On a chessboard, not only the pieces move, the calculations of the players also change. Iran today is such a board, where the people are not merely a piece, but a force that wants to determine its own fate. But on this board, along with internal anger, the calculations of external powers are also active. As a result, the ongoing anti-government movement in Iran is not just an internal crisis of a single country rather, it has become part of a complex equation of regional and global politics.
Iran has long been entangled in political and ideological conflict with the United States and Israel. Due to its nuclear program, influence in the Middle East, and anti-Israel stance, Iran has been under pressure from Western powers. The sanctions imposed by the United States have weakened Iran’s economy, this is a recognized reality. Within this economic pressure, anti-government discontent has emerged inside Iran. Rising living costs, employment crises, and state control have accumulated anger among the people. In this situation, when protests begin, questions arise in the international arena about how spontaneous this movement is and how much it is encouraged from abroad.
The Iranian government has long accused the United States and Israel of directly or indirectly supporting anti-government movements. Analysts believe that this support is mainly limited to media backing, amplifying the voices of protesters on online platforms, and legitimizing the movement through political statements. During anti-government protests, Iran’s movements receive extensive coverage in Western media. Despite restrictions, messages of the movement spread through alternative technologies on social media. Although there is no public evidence of direct military or organized financial assistance, there is little room to deny political and diplomatic support.
It would not be reasonable to say that the cause of this movement is solely foreign influence. Internal social and economic pressures also play a role. Due to the impact of sanctions, rising commodity prices, currency devaluation, and unemployment have made life unbearable for people. Movements also arise because of state control and limitations on political participation. A section of the population feels that they cannot effectively participate in state governance. Foreign powers’ political interests also influence such movements. The long-standing hostility between Iran and the United States and Israel has brought this movement into the discussion of international politics and has indirectly boosted the morale of protesters.
As a result of this movement, Iranian society has experienced a dual impact. On one hand, political awareness among the people has increased. People are questioning the role of the state and thinking about the future. In the international arena, Iran’s internal crisis is being discussed, which puts the government under some pressure. On the other hand, strict measures to suppress protests are causing suffering for ordinary people. Internet controls, arrests, and economic instability together are making daily life more uncertain. The lower and middle classes are the most affected.
The Iranian government mainly presents this movement as the result of a foreign conspiracy. As a result, it is taking a hardline position in the name of security and sovereignty. However, history shows that the idea that long-term stability can be achieved solely through repression has rarely been successful. The government’s responsibility should be to acknowledge internal problems and give importance to the real suffering of the people, alongside external pressure.
To overcome this crisis, several practical steps are necessary. First, internal dialogue and reform. Without political and economic reforms based on listening to public demands, this anger will not subside. Second, reassessment of foreign policy. Diplomatic initiatives to reduce international tension could also ease the pressure of sanctions to some extent. Third, a humanitarian approach. Alongside security, the real-life crises of people must be given importance.
If Iran’s anti-government movement is seen only as foreign provocation, one part of reality is denied again, if it is seen only as internal anger, the full picture is not obtained. The truth lies in between external politics are influencing internal anger. The solution to this crisis lies not in force, but in responsible statecraft. Otherwise, pieces will break on the chessboard, but the game will not end.
