Tangle - The protests in Iran.

Episode Date: January 7, 2026

In late December, protesters in Tehran, Iran, took to the streets over rising costs and economic conditions in the country. Larger demonstrations erupted across Iran in the following days, with crowds gathering in major cities and provincial centers to protest economic conditions, government restrictions, and broader grievances with the country’s political system. Iranian authorities responded with a mix of violent suppression and internet disruptions; a spokesman for the Iranian government has claimed the unrest is driven in part by foreign interference. President Donald Trump said the United States supports the Iranian people’s right to protest and threatened Iran not to harm protesters, posting on social media on Friday, “We are locked and loaded and ready to go.” Ad-free podcasts are here!To listen to this podcast ad-free, and to enjoy our subscriber only premium content, go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here and today’s “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Take the survey: Do you think the current protests will lead to the end of the Islamic Republic? Let us know.Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by: Will Kaback and audio edited and mixed by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Lindsey Knuth, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon and good evening. And welcome to the Tangle podcast, a place where you get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of our take. I'm Senior Editor Will Quebec. We started off the week talking about the major story in the world, which was the U.S. operation over the weekend to capture and remove Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro and bring him to the United States. So we've naturally had a lot of discussion of topics involving foreign affairs and foreign policy, and that's going to continue today, because we are going to be breaking down the protests in Iran. These are protests that broke out

toward the end of last year and have continued and escalated in recent days. And now President Trump is threatening that the United States could become involved in some capacity. So we're going to be looking at the origins of the current protests, some of the ways that they are similar and differ from past nationwide protests in Iran, and the prospect for U.S. involvement in what that could mean for this issue as a whole. Before we jump in, I want to flag our Friday edition this week. it's a bit of a tangled tradition, the first Friday edition of January, we use that piece

to reflect on our coverage from the previous year. So we review our takes, we assess the things that we got right and wrong, and then we give ourselves a letter grade. And at the end, we give a cumulative grade point average. So this year, we're going to continue that tradition with the added element of reviewing some of the takes from writers on the staff other than Isaac, which will be a first for this year. And as we have put this together, I can say it is a really fun and also a valuable exercise to do some reflecting on the past year and also take some of that analysis forward into our coverage of these issues in 2026. So keep an eye out for that edition coming on Friday. And if you are not a premium podcast listener, you will need to upgrade to the full thing. So if you're interested in getting that full access, just make sure that you upgrade by Friday. All right, now I'm going to pass it over to John. to set the stage for today's topic and get into what people are saying from across the political spectrum, and then I will be back with my take. John, over to you. Thanks, Will, and welcome, everybody. Here are your quick hits for today. First up, President

Donald Trump said that the United States was not at war with Venezuela, but that the U.S. would take an active role in the country following its operation to remove President Nicolas Maduro. Trump said that he does not expect Venezuela to hold elections in the next 30 days. Separately, President Trump said Venezuela's interim leaders had agreed to give the U.S. 30 to 50 million barrels of oil. Number two, Danish Prime Minister Meta Friedrichson criticized President Trump's recent comments about potential U.S. military action to take control of Greenland, saying that any attack would effectively end the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Number three, leaders from the U.S., Canada, and Europe agreed to provide Ukraine with secure. guarantees in a potential peace deal with Russia, including military equipment and air, land, and sea

support. Number four, the Wyoming Supreme Court ruled that abortion and the use of abortion pills will remain legal in the state, finding that Wyoming had not proven its anti-abortion laws were reasonable and necessary restrictions on the right to make one's own health care decisions. And number five, Hilton hotels cut ties with an independent hotel owner in the Minneapolis area after claims surfaced that the hotel was denying bookings to immigration enforcement officials. Iranians have taken to the streets in the largest protests the country has seen since 2022. Days of large-scale demonstrations have rocked the country in many major cities. Protesters stood in front of police water cannons, refusing to move.

Others shouted death to the dictator and set fire to statutes. In late December, protesters in Tehran, Iran took to the streets over rising costs and economic conditions in the country. Larger demonstrations erupted across Iran in the following days, with crowds gathering in major cities and provincial centers to protest economic conditions, government restrictions, and broader grievances with the country's political system. Iranian authorities responded with a mix of violent suppression and internet disruptions. A spokesperson for the Iranian government has claimed that unrest is driven in part by foreign interference. President Donald Trump said the United States supports the Iranian people's right to protest

and threaten Iran not to harm protesters posting on social media on Friday, we are locked and loaded and ready to go. For context, Iran is an Islamic Republic governed by a dual system that combines elected institutions with clerical oversight. The Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hameini has brought authority over the military, judiciary, and key media. Over the past decade, the country has faced persistent economic strain from U.S.-led sanctions tied to its nuclear program, high inflation, currency depreciation, and high unemployment. Tensions heightened after President Trump withdrew the United States from the 2015 nuclear agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or GCPOA, and reinstated sweeping sanctions, a move Tehran says has worsened living conditions. Then in June, the United States engaged in targeted attacks on the country's nuclear program

during Iran's brief war with Israel. The recent demonstrations reportedly began on December 29th in Tehran's Grand Bazaar after a spike in prices for basic goods. Footage of the protests spread through social media before authorities restricted access to several platforms. According to the human rights activist news agency, security forces used tear gas and live ammunition to disperse crowds. As of Wednesday morning, 34 protesters have been killed, more than 60 have been injured, and over 2,000 have been arrested over the last 10 days of protests. The Iranian government has acknowledged the country's poor economic conditions, which have significantly worsened in the past year. On Tuesday, the Iranian Rial was priced at more than

$1.4 million to the U.S. dollar in the open market in Tehran, an all-time low. Iranian officials announced limited economic relief measures, including subsidies and price controls. Ali La Rajani, the Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, warned the U.S. not to intervene. U.S. interference in this internal matter would mean destabilizing the entire region and destroying America's interests, Larajani said. Today, we'll take a look up with the right, left, and Iranian writers are saying about the protests in Iran and the U.S. response, and then, senior editor Will Quebec will give his take.

We'll be right back after this quick break. All right. First up, let's talk about what the right is saying. The right supports the protesters, though many doubt they will topple the regime. Some say Trump is right to threaten intervention if state violence continues. National Review's editors read about the unrest in Iran. What's known as the Arab Spring was initially set off by the self-emulation of a Tunisian street vendor protesting against harassment by local officials. Authoritarian regimes are typically strong, but they can often be surprisingly brittle, too,

the editor said. In Iran, the economy has gone very wrong indeed. The current unrest began in Tehran with shopkeepers and bazaaris, the latter a merchant class traditionally supportive of the regime, closing their doors as a protest against a further collapse in Iran's already collapsed currency. The regime is responding with vaguely conciliatory admissions, that some of the complaints about the economy are valid, but it does not abandon its time-tested repertoire of threats, talk of external enemies, and the use of force, the editors wrote.

There is no chance, however, that a Trump White House will repeat the mistakes made by the Obama administration, which allowed hopes of a deal with the Mullahs to lead it to rein in its support for the massive unrest that followed rigged Iranian elections in 2009. On the other hand, President Trump's threat that the U.S. is locked and loaded, and ready to come to the rescue in the event that the regime kills peaceful protesters, is hard to crack. credit. Iran is not Venezuela. In the Washington examiner, Ani Qigwadze praised Trump's righteous warning to Iran's leaders. Iran has found allies in its authoritarianism. From Belarus and Syria to Georgia and Serbia, repressive governments have reinforced each other. The result is that authoritarian

regimes have grown more aggressive, while those defending liberties have become increasingly unsure that their righteous resistance will lead anywhere, Chiquotze said. Trump's statement may changed that calculation. It does more than any U.S. presidential statement in the past two decades to signal to those resisting repression in Iran that they are not entirely on their own, that America might come to their defense. It thus tells the oppressors in Tehran that violence may cost them dearly. Trump has introduced ambiguity in U.S. policy. He doesn't promise intervention, but neither does he exclude it. The ambiguity over what might come out of Trump's White House makes regimes afraid of crossing lines, Chiquanze said. But there is a danger.

If Washington issues this warning and does nothing when Tehran kills more protesters, it won't just fail Iranians. It will teach every dictatorship watching that Trump's threats mean nothing, undermining the credibility of the American president as well as U.S. power. All right, that is it for what the right is saying, which brings us to what the left is saying. Many on the left say the protests have roots in Trump's first term foreign policy. Others question the president's motives for getting involved in the conflict. In MS now, Ali Valshi explored how the protests in Iran can be traced back to Trump's first term.

To better understand how we got here, we must go back eight years to May 8th, 2018. That's when, in his first administration, Trump withdrew the United States from the joint comprehensive plan of action, better known as the Iran nuclear deal, Velschie said. That landmark agreement was signed in the summer of 2015 during the Obama administration following years of intense negotiations. It was designed to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, essentially by limiting Tehran's uranium enrichment capabilities and stockpiles. According to the United Nations and Trump's own government, the deal was working at the time his administration ended it. After the U.S. withdrew from the deal, Iran built up the so-called access of resistance, a loosely associated alliance of groups in the region that are trained, supplied and supported by Tehran. After October 7th, the access of resistance kicked into overdrive

and acted much more aggressively. However, it has since been significantly weakened by Israeli and U.S. attacks, which have, in effect, weakened Iran's overall influence in power, will she wrote. U.S. sanctions are indeed causing tremendous ongoing economic suffering in Iran, that appears to be coming to a head right now, as these protests have erupted in several cities in the country. Also in MS now, Steve Bannon said Trump's sudden interest in the rights of protesters is hardly in line with the vision he has espoused for decades. The demonstrations in Iran, an authoritarian society where mass protests are not common, are real and sizable. The unrest appears to have been caused initially by the collapse of Iran's

real currency, but as NPR reported, it has become increasingly common to see crowds chanting anti-government slogans, Benin wrote. It was against this backdrop that Trump used his social media platform to publish a message that appeared intended to get Tehran's attention. If Iran shoots and violently kills peaceful protesters, which is their custom, the United States of America will come to their rescue. Time will tell whether and to what degree Trump is serious about further intervention in Iran and whether the U.S. military is actually locked and loaded for another Middle East operation. But it's worth noting for context that his sudden interest in the rights of protesters is

not altogether in line with his broader vision, Benin said. On the contrary, in the recent past, Trump has gone to great lengths to celebrate strongman and iron fist leaders abroad, including those who seem to revel in cracking down on dissent. Is he now suddenly concerned about violence toward protesters in Iran, or is the incumbent American president looking for an excuse to push fresh threats toward a foe in the Middle East? All right, that is different for what the right and the left are saying, which brings us to what Iranian writers are saying. Some Iranian writers welcome U.S. support of the protests and the regime's fall. Others say the protests were primarily caused by sanctions. In the Washington Post, Reza Pahlavi, a leader of the Iranian Democratic opposition wrote, Iran is ready for a democratic transition.

As 2026 begins, Iran is on the verge of a profound transformation. Across our country, from Tehran's Grand Bazaar to cities, towns, and villages far from the capital, Iranians are risking their lives to reclaim their future. their message is unmistakable. The Islamic Republic has exhausted its legitimacy, and after almost 47 years, the country wants to be free, Pahlavi said. The courage of these men and women deserves more than sympathy. It demands clarity, preparation, and responsible leadership inside Iran and among those who influence global affairs. Because Iran's liberation will mean much more than a restoration of dignity to Iranians, it will bring a global peace dividend of almost

unimaginable proportions. That's why I welcome President Donald Trump's clear and firm support for the Iranian people. His message that the United States stands with those who seek freedom, rather than with a regime that exports terror and instability, has resonated deeply inside Iran, Pahlavi wrote. Supporting the Iranian people is not an act of charity or interference. It is an investment in global stability. For almost 47 years, the Islamic Republic has fueled regional conflict, pursued nuclear blackmail, and wrought global chaos, a free and democratic Iran will be a force for stability in the Middle East, not a source of endless crisis. In the Middle East eye, Mohamed Reza Farzanigan argued,

Iranian protests are not for regime change, but for relief from U.S. economic war. In Washington and Tel Aviv, the narrative being pushed is one of a regime on the brink, where economic failure is framed as a precursor to total collapse. However, what we're witnessing is not a political revolution, but the desperate gasps of a society whose economic buffer, the middle class, has been systematically hollowed out by an inhumane, punitive policy of international isolation, Farsanagan said. The primary driver of this economic death spiral is no secret.

The U.S. weaponization of the global financial system, imposing the maximum pressure campaign and targeting Iran's oil exports, has effectively hit at the life savings of every Iranian teacher, nurse, and small business owner. The Iranians currently in the streets are not asking for their country to be dismantled. They are asking for the restoration of their dignity, for everyone. economic relief, and for an end to the collective punishment that has hollowed out their lives, Farsanagan said. The tragedy of the current U.S.-Israeli strategy is that it has destroyed the very segment of society, the middle class, most capable of pushing for a stable, reformist, and less

confrontational future. By weakening this center, external powers alongside domestic structural problems such as high corruption, have removed the moderate buffer that typically values incremental change over chaotic violence. All right, let's head over to Will for his take. Thanks, John. All right, this is Will back to read my take. Many questions are swirling around the protests in Iran, chief among them, whether they'll lead to the end of the Islamic Republic.

For a lot of reasons, it's fair to be skeptical that this is that moment. And I think we should consider the similarities between this protest movement and the other upheavals in Iran since 2009 that did not result in regime change to understand why that could be the case. So each nationwide protest of the past 16 or so years was sparked by a specific issue, which then grew to encompass a set of wider societal issues. And that's where the first similarity lies. The 2009 Iranian Green Movement began in opposition to the country's presidential election, but it evolved into a push for greater democratization. The 2017-2018-day protests were rooted in economic complaints, but eventually became a challenge

to the Islamic Republic as a whole. The 22 Women Life Freedom Movement was kicked off by the death of Masa Amini, who died in custody after the Iranian morality police arrested her for wearing her hijab improperly. It then grew into a larger call for freedom of expression. And today, what started as an uprising among merchants has now catalyzed much of the country to protest spiraling economic conditions, water shortages, and worsening air pollution, among other issues. There's another similarity to highlight, economic hardship caused by sanctions. As the economist Mohamed Reza Farsanagan noted under what Iranian writers are saying, the U.S.-led

sanctions have had a devastating effect on Iran's economy and turned life's essentials. things like food, water, and medicine into scarce resources. Over time, this has left the regime with fewer tools to address public discontent without resorting to force. But the most significant similarity that I see is that each protest provoked that violent response from the government, and the strong-fisted reaction stopped each previous movement short of dislodging the current regime. That same dynamic could be playing out right now. However, something about this moment does feel different, a sense heightened by reports that the Ayatollah has made plans to flee if the unrest escalates further. President Trump's overtures about U.S. involvement have also taken on a

different feel in light of last weekend's operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro. Frankly, we're living in a new world, one in which leaders can fall suddenly, public discontent can affect genuine change, and military might means more than international norms. that global context, a few key aspects of the current protests differ from the past and suggest the outcome could be different too. Most notably, the U.S. bombed Iran last summer, overwhelming its air defenses and causing, in the U.S. account, enormous damage to its main nuclear facilities. These strikes decisively proved that the Trump administration is willing to act, and they revealed the limitations of Iran's defenses. That makes Trump's threat to intervene if protesters die,

which they have. Serious and believable. Relatedly, Iran suffered defeat in its short-lived war with Israel in June, further weakening the government's capabilities. These two events paint a picture of a regime on its last legs. Furthermore, the economic situation this time is not just poor, but dire. Iran's currency lost about half its value against the dollar in 2025, and government figures pegged inflation at roughly 42% in December alone. Food and medical item prices are up 72% and 50% respectively over the past year. Meat is now considered a luxury item. And meanwhile, reports from newspapers in Iran say that the country's poverty rate is approximately 50%.

Perhaps most striking of all, the very same repressive government that ruthlessly and immediately crack down on past protest movements, accepted the protesters' complaints as, quote, legitimate and promised to act on them. The head of the country's central bank also stepped down, and the Supreme Leader publicly acknowledged the economic crisis. Would the government have done this if it had control of the situation? I don't think so. So taking all of this into account, these differences are significant. But way in the history against the president, I still don't think this moment will lead to the end of the Islamic Republic without significant U.S. intervention, which, I don't see coming anytime soon.

For one, the current gap between Trump's threats and tangible action is much larger than it was last summer when the U.S. had a clear target and objective. The president is clearly comfortable with military interventions, but he also prefers short, decisive actions. Would bombing an Iranian weapons depot or military base result in the kind of high leverage change that would compel him to act? Again, I don't think so.

I also doubt that Trump wants to open up yet another foreign conflict at this particular moment. The administration now says it's running Venezuela. It's also opened up new bombing campaigns in Africa and the Middle East in recent weeks, and it's now reigniting its push to control Greenland. To some, that's the kind of emboldened behavior that makes military action in Iran more plausible. But my read is that the administration is more likely to keep its focus on Venezuela and let the Iranian protests play out on their own. Of course, Israel is a wildcard in this dynamic,

and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has shown his willingness to act independently of the U.S. But for now, he seems to be approaching this situation more cautiously. So absent U.S. involvement, I expect that internet blackouts, mass arrests, and the threat of violence will be enough for the regime to manage the protests for the time being. but managing unrest is not the same as resolving the conditions that produced it,

and whether the Islamic Republic can rebuild economic stability, regional leverage, or domestic legitimacy is far less clear. Personally, I doubt that the regime can reassert itself on any of these counts, but I also doubt it will fall in a matter of days or weeks. Instead, I think a combination of internal and external pressure is likely to grind down what remains of the government's legitimacy, over the next several years. If I squint, I can see a future where this turmoil births something more positive,

new leadership for the Iranian people and reforms aimed at democratization, a new nuclear deal that eases sanctions and creates a pathway for a more stable economy, a less antagonistic relationship with the U.S. and Israel. Yes, you really do have to squint to see that future and maybe indulge in some utopian thinking, which I undoubtedly am doing. But in this moment of great uncertainty for Iran, a window of opportunity may also follow. All right, that is it for my take. Today we had a dissent from Isaac, so I'm going to pass it over to him to read his dissent,

and then I will jump back in with our reader question. Isaac, over to you. Hey, guys, Isaac here. And I actually have a staff dissent today. It's fun to be on the other side of this, not having my. my writing criticized, but being the criticizer. Okay, so I'm actually pretty aligned with Will's framing of these protests, and I think he's right to be skeptical of this being the moment

that brings down the Iranian regime. But I disagree strongly with the view that the Trump administration does not want to get involved. On the contrary, after the tactical success and media frenzy that surrounded the capture of Maduro and the bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities, I think Trump is emboldened. He's confident. He is eager for the Iranian regime to test him. And perhaps most importantly, he is more aware than ever of how much latitude he has in foreign affairs. It would not surprise me at all to see the administration try to counter Iran through aggression, either with airstrikes or covert involvement on the ground. To that end, I think that Will's skepticism

about Trump wanting to or potentially getting involved is actually misplaced. All right, that is it for my dissent. I'm going to send it back to Will for your questions answered. We'll be right back after this quick break. All right, now let's move into today's reader question. which comes from Adam in New Mexico. He asks,

I would be curious to hear what the tangle opinion is of the investigation that included, quote, spying on Republican senators. I've only seen reference to it in right-wing reporting, so I'm not sure how concerning it actually was. Here's our response. Backing up a bit, the spending package the Senate sent to the House

to reopen the government in November included a provision allowing senators to sue the government for up to $500,000 when federal investigators searched their phone records without notifying them. That provision was removed, thankfully, as it would have given legislators additional rights that normal citizens don't have, but it was included in response to something real. Here's what that thing was. In September, a file leaked from Jack Smith's investigation into President Trump's alleged

attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, and that file listed nine Republican members of Congress whose phone records, the FBI, searched. The FBI performed a method of surveillance called toll analysis, which records the time and duration of phone calls and both correspondence, but not the contents of the message. According to Supreme Court precedent from 1979, this metadata is not protected by the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on illegal searches and seizures. And since the Biden Justice Department obtained subpoenas to pull these phone records, it didn't step outside the bounds of the law. What the Biden DOJ did was legal. It was not, quote, worse than Watergate, as Senator Chuck Grassley claimed,

and the legislative response was an overreaction. However, pulling phone records of elected representatives is a big deal. Jack Smith defended the subpoenas, saying he wanted to better understand the actions of Trump's inner circle leading up to January 6th. But since Biden's DOJ subpoenaed the records, and they didn't notify the representatives subpoenaed until just recently, the tactics can easily look political. All right, now I'm going to hand it back over to John to take us home on the pod for the day. Thanks as always for listening, and I'll talk to you soon. Peace. Thanks, Will, here's your under-the-radar story for today, folks. According to recent reports, Italy now plans to back a free trade agreement between the European Union and the Mercosur trade bloc of South American

countries, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay, paving the way for the EU to approve a deal that has been in the works for more than 25 years. Last month, Italy and France opposed signing the agreement, citing concerns about safeguards for the agricultural industries in their countries. Italian Prime Minister Giorgio Maloney also sought additional funds for Italian farmers. Italy is now expected to approve the measure in a vote scheduled for January 9th, allowing the EU and Mercosur to sign the treaty by January 12th. If approved, the trade agreement would create an integrated market of 780 million consumers,

ease tariffs between Mercosur and EU countries, diversified trade for both regions, and allow the EU to grow its influence in South America. France 24 has this story, and there's a link in today's episode description. As a reminder, we've taken out the number of section in an experiment to see if it helps with the flow of the podcast. We've gotten a lot of responses, and I really appreciate y'all reaching out with your opinions and thoughts, giving some good sound feedback for us to consider. If you haven't written in yet and you have strong opinions about the number section, please do write to me, John J-O-N at reetangle.com. And last but not least, our Have a Nice Day story. Liver fibrosis is a common condition that affects hundreds of millions of people worldwide,

and over time can worsen into cirrhosis or liver cancer. Despite decades of research, scientists still have difficulty treating the condition. In December, a research team from China Pharmaceutical University may have made a breakthrough. and one that's highly accessible. The team found that two common drugs used together, Sillibin and Carvetolol, sharply reduced collagen production and stalate cell activation in human and rat cell cultures. Additionally, experimental models show that the drug combination

can reverse liver scarring. Now, since the two drugs are commonly used and inexpensive, the treatment is on the inside track towards clinical trials. Science Daily has this story, and there's a link in today's episode description. All right, everybody, that is it for today's. episode. As always, if you'd like to support our work, please go to retangle.com, where you can send them for a newsletter membership, podcast membership, or a bundled membership that gets you a discount on both. We'll be right back here tomorrow. For Isaac, Will, and the rest of the crew,

this is John Law, signing off. Have a great day, y'all. Peace. Our executive editor and founder is me. Isaac Saul, and our executive producer is John Wall. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by managing editor Ari Weitzman with senior editor Will Kayback and associate editors Audrey Moorhead, Lindsay Canuth, and Bailey Saul. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website at reetangle.com.