Lebanese Ex-MP Recalls Shocking Meeting between Rafik Hariri, Bashar Assad on Lahoud Term Extension

One article on the agenda: Insulting Rafik Hariri

President Bashar al-Assad receives PM Hariri for a meeting. (Getty Images)
President Bashar al-Assad receives PM Hariri for a meeting. (Getty Images)
TT

Lebanese Ex-MP Recalls Shocking Meeting between Rafik Hariri, Bashar Assad on Lahoud Term Extension

President Bashar al-Assad receives PM Hariri for a meeting. (Getty Images)
President Bashar al-Assad receives PM Hariri for a meeting. (Getty Images)

Asharq Al-Awsat is publishing a series of excerpts from a new book by former Lebanese MP Bassem al-Sabeh in which he recalls the thorny relationship between slain former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri and members of the ruling elite in Syria. “Lebanon in the Shadows of Hell: from the Taif Accord to Hariri’s Assassination” is published by All Prints Distributors & Publishers.

Sabeh worked as an aide to Hariri until his killing in February 2005. He served as lawmaker from 1992 to 2009. He was also appointed information minister in Hariri’s government between 1996 and 1998. Sabeh is a member of Hariri’s Mustaqbal Movement and a pillar of the March 14 movement that opposed Syria’s political and security hegemony over Lebanon.

Anjar ... mandatory gate to Syria

Lebanese officials headed to Damascus must make a mandatory stop in the Lebanese Bekaa town of Anjar. For over 30 years, the town was the headquarters of the Syrian intelligence in Lebanon. Major General Mohammed Ghanem assumed that post from 1976 to 1982. He was succeeded by Major General Ghazi Kanaan from 1982 to 2001 and then Rustom Ghazaleh in 2001 until Syria’s military withdrawal from Lebanon following former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri's assassination in 2005.

Ghanem had also taken up Beirut as the headquarters of his command, allowing it to be closer to the Arab Deterrent Force that was formed in 1976 to help end the Lebanese civil war (1975-90). The force eventually withdrew from Lebanon shortly after, leaving behind the Syrian army in Lebanon. Syria initially deployed 25,000 soldiers, but that figure eventually grew to 40,000.

The deployment of the Syrian troops took place in March 1976 at the official request of President Suleiman Franjieh to President Hafez al-Assad. He asked for military intervention to stop Palestinian organizations and leftist militias from carrying out attacks against Christian regions.

Ghazi Kanaan acted as the Syrian “high commissioner” in Lebanon. He took up residence in Anjar and Beirut’s Ramlet al-Bayda area. I visited Anjar with Hariri and alone a handful of times. Throughout those visits, Kanaan was always courteous and never abused his position for political gain. I did notice, however, how he could be courteous to some visitors and deliberately offensive to others, including lawmakers, ministers, businessmen and clerics.

It was rare for any Lebanese official or public figure to head to Damascus without passing through Anjar or receiving its approval. I met several heads of political blocs, senior ministers, security officials, judicial officials, clerics, muftis, university professors, bank directors, businessmen and others in Anjar seeking favor with Damascus or “help” in passing a violation at a ministry or other public administration.

Ghazi Kanaan addresses an audience with Rafik Hariri seated the background in 2002. (EPA)

In 2001, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad decreed that Kanaan return to Damascus. He appointed Ghazaleh in his place with the direct support of Assef Shawkat, Assad’s brother-in-law and head of military intelligence – one the most important branches of Syrian intelligence. A rivalry would soon emerge between Kanaan and Ghazaleh.

The name Rustom Ghazaleh has haunted me in my personal and political life. One of my most shocking encounters with the official dates back to early 2001 when a Lebanese youth visited my home in Beirut’s Bir Hassan area. I usually received friends and citizens asking for services during morning hours. One such figure was a youth who asked to meet me alone.

After completing the morning meetings, I received him while my bodyguards remained by the door because they were suspicious of him. “I carry a political message. I am unarmed and I only want a one-on-one meeting,” he said in a Lebanese accent with a slightly southern lilt.

“It is unimportant for you to know my name, but it is important that you understand the purpose of my message,” he said, identifying himself Khaled. “I can humbly pave the way for PM Rafik Hariri to Assef Shawkat. My ties with Assef are greater than you can imagine.”

“I can play a positive role in PM Hariri’s favor. He is now the closest person to Bashar. I am the only one who can open the doors to Hariri. Try and you won’t lose. Khaddam’s role is finished. Shehabi has resigned and Kanaan will meet the same fate,” he said referring to Syrian Vice President Abdul Halim Khaddam and army commander Hikmat al-Shehabi.

I quickly made my way to Hariri’s residence in Qoreitem in Beirut. I told him in detail everything that happened that morning. He picked up the phone, called Kanaan and informed him that he was heading to Anjar to inform him of “something important.” Kanaan replied that he would be out of the office and that I should meet with Ghazaleh.

I headed to the headquarters of Syrian intelligence in Ramlet al-Bayda to meet Ghazaleh. We sat alone in the office and I recounted the meeting with Khaled. He then got up and contacted Kanaan by phone. He held a military salute the entire time he was on the line, detailing to him what I had just told him. “As you wish, sir,” he kept on repeating.

At the end of the conversation, he turned to me and said: “Is this dog going to visit you again tomorrow?... Thank you for your cooperation. I hope that you will receive him and inform me of anything new.” Concerned, I returned to Qoreitem again and briefed Hariri on the meeting.

The next day, Khaled came to visit me. No sooner had he stepped foot into the house that I saw Ghazaleh storming in with two armed men. They beat Khaled up and Ghazaleh ordered them to “take the dog to the car. He will see what happens to those who undermine their masters.” He thanked me and hastily left. I was left in shock and quickly made my way to Qoreitem.

Hariri had not expected Ghazaleh’s reaction to be this severe. I expressed my concern that I may have inadvertently caused a dispute between Syrian intelligence branches. Hariri contacted Ghazaleh, who asked that I meet with him.

He stood behind his desk, holding the same club that he used to beat up Khaled. He showered me with thanks and praise, while I voiced my alarm over what happened. He replied: “There is no need to be afraid. He got what he deserved... He will rot away in prison. He is in the custody of the military police. He is a nobody and has no ties with anyone in the leadership.”

For months guilt ate away at me for what happened to Khaled. Was he killed or was he really imprisoned?

Bassem al-Sabeh and Rafik Hariri are seen at parliament in Beirut an hour before the bombing that killed the former PM in February 2005. (Courtesy of Bassem al-Sabeh)

Syrian ‘high commissioner’

My attention then shifted to news of Ghazaleh’s appointment as Syria’s “high commissioner” in Lebanon and Kanaan’s transfer to Damascus. Ghazaleh’s appointment forced Hariri to change his approach. The PM had enjoyed good ties with Kanaan, Shehabi and Khaddam.

Ghazaleh celebrated his appointment to the “Anjar throne” for three days during which he received well-wishers. Syrian intelligence intensified its activities in Beirut’s Hamra neighborhood, the southern Beirut suburbs, northern Metn region and northern city of Tripoli. Local Lebanese parties and economic, judicial, security and media figures were expected to queue up in Anjar to gain Ghazaleh’s blessing.

Kanaan, meanwhile, carried out a farewell tour throughout Lebanon, starting with the presidential palace where President Emile Lahoud awarded him with the National Order of the Cedar - the country’s highest order - “in appreciation of his work for Lebanon”. Hariri threw a reception in his honor that was also attended by Ghazaleh. He bestowed upon him the key to the city of Beirut in recognition of his services. At the Defense Ministry, Kanaan was also bestowed with a medal in recognition of his work.

Hariri was aware that Kanaan’s transfer was the result of a secret meeting held between Lahoud, Shawkat, Ghazaleh and Jamil al-Sayyed, the head of Lebanon’s General Security. Lahoud had expressed his irritation with Kanaan’s role in the parliamentary elections and how he had joined Hariri’s celebrations in the western Bekaa town of al-Khiyara. Lahoud went so far as to contact Assad himself to request Kanaan’s transfer.

Ultimately, Hariri’s Lebanese and Syrian rivals worked together to clip Kanaan’s wings. They succeeded in taking out an ally of sorts out of the picture, replacing him with Ghazaleh, who relished political, financial and security blackmail and in playing the dirtiest of roles.

Syrian intelligence chief in Lebanon Rustom Ghazaleh. (AFP)

Days after his appointment, Ghazaleh sent Hariri a list of pressing demands related to furnishing his home in Chtaura, paving the road leading to it, and generally providing whatever the new Syrian high commissioner in Lebanon needed in his new house. It was from this home that Ghazaleh waged campaigns against Hariri, completely ungrateful to the man who had furnished it for him.

I visited that house in late 2004, when I was returning to Beirut from Damascus with Hariri. The visit took place weeks after the failed assassination attempt against minister Marwan Hamadeh. We were warmly greeted by Ghazaleh, who denied that he had anything to do with the extension of Lahoud’s term in office. He also stressed that Syria would never cover up the failed assassination attempt, amid accusations by the Lebanese opposition that Damascus was behind the attack.

As we got up to leave, Ghazaleh told me: “Brother Bassem, rest assured. Don’t be afraid of anything. We won’t let what they did to Marwan happen to you. Your brother is here whenever you want.” I was shocked. In the car, Hariri said: “Did you hear what he said? He is crazy. He is either dumb or threatening you.” I replied: “Those words were for you.”

Ghazaleh reaped the rewards of Syria’s intelligence operations in Lebanon. He gained a fortune that was not simply a product of whatever payments he received from Hariri, politicians, businessmen and people asking for favors. He used to receive 50,000 dollars a month from Hariri. He also took part in looting the Al-Madina Bank following its scandal in Lebanon.

Kanaan himself was affected by the scandal and soon after, his influence in Lebanon ended with Ghazaleh taking over completely. Hariri and I visited Kanaan in Damascus less than two months after his transfer. He appeared defeated, telling Hariri: “You have given so much to Lebanon and Syria. We wronged you at times, but you stood tall.” Out of respect, Hariri did not bring up Ghazaleh, who on the contrary, used to bring up Kanaan whenever he could to deride his work.

Extension of Lahoud’s term

Tensions over the extension of Lahoud’s term in office reached boiling point in early 2004. For once, Lebanese politicians were no longer afraid of speaking out against Syria’s role in Lebanon.

The Council of Maronite Bishops issued a strongly worded statement expressing their rejection of the extension and undermining of the constitution. “Syria is dealing with Lebanon as though it were a Syrian province. It has the final say in everything, appoints governors and organizes elections. It appoints whoever it wants and interferes in all state affairs,” it said. Hariri remarked at the time: “Lebanon is headed towards a dead end if the way in which it is governed does not change.”

President Emile Lahoud and PM Hariri. (AFP)

In late March 2004, Hariri was summoned for an urgent meeting with Assad. He believed the meeting would be an opportunity to reconsider the extension of Lahoud’s term given Lebanon’s opposition to it. He had high hopes, especially with international pressure on Syria and efforts to draft United Nations Security Council resolution 1559 that would be issued in September and call for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Lebanon.

The Syrian leadership had other things in mind completely. It received Hariri for an unprecedented meeting in the history of Lebanese-Syrian relations.

Hariri arrived at the meeting on time. He was met with Bashar and all senior officers who had overseen Syria’s operations in Lebanon: Kanaan, Ghazaleh, and Mohammed Khalouf. Assad had set only one article on the meeting agenda: Insulting Hariri.

He said: “Comrades Ghazi, Rustom and Mohammed had dedicated their work in service of Lebanon and they helped you in assuming your responsibility. While you, you dedicated all your relations to strike Syria. You will fail in preventing the extension of Lahoud’s term. Lahoud is me and I am Lahoud. What you are doing with your French and American friends will backfire against you. The extension will happen and you will not stand in its way, neither will statements nor pressure from your friends.”

Assad then gave the way for Kanaan to launch his own attack. He deliberately tried to soften the blow by detailing the support Syria has offered Lebanon and the history of relations between them. He warned of the danger of using Lebanon and the position of its prime minister to attack Syria. He also hailed Hariri’s role during the rule of late Syrian President Hafez al-Assad.

It was then Ghazaleh’s turn. Like Bashar, he did not hold back. “Who are you without Syria and its president?” he told Hariri. “You are just a businessman. You would never have dreamed of becoming prime minister were it not for Syria’s approval. We helped you. We supported your policies. We opened doors for you here and in Lebanon. But you have been ungrateful for everything we have done for you. You stand with [French President Jacques] Chirac against us. You are inciting him to harm Syria. You, Chirac and the Americans will not have your way. Syria is your master. If the president wants the extension to happen, then you will make it happen. You have no choice in this.”

Bashar watched the blows rain down on Hariri in a state of nothing short of elation.

The meeting ended with Hariri not uttering a word in his defense.

Abdul Halim Khaddam. (Reuters)

Back in Beirut, he said: “Never in my life have I ever been hurt this way. I almost stormed out of there without permission and could have created a big problem. A problem with whom? The president of Syria. Should I have spoken back right in front of his officers?! I chose silence and patience ... and left afraid for Syria and Lebanon.”

Hariri did not speak of the meeting to Khaddam, who had telephoned to ask about it. Hariri told him: “Ask Abou Arab, he was there. I will stay at home. You won’t see me in Syria anymore.” Khaddam realized that the situation was dangerous, and I was summoned to meet him the next day.

What happened to Hariri is “unacceptable”, Khaddam told me. He said he had contacted Bashar to express his alarm at the meeting, bluntly telling him that it was not right for the president of Syria to insult the prime minister of Lebanon, whether in the presence of his officers or not. “Rafik Hariri is my friend and was your father’s friend, but he is also the prime minister of a brotherly country and debasing him is just not done by the president of Syria,” he added.

He also said that he had advised Assad to rectify the situation. Assad listened and “told me to tackle it with the best of my ability. You can apologize and do what you deem fit,” he remarked.



How the US Could Take Over Greenland and the Potential Challenges

05 February 2025, Greenland, Nuuk: Greenlandic flags fly in front of the Inatsisartut parliament in the capital Nuuk. (dpa)
05 February 2025, Greenland, Nuuk: Greenlandic flags fly in front of the Inatsisartut parliament in the capital Nuuk. (dpa)
TT

How the US Could Take Over Greenland and the Potential Challenges

05 February 2025, Greenland, Nuuk: Greenlandic flags fly in front of the Inatsisartut parliament in the capital Nuuk. (dpa)
05 February 2025, Greenland, Nuuk: Greenlandic flags fly in front of the Inatsisartut parliament in the capital Nuuk. (dpa)

US President Donald Trump wants to own Greenland. He has repeatedly said the United States must take control of the strategically located and mineral-rich island, which is a semiautonomous region that's part of NATO ally Denmark.

Officials from Denmark, Greenland and the United States met Thursday in Washington and will meet again next week to discuss a renewed push by the White House, which is considering a range of options, including using military force, to acquire the island.

Trump said Friday he is going to do “something on Greenland, whether they like it or not.”

If it's not done “the easy way, we're going to do it the hard way," he said without elaborating what that could entail. In an interview Thursday, he told The New York Times that he wants to own Greenland because “ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document.”

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has warned that an American takeover of Greenland would mark the end of NATO, and Greenlanders say they don't want to become part of the US.

This is a look at some of the ways the US could take control of Greenland and the potential challenges.

Military action could alter global relations

Trump and his officials have indicated they want to control Greenland to enhance American security and explore business and mining deals. But Imran Bayoumi, an associate director at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, said the sudden focus on Greenland is also the result of decades of neglect by several US presidents towards Washington's position in the Arctic.

The current fixation is partly down to “the realization we need to increase our presence in the Arctic, and we don’t yet have the right strategy or vision to do so,” he said.

If the US took control of Greenland by force, it would plunge NATO into a crisis, possibly an existential one.

While Greenland is the largest island in the world, it has a population of around 57,000 and doesn't have its own military. Defense is provided by Denmark, whose military is dwarfed by that of the US.

It's unclear how the remaining members of NATO would respond if the US decided to forcibly take control of the island or if they would come to Denmark's aid.

“If the United States chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops,” Frederiksen has said.

Trump said he needs control of the island to guarantee American security, citing the threat from Russian and Chinese ships in the region, but “it's not true” said Lin Mortensgaard, an expert on the international politics of the Arctic at the Danish Institute for International Studies, or DIIS.

While there are probably Russian submarines — as there are across the Arctic region — there are no surface vessels, Mortensgaard said. China has research vessels in the Central Arctic Ocean, and while the Chinese and Russian militaries have done joint military exercises in the Arctic, they have taken place closer to Alaska, she said.

Bayoumi, of the Atlantic Council, said he doubted Trump would take control of Greenland by force because it’s unpopular with both Democratic and Republican lawmakers, and would likely “fundamentally alter” US relationships with allies worldwide.

The US already has access to Greenland under a 1951 defense agreement, and Denmark and Greenland would be “quite happy” to accommodate a beefed-up American military presence, Mortensgaard said.

For that reason, “blowing up the NATO alliance” for something Trump has already, doesn’t make sense, said Ulrik Pram Gad, an expert on Greenland at DIIS.

Bilateral agreements may assist effort

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told a select group of US lawmakers this week that it was the Republican administration’s intention to eventually purchase Greenland, as opposed to using military force. Danish and Greenlandic officials have previously said the island isn't for sale.

It's not clear how much buying the island could cost, or if the US would be buying it from Denmark or Greenland.

Washington also could boost its military presence in Greenland “through cooperation and diplomacy,” without taking it over, Bayoumi said.

One option could be for the US to get a veto over security decisions made by the Greenlandic government, as it has in islands in the Pacific Ocean, Gad said.

Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands have a Compact of Free Association, or COFA, with the US.

That would give Washington the right to operate military bases and make decisions about the islands’ security in exchange for US security guarantees and around $7 billion of yearly economic assistance, according to the Congressional Research Service.

It's not clear how much that would improve upon Washington's current security strategy. The US already operates the remote Pituffik Space Base in northwestern Greenland and can bring as many troops as it wants under existing agreements.

Influence operations expected to fail

Greenlandic politician Aaja Chemnitz told The Associated Press that Greenlanders want more rights, including independence, but don't want to become part of the US.

Gad suggested influence operations to persuade Greenlanders to join the US would likely fail. He said that is because the community on the island is small and the language is “inaccessible.”

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen summoned the top US official in Denmark in August to complain that “foreign actors” were seeking to influence the country’s future. Danish media reported that at least three people with connections to Trump carried out covert influence operations in Greenland.

Even if the US managed to take control of Greenland, it would likely come with a large bill, Gad said. That’s because Greenlanders currently have Danish citizenship and access to the Danish welfare system, including free health care and schooling.

To match that, “Trump would have to build a welfare state for Greenlanders that he doesn’t want for his own citizens,” Gad said.

Disagreement unlikely to be resolved

Since 1945, the American military presence in Greenland has decreased from thousands of soldiers over 17 bases and installations to 200 at the remote Pituffik Space Base in the northwest of the island, Rasmussen said last year. The base supports missile warning, missile defense and space surveillance operations for the US and NATO.

US Vice President JD Vance told Fox News on Thursday that Denmark has neglected its missile defense obligations in Greenland, but Mortensgaard said that it makes “little sense to criticize Denmark,” because the main reason why the US operates the Pituffik base in the north of the island is to provide early detection of missiles.

The best outcome for Denmark would be to update the defense agreement, which allows the US to have a military presence on the island and have Trump sign it with a “gold-plated signature,” Gad said.

But he suggested that's unlikely because Greenland is “handy” to the US president.

When Trump wants to change the news agenda — including distracting from domestic political problems — “he can just say the word ‘Greenland’ and this starts all over again,” Gad said.


US Stance on Iran Protests Balances Threats, Caution

Crowds of Iranian protesters gather in Taleghani Square in Karaj, west of Tehran. (Telegram)
Crowds of Iranian protesters gather in Taleghani Square in Karaj, west of Tehran. (Telegram)
TT

US Stance on Iran Protests Balances Threats, Caution

Crowds of Iranian protesters gather in Taleghani Square in Karaj, west of Tehran. (Telegram)
Crowds of Iranian protesters gather in Taleghani Square in Karaj, west of Tehran. (Telegram)

It may still be premature to say Iran’s ruling system is nearing collapse. Yet the unrest that has gripped the country in recent weeks has pushed Tehran into its most severe internal crisis in years.

Protests triggered by economic freefall and the collapse of the national currency have rapidly spread across regions and social classes, shedding their purely economic character and evolving into a direct challenge to the foundations of the political system.

As strikes have expanded, particularly in the bazaar and the oil sector, popular anger has deepened into a political crisis with existential stakes.

At the heart of these developments, the United States factor stands out as one of the most sensitive and influential elements, not only because of the long history of conflict between Washington and Tehran, but also due to the unprecedented tone adopted by US President Donald Trump, and the political and media reaction within Congress, which has reflected a calibrated division over how to approach the Iranian crisis.

From the early days of the escalating protests, Trump opted to depart from traditional diplomatic language. In a series of interviews and statements, he said he was following events in Iran “very closely,” expressing his belief that the country was “on the verge of collapse.”

More significant than his assessment, however, were his public warnings to the Iranian leadership against continuing to suppress protesters.

Trump spoke bluntly of live fire against unarmed demonstrators, arrests, and executions, describing the situation as “brutal behavior,” and stressing that he had informed Tehran that any bloody escalation would be met with “very severe strikes” from the United States.

This language amounts to an attempt at political and psychological deterrence rather than a declaration of an imminent military plan.

It pressures Iran’s leadership and sends a message of moral support to protesters, while simultaneously preserving ambiguity over the nature of any potential US action.

Vice President JD Vance expressed a similar stance, writing on X that Washington supports anyone exercising their right to peaceful protest, noting that Iran’s system suffers from deep problems.

He reiterated Trump’s call for “real negotiations” over the nuclear program, while leaving future steps to the president’s judgment.

Despite Trump’s clear support for the protests, his administration has so far avoided going further on the question of “the day after.”

This hesitation has been evident in its position on Reza Pahlavi, the son of Iran’s late shah, whose name has resurfaced as a figure of the exiled opposition.

While Trump described him as “a nice person,” he stopped short of holding an official meeting, saying it was still too early to determine who could genuinely represent the will of the Iranian people.

This caution reflects US awareness of the sensitivity of the Iranian scene, in light of past experiences in the region, from Iraq to Libya, where early bets on political alternatives led to disastrous outcomes.

Any overt US backing of a specific opposition figure could also give the Iranian authorities grounds to reinforce their narrative of a “foreign conspiracy,” a line already invoked by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and state media.

Alongside political rhetoric, the economic card occupies a central place in US calculations.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has described Iran’s economy as on the edge of collapse, pointing to high inflation and a sharp erosion in living standards due to sanctions and mismanagement.

These remarks were not merely technical assessments, but a political message that Washington sees the economic crisis as a pressure point that could accelerate the erosion of the system’s ability to endure.

The economy is not only the spark that ignited the protests, but also one of the keys to their future. Continued strikes, particularly in the oil sector, threaten the main artery of state revenues, compounding pressure and narrowing room for maneuver.

In this context, Washington appears convinced that time is working against Tehran and that allowing the crisis to play out internally may be more effective than any direct intervention.

Another factor closely watched by US decision-makers is the international stance, notably the silence of Russia and China.

These two countries, which have provided Iran with political and economic cover in recent years, appear unwilling or unable to intervene to rescue the system from its internal crisis.

Their silence gives Washington a wider scope to escalate its rhetoric without fear of a major international confrontation.

At the same time, the US administration is keen to avoid appearing as the driver of regime change in Iran. Its declared support remains confined to an ethical and humanitarian framework, protecting protesters and preventing massacres, rather than shaping an alternative system.

This approach seeks to strike a balance between exploiting an adversary’s weakness and avoiding a slide into chaos.

The US response has not been limited to the White House, extending into Congress, where positions have reflected a disciplined division of opinion. The House Foreign Affairs Committee attacked the Iranian system in a post on X, describing it as a dictator that has stood for decades on the bodies of Iranians demanding change.

Within the Republican camp, alignment behind Trump has been clear.

Senator Lindsey Graham wrote that the president was “absolutely right,” that he “stands with the Iranian people against tyranny,” and called to “make Iran great again.”

Senator Ted Cruz said the protests had exposed the system’s “fatally weakened” status and that Iranians were “not chanting for cosmetic reforms, but for an end to clerical rule.”

Democrats, by contrast, expressed solidarity with protesters in a more cautious tone.

Senator Chris Murphy said Iranians deserve their future in their own hands, not through American bombs, warning that military intervention could undermine the movement.

Bernie Sanders said the United States should stand with human rights, not repeat the mistakes of forcibly changing regimes.

In the House, Representative Yassamin Ansari sparked further debate by voicing support for the Iranian people while warning against empowering the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, which she described as “an extremist group lacking legitimacy.”

Republican lawmakers such as Claudia Tenney and Mario Diaz-Balart adopted a harsher tone, calling for clear support for Iranians, “who are bravely demanding freedom, dignity, and basic human rights.”

This divergence reflects a complex US picture. Republicans see the Iranian moment as an opportunity to validate Trump’s pressure and deterrence strategy, while Democrats fear that verbal support could slide into ill-considered entanglement.

Yet both sides converge on a core point: holding Iran’s system responsible for violence and economic collapse and viewing current events as an unprecedented challenge to its legitimacy.

This relative alignment grants Trump room to maneuver domestically without imposing consensus on intervention.

Washington, as reflected in White House rhetoric and congressional debate, prefers at this stage to watch the fractures within Iran deepen, while keeping all options on the table and awaiting what happens on the streets.


A Timeline of How the Protests in Iran Unfolded and Grew

A general view from a street in Tehran, Iran, 08 January 2026. (EPA)
A general view from a street in Tehran, Iran, 08 January 2026. (EPA)
TT

A Timeline of How the Protests in Iran Unfolded and Grew

A general view from a street in Tehran, Iran, 08 January 2026. (EPA)
A general view from a street in Tehran, Iran, 08 January 2026. (EPA)

Demonstrations broke out in Iran on Dec. 28 and have spread nationwide as protesters vent their increasing discontent over the country's faltering economy and the collapse of its currency.

Dozens of people have been killed and thousands arrested as the daily protests have grown and the government seeks to contain them.

While the initial focus had been on issues like spikes in the prices of food staples and the country's staggering annual inflation rate, protesters have now begun chanting anti-government statements as well.

Here is how the protests developed:

Dec. 28: Protests break out in two major markets in downtown Tehran, after the Iranian rial plunged to 1.42 million to the US dollar, a new record low, compounding inflationary pressure and pushing up the prices of food and other daily necessities. The government had raised prices for nationally subsidized gasoline in early December, increasing discontent.

Dec. 29: Central Bank head Mohammad Reza Farzin resigns as the protests in Tehran spread to other cities. Police fire tear gas to disperse protesters in the capital.

Dec. 30: As protests spread to include more cities, as well as several university campuses, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian meets with a group of business leaders to listen to their demands and pledges his administration will “not spare any effort for solving problems” with the economy.

Dec. 31: Iran appoints Abdolnasser Hemmati as the country's new central bank governor. Officials in southern Iran say that protests in the city of Fasa turned violent after crowds broke into the governor's office and injured police officers.

Jan. 1: The protests' first fatalities are officially reported, with authorities saying at least seven people have been killed. The most intense violence appears to be in Azna, a city in Iran’s Lorestan province, where videos posted online purport to show objects in the street ablaze and gunfire echoing as people shouted: “Shameless! Shameless!”

The semiofficial Fars news agency reports three people were killed. Other protesters are reported killed in Bakhtiari and Isfahan provinces while a 21-year-old volunteer in the paramilitary Revolutionary Guard’s Basij force was killed in Lorestan.

Jan. 2: US President Donald Trump raises the stakes, writing on his Truth Social platform that if Iran “violently kills peaceful protesters,” the United States “will come to their rescue.” The warning, only months after American forces bombed Iranian nuclear sites, includes the assertion, without elaboration, that: “We are locked and loaded and ready to go.”

Protests, meantime, expand to reach more than 100 locations in 22 of Iran's 31 provinces, according to the US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency.

Jan. 3: Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei says “rioters must be put in their place,” in what is seen as a green light for security forces to begin more aggressively putting down the demonstrations. Protests expand to more than 170 locations in 25 provinces, with at least 15 people killed and 580 arrested, HRANA reports.

Jan. 6: Protesters conduct a sit-in at Tehran's Grand Bazaar until security forces disperse them using tear gas. The death toll rises to 36, including two members of Iranian security forces, according to HRANA. Demonstrations have reached over 280 locations in 27 of Iran’s 31 provinces.

Jan. 8 to 9: Following a call from Iran's exiled crown prince, a mass of people shout from their windows and take to the streets in an overnight protest. The government responds by blocking the internet and international telephone calls, in a bid to cut off the country of 85 million from outside influence. HRANA says violence around the demonstrations has killed at least 42 people while more than 2,270 others have been detained.