Foreign Fighters in Syria: Problem or Part of the Solution?

In this photo released by the Saudi Royal Palace, Syria's interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa, left, shakes hands with President Donald Trump, center, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Wednesday, May 14, 2025. At right is Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.(Bandar Aljaloud/Saudi Royal Palace via AP)
In this photo released by the Saudi Royal Palace, Syria's interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa, left, shakes hands with President Donald Trump, center, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Wednesday, May 14, 2025. At right is Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.(Bandar Aljaloud/Saudi Royal Palace via AP)
TT

Foreign Fighters in Syria: Problem or Part of the Solution?

In this photo released by the Saudi Royal Palace, Syria's interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa, left, shakes hands with President Donald Trump, center, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Wednesday, May 14, 2025. At right is Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.(Bandar Aljaloud/Saudi Royal Palace via AP)
In this photo released by the Saudi Royal Palace, Syria's interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa, left, shakes hands with President Donald Trump, center, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Wednesday, May 14, 2025. At right is Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.(Bandar Aljaloud/Saudi Royal Palace via AP)

US President Donald Trump’s announcement to lift sanctions on Syria came with five conditions, chief among them the demand that “all foreign fighters” leave Syrian territory, a requirement that poses a significant challenge to the new administration of President Ahmed al-Sharaa.

The presence of these fighters, many of whom have been allied for years with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), underscores the complexity of Trump’s demand. These militants played a key role in the conflict against former President Bashar al-Assad, and many in HTS view them as having earned their place on the battlefield through loyalty and sacrifice.

The influx of foreign fighters into Syria began with the formation of the Free Syrian Army in the early days of the uprising. Türkiye’s border soon became a dual gateway, a route of escape for Syrians fleeing war, either settling in Türkiye or continuing toward Europe, and a corridor for hundreds of non-Syrian fighters arriving to join the battle.

Initially, many of these fighters aligned themselves with non-ideological armed groups. But over time, especially between 2012 and 2014, as the regime intensified its use of barrel bombs and heavy weaponry on opposition-held neighborhoods, the foreign fighters gained prominence in what became known as the “revolutionary strongholds,” particularly in Syria’s north.

‘The Migrants’ of the Revolution

Their combat skills and commitment earned them both fear and admiration. In this period, foreign fighters often led the charge in so-called “inghimasi” (commando-style) and suicide operations, which won them significant support among local communities. They were dubbed “al-Muhajireen” - the migrants - a reference both to their origins and their perceived dedication to the Syrian cause.

Following the collapse of the former Syrian regime on December 8, foreign fighter factions such as the Turkistan Islamic Party, Ajnad al-Sham and Ajnad al-Kavkaz (Chechens) emerged as key players within the operations command room led by the HTS.

In his first public remarks on the presence of foreign fighters, Syria’s new president described them as instrumental in toppling Bashar al-Assad’s regime and said they “deserve to be rewarded.”

Speaking to journalists in mid-January, al-Sharaa said the atrocities committed by the former government had necessitated foreign support, and hinted at the possibility of granting these fighters Syrian citizenship, a suggestion that sparked widespread debate.

Soon after, the new administration took steps that signaled both gratitude and political calculation: several foreign fighters were appointed to senior military posts in the newly restructured Syrian army, with ranks ranging from colonel to brigadier general.

Among the most prominent were Jordanian Abdulrahman Hussein al-Khatib, promoted to brigadier general; Egyptian Alaa Mohamed Abdel Baki; Uyghur militant Abdulaziz Dawood Khodabardi; Tajik national Moulana Tursun Abdulsamad; Turkish fighter Omar Mohamed Jeftchi Mukhtar; Albanian Abdul Bashari Khattab; and Dagestani native Zanor al-Basri Abdelhamid Abdullah, the commander of the “Army of Emigrants and Supporters.”

A Dilemma at the Heart of Syria’s Future

A former HTS commander, speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat on condition of anonymity, said the al-Sharaa administration is unlikely to oppose the US demand.

“The muhajireen brothers themselves are not clinging to their positions if they stand in the way of the country’s interests,” he said.

Indeed, less than 24 hours after Trump and al-Sharaa met in the Saudi capital, local Syrian outlets began reporting that General Security forces had raided foreign fighter strongholds in rural Idlib.

Asharq Al-Awsat was unable to independently verify the reports, but whether the raids were genuine or simply political theater, analysts say the message was unmistakable: Damascus may be willing to act decisively to secure international recognition and economic relief.

Kareem Mohammed, a current Syrian army commander and former battalion leader in the HTS with direct ties to foreign fighters, told Asharq Al-Awsat from Damascus that these combatants still hold significant sway within the country’s military and security apparatus, as well as among the revolution’s grassroots base.

“There is no interest for the government in taking negative action against them,” Mohammed said. “They remain popular within the ranks of the new army and the revolutionary heartland.”

Mohammed added that several countries have recently begun raising the issue of foreign fighters as a bargaining chip in their engagement with Syria’s new leadership. But he emphasized the crucial role these militants - referred to by rebels as al-Muhajireen (the migrants) - played from the outset of the uprising.

“These fighters had a decisive impact from the early days of the revolution. Their military expertise stood out in key battles,” he said.

According to Mohammed, the al-Sharaa government is actively working to distance the muhajireen from internal political conflicts and reassign them to their former positions in Idlib. There are also promises of eventual integration into Syrian society and possibly even the granting of citizenship down the line.

The ongoing debate over the presence of foreign fighters in Syria may be based on a misunderstanding, according to extremist group researcher Hossam Jazmati, who says Western powers are not explicitly calling for their expulsion.

“The American and Western demands are not about deporting foreign fighters,” Jazmati told Asharq Al-Awsat.

“Rather, they focus on two main conditions: that these individuals do not hold prominent positions in the emerging Syrian state, particularly in the army, security, or government , and that Syrian territory is not used by any of them to launch, prepare for, or train for military operations abroad.”

Jazmati noted that even during Hayat Tahrir al-Sham’s control over Idlib in recent years, the group maintained a policy of preventing factions from using Syrian territory as a base for cross-border attacks.

“HTS managed to keep the jihadist movements in check, discouraging any ambitions of launching operations beyond Syria’s borders,” he said.

As the future of foreign fighters in Syria hangs in the balance, allies and commanders aligned with the so-called muhajireen are rejecting any calls for their expulsion or forced repatriation.

“What their brothers and allies refuse is the idea of throwing them out of a country they fought to defend against a brutal regime, or handing them over to their home countries, where prison, or even execution, likely awaits,” said Jazmati.

“Generally speaking, I don’t believe that leaders and fighters in the HTS, or other factions, or even the religious and revolutionary base that admires the muhajireen model, insist on these fighters taking part in building the new state,” he added. “Nor do I think the foreign fighters themselves want that.”

That sentiment is echoed by Abu Hafs al-Turkistani, a former leader in the Turkistan Islamic Party who now heads a battalion within the Syrian army under the Ministry of Defense. His unit, composed mainly of Uyghur fighters, is stationed between Idlib and the Latakia countryside.

“We didn’t come to Syria to kill Syrians,” Turkistani told Asharq Al-Awsat. “We didn’t come here for money or positions. We came to support them, to share their suffering and help them as best we could, and thanks to God, victory was achieved, and we are honored to have taken part in it.”

Turkistani dismissed accusations linking foreign fighters to recent violence in coastal areas or in Sweida as part of a broader media campaign to vilify them. “These are baseless allegations,” he said.

Turkistani insisted that foreign fighters have largely kept to themselves and respected Syrian customs and traditions.

“We never interfered in the lives of Syrians. We’ve lived among them for years and stayed out of their personal affairs. Every nation has its differences, and while we may not agree on everything, we never tried to impose ourselves on their society,” he said.

As for past incidents in Idlib involving foreign fighters, Turkistani acknowledged isolated cases but said they were not repeated and did not reflect a broader pattern of misconduct. “The Syrians know that well,” he added.

Jazmati says Syria’s new leadership could resolve the foreign fighters dilemma by allowing them to stay under clear legal terms, provided they step away from power and military involvement.

“The muhajireen can remain in Syria under officially agreed legal arrangements, as civilians only,” Jazmati told Asharq Al-Awsat.

“They were never here to govern, and should not be placed at the forefront of a state they have no intention of ruling. But they must also pledge not to use Syrian territory to plan or launch jihadist operations in their home countries or elsewhere, as that could cause serious harm. If they refuse, they can leave for a destination of their choice.”

Appointments Stir Controversy

A foreign fighter of Arab nationality, known as Abu Mohammed, told Asharq Al-Awsat that he and others remain committed to the state led by al-Sharaa.

“We will not turn against Sharaa. We never did,” he said. “We avoided factional infighting and always prioritized Syria’s interests, which never clashed with our own. We were ready to die for the lives of Syrians, and now we know how to live under a state we respect and value.”

However, Jazmati warned that the real challenge lies in undoing the senior military appointments made shortly after the fall of the Assad regime, including three generals and three colonels, all foreign nationals.

“Reversing those promotions and assignments is a political and institutional dilemma,” Jazmati said. “It’s only been three weeks since the regime’s collapse, and these titles carry weight.”

According to confidential information seen by Jazmati, Syrian officials have pledged to halt the appointment of non-Syrians going forward.

But resolving the status of those already promoted remains a sensitive issue, one that may require a compromise that preserves their dignity, rank, and possibly even their current roles.

Efforts to limit the influence of foreign fighters in Syria’s post-Assad era are unlikely to trigger a resurgence of al-Qaeda or ISIS, according Jazmati.

“I don’t see al-Qaeda seeking a revival in Syria after its affiliate, Hurras al-Din, was dismantled,” Jazmati told Asharq Al-Awsat.

“As for ISIS, while its Syrian strategy remains unclear, it could attempt to recruit disaffected individuals, both Syrian and foreign, who are frustrated by the new government’s policies. Other smaller groups may also emerge, especially those that believe the current leadership is straying from their interpretation of Islamic law.”

Fragmented Landscape of Foreign Fighters

Not all foreign fighters in Syria fall along a single ideological spectrum. Divisions among them have existed since the early days of their arrival, influenced by how they were recruited and the routes they took to join the war.

Some were brought in through structured recruitment networks. These fighters were often contacted online, vetted, and then smuggled into Syria through well-organized channels. Others arrived independently, relying on human smugglers and covering their own travel costs, usually via Türkiye on tourist visas.

By mid-2013, as the rebel scene in Syria splintered, foreign fighters mostly gravitated toward jihadist factions, especially Jabhat al-Nusra. A smaller number joined so-called “moderate” groups such as Liwa al-Tawhid in Aleppo.

Ideological Rifts and Realignment

As rivalries over ideology and influence deepened, most foreign fighters shifted between groups, particularly after Jabhat al-Nusra’s break from ISIS. The split followed its former leader Ahmad al-Sharaa’s refusal to pledge allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, instead aligning with former al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri.

That move sparked further defections, with some foreign fighters rejecting al-Zawahiri’s authority and joining ISIS.

Clashes between the factions ensued, eventually leading to the rise of independent groups like Jund al-Aqsa, founded by Abu Abdul Aziz al-Qatari, a jihadist of Palestinian origin born in Iraq.

Other units formed along national lines, including Uyghur, Uzbek, and Chechen battalions.

By mid-2014, the rise of ISIS across western Iraq and into Syria’s Deir Ezzor, Raqqa, parts of Hasakah, and the Aleppo and Idlib countryside intensified rivalries among jihadist factions.

ISIS declared other foreign-led groups apostates, even as many maintained ties with Jabhat al-Nusra and adopted a position of neutrality in the escalating infighting.

Factions like the Turkistan Islamic Party, Ajnad al-Sham, Ajnad al-Kavkaz, and Ansar al-Tawhid, as well as remnants of Jund al-Aqsa, survived through Assad’s fall, opting for autonomy or quiet alliance with the HTS.

The Syrianization of the Fight

Between 2014 and 2018, HTS, under the leadership of Abu Mohammad al-Jolani (al-Sharaa), systematically sidelined foreign fighters, removing them from leadership roles and the media spotlight.

Many were arrested or expelled, especially those affiliated with hardline factions such as Hurras al-Din, or those resistant to HTS’s pivot toward local governance.

The shift was both strategic and ideological.

Syrians increasingly resented the dominance of foreign leaders within the group, while international actors, particularly Türkiye, raised concerns about HTS’s associations with transnational jihadism.

Foreign fighters were often seen preaching al-Qaeda-style rhetoric and resisting cooperation with the Turkish military,which they denounced due to its NATO membership.

Al-Sharaa responded by launching a sweeping reform within HTS, marginalizing extremists regardless of nationality.

He rebranded the movement’s mission from global jihad to Syrian nationalism, using phrases like “Thawrat Ahl al-Sham” (“the revolution of the people of the Levant”) to underscore local priorities.

Many foreign fighters aligned with this vision, describing themselves as “supporters” rather than leaders of Syria’s future, as HTS moved to integrate them into the new nationalist framework.

Al-Sharaa’s project of “Syrianizing” the battle and its fighters aimed to distance the group from its jihadist roots and bring it closer to the political mainstream.

Now as president, al-Sharaa faces a new test: can he extend this project of ideological reform and integration under a national flag, while appeasing international stakeholders demanding limits on foreign fighters?

Observers say success will depend on his ability to restructure without alienating the fighters who once formed the backbone of the armed opposition.

The challenge lies in balancing their role in Syria’s recent history with the imperatives of diplomacy, reconstruction, and future security.

Whether Sharaa’s past efforts at moderation and localization can evolve into a credible state policy remains to be seen but with pressure mounting from both allies and adversaries, the answer may define the country’s next chapter.



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.