the edit, vol. 16

the iran reckoning: why this time feels different and what it means for you

we've been here before. protests in iran. crackdowns. international condemnation. threats of intervention. the cycle feels familiar, almost scripted. but this time something's different.

since late december, nationwide protests sparked by economic collapse have evolved into what some observers describe as the largest uprising since the 1979 islamic revolution. estimates of protester deaths range from 2,000 to as many as 30,000, though precise numbers remain impossible to verify amid a near-total internet blackout. the streets of tehran that were filled with burning barricades and chants of "death to the dictator" have quieted, but not because the anger has dissipated -- because thousands are dead and tens of thousands arrested.

if you're an american watching this unfold on your phone between meetings or scrolling past headlines about iran between posts about everything else, you might be wondering: why should i care about protests halfway around the world? what does this have to do with my life?

the answer is more complicated -- and more connected to your daily experience -- than the headlines suggest. and it starts with understanding how we got here.

the story america doesn't want to tell itself

here's what most americans don't know, or have conveniently forgotten: the united states created the conditions that produced the islamic republic of iran.

in 1953, iran had a democratically elected prime minister named mohammad mossadegh. he wasn't perfect, but he was legitimately elected and represented his people's interests. his crime, in the eyes of britain and the united states, was nationalizing iran's oil industry -- taking back control of resources that the anglo-iranian oil company (later bp) had been extracting under terms iranians considered exploitative.

the cia, in collaboration with british intelligence, orchestrated a coup -- operation ajax -- to overthrow mossadegh and consolidate power under shah mohammad reza pahlavi. the operation used hired mobs to create chaos, spread disinformation, and ultimately succeeded in removing a democratic government and installing an autocratic monarch. this was the first time the cia orchestrated the overthrow of a democratically elected government. its success encouraged similar operations, including guatemala the following year.

the shah's rule became increasingly brutal and corrupt. to counter rising dissent, he gave his security forces -- trained and backed by the united states -- carte blanche to suppress opposition. the secret police, savak, became one of the world's most feared internal security organizations. western companies made billions while ordinary iranians saw their oil wealth flow abroad. resentment built for decades.

then came jimmy carter.

the decision that shaped everything

when carter became president in 1977, he inherited a strategic ally in the shah but was also committed to human rights as a centerpiece of his foreign policy. as protests against the shah grew in 1978, carter's administration sent mixed signals -- vacillating between supporting the shah and encouraging reforms that might appease demonstrators.

what happened next remains controversial. declassified cables show that in late 1978, the carter administration concluded the shah was "doomed." instead of backing iran's military to preserve some form of stable government, carter's team worked to facilitate a transition that would include ayatollah ruhollah khomeini, then in exile in france.

khomeini had been clear about his intentions -- he'd even written a book outlining his vision for an islamic republic. but carter's administration, hoping to prevent civil war and maintain some relationship with iran's next government, helped smooth khomeini's return in february 1979.

within days, the monarchy fell. khomeini quickly sidelined secular and moderate allies who'd joined the revolution and consolidated power under clerical rule. the iran that emerged wasn't the democratic, reformed nation carter hoped for -- it was a theocratic regime that would define "anti-american" for the next half-century.

this history matters because it explains iranian distrust of american involvement. the united states overthrew their democracy in 1953, supported a brutal dictator for 25 years, then facilitated the rise of the religious extremists who've ruled them for 46 years since.

every time america talks about "helping" iran, iranians remember this history.

the cycle we can't seem to break

iran has experienced waves of protest roughly every few years since 1979 -- in 1999, 2009, 2017-18, 2019, and 2022-23. each time, demonstrators demanded change. each time, the government responded with varying degrees of violence. each time, the protests eventually subsided and the islamic republic remained.

the 2009 green movement was triggered when the regime rigged its own election, declaring mahmoud ahmadinejad the winner despite widespread evidence of fraud. three million people filled tehran's streets calling for democracy and civil rights. the government arrested, tortured, and forced public confessions from protesters. at least 72 people died. by february 2010, the protests had been crushed.

the 2022 protests following mahsa amini's death were explicitly feminist and youth-led. amini, 22 years old, died in police custody for "improperly" wearing her hijab -- a law women have resisted since it was imposed within weeks of the 1979 revolution. the protests that followed were led by women, supported by men, and demanded fundamental transformation under the slogan "woman, life, freedom." security forces killed at least 551 people, arrested over 20,000, and executed several protesters after trials that lacked any semblance of due process.

each time, iranians risked everything for change. each time, the government's willingness to kill proved greater than protesters' capacity to sustain mobilization.

why this moment is unprecedented

the current uprising represents the culmination of multiple crises converging simultaneously:

economic catastrophe: the iranian rial trades at over 1.4 million to the dollar -- essentially worthless. food prices have jumped 72 percent in a year. basic groceries that cost $10 a few years ago now cost over $100. families can't afford medicine. the middle class has been wiped out. the world bank projects iran's economy will shrink in both 2025 and 2026, with annual inflation approaching 60 percent.

regional isolation: in 2025, bashar al-assad -- iran's longtime ally -- fled syria. hamas and hezbollah, key iranian proxies, have been significantly weakened. the united states and israel struck iran's nuclear program. iran has lost the regional position it spent decades building.

weakened security apparatus: israeli strikes during a brief june 2025 war reportedly killed roughly one-third of officials involved in the 2022 crackdown on protesters. the repressive machinery that has kept the regime in power has been damaged.

demographic powder keg: iran's population is overwhelmingly young. the median age is 34 years, with roughly 70 percent of the population under 40. these are people who've known nothing but economic decline, international isolation, and restrictions on basic freedoms. they have no memory of the shah, no nostalgia for the pre-revolution era, and no patience for a system that offers them no future.

what began with shopkeepers closing their businesses in tehran's grand bazaar over economic desperation quickly transformed into demands for regime change. the chants tell the story: "death to the dictator" appears alongside "the shah is coming home" -- invoking reza pahlavi, the exiled son of iran's last monarch. for a population that overthrew that very monarchy in 1979, this represents not nostalgia but profound rejection -- the current system has become so intolerable that even the once-hated shah looks preferable by comparison.

the massacre nobody's talking about enough

the government's response has been systematic mass murder on a scale unprecedented in modern iranian history.

between january 8-9, security forces killed an estimated 12,000 protesters across iran. that's not a typo. twelve thousand people in two days. hospitals were overwhelmed with gunshot wounds. witnesses reported security forces opening fire with live ammunition on unarmed civilians, then removing bodies from hospitals to obscure the death toll.

but it gets worse.

the regime, fearing its own security forces might refuse to kill iranians, imported foreign fighters. approximately 5,000 iraqi militia members crossed into iran through border crossings in maysan and wasit provinces, officially entering as "religious pilgrims." these militias -- including kataib hezbollah, harakat al-nujaba, and kataib sayyid al-shuhada, all designated terrorist organizations by the united states -- were paid $600 each to help kill iranian protesters.

also deployed: afghanistan's fatemiyoun brigade, pakistan's zainebiyoun brigade, and lebanese hezbollah fighters. these same militias killed hundreds of iraqi protesters during iraq's 2019 uprising. these same militias supported bashar al-assad in syria, participating in atrocities that killed over 300,000 civilians.

now they're killing iranians on behalf of the iranian government.

think about what that means. the regime doesn't trust its own security forces to massacre its own people, so it imports foreign mercenaries -- groups that have previously killed americans, iraqis, and syrians -- to do the job.

the regime has gone door to door removing satellite dishes so families can't watch foreign news. it imposed a near-total internet blackout that has lasted over two weeks. videos from kahrizak forensic medicine center show hundreds of bodies stored in warehouse-like facilities, with families searching among them for missing relatives. footage shows bodies unloaded from refrigerated trucks.

families trying to claim their loved ones' bodies have been forced to pay for the bullets that killed them.

the american connection you don't see

most americans experience iran as an abstraction -- a country we're told is dangerous, a government we're told is evil, a threat we're told requires constant vigilance. the actual connections between iranian events and american life remain mostly invisible.

until they're not.

iran holds the world's third-largest proven oil reserves -- approximately 209 billion barrels. about 20 percent of the world's oil passes through the strait of hormuz, which iran could blockade. when iran's exports are disrupted, global oil prices rise, and you feel it at your gas pump.

when iran's 1979 revolution disrupted oil exports, prices more than doubled. americans remember the gas lines, the rationing, the economic pain. that crisis contributed significantly to jimmy carter's election loss.

this matters now. if iran collapses chaotically, if civil war erupts, if america intervenes militarily, oil markets will convulse. gasoline that costs $3 per gallon could hit $5, $6, or higher. that affects not just what you pay to fill your tank -- it affects shipping costs, food prices, inflation across the entire economy.

but the connection runs deeper.

the sanctions regime the united states has maintained for 46 years raises global oil prices because restricted iranian supply means higher costs everywhere. producing oil domestically costs the united states roughly double what importing from iran would cost. we pay for iran's isolation in ways we rarely calculate.

between 1972 and 1979, the united states made $16 billion selling arms to iran and $3 billion annually in civilian trade. major companies like general motors, pepsi, coca-cola, and johnson & johnson had built factories there. that economic relationship vanished overnight when the revolution succeeded. those were american jobs, american exports, american economic growth -- gone.

imagine what a democratic, prosperous iran integrated into the global economy would mean for american business.

what's actually at stake — the case nobody's making

here's what almost no one is saying clearly: americans would directly benefit from the islamic republic's replacement with a stable, democratic government.

energy markets and your wallet: a post-islamic republic iran would likely rejoin global oil markets properly, increasing supply and reducing prices. lower gas prices. lower shipping costs. lower inflation. these aren't abstractions -- they're hundreds or thousands of dollars per year for the average american household.

reduced military spending: the united states maintains massive military infrastructure in the middle east primarily to counter iran and its proxies. bases in qatar, bahrain, kuwait. carrier strike groups. air wings. special operations forces. this costs tens of billions of dollars annually -- money that comes from your taxes. a friendly iran dramatically reduces the need for this presence.

elimination of proxy conflicts: iran funds hamas, hezbollah, houthi rebels, iraqi militias, and others. these groups have killed americans, threatened israel (a us ally), and destabilized the entire region. ending iranian support would reduce terrorism, reduce regional conflict, and reduce the risk of americans dying in middle eastern wars.

nuclear proliferation: iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons has been a crisis point for decades. a democratic iran would have no reason to develop nuclear weapons and would likely rejoin the non-proliferation treaty meaningfully. this makes the world safer for everyone, including americans.

trade and investment opportunities: iran is a nation of 90 million people with a highly educated population, significant natural resources beyond oil, and a strategic location. currently, american companies are completely locked out of this market. a democratic iran could represent billions in trade and investment opportunities -- american exports, american jobs, american economic growth.

reduced refugee flows: economic collapse and political oppression in iran have created 1.6 million iranian asylum seekers worldwide as of december 2025 -- roughly 1 in 15 iranians has left the country. political and economic stability would stem this refugee crisis, reducing pressure on neighboring countries and europe.

regional stability: the middle east has been destabilized for 46 years in significant part because of iranian revolutionary ideology and proxy warfare. a stable, democratic iran changes the entire regional dynamic. this affects oil prices, terrorism risks, and the likelihood of wars that might involve american forces.

this isn't theoretical. the iranian diaspora in the united states demonstrates what iranians can accomplish when given freedom and opportunity. iranian-americans founded ebay (pierre omidyar), co-founded dropbox (arash ferdowsi), founded tinder (sean rad), serve as ceo of uber (dara khosrowshahi), and hold senior positions at google, twitter, and throughout silicon valley.

over 50 percent of iranian-americans hold bachelor's degrees or higher -- far surpassing the 28 percent national average. more than one in four holds a master's or doctoral degree, the highest rate among 67 ethnic groups studied.

these are people who fled the islamic republic. imagine what 90 million iranians could accomplish inside iran with freedom, rule of law, and integration into the global economy.

the hard truth about intervention

here's the part iranians inside the country are saying that makes americans uncomfortable: they want american help.

not vague rhetorical support. actual help.

protesters are fighting with rocks and molotov cocktails against security forces with machine guns and foreign mercenaries. they can't win this fight alone. they know it. after 46 years of the islamic republic, after 1953, after carter and khomeini, many iranians have concluded that american intervention -- the thing they've feared and resented for decades -- might be the only way to actually defeat this regime.

reza pahlavi, whose father was the shah, has called for a peaceful transition and a referendum to decide iran's future political system. he's not demanding restoration of the monarchy -- he's advocating for iranians to choose their own government through a vote. but he and others have also made clear that without external support, unarmed protesters cannot defeat a regime willing to import foreign militias to kill them.

trump has said "help is on the way" and "the usa stands ready to help." he's moved a carrier strike group to the region and imposed new sanctions. but the question of what "help" means remains unclear.

some possibilities:

military strikes on the repressive apparatus -- security force headquarters, communications networks, command and control systems. these could degrade the regime's ability to coordinate crackdowns without requiring ground troops or regime change operations.

cyberattacks to disrupt internet censorship, restore communications for protesters, and interfere with security force coordination.

providing tools that allow iranians to bypass internet restrictions, access information, and organize.

financial and weapons support for opposition groups, though this risks prolonging conflict and creating new problems.

diplomatic pressure and sanctions targeting regime officials, though sanctions have demonstrably failed for 46 years and mostly hurt ordinary iranians.

direct military intervention for regime change, though this is the highest-risk option with unpredictable consequences.

each option carries risks. the history of american intervention in the middle east -- iraq, afghanistan, libya -- doesn't inspire confidence. things often get worse before they get better, if they get better at all.

but here's what's different: this is a genuinely popular, indigenous movement. iranians are choosing to rise up despite knowing the government will kill them. they're not asking america to do regime change for them -- they're asking for support while they do it themselves.

the question is whether the united states can provide meaningful help without either taking ownership of the outcome (which historically backfires) or standing by while thousands more die.

the pattern we're trapped in

there's a version of this story where american support helps protesters succeed, a transitional government forms, elections happen, and iran becomes a democratic success story that benefits both iranians and americans.

there's also a version where american intervention unifies iranians against a foreign threat, the regime survives by framing this as resistance to imperialism, and we're back to the same dynamics that have defined the last 46 years.

there's a version where the regime collapses chaotically without a clear successor, iran fractures into civil war, neighboring countries intervene, and the region destabilizes in ways that make the current crisis look manageable.

there's a version where protesters win but the next government -- lacking institutional capacity, unified by opposition to the old regime but divided on what should replace it -- struggles and eventually fails, producing another authoritarian government or prolonged instability.

all of these are possible. history suggests the optimistic scenario is the least likely, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.

what's certain is that the islamic republic is weaker than it's been since 1979. the combination of economic collapse, regional isolation, generational change, and mass popular opposition has created a genuine opportunity for transformation.

the question is whether that transformation happens through a process that produces something better or something worse.

what this means for you

if you're an american going about your life, here's what iran's crisis means:

watch gas prices in the coming weeks and months. if conflict escalates, you'll feel it at the pump. some analysts suggest modest increases unless iran attempts to close the strait of hormuz, in which case prices could spike dramatically.

understand that american foreign policy decisions about iran directly affect your economic reality. whether we impose sanctions, provide military support, or pursue diplomatic engagement shapes oil markets, trade opportunities, and the risk of broader conflict.

recognize the possibility of american military involvement, which means american service members potentially in combat, defense spending from tax dollars, and the risk of broader middle eastern conflict.

consider the deeper question of what kind of country america wants to be. do we intervene to support democratic movements, even when intervention might undermine them? do we stand aside and watch governments massacre civilians? do we use economic pressure that harms ordinary people while barely affecting their rulers? do we pursue diplomacy with governments we find morally abhorrent?

these questions have no easy answers. they're the same questions we've wrestled with regarding iran since 1979, and we haven't resolved them yet.

think about the opportunity cost of 46 years of hostility. what could have been built between two nations if the 1979 revolution had produced a democracy instead of a theocracy? what economic opportunities have been lost? what conflicts could have been avoided?

the conversation americans need to have

we talk about iran in terms of nuclear programs, proxy networks, and geopolitical chess moves. these frameworks capture real dynamics that affect american security.

but they miss the human story: millions of people trapped between a government they don't want and an international community that's spent 46 years trying to pressure that government through mechanisms that mostly hurt ordinary iranians.

think about what it means to live in a country where getting medical treatment for a gunshot wound from a protest could result in torture or execution. where expressing political views publicly could mean death. where the economy has collapsed so thoroughly that feeding your family becomes impossible. where your government imports foreign mercenaries to kill you because your own country's security forces might refuse.

americans don't have to experience those realities. but our government's policies toward iran -- sanctions, military posture, diplomatic isolation, and historical interventions from 1953 to 1979 -- have shaped them.

the question isn't whether iran's government deserves pressure. everyone agrees the islamic republic is brutal, corrupt, and oppressive.

the question is whether we have any responsibility for how it got this way, whether the pressure we've applied for nearly half a century has worked, and what we're willing to do differently.

the stakes nobody wants to name

here's the thing that makes this moment so fraught: both sides of the american political debate are partially right and partially wrong.

those who argue america should intervene to support iranian freedom are right that the islamic republic is evil, that iranians deserve better, and that a democratic iran would benefit both iranians and americans. they're wrong if they think american intervention guarantees a good outcome or that iranians will necessarily welcome it given the history.

those who argue america should stay out are right that american intervention in the middle east has often made things worse, that we don't understand the region well enough to engineer outcomes, and that iranians have legitimate reasons to distrust us. they're wrong if they think doing nothing while thousands die is morally defensible or that the status quo is sustainable.

the tragedy is that there might not be a good option -- only less bad ones.

the islamic republic has made clear it will kill tens of thousands of its own citizens to maintain power. protesters have made clear they won't accept the regime anymore, even at the cost of their lives. the united states faces a choice between types of involvement, not between involvement and non-involvement -- because what happens in iran will affect american interests whether we act or not.

this is what's actually happening in iran right now: a reckoning 73 years in the making, from the 1953 coup through the 1979 revolution to this moment.

it's the bill coming due for decades of american policy failures -- supporting the shah too long, facilitating khomeini's return, maintaining sanctions that hurt ordinary iranians while entrenching the regime, failing to support the green movement in 2009, failing to support the women-led uprising in 2022.

it's a generation of young iranians who have nothing left to lose deciding they'd rather die fighting than live under this system.

it's the convergence of economic collapse, regional isolation, and demographic change creating a moment of genuine revolutionary possibility.

and it's the question of whether the united states -- after 73 years of getting iran catastrophically wrong -- can finally help produce an outcome that benefits both iranians and americans.

where we are now

the immediate crisis appears to be de-escalating. tehran is showing signs of returning to normal. trump has softened his rhetoric after saying he received assurances that "the killing has stopped." some heightened military alerts have been lowered.

but "normal" in iran means living under a government that just killed thousands -- possibly tens of thousands -- of its citizens. it means an economy in freefall with inflation approaching 60 percent. it means regional isolation and international pressure. it means a population that's repeatedly demonstrated its desire for fundamental change and a government that's repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to prevent it through mass violence.

as analysts note, even if this round of protests is suppressed through extreme violence, another could emerge quickly. the underlying conditions haven't changed -- they've worsened.

iran has reached an inflection point. the specific direction remains uncertain, but returning to the pre-december 2025 status quo seems impossible.

for americans, iran remains what it's been for 46 years: a country we're told to view as an enemy, whose people we rarely consider as individuals, whose impact on our lives we mostly don't notice until gas prices spike or war threatens.

but that distance is partly illusion. iran's fate and america's future are connected through oil markets, regional stability, nuclear risks, and the basic question of what kind of world we want to live in.

the protests that began in tehran's bazaar in late december 2025 have been suppressed -- for now. but the desire for change remains. the question of whether change is possible without catastrophic violence remains. the question of america's role remains.

and for now, iranians wait. americans wait. the world watches.

this story isn't over. in fact, it might finally be beginning.