The contrast between Washington’s response to Iran’s unrest in 2009 and today could not be clearer, and it explains why Donald Trump’s position now appears structurally stronger, both in deterrence and in moral clarity.
When Iranians poured into the streets after the disputed 2009 election, demanding accountability and dignity, the Obama administration chose caution. President Obama spoke of being “deeply troubled” by the violence, affirmed universal values, but ultimately emphasized non-interference. The intent was understandable: to avoid legitimizing Tehran’s claim that protests were foreign-engineered. Yet the effect was demoralizing. Many Iranians felt abandoned at a moment when the regime was uncertain, divided, and vulnerable. The Green Movement was crushed, and the Islamic Republic learned an important lesson: mass repression would carry limited international cost.
Fast forward to today. Iran is again gripped by widespread protests, this time fueled by economic collapse, currency freefall, and years of accumulated anger. Chants are no longer limited to reformist slogans; they openly call for the end of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s rule, and even for a return to monarchy. The regime’s response is familiar: lethal force, intimidation at funerals, and warnings of a “decisive response.” What is different is the external signal.
Trump’s language is blunt, even deliberately provocative. Warning Iran’s authorities that killing peaceful protesters would bring an American response, and reminding them that the United States is “locked and loaded,” he has removed the ambiguity that Tehran historically exploits. Whether one agrees with his tone or not, the strategic effect is clear: uncertainty has shifted from the Iranian people to the Iranian leadership.
This is where Trump’s position is stronger than that of his predecessors. He has already demonstrated a willingness to act militarily against Iranian assets, including strikes on nuclear facilities. Those actions, disputed or not in their long-term effectiveness, shattered the perception that Washington would confine itself to statements and sanctions. Tehran’s retaliatory strike on a US base in Qatar showed defiance, but it also underscored how carefully calibrated Iran’s responses remain when faced with credible force.
Strength here is not about regime change by invasion. It is about deterrence and leverage. The Islamic Republic survives by convincing its population that the outside world will not intervene and by convincing its elites that repression is cost-free. Trump’s posture challenges both assumptions. His warning does not guarantee intervention, but it raises the price of mass killing at a moment when the regime is already under severe economic and legitimacy strain.
That said, rhetoric alone is not enough. If freedom is to have a chance in Iran, three things are needed.
First, consistency. Red lines cannot be theatrical. If the killing of peaceful protesters truly triggers consequences, those consequences must be clearly defined and proportionate, whether through targeted sanctions on security commanders, international legal action, cyber measures, or diplomatic isolation that directly affects regime elites.
Second, and decisively, an internal break. No transformation in Iran will come solely from the streets, nor from abroad. One of the regime’s core pillars within the military and security apparatus must choose to stand with the people rather than against them. History shows that authoritarian systems do not fall when citizens protest alone, but when those tasked with enforcing power refuse to do so. Trump should give them the deal of the century.
Third, and most importantly, agency must remain with the Iranian people. External actors should not attempt to pick leaders or systems, but they can protect space. Supporting free internet access, amplifying verified information about abuses, and standing unequivocally with peaceful demonstrators are not acts of imperialism; they are acts of solidarity.
External resolve cannot change everything but can influence internal courage. If a pillar of the regime shifts its allegiance, even quietly at first, the balance changes. At that moment, the country’s future stops being dictated by fear and begins to open toward choice — and the long-denied freedom the Iranian people continue to demand.
AI Disclaimer: Parts of this article were generated with the assistance from AI tools
اضف تعليق