Iran’s latest unrest rekindles questions of history, power, and foreign influence

By Raqif Makhdoomi* 

Recent unrest in Iran has generated sharply divergent interpretations among governments, analysts, and commentators. While some international actors and media outlets have described the events as anti-government or pro-democracy protests, others frame them as an externally influenced effort to destabilize the Islamic Republic. These competing narratives reflect broader geopolitical tensions surrounding Iran’s political system, regional conflicts, and energy resources.

Officials and supporters of the Iranian government argue that the protests are not primarily about democratic reform but represent opposition to the Islamic nature of the state. From this perspective, the unrest is portrayed as being encouraged or supported by the United States, which they say has a long history of attempting to influence Iran’s internal affairs. References are often made to public statements by U.S. political figures expressing support for protesters, which Iranian authorities interpret as evidence of foreign involvement. The government maintains that the situation is a matter of law and order rather than a popular uprising against the state.

Critics of the protests within Iran and abroad also point to reported incidents of violence and the destruction of religious property, arguing that such actions undermine claims that the demonstrations are peaceful or solely focused on civil liberties. At the same time, human rights organizations and many Western governments dispute this characterization, emphasizing allegations of excessive force by Iranian authorities and restrictions on freedoms, particularly those affecting women.

The debate over Iran’s unrest is frequently linked to wider regional issues, especially the conflict involving Israel and Gaza. Commentators critical of U.S. policy argue that Washington applies inconsistent standards, voicing concern over protests in Iran while remaining largely silent on Israeli military actions that have resulted in significant civilian casualties and humanitarian crises. Supporters of U.S. policy counter that these situations are distinct and governed by different diplomatic and security considerations.

Historical memory plays a central role in Iranian perceptions of foreign interference. The 1953 overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, orchestrated by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and Britain’s MI6 after Mosaddegh nationalized Iran’s oil industry, remains a defining event. The coup restored Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to power and deepened U.S. influence in Iran, but it also fueled resentment that contributed to the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Many analysts note that this history continues to shape Iranian suspicion of Western intentions, particularly regarding control over energy resources.

Oil and Iran’s strategic position are frequently cited as underlying factors in contemporary tensions. Iranian officials argue that external pressure, including sanctions and diplomatic threats, is motivated by a desire to limit Iran’s independence and influence. They reject claims that current protests are solely about democratic governance, insisting instead that economic and geopolitical interests are central to foreign engagement with Iran.

Symbols have also become part of the political contestation. Since the 1979 revolution, Iran’s national flag has reflected the Islamic identity of the state, replacing the pre-revolutionary Lion and Sun emblem associated with the monarchy. The appearance of the older flag at some demonstrations has been interpreted by government supporters as a call for a return to a Western-aligned political order, while protesters say it represents opposition to the current system rather than allegiance to foreign powers.

The Iranian leadership maintains that it retains substantial domestic support, pointing to counter-demonstrations and public statements backing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. They deny allegations that the unrest is likely to bring about regime change and reject claims that former royal figures could be reinstalled with foreign backing.

In sum, the events in Iran are viewed through markedly different lenses. For some, they represent legitimate social and political dissent; for others, they are part of a broader pattern of external pressure rooted in historical grievances and strategic interests. Understanding the situation requires acknowledging both Iran’s internal dynamics and the long-standing geopolitical rivalries that continue to influence interpretations of unrest in the country.

---

*Law student and a human rights activist