The wave of protests that swept across Iran from late 2025 into early 2026 constitutes one of the gravest political crises faced by the Iranian republic since its establishment in 1979. What initially appeared to be limited demonstrations driven by economic grievances rapidly transformed into a nationwide movement that challenged the very foundations of the political system. Beginning in Tehran’s Grand Bazaar onDecember 28, 2025, unrest quickly spread across all 31 provinces, mobilizing a broad social coalition that included shopkeepers, industrial workers, university students, women and ethnic minorities. The speed and scale of this expansion underscored not only the depth of popular frustration but also the fragility of a political system increasingly reliant on repression rather than consent.
At the heart of this uprising lies a profound economic collapse. The Iranian rial reached unprecedented lows against the US dollar, at times trading between 700,000 and 1.5 million rials per dollar, wiping out savings and destabilizing everyday economic life. Inflation surpassed 40% officially, while the prices of basic foodstuffs soared by more than 70% compared to the previous year. Longstanding subsidies on fuel and essential goods were sharply reduced, exacerbating hardship for lower and middle-income households. These developments unfolded against a backdrop of chronic structural problems — water scarcity, electricity shortages, environmental degradation and urban pollution — that further eroded public confidence in the state’s capacity to govern effectively. For many Iranians, the economic crisis was no longer cyclical but existential, signaling the exhaustion of a model incapable of delivering stability or prosperity.
Economic grievances, however, cannot be disentangled from Iran’s broader geopolitical trajectory. Years of sanctions, compounded by Tehran’s regional military commitments, had drained state resources and narrowed policy options. Support for allied non-state armed groups across the Middle East, combined with the costs associated with escalating tensions with Israel and the United States, placed an enormous burden on an already weakened economy. The 2025 conflict with Israel, followed by US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, reinforced the perception among protesters that the establishment privileged ideological confrontation and strategic ambition over the welfare of its own population. Despite campaign promises of moderation, President Massoud Pezeshkian’s administration appeared unable — or unwilling — to reverse these structural dynamics, reinforcing public skepticism toward “reformist” rhetoric within the existing system.
As the unrest intensified, protesters’ demands evolved rapidly. What began as calls for wage adjustments, employment security and economic relief soon gave way to explicitly political slogans targeting the supreme leader and the system of clerical rule itself. Chants calling for the overthrow of Ali Khamenei and denouncing the Iranian republic’s legitimacy became increasingly common. The reemergence of pre-revolutionary symbols, particularly the Lion and Sun flag, signaled a symbolic rupture with the post-1979 order and reflected a broader aspiration for secular governance and national renewal. For many participants, these symbols did not necessarily represent a detailed political program but rather a rejection of the ideological monopoly imposed by the Iranian republic.
The movement’s momentum was sustained through strikes, university shutdowns and acts of civil disobedience that disrupted daily life. Major urban centers such as Tehran, Mashhad, Isfahan, Shiraz and Kermanshah became focal points of confrontation, while smaller cities and peripheral regions also experienced intense unrest. In several locations, demonstrators stormed government buildings and security installations, forcing temporary withdrawals by state forces. Ethnic minority regions, particularly Kurdish areas, witnessed coordinated strikes that amplified the national character of the protests. In the absence of an organized opposition inside the country, figures based abroad gained renewed visibility. Among them, Reza Pahlavi emerged as a symbolic focal point for segments of the protest movement. While support for him did not necessarily imply consensus around restoring the monarchy, his prominence reflected a search for alternative political narratives capable of challenging the Iranian republic’s claim to historical inevitability. Simultaneously, Persian-language media operating from exile played a critical role in shaping public discourse, often enjoying greater credibility than state-controlled outlets.
The establishment’s response was marked by an overwhelming reliance on force. Beginning in early January 2026, authorities imposed a nationwide internet and communications shutdown, effectively severing Iran from the outside world and hindering internal coordination. Security forces — including the IRGC, the Basij and the national police — were deployed with lethal force, using live ammunition, tear gas and mass arrests to suppress dissent. Reports surfaced of ambulances being repurposed for security operations and of hospitals being pressured to withhold treatment from wounded protesters. Arrests reached into the thousands, while casualty figures rose sharply. Although precise numbers remain contested due to information controls, multiple sources reported hundreds of deaths within weeks, with opposition-affiliated outlets alleging far higher figures during particularly violent crackdowns.
This escalation drew comparisons to earlier episodes of repression, notably the 2022 protests, which international bodies had characterized as involving crimes against humanity. Rather than restoring order, the severity of the crackdown appeared to deepen public anger and international scrutiny. Media outlets inside Iran were shut down, journalists intimidated and families of victims threatened into silence. Yet fragments of evidence — videos, testimonies and satellite imagery — continued to emerge, undermining the state’s attempt to control the narrative.
International reactions further exposed the establishment’s external vulnerabilities. US President Donald Trump issued explicit warnings, signaling readiness to escalate pressure through sanctions, cyber operations or military strikes should repression intensify. Coordination with Israel underscored a shared determination to counter Iran’s regional influence and nuclear ambitions. European governments expressed concern and called for accountability, while human rights organizations mobilized efforts to document abuses. Tehran, for its part, framed the unrest as a foreign conspiracy, accusing Washington and Tel Aviv of orchestrating the protests, even as officials insisted that they remained open to negotiations under conditions of “mutual respect.”
The leadership faced a stark dilemma: genuine reform risked internal fragmentation and loss of ideological coherence, preserving the status quo offered diminishing returns and continued repression threatened both internal cohesion and external escalation. Economic decline fed a self-reinforcing cycle of protest, while the loyalty of security forces — subject to the same material pressures as the wider population — could no longer be taken for granted. A transnational Iranian public sphere, shaped by exiled communities and independent media, increasingly influenced domestic perceptions, amplifying calls for systemic change. Whether these events ultimately culminate in regime collapse remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the Iranian republic has entered a phase of acute strategic vulnerability. Its survival now depends less on legitimacy than on coercion, a trajectory that raises the costs of endurance with each passing day. For many Iranians, the upheaval of 2026 represents both a moment of extraordinary risk and a profound assertion of political agency, as a society long constrained by the ideological tenets of the Iranian state confronts the possibility — however distant — of reclaiming its future.
