The Iranian regime has never looked weaker. Is Trump about to strike?
“The Iranian People Answer the Call to Protest,” wrote the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal on January 10, 2026. “The country’s streets explode at the time Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi appointed.”
The tone was jubilant — with good reason.
The widespread protests in Iran in 2022 after the killing of a young woman in the custody of Iran’s so-called morality police; Israel’s recent devastation of Iranian terror proxies in the Middle East; President Donald Trump’s recent decision to remove Venezuelan dictator Nicholas Maduro: All these factors are more have, perhaps, created the perfect storm in Iran.
The Iranian people, who have chafed under Iran’s dictatorial leaders as much or more than the people of Venezuela, are protesting en masse.
The Iranian government is running scared. The end may be near. After reports of a violent crackdown on protestors, speculation is turning to the White House.
What will President Donald Trump do?
Trump returned to office with a clear and consistent record on Iran. He does not view the regime as a permanent fixture to be managed, nor does he believe concessions can buy goodwill, as the Obama/Biden administrations did. His first term was defined by a strategy of pressure designed to force hard choices in Tehran. That approach remains controversial — but it was also coherent, and it shaped Iranian behavior in ways that diplomacy alone never had.
The first option before Trump today is diplomacy, and despite popular caricatures, Trump has never been allergic to negotiations. On the contrary, he tends to view talks as a tool rather than a concession. Channels remain open, and there are indications Iran itself has quietly signaled interest in engagement. That alone suggests the regime is feeling pressure.
Confident governments do not probe for talks.
Diplomacy here would not be an exercise in trust. It would be a test — of Iran’s intentions, its internal stability, and its willingness to trade rhetoric for verifiable commitments. Trump has little incentive to rush. Time, at least for now, is not on Tehran’s side.
Another option is renewed economic pressure. The sanctions architecture is already in place and could be enforced more aggressively or expanded. Critics rightly note that sanctions impose real costs on ordinary Iranians. But lifting pressure without meaningful change has historically strengthened the regime, not the population. Trump’s view has been that economic leverage exposes internal contradictions rather than concealing them — and that relief should follow results, not precede them.
Then there is the military dimension, which remains deliberately ambiguous. Trump has been careful to keep force on the table without signaling eagerness to use it. This is not an argument for war, but for deterrence. Targeted military or cyber actions, or even visible regional posturing, can shape behavior without triggering full-scale conflict. The risks are real — but so is the danger of signaling hesitation when credibility matters.
A quieter but increasingly important option involves information and connectivity. Supporting Iranians’ ability to communicate, organize, and access the outside world weakens the regime’s grip without direct confrontation. Tehran understands this threat well; it is why internet blackouts are among its first responses to unrest. Empowering civil society does not guarantee change, but it shifts the balance in subtle, cumulative ways.
Trump is unlikely to pursue any of these options in isolation. His instinct has always been to combine pressure with flexibility — engaging when advantageous, escalating when necessary, and waiting when patience serves U.S. interests better than haste. The question is not whether Iran looks weaker than it has in the past.
It does.
The question is whether this moment offers an opportunity to alter the long-running standoff in a durable way.
History rarely announces turning points in advance. It simply presents leaders with moments of imbalance and forces them to decide whether to act — or to wait. Trump now faces such a moment with Iran. What he does next will help determine whether this period of instability becomes a fleeting episode — or something more consequential.
(Contributing writer, Brooke Bell)