The unrest that swept across Iran during the winter of 2025–26 has once again placed the country at the centre of global attention. Yet to understand these developments merely as street protests or a law-and-order challenge would be a grave oversimplification. What Iran is experiencing is the convergence of long-simmering domestic distress with intensifying external pressure, producing a moment of acute vulnerability for a major Muslim nation.
For Muslims worldwide, the situation calls for reflection grounded in justice, restraint, and moral clarity – not ideological slogans, geopolitical opportunism, or civilizational arrogance.
Economic Distress: The Immediate Spark
The protests that erupted in late December 2025 were triggered by a rapidly deteriorating economic situation. Inflation had crossed unbearable levels, the national currency had sharply depreciated (12,048.19 = ₹1.00 on 30 January 2026), and basic necessities were increasingly beyond the reach of ordinary families. Long-standing sanctions, compounded by global isolation and regional conflict, had hollowed out purchasing power and eroded public confidence.
Historically, Iran’s bazaars and working classes have acted as social stabilisers rather than sources of rebellion. Their participation in strikes and demonstrations therefore reflected not ideological radicalism, but economic desperation. Initial demands centred on livelihoods, employment, and relief from price shocks.
That these protests later acquired political overtones should be read as a symptom of accumulated frustration rather than a rejection of faith or religious identity.
Order, Authority, and the Burden of Responsibility
Every state has the obligation to preserve public order and protect its territorial integrity. Iran is no exception. At the same time, reports from multiple sources point to the use of excessive force, mass arrests, extended communication blackouts, and civilian casualties. These developments have raised serious humanitarian concerns.
Islam accords the highest sanctity to human life and demands justice even in moments of turmoil. Any loss of innocent life, whether among protesters, security personnel, or bystanders, is a tragedy that cannot be dismissed as collateral damage. The moral weight of governance increases, not decreases, during crises.
Respect for the institution of the Supreme Leadership and the senior clergy remains essential within any ethical and Islamic framework of dissent. The position held by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei carries deep religious and symbolic significance for millions of Muslims in Iran and beyond, he is revered even among non-Shiites. While isolated instances of offensive slogans were reported during moments of heightened anger, such expressions neither represented the broader character of the protests nor warrant validation. Legitimate criticism of governance or policy must be articulated without crossing into disrespect for religious authority or the honour of Islam, a boundary that Islamic ethics clearly uphold.
Faith and Protest: Rejecting a False Divide
One of the most misleading narratives surrounding the unrest has been the portrayal of the protests as an uprising against Islam itself. This framing, repeated both by some external commentators and internal hardliners, obscures reality.
Many who protested identify as Muslims. Their grievances were directed at economic hardship, governance failures, and perceived injustice, not at Islam as a faith. Equating public dissent with hostility to religion does violence to both truth and Islamic ethics.
Equally problematic is the external narrative that presents reform as possible only through the abandonment of religious frameworks altogether. Muslim societies must be allowed to negotiate their futures organically, without being forced into binary choices between faith and freedom.
External Pressure and the Escalation of Tensions
While domestic economic and social pressures remain central to Iran’s unrest, the international environment, particularly the conduct of the United States, has significantly intensified the crisis. Washington’s approach reflects a long-standing pattern of strategic coercion marked by glaring nuclear double standards.
As of September 2023, the United States possessed a stockpile of 3,748 nuclear warheads, making it one of the world’s largest nuclear powers. Alongside other nuclear-armed allies, it retains and modernises these weapons openly in the name of deterrence and national security. Yet the same United States insists that countries outside its strategic orbit abandon not only military nuclear ambitions, but even peaceful civilian nuclear programmes related to electricity generation, medical use, energy security, or legitimate self-defence.
This contradiction lies at the heart of the current confrontation with Iran. President Donald Trump has repeatedly warned that “time is running out” for Tehran to accept a nuclear deal, while openly signalling the possibility of renewed military action. These threats have been reinforced by a visible military build-up, including the deployment of a US aircraft carrier strike group to the Gulf, projecting force directly at Iran’s doorstep.
From Tehran’s perspective, such actions amount to intimidation rather than diplomacy. Iranian officials have warned that US bases and naval assets in the region fall within missile range and would be targeted in the event of an attack. Tehran’s announcement of live-fire military drills near the Strait of Hormuz, a vital global energy corridor, has further highlighted how close the region stands to dangerous escalation.
Tensions were compounded by the decision of parts of the European Union to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a “terrorist organisation”, a move opposed by several European states themselves and widely perceived in Iran as part of a broader campaign of political isolation.
At a deeper level, the crisis exposes a persistent inequity in the global nuclear order: powerful states claim an unquestioned right to nuclear weapons in the name of self-defence, while denying even peaceful nuclear capability to others. Such asymmetry weakens the credibility of non-proliferation regimes and deepens resentment among nations that view nuclear technology as a legitimate element of sovereignty and development.
In this atmosphere, pressure replaces persuasion, threats displace dialogue, and the risk of miscalculation grows with ordinary people, rather than policymakers, bearing the gravest consequences.
Diplomacy Amid Danger: Regional Efforts to De-escalate
Amid increasingly sharp rhetoric, several international and regional actors have sought to prevent a slide into open conflict. UN Secretary-General António Guterres has called for renewed nuclear negotiations, warning that failure could lead to a crisis with devastating regional consequences.
Notably, neighbouring Muslim states have taken visible steps to prioritise de-escalation. Qatar has engaged in sustained diplomatic outreach, with Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani holding discussions with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on stabilising the region and reducing tensions.
Saudi Arabia has publicly stated that it will not permit its airspace or territory to be used for military action against Iran, a significant signal reflecting growing regional consensus that another war would be catastrophic.
These efforts reflect a hard-earned Gulf understanding: for states located in close proximity to Iran, diplomacy is not idealism but strategic necessity.
Israel, Deterrence, and the Risk of Regional War
Israel has added another layer of complexity to the situation. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned that any Iranian attack would be met with overwhelming force. Given Israel’s role in previous strikes on Iranian targets, such statements heighten the risk that internal unrest could be drawn into a wider military confrontation.
Analysts caution that this triangular dynamic – US pressure, Israeli military assertiveness, and Iranian defiance – risks turning Iran’s internal challenges into a regional crisis whose consequences would extend far beyond national borders.
Allegations of External Promotion of Unrest
Iranian authorities have repeatedly alleged that the unrest has been encouraged or amplified by foreign actors, particularly the United States and Israel. It is a fact that US officials publicly expressed support for protesters, imposed additional sanctions during the unrest, and explored ways to bypass Iranian communication controls. At the same time, independent observers note that the scale, spontaneity, and geographic spread of the unrest point primarily to internal drivers.
A balanced assessment therefore requires two simultaneous recognitions: genuine public grievances must not be dismissed as foreign conspiracies, yet foreign powers must not be allowed to exploit domestic suffering to advance regime-change agendas under humanitarian slogans.
The Humanitarian Toll
Beyond politics and strategy lies the human cost. Families searching for detained relatives, communities mourning the dead, hospitals under pressure, and an economy paralysed by shutdowns and sanctions present a bleak picture.
Universal and Islamic ethics, both demand the protection of civilians, medical workers, journalists, and places of worship. These are not negotiable political positions but moral imperatives rooted in faith and conscience.
Iran today faces a constricted set of choices. In earlier crises, unrest was followed by partial concessions – diplomatic openings, subsidies, or social adjustments. Today, sanctions are harsher, allies weaker, and the threat of external intervention more pronounced.
Yet political cohesion within the state has largely held, and there have been no confirmed defections from the armed forces. Any sustainable path forward will require internal reform combined with external restraint, not escalation.
Justice, Restraint, and the Responsibility of Power
Iran’s current crisis is not merely political or strategic; it is a moral test for the state, for society, and for the international order. Economic distress, public frustration, and external pressure have converged to create a moment where miscalculation could carry lasting consequences.
History shows that unrest born of hardship cannot be extinguished by force, just as reform imposed through external coercion rarely produces stability or dignity. Enduring peace emerges only when authority is exercised with justice, dissent is met with wisdom, and grievances are addressed through dialogue rather than repression.
For Iran, this demands reform that is internally rooted and ethically guided, drawing upon Islamic principles of justice, consultation, and human dignity. For external powers, restraint is not a concession but a responsibility. At the same time, all pro-justice nations, institutions, and conscientious peoples must come forward to support a nation in crisis – not through threats or domination, but through solidarity, diplomacy, and a principled commitment to peace.
Iran’s future will not be shaped by aircraft carriers or slogans, but by justice upheld through restraint, dialogue, and principled international solidarity.