Last updated 2 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
The Trump administration has threatened military strikes in Iran if the government continues killing protesters. This isn’t standard diplomatic language—it’s a direct warning that the United States might strike targets inside the country to support what has become the largest uprising against the Islamic Republic since 1979. The currency has collapsed to 1.4 million rials per dollar. Over 100 cities are in revolt.
The Currency Collapse
The rial has disintegrated. As of January 2026, it takes 1.4 to 1.45 million rials to buy a single U.S. dollar. If you’re someone who saved money for retirement or your kid’s education, those savings are now worth almost nothing.
Inflation is running above forty percent. The government eliminated fuel subsidies and the preferential exchange rates that had cushioned ordinary people from the worst of the currency’s freefall. Meat, rice, basic staples—all suddenly unaffordable for millions of families who were getting by months ago.
The United Nations reimposed sanctions in late 2025 over the nuclear program, sanctions that automatically restart when conditions are met, which choke off oil revenues and lock the country out of global financial markets. The sanctions worked in the sense that they strangled the economy. They also created the conditions for nationwide protests across all thirty-one provinces that are now threatening to bring down the government entirely.
How Protests Became Revolution
The demonstrations started December 28, 2025, in Tehran’s merchant quarter. Shopkeepers angry about currency chaos and unpredictable prices. Within days, the protests spread to over one hundred cities. The demands changed from economic relief to something far more threatening: calls for the death of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the complete dismantling of the Islamic Republic.
The response has been predictable and brutal. On January 8, authorities implemented a near-total communications blackout—internet, phones, everything. This is the third such blackout in recent years. The 2019 version preceded a crackdown that killed over three hundred people. The 2022 blackout, after Mahsa Amini’s death at the hands of the morality police, came before five hundred more deaths.
Tens of thousands of Starlink satellite receivers operate throughout the country. Originally acquired for business use, they’re now repurposed to transmit videos and photos of the protests to the outside world. Authorities have deployed jamming technology achieving thirty percent lost data transmissions for Starlink, with some regions seeing eighty percent loss. They’ve lobbied the international body that regulates global communications to shut down Starlink service entirely.
The Human Rights Activists News Agency reports at least 116 killed as of mid-January, with more than 2,600 detained. Some medical sources inside the country suggest the real number could be far higher—one London-based outlet reported estimates of at least two thousand deaths over a forty-eight hour period based on hospital data.
What Trump Said
On January 11, Trump posted on Truth Social that “Iran is looking at FREEDOM perhaps like never before. USA stands ready to help!!!”
During a Friday press briefing, he went further: “If they begin killing people as have in past, will get… that doesn’t necessarily mean boots on the ground, but it means striking them hard where it hurts.”
The New York Times and Wall Street Journal reported that he has been presented with options ranging from large-scale aerial campaigns to limited strikes on non-military targets in Tehran. No final decision has been made.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio reinforced the message: the United States “supports the brave people of Iran” and warned Tehran not to “play games with President Trump,” adding that “when he says he’ll do something, he means it.”
Raz Zimmt, who heads the Iran Program at the Institute for National Security Studies, pointed out the dilemma: targeted strikes might invigorate protesters, or they might deter them, particularly since many targets sit in densely populated areas where civilian casualties would be inevitable.
Why This Matters for Gas Prices
The country produces and exports approximately 3.2 to 3.5 million barrels of oil per day, with exports exceeding 2 million barrels daily despite sanctions. Most of that oil goes to China, with payments made outside the U.S.-controlled financial system.
If the government collapses or fragments into competing regional power centers, those exports could stop. The Strait of Hormuz, through which twenty percent of the world’s oil passes, becomes vulnerable to disruption. Oil markets have already started pricing in supply risks—prices are rising as traders bet on potential interruptions.
For American consumers, this translates directly to pump prices. For the global economy, it means potential inflation shocks that ripple through everything from shipping costs to food prices. European nations, more dependent on Middle Eastern energy than the United States, face sharper exposure.
If a post-revolutionary government rejoins the international community and sees sanctions lifted, substantial additional oil exports could moderate energy prices and provide economic stimulus.
The Proxy Network Problem
The network of allied militant groups—including Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, various militias in Iraq, Palestinian militant groups in Gaza—depends almost entirely on funding, weapons, and strategic coordination from Tehran. Without that support, these organizations would struggle to survive.
Hezbollah, with thousands of fighters and substantial capabilities, would struggle to maintain operations without money and weapons. The Houthis would lose the advanced missiles that let them threaten Red Sea shipping. Iraqi Shiite militias would face pressure to integrate into state institutions or accept dramatically reduced capacity.
From a U.S. policy perspective, this sounds like good news. These groups have inflicted costs on American interests for decades. Their collapse would fundamentally alter the regional balance of power, potentially enabling Israel to operate without constant concern about sponsored retaliation, and allowing Gulf Arab states to pursue objectives without countermeasures through proxies.
A sudden collapse could create power vacuums that draw the region into prolonged conflict. Some analysts point to Syria as a cautionary example—state authority fragments, outlying areas try to break away or become independent, proxy warfare intensifies, areas with no government control become hideouts for terrorist groups.
For Gulf states, chaos could be worse than the current situation. Instability could destabilize Iraq, trigger refugee flows, and create security vacuums that rival powers rush to fill.
The Crown Prince Question
Reza Pahlavi, the exiled Crown Prince and son of the last Shah, has explicitly called on protesters to remain in the streets and urged workers in key sectors, particularly oil and energy, to initiate nationwide strikes designed to cut off revenues. He’s asked security forces to “slow down and disrupt the repression machine” and announced he’s preparing to return to stand alongside protesters.
Pahlavi left in 1978 at age seventeen for jet fighter training in Texas, departing months before the revolution that forced his family into exile. He’s lived in the United States for five decades, primarily in the Washington, DC area, campaigning for political change.
He’s explicitly rejected a return to monarchy, portraying himself instead as an advocate for secular, democratic governance achieved through peaceful resistance and refusing to follow unjust laws, plus a national referendum to determine the future governmental structure.
From a U.S. policy perspective, Pahlavi represents both an opportunity and a problem. Some analysts argue he’s the only viable unifying figure capable of guiding a transition to democratic governance. Others within the diaspora fear that support for Pahlavi could alienate segments of the population opposed to any restoration of monarchical rule, even symbolic restoration.
A meeting between Pahlavi and administration officials could signal to oppositionists that the United States has committed to supporting a particular transition pathway. This could fragment the opposition by alarming groups that fear foreign involvement in determining the political future.
Many people harbor deep suspicion of American action, given the traumatic memory of the 1953 CIA-backed coup that strengthened the Shah’s rule and contributed to conditions that produced the 1979 revolution. American support for particular outcomes could paradoxically alienate people who might otherwise welcome change.
Plausible Scenarios
The optimistic version: Pahlavi or another unifying figure emerges, a broad coalition coalesces, negotiated transition to democratic governance, free elections, secular democratic state oriented toward reintegration into international institutions. The government dissolves Iran’s elite military force that enforces the government’s rule, forces answer to elected civilian leaders instead of military commanders, sanctions lift, economic development partnerships with Western nations. This is the optimal outcome for American interests—a government friendly to the United States and regional allies, elimination of the nuclear threat, dismantling of the proxy network.
The coup version: Revolutionary Guard elements execute a coup, removing Khamenei and senior clerical figures, establishing a government focused on national interests run by the armed forces. More responsive to international pressure on nuclear and regional issues than the current theocracy, but still authoritarian and potentially hostile on certain issues.
The fragmentation version: state fragmentation along regional and ethnic lines, the “Syria model” where central authority weakens and outlying regions try to break away. Kurdish regions in the northwest, Azeri regions, Baluchi regions in the southeast, Arab regions in the southwest—all establishing varying degrees of independence. This creates chaos providing opportunities for terrorist organizations, produces refugee flows destabilizing neighbors, invites action by multiple external powers competing for influence. Geopolitical competition as Russia, China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and others position themselves could rapidly escalate into direct confrontation.
The Nuclear Complication
Uranium enrichment has accelerated, with the UN’s nuclear watchdog agency reporting uranium enriched to 84%—dangerously close to weapons-grade material. The ninety percent threshold represents the level for weapons-grade material. U.S. intelligence assessment indicates nuclear weapons haven’t been built but the technical capacity exists to do so if political leaders decide.
The reimposition of UN sanctions in late 2025 specifically referenced the nuclear program, linking the economic crisis that sparked current protests directly to the nuclear issue.
A new government trying to rejoin the international community and seeking sanctions relief would likely accept significant constraints on its nuclear program in exchange for lifted sanctions.
If the current government survives through brutal repression, having prevailed through violence could harden its position on nuclear issues and prompt doubled-down commitment to advancing the program as nationalist resistance to international pressure.
Strikes against the current government might be justified as necessary to prevent a nuclear-armed state hostile to American interests. But such action could paradoxically strengthen a successor government’s commitment to nuclear weapons development as deterrence against future American attacks.
The Constraints on American Action
International investigators emphasized that “threats or acts of military action taken alone without allies by third states are contrary to international law.” The United States retains political capacity to act unilaterally, but doing so would incur substantial diplomatic costs, potentially damaging the alliance of Western countries working together on this issue.
Air defense capabilities have been partially rebuilt since the June 2025 conflict when Israeli strikes destroyed much of the infrastructure. Forces have conducted exercises to test readiness against aerial attacks, deploying advanced radars and surface-to-air missile units. Any American operation would need to account for these rebuilt defensive capabilities.
The most promising targets—Revolutionary Guard command centers, Morality Police establishments, security apparatus directly repressing dissent—sit in densely populated areas where civilian casualties would be difficult to avoid. Such casualties would rapidly undermine international support and could paradoxically strengthen the government by enabling it to appeal to national pride against “foreign aggression.”
While demonstrators have called on the administration to support the opposition, many harbor deep historical suspicion of American action. An American strike could be perceived as foreign interference, undermining the opposition and rallying nationalist sentiment behind the current government.
Refraining from action despite repeated warnings could damage American credibility with both protesters and regional allies. Strikes carry risks of backfire and civilian casualties. Non-action risks undermining credibility and potentially enabling brutal crackdown.
Why Americans Should Care
The decisions made in coming weeks will affect oil prices, gasoline costs, the trajectory of American involvement in the Middle East, and relations with regional allies including Israel and Gulf states.
If the government collapses chaotically, expect oil price spikes that ripple through the entire economy. If a post-revolutionary government emerges and seeks international rehabilitation, expect sanctions relief that could moderate energy prices but also raises questions about how quickly a new government can stabilize.
If the administration follows through on its threats, expect American personnel in harm’s way and unpredictable consequences throughout a region already destabilized by years of conflict. If the administration backs down from its threats, expect questions about American credibility and resolve that affect how adversaries and allies alike calculate their strategies.
The character of the political future—whether it becomes a democratic state integrated into international institutions, a dictatorship, or a fragmented collection of competing power centers—will shape Middle Eastern geopolitics for decades.
For ordinary Americans, this affects whether gas prices spike, whether the United States gets drawn into another Middle Eastern conflict, and whether the system of international rules and institutions that have kept relative peace since World War II continues to function or fractures into regions controlled or dominated by different powerful countries.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.