Institute for National Security Studies
In a speech on Friday, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei left little doubt that Tehran intends to confront the current wave of protests with force rather than concession.
The remarks pointed to an intensifying crackdown, unfolding amid a near-total internet shutdown across Iran.
Those signals have placed renewed focus on Washington, where US President Donald Trump has issued repeated public warnings to Tehran in recent days, including statements suggesting the United States could act if Iranian authorities continue killing protesters.
Whether those threats translate into policy remains unclear, but they have sharpened attention on how the White House responds as events unfold inside Iran.
Khamenei’s remarks, which included renewed accusations that protesters are being directed by foreign powers, were accompanied by direct criticism of Trump, who late Thursday night warned Iran against further violence.
Taken together, the exchanges have added to tensions already heightened by months of mutual suspicion and rhetorical escalation.
The result has been growing unease across the Iran–US–Israel triangle. Iranian officials routinely frame internal unrest as foreign intrigue, while Israeli leaders have long described the Islamic Republic as a persistent, existential threat.
Risk of escalation
Iran’s rulers now appear increasingly concerned that the United States or Israel could seek to exploit domestic instability—fears that, in turn, risk shaping Tehran’s military calculations.
Earlier this week, Iran’s National Defense Council and other security bodies issued statements warning that the country could carry out a preemptive strike if it detected preparations for an attack.
Those warnings coincided with missile tests, moves officials described as defensive but which analysts say added another layer of volatility.
The rhetoric and military signaling have raised fears of escalation even in the absence of clear intent on any side to seek a confrontation.
In Israel, security officials have expressed concern that Iran could attempt to divert attention from internal unrest by provoking an external crisis, though many analysts consider such a move unlikely.
Still, Israel’s heightened sensitivity to risk since the October 7 attacks has reinforced a preference for preparing for worst-case scenarios.
Critical decisions
As Iran’s leadership faces mounting pressure at home, the margin for error abroad appears to be narrowing.
Clear signals of US support for protesters, even if not backed by immediate action, risk aggravating Tehran’s fears of external intervention, while Iranian military signaling increases the danger of miscalculation.
Some in Washington worry that even limited American involvement—military or otherwise—could destabilize an already fragile regional balance and draw Israel into a broader confrontation.
At the same time, a White House decision to refrain from action, despite repeated warnings, could also carry consequences. Protesters inside Iran have often looked to international pressure for protection or leverage, and the absence of follow-through could further dampen momentum on the streets.
What is clear is that Iran’s internal crisis is no longer insulated from its external rivalries.
Developments inside the country now carry implications far beyond its borders, raising the risk that repression at home could intersect with miscalculation abroad—between Iran, the United States and Israel.
