Published in the Jerusalem Post, 16 February 2026
On January 12, when riots and violent protests had been wreaking havoc across Iran for more than two weeks, US President Donald Trump posted a message on his social media platform, Truth Social. “Iranian patriots,” he wrote. “Keep protesting. Take over your institutions. I have cancelled all meetings with Iranian officials until the senseless killing of protesters stops. Help is on its way.”
This was
not his first message of encouragement to the hundreds of thousands who had
taken to the streets of Iran’s cities and towns protesting against the regime
and the hardships it was inflicting on the people. In a Truth Social post in the early hours of
Friday, January 2 he had already posted that if Iran “violently kills peaceful
protesters, which is their custom, the United States of America will come to
their rescue,” adding: “We are locked and loaded and ready to go.”
The nationwide insurrection can be
dated back to December 28, when a sudden currency collapse, coming on
top of already severe inflation and falling purchasing power, led to bazaar
strikes and street demonstrations in Tehran.
The Iranian rial had plunged to a
historic low of around 1.42 million per dollar, destroying price stability for
import‑dependent traders, and making normal bazaar commerce impossible. Rapid exchange‑rate swings and rising costs
meant that shopkeepers could not set or honor prices. Facing possible bankruptcy, they closed their
shops and struck in protest at what they saw as regime mismanagement of the
economy.
The uprising moved quickly from economic
dissatisfaction by the trading community to an open challenge to the entire
Islamic Republic by large numbers of the public. By the first week of January, protests had
expanded to cities and towns in nearly all 31 provinces. It is still in progress and according to
diplomatic and media estimates, the numbers of people participating nationwide
could possibly be in the millions.
The use of live fire by the security forces escalated sharply
around 8–10 January. Reports speak of
thousands killed over a 48‑hour period and describe this phase as the deadliest
repression since 1979. So by the time of
Trump’s January 13 message, the unrest had moved from an economic‑triggered
protest to a nationwide, highly lethal confrontation.
In the light of Trump’s own words,
Iranians who are risking life and liberty by challenging their oppressive
government might reasonably believe that the US president is preparing to
intervene on their behalf and help them overthrow the regime. But that is not likely to happen.
From the US perspective there are,
in addition to the regime’s violent crackdown on protesters, three pressing
issues in the Iran file: the nuclear
program, the ballistic missile program, and Iran’s regional proxies. These seem to have taken precedence over any
practical support for the popular uprising against the regime.
To justify Trump’s visible military buildup around Iran in late January, Washington did cite Iran’s ruthless crackdown and soaring protester death toll, but also mentioned broader concerns about Tehran’s regional and nuclear behavior. The marked increase in US air, naval, and missile‑defense deployments across the Middle East, notably the deployment of the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group and accompanying forces to the region, were explicitly framed as deterrence and preparation for possible strikes on Iran.
Preliminary US–Iran
talks in the first week of February were fruitful enough for a
further round to be tabled, and Prime Minister Netanyahu flew to Washington to
coordinate with Trump the line to be taken. Talks not action emerged as
Trump’s priority. Meanwhile confused
commentators are asking why Iran’s nuclear program is once again a central
concern. Didn’t Trump himself say Iran’s nuclear capabilities had
been “completely and fully obliterated” during the 12-day war in June?
Herb Keinon, writing in the
Jerusalem Post, put the issue in a nutshell: “The return to negotiations
– reviving the nuclear file while setting aside what has taken place on Iran’s
streets – gives the impression that a moment of great regime vulnerability has
been squandered. All of a sudden, the two sides are talking about centrifuges
and enrichment levels, when many assumed the focus had shifted decisively to
the awful nature of the regime and its violent suppression of its own people.”
As regards the nuclear issue, the
current US position is a demand that Iran completely halts its nuclear program
and ships its stock of enriched uranium, estimated at some 450 kg, out of the
country – presumably to Russia. If serious negotiations actually
start, several months of talks would probably be needed to finalize agreement
on the nuclear issue, which is the only one the Iranians have so far agreed to
consider.
But there is no evading the harsh
truth. Trump explicitly urged Iranians to “keep protesting” and
“take over” institutions, telling them that “help is on its
way.” He then held back from intervention while
the regime's crackdown on the protesters escalated,
and now US policy has shifted toward nuclear talks and
military deterrence, leaving Iranians facing mass killings, detentions, and
collective punishment without the external backing they thought had been
promised.
According to Reza Pahlavi’s media
office the regime has killed at least 43,000 Iranians since the current
protests began. On February 10 the
family of 20-year-old Ali Heydari, arrested by regime forces on January 8, reported
that he had been executed without facing trial.
For protesters, Trump’s
combination of rhetorical encouragement and minimal practical support must be a
bitter disappointment. Anger against the regime will doubtless persist,
but what has happened may well be perceived by the people of Iran as a form of
betrayal by Trump and the US.
No comments:
Post a Comment