In an analysis published by Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations, the latest unrest is described as arriving at an especially fraught moment for the Islamic Republic—one in which economic distress is colliding with heightened regional and military pressure. Takeyh notes that while the protest movement has grown quickly, the true scale of deaths and the identities of those killed are difficult to verify amid conflicting claims and limited independent access.
The economic spark has been unmistakable. Iran’s cost-of-living surge has strained households and small businesses alike, pushing grievances from the marketplace into the streets. In response, President Masoud Pezeshkian and his allies have signaled a more conciliatory approach than the state’s past playbook, seeking dialogue and a “softer touch” in hopes of easing tensions. The government has also replaced the head of the central bank, betting that a technocratic successor can stabilize currency fluctuations—though analysts warn sanctions and restricted oil sales leave Iran structurally exposed.
The timing is politically perilous. Takeyh points out that Iran is confronting its first major domestic crisis since a devastating June war with Israel that inflicted significant damage on Iranian nuclear infrastructure and weakened Tehran’s regional posture, including the degradation of Hezbollah and disruption of Iran’s Syrian land bridge. Even so, he cautions against underestimating the regime’s resilience: Iran retains powerful security services and overlapping intelligence organizations, while the opposition has struggled to form coherent leadership.
The unrest has also prompted unusually sharp rhetoric from Washington. After reports of deaths in the protests, President Donald Trump wrote online that if Iran “violently kills peaceful protesters… the United States of America will come to their rescue,” adding that the U.S. was “locked and loaded and ready to go.” Iranian officials swiftly condemned the remarks, warning that U.S. interference could destabilize the region and put American forces at risk.
Behind the threats lies a broader confrontation over Iran’s nuclear program. Takeyh writes that Tehran continues to call for negotiations with the United States but insists it will not abandon enrichment—directly clashing with Washington’s position that Iran cannot retain a domestic enrichment capability. With Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump both signaling openness to renewed force if Iran resumes nuclear activity, fears of another strike are rising inside Iran.
Still, the central question is whether rhetoric is outrunning reality. “While it is hard to see how Trump’s pledge of intervention will be fulfilled, both the United States and Israel are convinced that they can use military power against Iran with impunity. This could be a dangerous miscalculation.” As protests broaden from economic anger to political demands, the risk is that misread signals—on the streets or across borders—could turn a volatile domestic crisis into something far more combustible.
Photo: The source