If the United States attacked, Israel and every American base would become a target.
In the opening weeks of 2026, Iran stands at a crossroads familiar to nations where domestic unrest and foreign pressure converge: a parliament speaker who once commanded armies issues warnings to Washington and Jerusalem, while in the streets below, more than a hundred lives have already been lost to a protest movement demanding not reform but transformation. The return of Donald Trump to the American presidency has reintroduced a volatile variable into an already unstable equation, as his public encouragement of the demonstrators and Israel's quiet move to high alert suggest that the distance between rhetoric and intervention may be shorter than anyone wishes to admit.
- Iran's parliament speaker, a former Revolutionary Guards commander, has placed American bases and Israeli territory on notice — a threat calibrated to deter but carrying the weight of someone who knows what war costs.
- What began as economic frustration on December 28th has become a direct challenge to clerical rule itself, with 116 people dead, internet blackouts imposed, and the government scrambling to suppress both the protests and the story of them.
- Trump's social media declaration that 'The USA stands ready to help' and a phone call between Netanyahu and Secretary of State Rubio signal that Washington and Jerusalem are no longer merely observing — they are coordinating.
- A senior U.S. intelligence official frames the standoff as an 'endurance game': the opposition pushing for defections, the authorities calculating how much force to use without handing Washington a pretext for direct action.
- The shadow of a 12-day Israel-Iran war just seven months prior — in which American airstrikes and Iranian missile strikes on a U.S. base in Qatar both occurred — gives every current signal a weight that diplomats on all sides are struggling to manage.
On a Sunday in early January, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf — Iran's parliament speaker and a former Revolutionary Guards commander — delivered a stark warning to Washington: any American attack on Iran would bring strikes against Israel and every U.S. military installation in the region. The statement arrived as Iran's largest anti-government uprising since 2022 continued to spread, and as a newly returned President Trump had begun openly encouraging the demonstrators.
The protests ignited on December 28th, rooted in inflation but rapidly expanding into a demand for the end of clerical rule. Crowds gathered across cities and towns, visible in nighttime videos from Tehran. The government responded with force — at least 116 people killed by the time Qalibaf spoke, including 37 members of the security forces. State television broadcast funeral processions in western cities, revealing the toll on the state's own apparatus. To suppress coordination among protesters, authorities imposed an internet blackout beginning Thursday, while blaming the United States and Israel for fomenting the unrest.
Trump's posture was unmistakable. He posted that Iran was approaching 'FREEDOM, perhaps like never before' and declared American readiness to help. On the same day, Netanyahu and Secretary of State Rubio spoke by phone to discuss possible intervention — a call confirmed by a U.S. official, though its contents remained undisclosed. Israel moved to high alert, with three sources confirming heightened security consultations over the weekend, while the government and military stayed publicly silent.
The caution was understandable. Only seven months earlier, Israel and Iran had fought a 12-day war in which the United States joined Israeli airstrikes and Iran retaliated with missiles against an American base in Qatar. That recent history shadowed every current calculation. A senior U.S. intelligence official described the moment as an 'endurance game' — the opposition hoping to sustain pressure until key figures defected, the authorities trying to clear the streets without giving Washington a justification to act. Netanyahu, for his part, warned of 'horrible consequences' if Iran struck Israel, but on the protests themselves offered only watchful restraint: 'I think we should see what is happening inside Iran.' The central question — whether Trump's encouragement would become military commitment, and whether Iran's threats would deter or provoke — remained, for now, unanswered.
The warning came from inside Iran's parliament on a Sunday in early January, delivered with the weight of someone who had once commanded military forces. Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, the parliament speaker and a former Revolutionary Guards commander, stood before his colleagues and spoke directly to Washington: if the United States attacked Iran, Israel and every American military installation in the region would become a target. The threat arrived as the country convulsed with its largest anti-government uprising since 2022, and as Donald Trump, newly returned to the presidency, had begun openly encouraging the demonstrators and signaling American readiness to intervene.
The protests had begun on December 28th, ignited by anger over inflation but quickly transforming into something larger—a demand for the end of clerical rule itself. They spread across cities and towns, visible in nighttime videos from Tehran showing crowds gathered in neighborhoods, drumming on metal objects in rhythmic protest. The government responded with force. By the time Qalibaf made his statement, at least 116 people had been killed, according to HRANA, a U.S.-based human rights organization. Of those, 37 were members of the security forces. Iranian state television broadcast funeral processions in western cities like Gachsaran and Yasuj, showing the toll the unrest was taking on the state's own apparatus.
To control the narrative and suppress coordination among protesters, authorities had imposed an internet blackout starting Thursday, cutting off much of the flow of information from inside the country. The Iranian government blamed the United States and Israel for fomenting the unrest—a familiar accusation that reflected deeper anxieties about foreign interference. But the immediate trigger was domestic: years of economic hardship had finally reached a breaking point.
Trump's role in this escalating situation was unmistakable. On Saturday, he had posted on social media that Iran was looking at "FREEDOM, perhaps like never before" and declared that "The USA stands ready to help." The language was vague but the signal was clear. On the same day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke by phone to discuss the possibility of American intervention, according to an Israeli source present for the conversation. A U.S. official confirmed the call but offered no details about what was discussed.
Israel, meanwhile, had moved to high alert. Three Israeli sources who participated in security consultations over the weekend confirmed the heightened posture, though they declined to specify what that entailed. The Israeli government and military offered no public comment. This caution made sense given the history between the two countries. Just seven months earlier, in June, Israel and Iran had fought a 12-day war in which the United States had joined Israel in launching airstrikes. Iran had retaliated by firing missiles at an American air base in Qatar. The memory of that exchange hung over current deliberations.
A senior U.S. intelligence official, speaking on Saturday, described the unfolding situation as an "endurance game." The opposition was attempting to maintain pressure on the government, hoping that key figures would either flee the country or defect. The authorities, meanwhile, were trying to instill enough fear to clear the streets without providing Washington with a justification to intervene directly. It was a calculation being made in real time, with each side testing the other's resolve.
Netanyahu, in an interview published Friday in the Economist, had warned of "horrible consequences" if Iran attacked Israel. But on the question of the protests themselves, he offered a more measured stance: "Everything else, I think we should see what is happening inside Iran." It was a signal that Israel was watching, waiting, and not yet committed to direct action. The immediate question was whether Trump's encouragement of the protesters would translate into military support, and whether Iran's threats would deter American action or provoke it.
Citações Notáveis
In the case of an attack on Iran, the occupied territories as well as all U.S. bases and ships will be our legitimate target.— Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, Iranian Parliament Speaker
Iran is looking at FREEDOM, perhaps like never before. The USA stands ready to help.— Donald Trump, posted on social media
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why did Iran's parliament speaker feel compelled to make such an explicit threat on Sunday? Was this a routine warning or something different?
It wasn't routine. Qalibaf was signaling that Iran had red lines, and that the cost of crossing them would be immediate and severe. He was speaking to Trump specifically—to make clear that American intervention wouldn't be cost-free. The threat was meant to create hesitation.
But Trump had just said the U.S. was "ready to help." Did that language actually mean military intervention, or was it more rhetorical?
That's the ambiguity everyone was wrestling with. Trump's posts were deliberately vague—"ready to help" could mean anything from diplomatic support to covert aid to direct military strikes. The Iranians and Israelis had to assume the worst-case scenario and prepare accordingly.
The internet blackout seems like a desperate move. Does that suggest the government was losing control?
It suggests they were afraid of losing control. When you cut off communications, you're admitting that the opposition is organizing faster than you can suppress them. But it also meant the world couldn't see what was actually happening on the streets.
Why would Israel be on high alert if it wasn't planning to intervene itself?
Because if the U.S. struck Iran, Iran would almost certainly retaliate against Israel. Israel had to be ready to defend itself, even if it wasn't the one pulling the trigger. That's the trap of being America's closest ally in the region.
The intelligence official called it an "endurance game." What did that really mean?
It meant both sides were betting on the other to blink first. The protesters wanted the government to fracture from within. The government wanted the streets to empty out of fear. And the U.S. was watching to see if it could tip the scales without getting directly involved in a war.