Trump weighs response to Iran crackdown

Washington / Tehran — January 12, 2026

President Donald Trump is weighing a range of possible responses to the Iranian government’s violent crackdown on nationwide protests — including diplomatic engagement and stronger measures — as Tehran insists that communication with the United States remains open even amid deep suspicion and rising tensions. The unfolding situation marks a potentially pivotal moment in US-Iran relations, with geopolitical implications that could reshape dynamics in the Middle East and beyond.

Trump’s remarks on Sunday reflect growing alarm in Washington over Iran’s brutal suppression of protests that erupted on December 28 in response to rising economic hardship and quickly spread into widespread anti-regime demonstrations. The president signalled that he was prepared to consider all options — from intensified sanctions and cyber operations to military action — while keeping diplomatic channels open.

Weighing Diplomatic and Military Responses

Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump said the United States is reviewing a “range of strong options” to address the crisis in Iran. He confirmed that Iranian authorities had reached out to negotiate, including on matters related to the nuclear programme, and said a meeting was being arranged. “Iran wants to negotiate, yes,” Trump stated, adding that “we might have to act because of what is happening before the meeting.”

Trump left open the possibility of military action if conditions deteriorate further. He said the military was “looking at it very seriously” and hinted that aggressive measures could be considered if Iranian security forces continued violent repression of protesters. Officials in Washington said options under review included military strikes, the use of secret cyber tools, expanded sanctions, and expanded support for opposition groups and digital communications networks inside Iran.

However, the White House emphasised that diplomacy remains a priority, with Trump and his advisers insisting that meaningful dialogue with Tehran, if possible, is preferable to confrontation. A senior US official noted that Iran’s willingness to engage — even indirectly — on certain issues created a narrow diplomatic opening that could be pursued cautiously.

Iran Insists Communication Channels Remain Open

Despite the threat of stronger US pressure, Iranian authorities have maintained that communication channels with Washington are open. Iran’s foreign ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said that messages are exchanged regularly between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi and US special envoy Steve Witkoff, sometimes through intermediaries such as Switzerland, which acts as the custodian of US interests in Tehran.

Baghaei acknowledged “contradictory messages” from the US, suggesting that Iranian officials question Washington’s seriousness about negotiation. Still, he asserted that Iran had “never left the negotiating table” and would engage with diplomats when necessary.

At the same time, Araqchi reiterated that Iran is “ready for war but also open to dialogue,” framing the situation as one in which Tehran will not be coerced. During a briefing to foreign ambassadors in Tehran, he declared that the Islamic Republic might defend itself but remained committed to diplomatic engagement if it respected Iranian sovereignty.

Protests and Government Crackdown

The backdrop to these intense diplomatic signalling and strategic deliberations is an unprecedented wave of protests sweeping Iran’s major cities, including Tehran, Mashhad, Isfahan and Shiraz. What began as demonstrations over rising living costs and economic decline quickly grew into broader calls for political reform and an end to the clerical establishment’s rule.

Human rights groups, including the US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA), have reported staggering figures amid the government’s crackdown, saying at least 490 protesters and 48 security personnel have been killed, with more than 10,600 people arrested since the protests began. Official Iranian figures differ and are difficult to independently verify due to government-imposed internet blackouts and restricted media access.

Tehran’s crackdown has frequently involved lethal force, mass arrests and widespread communications restrictions, which authorities justify as measures necessary to counter alleged “terrorism” and foreign interference. Iran’s parliament speaker has echoed hardline rhetoric, labelling the protests a “war against terrorists” and warning that any external intervention could provoke retaliation.

Conflicting Narratives and International Reaction

The contrasting narratives between Washington and Tehran illustrate the complexity of the current crisis. The US broadly frames its response in terms of protecting civilians and demanding accountability for excessive force, while Iran maintains a narrative of defending national sovereignty against foreign meddling.

International responses have been mixed. European governments, including the UK, have condemned Iran’s use of force and urged restraint, while cautioning against military escalation. Russia and China, staunch allies of Tehran, have underscored the importance of avoiding external interference, portraying diplomatic engagement and respect for sovereignty as key to regional stability.

Regional neighbours such as Turkey have also weighed in, warning that foreign intervention in Iran could provoke broader instability throughout the Middle East. Meanwhile, the United Nations has called for restraint from all parties and urged both sides to pursue peaceful solutions to the conflict.

Strategic Implications and Risks

Analysts say the current standoff reveals the strategic complexity facing the United States. On the one hand, Trump is under pressure from domestic critics and human rights advocates to respond decisively to Iran’s violent suppression of demonstrators. On the other, military action carries significant risks — including the potential to trigger wider regional conflict or strengthen hardline elements within Iran and its proxy networks across the region.

Some policymakers argue that limited measures, such as targeted sanctions and cyber operations, could disrupt key Iranian capacities without provoking full-scale war. Others caution that overtly aggressive action may only escalate an already volatile situation, risking retaliation against US bases or allies in the region.

The role of digital technology also looms large, with proposals to use satellite internet services to circumvent Iran’s communications blackout and empower protesters with access to global platforms. Such options reflect evolving tactics in modern geopolitical conflict, blurring the lines between traditional military response and information-age strategy.

What Happens Next?

For now, Trump’s administration continues to deliberate over how best to respond. A senior White House source said the president will meet senior advisers this week to refine options and assess intelligence. The careful balancing act between diplomacy, deterrence and potential military action underscores the complexity of managing a crisis that has both domestic and international dimensions.

Iran’s insistence that communications remain open suggests that even as tensions rise, both sides recognize the value of keeping diplomatic channels active. Whether these channels can bridge profound mistrust and stem the violence on the ground remains uncertain. What is clear is that the world is watching closely as one of the most volatile crises in recent Iranian history unfolds, with consequences that could echo far beyond the region.