When social rage looks for culprits, discourse becomes a weapon.
Tehran, January 2026.
Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, directly blamed former U.S. president Donald Trump for the deaths of thousands of demonstrators during the wave of protests that has shaken the country since late 2025. The accusation was not framed as suggestion or speculation. It was presented as a political certainty: Khamenei placed Trump at the center of the tragedy and, by doing so, transformed an internal crisis into a story of external confrontation.
In a speech broadcast on state television, the Iranian leader argued that the violence and chaos left by the protests cannot be explained solely by domestic factors. In his view, foreign actors took advantage of social discontent to push the movement toward rupture. Within that narrative, Khamenei said that Trump’s public stance and rhetorical support for protesters acted as political fuel for a mobilization that ended with thousands of deaths.
The protests erupted in a context of economic suffocation: persistent inflation, shrinking purchasing power, difficulty accessing basic goods, and years of accumulated social fatigue. What began as a demand for better living conditions quickly evolved into a broader movement, incorporating political demands, criticism of the security apparatus, and challenges to the structure of power. As the movement expanded, tensions in the streets escalated, and the state responded with mass arrests, communication restrictions, and large-scale security deployments.
Casualty figures have become another battlefield. Activist networks and human-rights organizations have circulated estimates exceeding 3,400 deaths, along with tens of thousands of arrests. The Iranian government has not confirmed those numbers and maintains tight control over sensitive information, making independent verification difficult. Even so, the scale of human loss has projected the crisis as one of the deadliest in Iran’s recent history.
Khamenei’s core message, however, avoided focusing on internal responsibility. Rather than addressing the use of force by state agencies, his speech sought to displace blame outward, specifically toward Washington. The goal was not only to accuse but to impose an official interpretation in which social discontent is acknowledged, yet its explosion and its death toll are attributed to indirect foreign intervention.
During the most intense weeks of protest, Trump issued statements condemning repression and expressing support for demonstrators. For Tehran, such remarks represent political interference, at least symbolically, and fit into a long-standing narrative that casts the United States as a constant agent of destabilization. In that framework, Trump becomes a useful symbol: recognizable, polarizing, and closely associated with sanctions that have battered Iran’s economy for years.
International organizations have insisted on a basic principle: the primary obligation to protect civilian life rests with the state. The United Nations has called for transparency, access for independent observers, and impartial investigations, stressing that no geopolitical dispute justifies lethal force against demonstrators. Meanwhile, groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have reported patterns of severe repression, arbitrary detentions, and judicial processes that, in some cases, accelerate extreme penalties.
Global reactions reveal a fractured international system. In Europe, several governments have demanded investigations and minimum guarantees of rights. In Asia, powers like China and Russia have adopted a cautious line, appealing to non-intervention and avoiding direct condemnation, though without openly endorsing Khamenei’s narrative. This mix exposes a landscape where human tragedy coexists with geopolitical calculation.
For regional analysts, the supreme leader’s speech follows a logic of internal control: rebuild cohesion by pointing to an external enemy. It is a familiar strategy in pressured regimes, because it reframes crisis as national threat and weakens the legitimacy of protest by linking it to foreign interests. In that frame, the problem is no longer governance failure but sovereignty under attack.
On Iran’s streets, however, the origins of the uprising are described in simpler terms. For many protesters, the causes were immediate and tangible: inadequate wages, soaring prices, lack of opportunity, social restrictions, and political closure. In that contrast lies the central struggle: the state explains protest as interference, while much of society understands it as survival.
The accusation against Trump changes little on the ground. It may harden rhetoric, reorder diplomatic narratives, and intensify confrontation with the West, but it does not return lives or deliver truth to families seeking justice. In many cases, relatives still lack clear information, face institutional silence, and live with fear of speaking out.
Iran is thus living a crisis with two layers at once: social mourning and official narrative. Khamenei chose his path: turn tragedy into political argument and pain into international dispute. The world watches, but inside Iran the wound remains open, and the real debate continues to be the same: who answers, how accountability is built, and what future is possible when the street becomes a battlefield.
Against propaganda, memory.