Missiles, not diplomacy: how Iran signals resolve under pressure

As the tenth day of unrest wraps up, Tehran appears to be pursuing a dual control strategy: widespread arrests of individuals described as riot leaders, alongside intensified news censorship and tighter restrictions on internet access.

The website Asr-e Iran reported on Tuesday that not a single reporter or photographer from non-state outlets is currently permitted to conduct field coverage of demonstrations.

During the early days of the unrest, state media—including the national broadcaster—unexpectedly aired limited and heavily censored coverage of protests.

Some appeared to validate people’s right to protest, signaling a brief opening toward a more conciliatory stance.

Khamenei intervention

That tone shifted sharply after Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s speech on Saturday, in which he rejected any accommodation with those he described as “rioters.”

Since then, official rhetoric has again turned confrontational, even as protests and strikes have continued to spread.

On Monday night, large crowds took to the streets in eastern Tehran, an area traditionally regarded as a conservative stronghold.

On Tuesday, bazaar merchants once again closed their shops and took to surrounding streets in numbers not previously seen in online videos since the protests began.

Footage circulating on social media appears to show a noticeable increase in the number of demonstrators in several other cities as well.

It also points to the spread of strikes to Kurdish regions, where political parties have called on residents to join work stoppages starting Thursday.

‘Enemy conspiracy’

Despite this, official and semi-official outlets have insisted that the unrest is fading.

The Revolutionary Guards-affiliated Fars News Agency claimed on Tuesday that “riotous movements” had declined sharply since Monday night and were limited to a few locations.

“People, despite having grievances about living conditions and high prices, have shown no support for these riots or even street protests,” Fars asserted.

Hossein Shariatmadari, the editor of the hardline Kayhan, which is funded by the office of the Supreme Leader, went further, claiming that a planned “enemy conspiracy” had been neutralized thanks to the “vigilance, faith and devotion” of bazaar merchants and the public.

Feeble administration

The administration of President Masoud Pezeshkian, by contrast, has sought to strike a more restrained tone—though with limited influence over events unfolding on the streets.

On Tuesday, Mehdi Tabatabei, one of the president’s deputies, wrote on X that it was the government’s duty to hear protesters’ voices and respond to their “reasonable” demands, arguing that the line between protest and “riot” lay in avoiding violence.

The administration has also tasked a committee with probing security forces’ attack on a hospital in Ilam where protesters had sought refuge.

Writing in the daily Ham-Mihan, moderate pundit Abbas Abdi warned that officials were mistaken to believe the unrest could simply be “wrapped up” without addressing its underlying causes.

A society protesting for multiple reasons, he wrote, including economic hardship, retains a high potential for renewed unrest even after periods of enforced silence.

One defining feature of the current wave of protests has been its expansion into smaller towns grappling with poverty and unemployment.

Another, more telling—and ignored characteristically by pundits who address Pezeshkian and not Khamenei—is the growing irrelevance of the civilian administration at moments like this, when the confrontation crystalises into protesters against the security apparatus.

“If they go forward again and start building up nuclear facilities, yeah, I think Trump’s going to bomb the hell out of them,” Republican Senator Rick Scott said.

The United States joined a surprise US military campaign on Iran with a June 22 attack on three key nuclear facilities which Trump said "obliterated" the program.

Trump has repeatedly vowed to attack nuclear sites again should uranium enrichment resume and in recent days warned Tehran that Washington was "locked and loaded" and ready to intervene if Iran killed protestors as unrest grips the country.

“We should be considering what action may be appropriate if Iran progresses with its missile building and nuclear programs, which are obviously a pressing and dire threat to us and Israel,” Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal was quoted as saying.

Trump’s ultimatum on Iranian protests and the shock US capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro over the weekend has ramped up suspense over the president's next steps, but close ally Republican Senator John Kennedy dismissed any direct connection.

“I don’t think one’s related to the other,” Kennedy said. “I also think that if Iran starts back in terms of developing a nuclear weapon or substantially tries to increase the number of missiles that they have, I think the president should hit them, and I believe he will.”

Republican Senator Pete Ricketts also said the US military remains ready, echoing Trump’s warnings about Iran’s nuclear and missile programs.

“President Trump is demonstrating that we have the most outstanding military in the world. And if he believes that we need to strike Iran again, I believe he’ll do it,” Ricketts said.

Trump launched the attack on Iran after two months of fruitless talks and has offered to return to dialogue. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has rejected the overture, branding as unacceptable US demands that Iran end domestic enrichment and rein in its missile program and support for armed allies in the region.

Democratic Senator Tim Kaine asserted that the US president should not launch military strikes against any country, including Iran, without consent from US Congress.

“This president should not willy-nilly use the press, use the military as his palace guard to go here, there and everywhere,” Kaine said. “Not Nigeria, not Iran, not Venezuela, not international waters, not Cuba, not Mexico, not Panama, not Greenland. It should be a debate with Congress.”

The United States held five rounds of negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program earlier this year, for which Trump set a 60‑day deadline.

When no agreement was reached by the 61st day on June 13, Israel launched a surprise military offensive, followed by US strikes on June 22 targeting key nuclear facilities in Isfahan, Natanz and Fordow.

In a statement carried by state media, the council said allegations and interventionist remarks directed at Iran could be treated as hostile acts if they went beyond rhetoric.

It said Iran’s security, independence and territorial integrity constituted a red line that cannot be crossed, and warned that continued hostile behavior would prompt a response, with full responsibility for the consequences resting with those behind it.

The statement said that, within the framework of legitimate defense, Iran did not consider itself restricted to responding only after an action had taken place and would treat tangible signs of a threat as part of its security assessment.

“Any infringement on national interests, interference in internal affairs or action against Iran’s stability will be met with a proportionate, targeted and decisive response... An escalation in threatening language and interventionist conduct that goes beyond verbal posturing may be interpreted as hostile behavior.”

The Defense Council was formed following the 12-day war in June on the order of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

• 

  Trump’s warning to Tehran sparks hope, fear, and official pushback

• 

  Why Iran should take Trump’s threat seriously

The warning comes as protests have continued across Iran in recent days, with senior officials accusing Washington and Israel of interference in the country’s internal affairs.

On Monday, Iran’s foreign ministry said statements by some US and Israeli officials amounted to interference and incitement to violence under international norms.

US President Donald Trump said on Sunday night aboard Air Force One that the United States was monitoring developments in Iran closely and warned that if Iranian authorities resumed killing protesters, the country would face a strong response from Washington.

At least 29 people have been killed and more than 1,200 arrested in nine days of nationwide protests in Iran, according to rights group HRANA, as demonstrations and strikes continue despite a heavier security presence.

Officials say the payments are meant to offset the elimination of a subsidized exchange rate previously used to import essential goods, a policy shift that has already pushed prices higher.

Under the plan, the government would issue monthly coupons worth one million tomans—about $7 at the open-market rate—to every Iranian.

Some economists have questioned whether the measure can achieve its stated aim.

In an editorial published on January 5, the daily Setareh Sobh described the policy as an “economic gamble,” warning that similar efforts in the past had failed to stabilize prices or restore public confidence.

The paper noted that Iran’s currency has lost roughly 20,000 percent of its value since the 1979 revolution, when the dollar traded at seven tomans.

“This devaluation,” the daily wrote, “is the result of policies such as hostage-taking, hostility toward the West and Israel, mismanagement and the exclusion of experts from parliament and government.”

Questions of feasibility

Mahmoud Jamsaz, a leading Iranian economist, went further, arguing that the handouts risk aggravating the very pressures they are meant to relieve.

“Under current conditions,” he wrote, “the president knows very well he lacks the executive power even to pay government employees’ salaries.”

The government has acknowledged inflationary risks. Fatemeh Mohajerani, a government spokeswoman, told reporters on Sunday that the policy could raise prices of some essential goods by 20 to 30 percent.

Labor Minister Ahmad Maydari said the payments would be issued as coupons redeemable for basic commodities, rather than cash transfers, in an effort to limit price pressures.

Still, critics question whether the state has the fiscal capacity to sustain such a program, particularly as tax revenues are already under strain.

A broader breaking point

Public reaction has been largely dismissive.

On social media, many pointed to continued protests despite the announcement, stressing that rising prices were only one factor behind demonstrations that have spread across more than 200 cities and towns.

Sociologist Taghi Azad Armaki told the Shargh newspaper that the unrest reflected “accumulated, unresolved social and political challenges,” adding that economic hardship had exposed deep divides within Iranian society.

“These gaps,” he said, “have eroded the government’s social capital and heightened concerns about the country’s future.”

Reformist commentator Abbas Abdi echoed that concern in Etemad, warning that Iranian society had reached a critical threshold. “Society has a breaking point,” he said, “and Iran is rapidly approaching it.”

Even Iran’s tightly controlled press has increasingly described the demonstrations as political in character, reflecting broader dissatisfaction with governance rather than price levels alone.

For now, the government appears to be betting that targeted relief can buy time. Whether it can ease public anger—or instead accelerate inflation while leaving deeper grievances unresolved—remains uncertain.

The episode has prompted comparisons—sometimes uneasy, sometimes fiercely rejected—between Venezuela’s trajectory and Iran’s own.

Strikes and protests have spread to dozens of Iranian cities in recent days, sharpening questions about economic exhaustion and public legitimacy.

Former Iranian diplomat Fereydoun Majlesi told the Shargh newspaper that Maduro’s detention reflected Washington’s current logic: maximal displays of power and deterrence. “Maduro’s arrest was not just a political act but a deterrent message to other players,” he said.

Foreign policy analyst Ali Bigdeli also told Shargh that while a direct U.S. attack on Iran would require congressional approval, the Venezuela episode showed that covert actions or security pretexts remained possible.

“Without a serious revision of foreign policy and adaptation to new global conditions, continuing the old path will not only fail but impose greater costs,” he warned.

‘Erosion of trust’

Even sources close to the establishment reflected unease, albeit more subtly.

Khabar Online, a moderate outlet close to security chief Ali Larijani, highlighted US sanctions on Venezuela while also pointing to mismanagement and corruption.

“Maduro’s fall was not the product of a single factor, but the outcome of accumulated crises long ignored,” the commentary argued, landing on a phrase widely used in reference to Iran’s own condition: “erosion of public trust.”

Political analyst Sadegh Maleki was more direct.

“Maduro, like (Syria’s) Assad, ruled without heartfelt popular backing,” he told Shargh. “Governments that create distance between themselves and the people are more vulnerable to external operations.”

‘Not comparable’

Conservative voices, however, moved quickly to dismiss any analogy. Gholamreza Sadeghian, editor-in-chief of the Revolutionary Guards-affiliated Javan daily, was blunt in his assessment. “Iran Is Not Comparable—Don’t Waste Your Time,” he headlined his Sunday editorial.

Washington’s threats, Sadeghian wrote, were not a sign of strength but part of a “repetitive and failed spectacle,” adding that “America neither has the capacity for final victory nor the ability to reshape the global order in its favor.”

Hardline newspapers denounced the US action as an “open kidnapping,” a “violation of the UN Charter,” and a “raid on Venezuela’s oil.”

Commentators argued that Washington’s aim was to gain leverage over global energy markets and consolidate geopolitical influence by controlling the country’s vast reserves.

The lesson, hardliners argued, was that Iran should never engage in talks with the United States, noting that Maduro was detained shortly after he signaled readiness to negotiate with Trump.

‘Military power not enough’

Kayhan newspaper, which is funded by the office of Iran’s Supreme Leader, claimed that Venezuelans had taken to the streets in support of Maduro and declared they would not allow their country to be occupied.

Ultraconservative lawmaker Javad Karimi-Ghodousi went further, predicting that Maduro would return to Venezuela “as a hero.” Trump, he added on X, would “be slapped by America’s revolutionary youth and fall into the dustbin of history.”

A more measured assessment came from the moderate outlet Rouydad24.

An editorial argued that the two countries’ situations were fundamentally different and rejected “fear of collapse,” while still suggesting that Maduro’s fate offered a lesson for Tehran on the need to address economic and social demands.

“Venezuela showed that even military structures cannot endure without sustainable social backing,” the site wrote.