New Archaeological Finds in Saudi Arabia’s AlUla Fill ‘Missing Links’ in Region’s History

Experts are beginning to fill in missing links in our understanding of AlUla's human history with new discoveries.
Experts are beginning to fill in missing links in our understanding of AlUla's human history with new discoveries.
TT

New Archaeological Finds in Saudi Arabia’s AlUla Fill ‘Missing Links’ in Region’s History

Experts are beginning to fill in missing links in our understanding of AlUla's human history with new discoveries.
Experts are beginning to fill in missing links in our understanding of AlUla's human history with new discoveries.

Amid a vast and enigmatic monumental landscape, forgotten kingdoms and layers of history, archaeologists are only just beginning to reveal the secrets of this heritage jewel in northwest Saudi Arabia. As winter approaches and international travel allows, archaeological work is resuming in AlUla, a historically rich region that has been relatively untouched in comparison to similar places.

In what has become one of the world’s most active archaeological explorations, experts are beginning to fill in missing links in our understanding of the region’s human history with new discoveries – and further announcements are expected soon.

AlUla is a region of deserts and arid mountains. Yet, crucially, amid this hard landscape is a fertile oasis valley that has long sustained life and the wider area has drawn people and civilizations for more than 200,000 years. As a result, while AlUla is best known for the Nabataean tombs of Hegra, Saudi Arabia’s first UNESCO World Heritage site, over 27,000 other archaeological sites have been identified within its borders with more set to be discovered and recorded in the coming months.

“Northwestern Arabia has often been overlooked as a place of cultural and civilizational importance in and of itself,” explains Dr. Rebecca Foote, Director of Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Research at the Royal Commission for AlUla (RCU).

“For many years, its importance has been eclipsed by the nearby Fertile Crescent, riverine Mesopotamia, and Egypt, and the marine civilizations along the Red Sea. AlUla was seen as just a region people passed through. However, we’re now learning that AlUla was more than just a place to transit, it was a true nexus and a home for complex communities across thousands of years.”

Archaeologists, conservators, photogrammeters and other specialists are returning to AlUla, following the Covid-19 lockdown, and resuming their fieldwork. Despite the geographical size of AlUla (22,561 sq km) and the scope of heritage contained within, it is only in the last few years that AlUla has seen more than limited archaeological exploration.

That has changed thanks to archaeologists of the RCU – the governmental body charged with developing and administering the region – and the teams it organizes, tapping experts from Saudi and international universities, research institutes, museums and other professionals, as well as the French teams that the Agence française pour le développement d’AlUla (AFALULA), a key partner, brings.

Thanks to the recent work, this “jewel in the heritage crown of Saudi Arabia” is beginning to fill in the missing links of the region's development and the generations that have crossed it, and whose descendants still inhabit it. And, as 2021 approaches, more of AlUla’s heritage treasures will be revealed to the world through television documentaries, the touring Wonders of Arabia exhibition (previously hosted at the Institut du monde Arabe in Paris) and the re-opening of AlUla itself. Visitors will soon be able to journey through time and across one of the world’s largest archaeological sites, experiencing a landscape that has been inhabited for over 200,000 years.

Early human habitation
RCU’s discoveries have established that prehistoric peoples of AlUla hunted and grazed in AlUla in a greener land than today. New findings in the mysterious, vast, and previously unexplored, monumental landscape they and generations after left behind suggest their culture was far more complex than once thought.

Using satellite imagery, aerial photography, ground survey and old-fashioned digging, archaeologists can now appreciate the sheer number of stone structures built in the late prehistoric period (circa 5200-1200 BCE) across AlUla’s lowlands, uplands and harrat (lava flows). The size, locations, and numbers of these monuments point to a degree of community cooperation previously undetected, and evidence that some of these sites were used for ritual may change our view of these prehistoric peoples’ interior life altogether.

One of these structure types, which seems to one of the oldest, has been named “mustatil” (rectangle, in Arabic), some of which are hundreds of meters long. Another style of structures is referred to as “pendant.” These usually feature a ringed cairn main burial with a ‘tail’ of associated structures (that resembles jewellery from the air, hence the name). Exact details of the use of these constructions remains elusive; the people of this time left no writing, and excavations have unearthed surprisingly few tools, pottery or other small items that might indicate their specific usage.

The purpose of pendants seems clearly to have been funerary, tombs as well as memorial cenotaphs. But with the graves mostly disturbed long ago – perhaps only soon after the burials – the identities and significance of those who once lay within remains unknown.

Were these local leaders? Religious figures? Or were the tombs reused, the bones within the large main ringed burial moved out to the smaller structures with each new generation? We may never know for sure, but the location of many of these funerary complexes on mountain tops overlooking the lands of AlUla does suggest the people interacting with and appreciating the world around them. By affording their ancestors such vaulted locations, they may have been appreciating the natural beauty of their home territories – not just a landscape through which they were passing.

For the mustatils, the findings from the first excavations which are currently being analyzed. Leading experts to believe they held rituals for the people of AlUla, but what those rituals were remain a mystery. Others may also have marked the boundaries of territories - the search for evidence continues.

“Our investigation of these mustatils, pendants, and other prehistoric structures are giving us a tantalizing glimpse into the region around 7,000 years ago and for several millennia thereafter,” explains Dr. Foote. “We could be looking at early expressions of ownership and property, if indeed the structures functioned primarily or secondarily as boundary markers – in keeping with a people grazing herds in addition to hunting wild animals.”

“We’re only just beginning our own journey through time by identifying, recording and collecting datable samples from these sites to gain a chronology of this prehistory. By conducting intensive survey and targeted excavations at some of the more significant among these numerous sites we are gaining great insights about function too,” she added.

“This broad targeted approach has not been undertaken before in AlUla, and we’re raising even more questions as we do so. But what is certain is that we can now recognize AlUla as among the oldest monumental landscapes in the world. For its inhabitants, AlUla was a home – a place of ancestors, of natural resources and of beauty – and these people’s lives were more complex than we had previously imagined.”

Early North Arabian kingdoms
Over 4,000 years after the peoples of the mustatil and yet still over 2,000 years ago, the ancient North Arabian Kingdoms of Dadan and Lihyan controlled AlUla from circa 900 BCE to 100 CE. It was a crossroads of trading routes, bringing incense from southern Arabia to Egypt, Syria and Mesopotamia. AlUla was vital as both a place where traders and other travelers could replenish food and water and as a gateway for the precious aromatics to reach beyond Arabia.

Dr. Abdulrahman Alsuhaibani, Associate Professor of Archaeology at King Saud University and Acting Director of Museums and Exhibitions at RCU, and the team he co-directs, are excavating several key areas within the site of Dadan, including tombs and a newly discovered residential area, to answer a number of questions about these mysterious vanished kingdoms. How and when precisely did each kingdom rise to power? What were their major achievements? What was the relationship between the two? Were they one people and one land but ruled by two separate consecutive kingdoms? Or were they separate peoples and kingdoms? And, perhaps most fascinating of all, what caused the Lihyanite Kingdom to so abruptly disappear and when?

“It may have been an earthquake or another natural disaster, but we don’t have any confirmed evidence yet,” suggests Dr Alsuhaibani. “The Lihyanite people left to integrate with another people elsewhere. Or it may have been a political shift, begun or exacerbated by the arrival of the Nabataeans possibly from the north. But if it was due to the Nabataean arrival, that raises even more questions.”

“We know some of the Lihyanite peoples continued to live under the Nabataeans; their dialects come through in inscriptions and design details from Lihyanite funerary architecture is repeated in the Nabataean monuments. Yet the Nabataeans normally detailed chronicles of their own history and say almost nothing about the Lihyanite Kingdom. Ultimately, learning more about this long-lasting and far-reaching civilization – one of the forgotten powers of Arabia – could change our understanding of the entire region.”

As gateways and gatekeepers, these kingdoms held power and influence across the region, Dr. Alsuhaibani, RCU’s expert on this period, explains further: “All the evidence we have so far points to these kingdoms, the Lihyanite Kingdom in particular, being regional powers. Dadan is mentioned in the Bible and an Aramaic inscription attests to it being an equal to the powerful Kingdom of Saba (popularly known as Sheba) in the south of the Arabian peninsula.”

“The Lihyanite Kingdom was one of the largest of its time, stretching from Madinah in the south up to Aqaba in modern day Jordan in the north. Other regional kingdoms maintained embassies there and people made offerings to the kingdom’s gods in temples beyond its borders. The two kingdoms lasted around 900 years – almost three times as long as the famous Nabataean Kingdom in AlUla – and yet, we know almost nothing else about these two kingdoms, in particular their rise and fall. We’re really taking our first steps here.”

The Islamic period
After the fall of the Lihyanite Kingdom, AlUla became the principal southern city of the Nabataean Kingdom, inscriptions attesting to the movement of families and individuals from Petra to the AlUla and also give us the proper name of Hegra, before the arrival of the Romans who named the region Arabia Petraea (“rocky Arabia”). In 622 CE, the birth of Islam brought another sea-change.

Arabia suddenly became the cradle of a new religion and a new culture with it. AlUla’s history was already a part of this through its place in the pre-Islamic evolution of the Hijazi Arabic script (itself influenced by the Nabataean script) that later carried Islam’s message, but its present and future rapidly became a vital part of the new Islamic world as a stopping point on the pilgrimage to Makkah, at Qurh. Thanks to its importance on pilgrim routes, this city in AlUla was an important part of the early Islamic empire. Indeed, one early commander, Musa bin Nusayr, after whom a nearby citadel is commonly known, achieved fame as one of the leaders of the Islamic conquest of the Iberian Peninsula, in 711 CE, being the first “Waly” (governor) of the new territory of AlAndalus, between 714 and 716.

AlUla Old Town followed Qurh to become the vital commercial center of the AlUla Valley after the 12th century CE, drawing on its fertile soils, abundant water, and links from the Red Sea into the heart of the Arabian Peninsula, as well as links north to south. AlUla Old Town flourished and its people with it. Even now, its centuries-old mosques stand as a testament to the town’s importance to the birth, spread, and vibrant life of Islam.

RCU is in the process of conserving AlUla Old Town, working with the community to understand the original construction methods used there and recording oral histories passed down through generations of AlUla inhabitants, the long-term custodians of AlUla’s history, to learn more about how the town functioned and its people lived.

Michael Jones, Cultural Heritage Conservation Manager at RCU, has been working with the community and international experts on this conservation.

“AlUla’s Old Town really is a time capsule. Walking its streets one can literally see the layers of history - one building built out of or into another, the town’s fabric being rebuilt, refreshed and revitalized every generation or so,” he said. “And as well as the more distant history, we’re also discovering how people lived up to the point they left Old Town in the late 1970s and early 1980s from the items they left behind – sewing machines, tea pots, and coins from the early days of the modern Saudi kingdom for example – and with the oral history that we’re recording we’re able to re-establish that missing link between modern AlUla and its past.”

Today – The missing links between us and our ancestors
With the community at the center and so closely involved in this way, AlUla is truly a place where history and heritage are coming back to life. And that is a key goal of RCU’s heritage and development work in AlUla: growing the region as a “living museum” where visitors can encounter the different civilizations and cultures who have called the place home – or just passed through – and left their mark. Indeed, RCU is preparing to launch its Living Museum website, an online portal to AlUla’s past.

By simply clicking a web-link visitors to AUla will be able to see these missing links for themselves – even if they cannot yet visit in person. This Living Museum resource will also be a way for RCU’s conservation and archaeological teams to keep the public updated of their new findings, once they have passed through academic review.

“Conservation and Archaeology are about maintaining that chain of human knowledge and experience,” said Michael Jones, reflecting on RCU’s work. “Our work in AlUla is an amazing example of that. We’re looking at more than 200,000 years of human experience here. We’re filling in gaps – those missing links – to connect us to that past, but our work is also about connecting with the future.”

“The knowledge we’re gaining now and sharing through papers, museums, and in conversations with the community will also belong to future generations. These future generations will look back on what we’re doing, just as we’re looking back, and I believe that all this will be as vital to them as looking back on our past is for us.”



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.