Iran is confronting its most significant wave of domestic unrest since the mass protests of 2022. In December 2025 and early January 2026, demonstrators took to the streets across Iran’s major cities and provinces, propelled by deepening economic distress and pervasive frustration with governmental mismanagement. What began as demonstrations against collapsed living standards has rapidly escalated into a broader confrontation between the state and a discontented public, set against a fraught geopolitical backdrop involving the United States and Israel.
The epicentre of the current protests lies in Iran’s profound economic crisis. Years of structural weakness, compounded by the reimposition of US sanctions and internal mismanagement, have pushed inflation to historic highs and eroded household incomes. According to economic assessments, inflation in Iran soared above 48 per cent in late 2025, with the rial experiencing precipitous depreciation, sharply reducing purchasing power for ordinary Iranians. Between a quarter and a half of the population is estimated to live below the poverty line, while shortages in energy and other essentials have become chronic.
On 29 December 2025, anger erupted when the national currency plunged to record lows against the US dollar, igniting spontaneous protests by merchants, students and ordinary citizens. These gatherings quickly spread beyond Tehran to include other urban centres and smaller provinces, signifying a widening crisis of confidence in the state’s ability to provide economic stability.
Unlike previous waves of dissent triggered by specific social grievances, such as the 2022 protests that followed the death of Mahsa Amini in custody, the current unrest has an unmistakably economic core. Yet the scale and rapid diffusion of demonstrations indicate a broader malaise; once aggrieved sectors of society have found common cause in public expressions of disillusionment with the political establishment.
Tehran’s response: Calming words, hard lines
Iran’s leadership has responded to the protest movement with a mixture of acknowledgement and defiance. President Masoud Pezeshkian has publicly recognised the severity of economic grievances and taken symbolic measures such as the replacement of the central bank governor and engagement with business leaders in an attempt to restore confidence.
At the same time, other senior figures in the Iranian establishment have adopted more combative rhetoric. They argue that external adversaries are exploiting Iran’s vulnerabilities and dismiss US commentary on the protests as undue interference. This narrative attempts to reframe domestic upheaval as a matter of national security and resilience against foreign pressure. Pezeshkian himself, even as he speaks of dialogue and internal reform, has echoed this framing by declaring Iran engaged in a broader “full-scale war” against Western powers.
Iranian state media and officials have steadfastly rejected any suggestion that the unrest reflects a fundamental loss of legitimacy. Instead, successive statements have emphasised external culpability, portraying the protests as a manifestation of foreign efforts to destabilise the Islamic Republic.
Washington’s provocative rhetoric
The response from Washington, under President Donald Trump, has been unusually direct and inflammatory, contributing to heightened tensions. In early January 2026, Trump took to social media to declare that the United States was “locked and loaded” to assist Iranian protesters should the regime violently suppress them. He explicitly threatened intervention if peaceful demonstrators were harmed.
This rare threat from a sitting US president signals a shift in the tone of bilateral relations. Historically, United States administrations have been cautious in dealing with Iran’s internal dissent, often wary of being perceived as meddling in sovereign affairs. Yet Trump’s public statements, laced with veiled promises of support for Iranian civil society, have been denounced in Tehran as reckless and interventionist. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Ismail Bekayi referenced past US behaviour to question Washington’s purported solidarity with Iranian citizens, underscoring a deep distrust rooted in decades of adversarial relations.
Tehran’s advisers to the supreme leader, such as Ali Shamkhani, have responded with stark warnings that foreign interference in Iran’s “internal affairs” would cross red lines and invite consequences. This tit-for-tat rhetorical escalation reflects broader strategic mistrust and risks reinforcing hardline assumptions on both sides.
The protest movement and the international responses to it cannot be divorced from the larger geopolitical tensions that have engulfed the Middle East over the past year. 2025 witnessed a significant escalation in hostilities between Iran and Israel, culminating in a confrontation in June that drew in the United States. After clashes triggered by Israeli air strikes on Iranian nuclear and military sites, Iran retaliated with ballistic missile and drone attacks, prompting fears of a wider conflict.
Though a ceasefire eventually emerged, and diplomatic negotiations around nuclear issues were attempted, these engagements have been fragile. Talks between Iran and Western intermediaries have foundered, and mutual suspicions remain entrenched.
In this highly charged environment, Iranian officials routinely link US policy to Israeli strategic priorities. From Tehran’s perspective, Washington’s support for Israel’s security posture, especially in light of its own regional alliances, reinforces the narrative that Western powers are intent on undermining Iran’s sovereignty and stability. This discourse has intensified amid the ongoing protests, framing them not just as an internal revolt but as part of a wider confrontation in which external forces are alleged to be exploiting Iran’s domestic fragilities.
The diplomatic rhetoric between Washington and Tehran, particularly as expressed by Trump and Iranian officials, reflects a broader and perilous tension. Trump’s public admonitions about potential intervention risk being interpreted in Tehran as either a pretext for regime change or a strategic lever to pressure the Iranian leadership. Conversely, Iran’s warnings of retaliation and of welcoming “total war” with the West emphasise how domestic upheaval can be refracted through the prism of geopolitical rivalry.
Meanwhile, Israel remains a critical actor. Jerusalem’s strategic calculus views a weakened or distracted Iran as less capable of supporting proxy militias and armed groups across the Levant and beyond, a longstanding security concern for Tel Aviv. Washington’s alignment with these concerns has historically formed the backbone of the US-Israel strategic partnership, even as the United States has occasionally pursued distinct diplomatic avenues with Iran.
The convergence of these interests means that what began as an economic protest could be enmeshed in broader tensions. Iranian authorities have accused both the United States and Israel of fomenting unrest, while US rhetoric has emphasised support for human rights and democratic expression. In reality, such statements play into longstanding narratives on both sides, heightening fears of miscalculation and inadvertent escalation.
Iran’s current protests are not merely a reflection of economic despair. They are symptomatic of deeper structural crises within Iranian society. The interplay between domestic dissent and regional geopolitics complicates any straightforward interpretation.
The confrontational rhetoric between Tehran and Washington, exemplified by Trump’s interventionist warnings and Iranian officials’ defiant counterstatements, reveals how domestic unrest has been subsumed into the larger theatre of international rivalry. The tension between Iran, the United States and Israel, shaped by recent military confrontations and protracted diplomatic deadlocks, adds a volatile dimension to what might otherwise be construed as internal economic protest.
The prospects for de-escalation will depend on whether cooler heads in Tehran and Washington can decouple legitimate domestic grievances from regional security postures. Without such a shift, the risk remains that an economic protest movement could be inflamed by external tensions, with consequences not only for Iran’s future but for regional stability as a whole.