In December 2025, protests broke out across Iran amid growing economic hardship and political discontent. While the demonstrations have often been framed as a response to recent economic collapse, experts say the unrest must be understood within a longer history of strained international relations and domestic repression.
Ebrahim Moosa, professor of Islamic thought and Muslim studies at Notre Dame, said in a written statement to The Observer that Iran’s current political tensions cannot be separated from decades of fraught relations with the United States and other global powers.
Moosa pointed to the 1979 Islamic revolution, which overthrew Iran’s monarchy and dismantled the rule of the shah. After fleeing the country, the shah sought refuge in the United States, a move that many Iranians interpreted as an attempt to reclaim power with American support. That perception, Moosa wrote, helped spark a “tit-for-tat policy with America” that continues to shape Iranian foreign relations.
According to Asher Kaufman, professor of history and peace studies, the protests were triggered by an economic downturn in December that led to soaring inflation and widespread financial hardship.
“These conditions became almost unbearable,” Kaufman said. However, he emphasized that economic distress is only one factor behind the unrest, which also reflects longstanding political dissatisfaction with the regime’s use of violence and coercion to maintain power.
Iran has long claimed that its nuclear program exists solely for energy purposes, though the country has previously attempted to develop nuclear weapons in secret. Dan Lindley, professor of political science, said the outcome of the protests could significantly affect Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Lindley said a victory for protesters would be the “surest route to possibly dismantling the nuclear weapons program,” though he also warned of serious regional consequences.
“A successful uprising could set off a regional arms race,” Lindley said, as neighboring countries may attempt to exploit Iran’s perceived weakness. “People often do not realize how much they can hurt their own security by their own actions.”
A. Rashied Omar, a professor of Islamic studies and peacebuilding, wrote that rather than responding to these protests peacefully, the government used excessive lethal force.
While many Iranians oppose the country’s theocratic government structure, Omar cautioned against foreign-led regime change, arguing that international intervention often undermines domestic movements for justice.
“Opposing repression inside Iran must go hand in hand with rejecting imperial violence from outside. Condemning state brutality while endorsing bombing or coercive regime change is a moral contradiction,” Omar wrote. “These positions are not driven by genuine concern for the well-being or agency of the Iranian people, but by geopolitical agendas that have, time and again, devastated societies and undermined authentic struggles for justice.”
Despite warnings against interventionist policy, Lindley expressed support for President Donald Trump’s current stance toward Iran.
“I think Trump is right when he says, ‘Make Iran Great Again,’” Lindley said. “That is actually a really sweet thing to say.”
As a result of tensions in 1979 the United States seized Iranian assets housed in the United States. Iran has gotten some of these back through hostage negotiations over time.
“As of early 2026, it is estimated that $100 billion to $120 billion in Iranian assets remain frozen in international accounts globally due to U.S. and international sanctions. Of this total, approximately $2 billion is held directly within the United States,” Moosa wrote.
Lindley said Iran maintains alliances with China and Russia, and to a more limited degree North Korea, though he described those relationships as pragmatic rather than ideological.
“They are based more on mutual benefit and shared opposition to the United States than on trust or long-term success,” Lindley said, referring to the countries as the “axis of evil.”
Moosa argued U.S. action towards Iran is influenced by its alliance with Israel, calling Trump “a pro-Israeli lackey.”
“U.S. policy towards Iran has largely been dictated by Israel,” Moosa wrote. Historically, the U.S. has intervened in Iran when Israel did not have the necessary weapons to reach certain Iranian nuclear sites, such as in the attack of July 2025.
Omar added that U.S. interest in Iran is also driven by economic considerations, citing the country’s vast oil and gas reserves, which rank among the largest in the world and have long played a central role in U.S. strategic calculations.
