In recent days, President Donald Trump faced criticism for a pause in military action against Iran despite earlier warnings to both the Iranian government and protesters. Key questions arose in Washington about this delay. Experts noted that while U.S. officials are cautious, the decision to hold back is less about retreat and more about managing risks. A strike could provoke retaliation against U.S. forces and Israel, complicating the ongoing protests within Iran. There are concerns that an aggressive response might undermine the very movement Trump expressed support for on January 13.
Internal discussions among U.S. officials highlight the uncertainty of leadership in Iran. As a result, many in the administration are cautious about striking without a clear successor to the current regime. Trump himself raised this issue on January 15, questioning whether Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of the former Shah, could lead Iran effectively after decades away. “He seems very nice, but I don’t know how he’d play within his own country,” he remarked. Such doubts reflect a broader hesitancy to act without a solid plan.
The commitment Trump made to the protesters—that “help is on its way”—has created pressure to deliver on that promise. However, as of now, U.S. military action remains poised but unexercised. Trump stated on multiple occasions that Iran had agreed to halt executions, a move that seemed to lower tensions. Meanwhile, the U.S. is moving naval resources closer to the Middle East, which suggests that intervention could still be a viable option, depending on future developments.
This pause has drawn significant backlash. Many critics assert that Trump’s assurances have raised expectations that might not be met. One Iranian citizen, who preferred to remain anonymous due to safety concerns, expressed frustration that U.S. assistance has not yet materialized. “‘Go forward, help is coming,’ Trump said. The people went forward. They were killed. No help came,” echoed the sentiments of many eagerly waiting for U.S. support.
The tragedy is underscored by the rising casualty figure reported by Iranian state TV, stating that over 3,117 people have died during the recent protests. Other human rights groups claim that the numbers could be even higher. Amidst this environment of escalating violence, anti-regime advocates remain hopeful while simultaneously fearing for their lives.
Policy experts have weighed in, stressing the need to define clear political and military objectives regarding Iran. “What’s the objective—not just militarily, but what’s the political objective in Iran?” questioned Seth Jones of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. His warning suggests that military pressure without a corresponding endgame could lead to greater instability rather than resolution.
Others, including Rosemary Kelanic from Defense Priorities, cautioned that U.S. involvement could harm the protest movement. The potential for Tehran to brand the demonstrators as foreign-backed would strengthen the Iranian leadership’s ability to justify crackdowns. “Anything that associates the U.S. with the protesters hurts the protesters,” she noted, reminding stakeholders that intervention can complicate the very dynamics they aim to influence.
As experts dig deeper into strategies, the consequences of airstrikes are not universally viewed as a means of revitalizing protests. Former Israeli military intelligence officer Danny Citrinowicz argued that while the regime may have found tactical benefits in the current pause—namely, quelling protests with violence—these advantages are limited. “These wins are tactical, but they are very limited,” Citrinowicz remarked.
The need for a nuanced approach is echoed by Iranian-American human rights advocates. Majid Sadeghpour, political director of the Organization of Iranian American Communities, emphasizes that U.S. policy should focus on moral and political support instead of military intervention. “Nothing would replace people walking in the streets of Iran and confronting the IRGC,” he said, pointing to the importance of grassroots activism rooted in the Iranian populace.
Inside Iran, the implications of the protests are dire as authorities intensify a sweeping crackdown. Reports indicate a pattern of deadly force by security personnel, including mass arrests and the use of live ammunition. The regime is also imposing severe restrictions on internet access to stifle organization efforts among demonstrators. In this charged climate, officials claim that foreign influence is stirring unrest, a narrative made easier to sell when U.S. statements hint at potential involvement.
The current situation remains precarious. Critics question whether the Trump administration can live up to its promises to the Iranian people without igniting further turmoil. As both the stakes and pressure mount, the path forward will need to balance action with careful consideration of the implications for both the protesters and U.S. foreign policy.
"*" indicates required fields
