Even as the Iranian supreme leader Khamenei claimed that the Protesters are “ruining their own streets … in order to please the president of the United States,” the opinion remained divided on the nature and support of the protests. We at Saviours bring you an article that looks at the issue in its entirety.
The Iran Unrest— Escalation in the last 24 hours
Breaking (Last 24 Hours): Iran’s 12-day uprising has escalated dramatically. On 8 January 2026, after exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi called for coordinated nationwide demonstrations at 8 pm local time, tens of thousands poured into the streets across Tehran, Isfahan and dozens of cities, chanting “Death to the dictator!” and “This is the last battle! Pahlavi will return!” The regime responded by imposing widespread internet and telephone blackouts, deploying drones to identify protesters, and intensifying violence. Iran’s Civil Aviation Organisation shut down Tehran’s main airport (OIIX) and issued Notices to Air Missions (NOTAMs) suspending flight operations, while activating air defence systems across multiple airbases, including Hamedan’s Nojeh, Tabriz, Rasht, Bandar Anzali, Babolsar and Gorgan. The UK advised airlines to avoid Tehran’s Flight Information Region, citing “anti-aircraft guns and heightened military activity,” while Germany instructed carriers to avoid Iranian airspace entirely.
The death toll has risen to at least 42—34 protesters and eight security personnel, with over 2,200 detained and hundreds wounded, many by shotgun pellet spray. A fire broke out at a state broadcasting office in Isfahan on 9 January. In western Iran, the city of Abdanan was temporarily “liberated” by protesters who occupied a police station. The uprising, which began on 28 December 2025 as an economic protest, has transformed into what opposition groups now call a “political revolution” demanding the overthrow of the theocracy. Meanwhile, the Trump Administration continues to tighten sanctions on Iran’s oil network while simultaneously seizing control over Venezuelan oil assets, marketing them “for the benefit of the United States” and taking possession of an estimated 30–50 million barrels held in storage.
After Venezuela, Focus on Iran?
The question is hardly idle speculation. As thousands of Iranians protested economic collapse, internet blackouts and state violence across all 31 provinces, the Trump Administration issued pointed warnings to Tehran. Vice President JD Vance declared America “locked and loaded” to intervene if Iranian security forces killed protesters. Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed the threat. President Trump himself tweeted that consequences would follow any escalation in the crackdown. Simultaneously, the administration has tightened already crushing sanctions on Iran’s shadow fleet of oil tankers, intensifying what it calls “maximum pressure” on Tehran’s energy sector.
Set against the backdrop of Washington’s actions in Caracas—where American forces seized $2 billion worth of oil tankers, assumed control over Venezuela’s state-owned oil company PDVSA’s global sales, and promised to manage the Orinoco Belt’s resources “indefinitely” in service of “American national interests,” with US Energy Secretary Chris Wright now marketing Venezuelan crude “in the global marketplace” and meeting US oil executives to coordinate involvement—the optics matter. Whether or not direct US orchestration can be proven, the pattern suggests a strategic calculation: that economic suffocation, sanctions leverage, military threats and tacit support for internal dissent can collectively destabilise regimes that Washington views as adversaries.
What the Evidence Actually Shows
Crucially, no credible evidence has emerged of direct operational control by the United States. Exiled opposition figures like Reza Pahlavi have amplified and encouraged the protests—his 8 January call for coordinated demonstrations drew massive crowds—but they have not created them. The scale, breadth, and geographical spread—drawing students, workers, bazaar merchants, pensioners, and women’s groups into the streets—indicate a wave of popular mobilisation that foreign governments may have encouraged but did not engineer. If the US were orchestrating the protests, the level of coordination, the specific timing, and the depth of sacrifice visible on Iranian streets would require a degree of covert operational footprint that, to date, has not been exposed by intelligence leaks, investigative reporting or whistleblowers.
That said, Washington’s public rhetoric and policy stance have certainly not discouraged dissent. The threat warnings, the sanctions escalations, the implicit suggestion that regime change is within the realm of possibility—all of these create a permissive environment for opposition forces inside and outside Iran to take risks. Whether that constitutes indirect instigation or merely capitalising on an existing opportunity remains contested. What is undeniable is that the Trump Administration sees the current Iranian unrest as a potential opening and is positioning itself to exploit it, much as it did in Venezuela.
Media’s Role: Al Jazeera’s Sustained Chronicling
Al Jazeera’s multi-perspectival approach—giving voice to protesters, officials, and analysts who see US–Israeli pressure as a contributing factor—has more influentially shaped perceptions in the Global South, including among educated Indian audiences and diaspora communities, than Western state broadcasters. This reporting, while constrained, provides a valuable counterweight to purely US-aligned narratives.
India’s Position: The Balancing Act
Pragmatically, India has adapted to US sanctions: official crude imports from Iran have fallen to near zero since 2019, with refiners shifting to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Russia. Yet private Indian firms continue to engage in low-level petrochemical and bitumen trade with Iran through opaque networks, incurring US sanctions risk in the process. The Ministry of External Affairs issued a travel advisory in early January 2026, urging Indians—approximately 10,000 of whom reside in Iran as students, Shia pilgrims and infrastructure workers—to avoid non-essential travel and stay clear of protest sites.
India’s diplomatic response reflects its long-standing strategic autonomy: expressing general concern over violence without interfering in Iran’s internal affairs, complying formally with US oil sanctions while tolerating private-sector grey trade, and doubling down on the Chabahar Port project. Signed in May 2024, this 10-year agreement gives India Ports Global Ltd operational control of a terminal backed by $120 million in equipment investment and $250 million in Indian credit—a tangible bet on long-term connectivity to Afghanistan and Central Asia that both New Delhi and Tehran insist will endure “beyond external pressure.”
China: The Sanctions-Busting Indispensable
Conclusion: Pattern, Not Proof
The answer appears to be yes. What remains ambiguous is whether that constitutes indirect instigation in any meaningful sense, or merely opportunistic statecraft. For India, navigating this volatility requires maintaining ties with both a faltering Iran and a resurgent America, while investing in projects like Chabahar that serve long-term interests across changing cycles. For China, the calculus is simpler: consolidate economic leverage over a desperate Tehran and accept the strategic risks that come with deepening ties to a US-targeted state. For the Iranians in the streets—42 dead, over 2,200 detained, cities under internet blackout—the distinction between “domestic” and “foreign” may matter less than their immediate need for dignity, economic survival and an end to the security apparatus’s violence.
