Overview:
When protests erupted in Tehran, many Iranians were emboldened by Donald Trump’s repeated warnings to the regime, assurances to protesters and direct call for them to seize state institutions. His reputation for following through on threats and promises—from Nicolas Maduro's capture and strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities to cancelling Iran nuclear deal, the Afghanistan exit, a Gaza ceasefire and high-profile assassinations of Qassem Soleimani and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi—lent credibility to his words and encouraged citizens to protest despite the risks. Yet if no meaningful U.S. action against the regime follows, that confidence could quickly turn into disillusionment, discouraging future protests and undermining U.S. credibility among both Iranians and potential partners worldwide.
When protests erupted in Tehran in the last week of December 2025, they initially reflected a familiar mix of frustration and despair over economic collapse.
However, US President Donald Trump’s warnings, combined with his track record during his first term and the first year of his second term, soon played a decisive role in shaping the protests’ unusual intensity and rapid escalation.
Two figures outside Iran were widely discussed in media and political commentary as having influenced the movement. One was Trump, whose repeated public warnings to Tehran about the use of lethal force against protesters were extensively covered. The other was Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran’s deposed monarch, whose calls for protests and US intervention echoed throughout Western news cycles.
While Pahlavi’s statements drew media attention, Trump’s warnings, which were widely perceived among protesters as carrying real weight, had a more significant impact on the psychology and dynamics of the protests.
Trump’s track recordTrump warned Iranian authorities repeatedly – on January 2, January 4 and January 9 – against using lethal force against the protesters, cautioning each time that severe consequences would follow if crackdowns continued.
In his first warning, he also assured protesters that Washington “will come to their rescue” and on January 13 he explicitly urged them to take over state institutions, stating that “help is on its way.” These repeated warnings and assurances and the direct call to action fostered a belief among Iranians that if protests gained sufficient momentum, the US would intervene, which could then potentially shift the balance of power against the regime.
This belief did not emerge in a vacuum. Trump’s track record mattered deeply to Iranians. His capture of Nicolás Maduro, following repeated public warnings, demonstrated that his threats could be operationalized.
Similarly, the US attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities on June 22, 2025, underscored that Trump’s repeated threats, including on March 30 and June 12, were not mere rhetoric but could be followed by decisive action. His enforcement of a Gaza ceasefire, after calls and threats to this end, further signaled that he could compel outcomes even in complex international situations.
During his first term, Trump also repeatedly acted on his stated intentions, including
- signing an agreement with Taliban that enabled the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan under the subsequent Joe Biden administration,
- exiting the Iran nuclear deal after sharp warnings, and
- escalating pressure on the Iranian regime.
Latest stories
US, China once had rare-earth aces in the hole but the US folded
Trump unveils his new ‘Board of Peace’ with no big hitters so far
The winners and losers so far from Trump’s tariffs
Together, these events profoundly shaped a public perception in Tehran, Shiraz, Mashhad and across cities and provinces in Iran that Trump’s words were backed by action, reinforcing the belief that his warnings regarding Iran should be taken seriously.
Beyond these promised outcomes, events such as the killing of ISIL (ISIS) leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in 2019 and the assassination of top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in 2020 further lent credence to the perception that Trump meant business rather than simply indulging in rhetoric, at least in most cases.
Trump’s record profoundly impacted the protestsThis track record paved the way for a growing perception that external intervention was credible and that the international environment could directly impact the outcome of the protests or, at the very least, influence the regime’s domestic decisions.
The idea that a major world power was watching, was issuing red-line warnings that could translate into pressure or consequences, emboldened segments of society that had previously hesitated to participate in large numbers. This same perception influenced protesters’ calculations about when, and how forcefully, to push back.
Indeed, the timeline of the protests’ expansion, from commercial districts in Tehran to provincial cities and university campuses across the country, coincided with Trump’s explicit warnings to the Iranian regime against using lethal force on demonstrators. Citizens and activists who had previously hesitated now perceived an opportunity to challenge the state without assuming immediate existential risk.
In the days that followed, participation surged. The protests drew not only traditional activists and students but also previously disengaged citizens, workers and members of the middle class who had long tolerated economic mismanagement and political repression out of caution.
Trump’s influence operated through perception as much as policy. His credibility, demonstrated through prior actions, shaped how protesters evaluated the risks of escalation. The belief that external actors might constrain the regime’s response emboldened citizens to act collectively, lowering the psychological barrier that had previously kept many off the streets.
At the same time, the regime intensified its crackdown, creating a cycle in which both sides became increasingly entrenched in confrontation. By mid-January, the deadly crackdown ultimately quelled the protests across the country.
Trump’s record and Its impact on the regime’s repressionTrump’s impact on the regime was evident both during the protests and after they were contained. Trump’s track record and repeated willingness to act on public threats led the regime to treat his warnings as credible constraints rather than symbolic rhetoric. This perception shaped how the regime assessed the risks of both restraint and escalation.
When the protests were still ongoing, Iranian judges and prosecutors, through state media and news agencies, attempted to frame the demonstrations as foreign-inspired sabotage. Meanwhile, Tehran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, publicly blamed external influence for the unrest and even suggested that protesters were acting to “please Trump.” Although this framing functioned as propaganda, it underscored how seriously the regime took Trump’s statements.
There is also an indication that the regime responded to Trump’s pressure even after the protests were quelled. Iran has halted planned executions of detained protesters amid warnings of US action, a development that underscores how seriously the regime takes such threats, particularly given Trump’s track record of following through on them.
Trump’s reputation at stakeWhile economic hardship and political repression motivated the protests, Trump’s repeated warnings and calls to action, when considered alongside his track record, gave protesters confidence that escalation could meaningfully alter outcomes. Many Iranians, like many observers across the world, interpreted this track record as signalling a determined external actor both capable of and willing to alter outcomes in real time.
Emboldened by perceived US support, protesters pushed confrontations that escalated violence faster than anticipated. At the same time, the regime, fearing foreign interference, reacted with maximal repression and ultimately succeeded in suppressing the protests.
Sign up for one of our free newsletters
- The Daily Report Start your day right with Asia Times' top stories
- AT Weekly Report A weekly roundup of Asia Times' most-read stories
It is apparent that, if Iranians come to see no impactful US action in their favor, they will lose trust in the international community as a whole and in the US in particular. Such disillusionment could quickly turn into regret, significantly discouraging further or future protests.
Moreover, a lack of US action, or any action perceived as weak, against the regime could undermine the credibility of both Trump and the US among allies and potential partners. In the future, if the US seeks to support protests against foreign governments acting against its interests, those movements may hesitate to trust Washington, having observed that Iranian protesters risked their lives based on Trump’s repeated assurances that were not ultimately upheld, leaving them exposed to arrest, harsh punishments and even execution.
Civil war dimensionBeyond the possibility that protesters may refrain from future demonstrations if the US takes no or weak action against the regime, another factor must be considered.
The regime carried out a bloody massacre of protesters to force an end to the demonstrations. If the regime survives, protesters who engaged in sustained anti-regime activity face the prospect of harsh punishment, including execution or life imprisonment, once the situation stabilizes and the regime fully reasserts control.
Driven by the fear of the gallows and the outrage over the killing of fellow protesters, surviving dissenters who see retreat as no longer viable may take up arms, potentially setting the stage for the outbreak of a civil war.
Sign up here to comment on Asia Times stories
Sign in with Google Or Sign up Sign in to an existing account
Thank you for registering!
An account was already registered with this email. Please check your inbox for an authentication link.
Bahauddin Foizee
Bahauddin Foizee is a threat/risk intelligence analyst focusing on the assessment of investment, legal, security, political and geopolitical threat/risk. His articles on these areas as well as on social, environmental, financial and military affairs in the Asia-Pacific/Indo-Pacific and Middle East regions have been widely published.
More by Bahauddin Foizee
