When I saw the news on Dec. 28, 2025, of uprisings in Iran, I was not surprised. For Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, 2025 had been catastrophic. Militarily, Iran’s so-called “axis of resistance” has been severely degraded by Israel in the aftermath of the Gaza War. Its prized nuclear facilities have also been heavily damaged by the United States. As a result, the Iranian currency, the rial, has fallen dramatically, spurring an economic crisis unseen by the nation. As the crisis worsened, protests against Khamenei erupted and rapidly spread throughout the country, as Iran faced the biggest crisis of its nearly 50-year history that had to be dealt with harshly. In the aftermath of these protests, I could not help but think whether the United States had a role in creating the current situation for the Iranian people.
During the protest on Jan. 8, President Trump put out a statement in support of the protesters, saying, “I have let them know that if they start killing people, which they tend to do during their riots – they have lots of riots – if they do it, we are going to hit them very hard.” In the aftermath of protests, local health officials cited by TIME have put the death toll at 30,000, reporting that Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps officials have warned protesters, “if…a bullet hits you, don’t complain.” Whether Trump’s statements caused the level of repression seen in the recent protests is unclear; however, regimes tend to respond more aggressively when they perceive foreign interference. His statements did, however, make me wonder if the United States does have a responsibility to the Iranian people. While the United States does bear partial responsibility for creating the current Iranian regime, this responsibility does not justify direct military intervention today. To understand why, we must first examine the uneasy history between the United States and Iran.
Any discussion of American responsibility must begin in 1953, with the CIA/MI6-sponsored coup, known as Operation Ajax, against democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in response to his attempt to nationalize Iranian oil, replacing him with the former Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Resentment of Pahlavi grew, culminating in what we now know as the 1979 Iranian Revolution, in which a violent uprising forced the Shah to flee to the United States, which granted him asylum. Anger at the United States exploded in response to this decision to rescue the Shah, causing the infamous 1979-1981 Iran hostage crisis, in which the revolutionaries took American embassy staff as hostages. Despite the hostages being released in 1981, relations between the two nations have been poor since the ousting of the Shah.
Now I believe there is a certain U.S. impact that helped to form the oppressive regime the Iranian people live under currently. If President Eisenhower had not ordered the coup to reinstate the unpopular Shah, the political trajectory of Iran would be fundamentally different today. But instead, a dictatorial monarch was reinstated under U.S. approval, a grave mistake that led to the bloody 1979 revolution. The Shah’s oppressive regime was so pro-Western that it caused a heavy anti-Western ideology to emerge in the form of the current Islamic Republic of Iran. Its theocratic government’s strict interpretation of Islam causes heavy oppression for women, LGBTQ+ individuals and Jewish people. But besides the governing practices of the regime, the question still remains: what could be done by the United States to rectify the current situation?
Unlike past foreign debacles such as the Iraq War, the United States did help to create the political conditions that shaped the current regime. So, would some form of military intervention be justified to rectify the wrong? The protests clearly demonstrated deep levels of dissatisfaction with the regime, but they do not necessarily advocate for foreign invasion. Personally, I believe the President irresponsibly raised the Iranian people’s expectations to a level he could not possibly meet, leading them to be killed by Khamenei. However, at this current moment, this is only speculation. As the leader of the free world, the President’s rhetoric carries significant weight and responsibility, a lesson he should learn.
Looking at current economic measures, the sanctions, while effective on its economy, have not motivated the repression to cease. Historically speaking, dictatorial regimes do get fearful when the possibility of foreign intervention arises, which could explain the recent high death toll. Possible indirect solutions could be to fund advisory groups opposed to the regime or somehow convince China and Russia to completely abandon their relations with Iran with trade deals. But these are simply what-ifs that could easily backfire on the United States and drag us into a long-term conflict. However, I do believe that it is worth thinking about, not just for the sake of us as taxpayers, but also for the sake of the Iranian people who suffer deeply under Khamenei. America cannot undo 1953, nor can it dictate the direction Iran should head in without repeating its Cold War arrogance. However, what America can do is refuse to be silent. America must not look away from the killings under Khamenei just because it is the easy path. The United States must become more diplomatically aggressive towards the regime by incentivizing Iran’s allies to abandon the regime. It must also begin supporting dissidents if the right opportunity arises whether by amnesty or military protection. Although at the current moment, neither of these options are currently plausible, the United States should be exploring all the pathways to make these options accessible. If the United States continues to remain passive, repression may only increase as the regime tightens its noose on the people.