Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, while giving an interview to US media, said that the number of protesters in Iran had been exaggerated and that the purpose of the misinformation campaign was to create a pretext for an attack on Iran, while prior to the foreign minister’s remarks, Fox News aired a clip of Reza Pahlavi, the son of Iran’s last shah, in which he claimed that more than 12,000 people had been killed; according to multiple reports, the number of protesters killed in Iran is more than 2,600, including around 150 security personnel, and some security personnel were burned alive, from which the severity of the ongoing protests in Iran and the serious possibility of foreign involvement in them can be assessed.
However, British media claimed yesterday that an attack on Iran could take place within the next 24 hours, that is, at any time today, 15 January 2026, and earlier the European Commission said that new sanctions would be imposed on the Tehran government due to the Iranian government’s ongoing bloody crackdown against protesters, because as a result of the large-scale crackdown on ongoing anti-state protests in Iran, there has been a dramatic increase in deaths.
The ongoing protests in Iran and America’s threats of attack cannot be viewed in isolation from one another, while President Donald Trump’s threats are not merely rhetorical political statements but are the outcome of years of sanctions imposed on Iran, which have led to severe public hardship, along with the covert operations of Mossad and the CIA that have deeply penetrated society, through which domestic issues were amplified and social unrest was fomented among the public. The recent protests apparently began due to economic grievances, such as inflation and unemployment, but they are also a byproduct of interference by external powers. And the explicit threats of American President Donald Trump and the Israeli Prime Minister reinforce the protests. President Trump clearly stated that if Iran uses force against protesters, the United States is prepared to launch an attack. In this situation, while exercising extreme caution, the Supreme Leader for the first time ordered that force not be used against economic protesters, whereas this movement is fundamentally different from the riots that occurred in 2019 over the increase in gasoline prices.
History bears witness that in multiple periods, whenever the American economy faced serious decline, the United States initiated some form of war or conflict in order to reverse its economic downturn and improve its financial standing. For example, the war against Spain in 1898, which contributed to the recovery of the American economy, and the 1990 Gulf War can be cited, through which the global oil market came under American dominance. The Second World War lifted the American economy out of the Great Depression, and military production stimulated employment and economic expansion. In the present era as well, the American economy is confronting significant challenges, and the Trump administration has expressed the intention to increase the military budget from 901 billion dollars in 2026 to 1.5 trillion dollars in 2027, in order to preserve the supremacy of its military power and to contain the expanding influence of China and Russia. This increase in the budget will be financed through revenue generated from trade tariffs, and its objective is to sustain the global commercial dominance of the US dollar. America is the world’s most powerful military state, and this budget represents an assertive move in comparison to the defense capabilities of China and Russia, because according to reports, within the next 4 to 8 years China and Russia may approach economic parity with the United States.
China is the world’s largest manufacturing and trading nation, having led manufacturing since 2010 and global trade since 2013, and is utilizing the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) to consolidate its influence in its region. On the other hand, Russia has occupied nearly 20 percent of Ukraine’s territory, and may acquire even more, and China, if it chooses, can incorporate Taiwan through a calculated and strategic approach. American dominance was clearly evident in the Ukraine crisis, and the United States seeks to maintain its hegemony in matters such as Iran and Venezuela.
In the present era, Iran is the only country that has continued to resist despite sustained pressure from the United States and Israel and remains fully mobilized for resistance. Iran possesses missiles with a range of 2,000 kilometers that can carry a 1,500-kilogram warhead. And Iran’s missile production facilities are operating around the clock, with an estimated production capacity of approximately 50 missiles per month. This capability of Iran not only preserves the balance of power in the region but also poses serious strategic threats to countries like the United States and Israel. Trump’s confrontational posture in American policy is evident, which is based on strikes without deploying ground forces, such as attempts at regime change, while the alliance between the United States and Israel remains strong, but Iran has sought to counter such attacks through the effective demonstration of its defensive capabilities.
In the current global landscape, relations among Iran, the United States, Israel, China, and Russia are highly complex. In light of American assertiveness, growing Chinese and Russian influence, and Iranian resistance, maintaining political and economic equilibrium in the region has become increasingly difficult.
The example of Greenland clearly illustrates that the United States does not hesitate to take any step in pursuit of its national security interests. Pakistan will need to play a stable, prudent, and strategically calculated role to ensure the protection of national interests amid the region’s volatile and seismic conditions. This situation is not only producing regional repercussions but also global consequences, and it must be managed with care. Iran’s protests and American threats represent only one dimension of this complex geopolitical reality, which reflects both external intervention and internal challenges.
