Protests have long been a defining feature of Iranian political life. Iranians take to the streets regularly, demanding a better quality of life, economic reforms, and improvement of their social condition. These protests often turn bloody, with the beating, torturing, or killing of citizens in their thousands. Yet, Iranians have persisted, showing a resolve that demonstrates remarkable courage.
Economic grievances are the main cause for the current wave of unrest. Since the 12-day war between Iran and Israel ended in June 2025, Iran’s economy has been reeling, with its local currency free-falling (the Rial has lost more than 40% of its value) and inflation skyrocketing. Shopkeepers and merchants are at the protest movement’s forefront, considering that importing goods is becoming near impossible with the Rial’s collapse.
According to Jonathan Panikoff, director of the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council, what’s different about these protests is that we’re “seeing them converge at a time when the Iranian regime is already under far more strain than it was a few years ago, related to the Mahsa Amini Protests.”
Iran’s current vulnerability has not gone unnoticed in either Washington or Jerusalem. Both the United States and Israel have long viewed Iran’s leadership as a destabilizing force in the region. President Donald Trump has made clear his willingness to intervene militarily, suggesting he intends to “come to [the protesters] rescue” should the regime escalate its killing of unarmed civilians.
The U.S., however, has a plethora of choices on what to do next that don’t include military action. These include obstructing Iranian oil exports and pursuing sanctions proposals such as the Mahsa Amini Act, which would mandate sanctions on individuals involved in human rights abuses. The objectives, at least as far as the U.S. is concerned, may be less about the collapse of the regime and more about pressuring Iran to the negotiating table.
Israel’s goals were clearly outlined in the recent meeting at Mar-a-Lago between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu set the Iran file at the top of the agenda, pushing Trump to support new military action against Iran’s ballistic missile program.
Coercion, however, does not serve the same purpose for Washington and Jerusalem. “Trump probably believes that coercion can be used for negotiations if he so chooses, whereas Netanyahu probably believes that coercion can be used to try to further destabilize the regime in hopes that it will eventually result in the overthrow of the supreme leader,” explained Panikoff.
TRUMP SIGNALS HE COULD TAKE ACTION ON CUBA, COLOMBIA, AND OTHER COUNTRIES AFTER VENEZUELA
Indeed, during his campaign and early in his presidency, Trump signaled openness to negotiate with Iran, arguing in September 2024 that a deal was necessary because the consequences of failure were “impossible.” After his election, he reportedly issued a two-month deadline to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to reach a new nuclear agreement.
The challenge, then, remains whether decisive action — whether military or economic — will lead to escalation or push Iran to negotiate. “Right now, it’s easy for Trump and Netanyahu to be united, but if Iran’s ballistic missile capacity grows again and there is a real concern with strikes taking place, then whether or not they’ll actually remain on the same page in the coming months is a different question.”
Alissa Pavia is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council.