More Stories
Iran on Saturday denounced the US military attack on Venezuela, accusing Washington of violating international law following reports that American forces had captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in a military operation.
The United States carried out an overnight operation targeting Venezuela and detained Maduro, US President Donald Trump said on Saturday, adding that Washington would assume control of the country for the time being and could deploy American troops if required.
In a statement, Iran’s Foreign Ministry said the United States had carried out a military aggression against Venezuela, calling it a blatant violation of the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
It said the action breached fundamental principles of the United Nations Charter, including the prohibition on the use of force enshrined in Article 2(4), and described it as a clear act of aggression that should be condemned by the international community.
The statement said the US action undermined regional and international peace and security and warned that its consequences would extend beyond Venezuela, further eroding the international order based on the UN Charter.
Iran's Foreign Ministry urged the United Nations and other states to respond clearly to what it called an unlawful use of force, calling for measures to hold accountable those who planned and carried out what it described as crimes committed during the operation.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baqaei also called Iran's ambassador to Caracas, emphasizing "Tehran’s principled position in condemning the US military aggression and the violation of that country’s national sovereignty and territorial integrity."
Baqaei also expressed confidence that "the Venezuelan people, by maintaining national unity and cohesion, will safeguard their independence and national interests and continue on the path of development and progress."
Elon Musk on Saturday congratulated Trump on the capture of Maduro, a staunch ally of Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, calling it "a win for the world and a clear message to evil dictators everywhere."
Maduro’s capture has fueled widespread debate on social media about the possibility of a similar scenario in Iran, as Trump has issued warnings to the country’s leadership during nationwide protests.
Unlike his predecessors who largely stayed silent in the early days, Donald Trump issued an unusually blunt warning over the killing of demonstrators in Iran, a message Tehran appears unable to dismiss lightly given its speed, tone, and source.
On the second day of protests, he condemned the Iranian government for firing on demonstrators. On day six, he went further, warning that if the killing of protesters continued, US forces “will come to their rescue.”
This amounts to the fastest and most explicit reaction by an American president to a wave of unrest in Iran in the past 45 years. The question is whether this posture translates into concrete diplomatic steps or credible military pressure—or remains a largely symbolic deterrent message.
Within a week of the outbreak of protests in Iran against the Islamic Republic and its rulers, US President Donald Trump weighed in twice with direct comments.
On the second day of protests, he condemned the Iranian government for firing on demonstrators. On day six, he went further, warning that if the killing of protesters continued, US forces “will come to their rescue.”
This amounts to the fastest and most explicit reaction by an American president to a wave of unrest in Iran in the past 45 years. The question is whether this posture translates into concrete diplomatic steps or credible military pressure—or remains a largely symbolic deterrent message.
In 2009, former US president Barack Obama responded cautiously to Iran’s Green Movement protests. At the time, he had sent a second letter to Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, and had yet to receive a reply. Obama feared that open support for protesters could undermine the secret backchannel he was attempting to establish with Khamenei to resolve the nuclear standoff.
At the same time, his advisers warned that overt US backing could backfire: protesters might be branded as “foreign agents,” giving the government a pretext to crack down even harder.
Those concerns are far less salient for Trump, at least for now. On one hand, there is currently no meaningful or active diplomatic channel between Tehran and Washington that a sharp US stance could weaken or shut down.
On the other hand, Iranian officials have for years accused protesters of being agents of hostile powers—a charge repeated by Khamenei himself in a recent speech on the unrest—rendering the label largely meaningless. There is little indication that demonstrators now fear either foreign support or accusations of outside ties.
Years later, Obama acknowledged that his cautious approach to the Green Movement had been a mistake, arguing that the United States should support popular, pro-freedom movements wherever they arise. Trump’s swift and blunt reaction suggests he has avoided a similar error.
The Obama administration’s experience also underscores another lesson: firm rhetoric is not enough. In 2012, Obama declared that the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad constituted a US “red line.”
Yet a year later, a sarin gas attack on Eastern Ghouta, a rebel-held suburb to the east of Damascus, killed hundreds of civilians, but the United States did not launch a military strike. Instead, Obama pursued a diplomatic route to remove Syria’s declared chemical weapons stockpiles.
That effort reduced—but did not end—the use of chemical weapons in Syria, and it significantly weakened Obama’s standing, and that of the United States, among Syrian opposition groups.
Trump, by contrast, appears keenly aware that unfulfilled threats erode both his personal authority and the projection of American power. He has acted on threats toward Iran twice: first, with the killing of Qassem Soleimani exactly six years ago, on January 3, 2020, and second, with a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities around 200 days ago.
On Saturday, Trump also followed through on recent threats against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, announcing that the United States had carried out a major operation against Venezuela and detained Maduro and his wife, removing them from the country.
Tehran moved quickly to respond to Trump’s threat against the Islamic Republic’s repressive forces targeting protesters, suggesting that Khamenei is attentive to the speed and clarity of the message and the prospect of its implementation.
Information obtained by Iran International confirms that Sajjad Valamanesh, a 20-year-old protester from the city of Lordegan, was killed after being shot by security forces during protests in the city on Thursday, January 1.
According to a source close to his family, Sajjad's family has been threatened by authorities and has received repeated calls from the Revolutionary Guard's Intelligence Organization.
The source added that an interview the family gave to state media was conducted under pressure and threats, and solely to secure the return of Sajjad's body.
Sajjad was neither a member of the Basij nor affiliated with any political party or organization, and was only a pro-monarchy protester, the source said.
Valamanesh was laid to rest on Friday, with a large crowd attending his funeral.
US President Donald Trump’s warning to Iran's rulers over violence against protesters has triggered divided reactions among Iran’s opposition and critics, with Tehran answering the remarks by issuing counter-threats against US interests in the region.
Hours after Trump posted his message on Truth Social, Ali Larijani, Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, warned that US interference would be met with instability and the destruction of American interests across the region.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry also condemned Trump’s remarks as “interventionist,” warning that any reaction by the Islamic Republic could push “the entire region deeper into crisis and instability.”
A day later, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei declared that Tehran would confront what he described as “riots,” while signaling limited openness to dialogue.
Exiled Prince Reza Pahlavi, whose name is being chanted by protesters as a future leader of Iran, welcomed Trump’s message. In a social media post, he thanked the US president and wrote:
“This warning you have issued to the criminal leaders of the Islamic Republic gives my people greater strength and hope—hope that, at last, a President of the United States is standing firmly by their side.”
He added: “I have the plan for stable transition for Iran and the support of my people to get it done. With your leadership of the free world, we can leave a legacy of lasting peace.”
In other messages, he urged Tehran residents to defy government efforts to prevent gatherings in the capital, calling mass street presence a vital complement to protests in smaller cities.
Amir Hossein Etemadi, an advisor to Prince Reza Pahlavi, warned Iranian officials that Trump’s message should be taken seriously, writing: “For every bullet fired at the people, they move faster toward their own death and that of their regime.”
Rejection of foreign intervention
At the same time, many reformists and government critics in Iran have strongly opposed foreign interference while urging authorities to refrain from violence.
Azar Mansouri, head of Iran’s Reformist Front, emphasized the right to protest but rejected outside interference, writing: “We stand with the protesters and do not see repression as a solution. But we explicitly and firmly condemn any foreign intervention; such interference harms non-violent protests.”
Prominent commentator Sadegh Zibakalam wrote that while he views Iran’s foreign, military, and nuclear policies as damaging to national interests, he cannot “stand alongside Trump and Netanyahu,” despite recognizing protest as a fundamental civil right.
Former vice president Mohammad-Ali Abtahi urged the government to prevent bloodshed to deny Washington any pretext.
Such statements have angered some social media users, who accuse reformist figures of aligning with the Islamic Republic against protesters.
A double-edged threat
Several analysts argue that Trump’s warning could have contradictory effects embolden some protesters and deter others.
Reformist journalist Ahmad Zeidabadi wrote that military intervention aimed at regime change is likely the last thing Trump seeks. Instead, he argued, Trump sees the protests as leverage for maximum pressure and potentially to undermine the Islamic Republic’s legitimacy.
According to Zeidabadi, such threats may push some protesters to withdraw while emboldening others.
Another commentator, Sahand Iranmehr, echoed this view, saying the message could foster “false hope” among some protesters while making others fear their movement could become “a battleground for US or Israeli geopolitical agendas.”
Journalist Bahman Amouee argued that Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have effectively handed the Iranian government an excuse for harsher repression, aided by opportunists inside and outside the country.
Vali Nasr, a professor at Johns Hopkins University, summed up the concern in a post on X:
“Threatening to bomb Iran is not helping protesters… Iranians didn't revolt when Israel bombed and called on them to rise up; they are unlikely to do the same if US bombed Iran.”
