Donald Trump’s promise that “help is on the way” for anti-government protesters in Iran is increasingly at odds with the realities on the ground. The government’s wish for rapid foreign policy success – or even for a regime change in Tehran – has so far remained unfulfilled.
Brutal actions and contradictory signals
While large-scale protests in Iran have gained momentum despite a near-total information blackout, fragmented evidence suggests that the demonstrations were crushed by a bloody crackdown by Iranian security forces.
“The low estimate for the number killed is 2,000. The high estimate is today [14. Januar] “At 15,000,” says Farzan Sabet, a Middle East researcher at the Global Governance Center who runs the Iran Wonk blog. “They’re also preparing mass executions.”
Amid rumors of imminent American military strikes, Trump told reporters on Wednesday: “We have been informed by very important sources on the other side that the killing has stopped and there will be no executions.” He later added: “I hope it’s true. Who knows.”
Whether this means that the US has ruled out military action for the time being remains unclear. Unpredictability is a feature, not a flaw, of this administration’s foreign policy. Trump had already used a deceptive maneuver against Iran in June of last year. He promised a one-week window for diplomacy. However, just hours later, he had “Operation Midnight Hammer” carried out against the Iranian nuclear program.
The protests, which began weeks ago due to deteriorating living conditions and economic hardship, grew significantly after outside voices supported the demonstrations.
Reza Pahlavi and the escalation of the protests
On January 6, Reza Pahlavi – the son of the former Shah of Iran who lives in exile in the US as a dissident – published an Instagram post declaring his support for the protests. “Despite the regime’s ongoing violent crackdown, you are resisting. And that is inspiring,” Pahlavi said. He called on demonstrators to gather the following Thursday and Friday and chant slogans at 8 p.m. “Based on your response, I will announce the next calls for action.” The video electrified many Iranians.
“I got messages. Both from people inside Iran and from students who have family in Iran or are here with family. And they said, ‘Have you seen this video? It has 15 million views.’ I thought, ‘Okay, I’ll watch it later,'” Sabet tells Rolling Stone. “When I checked later, it had 80 million views.”
By Thursday, the regime cut off internet and telephone services nationwide. Demonstrators who had originally taken to the streets because of high inflation now shouted slogans such as “Jâvid Shah” (“Long live the Shah”) and “Death to Khamenei”. It was the clearest direct challenge to the legitimacy of clerical rule in decades.
Trump’s words and limited military resources
Trump’s Jan. 2 social media post announcing action if protesters were harmed also encouraged mobilization. “I think that was a pivotal moment. And the arrest of [Venezuelas Präsident Nicolás] “Maduro has underlined the credibility of President Trump’s words,” says Sabet.
Over the weekend, the regime deployed the army, police and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) – the military arm protecting the government – as well as the volunteer paramilitary Basij units.
A handful of photos and video clips were leaked to neighboring countries via Starlink satellite internet or through smuggling. They document sustained heavy gunfire in city streets. Security forces shooting at demonstrators. And rows of body bags.
Still, the military assets necessary for U.S. intervention to cripple Iran’s security apparatus were simply not available on the ground when Trump’s pledges began in early January. There are currently no aircraft carrier battle groups within operational range of Iran. And as of early Wednesday, there was no significant U.S. troop buildup in the region. However, open source observers recorded several tanker aircraft in the air. A possible sign of military preparations.
Doubt, frustration and strategic uncertainty
“Some of the messages I hear from Iran convey a sense of betrayal by President Trump,” Sabet says. “People thought they were taking to the streets with him behind them.”
What Washington wants to achieve with the available resources remains unclear. Internal government sources previously told the press that the White House was considering a range of non-kinetic options: strengthening dissident media online, cyberattacks on Iranian targets or additional sanctions. As well as limited military strikes against critical facilities.
The USA maintains fighter jets and naval units in the region. For example, at the Al-Udeid air base in Qatar and at a naval base in Bahrain, which are capable of cruise missile and precision strikes. But dismantling Iran’s security forces, disempowering the political and military leadership, and overthrowing the regime would likely require a significant commitment of military resources.
“This is not a one-time action,” said Victoria Taylor, former assistant secretary of state for Iraq and Iran. “Any attempt to overthrow the regime by military force would require a sustained campaign.”
Internal conflicts and skeptical experts
It is unclear whether Trump is ready for such a deployment. “One of the challenges within the government is that there are very different camps when it comes to the willingness to use force,” says Taylor. “There are clearly hawkish forces that want to pursue a much more robust foreign policy. I include Secretary of State Marco Rubio among them. At the same time, we know that there are strong voices for restraint, such as Vice President JD Vance.”
Given the lack of clearly articulated goals or a coherent Iran strategy, some experts are skeptical that Washington can achieve the desired results.
“There is no violent shortcut to an outcome that the United States and Israel would be happy with,” said Ali Vaez, director of the International Crisis Group’s Iran program. Trump could increase the pressure with non-kinetic measures. But “they do not meet the criterion of ‘spectacular’ that he apparently prefers and may not produce significant results.”
Limited military strikes – similar to the attacks on Iran’s nuclear program last summer – could give Trump a PR success. However, they would neither destroy the regime. Still protecting the lives of the demonstrators.
Structural weakness of the regime
“There is a danger that from Venezuela and from the 12-day war [als Israel und die USA den Iran im Juni 2025 angriffen] The lesson learned is that US military superiority is sufficient to achieve goals quickly. “Without ground troops and without our own losses,” says Taylor. “The difficulty in Iran, however, is that even if the regime falls, it is unclear whether we would be able to control what happens next.”
At the same time, the protests and crackdown reveal structural weaknesses in the Iranian regime, which portrays the unrest as a plot coordinated by Israel. But the scale of the protests belies the narrative that they are simply the work of foreign agents. Previous social and economic protests have repeatedly resulted in direct challenges to the system, which many young Iranians perceive as repressive and backward.
“The regime can suppress. But it cannot eliminate the root causes,” says Vaez. “It’s just buying time until the next confrontation with civil society. And these are becoming more frequent and more violent.”
Sabet sees the current crisis as part of a long-term trend that can be traced back to almost a decade of internal protests and repression. “The underlying assumption for me is an evolution where people understand that this system cannot meet their needs,” he says.
“Why do people keep taking to the streets, killing security forces and being killed themselves in large numbers? Why is mass murder taking place on the streets right now if reforms would work?” he asks.
Limited influence from Pahlavi and Trump
The reason why Pahlavi’s post went viral and further fueled the protests became clear to him in conversations with acquaintances, Sabet said. “They said, ‘We didn’t have an alternative before. Here’s an alternative, right?’ At least it offers a vision of a possible positive future or hope.”
Nevertheless, Pahlavi’s influence – and also that of Trump – is limited.
“Although the profile of the former Shah’s son has increased in recent months, he is by no means widely perceived as an opposition leader,” notes Vaez. “And he doesn’t have any organization on site.”
Sabet added: “If there are mass executions and repression for a year, that could be enough to end Pahlavi’s ambitions.” Nevertheless, it is difficult to imagine that the USA would quickly overthrow the regime. Still, “some well-considered actions in the cyber and non-kinetic domains – or even limited military steps – could have a huge impact” by triggering a new wave of protests. “The situation is so unstable and dynamic that nothing would surprise me.”
Vaez, on the other hand, does not believe that the United States can determine the outcome for a regime that has ruled a country of 92 million people for almost 60 years.
“This is an Iranian issue. Outsiders are just spectators,” he said.
Trump, however, views his previous military actions against Iran – the killing of IRGC commander Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani in 2020 and the attack on Tehran’s nuclear program last year – as clear successes. And the role of mere “spectator” is one he rarely accepts.