Iran analyst
The unprecedented brutal crackdown on recent protests in Iran suggests Tehran's rulers are no longer attempting to govern a discontented society but are in open conflict with it.
The large-scale killing of protesters may look like a panicked security response, but it is better understood as a calculated effort to destroy protest both on the streets and in people’s minds.
By deploying overwhelming force, the state is seeking to reframe protest as an act that guarantees death—so dangerous that it becomes irrational to attempt.
This logic has been reinforced by the nationwide internet shutdown. Cutting communication is not simply about hiding abuses from the outside world; it is about isolating protesters from one another, breaking networks of trust, and leaving individuals to face fear alone.
When information collapses, collective will fractures. The aim is to ensure that even before a demonstration forms, the decision to join it feels like a solitary, suicidal gamble.
The state has effectively pushed society into an impossible position, where enduring daily life is as unpleasant—and as unimaginable—as any attempt to change it. This paralysis is not accidental. It is Tehran’s endgame, and increasingly its only means of survival.
'Us against them'
The violence of January 9 and 10 served another purpose as well: consolidating power from within.
By tying the survival of the political system to the actions of those carrying out repression, the state has produced what might be called forced loyalty. Security forces and affiliated actors are drawn into violence so severe that there is no path back.
Once hands are stained with blood, survival becomes inseparable from the survival of the system itself. This creates a hardened core of enforcers whose only perceived option is to push forward, no matter the cost.
This dynamic encourages a “scorched earth” approach. The conflict is no longer managed or contained; it is framed as a total struggle between “us” and “them,” with protesters cast as enemies rather than citizens.
In such a framework, compromise is not weakness—it is betrayal. Mediation disappears. Violence becomes the only remaining language.
Murky repression
By ignoring collective demands and stripping the public of political relevance, the Islamic Republic has effectively dismantled politics itself. What remains is not governance, but a permanent security posture.
The use of plainclothes forces and paramilitary units fits squarely within this logic. By blurring the boundary between state and society, the authorities have sought to reframe repression as “people against people.”
Protesters are portrayed as violent elements within society, already dehumanized through labels such as “rioters” or “terrorists.” This allows the state to deflect responsibility while deepening social fragmentation.
Slain senior Revolutionary Guard commander Hossein Hamedani once boasted about mobilizing convicts and thugs to suppress protests. “They are not afraid of blood,” he said.
Their role is not only physical repression but also narrative production: muddying responsibility, normalizing brutality, and casting doubt on the moral legitimacy of protest itself. Their unofficial status also provides the state with plausible deniability.
Burned bridges
At the same time, the machinery of repression has become increasingly bureaucratic. Killings are absorbed into routine procedure; violence is carried out as a duty—lawful, necessary, even sacred.
Statements from military and security institutions during this period make clear that the deaths of protesters are not seen as a national loss, but as a means of preserving the political order.
This moment also exposes a deeper vulnerability. A system that securitizes everything produces nothing but control and coercion. Maintaining such a structure requires constant expenditure—of resources, manpower, and legitimacy—both at home and abroad.
A crisis in the domestic security sphere cannot remain contained indefinitely; it will eventually spill outward, generating external pressure and international consequences.
What is unfolding in Iran is therefore not a temporary crackdown. It is the outcome of a long shift from governing society to confronting it as an enemy.
It is almost impossible to predict where Iran is headed, but its rulers appear to have bet on the iron fist—suspending politics for a permanent emergency and burning all bridges back to mediation and consent.
From Tokyo and Seoul in East Asia to Los Angeles and San Francisco on the US West Coast, and from Oslo, Stockholm, and Tampere in northern Europe to Melbourne and Adelaide in the Southern Hemisphere, Iranian communities took to the streets in what organizers described as coordinated expressions of solidarity with protesters inside Iran.
One of the largest gatherings took place in Toronto on January 16, where demonstrators marched despite blizzard conditions and subzero temperatures. Aerial images showed large crowds carrying Iranian national symbols and banners, making the event one of the most widely attended diaspora protests during this period.
Growth of diaspora mobilization
Large-scale mobilization among Iranians abroad is not unprecedented. Over the past 45 years, more than five million Iranians have fled the country as refugees, with an estimated additional two to four million emigrating for other reasons. By these estimates, roughly one in every 15 Iranians now lives outside the country.
The first demonstrations in this latest wave began on January 1, the fifth day of protests inside Iran. From that point through January 16, the number of gatherings increased steadily, with a marked acceleration following internet blackouts and a public call by exiled prince Reza Pahlavi for Iranians abroad to mobilize.
January 16, 10, and 9 saw the highest number of demonstrations worldwide, with 25, 24, and 23 events respectively.
Geographic distribution
More than half of all protests were held in Europe, with cities such as London, Hamburg, Frankfurt, and Stockholm among the most active.
North America accounted for roughly 25 percent of demonstrations, concentrated in cities including Toronto, Montreal, Los Angeles, New York, and Washington DC.
In Oceania, approximately 15 percent of protests took place, primarily in Sydney and Melbourne in Australia, and Auckland and Wellington in New Zealand.
Smaller demonstrations were also reported in cities such as Tbilisi, Yerevan, Tokyo, Seoul, New Delhi, and Istanbul. While Iranian populations in several Asian countries are sizable, organizers noted that legal and political restrictions made public demonstrations more difficult than in Western countries. In Turkey, some Iranian residents reported bans on holding protests.
Organizers and symbols
With limited exceptions, most demonstrations were organized by nationalist and monarchist groups. Participants frequently carried pre-revolution Iranian flags featuring the lion-and-sun emblem, along with images of Reza Pahlavi and slogans echoing those used by protesters inside Iran.
A small number of rallies were organized by left-wing and feminist groups, including a modestly attended event in Toronto on January 4 and a Paris demonstration on January 16.
Clashes, attacks, and arrests
Several incidents of violence were reported during the demonstrations.
On January 10 in Los Angeles, a truck drove toward a gathering of protesters. Police intervention prevented serious injuries.
Six days later, on January 16, three individuals armed with knives attacked demonstrators at another Iranian rally, leaving two people seriously injured.
Clashes and arrests were also reported during protests in London, according to local media and eyewitness accounts.
Largest demonstrations
Official estimates of crowd sizes remain limited. In Toronto, organizers claimed attendance reached as high as 110,000 people, while official figures cited numbers exceeding 10,000.
Aerial footage showed dense crowds marching through snow-covered streets. Some Toronto residents described the event on social media as unprecedented, suggesting attendance exceeded official estimates.
In Cologne, Germany, participation was estimated at around 25,000 people. Large crowds were also reported in Hamburg.
Flag actions at diplomatic sites
Alongside street demonstrations, activists attempted to replace the Islamic Republic’s flag with the pre-1979 lion-and-sun flag at Iranian embassies and consulates worldwide.
On January 9, during a protest outside Iran’s embassy in London, a demonstrator climbed onto the embassy balcony, removed the official flag, and raised the lion-and-sun flag. The action drew strong condemnation from Iranian authorities.
Similar incidents were later reported at Iranian diplomatic missions in Canberra, Vienna, Copenhagen, Rome, Sofia, Oslo, Stockholm, Madrid, Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, Frankfurt, Budapest, and Ljubljana.
From East to West
On January 12 – exactly six years after a state television presenter told protesters to “pack up and leave Iran” if they rejected the government’s vision of society – Iranians demonstrated in cities including Sydney, Melbourne, Bern, Nicosia, Berlin, Genoa, The Hague, Toronto, Hamburg, London, Barcelona, Zurich, Yerevan, Lisbon, Tbilisi, and Athens.
Many demonstrators live in countries with high levels of political freedom and economic stability. Organizers said the protests were intended to signal that, despite living abroad, members of the Iranian diaspora continue to identify closely with events inside Iran.
From east to west, participants said, geography has not severed their ties to the country they left behind.