The Stark Message from Tehran, Protest, Suppression, and the Fragile Calculus of Power in Iran
As Economic Crisis Deepens and Nuclear Talks Resume, the Iranian People Bear the Heaviest Cost
In early January, a simple New Year’s greeting traveled across digital space from Tehran to the outside world. “Happy New Year. Wishing you and your dear family a 2026 full of happiness, health and heartwarming moments.” The message came from a friend living in Iran’s capital, a reminder that even in times of turmoil, the ordinary rhythms of human connection persist.
The reply never arrived. Days passed, then weeks. The reason, as news reports soon revealed, was not personal neglect but national crisis. Protests against rising prices had spread across Iran, and clashes with security forces attempting to suppress them had escalated. Authorities cut off the internet to prevent foreign interference, making social media difficult or impossible to access. The death toll was said to be in the thousands, but the information trickling through was fragmentary, and the situation remained unclear.
My friend in Tehran was not ignoring me. He simply could not reach me.
This is the reality of life in contemporary Iran—a reality of economic desperation, political repression, and the constant uncertainty that comes from living under a regime that sees its own people as potential threats. It is a reality that the world glimpses only through fragmentary reports, through the carefully curated posts of official accounts, through the stories of those who manage to get messages out before the digital doors close again.
The Economic Collapse
To understand the protests that erupted in early 2026, one must first understand the economic catastrophe that has befallen ordinary Iranians. When Kenji Takanishi of Yomiuri Shimbun was stationed in Tehran as a correspondent in 2015, the market rate for the Iranian rial was 34,200 to the U.S. dollar. On December 28, 2025, it hit a record low of 1,432,000 to the dollar. This means the rial’s value has plummeted to about 2.4 per cent of its former worth in just over a decade.
For ordinary Iranians, this collapse translates into daily misery. Prices rise faster than wages. Savings evaporate. The middle class, once a source of stability and aspiration, is being crushed. The poor, who have always struggled, now face impossible choices between food and medicine, between heating and eating.
The protests that erupted were not primarily about democracy, though democracy is certainly absent. They were not primarily about the hijab, though that remains a flashpoint. They were about bread. They were about survival. When people cannot feed their families, when they cannot afford the basic necessities of life, they take to the streets—not because they are political activists, but because they have no other choice.
The Regime’s Response
The Iranian regime has faced protests before. The Green Movement of 2009 erupted after widespread allegations of election fraud. Hundreds of thousands took to the streets demanding that their votes be counted. The regime responded with brutal suppression, and the movement was eventually crushed.
In 2022, the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini in custody for wearing her hijab “inappropriately” sparked protests that spread across the country. Women played a leading role, publicly removing their headscarves and cutting their hair in defiance. Again, the regime responded with force. Again, the protests were suppressed.
This year’s demonstrations differ in character. They stem from economic hardship rather than political or religious grievances. They are not a fundamental challenge to the regime’s governance based on Islamic principles, nor a demand for democratic reform. They are the desperate cries of a population pushed to the brink by forces they cannot control.
Yet the regime’s response has been the same: suppression, internet shutdowns, and propaganda. On January 13, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s X account posted: “These great rallies, overflowing with your firm determination, have completely shattered the foreign enemies’ plots that were supposed to be carried out by internal hirelings.” The post included an aerial photo of a rally of regime supporters filling a square.
X users viewing those posts were quick to add “background information”: “Khamenei writes this tweet while Iran’s internet and phone lines are completely shut down!” The contrast between the official narrative of popular support and the reality of a silenced population could not be starker.
The Resilience of the Regime
Despite widespread protests, there have been no reported defections within security forces such as the Revolutionary Guards. The regime’s foundation shows no signs of weakening. The protests, however large, have been suppressed and have eventually subsided.
This resilience is not accidental. The Iranian regime has spent four decades building institutions designed to survive popular opposition. The Revolutionary Guards are not merely a military force; they are an economic empire, controlling vast sectors of the economy and providing livelihoods for millions. The clerical establishment is deeply embedded in the fabric of society, with networks of mosques, foundations, and charitable organisations that provide services the state cannot or will not provide.
Moreover, the regime has learned from past protests. It knows how to deploy force strategically, how to target leaders, how to disrupt communications, how to divide and isolate. The internet shutdowns that left my friend unable to reply to a simple New Year’s message are not technical failures; they are deliberate instruments of control.
The International Dimension
As protests raged, the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump signaled that it could intervene in the crackdown. U.S. Navy vessels were dispatched to waters near Iran. This military pressure created a paradoxical dynamic: even as the regime suppressed its own people, it could portray itself as defending the nation against foreign aggression.
Iran then reached out to the United States, leading to talks about its nuclear program in Oman on February 6. It is a striking irony that nuclear negotiations, stalled since the breakdown of the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) and further complicated by the “12-day war” last June, have now resumed, triggered in part by the very crackdown that was meant to silence dissent.
Iran’s apparent aim is to use the downsizing of its nuclear activities as a bargaining chip to extract relief from U.S. sanctions, which are a major cause of the economic hardship driving protests. The United States is continuing to talk while maintaining military pressure. According to reports, Iran is offering a reduction in the enrichment level of its highly enriched uranium but has once again rejected U.S. demands to abandon uranium enrichment activities entirely.
The U.S. is also demanding curbs on ballistic missile development and an end to support for pro-Iranian forces in the Middle East. Iran has refused to discuss these matters, viewing them as strategic pillars of its security, vital for deterring threats including from Israel.
The Military Option
Will the United States take military action, depending on the course of negotiations? Shintaro Yoshimura, a Hiroshima University professor and Iran expert, assesses the probability as “fifty-fifty.” From the Trump administration’s perspective, military action could offer certain advantages: demonstrating strength, disrupting Iran’s nuclear program, and potentially weakening the regime. But the risks are equally significant.
Yoshimura explains: “There is a possibility of limited military operations. However, even if they strike Revolutionary Guard bases or attack nuclear facilities, it is unlikely to lead to greater public support for those seeking to overthrow the Iranian regime, nor would it likely reignite the momentum of anti-government protests. If, by any chance, Iranian civilians become casualties of a U.S. attack, it would give the Iranian regime a pretext to stoke anti-American sentiment, potentially backing Iran into a corner.”
This analysis captures the fundamental dilemma of any military intervention. The Iranian people, suffering under sanctions and repression, might initially welcome action against a regime they despise. But if that action kills civilians, if it is seen as foreign aggression against Iran itself, nationalist sentiment could quickly override opposition to the regime. The regime would have exactly what it needs: a pretext to rally the population, to portray itself as the defender of the nation, to suppress dissent in the name of national unity.
The Human Cost
Not even two months have passed since the start of 2026, and already protests have been suppressed, U.S. military and economic pressure has intensified further, and the situation in Iran has plunged into utter uncertainty. The costs fall hardest on the people who took to the streets demanding better lives.
The death toll is said to be in the thousands, but the information is fragmentary. Families mourn in secret, afraid to speak publicly. The injured cannot seek proper medical care without risking identification. The arrested disappear into a prison system where torture is routine and due process is a fiction.
And for those who did not protest, who simply tried to go about their lives, the economic misery continues. The rial continues to fall. Prices continue to rise. Hope continues to fade.
The Message That Finally Arrived
Four weeks after sending his New Year’s greeting, my friend in Tehran finally got a message through. Some internet access had returned, he explained, but people needed to use a VPN for social media. “Sorry, I saw your message late because we had a VPN problem. Thank you very much.”
The message was brief, cautious, carefully worded. It did not mention protests or crackdowns or the thousands dead. It did not need to. The four-week gap said everything.
I hope that the rest of the year for my friend is “full of happiness, health and heartwarming moments.” I hope that for all the people of Iran. But hope is not a strategy, and the forces arrayed against their happiness, their health, and their heartwarming moments are formidable.
The Broader Implications
The situation in Iran matters far beyond its borders. A nuclear-armed Iran would transform the strategic balance of the Middle East, triggering a arms race that could draw in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and others. Iranian support for proxies across the region—Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shia militias in Iraq, the Houthis in Yemen, Hamas in Palestine—means that instability in Tehran reverberates from the Mediterranean to the Gulf.
The nuclear talks in Oman are therefore not merely a bilateral matter between Iran and the United States. They are a global concern. The outcome will shape the security environment for years to come.
Yet even as diplomats negotiate and generals plan, the people of Iran continue to live their lives, to send New Year’s greetings, to hope for replies. They are not merely pawns in a geopolitical game. They are human beings with the same aspirations as people everywhere: to live in peace, to provide for their families, to enjoy “happiness, health and heartwarming moments.”
The stark message from Tehran is that these simple aspirations remain out of reach for millions. And until they are within reach, the protests will continue, the suppression will continue, and the world will continue to watch through fragmentary reports, wondering what comes next.
Q&A: Unpacking the Crisis in Iran
Q1: What triggered the protests in Iran in early 2026?
A: The protests were primarily triggered by economic hardship, specifically the catastrophic collapse of Iran’s currency, the rial. In 2015, the market rate was 34,200 rials to the U.S. dollar; by December 28, 2025, it had plummeted to 1,432,000 rials to the dollar—a loss of over 97% of its value. This translated into soaring prices, evaporating savings, and impossible choices for ordinary Iranians trying to afford basic necessities. Unlike the Green Movement of 2009 (which protested election fraud) or the 2022 protests (which followed the death of Mahsa Amini in custody), these demonstrations were driven by economic survival rather than political or religious grievances.
Q2: How did the Iranian regime respond to the protests?
A: The regime responded with its familiar combination of suppression, internet shutdowns, and propaganda. Authorities cut off internet access to prevent foreign interference and coordination among protesters. Security forces, including the Revolutionary Guards, clashed with demonstrators, with the death toll reportedly in the thousands. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s social media accounts posted images of regime-supporting rallies, framing the protests as “foreign enemies’ plots” carried out by “internal hirelings.” Notably, there were no reported defections within security forces, and the regime’s foundation showed no signs of weakening.
Q3: What is the status of Iran’s nuclear program and negotiations with the United States?
A: Following the protests, Iran reached out to the United States, leading to talks about its nuclear program in Oman on February 6. This resumption of negotiations is ironic, as it was triggered partly by the crackdown on protests. Iran is offering to reduce the enrichment level of its highly enriched uranium as a bargaining chip to secure relief from U.S. sanctions, which are a major cause of economic hardship. However, Iran has again rejected U.S. demands to abandon uranium enrichment entirely. The U.S. is also demanding curbs on ballistic missile development and an end to support for pro-Iranian forces in the Middle East, which Iran refuses to discuss, viewing these as strategic pillars of its security.
Q4: Could the United States take military action against Iran?
A: According to Iran expert Shintaro Yoshimura of Hiroshima University, the probability is “fifty-fifty.” Limited military operations against Revolutionary Guard bases or nuclear facilities are possible. However, even if successful, such strikes are unlikely to generate greater public support for those seeking to overthrow the regime or reignite anti-government protests. Moreover, if Iranian civilians become casualties of a U.S. attack, it would give the regime a pretext to stoke anti-American sentiment and potentially unite the population against foreign aggression. This dilemma captures the fundamental risk of military intervention: it could backfire by enabling the regime to portray itself as defender of the nation.
Q5: What is the human cost of the crisis, and what does it mean for ordinary Iranians?
A: The human cost is devastating and falls hardest on ordinary Iranians who took to the streets demanding better lives. Thousands are reported dead, though information remains fragmentary due to internet shutdowns and media restrictions. Families mourn in secret, the injured cannot seek proper care without risk of identification, and the arrested disappear into a prison system where torture is routine. For those who did not protest, economic misery continues: the rial continues to fall, prices continue to rise, and hope continues to fade. The four-week delay in receiving a reply to a simple New Year’s greeting—caused by internet shutdowns and VPN problems—illustrates how even the most basic human connections are disrupted by the regime’s efforts to maintain control.
