American power can manifest in various ways. Remember Teddy Roosevelt’s well-known advice: “Speak quietly and carry a big stick”? Well, Donald Trump hasn’t quite embraced the “speak softly” part. His comments this Tuesday regarding unrest in Iran were, however, somewhat restrained—at least for him.
In a surprising message on Truth Social, Trump addressed “Iranian patriots,” urging them to “keep protesting and take over their organizations!!!” He also hinted at a more aggressive approach, stating, “Save the names of murderers and abusers. They will pay a heavy price.” He mentioned that he had canceled all meetings with Iranian regime leaders “until the genocide stops,” finishing with an optimistic note: “help is on the way.”
But when will this “Big Stick” truly come into play? The vagueness is strategic; it allows Trump to increase pressure while also keeping options open for negotiation or possibly deploying military action if needed.
This post can also be seen as a warning. Reports suggest that the mullahs have altered their tactics in a manner that has led to very bloody outcomes. Government forces are believed to have killed around 3,000 civilians, with “shoot to kill” orders recently issued, resulting in more deaths. Eyewitness accounts indicate that the military has instructions to execute unarmed protesters and shoot indiscriminately, even targeting civilians who are not protesting.
Turning the Tone Around
Amidst the escalating violence, Trump seems to have shifted his rhetoric, hinting at possible military action on Tuesday. His tone has become notably more hawkish compared to just a day prior, when he primarily focused on economic measures, like threatening a 25% tariff on countries trading with Iran.
In practicality, that economic strategy functions like an embargo, and it’s likely to amplify the discontent among demonstrators. The unrest seen in late December stemmed from significant economic issues, like the plummeting of Iran’s currency.
Since those earlier protests, demonstrations have erupted in 187 cities across all 31 provinces of Iran, according to reports. Meanwhile, the currency’s exchange rate plunged to a staggering 1.45 million rials per US dollar on Monday, and inflation stood at 42.5% in December.
While the White House has hinted at military options, rather than backing down, Iranian leaders have intensified their actions, even cutting off internet access to minimize global awareness of the protests.
The Wall Street Journal noted that attempts to use Elon Musk’s Starlink service were blocked by the Iranian government to hinder the sharing of protest videos and to downplay the violent crackdown.
Even so, resorting to the military for regime change would be an enormous risk. The current context is quite different from last June, when Trump deployed American military assets against Iran. Back then, the actions were aimed at specific nuclear sites, a warning shot for negotiations, rather than outright regime change.
Throughout this time, Trump attempted to build a coalition—appointing trusted envoys. Yet, despite his hopeful overtures, Khamenei rejected the advances and continued to issue threats toward Israel and the US.
This led to stringent sanctions on oil and banking, contributing to Iran’s stalled economy. Reports indicate that basic services like electricity and clean water are in short supply, intensifying the public’s frustration.
Additionally, taking down Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro has diminished Iran’s influence in South America, which was another source of income through oil and arms trade.
It’s worth noting that the Iranian regime has survived turmoil before, so it’s hard to predict if the current unrest will actually lead to its downfall.
One noticeable factor this time is the nationwide spread of protests, leading some analysts to believe that the current uprising represents a genuine challenge to clerical authority, particularly concerning strict public conduct and dress codes for women and girls.
However, that doesn’t strongly justify direct US engagement in regime change, which could prove to be extremely complicated. Past experiences, particularly in Iraq, have left many, including Trump, wary. He has referred to that conflict as a costly mistake.
As circumstances evolve, Trump is advised to tread carefully. Some experts, like Cato Institute researcher John Hoffman, warn that attacking Iran could plunge the US into turmoil with unclear outcomes and jeopardize American forces in the region.
Domestic Concerns
Hoffman argues that a hardline US policy towards Iran tends to bolster hardliners within Iran’s own ranks, shifting focus away from legitimate grievances of the Iranian populace and toward perceived external adversaries, such as the US and Israel.
He advocates for a more pragmatic, hands-off approach moving forward.
Moreover, with midterm elections looming, Trump faces scrutiny over various domestic issues, including his controversial policies on immigration and the economy. Recent polls indicate a majority of respondents disapprove of his handling of economic matters.
Amid these domestic pressures and with the situation in Venezuela still unresolved, a military response in Iran could also prove unpopular at home.
This doesn’t mean the US should ignore the regime’s oppressive actions, but Trump must remain aware of the priorities that resonate with the American public.
