A String of Defeats Abroad
Iran is ripe for change—that is undeniable. The past few years have been particularly humiliating for the mullahs’ regime on the international stage. Their proxy in Gaza, Hamas, launched the October 7 attacks without Tehran being fully informed of the details, dragging them into a conflict over which they had little control. This lack of coordination and inability to control their own regional allies have exposed deep flaws in Iran’s leadership apparatus. They were then forced to accept that another proxy they had spent decades cultivating—Hezbollah—remained largely on the sidelines of a broader conflict with Israel, thereby limiting their ability to project influence in the region. This forced passivity stood in stark contrast to Tehran’s usual bellicose rhetoric and its repeated threats to destroy Israel.
The Iranian-armed Houthi rebels in Yemen launched attacks that had virtually no impact on Israel, demonstrating once again the limits of Iran’s ability to project power and the ineffectiveness of its regional allies. Worse still, the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad, a longtime ally of Iran, collapsed as Assad fled to Moscow, thereby squandering the Iranian efforts invested in keeping him in power during the country’s devastating civil war. Iran had invested billions of dollars and thousands of lives in supporting Assad, viewing Syria as a crucial link in its regional “axis of resistance.” The fall of the Syrian regime therefore represents not only a major strategic setback but also a considerable investment lost forever, with lasting consequences for Iran’s ability to maintain its influence in the Levant.
There is something ironic about seeing a regime that presents itself as the bastion of anti-imperialist resistance being sidelined in this way by its own allies. Hamas acts without consulting Tehran, Hezbollah remains on the sidelines, the Houthis strike at nothing… It’s like watching a puppeteer lose control of her puppets one by one. What saddens me most about this situation is that civilian populations continue to pay the price for these failed strategic calculations. Syrians have suffered through years of war for a regime that is finally collapsing; Yemenis live in abysmal poverty while their “protectors” launch ineffective missiles; and the Iranian people continue to grow poorer to finance foreign adventures that end in disaster. When will leaders understand that true power lies in the well-being of their own people rather than in fragile alliances with armed groups?
The Collapse of the Shiite Axis
Ten years ago, Iran seemed poised to create a Shiite highway stretching from Tehran to Beirut, with checkpoints in the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea. Today, that sphere of influence appears to be in tatters. Iraq appears determined to free itself from the yoke of Iranian influence and hopes that the recent elections and instability in Iran will weaken the armed groups operating under the authority of the ayatollahs. The Iraqi government, which had long navigated between American and Iranian influence, now appears to be distancing itself from Tehran, aware that the Iraqi public is increasingly hostile to any foreign interference. Iraqi Shia militias, long funded and trained by Iran, now find themselves in a precarious position, their legitimacy challenged by a population weary of violence and corruption.
Added to this is a completely collapsing economy, a devalued currency, and the suppression of the rights of a very young population that refuses to accept the deadlock. The Iranian rial has lost much of its value in recent years, making basic necessities unaffordable for the majority of the population. Rampant inflation, youth unemployment, and widespread corruption have created an explosive mix that fueled the December protests. U.S. and European economic sanctions have exacerbated this situation, but the regime’s inability to implement structural economic reforms is also to blame. The government’s attempts to control prices and crack down on black markets have only made matters worse, creating shortages and fueling popular discontent.
I can’t help but think of this generation of Iranians who have known nothing but the mullahs’ regime but who dream of something different. These young people who use VPNs to bypass censorship, who listen to Western music in secret, who organize protests through encrypted apps… they represent the future of this country, not elderly clerics trapped in their obscurantist ideology. What strikes me is their resilience in the face of adversity. Despite the repression, despite the poverty, despite international isolation, they continue to fight for a better life. And yet, the world continues to abandon them, to treat them like pawns in a geopolitical game that is beyond their control. It makes one wonder whether we truly deserve the leadership role we claim to play on the world stage.
Section 3: Are There Really Alternatives to Dieting?
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2Fimg_a3ed02cb536a5ec8-optimized-madmax-mkll79bo.jpg)
The Ghost of the Monarchy Returns to Haunt Tehran
Reza Pahlavi, the son of the last shah, has made his intentions clear: to lead Iran as a transitional figure. The last thing people want is a king who claims to replace the theocracy that deposed his father for human rights violations, corruption, and authoritarianism. Although Pahlavi deserves credit for calling for protests, it is ridiculous to think that someone who has not set foot in Iran for more than four decades could be put in charge of a country that his father ruled so poorly that a theocracy seemed like a better option at the time. Iranians still remember the reign of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi: the SAVAK, the secret police that tortured and murdered opponents; widespread corruption; the suppression of protests; and the subservient alliance with the United States that fueled nationalist sentiment.
The Iranian opposition in exile is fragmented and divided, with various factions and figures vying for legitimacy and leadership. In addition to Pahlavi, there are leftist groups, Kurdish organizations, student movements, and reformist religious figures, all of whom propose different visions for the country’s future. This fragmentation makes it difficult to create a united and credible alternative to the current regime. Iranians inside the country remain skeptical of the opposition in exile, which they often perceive as out of touch with daily reality and the struggles they face on the ground. The geographical and cultural distance between these exiled leaders and the current Iranian population creates a gap that is difficult to bridge, especially since four decades of Islamic rule have profoundly transformed Iranian society.
There is something pathetic about the notion that the Iranian opposition must necessarily come from outside the country—and worse still, from the family of the deposed shah. As if the Iranian people were incapable of producing their own leaders and their own solutions! Pahlavi has lived in the United States for decades; he no longer knows the reality of the country he claims to lead. He speaks perfect English, rubs shoulders with American and European diplomats, and is photographed in luxury hotels while the Iranian people are fighting in the streets. How can anyone believe he could embody the change the people want? It’s not just a matter of political legitimacy; it’s a matter of human connection. Iranians want leaders who have lived through what they’re going through, who have suffered as they have, who understand their aspirations and frustrations. Not the heirs of dictators who fled the country at the first opportunity.
The Stalemate Between Theocracy and Democracy
That doesn’t mean Iran has to remain a theocracy, however. Ayatollah Khamenei and the country’s religious elites have ruled the country in much the same way as the Shah. The suppression of rights, executions, corruption, and authoritarianism are the norm, as are billions spent on destabilizing their neighbors instead of investing resources in their own people. The Iranian Revolution failed long ago, but only brutal oppression keeps the regime in power. The Revolutionary Guards, the regime’s ideological army, control a large part of the economy and suppress any dissent with formidable efficiency. Elections, when they take place, are carefully rigged to ensure that only candidates loyal to the system can run.
However, the regime’s control mechanisms are beginning to show signs of wear and tear. The mullahs’ power base rests on a complex network of patronage and repression that requires considerable resources. With the economy in trouble and economic sanctions mounting, the regime is finding it increasingly difficult to finance this apparatus of control. The Revolutionary Guards, which have long been the backbone of the regime, are beginning to show signs of division and internal corruption. Some officers have begun to question the regime’s adventurous foreign policy, which has cost dearly in lives and money without bringing tangible benefits to the Iranian people. These cracks within the state apparatus itself create opportunities for the opposition, provided it manages to organize itself and present a credible alternative.
What despairs me most about this situation is the misconception that the choice boils down to the current theocracy or a return to the monarchy. As if the Iranian people were incapable of conceiving of anything other than these two terribly limited options! Iran has a history stretching back a thousand years, a rich culture, and an educated and entrepreneurial population. Why should we accept that their future is reduced to a choice between two forms of authoritarianism? There are alternatives—democratic models that could work in Iran, reforms that could transform the country without bloodshed. But for that to happen, the international community must genuinely support Iran’s democratic forces—not just with words, but with concrete actions. And unfortunately, what we’ve seen in recent weeks doesn’t offer much hope in that regard.
Section 4: The Geopolitics of Inaction
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FThe_American_flag_is_waving_in_the_wind-optimized-madmax-mkll7bx9.jpg)
The Trump Administration Caught in a Pinch
Trump was right to challenge the regime and encourage the protesters. Any president worthy of the name would have done the same. But he went further: by threatening to take action against the government, he gave the protesters hope that they would indeed be supported by the United States. That hope, as we now see, was premature and unfounded. The U.S. administration found itself in a delicate position, torn between its interventionist instincts and very real geopolitical constraints. On the one hand, the president and his political allies saw an opportunity to weaken a longtime enemy and score points with American voters by showing firmness in the face of a dictatorial regime. On the other hand, the State Department, the Pentagon, and the intelligence agencies warned of the risks of military intervention in a country as complex and strategically important as Iran.
The United States’ European and Asian allies also expressed serious reservations about military intervention. Germany, France, and the United Kingdom all highlighted the risks of regional escalation and the potential impact on global oil markets. China and Russia, which have significant interests in Iran, warned that they would oppose any unilateral U.S. action. This international pressure ultimately prevailed over the Trump administration’s interventionist instincts. The lack of consensus within the U.S. administration itself—between those who wanted swift military action and those who advocated a more diplomatic approach—also contributed to the final inaction. Internal divisions prevented the development of a coherent strategy, leaving the Iranian regime free to crack down on the protests without fear of serious consequences.
It’s always the same story, isn’t it? The United States claims to be the defender of freedom and democracy around the world, but when it comes time to take action, it always finds excuses not to intervene. I’m tired of this empty rhetoric, these hollow promises, these threats that are never followed by action. American leaders seem to have forgotten that freedom must be earned, that it must be defended, that it is not won through tweets but through concrete actions. What saddens me most is seeing how civilians continue to be the victims of this political hesitation. The Iranians who have died in the streets, who have been tortured in prisons, who have seen their families torn apart… all for nothing, because America did not have the courage of its convictions. It is a tragedy that repeats itself over and over again, and I do not know how much longer we can continue to tolerate this hypocrisy.
The Cynical Calculations of Regional Powers
The Gulf states, although officially opposed to Iranian influence in the region, also have complex reasons for opposing U.S. intervention that could further destabilize the region. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates fear that a collapse of the Iranian regime would create a power vacuum that could be even more dangerous than the current status quo. They dread the emergence of radical factions, a protracted civil war, or even greater interference from extra-regional powers such as Russia and China. These countries also have significant economic interests in Iran, particularly in the energy sector, which they do not want to see compromised by war or prolonged instability. Their opposition to military intervention is therefore not motivated by any support for the Iranian regime, but rather by a cynical calculation of geopolitical risks and benefits.
Israel, which is Iran’s most virulent enemy, also finds itself in a complex position. Although Israel would like to see Iran weakened, it does not want a chaotic collapse that could create security problems along its borders. Israeli leaders fear that a chaotic Iran would become fertile ground for extremist groups and militias that could directly threaten Israel. This is why Israel’s approach has been to contain Iran rather than seek to overthrow its regime directly. Targeted strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, cyber operations, and the assassinations of Iranian scientists are all methods for weakening Tehran without provoking an all-out war. This cautious approach contrasts with the bellicose rhetoric of certain American politicians who are calling for direct military intervention.
There is something depressing about this cold and calculating realpolitik. The Gulf states, Israel, the Western powers… all seem to be making strategic calculations while completely ignoring the fate of the Iranian people. To them, Iranians are nothing more than pawns on a geopolitical chessboard, variables in complex equations that have nothing to do with fundamental human aspirations. I cannot help but think of that mother who lost her fifteen-year-old daughter in the protests, of that student arrested simply for participating in a demonstration, of all those lives shattered by a brutal regime while the world looks on passively. Is there no longer any place for morality in international politics? Are we doomed to perpetually sacrifice civilian populations on the altar of strategic interests?
Section 5: Lessons from a Predicted Failure
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2Fimg_c7547909a034fa0c-optimized-madmax-mkll7ekn.jpg)
The Limits of Threat Diplomacy
It is probably unrealistic to think that a military strike against the Iranian government would have led to the collapse of the regime. Israel and the Arab states opposed such a strike, as did members of the Trump administration. The protesters arrested in Iran may not be executed today, but they will be once Trump has forgotten they even exist. This brutal reality must be accepted: verbal threats, however strong, are not enough to bring down a regime determined to maintain its power at any cost. History has taught us time and again that dictatorships are remarkably resilient in the face of external pressure, as long as they maintain control over their security forces and repressive apparatus. Iran is no exception to this rule.
Economic sanctions, although they have had a significant impact on the Iranian economy, have failed to bring about regime change or even substantial reforms. On the contrary, the regime has used the sanctions as a scapegoat to explain the country’s economic difficulties, blaming the West rather than its own mismanagement. The sanctions have also strengthened the position of hardliners within the regime who advocate a more nationalist and confrontational line, arguing that any compromise with the West is doomed to failure. This dynamic has made it more difficult for moderates within the regime to argue in favor of reforms, as they are perceived as weak or complicit with external enemies. The net result is that sanctions often have the paradoxical effect of strengthening the very regime they are meant to weaken.
I feel as though I’m reliving the same scenarios over and over again. Threats, sanctions, international condemnation… and yet dictatorships continue to persist, people continue to suffer, and the status quo endures. Why are we unable to learn from our mistakes? Why do we continue to believe that the same ineffective approaches will produce different results this time? There is something absurd about this repetition, as if we were doomed to reenact the same play endlessly, with the same actors, the same dialogue, and the same tragic conclusion. What strikes me most is the resilience of these authoritarian regimes in the face of adversity. They know exactly how to play the international game, how to use Western threats to bolster their domestic legitimacy, how to divide their opponents, and how to neutralize external pressure. Meanwhile, we—with our good intentions and democratic principles—continue to lose battle after battle.
The Fragility of Alliances of Convenience
The international community has once again demonstrated its inability to unite in the face of human rights violations and dictatorial oppression. Divisions among the major powers, the conflicting interests of regional countries, and the cynical calculations of realpolitik have prevented any coordinated and effective response. The European Union, although critical of the Iranian regime, has prioritized preserving the nuclear deal and regional stability over supporting the domestic opposition. China and Russia have systematically blocked any UN Security Council resolution that might have condemned the Iranian crackdown or imposed new sanctions. The United States, despite its strong rhetoric, ultimately backed down under pressure from its allies and its own internal divisions.
This international fragmentation has left the field open for the Iranian regime to crack down on protests with near-total impunity. Iranian authorities know they can count on the Russian and Chinese vetoes in the Security Council, on European hesitation to take radical measures, and on the inconsistency of U.S. policy. This knowledge gives them greater confidence in their ability to survive internal and external crises. The lack of international consensus also means that the regime can play off divisions among the major powers to secure concessions or buy time. This is a strategy that has worked in the past and continues to bear fruit, as demonstrated by the recent protest crisis.
This inability of the international community to act in unison in the face of injustice baffles me. How can we claim to defend universal values if we are not even capable of agreeing on a response to flagrant human rights violations? Political divisions and national interests always seem to take precedence over morality and principles. What despairs me the most is the normalization of this inaction. We’ve become so accustomed to seeing dictatorships oppress their people with impunity that it no longer even shocks us. Syria, Venezuela, Myanmar, Iran… the list goes on and on, and our response remains the same: words, words, and more words. When will we understand that words aren’t enough, that justice demands action, that freedom must be earned?
Section 6: The Price Paid by the Victims
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2Fimg_0a3a0d4d4c95690c-optimized-madmax-mkll7h5u.jpg)
Lives Shattered for Nothing
Reports beginning to emerge from the Iranian internet blackout paint a horrifying picture of repression. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of bodies are piling up in forensic centers in Tehran and other cities. Families are desperately searching for their missing loved ones, only to be met with authorities who refuse to provide any information. Accounts of torture, summary executions, rape, and other atrocities committed by security forces. Hospitals are overwhelmed by the number of victims, lacking medical supplies and staff to cope with this wave of violence. Doctors who attempt to treat the wounded risk their own lives by defying government orders forbidding them from treating protesters.
Most of the victims are young Iranians—students, workers, ordinary people who simply dared to ask for a better life. Some were in their early twenties; others were children. Soccer referees, nurses, teachers… people who never imagined they would one day face the brutality of a regime determined to crush all opposition. These lives are not merely statistics; they are tragic human stories that deserve to be told and honored. Each victim represents lost potential, shattered dreams, and families torn apart by the violence of a state that should be protecting them. The human cost of this repression is incalculable and will continue to be felt for generations.
When I think of these victims, I feel a deep, lingering anger that won’t leave me. This anger is directed at a regime that knows no bounds in its cruelty, at an international community that remains passive, and at a system that sacrifices the innocent on the altar of stability. But above all, I feel immense sadness. Sadness for these young people who will never have the chance to fulfill their dreams, for these parents who have buried their children, for all that human potential squandered by an obscurantist ideology and a cowardly international policy. I often wonder what these victims would think if they could see how the world has reacted to their sacrifice. Would they be proud to see Western governments verbally condemn their massacre while continuing to do business with their killers? Or would they be disgusted by this hypocrisy? I don’t have an answer, but this question haunts me.
A Nation’s Collective Trauma
Beyond the immediate cost in human lives, this crackdown will leave deep and lasting scars on Iranian society. The trauma of state violence, torture, and the loss of loved ones does not fade with time. It is passed down from generation to generation, shaping the collective memory and the national psyche. Iranians have already experienced such traumas in the past: the 1979 revolution, the war with Iraq, the purges of the 1980s, and the protests of 2009 and 2022. Each event has added another layer to a collective trauma that defines the relationship between the Iranian people and their state.
This trauma manifests itself in various ways: distrust of institutions, fear of political engagement, mass emigration of young people and elites, depression, and other mental health issues. Future generations of Iranians will grow up with these stories of violence and oppression, which will shape their perception of the world and their political aspirations. Even if the regime were to eventually fall one day, the path to national healing would be long and difficult. Reconciliation, transitional justice, and rebuilding trust between citizens and the state would be major challenges for any post-revolutionary government. In the meantime, Iranian society continues to live under the grip of this trauma, unable to fully heal until the root causes of the violence are addressed.
What strikes me most about this situation is the resilience of the Iranian people despite it all. Despite decades of repression, despite the accumulated trauma, despite the sacrifices, Iranians continue to fight, to dream, and to hope. This ability to persevere in the face of adversity both fascinates and inspires me. I cannot help but think of this quote often attributed to Nelson Mandela: “The enemy of the people is not their oppressor; it is apathy and fear.” The Iranians have refused to give in to apathy and fear, and that deserves our respect and admiration. But this resilience should not excuse us from taking action. On the contrary, it should challenge us, push us to do more, to be better. If a people can show such courage in the face of such oppression, why can’t we, in turn, show the same courage in our support for their cause?
Section 7: What Does the Future Hold for Iran?
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2Fimg_38c83a4cd58a5f5a-optimized-madmax-mkll7kiv.jpg)
Possible Scenarios and Their Probabilities
In the short term, the Iranian regime appears to have succeeded in containing the wave of protests and restoring a semblance of control. Security forces remain on high alert in major cities, internet censorship continues, and arrests are ongoing. The regime has likely succeeded in identifying and dismantling part of the opposition’s organizational structure, making it more difficult to coordinate new large-scale protests. In the medium term, however, the root causes of popular discontent have not been addressed. The economy remains in trouble, corruption persists, and the democratic aspirations of a young and educated population will not disappear.
Several scenarios are possible for Iran’s future. The first scenario is a continuation of the status quo, with the regime managing to maintain its power through a combination of selective repression and limited concessions. This is the scenario currently favored by international observers, but it is fragile and requires considerable resources that the regime may not have in the long term. The second scenario is gradual liberalization, with the regime accepting political and economic reforms to meet the aspirations of the people and ensure its survival. This scenario depends on the willingness of the ruling elites to sacrifice some of their control to save the system—an assumption that seems unlikely given the regime’s history.
I often wonder what will trigger the next uprising in Iran. Will it be another economic crisis? A political succession following Khamenei’s death? A military confrontation that goes awry? Or will it simply be the accumulation of frustrations that eventually boils over? What I know for certain is that the status quo is not sustainable. No regime can indefinitely repress its people without consequences. Sooner or later, something will give, and when that happens, the consequences could be far more dramatic than what we saw in January 2026. What worries me is that the international community does not seem prepared for this eventuality. We continue to manage the situation on a day-to-day basis, without a strategic vision or a plan for the future. And when the inevitable happens, we will likely once again be caught off guard, unable to respond in a coherent manner.
The Role of the Iranian Diaspora
The Iranian diaspora, estimated at several million people, plays a crucial role in supporting the protest movement and promoting democratic causes in Iran. These exiles, who live mainly in Europe, North America, and Australia, maintain ties with their country of origin and use their relatively privileged position to draw international attention to the situation in Iran. They organize demonstrations, campaign for targeted sanctions, and provide financial and logistical support to activists inside the country. The Iranian diaspora is also active on social media, circumventing the regime’s censorship to disseminate information and coordinate actions.
However, the Iranian diaspora is itself fragmented, with political and ideological divisions that reflect the complexity of Iranian society. Some groups advocate a return to the monarchy, others defend a secular republic, and still others support a form of reformed Islamic democracy. These divisions can sometimes weaken the diaspora’s effectiveness as a united force for change. Furthermore, the diaspora faces accusations of being out of touch with reality in Iran, of being disconnected from the daily struggles of the people, and of failing to understand the complex nuances of domestic politics. Despite this criticism, the Iranian diaspora remains an important actor in the struggle for democracy in Iran and deserves greater support from democratic governments and international civil society.
There is something poignant about this relationship between the Iranian diaspora and its homeland. It is a bond made up of love, nostalgia, guilt, and hope. I have met many Iranians in exile who live a sort of double life: a life of integration and success in their adopted country, and another mental and emotional life that remains rooted in Iran. They obsessively follow the news from their homeland, send money to their families, participate in protests, and advocate for political causes… all while knowing they cannot return home. It is an existence marked by simultaneous absence and presence—a form of geographical and emotional limbo that must be incredibly difficult to endure. Yet, despite this suffering, they continue to fight for their country, and that deserves our respect and admiration.
Conclusion: A Broken Promise
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2Fcontrast_american_flag_dark_background-optimized-madmax-mkll7nlr.jpg)
A Bitter Lesson on the Limits of American Power
Recent events in Iran have once again demonstrated the limits of American power and Washington’s inability to impose its will by force, even in the most morally justifiable cases. The United States has spent billions trying to understand Iran so it could overthrow its regime. The opportunity was there, and we may have just squandered it because an empty threat led to a deadly reaction with no consequences. If Trump wanted to strike, that was his right, and it should have been applauded if he’d had a plan. But the theatrics were based on the appearance of strength rather than on actual strength.
This inability to translate rhetoric into action poses a serious problem for American credibility on the international stage. The United States’ allies, like its adversaries, are watching closely to see how Washington responds to crises. A leader who constantly threatens but never follows through on those threats eventually loses all credibility and influence. Allies can no longer rely on American promises, and adversaries know they can defy America without fear of real consequences. This erosion of credibility has profound implications for global stability, as it encourages aggressive actors to take risks they would not otherwise have taken, and it discourages nations that depend on American protection.
I don’t know what bothers me more about this situation: Trump’s hypocrisy in promising aid and then abandoning it, or the fact that we continue to be surprised by his inconsistency. We knew what he was like before his election; we’ve seen his track record, his style, his lies… and yet we continue to hope that, just once, he’ll do the right thing, that he’ll act with courage and integrity. It’s this kind of naive hope that both fascinates and frustrates me. It’s as if we were incapable of learning, as if we were doomed to relive the same disappointments over and over again. America had a historic opportunity to stand on the right side of history, to support a people fighting for their freedom, to show that power can be used for good… and it has failed once again. This is not just a political failure; it is a moral failure that brings shame upon us all.
The Challenges Facing the West
The West—and more specifically the United States and Europe—must learn from this failure and rethink its approach toward Iran and authoritarian regimes in general. Strong rhetoric without a concrete plan of action only undermines Western credibility and endangers the people who dare to defy their oppressors in the hope of international support that may never come. We must develop more nuanced and effective strategies that combine diplomatic pressure, support for civil society, and preparation for various possible scenarios. The West must also be more honest with itself and with the people it claims to support: empty promises can be just as dangerous as inaction, as they raise hopes that will inevitably be dashed.
Iran’s future remains uncertain, but one thing is clear: the status quo is not sustainable. The root causes of popular discontent remain, and sooner or later, they will resurface in one form or another. The question is not whether Iran will experience major unrest again, but when and how it will manifest itself. The international community must be prepared for this eventuality and have a coherent strategy to respond to it. This means strengthening ties with Iranian civil society, supporting independent media, developing communication channels that bypass the regime’s censorship, and preparing plans for various political contingencies. Only with a thoughtful, long-term approach can the West hope to have a positive impact on Iran’s future.
I don’t want to end on a completely pessimistic note. Despite everything I’ve just said, I continue to believe that change is possible in Iran, just as it is in other oppressed countries. People have an extraordinary capacity to rise up, to fight, and to transform their situation against all odds. What I lack is faith in the ability of Western leaders to support these struggles in a consistent and courageous manner. Perhaps that faith will return one day. Perhaps we will eventually learn from our mistakes, develop smarter strategies, and align our actions with our principles. I sincerely hope that day will come, because lives depend on it, and because the cause of freedom deserves better than the hypocrisy and inconsistency we have seen in recent weeks. I hope the Iranians will be able to forgive our failings and continue to believe in themselves and in their ability to change their country.
Sources
Primary Sources
Article from The Hill – “Trump’s threat on Iran falls flat: regime remains intact” by Jos Joseph, published on January 19, 2026
Reuters article – “Iran protests abate after deadly crackdown, Trump says Tehran calls off mass hangings” by Parisa Hafezi, Nayera Abdallah et al., published on January 16, 2026
BBC article – “Trump vows ‘very strong action’ if Iran executes protesters” by Tabby Wilson, published January 14, 2026
Secondary sources
Reports from the Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) on deaths during protests in Iran, January 2026
Statements by President Donald Trump on Truth Social regarding Iran, January 2026
Testimonies from Iranian residents collected by Reuters and the BBC, January 2026
Press releases from the United Nations Human Rights Office on the situation in Iran, January 2026
This content was created with the help of AI.
