What began as a localised strike by shopkeepers in Tehran’s Grand Bazaar on December 28 over the collapsing rial and soaring inflation has snowballed into the gravest challenge the Islamic Republic has faced since its founding in 1979. The scale and the persistence of protests laid bare deep-seated public resentment towards the state. Iran, long battered by stringent western sanctions, is grappling with entrenched economic distress that worsened after Israel’s bombing campaign in June 2025. In December, the government raised fuel prices and rolled back some food subsidies, a move that, combined with surging prices of essentials, ignited public anger. Protests turned violent last week, prompting a brutal state crackdown. Rights groups in the U.S. and Norway claimed that hundreds of protesters were killed, while Iran’s state media reported that dozens of security personnel were killed by “rioters”. Iran has weathered internal upheavals before and has repeatedly faced external aggression, most recently the Israeli-American attack in June. But what makes the crisis now distinct is the convergence of both: domestic unrest unfolding along with the threat of external intervention. On January 13, U.S. President Donald Trump, who had repeatedly threatened to make a military intervention, urged the protesters to “take over” Iran’s institutions and said “help is on its way”.
Iran’s political and economic system is unsustainable. Repeated protests have exposed structural weaknesses, while the state has shown little capacity to address public grievances. But the solution is not another bombing campaign. While Iran’s rulers are under pressure, it is wrong to assume that they are internally isolated. About 30 million people, roughly 50% of the electorate, voted in the 2024 presidential elections. On January 12, thousands of Iranians took to the streets in pro-government rallies. Despite the Israeli bombings, sustained protests and Mr. Trump’s threats, there are no visible cracks in the loyalty of the security apparatus. An American attack aimed at forced regime change would risk plunging the region into deeper chaos or throwing Iran into prolonged cycles of violence. Instead of “liberation” from the tyranny of theocracy, a war would bring more suffering to the people. Anyone with even a cursory understanding of U.S. invasions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya knows that regime change wars do not resolve internal political crises. Yet, the U.S. appears prepared to repeat the discredited and dangerous path. Those genuinely concerned about the well-being of Iran should instead press for engagement with its rulers and encourage meaningful reform. What Iran needs is quick, credible change to address its economic, political and social crises, a task Tehran can undertake only with foreign assistance — not with another imperial war.
