France removes non-essential staff from Tehran embassy – media
Non-essential French diplomatic staff have left Iran, French media outlets Le Figaro and Libération reported on Monday, citing informed sources.
More Stories
As Tehran faces its sharpest internal challenge since the 2022 Woman, Life, Freedom protests, the ruling elite’s ability to withstand sustained popular protests now rests not only on domestic coercion but increasingly on backing from Moscow.
What began in late December 2025 as protests over economic hardship—initially centered on Tehran’s bazaar and spreading through strikes—has since transformed into a far broader uprising, with demonstrators increasingly calling for an end to theocratic rule.
The unrest has been met with sweeping force, including mass arrests and the use of live ammunition, as authorities imposed near-total internet blackouts to obscure the scale of the crackdown.
Western governments have hardened their stance as the scale of the crackdown has become clearer, with US President Donald Trump vowing to hit Iran “very hard” if repression continued.
In this environment, Russia has remained persistent in its backing of Tehran.
A Times report last week even suggested that supreme leader Ali Khamenei might flee to Russia should his rule be seriously threatened.
While such scenarios cannot be entirely dismissed, they remain speculative and, above all, ideologically improbable.
Khamenei’s legitimacy is deeply rooted in his personal commitment to the ideological tenets of the Islamic Revolution and to the principle of revolutionary endurance.
This stance sharply differentiates him from other segments of the Islamic Republic’s establishment, notably economic and technocratic elites, for whom exit options and external safeguards may constitute a rational form of risk management.
Whether grounded in concrete planning or not, the persistence of such narratives nonetheless underscores how closely external partnerships—especially with Russia—are now perceived to be intertwined with the regime’s internal resilience and survival calculations.
The perception that Moscow backs repression—and offers sanctuary if it fails—may be influencing the calculations of Iran’s ruling elite, hardening the loyalists’ resolve while quietly expanding the exit options available to those at the apex of power.
Material support
Moscow's backing reflects not merely tactical convenience but a deeper strategic convergence rooted in shared opposition to Western norms of governance and intervention.
For Russia—strained by its war in Ukraine and declining influence elsewhere—Iran represents one of the few remaining pillars of resistance to what the Kremlin portrays as an increasingly assertive liberal international order.
Material cooperation lies at the core of this relationship.
While there is no publicly confirmed reporting of Russian military airlifts tied directly to the current protest wave, the depth of the Moscow-Tehran partnership is evident in joint ventures such as Iran’s recent satellite launches aboard Russian rockets and a series of long-term bilateral cooperation agreements.
Together, these developments form the geopolitical backdrop to the current unrest.
Learning repression
Officially framed as security and counterterrorism cooperation, the partnership has also involved political learning and technological convergence.
Iran’s security apparatus has increasingly adopted surveillance practices similar to those used by Russia to manage domestic dissent, including facial-recognition technologies, large-scale data aggregation and advanced communications monitoring that allow security forces to identify and disrupt protest networks with greater precision.
This convergence is reinforced by doctrinal exchanges and intelligence coordination involving the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Russian experience in sanctions evasion, electronic warfare and information control has proved valuable to Tehran as it seeks to preserve coercive capacity under mounting economic pressure.
Moscow’s support has become an increasingly important component of Tehran’s ability to contain a protest movement that challenges not only economic governance but the ideological foundations of the Islamic Republic.
Elite calculations
That external backing does not affect all factions within Iran’s power structure equally.
Tehran’s most ideologically committed forces—particularly within the IRGC and the security services—are widely expected to resist collapse at almost any cost.
For these actors, collapse would not simply mean loss of office but could entail prosecution, exile or worse. Their commitment to repression is therefore existential, reinforced by decades of indoctrination and deeply entrenched interests in a closed political system.
By contrast, Iran’s economic oligarchy, though deeply intertwined with the state, appears far less ideologically anchored.
Composed of business elites, semi-private conglomerates and networks enriched through privileged access to state resources, this group has long hedged its political bets.
As the crisis deepens, many are likely to seek exit strategies rather than confrontation. Unlike the ideological core, they possess the financial means and transnational connections to adapt quickly.
In the event of a fundamental political change in Iran, such actors would likely shift allegiances or secure settlement abroad.
Diplomatic protection
Beyond material assistance, Russia also provides Tehran with diplomatic shielding.
In multilateral forums, Moscow has consistently portrayed Iran’s repression as a legitimate exercise of sovereignty in response to foreign-backed destabilization.
This posture has taken on renewed urgency following the dramatic detention of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by US forces—a development that sent shockwaves through governments closely aligned with Russia.
Maduro’s removal represented a setback for Moscow, depriving it of a partner whose geographic proximity to the United States offered a rare opportunity to project influence in Washington’s immediate neighborhood.
Iran’s strategic value to Russia is significant but different. While Tehran’s regional reach and energy leverage matter, its geography does not offer Moscow comparable proximity to US power.
As a result, Russia’s investment in Iran—though politically and symbolically important—appears constrained by a lack of capacity to challenge American influence within its own hemisphere.
Russia has nonetheless intensified its diplomatic defense of Tehran, blocking or diluting resolutions on human rights abuses and portraying Iranian protests as externally engineered “color revolutions.”
Shaping Tehran’s calculus
Russian state media has reinforced Tehran’s preferred narrative, emphasizing sanctions and alleged foreign interference while downplaying corruption, elite predation and long-standing structural mismanagement.
Equally significant is narrative coordination through non-Western platforms such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, where Russia and Iran have worked to recast unrest as foreign-driven destabilization, emphasizing sovereignty, non-intervention and resistance to “hybrid warfare.”
By signaling that diplomatic backing—and potentially sanctuary—remain available, Moscow reinforces the resolve of ideological hardliners while quietly widening the options available to those at the apex of power.
In this sense, Iran’s internal crisis has become embedded in wider international security networks.
For Moscow, supporting Tehran is not only about regional influence but about defending the principle that political systems can withstand sustained popular challenge through transnational cooperation.
As protests in Iran continue with no clear resolution, their outcome will resonate far beyond the country’s borders, testing the balance between state resilience and popular sovereignty in an increasingly polarized international order.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that what Iran is saying publicly is different to the message they are sending privately to the United States.
An official from the Islamic Republic reached out to US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff "expressing a far different tone than what you're seeing publicly," Leavitt said.
Axios had earlier reported a phone call between Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi and Witkoff, during which the two sides discussed the protests and Iran's disputed nuclear program.
“I think one thing President Trump is very good at is always keeping all of his options on the table,” Leavitt said.
“Airstrikes would be of the many, many options that are on the table for the commander-in-chief. Diplomacy is always the first option for the president. He told all of you last night that what you’re hearing from the Iranian regime is quite differently from the messages the administration has received privately.”
“I think the president has an interest in exploring those messages. However, with that said, the president has shown he’s unafraid to use military options if and when deemed necessary,” she added. “Nobody knows that better than Iran.”
Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei described protestors demanding the end of clerical rule US-backed mercenaries in a message on Monday and said state-sponsored rallies had thwarted their aims.
"Today you carried out a great act and created a historic day. These massive gatherings, filled with firm resolve, thwarted the plans of foreign enemies that were meant to be carried out by their domestic mercenaries," Khamenei said.
"The great nation of Iran put itself—along with its resolve and identity—on display before its enemies. This was a warning to US politicians to end their deception and stop relying on treacherous mercenaries," the message reads.
He called the Iranian nation "strong and powerful, aware and able to identify its enemies, and present on the scene at all times."
Tehran on Monday escalated its public warnings to Washington, mooting retaliation for any attack while dismissing US president Donald Trump's pledges to protect protestors even as reports emerged of quiet diplomatic outreach intended to avert war.
Senior Iranian officials used coordinated statements to signal resolve against any US attack amid Tehran's deadly crackdown on nationwide protests, portraying Trump’s warnings as both dangerous and unserious.
Parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said that any American attack would prompt a sweeping response across the region.
“We have heard that you have threatened Iran,” Ghalibaf told a state-sponsored rally in Tehran on Monday, addressing Trump directly. “The defenders of Iran will teach you an unforgettable lesson.”
“All American centers and forces throughout the region will be our legitimate targets in response to any potential adventurism,” he added. “Come and see how all your capabilities in the region will be wiped out.”
The warnings were echoed by security chief Ali Larijani, who downplayed Trump’s recent remarks linking possible US action to Tehran’s handling of the protests.
“Trump says things like this a lot. Do not take him seriously,” Larijani was quoted as saying by state-affiliated media. “The Iranian nation has shown that it intends to settle accounts with the United States and Israel.”
'Under control'
Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi told a group of foreign ambassadors in Tehran on Monday that the situation in the country is “completely under control” but that Iran was ready for war if the United States did not engage in what it called fair talks.
Referring to Trump's warning about a possible attack on Iran if the killing of protesters continues, Araghchi said: “The Islamic Republic is not seeking war, but it is fully prepared for war.”
“The Islamic Republic is also ready for negotiations, but these talks must be fair, based on equal rights, and founded on mutual respect,” he added.
But the remarks came as Axios reported that Araghchi had reached out over the weekend to US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, citing two sources with knowledge of the matter.
According to the report, the outreach appeared aimed at de-escalating tensions or buying time amid growing concern in Tehran over potential US moves. One source said Araghchi and Witkoff discussed the possibility of holding a meeting in the coming days.
The contrasting signals reflect the bind facing Tehran as protests continue across the country, and Washington as it gauges various courses of action and their possible consequences.
An array of witness reports and videos reviewed by Iran International points to widespread use of lethal weapons to control dissenting crowds, killing at least 2,000 people across Iran since the protests began.
Exiled Prince Reza Pahlavi on Monday urged the Trump administration not to engage in negotiations with the Islamic Republic, saying the theocracy is “on its back legs” and would fall if Iranian protesters receive support from the United States.
Pahlavi said in a post on X that "negotiating with this criminal regime who is still threatening America and the President will not bring peace."
"But immediate action to support these brave protesters will save thousands of lives and bring lasting peace to the region. That will be President Trump’s legacy," he added.
US President Donald Trump said on Sunday a meeting was being set up with Iranian officials after they called him asking for talks on a nuclear deal. However, he said the meeting may take place after a possible US attack on Iran.
In his message on Monday, the exiled prince said Trump can "bring about the greatest peace the world has ever seen by helping Iranians finally end this criminal regime."
"President Trump is not Obama. His words of support for the protesters in Iran show that. Now is the time to act," he said.
