Anti-regime protests in Iran

Beginning in late December 2025, massive nationwide anti-regime protests erupted in Iran, driven largely by economic crisis, the collapse of the rial, and rising prices. The protests, which included calls for regime change, became the largest in scale since the 1979 revolution, ^[10] spreading to over 100 cities across the country. ^[11] The Iranian regime responded with violent repression, including massacres of protesters, with the deadliest incidents occurring on 8 and 10 January 2026. ^[12] Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei personally ordered the nationwide killings during the protests with the approval of Iran's top state bodies. ^{[13] [14]} The violence was carried out mainly by the IRGC and Basij forces, ^{[13] [12]} who used live ammunition, shotguns, pellet guns, mounted machine guns, and drones. Witnesses reported blood-covered streets, widespread injuries, while hospitals and morgues were overwhelmed. ^[12] Iran also imposed the longest internet blackout on record to restrict reporting on the unrest and the killings, and disrupt communication among demonstrators. ^[15] US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) estimated the death toll at 7,000, the Iranian government said the death toll was 3,117, while Donald Trump and others said the death toll was 32,000 people. ^[16] According to HRANA, at least 26,541 people were detained. ^[17] International Centre for Human Rights said the death toll was 43,000. ^{[18] [19]} During a news briefing on 27 February 2026, US president Trump stated that the Islamic Republic "killed at least, it looks like, 32,000 protesters," ^{[20] [21] [22]} a similar figure to the earlier estimated death toll of approximately 30,000 by two senior officials in the Iranian ministry of health. ^{[22] [18]} AP News reported that the government's overwhelming use of violence had caused despair among the Iranian public and had given rise to hopes for an American attack. ^[23]

Several scholars have argued that the Iranian regime now faces a fragile state that could lead to its demise. ^[24] According to The Economist , Iran's leadership, having resorted to violence to maintain power, may be at a breaking point. ^[25] Iran's exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, who has become a symbolic figure for protesters with many chanting his name, has called for the removal of the Islamic Republic and the establishment of a democratic government through free elections. ^[11] He has also urged President Trump to carry out targeted strikes on the Iranian regime's paramilitary forces to weaken its capacity to suppress protests and hasten the regime's collapse. ^[26]

On 13 January 2026, US president Donald Trump called Iranians to "keep protesting" and to "take over your institutions," adding that "help is on its way." ^[15] In later remarks, he told Iranians to remember "the names of the killers and the abusers," warning that those responsible would "pay a very big price." ^[15]

US military buildup and US–Iran negotiations

On 23 January, Trump announced that a US "armada" was heading to the Middle East, including the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and several guided-missile destroyers. ^[17] On the same day, it was reported that Khamenei had taken shelter in a Tehran bunker, while global protests in support of Iranian demonstrators were planned and airlines canceled flights to the region; UN Human Rights Commissioner Volker Türk condemned the killings, forced confessions, and lack of transparency, and called for an end to executions. ^[27] The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect has identified that the Iranian population is at significant risk of mass atrocity crimes. ^[28] US and European officials say Washington has presented Iran with three core demands: a permanent end to all uranium enrichment, strict limits on Iran's ballistic missile program, and a complete halt to support for regional proxy groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. ^[29]

On 6 February 2026, Iran and the US held indirect nuclear negotiations in Oman's capital, Muscat. Iran emphasized that progress depended on consultations back in capitals. ^[30] A second round of nuclear talks was scheduled in Geneva. ^[30] In early February 2026, the US also deployed a second aircraft carrier, USS Gerald R. Ford, to the Middle East to increase pressure on Iran. ^[31] On 11 February 2026, the 47th anniversary of the 1979 revolution was marked by pro-government rallies and strong anti-American rhetoric. ^[32]

On 13 February 2026, US president Donald Trump stated that regime change in Iran would be "the best thing that could happen." ^[33] A day later, on 14 February, US officials told Reuters that the US military was preparing for weeks-long sustained operations against Iran. ^[34]

On 24 February 2026, during a State of the Union speech, Trump accused Iran, which he called "the world's number one sponsor of terror”, of reviving efforts to build nuclear weapons. He described Iran's ambitions as "sinister" and warned that Iran had also developed increasingly advanced missile capabilities "that can threaten Europe and our bases overseas, and they're working to build missiles that will soon reach the United States of America." He warned that the US was prepared to act if necessary. ^[35]

US Government approach

In the period following 13 January, the United States adopted a more assertive public posture toward Iran while continuing to emphasize that it sought to avoid direct conflict. Senior officials within the Trump administration issued a series of statements outlining Washington's position. President Donald Trump reiterated that the United States was prepared to respond to any actions perceived as threatening U.S. personnel or regional stability, while also stating that military force would be used only if necessary. His remarks framed the situation as a test of deterrence, emphasizing that Iran would be held accountable for further escalation. ^[36]

The US Secretary of State Marco Rubio underscored this approach by calling on Iran to halt its crackdown on domestic protests and to comply with international obligations. In public briefings, the Secretary described Iran's internal unrest as evidence of widespread dissatisfaction and urged Tehran to "choose de‑escalation" through diplomatic channels. The National Security Advisor similarly warned that the United States would not tolerate attacks on its regional partners or interests, calling out Iran's actions as destabilizing and inconsistent with international norms. ^[37]

Congressional debates

The escalation in U.S.–Iran tensions after 13 January prompted extensive debate within the United States Congress, where lawmakers expressed differing views on the appropriate scope and direction of U.S. policy. Members of Congress who favored a more assertive approach argued that Iran's regional activities and domestic repression required stronger deterrence measures. These legislators supported maintaining or expanding sanctions, increasing military readiness in the region, and issuing clear warnings that attacks on U.S. personnel or allies would result in a forceful response. They contended that a firm posture was necessary to prevent further escalation and to counter what they viewed as destabilizing behavior by Iran. ^[38]

Some bipartisan lawmakers advocated for a more restrained strategy, emphasizing the risks of miscalculation and the potential for unintended conflict. These members called for renewed diplomatic engagement, greater transparency regarding the administration's decision‑making, and adherence to congressional oversight mechanisms related to the use of military force. Some raised concerns about the legal basis for any potential military action, citing the need for updated authorizations and clearer definitions of U.S. objectives. They argued that sustained diplomatic efforts, rather than increased military pressure, offered the best path to reducing tensions and addressing long‑standing disputes. ^[39]

No clear consensus emerged. ^[40]

Diplomacy

Further U.S. policy discussions after 13 January also focused on the security of American personnel and facilities across the Middle East. The Department of Defense reviewed force protection measures at bases in Iraq, Syria, and the Gulf, citing concerns about potential retaliation from Iranian‑aligned groups. Pentagon officials emphasized that any attack on U.S. forces would prompt a direct response, reflecting a broader effort to deter proxy activity without escalating into open conflict. Analysts noted that these measures were consistent with previous periods of heightened tension, during which the United States sought to balance deterrence with the risk of miscalculation. ^[41]

At the diplomatic level, the United States intensified consultations with European and regional partners to coordinate messaging and assess potential avenues for de‑escalation. American diplomats engaged with NATO allies, Gulf Cooperation Council members, and other partners to reinforce shared concerns about Iran's internal repression and regional activities. These discussions aimed to maintain a unified international stance while exploring options for renewed dialogue. Despite these efforts, progress remained limited, as longstanding disagreements over sanctions, nuclear policy, and regional security continued to shape the broader context of U.S.–Iran relations. ^[42]

Military buildup

On 13 January, senior national security officials met at the White House to review potential military options, including airstrikes, cyber operations, and targeted raids, as part of the administration's response to Iran's violent suppression of demonstrations. ^{[43] [44]}

An F/A-18E Super Hornet taking off the Abraham Lincoln in the Arabian Sea on 3 February 2026.

An EA-18G Growler taxiing on the Abraham Lincoln on 3 February 2026.

The U.S. military began repositioning assets to strengthen its regional posture. By 25 January, an American aircraft carrier strike group, the USS Abraham Lincoln was deployed toward the Gulf, accompanied by additional Navy and Air Force assets. This movement was described as a precautionary measure amid fears of further escalation and was part of a broader effort to deter Iranian actions. ^{[45] [46] [47]}

Throughout late January, President Donald Trump continued to weigh expanded military options. Reports on 29–30 January indicated that he had been presented with additional plans, including possible commando operations targeting Iranian nuclear facilities. These deliberations occurred alongside ongoing concerns about Iran's mass arrests and internal unrest, which U.S. officials cited as contributing factors in the heightened military readiness. ^[43]

On 14 February, Trump stated he will dispatch a second carrier strike, the USS Gerald R. Ford, will be on the way to the Middle East with Carrier Strike Group 12 after completing operations in the Caribbean as part of Operation Southern Spear to support the USS Abraham Lincoln. Arrival of the USS Gerald R. Ford marked the new height in deployment of U.S. Navy assets during the Middle Eastern crisis. ^{[48] [45]}

Top administration national security officials met on 18 February in the White House Situation Room to discuss the situation in Iran, a person familiar with the meeting said. Trump was also briefed that day by special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner about their indirect talks with Iran that occurred a day earlier. It was not clear if Trump would make a decision by 21 or 22 February. ^[49]

On the same day, anonymous sources informed CNN that the US military was prepared to strike Iran as early as 21 February, although President Trump had yet to make a final decision on whether he would authorize such actions. One source, however, cautioned that Trump had privately argued both for and against military action and, polling advisers and allies on what the best course of action is.

On 19 February 2026, according to reports The US could launch military strikes on Iran within days as the White House issued a warning that Tehran should make a deal. Trump sent warships, tankers and submarines to the Middle East to be ready for potential strikes as early as 21 February, sources told CBS.

Threatening speeches and posts

In the final week of January, President Donald Trump used Truth Social to issue a series of public warnings directed at Iran, marking one of the most visible escalations in U.S. messaging during the crisis. On 28 January 2026, Trump declared that "a massive Armada is heading to Iran", describing it as moving "with great power, enthusiasm, and purpose." Trump warned that if Iran did not agree to a deal, "the next attack will be far worse", referencing previous U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. ^{[50] [51]}

Several of the posts referenced previous U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites which Trump cited as evidence of Washington's willingness to act if necessary. He warned that any further escalation by Iran could prompt a more severe response, presenting the situation as a narrowing window for Tehran to alter its course. ^[52]

When speaking at Fort Bragg on 13 February, Trump declared that regime change would be "the best thing that could happen". ^[53]

Trump said on a post on Truth Social, when referring to the Chagos dispute, UK air bases at RAF Fairford and the shared base at Diego Garcia in the British Indian Ocean Territory would be used by the US in an attack on Iran should Iran not agree to a nuclear deal. ^{[54] [55]} However, the United Kingdom has reportedly blocked Trump's request to use their air bases, leading to the latter withdrawing his support for the Chagos Islands deal. ^[56]

While some US sources, including Senator Lindsey Graham, told Axios that the US might need more time to prepare on 18 February, others disagreed. "The boss is getting fed up. Some people around him warn against going to war with Iran, but I think there is 90% chance we see kinetic action in the next few weeks," one anonymous Trump advisor told Axios. United States officials stated that Iran has two weeks to submit a detailed proposal. ^[57]

President Trump said that he is prepared to decide whether to attack Iran within the next 10 days — after deploying a second carrier strike group led by the USS Gerald R. Ford to the Middle East. "We may have to take it a step further, or we may not. Maybe we're going to make a deal. You are going to be finding out over the next, probably, 10 days," Trump said at a meeting of the Board of Peace in Washington. ^[58]

Verbal response

Senior Iranian officials dismissed U.S. warnings as psychological warfare and accused Washington of exploiting Iran's domestic unrest for strategic gain. Government spokespeople reiterated that Iran would not alter its policies under foreign pressure and warned that any military action by the United States would be met with what they described as a "decisive" and "regret‑inducing" response. These statements were accompanied by assurances that Iran's armed forces remained fully prepared to counter external threats. ^[59] Iran has threatened the U.S. in comments made by officials such as Ali Khamenei.

Attempts to control protests

Iranian authorities intensified efforts to control the internal situation. Security forces expanded their presence in major cities, and state media portrayed the protests as foreign‑influenced attempts to destabilize the country. Officials framed the unrest as part of a broader campaign orchestrated by hostile governments, arguing that the United States and Israel was using the demonstrations to justify increased military pressure. ^[60]

Diplomatic response

Diplomatically, Iran maintained that it remained open to dialogue but insisted that any negotiations must respect its sovereignty and security interests. Iranian representatives criticized U.S. sanctions and military deployments as provocative and counterproductive, urging regional states to avoid aligning with what Tehran described as destabilizing American policies. On 31 January, top Iranian security official Ali Larijani said on X that work on a framework for negotiations with the United States is progressing. ^[61]

Military and movements

Iranian state media reported increased activity among the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), including the repositioning of units responsible for air defense, missile operations, and internal security. Analysts noted that these movements were consistent with Iran's standard response during periods of heightened tension, aimed at demonstrating preparedness without provoking direct confrontation. ^[62]

Iran also conducted limited military exercises in several regions, emphasizing missile capabilities and rapid‑deployment forces. These drills were framed by Iranian officials as routine but were widely interpreted as a message to external actors, particularly the United States, that Iran retained the capacity to respond to any attack. Satellite imagery during this period indicated heightened activity at several IRGC bases, including the movement of mobile missile launchers and increased aircraft dispersal at military airfields, measures typically associated with efforts to reduce vulnerability to potential strikes. ^[63]

Naval forces in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz also began movements. The IRGC Navy increased patrols and monitored U.S. naval movements closely, while Iranian officials reiterated that the country would defend its territorial waters against any perceived encroachment. Although no direct confrontations were reported, the combination of heightened naval activity, missile readiness, and internal security deployments contributed to a broader atmosphere of military alertness within Iran during the late‑January escalation. ^[64]

On 3 February 2026, six IRGC Navy gunboats attempted to stop and seize a US tanker in the Strait of Hormuz. The Stena Imperative tanker ignored their demands and continued toward the Arabian Sea under the escort of the USS McFaul (DDG 74). Moreover, a US F-35 fighter jet shot down an Iranian Shahed 139 drone approaching the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. ^{[65] [66]}

On 5 February, Iran's IRGC Navy announced it had seized two foreign oil tankers near Farsi Island in the Persian Gulf and transferred them to the port of Bushehr, claiming both vessels were involved in fuel smuggling operations.

During the second round of nuclear talks in Geneva on 17 February, Khamenei threatened the United States warships in the area, stating Iran is "capable of sinking...[them]." ^[67] In addition the Strait of Hormuz was closed for several hours during a live military fire drill. ^[68] Khamenei said that even though the US military may be the strongest in the world, "the strongest army in the world can sometimes be slapped so hard it cannot get up."

Reuters reported on 24 February that the Iran military officials were finalizing the negotiation to acquire CM-302 anti-cruise missiles from China, which would pose the greatest threats to the US naval force deployed in the area. ^[69]

Proxies responses and other allied responses

Abu Hussein al‑Hamidawi, the leader of Kata'ib Hezbollah, an Iraqi group part of the Popular Mobilization Forces, reaffirmed its support for Iran, warning of a "total war" if Iran is attacked by the U.S. ^[70]

The leader of Hezbollah made a statement saying that they will choose whether or not to intervene, and is "concerned" about confronting the U.S. He said that he is "not neutral". ^[71]

The Taliban-led Afghanistan called on both sides to peacefully resolve their differences, adding that that they would support Iran if the U.S. attacks it. ^{[72] [73]}

Europe

European Union

• Officials expressed "deep concern over the escalating confrontation between the United States and Iran" and urged both sides to avoid actions that could trigger a wider conflict. ^[81]
• EU security analysts warned that the crisis risked "a dangerous nuclear proliferation cascade" if diplomacy continued to collapse.
• The EU labelled the IRGC a terrorist organisation on 29 January 2026. ^[51]

Germany

• German policymakers stated that "the combination of Iran's internal repression and U.S. military signaling leaves almost no margin for error." ^[82] It has been reported that the German government had been informed of the coming Israeli operation in advance, in the morning of the same day that the attack was carried out. ^[83]

France

• French officials called for restraint, saying "the region cannot absorb another major conflict, especially one involving nuclear‑sensitive facilities." ^[84]