Iran International
As Iran steps up a deadly crackdown on nationwide demonstrations, some analysts warned that if US President Donald Trump does not act on his vow to protect protestors, the unrest he helped galvanize may be stamped out.
Trump said on Sunday that Iranian officials had reached out seeking talks on a nuclear deal and said the United States may meet with them after repeatedly warning Tehran against killing demonstrators and mooting "very strong" military options.
Former British Army officer and military analyst Andrew Fox told Iran International that the Islamic Republic is deliberately applying maximum force early to crush the protests before Washington can act decisively.
“If (Trump) limits his intervention to just rhetoric, then clearly that is, of course, strategic restraint, but also an absolute betrayal at a critical moment,” Fox said.
“He’s made promises. It’s very clear that there were promises that the Americans were not ready to deliver.”
Trump, in a post on Truth Social last week, warned that the United States is “locked and loaded” and ready to intervene in Iran if authorities violently suppress demonstrators — statements that analysts say emboldened many to take to the streets.
“It’s questionable that this many people would have protested had Mr. Trump not made those promises,” Fox said. “So at the moment,” he added, “America potentially has blood on its hands quite frankly.”
Publicly, Iranian officials struck a defiant tone. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Iran was open to negotiations but also “fully prepared for war,” insisting the situation inside the country was under control.
Behind the scenes, however, US officials say Tehran is sending a different message.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said an Iranian official had reached out to US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff “expressing a far different tone than what you’re seeing publicly.”
Axios earlier reported a phone call between Araghchi and Witkoff during which the two sides discussed both the protests and Iran’s nuclear program.
On the ground, the crackdown has intensified amid a near-total internet shutdown.
Medics and eyewitnesses told Iran International that the preliminary death toll over more than two weeks of unrest had surged in recent days to as many as 2,000 people.
The full scale remains impossible to verify due to communications blackouts.
New evidence suggests the state response is being conducted as a wartime operation.
A physician who treated large numbers of wounded protesters described mass-casualty conditions, overwhelmed hospitals, and the use of live ammunition and military-grade weapons by Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Basij forces according to the Center for Human Rights in Iran.
The doctor said security forces operated under orders that eliminated accountability and treated civilian protests as a battlefield scenario, with injured protesters systematically identified inside hospitals and communications deliberately shut down.
To intervene or not?
Trump’s own mixed messaging, analysts say, risks compounding the damage.
“President Trump’s comments on Air Force One contained something for everyone in them,” said Jason Brodsky, the policy director for United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), pointing to the combination of military threats, diplomacy with Tehran and outreach to the opposition.
While unpredictability can have tactical benefits, Brodsky warned that a US meeting with Iran’s leadership now “will provide relief for the regime.”
“It can prop-up the currency while demoralizing the Iranian freedom fighters on the ground,” he said. “There is great benefit for Iran in a negotiating process with the US. But no benefit for the US.”
Such talks, Brodsky said, would be “perceived by the Iranian people as external American intervention on the side of the Islamic Republic, not the Iranian people.”
“We should be giving time, space, and resources to the Iranian people,” he said, “not the Islamic Republic.”
Confidence that US military action was imminent has meanwhile begun to waver.
“Do I believe President Trump will strike Iran? Yesterday I was more confident of an attack, today, not quite as much,” said Dr. Eric Mandel, director of the Middle East Political Information Network (MEPIN).
Mandel said he had spoken with Israeli analysts saying they were confident Trump would strike but “did not know sooner or later.”
He said Washington still retains options short of a full-scale war, including seizing oil tankers tied to Iran’s shadow fleet exporting more than two million barrels of oil a day, CIA covert actions, cyber operations, kinetic action against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Basij and restoring communications through satellite internet systems such as Starlink.
Trump said Sunday he would speak to Elon Musk about restoring internet access in Iran.
As the death toll rises and Iran remains largely cut off from the outside world, analysts warn the moment for measures is rapidly disappearing.
What comes next, they say, will determine not only the fate of Iran’s uprising — but whether US warnings are remembered as deterrence or as words that raised hope just long enough to deepen a sense of betrayal.
The aim is not necessarily to convince skeptics, but to project an image of control and popular backing at a moment of visible strain.
After days of sustained demonstrations calling for the overthrow of the system, authorities organized counter-rallies in several cities on Monday, presenting them as popular condemnations of the protests themselves.
State television depicted the gatherings as mass denunciations of unrest, echoing official claims that the uprising was driven by “armed terrorists” and foreign adversaries.
A familiar mobilization
The mechanics of the rallies followed a script many Iranians recognize. State bodies drew participants to central locations in Tehran and other major cities, relying on administrative pressure and access to public resources.
Coverage was then amplified by state television and media outlets affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.
In recent broadcasts, state outlets released a mix of ground-level footage and aerial images intended to convey scale. Some of the images show visible crowds, underscoring that the authorities retain a base of support.
It is difficult to determine precise numbers, the duration of the gatherings, or whether all images reflect live events from the same day. Similar visual techniques — including the reuse of footage or the circulation of undated aerial shots — have been employed during previous protest cycles.
Even taken at face value, the rallies appeared limited in duration and geographic spread.
By contrast, demonstrations opposing the government have persisted for weeks, erupting across hundreds of locations according to tallies compiled by activists and researchers, despite the risks involved.
The contrast is sharpened by the conditions under which each takes place: pro-government gatherings proceed under heavy security, while protesters have faced gunfire, mass arrests and lethal force.
Information control as context
This round of rallies unfolded amid unusually severe restrictions on communication. For several consecutive days, internet connectivity across much of Iran has been sharply curtailed, according to digital rights groups and user reports, leaving millions unable to communicate freely or share information.
State and Guards-linked outlets, by contrast, have continued to publish without interruption. Agencies such as Tasnim, Fars and Mehr have maintained full access, flooding television and online platforms with official narratives.
The result is a highly asymmetric information environment. While ordinary citizens struggle to document events or verify developments, state-aligned media dominate the public space with curated imagery.
Under such conditions, rallies are presented largely on the authorities’ terms, with limited independent means to corroborate scale, timing or participation.
A recurring sequence
Similar state-organized rallies followed major protest movements in 2009, 2019 and 2022, each time presented as demonstrations of enduring legitimacy. In each case, they coincided with intensified security measures and tighter controls on dissent.
Evidence of the human toll has continued to surface despite efforts to restrict documentation.
Videos circulating online in recent days, which could not be independently verified, appeared to show bodies in a morgue in Kahrizak, with grieving relatives gathered nearby—imagery that contrasted sharply with official broadcasts of unity and resolve.
In a message released Sunday night, Reza Pahlavi described the moment as a new phase in what he called a national uprising, urging supporters to challenge the state’s control over information and public space.
What the competing images ultimately underscore is a question that spectacle alone cannot answer: how Iranian cities would look if opposing sides were able to assemble under comparable conditions.
The return to this familiar choreography comes as protests continue despite severe limits on communication, widespread arrests and the high personal cost of participation.
The repeated staging of loyalty rallies suggests not confidence, but the absence of other tools for demonstrating consent. Carefully framed images may circulate for a time, but they cannot indefinitely substitute for credibility rooted in broad public trust.
In the end, theater may delay recognition of a crisis, but it does not resolve one.
