The central flashpoint in early U.S.–Iran relations was the oil nationalization crisis of the early 1950s, which culminated in the 1953 coup that dramatically reshaped bilateral ties. In 1951, Iran’s Parliament, under Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, passed legislation to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), seeking to wrest control of Iranian oil resources from foreign domination and redirect profits to domestic development. This move quickly became a symbol of Iranian nationalism and economic sovereignty, but alarmed both Britain and the United States.
Britain, heavily invested in AIOC, pressured the United States to intervene, arguing that nationalization threatened Western economic interests and might open the door to Soviet influence amid Cold War tensions. Despite initial reluctance, the Eisenhower administration eventually allied with British intelligence to orchestrate Operation Ajax, a clandestine coup that removed Mosaddegh and reinstated the Shah’s authority in August 1953. The coup was guided by fears that nationalization would destabilize Iran and jeopardize Western access to oil, but it also reinforced perceptions of U.S. interference in Iranian sovereignty.
The aftermath of the coup consolidated pro-Western authoritarian rule under the Shah and deepened Iran’s integration into the U.S. strategic orbit. Western oil companies were reintegrated into Iran’s oil sector through negotiated agreements that gave them significant shares and operational influence, reversing many aspects of Mosaddegh’s nationalization effort. While Western policymakers hailed the outcome as a Cold War victory, many Iranians viewed it as foreign domination over national affairs, sowing deep resentment and mistrust that would reverberate for decades.
After the 1953 coup, Iran became a linchpin of U.S. strategy in the Middle East during the 1950s and 1960s. Under the Shah, Iran aligned closely with American interests, as the U.S. aimed to counter Soviet influence in a region vital for Western energy supplies. Economic and military assistance flooded into Iran, reinforcing its role as a key ally in the U.S. containment policy.
A pivotal aspect of this alliance was the overhaul of Iran’s oil industry to serve Western firms. In 1954, under pressure from the U.S. and U.K., the Shah signed the Consortium Agreement, redistributing control of Iranian oil to a group of Western companies. While the Iranian government retained formal ownership, foreign firms regained managerial control, embedding Western interests into Iran's economy for decades.
Throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, oil revenues fueled rapid economic growth, infrastructure development, and ambitious modernization projects under the Shah. He used oil wealth to enhance industrial capacity, modernize agriculture, and expand education. However, this partnership had a dual nature: while it fostered development and security for the Shah, it also entrenched socioeconomic inequalities and perceptions of Western domination, leading to rising domestic opposition in subsequent years.
During the late 1950s and 1960s, U.S.–Iran cooperation extended into the nuclear arena through President Dwight Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace program. This initiative aimed to promote peaceful nuclear energy while minimizing proliferation fears. In 1957, Iran and the U.S. signed a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement that facilitated the establishment of Iran's first nuclear research facilities, including a research reactor and nuclear fuel supplies. Iran later became an original signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968, officially ratifying it in 1970, thus placing its nuclear activities under international safeguards.
Both U.S. policymakers and Iranian leaders viewed nuclear energy as a marker of progress and modernization, strategically aligning Iran with global atomic cooperation. However, the 1979 Islamic Revolution transformed this collaboration into a source of significant tension. The new Islamic Republic repudiated the Shah's pro-Western policies and sought to assert an independent nuclear agenda, alarming the U.S. and its allies.
Following the revolution, Iran's nuclear pursuits were reinterpreted in the West as security threats, prompting sanctions and diplomatic pressure aimed at curtailing its enrichment activities. These rising tensions led to protracted negotiations, including the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and the subsequent U.S. withdrawal from the agreement in 2018, deepening mistrust. Thus, the nuclear issue encapsulates the shift in U.S.–Iran relations from collaboration to conflict, highlighting the complexities of geopolitical dynamics.
Conversely, Iranian state media often depict the U.S. as an imperialist power intent on dominating regional resources and political systems, frequently referencing historical events like the 1953 coup as proof of American hostility.
Research shows that perceptions among Iranian political elites are influenced by narratives of betrayal and threat, which entrench skepticism towards U.S. motives. This historical framing fosters mutual distrust, complicating diplomatic relations.
Media dynamics also play a crucial role in shaping public opinion. In the U.S., narratives of Iran as a nuclear threat influence public attitudes and pressure policymakers. Meanwhile, Iranian censorship and state broadcasts emphasize resistance to Western hegemony, reinforcing a narrative of external hostility. These contrasting media environments perpetuate conflicting interpretations, making mutual understanding increasingly difficult.
Sources:
U.S. engagement with Iran during the mid‑20th century combined strategic support with programs that helped build Iranian institutional capacity, educational exchange, and scientific cooperation. Beyond Cold War containment, U.S. cultural diplomacy and academic exchanges fostered people‑to‑people ties, trained Iranian professionals and helped integrate scientific communities. These exchanges contributed to mutual understanding and development in fields like health, engineering, and education — benefits that extended beyond geopolitics and enriched both societies.
Foreign interference — especially the 1953 coup — represents a defining breach of Iran's sovereignty. The nationalization of oil was a legitimate assertion of Iran's right to control its resources, and the coup's legacy of foreign meddling was a root cause of later tensions and a rallying point for resisting external pressure. Iran has a right to introduce policies aimed at defending independence and resisting Western influence in political and economic affairs.
U.S. "support" for Iran during the Shah era was a facade for imperial control, with the 1953 coup overthrowing democracy to secure oil interests. This interference radicalized Iranian politics, fueled anti-Americanism, and directly contributed to the 1979 revolution — proving regime-change operations often backfire, creating worse authoritarianism while harming civilians.
Once the revolution succeeded in ousting the Shah, the coalition that had united against the monarchy quickly fractured over the question of Iran’s political future. The most influential force in the post-revolution period was the network of clerics around Ayatollah Khomeini, who advocated not merely regime change but the establishment of a theocratic system grounded in Shiʿi Islamic principles. Central to this was the doctrine of Wilayat el-Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist), which posited that governance should be led by a qualified Islamic jurist, merging religious authority with political power.
In April 1979, a national referendum overwhelmingly endorsed the creation of the Islamic Republic, effectively institutionalizing clerical oversight of the state. While many secular and leftist participants initially believed Khomeini would adopt a symbolic leadership role within a broader democratic framework, the clerical establishment rapidly consolidated control. Revolutionary institutions such as the Islamic Revolutionary Courts were established to try former regime officials and perceived enemies of the revolution; hundreds of Shah loyalists were executed in early 1979 as part of a broad purge.
The newly empowered Islamic Republican Party worked closely with Khomeini to marginalize rival political currents, effectively disbanding many secular or liberal parties, and embedding clerical dominance into the constitutional structure. Political freedoms were curtailed under the justification of protecting the revolution and Islamic values. As a result, initial hopes of a pluralistic post-monarchical order gave way to a theocratic and repressive political system, where dissent was increasingly labeled as counter-revolutionary and met with intimidation or force.
The success of the Iranian Revolution stunned regional and global powers, challenging prevailing assumptions about stability in the Middle East and the durability of pro-Western authoritarian regimes. Until 1979, the Shah had been one of the United States’ cornerstone allies in the region, serving as a bulwark against Soviet influence and a guarantor of stability in the oil-rich Gulf. The sudden collapse of this authoritarian alliance undermined decades of U.S. foreign policy and exposed Western intelligence and strategy as misjudging the depth of domestic discontent.
Globally, the revolution’s success emboldened Islamist movements and altered geopolitical calculations in the Cold War context. Iran’s transformation from a secular monarch allied with the West into an anti-Western Islamic Republic symbolized the potency of religiously framed resistance against both domestic autocracy and foreign influence. The revolution’s ideological impact was felt across the Middle East, contributing to the rise of political Islam and inspiring Islamist movements in countries such as Lebanon, Egypt, and Algeria.
The regional balance of power also shifted: with the Shah gone, Iran’s foreign policy became more assertive, including support for Shiʿi movements and a more confrontational posture toward Israel and U.S. allies. The subsequent Iran–Iraq War (1980–1988) further entrenched revolutionary identity and solidified Iran’s role as a major, if contentious, regional actor.
The Iranian Revolution precipitated an abrupt rupture in U.S.–Iran relations, driven largely by Washington’s misreading of Iranian domestic dynamics and its continued support for the Shah. Despite increasing signs of widespread unrest in 1978, the Carter administration initially clung to the belief that the Shah’s monarchy could be preserved or reformed, rooted in long-standing U.S. strategic interests in maintaining a stable ally in the oil-rich region. U.S. policymakers, including National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, underestimated the revolutionary momentum and failed to effectively pressure the Shah toward meaningful power-sharing reforms with moderate opposition elements.
When the Shah’s health deteriorated and his regime began to falter, U.S. policy became increasingly reactive. A pivotal moment came when the Shah, suffering from terminal illness, was allowed into the United States for medical treatment—a decision that was deeply controversial in Tehran and fueled perceptions that the United States was attempting to intervene in Iran’s internal affairs.
Tensions culminated later in 1979 with the U.S. Embassy hostage crisis, when Iranian students seized the American diplomatic mission in Tehran. This event, and the subsequent breakdown in diplomatic relations, became defining features of U.S. domestic politics, contributing to President Carter’s political challenges and shaping American perceptions of Iran as a hostile state. The severing of formal ties marked a decisive end to decades of alignment and set the stage for decades of adversarial interaction.
The legacy of the 1979 Iranian Revolution continues to reverberate in both Iranian and global narratives, but these narratives are often divergent and conflicting. Within Iran, the revolution is celebrated by supporters as a liberation from a repressive monarchy and foreign domination, and its principles—embodied in the concept of Islamic governance—remain central to the state’s legitimacy. Critics, however, portray the revolution as a catalyst for authoritarian theocracy that curtailed political freedoms and marginalized alternative visions of governance.
In U.S. and Western discourse, the revolution has typically been framed as a dramatic rupture that replaced a reliable geopolitical partner with an ideologically driven regime antagonistic to Western interests. This narrative underscores the severing of U.S.–Iran diplomatic relations, the protracted tensions that followed, and the enduring mistrust that characterizes their interactions. It also highlights how Western policy miscalculations—fueled by Cold War priorities—failed to anticipate popular pressures and misread the nature of emerging revolutionary movements.
The broader geopolitical impacts include the reshaping of Middle Eastern alliances, the rise of political Islam as a force in regional politics, and persistent instability linked to competing visions of governance and identity. The revolution fundamentally altered the structure of regional power, challenging the legitimacy of secular, pro-Western regimes and demonstrating the capacity of grassroots movements to reshape state systems, narratives that continue to inform both scholarship and policy today.
The Islamic Republic of Iran, which emerged after the 1979 Revolution, was not merely a new government but a fundamentally altered state structure in which clerical authorities assumed political supremacy, rooted in the doctrine of Wilayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist). This concept, articulated by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, placed a supreme jurist at the apex of political authority, combining religious legitimacy with state power. Under the 1979 constitution, the Supreme Leader was endowed with extensive powers, including control over the armed forces, judiciary, and key state appointments, effectively embedding clerical oversight across all major institutions. This system enveloped the elected branches—president, parliament (Majles), and judiciary—within a framework where ultimate authority remained with religious jurists.
In practice, this resulted in a parallel power structure, where formal republican institutions coexisted with extralegal clerical bodies and revolutionary entities. Organizations such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and various committees answered directly to the Supreme Leader rather than the president or parliament. These bodies exercised significant influence over security, politics, and society, creating a multifaceted power network that could override or constrain the formal state apparatus. This overlapping authority consolidated clerical dominance and left elected officials limited in their capacity to challenge core strategic decisions.
After 1979, the Islamic Republic rapidly built a security establishment that reinforced clerical control while circumscribing executive governance. The cornerstone of this system was the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), formed to preserve the revolution’s ideals and protect the new regime from internal and external threats. Unlike Iran’s conventional military, the IRGC was ideologically grounded, reporting directly to the Supreme Leader and tasked with defending the revolution’s gains rather than conventional national defense alone. Over time, it grew from a militia into one of the most powerful institutions in Iran, with its own ground, air, and naval forces, as well as intelligence and economic wings.
The formal executive branch, headed by the president, was constitutionally subordinate to the Supreme Leader. Article 110 of the 1979 constitution (as interpreted in practice) grants the Supreme Leader authority over general policy, security, the armed forces, and key judicial and media appointments, limiting presidential autonomy. The Guardian Council—which vets legislation and electoral candidates—and the Expediency Council further constrain executive power by aligning state policy with clerical interpretations of Islam. Together with the IRGC and Basij militia, these institutions form a security-centric governance complex that can override civilian initiatives.
Just over a year after the revolution, Iran was plunged into a brutal, eight-year conflict with Iraq that would deeply shape the Islamic Republic’s institutional and political trajectory. The Iran-Iraq War began on September 22, 1980, when Iraqi forces under Saddam Hussein invaded Iran. Saddam aimed to exploit post-revolution instability, settle long-standing disputes such as control of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, and prevent revolutionary Shi’ite ideology from inspiring unrest within Iraq’s own Shi’ite majority.
The war quickly became one of the 20th century’s longest conventional battles, costing hundreds of thousands of lives and inflicting massive economic destruction. Iraq’s initial offensive caught Iran off-guard, but fierce national resistance, mobilized under revolutionary slogans, stalled Baghdad’s advance. By 1982, Iran had recaptured lost territory and turned the war into a grueling stalemate. Both sides engaged in trench warfare, human wave attacks, and chemical weapons use against Iranian troops.
The conflict entrenched the perception of existential threat within Iranian leadership, intensifying reliance on ideological unity and militarized governance. The IRGC, originally a revolutionary militia, grew into a core pillar of national defense and a political actor, eclipsing the conventional army and gaining influence well beyond battlefield roles. A United Nations-mediated ceasefire was finally accepted in July 1988, leaving neither side victorious but profoundly transformed.
The prolonged Iran-Iraq War had the paradoxical effect of both weakening and hardening the Islamic Republic’s internal political structure. Faced with a catastrophic war and international isolation, the regime consolidated power around a narrative of patriotic sacrifice and revolutionary resilience. War rhetoric framed Iran as a beleaguered but morally superior defender against aggression, reinforcing clerical legitimacy and further marginalizing dissent. Civilians were mobilized into Basij militias, and religious symbolism pervaded military campaigns, intertwining ideological and nationalistic motivations. This conflation of religious zeal with state survival made the regime less tolerant of political plurality and more reliant on security mechanisms to maintain unity.
The IRGC’s expanding role during the war was central to this process. Initially tasked with defending the revolution internally, the IRGC assumed major battlefield responsibilities, outgrowing its militia origins to become a formidable institution with extensive political and economic reach. Its wartime performance enhanced its stature and justified expanded post-war authority. After the ceasefire, the IRGC maintained and extended its influence, shaping domestic policy and foreign posture.
At the same time, wartime exigencies limited executive alternatives and suppressed rival political voices. Leaders such as President Abolhassan Banisadr were deposed amid power struggles over war strategy and policy, underscoring how security priorities could override civilian governance. In effect, the war entrenched an authoritarian, security-oriented state apparatus with rigid ideological commitments.
The combined impact of clerical supremacy and eight years of warfare produced governance dynamics in the Islamic Republic that endure to this day. The state accumulated a layered power structure in which formal republican institutions operate under the pervasive influence of unelected bodies and security forces loyal to the Supreme Leader. This system blends electoral components—presidential and parliamentary elections—with entrenched non-elective checks, such as the Guardian Council and the IRGC, which can shape policy independently of popular will.
The IRGC, in particular, has evolved into a central political and economic actor within Iran. Its integration into industrial sectors, construction, and trade, alongside its military dominance, has created a powerful parallel power base with interests that extend far beyond defense.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Leader’s role remains paramount, overseeing key institutions and shaping strategic priorities. Though presidents and parliaments have occasionally pursued reformist agendas, their influence is consistently circumscribed by clerical oversight mechanisms. Crisis responses—whether economic, political, or social—often default to security-state frameworks established in the revolution and reinforced during the Iran-Iraq War.
Together, these enduring dynamics reflect a governance model rooted in revolutionary ideology and wartime exigency—one that privileges regime continuity and ideological coherence over conventional democratic accountability.
Iran’s protest landscape in the late 20th and early 21st centuries reflects a long arc of sociopolitical unrest and generational resistance to the Islamic Republic’s authority. The first major nationwide unrest under the Islamic Republic occurred in July 1999, when thousands of students protested the closure of a reformist newspaper and a violent police raid on Tehran University dormitories. This uprising, characterized by clashes with security forces and mass arrests, became a foundational moment in Iran’s reform movement, especially among university students and urban middle classes demanding greater political freedoms and reforms.
A decade later, the 2009 Green Movement erupted after widely disputed presidential elections. Millions took to the streets in cities across Iran, objecting to alleged vote rigging and broader authoritarianism. Although the government ultimately reasserted control through mass arrests and repression, the Green Movement demonstrated the depth of popular discontent and the capacity of social movements to mobilize across class and ideological lines.
In the 2010s, a series of protest waves focused on economic grievances—such as the 2017–18 protests over livelihoods and inequality and the 2019 “Bloody Aban” fuel protests triggered by sudden price hikes—continued to challenge the regime’s narrative of stability. These movements laid the groundwork for later uprisings by exposing ongoing frustration with economic mismanagement, corruption, and limits on freedom of expression that resonated across Iranian society.
The “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement emerged in September 2022 as a defining moment in Iran’s protest history. Sparked by the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini while in custody of Iran’s morality police for allegedly violating compulsory hijab rules, the protests rapidly spread nationwide and across social groups, drawing calls not just to end the mandatory hijab but to challenge broader forms of political and social oppression.
Central to the movement was the slogan “Woman, Life, Freedom,” an expression of dissent against gender discrimination, systemic repression, and state control over personal freedoms. Demonstrators—especially women and youth—publicly removed headscarves, cut their hair, and took to the streets in cities from Tehran to regional centers. By late 2022, the protests had become one of the most widespread challenges to the Islamic Republic since 1979, representing a shift from episodic unrest toward politically charged mass mobilization with demands that went beyond incremental reform.
Although lacking centralized leadership, the movement spanned ethnic and class lines, with Kurdish, Azeri, Persian, and Balochi groups participating under a shared banner. Despite brutal crackdowns employing live ammunition, tear gas, mass arrests, and Internet blackouts, many Iranians continued expressing broad demands for dignity, justice, and rights. The movement gained global attention and solidarity, even winning international recognition such as Freedom House’s 2023 Freedom Award.
Iran’s response to protest movements since 2022 has been dominated by escalating repression, with security forces deploying lethal force, arbitrary arrests, and punitive legislation to suppress dissent and deter future mobilization. Human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have documented widespread unlawful use of force—including rifles, metal-pellet shotguns, tear gas, and beatings—leading to hundreds of deaths, beatings, and severe injuries.
The government’s crackdown has targeted not only street protesters but also women and girls openly defying compulsory hijab laws, ethnic minority communities, activists, students, and journalists. Amnesty has condemned the intensification of punitive measures, including arrests of relatives of victims and systematic harassment of those seeking justice for killings during protests.
By 2025, state repression extended to the use of capital punishment against protest participants, with documented executions of individuals accused of violent charges tied to demonstrations—actions denounced by human rights groups as lacking due process and aimed at instilling fear.
Media and documentation have played pivotal roles in shaping both domestic protest dynamics and international awareness of Iran’s unrest. The state’s frequent internet shutdowns, throttling, and censorship are intended to disrupt communication and hinder the spread of information about protests, but activists have used alternative digital tools and social platforms to document abuses and circulate footage of demonstrations and crackdowns.
The Iranian diaspora has become integral to sustaining global visibility of the protest movements. Exiled Iranians have organized rallies across Europe, North America, and elsewhere, drawing attention to violence at home, lobbying foreign governments, and creating networks of support for families of victims. Iranian cultural figures, filmmakers, and artists in exile have amplified calls for human rights while condemning government repression and internet blackouts aimed at erasing evidence of abuses.
International legal actions also reflect the diaspora’s impact: victims’ families have filed criminal complaints in Argentina against Iranian officials for alleged crimes against humanity during the 2022 crackdown, leveraging universal jurisdiction to pursue accountability beyond Iran’s borders.
Recent protest waves in Iran offer several strategic lessons about the nature of modern resistance movements under authoritarian rule. First, the decentralized character of movements like “Woman, Life, Freedom”—while complicating unified leadership—has made it difficult for security forces to decapitate leadership and suppress movements wholesale. Protesters have instead relied on horizontal networks and spontaneous mobilization through encrypted messaging and social media, challenging traditional assumptions that organized political parties are necessary for sustained resistance.
Slogans like “Woman, Life, Freedom” and acts such as removing the hijab or burning scarves communicate potent political messages that resonate across class, gender, and ethnic lines. This underscores how cultural symbols can galvanize participation and communicate grievances domestically and abroad without centralized coordination.
Meanwhile, the interplay between domestic activism and the diaspora shows how transnational advocacy, legal mechanisms, and international media serve as extensions of protest strategy, helping sustain movements when internal communication is restricted and providing pressure points beyond traditional diplomatic channels.
Iran’s economy has been in rapid decline, particularly by late 2025. The Iranian rial’s value collapsed to historic lows, trading at record rates against the U.S. dollar — surpassing roughly 1.45 million rials per dollar — erasing savings and crippling purchasing power for millions. This currency freefall directly contributed to inflation soaring above 40–48%, which meant basic goods, food, and medicine became increasingly unaffordable for ordinary Iranians.
Multiple factors underlie this downward spiral. Decades of structural mismanagement, including persistent government interference in markets, currency controls, and stagnation in key industries such as manufacturing and exports, weakened economic resilience. Meanwhile, the stock market experienced prolonged declines, reflecting collapsing investor confidence and capital flight.
Sanctions — both U.S. and multilaterally linked — exacerbated these trends by limiting access to foreign currency and strangling oil export revenues, Iran’s main source of hard currency. The high inflation and currency depreciation eroded living standards, particularly for lower-income groups whose wages could not keep pace with price increases. Economists warn that this deep market dysfunction is not purely cyclical but structural, rooted in both internal policy failure and external economic isolation.
Iran’s economic freefall was triggered not by a single event but by a convergence of structural strains and policy decisions amid external pressures. Longstanding issues — including a bloated public sector, inadequate diversification beyond oil revenues, and chronic corruption tied to powerful economic actors — left Iran’s economy vulnerable. Corruption investigations have highlighted how illicit practices, such as oil smuggling networks tied to security institutions, diverted revenue from state coffers and undercut investment in public goods.
Policy decisions in 2025 intensified these vulnerabilities. The government’s decision to allow wide access to the open-market exchange rate for imports, intended to liberalize foreign exchange, instead accelerated the rial’s collapse, magnifying inflation and sparking immediate public backlash. These currency reforms occurred amid attempts to cut subsidies on essentials, further reducing household buffers against price spikes.
Iran’s central bank leadership shakeups and parliamentary actions — such as impeaching economic officials blamed for mismanaging the crisis — reflected political recognition of failure but did little to stabilize markets. While officials attributed much of the distress to external “enemies,” including sanctions and geopolitical pressures, independent analysts emphasize domestic policy missteps and institutional rot as central causes of structural strain. Together, these factors transformed economic stress into a trigger for political mobilization.
As economic anxieties mounted, Iran’s internal security response moved toward escalation and militarization, turning economic discontent into broader conflict dynamics. Nationwide protests that began in late December 2025, sparked by the currency collapse, quickly spread to more than 70 cities, including major commercial hubs such as the Tehran Grand Bazaar — historically a symbol of political expression and dissent.
Confrontations between security forces and demonstrators resulted in violent clashes. Human rights monitors reported hundreds of arrests and dozens of deaths in the early stages of unrest, as authorities used force to suppress demonstrations, impose internet shutdowns, and restrict communications. These measures aimed to fragment protest coordination but also deepened public anger and the sense of crisis.
The state’s framing of protests as threats to national security — echoed by top officials and media — contributed to a harsher security posture, with paramilitary units deployed alongside regular forces. While the government offered limited dialogue and leadership changes as placatory gestures, escalatory tactics reflected a strategy of coercive containment rather than political accommodation. International condemnation of the crackdown further complicated Iran’s position, intertwining domestic protests with external diplomatic pressures and heightening the regime’s sense of siege.
Iran’s internal crisis has been compounded by external economic and geopolitical headwinds that reduced foreign investment, restricted access to global financial systems, and intensified isolation. After the breakdown of the 2015 nuclear agreement and subsequent reinstatement and expansion of U.S. sanctions, Tehran faced restricted oil exports, blocked access to assets abroad, and difficulty in financing imports of critical goods. These factors undermined Iran’s ability to stabilize its balance of payments or buffer the currency crisis.
International financial institutions have described these sanctions as a form of economic siege that not only hinders trade but also deters investor confidence and exacerbates currency volatility. With oil revenues constrained, Iran’s capacity to support public spending and maintain exchange rate stability weakened significantly — a structural blow that external actors amplified.
Meanwhile, an intense 12-day war between Iran, Israel, and the United States in June 2025 further heightened regional tensions. Israeli airstrikes on June 13 targeted Iranian military and nuclear facilities, prompting retaliatory missile and drone attacks by Iran and subsequent U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites in support of Israel. A U.S.-brokered ceasefire later that month ended the escalation after causing casualties and infrastructure damage and contributing to economic sanctions and regional isolation, weakening investor confidence and exacerbating market volatility that fed into domestic discontent.
Iran’s markets are experiencing systemic dysfunction, where traditional stabilizing mechanisms have broken down. The capital market — including the Tehran Stock Exchange — has seen significant downturns as investors flee risk, redirecting capital toward currency speculation or foreign assets. This reflects both economic uncertainty and pervasive lack of confidence in institutional governance.
Economic forecasts paint a bleak near-term outlook. International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates project only marginal growth even as inflation remains stubbornly high, underscoring that structural issues — such as reliance on oil exports, corruption, and weak economic diversification — are not easily resolved. Continued depreciation of the rial, supply bottlenecks, and fiscal imbalances point toward persistent instability unless Iran can implement comprehensive reforms or achieve diplomatic breakthroughs that ease sanctions.
Social indicators also reflect economic distress: poverty rates have increased, access to essential goods and medicine remains strained, and unemployment — particularly among youth — remains a significant pressure point. Economist assessments suggest that without restoring access to foreign investment and addressing systemic corruption, market dysfunction could persist or worsen, leaving Iran’s economy trapped in a cycle of low growth, high inflation, and political instability.
Nationwide protests in Iran that erupted in late December 2025 have become some of the largest anti-government demonstrations since the 2022 Woman, Life, Freedom uprising. Demonstrations began on December 28 in Tehran’s Grand Bazaar in response to the economic collapse, including a plummeting rial and skyrocketing inflation, and quickly spread to more than 100 cities across all 31 provinces of Iran. Observers report protests in Tehran, Mashhad, Shiraz, Isfahan, Karaj, and smaller towns, with shopkeepers closing businesses, bazaar strikes, and university participation, reflecting widespread discontent.
The movement’s slogans have evolved from economic grievances to broader political demands, including calls for regime change and criticism of the theocratic leadership. Protesters have chanted anti-government phrases such as “death to the dictator,” signaling a shift from purely economic protest to political opposition to the clerical establishment.
Lacking centralized leadership, the protests have primarily been organic and decentralized, driven by grassroots networks of shopkeepers, students, workers, and activists. This dispersed organization has made coordination more resilient in the face of government repression but also harder to quantify. Despite limited formal structure, social memory of past movements and neighborhood solidarity have facilitated spontaneous gatherings, strikes, and marches across cities, indicating deep social mobilization across class and regional lines.
In early January 2026, as protests intensified and clashes grew deadlier, Iranian authorities imposed a near-total internet and communications blackout. On January 8, access to domestic and foreign internet was largely cut, telephone networks faltered, and mobile data was severely disrupted, a tactic aimed at disrupting protest coordination and restricting the flow of information both inside Iran and to the outside world. Rights groups have condemned the blackout, stating it obscures violations of human rights and violent repression carried out by security forces.
Human rights organizations such as Amnesty International note that internet shutdowns constitute a violation of basic human rights and enable authorities to carry out abuses with less scrutiny. The blackout has made independent verification of death tolls, arrests, and clashes extremely difficult, leading to widely divergent estimates and reliance on leaked footage, satellite data, and diaspora reporting.
Journalists inside Iran faced targeted intimidation before the shutdown, and since then, domestic media have been constrained, while official outlets broadcast only government narratives portraying protests as chaos caused by “enemies of the state.”
The human cost of the 2025–2026 protests has been severe. Human rights monitoring groups, such as the Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA), estimate that thousands of people have been killed in the crackdown, with Reuters reporting more than 500 confirmed deaths and some estimates rising into the thousands, despite the blackout limiting precise verification. Amnesty International and other advocates have described the violence as mass unlawful killings, urging global diplomatic action to end impunity.
Hospitals in Tehran and other cities have been overwhelmed by wounded protesters, with significant numbers of gunshot and pellet wounds, including a concentration of eye injuries—paralleling brutal tactics seen in the 2022 protests. Doctors have reported treating hundreds of eye injuries in a single facility, suggesting deliberate targeting of protesters’ vision and contributing to long-term disability. Security forces have even raided hospitals, firing tear gas and disrupting medical care, and preventing blood donors from reaching wounded protesters, a violation of medical neutrality that drew condemnation from the United Nations and the World Medical Association.
Morgues in Tehran have reportedly been overwhelmed by bodies, with accounts of bodies piled up due to the scale of fatalities. Families attempting to retrieve remains have faced bureaucratic obstacles, contributing to a climate of fear and trauma.
Officials branded protesters as “terrorists” and declared participants or supporters as “enemies of God,” a charge that carries the death penalty under Iranian law. Judiciary officials have urged prosecutors to show no leniency and have broadcast coerced confessions to delegitimize the movement and justify harsh penalties.
Security forces—including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Basij militia units—have been deployed nationwide, using live ammunition, metal projectiles, tear gas, and heavy force to disperse crowds. Reuters reported that thousands of protesters and bystanders have been detained, with over 10,000 arrests cited by activist sources and at least 18,100 detentions noted by HRANA. The regime’s response has involved home raids, arrests of minors, enforced disappearances, and severe threats against the families of activists. These measures aim to crush dissent and erode community support for protests.
Global protests, such as those in Berlin, Paris, Sydney, and Los Angeles, have been diverse in composition and messaging, with some participants supporting democratic reforms, others advocating broader system change, and debates over whether to endorse figures like exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi or emphasize democratic transition.
International governmental responses have included condemnations from the European Union for violent crackdowns, calls for sanctions targeting Iranian hardliners, and explicit demands to restore civil liberties and communication access. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have also called for urgent global diplomatic action to signal an end to impunity for abuses against protesters.
Meanwhile, strategic geopolitical reactions have been mixed: the Munich Security Conference rescinded its invitation to Iran’s foreign minister due to the protest crackdown, while Russia has remained largely silent, reflecting contestation over external engagement.
The United States has taken a highly visible and assertive stance on the 2025‑2026 Iranian protests and broader instability. U.S. officials have publicly condemned the violent crackdown by Iranian security forces, including the killing and detention of thousands of demonstrators, and have repeatedly called on Tehran to respect human rights and permit peaceful protest. Human rights groups, including Amnesty International, have urged coordinated international action in response to what they describe as unlawful killings and repression, and U.S. lawmakers and diplomats have echoed these calls for accountability and sanctions.
At the United Nations Security Council in mid‑January 2026, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz declared that Washington stands with the Iranian people and that “all options are on the table” to respond to the regime’s crackdown, a statement that included the possibility of military measures if the repression continued. Tehran responded by accusing Washington of interference.
Domestically, U.S. policy has combined diplomatic pressure with economic measures; new rounds of sanctions have targeted Iranian officials and entities involved in suppressing protests, including figures tied to the Revolutionary Guard and revenue‑laundering networks. These measures aim to cut access to the global financial system for actors implicated in human rights abuses while signaling U.S. commitment to human rights and pressure on Tehran’s leadership.
Signaling and Policy Options
Amid the protests, U.S. signaling to Tehran and the broader region has oscillated between diplomatic pressure, economic sanctioning, and military readiness. High‑level U.S. officials repeatedly warned the Iranian regime against continued mass killings, framing human rights as central to U.S. foreign policy, and emphasized that leaders responsible for repression would face consequences. This messaging is part of broader U.S. policy options that range from intensified sanctions and diplomatic isolation to overt threats of military action if violence continues.
The U.N. has reflected this tension: Secretary‑General António Guterres publicly condemned violence and excessive force, urging restraint from all parties and warning of regional escalation risks if the crisis deepens. U.N. actors also worry that Iranian authorities may exploit geopolitical rivalries with the United States and Israel to justify further repression.
U.S. policy options include bolstering sanctions specifically tied to repression and human rights violations, supporting internet access technologies to counter Iranian blackouts, and engaging allies to issue coordinated diplomatic pressure through forums like the G7. The G7 foreign ministers warned Tehran that continued violent suppression could trigger additional sanctions, indicating a unified Western stance on punitive economic measures.
These signals serve both to pressure Tehran and reassure allied capitals and local populations that the regime’s actions will have sustained consequences, though Western leadership remains cautious about direct military engagement given the risk of broader conflict.
European governments and the United Nations have been strongly vocal about the situation in Iran, typically emphasizing human rights, restraint, and diplomatic responses. The European Union called on Iranian authorities to uphold freedoms of expression, association, and peaceful assembly, and to refrain from violence against protesters. European diplomatic positions stress concern over arbitrary detentions and civilian deaths, and they have repeatedly urged the restoration of communication access to allow independent reporting.
European officials have also taken concrete steps; for example, Italy’s foreign ministry advised its citizens to leave Iran and pledged cooperation with NATO and G7 partners to safeguard human rights, while the United Kingdom and France have condemned Tehran’s actions and coordinated potential sanctions.
The United Nations Secretary‑General has expressed alarm at reports of excessive use of force by Iranian authorities and called for maximum restraint and protection of civilian lives. U.N. mechanisms — including the Human Rights Council — are under pressure to consider special sessions and diplomatic action to deter further violence, with human rights NGOs urging international justice mechanisms for those responsible.
At the Security Council, divisions have emerged: U.S. representatives have pushed for firm action and highlighted potential intervention, while other member states — and voices from Tehran — defend Iran’s sovereignty and accuse external actors of interference. The overall UN posture reflects a balancing act between advocating human rights and avoiding wider geopolitical escalation.
Israel’s reaction to Iran’s protests and broader crisis has been complex. Official Israeli positions have publicly expressed sympathy with Iranian protesters, framing the movement as part of a larger struggle for liberty and human dignity. Israeli leaders, including the prime minister and members of intelligence agencies, have stated that they “identify with the struggle of the Iranian people” and have indicated intelligence support for demonstrators, albeit cautiously to avoid accusations of meddling.
Strategically, Israel continues to monitor escalating tensions closely, particularly given historical hostility with Tehran and Iranian support for militant groups like Hezbollah. Analysts note that Israel’s decision not to engage more overtly militarily amid internal Iranian unrest reflects a strategic calculation: refraining from direct action could avoid fuelling Iranian nationalist sentiment and a potential rally‑round‑the‑flag effect, while still putting pressure on Tehran through allied channels.
The risk of regional spillover remains significant. Threats by Iranian officials to respond to external intervention, including against U.S. forces and Israeli territory, highlight how domestic unrest can escalate regional security dilemmas. Past events — such as the mid‑2025 conflicts involving strikes on Iranian infrastructure and subsequent tensions — underscore how fragility in Tehran can prompt heightened alert among Israel and other Gulf states.
The Iranian diaspora has played a pivotal role in internationalizing the protests and shaping global perceptions. Iranians living in the United States, Canada, and Europe have organized large-scale demonstrations, rallies, and vigils in solidarity with the demonstrations inside Iran, demanding democratic reforms and an end to repression. Their actions have enhanced global visibility of the crisis and pressured Western governments to act, even as Iran imposed near‑total internet blackouts to impede communications.
Diaspora communities also function as vital information conduits for human rights NGOs and media outlets, documenting abuses, compiling casualty data, and relaying eyewitness accounts that would otherwise be obscured by state censorship. Organizations like Iran Human Rights, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch rely extensively on diaspora networks to verify and disseminate information about the crackdown.
International cultural and media figures — including filmmakers and actors — have publicly condemned Tehran’s blackout and repression, framing these tactics as violations of basic freedoms and calling for global support. These voices have helped sustain media interest and counter state narratives, highlighting both the human toll and the erosion of civil liberties.
The geopolitical ramifications of Iran’s protests and the varied international reactions suggest a complex and fluid strategic landscape. On the one hand, Western governments — led by the United States and European partners — have signaled firm condemnation of Tehran’s crackdown, leveraged sanctions, and reaffirmed diplomatic pressure to constrain abuse while balancing fears of regional escalation. This approach underscores a broader strategy of combining human rights advocacy with economic and diplomatic levers rather than immediate military intervention.
However, tensions between the U.S. and Iran, and between Tehran and other regional actors, continue to pose risks. Statements from Iranian leaders warning of retaliation against U.S. and Israeli interests if military action is taken illustrate how domestic instability can increase external threat perceptions.
The strategic outlook also reflects divisions within global governance institutions: some states emphasize restraint and dialogue, while others call for accountability and potential intervention mechanisms at the United Nations. Continued sanctions and diplomatic isolation could deepen Iran’s economic challenges, potentially intensifying internal pressures while also affecting regional security dynamics.
Iranian officials have largely attributed the protests to economic mismanagement, external pressure, and foreign interference rather than structural governance failures. President Masoud Pezeshkian and other government spokespeople acknowledged the severity of economic distress — including inflation and currency collapse — but have framed the unrest as exploited by “enemies of the state,” suggesting that internal dissent is amplified by foreign powers.
State media and officials have repeatedly asserted that economic grievances should be addressed through domestic policies and dialogue with the people, while warning that external actors such as the U.S. and Israel are attempting to destabilize Iran for geopolitical ends.
Nevertheless, critics argue that long‑term governance failures — including corruption, poor fiscal policies, and sanctions‑agnostic economic strategy — are central to the crisis. Independent economists and analysts point to systemic weaknesses in Iran’s banking system, such as the collapse of significant financial institutions, which have eroded public trust and amplified economic grievances that sparked demonstrations.
A key area of debate regarding the Iranian officials’ narrative concerns the reporting and framing of casualties and security measures. Iranian state media often describe nationwide unrest in terms of “rioters,” “saboteurs,” or foreign agents, emphasizing the role of criminal or violent elements in demonstrations. Officials have framed security forces’ actions as defensive, and suggest that any deaths are linked to these violent actors rather than to protest activities.
Independent organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have reported instances in which security forces used live ammunition, shotguns loaded with metal pellets, tear gas, and physical force against protesters and bystanders. These reports document deaths, injuries, and detentions across multiple cities, highlighting differences between official accounts and external observations of the events.
The Iranian government has not publicly released comprehensive casualty figures, and communications blackouts have limited independent verification. Estimates from independent sources vary widely, while official figures remain comparatively lower, emphasizing the perspective that security forces faced aggression. These contrasting accounts reflect ongoing uncertainty about both the scope of violence and the accuracy of official casualty reporting.
Blackouts and Information Controls
Iranian officials have justified internet and communications restrictions as security measures aimed at limiting “misinformation” and foreign interference during periods of unrest. These measures have included nationwide internet slowdowns and shutdowns that affected access to both domestic and international networks, which limited the ability of protesters to organize and reduced real-time reporting from outside observers. Authorities state that such controls are intended to maintain public order and counter external influence operations.
Independent monitors and digital rights organizations have reported that these disruptions coincided with periods of intense protest activity. Groups such as NetBlocks documented restrictions on domestic and international communications, noting that the measures affected connectivity across multiple regions. Some observers characterize these actions as efforts to control information and limit the visibility of events on the ground.
Public figures, including Iranian cultural figures and diaspora voices, have expressed concern that communication blackouts can isolate citizens, hinder humanitarian access, and restrict independent reporting. Their statements, widely covered in international media, highlight the tension between government security measures and broader concerns over transparency and access to information.
Protest Origins and Slogans
Iranian officials often describe recent protests as primarily driven by economic challenges, citing factors such as inflation, currency fluctuations, and hardships faced by merchants and workers. Official statements emphasize that economic grievances should be addressed within existing political frameworks, and authorities sometimes note a willingness to engage in dialogue with protesters who reject violence.
Protesters, however, have raised a broader range of political and social demands. Independent observers report that while economic concerns — including inflation, job insecurity, and banking issues — contributed to the initial unrest, many protest slogans also address accountability, governance, and clerical authority. Demonstrations have spread across multiple regions and social groups, reflecting dissatisfaction that extends beyond economic conditions.
There are differing interpretations of protest messaging. State media have at times portrayed broad demands as the work of “rioters” or foreign provocateurs, framing political dissent as illegitimate. Independent analysts suggest that economic grievances have often evolved into political expressions because citizens see political structures and economic conditions as closely linked. These perspectives illustrate competing narratives about the origins and nature of the protests.
Sanctions, Pressure and Policy Debates
Iranian officials often describe international sanctions and external pressure — particularly from the United States and its allies — as major factors exacerbating economic challenges. Tehran presents sanctions as a form of economic pressure that limits access to foreign currency, hampers the government’s ability to address domestic needs, and contributes to social unrest. This framing emphasizes the role of external actors in shaping economic conditions and in influencing public protests.
Critics, including Western governments and human rights organizations, acknowledge that sanctions have affected Iran’s economy but highlight that internal policy decisions and governance issues also play a significant role in economic difficulties. Independent analyses note that sanctions, combined with currency depreciation and banking problems, have affected living standards, while structural mismanagement and corruption further amplify economic pressures on citizens.
Debates over sanctions’ effects continue. Iranian officials argue that easing sanctions would relieve economic strain and reduce unrest, whereas external observers stress that domestic reforms and accountability are also essential. Some foreign governments have responded to unrest with targeted sanctions on Iranian officials accused of human rights violations, reflecting broader concerns about governance and repression.
Experts analyzing Iran’s current unrest describe several archetypal pathways for political transition — ranging from regime adaptation to institutional reconfiguration or major upheaval. One common scenario is inertial stabilization, in which the regime maintains core control structures while performing superficial leadership changes to quell protest intensity. This could involve the departure of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in favor of a successor viewed as more flexible, paired with economic concessions and elite reshuffling to restore limited stability. According to analysts, this scenario assumes the security apparatus retains cohesion and protesters’ momentum subsides.
A second archetype described by strategic think tanks is the military‑pragmatism model, where the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) or allied military leadership assumes effective governance, replacing overt clerical rule with a nationalist, security‑centric state. In this pathway, ideological dominance gives way to practical management, potentially opening limited diplomatic engagement with external powers.
Finally, there is the revolutionary collapse archetype, in which protests escalate, unified civilian and military defection fragments state control, and provisional councils or transitional bodies emerge. Such a breakdown could produce an institutional vacuum and a period of crisis before a new order forms. While considered less likely, it underscores how different transition models could unfold depending on internal cohesion and elite responses.
Protracted Contestation
A plausible outcome is prolonged contestation, in which neither the state nor the opposition fully prevails, leading to extended instability. Under this scenario, protests persist at varying intensities as economic pressures and political grievances remain unresolved. Analyses of the current unrest note that sustained economic hardship — including currency collapse and inflation exceeding 40–50 percent — fuels chronic discontent and expands the locus of protest beyond intermittent flashpoints.
In this pathway, protest activity might not consolidate into a unified revolutionary movement with coherent leadership, but instead manifests as rolling waves of demonstrations, strikes, and local confrontations. Economists and political analysts argue that ongoing protests could deepen institutional weaknesses, particularly if key sectors such as bazaars and industry sustain significant strikes. This could erode regime legitimacy while not necessarily leading to immediate collapse.
Protracted contestation also implies enduring repression — with the state deploying heavy security measures and information controls — coupled with intermittent concessions tethered to economic stabilization efforts. This liminal state could last months to years, creating a dynamic where neither side achieves definitive victory, and governance in Iran becomes characterized by semi‑frozen conflict rather than resolution.
Revolutionary Momentum and External Choices
Another set of scenarios pivots on revolutionary momentum and how domestic movements interact with external geopolitical choices. External actors — particularly the United States and regional powers — have signaled varying degrees of engagement or restraint, which could either amplify or dampen internal momentum. For example, U.S. commentary suggesting that “all options are on the table” in response to the regime’s violent repression underscores the potential for international pressure influencing Iran’s trajectory.
If protests intensify and spread across societal strata — including within security institutions — momentum could reach a tipping point where centralized authority is challenged from within. Analysts have noted that defections among security forces or elite fragmentation might significantly alter the balance of power, enabling a sharper break from the current regime.
Conversely, international actors may choose stability‑oriented policies, prioritizing containment of conflict and avoiding direct intervention. In this pathway, global powers would leverage sanctions, diplomatic pressure, or conditional engagement to influence reform without triggering full upheaval. Both possibilities highlight how external policy decisions interact with internal insurgency dynamics, shaping whether momentum supports transformational change or reinforces regime resilience.
Sanctions, Adaptation and War Risks
Sanctions remain a central factor in Iran’s unfolding scenarios. Economic isolation — particularly from U.S. sanctions reinstated after the 2015 nuclear deal’s collapse — has severely constrained foreign currency flows, dampened investment, and exacerbated inflation and unemployment. This structural economic stress has been a key driver of protest grievances.
One strategic scenario involves regime adaptation under sanctions, where authorities implement targeted economic reforms, negotiate partial sanctions relief, and recalibrate fiscal policy to mitigate public hardship. In this path, adaptive measures might stabilize inflation temporarily, reduce protest intensity, and allow the regime to survive without major structural change. However, such adaptation requires political will and a degree of institutional flexibility that analysts suggest is currently limited.
There are also war risk scenarios tied to both internal pressures and regional geopolitics. Recent tensions — including reported armed activity by dissident Kurdish groups and ongoing military posturing — illustrate how unrest could spill over into broader conflict. If military escalations involving external actors occur, they would significantly heighten the risks of conflict that could overshadow domestic political contestation.
Overall, responses to sanctions and the regime’s strategic adaptation choices will strongly influence whether Iran’s future trajectory is characterized by gradual economic stabilization, entrenched repression, or spillover into broader conflicts.
Resilience, Limits and Leadership
The durability of the Iranian state and its leadership is a critical variable in any scenario analysis. The regime’s resilience stems partly from entrenched security institutions like the IRGC and Basij, which have historically responded with force to quell unrest and maintain control. Analysts note that these structures — though strained — remain pivotal in preserving state authority, even amid sustained protest waves.
However, there are inherent limits to state resilience, particularly when economic distress and public frustration intersect. Historic patterns suggest that prolonged economic hardship can gradually erode the social contract between citizens and the state, eroding legitimacy over time. If economic conditions persist or worsen, even loyal constituencies such as bazaars and professional classes may withdraw support.
Leadership transitions within the clerical hierarchy — whether through planned succession or crisis‑induced change — could also reshape outcomes. Scholars argue that the retirement or replacement of senior figures without broader institutional reform might alleviate immediate tensions but fail to address structural weaknesses.
Finally, the extent to which inclusive dialogue and negotiated reforms are pursued — versus coercive repression — will influence long‑term stability. A regime that integrates political and economic reforms might build broader legitimacy, while one that relies solely on repression risks deepening divisions and undermining resilience. The interplay of leadership choices, institutional limits, and societal pressures will thus be a key determinant of Iran’s medium‑ to long‑term trajectory.
Overview
© 2026 Improve the News Foundation.
All rights reserved.
Version 6.18.0