The escalating crisis in Iran has pushed US President Donald Trump into the centre of a dangerous and fast-moving geopolitical confrontation. As anti-government protests spread across Iranian cities, driven by economic hardship and long-standing political repression, Trump has cast the unrest as a historic chance for Iranian “freedom”. At the same time, he has openly signalled that the United States could intervene, raising fears that domestic protests could spiral into a wider regional conflict.
Trump’s language on Iran has been unusually direct and confrontational. He has repeatedly warned Iranian leaders not to use deadly force against protesters, claiming that the United States is “ready to help” and that the regime is in “big trouble”. In some of his strongest remarks, he suggested that he could authorise military strikes if the government continues to kill demonstrators. While insisting that he does not plan to send American troops on the ground, Trump has said the US could hit the regime “very, very hard” in ways that would cause serious pain.
Much of this messaging has been delivered through Trump’s posts on Truth Social, where he has addressed Iranian protesters directly, praising them and suggesting that they may be on the brink of freedom. These statements have raised the hopes that the president will step in decisively.
For latest news and analyses on Middle East, visit: Yello! Middle East
Behind the scenes, the Trump administration is weighing a wide range of options. According to officials and media reports, Trump has been briefed on possible military strikes, covert cyber operations, tougher economic sanctions and efforts to help Iranians bypass state-imposed internet shutdowns. One idea under consideration is providing online or satellite-based access to counter the regime’s blackout and allow protesters to organise and communicate with the outside world.
Trump is also expected to consult senior advisers on how far the United States should go. Some allies within the Republican Party have taken an aggressive stance. For instance, Senator Lindsey Graham has urged Trump to target Iran’s leadership directly. These discussions are taking place against the backdrop of the recent confrontation. In June, the United States bombed Iranian nuclear facilities after an unexpected Israeli strike, triggering Iranian missile retaliation and leaving hundreds dead.
Iran’s leadership has used Trump’s threats to undermine the protest movement. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has dismissed the demonstrations as acts of vandalism encouraged by foreign enemies, accusing protesters of trying to please Trump. President Masoud Pezeshkian has gone further, claiming that the United States and Israel are actively directing the unrest to destabilise the country.
Iranian officials have also issued stark warnings. Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, a former Revolutionary Guard commander, has said any US attack would be a serious miscalculation. He warned that American military bases, naval vessels and Israel itself would be considered legitimate targets if Iran is struck. These threats underline how quickly events could escalate beyond Iran’s borders.
Trump’s position is complicated by pressure from Iranian opposition figures abroad. Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran’s last shah, has called for immediate international action, arguing that the world must stop crimes against humanity. Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi has made similar appeals. Pahlavi has even told protesters that Trump is watching their bravery, reinforcing the belief that US support may be forthcoming.
Many critics, however, feel that an American attack could unite Iranians behind the regime. Senator Rand Paul has warned that it may strengthen the hardliners. Another worrying point for American planners is the fact that even if they manage to remove Khamenei from the equation, the vacuum is likely to be filled by IRGC commanders. Regional experts also point out the practical difficulties. Carrying out precise air strikes in a densely populated city like Tehran without killing large numbers of civilians would be extremely hard. Senior regime figures are also likely to have tightened their security after last year’s clashes.
Geopolitical realities indicate that the growing rhetoric might create an untenable situation for Trump. His promises to support or even “rescue” protesters have raised hopes that may be difficult to meet. If he fails to act, he risks being seen as encouraging a movement and then abandoning it. If he does act, the consequences could be severe, including attacks on US forces, a regional war and serious disruption to global oil markets, which have already begun to react to the unrest.