Radio ExpressTV
Live
The Supreme Leader in the Trap
It has been three weeks since the latest wave of protests erupted in Iran, and now the country has spent more than ten days isolated from the outside world. Not only has internet access been cut off nationwide, but even basic landline and mobile phone services have been disabled. However, the few images that have surfaced—intermittently broadcast via Starlink connections—depict what seems to be a widespread military-style crackdown on civilians, along with bloodied bodies filling the streets and mothers mourning their losses.
The critical question facing the country is how Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his inner circle may respond, and whether a larger-scale war has become inevitable. In two speeches delivered since the protests began, Khamenei appeared determined to maintain his regime. He explicitly accused the United States and Israel of orchestrating the unrest, warning them of the consequences of their actions. At the same time, he referred to the protesters as “rioters” and “naive individuals” deceived by foreign powers.
From the perspective of Iranians, this rhetoric is painfully familiar. Khamenei’s response has been reminiscent of every major protest movement, from the student protests in July 1999 to the Green Movement in 2009 and the “Women, Life, Freedom” uprising in 2022. Although such speeches rarely deter protesters, their primary purpose is to reassure the regime’s security forces that the Supreme Leader remains steadfast.
Under the Iranian constitution, Khamenei holds the position of Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, which includes the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the regular army, and the Basij (a paramilitary militia). His absolute control over security apparatuses has long been a cornerstone of his authority. Over decades, he has systematically purged untrustworthy elements and cultivated an extremely loyal military elite. Even the families of these forces live under tight surveillance, often in separate housing complexes designed for protection and monitoring.
Alongside this control, Khamenei maintains constitutional authority over Iran’s state radio and television. While a few nominally independent television channels have emerged in recent years, they operate under strict censorship. It is true that social media and digital platforms have succeeded in undermining traditional media monopolies, making it more challenging to contain the flow of information. As internet access has expanded, protest movements across the globe have transformed. However, Iran remains an exception: most social media platforms are still blocked and can only be accessed through VPNs.
Moreover, the regime has repeatedly resorted to shutting down the internet entirely during crises, especially during the November 2019 protests. This time, the internet blackout has lasted longer than ever, with no certainty about when connectivity will be restored. By severing communications amid peak unrest, the regime not only controls the prevailing narrative but also prevents protests from gaining momentum through tighter coordination. Only a small number of citizens with access to satellite connections have been able to convey the extent and brutality of the crackdown to the outside world.
One of Khamenei’s priorities has been to systematically weaken independent political and civil forces. Prominent figures are either imprisoned or live under constant surveillance, often with electronic monitoring devices attached. Some, like prominent human rights lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh, have suffered serious health consequences after years of imprisonment. Others, such as Nobel Peace Prize laureate Narges Mohammadi, have been re-arrested and imprisoned.
What remains is a grieving nation that has once again witnessed youth, joined by their parents, taking to the streets only to be killed, wounded, or imprisoned. Lawyers have been barred from representing detainees, and prison doctors, reportedly, are forbidden from treating injured protesters, leaving them to die from their wounds. Families seeking to retrieve the bodies of their loved ones are forced to pay for the bullets that killed them and must conduct funeral rites under strict surveillance.
Yet this time may be different. During last year’s twelve-day war with Israel, many Iranians—despite opposing the regime—criticized Israel’s actions and called for an end to the conflict. A wave of nationalism swept through the country. Although Israel asserted that its strikes targeted only military sites and regime-connected figures, the general populace did not rise up against the state. However, those fragile sentiments have now dissipated. The unprecedented crackdown and reported death tolls, approaching 12,000, have dramatically shifted public attitudes. Many Iranians have concluded that unarmed resistance alone cannot end the dictatorship, and external intervention may now be the only way forward.
Ironically, it is the scale of the repression that has ensnared Khamenei. In the event of another war with the United States or Israel, Iranians both inside and outside the country now appear more willing to support it. Many see that if 12,000 can be killed by local forces, then the cost of military strikes might not be any higher. The regime’s brutality has not only hyperbolized international public opinion against it, spotlighting the human rights catastrophe in Iran, but has also shifted Iranian public sentiment away from reflexive nationalism.
Thus, Khamenei has found himself in a trap of his own making. Locally, he has reasserted control through overwhelming force, steering the regime away from the brink of collapse, at least for the moment. However, this strategy has narrowed his options. If war breaks out, the regime will face a society less inclined to support it and more accepting of the costs of external confrontation.
Khamenei has built a system that can survive only through repression; however, his bloody crackdowns have stripped the regime of its last source of legitimacy—specifically, Iranian nationalism. Now, the leader who has never been willing to retreat faces a dilemma with no safe exit: a continuous internal war against his own people or an external conflict that exposes the corruption and fragility underlying decades of coercive control.
