Iran International
Iranian officials have begun publicly blaming one another and foreign foes for ongoing unrest across the country, exposing sharp divisions in Tehran on one of the greatest challenges yet to the Islamic Republic.
Members of parliament have accused both the government and the public of contributing to the economic collapse that triggered the unrest.
President Massoud Pezeshkian and members of his administration, in turn, have pointed the finger back at parliament, underscoring a familiar pattern of elite infighting during periods of crisis.
Speaking at a meeting with officials and academics on Tuesday, January 6, Pezeshkian acknowledged that responsibility for the current situation was shared.
In a characteristically self-critical tone, he said his administration and the Majles both bore blame for the failures that had led to the unrest.
Elephant in the room
Notably absent from official statements has been any reckoning with the role of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei or the effects of decades of centralized rule.
In his only intervention on protest so far, Khamenei appeared to urge authorities to tighten the control.
“Protest is legitimate, but protest is different from rioting,” he said on Saturday. “We talk to protesters, but there is no use in talking to rioters. Rioters must be put in their place.”
Protesters have made Khamenei a central target, accusing him of bankrupting the country through military adventurism and the financing of regional proxy groups.
‘US mercenaries’
As demonstrations continued for an eleventh consecutive day on Wednesday, hardline lawmakers reiterated familiar rhetoric dismissing the protests as foreign-instigated.
Fatemeh Mohammadbeigi, a lawmaker from Qazvin, labeled protesters “rioters” and said they should be intimidated into ending what she called their “mutiny.”
“Enemies are importing weapons into Iran,” she asserted, calling on security forces to “confront the rioters with strict measures.”
Rights groups and activist networks say at least 36 protesters have been killed since the unrest began, with many more injured. A hospital in the uniquely restive province of Ilam was attacked to arrest wounded demonstrators.
MP Mohammadbeigi alleged in an interview with moderate outlet Rouydad24 that “Israeli and US mercenaries” were responsible for the hospital raid as well as for shutting down markets and damaging property.
Infighting unabated
Similar claims were echoed by Esmail Kowsari, a Tehran lawmaker, IRGC officer and member of parliament’s national security committee.
Speaking to the state-linked ILNA news agency, Kowsari accused “enemies” of attempting to sow discord in Iran, arguing that Israel and the United States, which he said had been “defeated in the war with Iran,” were now waging a “soft war” through social media.
Kowsari also criticized the government for “leaving the markets uncontrolled” and suggested parliament should summon the president to explain the situation.
Moderate figures have warned that such moves risk deepening the crisis.
Hassan Rassouli, a former governor of the protest hotbed Lorestan, warned that questioning Pezeshkian in parliament “would be tantamount to attacking the commander during a battle.”
In an interview with moderate outlet Khabar Online on Wednesday, he accused hardline lawmakers of staging “a show of authority” at a moment when Tehran—in his words—should focus on containing unrest, not escalating internal power struggles.
US forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in a daring, deadly raid over the weekend and launched a surprise attack on Iranian nuclear sites in June.
His maverick military style may visit Iran once again after he twice warned Washington's sworn enemies in the Islamic theocracy against killing protestors, after which over 25 people have been killed.
The question now confronting Washington is whether Donald Trump will stick to pressure and covert tools or move toward a more dramatic confrontation.
Those who follow Trump’s foreign policy decisions see a clear pattern. He favors actions that create leverage without committing the US to open-ended wars.
Drawing on that record, Dr. Mehrzad Boroujerdi, Vice Provost and Dean at Missouri University of Science and Technology and a longtime scholar of Iranian politics, described a president inclined toward targeted operations rather than large deployments.
Trump, he explained, “prefers low risk and no boots on the ground model of a surgical attack.”
In the most extreme versions of surgical-strike planning, even the Supreme Leader appears as a hypothetical target, especially after Trump said during hostilities in June that the United States was well aware of his hiding place.
A broader conflict, Boroujerdi added, would come with serious complications.
“Any type of serious military intervention, meaning boots on the ground, in a place like Iran is going to be politically risky, legally contested and strategically rather complex.”
Is a Venezuela-style scenario possible?
The dramatic operation that removed Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro has raised questions about whether something similar could unfold in Iran.
Alex Vatanka, director of the Iran Program at the Middle East Institute in Washington, pointed to the depth of foreign intelligence penetration in Iran’s security apparatus.
“If we look at the 12 day war we just had in the summer of 2025, clearly Israel, certainly in the United States, I’m sure they have many eyes and ears inside the Iranian regime. Otherwise they could not have done the sort of targeted assassinations that they achieved.”
During the 12-day war, Israeli airstrikes targeted Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure, killing senior commanders such as Revolutionary Guards Brigadier General Davoud Sheikhian and several nuclear scientists including Abdolhamid Minouchehr and Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi.
That level of access, Vatanka said, creates the possibility of deals inside the ruling elite if they decide the current path is unsustainable.
“That suggests defections. That suggest a good part of an existing regime decides, you know what, going forward things have to change and they might have cut a deal.”
Boroujerdi said Washington may not rely on exiled figures. Instead, it could negotiate with people already in power.
“The Venezuela model definitely shows … that instead of choosing an opposition figure, the Trump administration is quite content with striking a deal for a negotiated transition with the elements of the regime,” he said.
But Iran’s internal structure makes such transitions unpredictable. The Revolutionary Guard dominates key sectors of the economy and the security state.
Eric Mandel, director of the Middle East Political Information Network and a frequent adviser on regional security issues, warned that power might consolidate around them.
“I think the regime change in Iran could be one where the IRGC picks up the pieces because they're the most organized force.”
Prince Reza Pahlavi, the most prominent opposition figure outside Iran and son of the deposed last shah of Iran, has taken the opposite view. In recent interviews and opinion pieces, he argued that Iran does not need foreign intervention or a Venezuela-style operation.
“We don’t need a single boot of your military on the ground in Iran,” he told the Wall Street Journal in an interview published on Monday, saying the Islamic Republic is weakening from within and that a planned transition led by Iranians themselves could prevent chaos. Supporters see him as a potential unifying figure.
Many protest videos from inside Iran feature chants invoking Prince Reza Pahlavi to return.
Do Iranians actually want an attack?
Years of inflation, corruption and repression have pushed some Iranians to consider outside intervention as a price worth paying. Yet analysts caution against assuming most people are calling for war.
Boroujerdi emphasized the economic reality first. In his assessment, “hardly anyone is asking for war because that is going to amount to even worse economic conditions.”
Protesters in Iran have appealed to US President Donald Trump for help, according to videos sent to Iran International on Tuesday, with posts and signs reading 'Trump don't let them kill us.'
US President Donald Trump said on Sunday night aboard Air Force One that the United States was monitoring developments in Iran closely and warned that if Iranian authorities killed protesters, the country would face a strong response.
Meanwhile, the make-up of protests is shifting. Demonstrations are less concentrated among Tehran’s elite and increasingly driven by smaller cities and working-class families, once supporters of the clerical establishment and pillars of the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
“Right now, 70 plus cities and towns are protesting. This is a nationwide phenomena … It’s inflation, it’s unemployment, it’s the corruption,” said Vatanka.
Police in Abdanan, in Ilam Province, are seen in footage viewed by Iran International waving and cheering on protesters - an unusual scene in a system built on loyalty to the state.
What happens if there is an attack?
Mandel believes escalation remains possible, especially around Iran’s missile program.
“I think there’s a good chance that there will be a war with Iran,” he said, warning that Tehran could also strike first to distract from domestic crises and attempt to rally nationalist sentiment.
Iran’s newly formed Defense Council warned on Tuesday that the country could respond before an attack if it detected clear signs of a threat. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Monday that he and Trump would not permit Iran to restore its ballistic and nuclear program.
For Iranians already living with inflation, repression and unrest, the question is no longer whether pressure will continue. It is what form it will take, and how high the price will be.
