The threshold that President Donald Trump set for intervening to prevent mass civilian deaths in Iran has been crossed many times over. Since January 8, 2026, Islamic security forces have reportedly shot and killed hundreds of protesters. Millions of Iranians have continued to take extraordinary risks by remaining in the streets, facing live ammunition, cold, and rain. The question is how long they can endure without outside intervention.
Action taken only after the authorities succeed in crushing the protests will be of little value, either to Iranians or to the United States.
Beyond issuing warnings to Tehran, Trump and other U.S. officials have offered little detail about their intentions. Action taken only after the authorities succeed in crushing the protests will be of little value, either to Iranians or to the United States. Should the regime reassert control, limited strikes against a handful of targets would change little on the ground. As in the past, the Islamic Republic would respond with sweeping retaliation against its own population. Tens of thousands could be arrested and tortured, hundreds could face execution, and Washington would have scant ability to shield them.
Iranians plead on social media for action now, not next week, which they warn may be too late. Many say the situation has reached a point of no return: Either the Islamic Republic falls, or the country descends into an unprecedented nightmare. For the regime to fall, protesters must be able to remain in the streets and deny the state the ability to govern. That is possible only if the United States or Israel targets the forces carrying out repression—both in the streets and at their bases—when they open fire indiscriminately on civilians. Senior decision-makers must see tangible consequences if they continue to order massacres.
The role of the crowd is not to construct a new political order overnight, but to exploit and deepen the collapse of state authority so it cannot be reversed by insiders or the military. If large numbers of protesters are killed and the rest retreat to their homes, the Islamic Republic will survive once again and turn to revenge—both against its people and against its regional adversaries. Punitive U.S. strikes at that stage would be symbolic and may not even justify the cost. Many Iranians would feel abandoned after hearing Trump’s warnings and could disengage from protest for years, allowing Tehran to resume destabilizing activities across the Middle East.
British historian Timothy Garton Ash, reflecting on the Eastern European revolutions, wrote: “The people won because they stayed. They did not go home after the first victory.” That lesson captures what Iranians need most: the chance to remain standing against dictatorship. Communist governments in Eastern Europe did not resort to mass killing to preserve power. Iran’s rulers, by contrast, have shown they are prepared to kill on a large scale to survive.
Media outlets operating abroad have verified hundreds of civilian deaths from gunfire in just a few locations.
One eyewitness related how security forces shot and killed the teenage son of his neighbor. When the parents sought to retrieve the body, police demanded $20,000. This is the reality Iranians face. Media outlets operating abroad have verified hundreds of civilian deaths from gunfire in just a few locations, though the full scale of casualties remains difficult to establish.
Given the level of violence deployed by the authorities, protests may be suppressed in the coming days, even though Iranians turned out in overwhelming numbers on January 9 and 10, 2026, following calls by exiled Prince Reza Pahlavi for expanded demonstrations.
What has delayed action by the United States or Israel remains unclear. Is there a divergence between Washington and Jerusalem? Is the Trump administration restraining Israel, which had earlier signaled support for protesters? Or is there internal division in Washington following the intervention in Venezuela? No one has suggested deploying American ground forces, nor have Iranians called for them. Selective air action, however, could alter the balance significantly by intimidating security forces and limiting their ability to fire on civilians with impunity.
