lives in the future if the world has shown that it won’t stand by them when it really matters?
This sense of collective abandonment breaks my heart in two. Imagine risking your life every day for freedom, hearing promises of support, only to find yourself alone in the face of ruthless repression. This betrayal of promises is perhaps more painful than the repression itself, because it destroys hope. The Iranian people aren’t asking for much: just for the world to recognize their struggle for dignity and freedom. But even that seems to be asking too much. Our collective failure to stand alongside those fighting for the values we claim to uphold is a shame that will weigh on me for a long time.
The Future Outlook for Iran and Its People
Iran’s future remains uncertain and bleak. The regime has once again survived through brute force, but the deep-seated discontent among the population remains intact. Waves of protest will return, as they have in the past, because the root causes of the discontent have not been addressed. The economy continues to collapse, fundamental freedoms remain trampled upon, and power remains concentrated in the hands of a religious elite that does not meet the needs of its people.
However, every wave of protest leaves its mark. Each generation of Iranians who take to the streets learns from the experience of previous waves. The resilience of the Iranian people in the face of this systematic oppression is a testament to a moral strength that will ultimately triumph. The question is not whether change will come, but when and how. Iran is at a tipping point, and the next wave of protests could be the one that finally makes a difference. For now, the country remains divided and oppressed, but not defeated.
I remain hopeful despite everything. History teaches us that no oppressive regime can last forever. The determination of the Iranian people to continue fighting against all odds is proof that the human spirit cannot be broken forever. Every protest, every act of courage, every life sacrificed paves the way toward freedom. Tyrants may win battles, but they will ultimately lose the war against humanity’s innate desire for freedom. Iran will weather this dark period, and when it emerges, it will be stronger, freer, and more dignified than ever. It is this vision that allows me to continue believing in the future despite the current darkness.
Sources
Primary sources
The Conversation, “Iran Protests: Trump Stalls on U.S. Intervention, Leaving an Uncertain Future for a Bitterly Divided Nation—Expert Q&A,” published January 15, 2026.
Times of Israel, “Trump stalls on Iran intervention, leaving an uncertain future for a divided nation,” accessed in January 2026.
Associated Press, “Trump and top Iranian officials exchange threats over protests roiling Iran,” accessed in January 2026.
Secondary sources
University College Dublin, Scott Lucas, professor of international politics at the Clinton Institute, interview conducted in January 2026.
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “Iran’s protests are following a familiar pattern,” article published in January 2026.
Wikipedia, “2025–2026 Iranian protests,” accessed January 2026.
This content was created with the help of AI.
