Trump vows help for Iran protesters, but options are limited

By Gwynne Dyer

Any day now, the United States may “come to the rescue” of protesters in Iran and unleash “hell” on the theocratic regime — or it may not.

Nearly three weeks after demonstrations began on Dec. 29, U.S. President Donald Trump’s threats are wearing thin. His latest message to protesters repeated that “Help is on the way,” even as signs suggest momentum on the streets may be fading. But there is no clear way for Washington to deliver meaningful support, and air strikes alone are unlikely to change the outcome.

U.S. military action could not eliminate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and Basij militia forces — accused of killing protesters — without also devastating Iranian cities where civilians and security forces live side by side. Precision strikes could target political leaders, but replacements would quickly emerge.

Iran has demonstrated continuity in leadership before. President Ebrahim Raisolsadati was replaced smoothly by Masoud Pezeshkian after Raisolsadati was killed in a helicopter crash in 2024. There are also designated successors to the 86-year-old Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The system is built to withstand individual losses at the top.

A full-scale invasion could topple the regime, but Trump is unlikely to pursue “boots on the ground,” particularly given the prospect of major U.S. casualties. That leaves limited military options, and the longer Washington hesitates, the more likely it becomes that rhetoric will outpace results.

Trump has often spoken first and reflected later. His delay may indicate he now recognizes the difficulty. Limited strikes remain possible, but they may do little to change events inside Iran.

Non-violent uprisings that once succeeded — including the 1979 revolution that toppled the shah — are no longer a reliable path to regime change. Modern authoritarian governments have adapted. If they can dominate the streets, seize control of mass media and restrict the internet, they may be able to smother protests over time.

Iran’s 1979 revolution was an early example of mass non-violent revolt, amplified by the Shia tradition of martyrdom. Protesters returned to the streets day after day, and the revolution ultimately succeeded when the army refused to keep shooting. Iran’s constitution cites “60,000 martyrs,” but later research suggests the death toll was between 2,000 and 3,000.

In the current unrest — reportedly triggered by a collapse of Iran’s currency last month — the initial violence was slower to escalate. It has intensified in recent days. Estimates of the death toll now range from 2,000 to 2,400, raising questions about why security forces have not shown the same signs of demoralization seen in 1979, and what that may mean for the protest movement.

More broadly, the crisis underscores how non-violent revolution has become less predictable than many believed decades ago. As protest tactics evolve, so do the methods used to stop them.

In Iran, the outcome remains uncertain despite the persistence of demonstrators. Some protesters have reportedly begun using violence as well, with officials and soldiers accounting for about 10 per cent of reported deaths.

Trump may not be closely versed in Iran or in the history of revolutions, but his political instincts likely tell him that intervention carries major risks. Quick, limited action in a smaller country can produce results; attacking a large Middle Eastern state in support of an uprising that may fail is a different proposition.

Even successful intervention may have unintended consequences. A new government could prove no better — and potentially worse — than the current regime. After more than four decades without meaningful political choice, it is unclear what would emerge if Iran’s political order collapsed.

Western-imposed regime change in the Middle East has repeatedly ended in disaster, including in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Trump has raised expectations with his rhetoric and may feel compelled to do something in response to the killing of protesters. But the safest course, the argument goes, is to do as little as possible.