Angry demonstrations against Iran’s clerical government engulfed the capital, Tehran, and other cities in December and early January. Although the turmoil has receded since then, it appears that more than 6,800 people have perished in the violence as of February 3, 2026. The protests have been the largest in years, and the demonstrators appear to be more diverse than in earlier anti-regime episodes. Such differences have sparked speculation in the United States and other Western countries that the mullahs may finally be losing their grip on power.
Optimists are celebrating that an especially repressive, misogynistic, reactionary government could be headed for the ash heap of history where it belongs. What is taking place, according to that view, is a genuine, popular revolution by the Iranian people. President Donald Trump has even mused about resuming the bombing of targets in Iran as a way of encouraging the protesters and showing that they have Washington’s support. He apparently contemplated such strikes as a way to “reignite” the protests that had faded during the previous 2 weeks. Washington took its first new military action on February 3, shooting down an Iranian drone over the Persian Gulf (or as anti-Tehran hawks in the West are fond of calling that body of water: the Arabian Sea.)
Skeptics regarding the disorders in Iran, however, contend that the demonstrations do not reflect the will of most Iranians. Instead, such critics assert, the disorders are the product of a carefully orchestrated and heavily funded covert operation that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and Israel’s Mossad are using to undermine Iran’s government and install a puppet replacement. It is an argument that, given Iran’s history since the early 1950s, cannot be summarily dismissed. After all, the CIA and Britain’s MI6 orchestrated the coup that ousted Iran’s secular democratic government in 1953 and restored the Shah to power as an unrestricted domestic tyrant eager to do the West’s bidding on both economic and security issues.
At this point, we cannot be certain if the demonstrations constitute the first stage of a popular rebellion on the part of an aggrieved population finally pushed beyond endurance or is the latest cynical power play by the United States and its favorite ally.
It should not come as a surprise if a mounting percentage of Iranians have had their fill of the mullahs and religious tyranny. The 1979 Islamic Revolution long ago lost most of whatever exciting, dynamic appeal it might once have had following its overthrow of the Shah. Decades of economic mismanagement, combined with repressive measures, both large and petty, have taken an extensive toll. Instead of being seen as the youthful vanguard of a revolution, Iran’s current rulers have the pervasive image of being cranky, brutally intolerant elders who are economic incompetents to boot. Thus, the societal ingredients are certainly in place for a violent upheaval to dislodge such a regime.
However, it also would be naïve to assume that the United States and its allies (especially Israel) would not resort to even the dirtiest tactics to overthrow the clerical regime. There is no evidence that today’s CIA is any more ethical than the 1950s version. Moreover, Washington has engaged in numerous other regime-change wars over the decades against both authoritarian and democratic governments. Indeed, the Trump administration just recently captured and removed from office Venezuela’s president, Nicolas Maduro. Mossad has long regarded ousting the Iranian mullahs as a high priority.
On January 15, Trump openly threatened to intervene militarily if Iranian security personnel continued to crack down on demonstrators. The prospect of an immediate crisis did recede shortly thereafter when the Tehran regime apparently promised not to launch new attacks on crowds or to execute demonstrators. Obviously, though, the situation remains extremely tense and delicate.
A U.S.-led assault not only would constitute unlawful interference in Iran’s internal affairs; it also could well backfire in terms of the overall impact. Since the 1953 coup, Iranians across the ideological spectrum have been hypersensitive to any hint of U.S. meddling. Even staunch opponents of the clerical regime have been wary of Washington’s intentions. U.S. professions of support during previous uprisings have been given a cool, if not frigid, reception by most Iranians. The Trump administration’s extensive assistance to Israel for Tel Aviv’s air strikes against Iranian air defenses in late 2025, and Washington’s own subsequent B-2 bomber strikes on Tehran’s nuclear installations have not likely enhanced trust about U.S. motives even among the regime’s arch-adversaries.
Circumstances also have not boosted the credibility of the political forces that Washington now appears to be backing. An especially visible spokesperson for anti-regime factions has been Reza Pahlavi—the son of the late Shah. It would be difficult to identify a more hated figure for millions of ordinary Iranians than the leader of the Pahlavi family. One possible exception might be the MEK (Mojahedin-e-Khalq) domestic insurgent group that the U.S. government formerly listed as a terrorist organization. Despite that well-deserved reputation, some of the most prominent American and West European hawks have long embraced the MEK and touted it as a movement devoted to liberating Iran and establishing a democratic government. U.S. and other Western activists who are inclined to embrace the current anti-regime demonstrations need to be cautious. The prominence of both Pahlavi and the MEK are not encouraging developments.
Most cautious realists who backed Donald Trump’s presidential bid did not expect him to be the willing instrument of new regime-change wars for the United States. Trump already has disappointed many of those supporters with his antics in Venezuela. If he now entangles the United States in an even more dangerous, open-ended regime-change crusade in Iran, he will forfeit the allegiance of any American who wants a sensible, achievable U.S. foreign policy. His record will then replicate the follies of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden.
We can all hope that the current turmoil in Iran is the initial stages of a genuine, indigenous, democratic revolution. No one who values freedom—and especially the dignity and rights of women—should shed any tears if the mullahs lose power. But it is far too soon to determine what the demonstrations actually signify. Washington’s long record of meddling and duplicity regarding Iran makes that task even more difficult. In any case, Iran’s political future should be for Iranians to determine. U.S. leaders need to step to the sidelines.
