Title:
Geopolitical Narratives and Domestic Unrest: Iran’s Presidential Accusations Against the West and Israel in the 2026 Protests
Abstract
In early January 2026, Iran erupted into mass nationwide protests triggered by a deepening economic crisis marked by hyperinflation, currency devaluation, and a collapse in living standards. As the demonstrations escalated and were met with a severe state crackdown, President Masoud Pezeshkian accused U.S. President Donald Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and European leaders of exploiting Iran’s internal vulnerabilities to incite civil unrest and destabilize the Islamic Republic. This paper provides a critical analysis of these geopolitical accusations, situating them within broader patterns of authoritarian crisis management, information warfare, and regional power dynamics. Drawing on official statements, human rights reports, and geopolitical context, the study examines the validity and strategic function of Pezeshkian’s externalization of blame. It argues that while socio-economic grievances were undeniably the root cause of the protests, Iran’s leadership instrumentalized anti-Western and anti-Israeli rhetoric to delegitimize dissent and consolidate power. Furthermore, the paper assesses the implications of these narratives for Iran’s domestic politics, international relations, and the risk of military escalation with the United States and Israel.
Keywords: Iran, protests, economic crisis, U.S.-Iran relations, Israel-Iran conflict, geopolitical narratives, regime legitimacy, Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu, Masoud Pezeshkian
- Introduction
On January 8, 2026, Tehran witnessed widespread civil unrest as demonstrators set vehicles ablaze in protest against the rapid devaluation of the Iranian rial and soaring inflation. What began as localized economic grievances in late December 2025 quickly evolved into a nationwide movement challenging the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic’s governance. In response, Iranian authorities launched a violent crackdown, resulting in thousands of deaths and arrests. Amid this turmoil, President Masoud Pezeshkian, a reformist-leaning figure elected in 2025 amid hopes for moderation, delivered a televised address on January 31 accusing foreign powers—specifically the United States, Israel, and European nations—of orchestrating and fueling the unrest.
Pezeshkian asserted that “Trump, Netanyahu, and European leaders rode on our problems, provoked, and were seeking — and still seek — to fragment society,” echoing long-standing narratives employed by the Iranian regime to externalize domestic discontent. This paper critically engages with Pezeshkian’s claims, analyzing their historical antecedents, political utility, and evidentiary basis. It further examines whether external actors indeed played a role in the protests, the response of the international community, and the broader implications for Iran’s geopolitical posture and internal stability.
- Background: The 2026 Iranian Economic Crisis and the Outbreak of Protests
2.1. Economic Collapse and Social Discontent
By late 2025, Iran was experiencing one of the worst economic downturns in its post-revolutionary history. According to the World Bank, annual inflation exceeded 75%, the rial lost over 60% of its value against the U.S. dollar, and unemployment among youth hovered near 30%. The crisis was exacerbated by a combination of U.S. sanctions reimposed after the collapse of the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) under President Trump’s re-election in 2024, mismanagement by state-linked financial institutions, and widespread corruption within the bonyads (parastatal foundations).
The immediate trigger for the protests was a sudden 40% drop in the rial’s value on the unofficial exchange market in mid-December 2025. This rendered basic goods unaffordable for large segments of the population. Protests began in smaller cities such as Mashhad and Esfahan before spreading to Tehran, Shiraz, and Ahvaz by early January.
2.2. Escalation and State Response
Within days, demands broadened from economic relief to calls for political reform and even regime change. Social media platforms—despite heavy censorship—documented slogans directed at Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guards. The state responded with an overwhelming security operation. According to HRANA (Human Rights Activists in Iran), a U.S.-based rights organization, at least 6,563 individuals were killed by January 30, including 6,170 protesters and 214 security personnel. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, speaking to CNN Turk, acknowledged 3,100 deaths, including 2,000 security forces, offering a significantly lower civilian toll.
The crackdown involved the use of live ammunition, mass arrests, internet blackouts, and the targeting of protest leaders. International condemnation followed, with the United Nations Human Rights Council calling for an independent investigation.
- Pezeshkian’s Accusations: A Narrative of Foreign Interference
3.1. Official Rhetoric and Strategic Framing
In a live broadcast on state television on January 31, 2026, President Pezeshkian stated:
“The U.S., Israeli and European leaders tried to ‘provoke, create division, and supplied resources, drawing some innocent people into this movement.’ […] Everyone knows that the issue was not just a social protest.”
He accused Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu of seeking to “tear this country apart” and “sow conflict and hatred among the people.” These claims fit a well-established pattern in Iranian political discourse, where any significant internal challenge is attributed to an “enemy conspiracy” (ma’mar-e mostakbaran), a narrative rooted in the revolutionary ideology of resistance against Western imperialism.
3.2. Historical Precedents
This strategy of externalization is not new. During the 2009 Green Movement, the regime dismissed protests as a U.S.-backed color revolution. Similarly, in the 2019 fuel price protests and the 2022–2023 women-led uprising following the death of Mahsa Amini, Iranian officials blamed foreign intelligence agencies and media outlets for incitement. The regime consistently deploys this rhetoric to delegitimize dissent, unify conservative factions, and justify repression as national defense.
3.3. Evidence of Foreign Involvement
Despite the forcefulness of Pezeshkian’s statements, direct evidence of foreign orchestration remains limited:
U.S. Position: President Trump publicly expressed support for Iranian protesters, stating, “The world is watching, and the U.S. will not stand by while Iran kills its own people.” He confirmed that military options were under review. However, no evidence has emerged that the U.S. provided material support to protest groups.
Israel’s Role: Israeli media, including Ynet, reported on the docking of a U.S. Navy destroyer in Eilat, fueling speculation about military coordination. While Israel has long pursued a covert campaign against Iran—including cyberattacks like Stuxnet and assassinations of nuclear scientists—there is no substantiated evidence linking Israel to the organization or funding of the 2026 protests.
European Stance: European Union leaders, including German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and French President Élisabeth Borne, expressed concern over human rights violations but emphasized non-intervention. The EU maintained its diplomatic presence in Tehran and called for dialogue.
Thus, while symbolic support and rhetorical encouragement were evident, Pezeshkian’s claims of direct foreign incitement and logistical resourcing appear exaggerated or propagandistic.
- Geopolitical Context: U.S.-Iran Tensions and the Risk of Escalation
4.1. U.S. Military Posturing
The Trump administration’s consideration of military action marked a significant escalation. While no strikes were launched by January 31, the redeployment of naval assets to the Persian Gulf and the movement of bombers to Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar signaled serious intent. U.S. officials conditioned any future negotiations on Iran curbing its ballistic missile program and ending support for proxy groups in Yemen, Lebanon, and Syria—demands Iran has consistently rejected.
4.2. Iranian Diplomacy and Defiance
Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, during a visit to Turkey on January 28, declared, “Missiles will never be the subject of any negotiations,” underscoring Iran’s strategic red lines. He also stated Tehran was “ready for either negotiations or warfare,” reflecting a dual-track strategy of resistance and diplomacy. Araqchi dismissed regime change as “a complete fantasy,” emphasizing the resilience of Iran’s political system.
4.3. Regional Mediation Efforts
Fearing a broader conflict, regional actors including Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE initiated backchannel diplomacy. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan hosted emergency talks in Istanbul, aiming to facilitate communication between Washington and Tehran. These efforts highlight the destabilizing potential of U.S.-Iran confrontation for the entire West Asian region.
- Analysis: Utility and Implications of the “Foreign Conspiracy” Narrative
5.1. Domestic Legitimation and Regime Cohesion
Pezeshkian’s rhetoric, though at odds with his reformist image, served a clear domestic purpose: to reframe the protests not as a failure of governance but as an existential threat from abroad. By doing so, the regime could:
Justify the violent crackdown as patriotic defense.
Unify conservative factions (including the IRGC and judiciary) behind a common narrative.
Suppress moderates who might advocate for concessions.
This strategy has historically been effective in mobilizing nationalist sentiment, particularly among rural and religious populations.
5.2. Erosion of Reformist Credibility
Pezeshkian’s alignment with hardline narratives risks undermining his reformist credentials. Elected on a platform of economic openness and dialogue, his failure to address root causes—or hold security forces accountable—suggests limited autonomy. Power in Iran remains concentrated with the Supreme Leader, and the presidency often serves as a symbolic vessel for regime messaging rather than a driver of change.
5.3. International Isolation and Propaganda Warfare
The repeated invocation of foreign interference reinforces Iran’s siege mentality, contributing to diplomatic isolation. However, it also strengthens the regime’s control over information. State media dominate the narrative, while independent reporting is suppressed. The regime’s narrative—that Iran is a victim of Western aggression—resonates with certain Global South audiences and aligns with anti-imperialist discourses in countries like Russia, China, and Venezuela.
- Human Rights and the Cost of Repression
The 2026 crackdown represents one of the deadliest episodes of state violence in Iran’s modern history. HRANA’s documentation of over 6,500 deaths—though difficult to independently verify—suggests a level of brutality comparable to the 1988 prison massacres and the 2019 protests. The targeting of medical personnel, lawyers, and students indicates a systematic effort to eliminate opposition.
International human rights bodies, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have called for sanctions and ICC investigations. However, geopolitical divisions—particularly Russian and Chinese vetoes in the UN Security Council—have hindered accountability.
- Conclusion
President Masoud Pezeshkian’s accusation that Trump, Netanyahu, and European leaders incited Iran’s 2026 protests reflects a well-worn strategy of attributing domestic unrest to foreign conspiracies. While the U.S. and Israel have long pursued policies aimed at pressuring the Iranian regime, there is no credible evidence that they orchestrated or materially supported the protests. The primary drivers were genuine socio-economic grievances exacerbated by systemic mismanagement and repression.
Nevertheless, the externalization of blame played a crucial role in legitimizing state violence, consolidating regime unity, and deflecting accountability. As Iran faces ongoing economic stagnation and generational discontent, reliance on conspiracy narratives may provide short-term stability but risks long-term legitimacy erosion.
The international community stands at a crossroads: while moral support for Iranian civil society is essential, military intervention or regime change rhetoric only strengthens the regime’s narrative of victimhood. Sustainable change in Iran is more likely to emerge from internal transformation than from external coercion.
References
HRANA (Human Rights Activists in Iran). (2026). Report on the 2026 Iranian Protests. Retrieved from https://www.hrairaan.org
Reuters. (2026, January 31). Iran president says Trump, Netanyahu, Europe stirred tensions in protests.
CNN Turk. (2026, January 28). Interview with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi.
World Bank. (2026). Iran Economic Outlook – January 2026. Washington, D.C.
International Crisis Group. (2026). Iran’s Economic Collapse and the Risk of State Failure. Middle East Report No. 278.
Amnesty International. (2026). “They Are Killing Us”: State Violence and Impunity in Iran. London: AI Publications.
United Nations Human Rights Council. (2026). Oral Update on the Situation of Human Rights in Iran. A/HRC/58/CRP.3.
Parsi, T. (2025). Losing an Enemy: Obama, Iran, and the Triumph of Diplomacy. Yale University Press.
Abrahamian, E. (2018). The Coup: 1953, the CIA, and the Roots of Modern U.S.-Iranian Relations. The New Press.