Since late December of 2025, internal unrest in Iran has reached new heights, with civilians throughout the country demanding political change through some of the largest anti-government protests in decades. What began with protests in the bazaars of Tehran over rampant inflation and the collapse of the Iranian Rial has since intensified, rapidly spreading across all 31 provinces. In its scale, the nationwide demonstrations are the biggest since 2022, when the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini in the detainment of Iran’s Guidance Patrol triggered widespread “Woman, Life, Freedom” protests.
The Iranian government’s response has been brutal. According to the Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA), security forces have murdered over 6,500 Iranians with rifles and shotguns loaded with metal pellets during a crackdown on protests. These deaths primarily occurred over the two nights of the massacre on January 8 and 9. However, reports are varied, and some claim the death toll is much more significant, as high as 36,500 people. In addition, Iranian authorities, since January 8, have cut all internet access to conceal their heinous crimes against humanity.
Amid this unfolding crisis, U.S. President Donald Trump issued public warnings to Iran’s regime, hinting that the United States military might intervene if violence against civilians continues. Trump took to Truth Social to empower Iranian protesters, writing, “TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS,” and informing them that “HELP IS ON THE WAY,” while cancelling planned talks with Iranian officials until the killing stopped.
Meanwhile, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said, “If anyone shows greed and wants to attack or harass, the Iranian nation will deal a heavy blow to them.” When asked about the warning, Trump told reporters, “If we don’t make a deal, then we’ll find out whether or not he was right.”
This raises an important question: should the U.S. utilize its military to intervene in the violence in Iran?
While the suffering of Iranian civilians is deeply disturbing and worthy of global condemnation, intervention from the U.S. military would do more harm than good. History shows that U.S. military involvement in foreign countries rarely leads to stable outcomes. In the Middle East — from Iraq to Afghanistan — foreign intervention has, in many cases, led to more instability and wars without clear benefits. Also, U.S. involvement in Venezuela, particularly the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, has sparked geopolitical tensions as it conflicts with the intentions of other nations, exposing the danger of military action in geopolitics.
Military strikes risk escalation with a major regional power. Iran has the largest military in the Middle East, which could deal catastrophic retaliation against the U.S. forces, allies or civilians across the region. Iran also has strategic global partnerships in place with two other major powers: Russia and China. By intervening, the U.S. unnecessarily puts soldiers’ lives at risk and invites retaliation not only from Iranian forces but also from its allies.
While the instinct to do something in the face of brutal oppression is understandable, military intervention by the U.S. would not be in the nation’s best interest. History warns against it, and the geopolitical risks attached to it are too high. If the U.S. aims to free countries from oppression abroad, it must do so through diplomacy and strategic partnerships, rather than force. Another war is a risk the world cannot afford.
