From Hollywood Sets to Hard Power- Why Iran–US Tensions Are Entering a Dangerous New Phase

International

oi-Pankaj Mishra

There
are
days
and
then,
there
are
days.
Remember
the
time,
when
Iran
was
not
portrayed
in
Washington
as
a
permanent
adversary.
In
the
early
1970s,
Hollywood
films
were
shot
in
Tehran,
Iranian
students
thronged
American
universities,
and
the
Shah
of
Iran
was
one
of
Washington’s
closest
allies
in
the
Middle
East.
The
1978
film
Caravans,
starring
Anthony
Quinn,
was
shot
extensively
in
Iran-
an
almost
unthinkable
prospect
today.
That
era
collapsed
with
the
1979
Islamic
Revolution
and
the
US
embassy
hostage
crisis,
transforming
Iran
from
partner
to
pariah
in
American
strategic
thinking.
More
than
four
decades
later,
the
arc
of
hostility
has
hardened,
and
recent
developments
suggest
it
may
be
entering
a
far
more
volatile
phase.

At
the
centre
of
the
latest
escalation
is
a
blunt
warning
from
Donald
Trump.
As
protests
over
economic
distress
spread
across
Iran,
Trump
issued
a
stark
message
on
Truth
Social,
declaring
that
the
United
States
is
“locked
and
loaded
and
ready
to
go” if
Tehran
uses
lethal
force
against
peaceful
demonstrators.
The
statement
is
not
merely
rhetorical.
It
reflects
a
long-standing
American
strategy
that
combines
sanctions,
psychological
pressure,
and
overt
signalling
to
constrain
Iran’s
internal
and
regional
behaviour.

The
protests
themselves
are
rooted
in
Iran’s
worsening
economic
reality.
Years
of
sanctions-
reimposed
in
2018
after
Washington
withdrew
from
the
nuclear
deal-
have
battered
the
rial,
driven
inflation
to
painful
levels,
and
eroded
public
confidence
in
the
state’s
ability
to
manage
basic
livelihoods.
What
began
as
shopkeepers
protesting
currency
collapse
has
escalated
into
nationwide
unrest,
marking
the
most
intense
demonstrations
in
three
years.
Unlike
purely
political
protests
of
the
past,
this
wave
is
anchored
in
survival
economics,
making
it
broader
and
harder
for
the
regime
to
isolate.

It
is
in
this
context
that
Trump’s
warning
needs
to
be
read
carefully.
Washington’s
insistence
that
protests
must
not
be
crushed
violently
is
less
about
humanitarian
concern
alone
and
more
about
strategic
leverage.
A
bloody
crackdown
would
internationalise
Iran’s
internal
crisis,
opening
the
door
to
tighter
sanctions,
diplomatic
isolation,
and
possibly
coercive
action
under
the
banner
of
protecting
civilians.
By
publicly
drawing
a
red
line,
the
US
is
attempting
to
deter
Tehran’s
security
apparatus
while
simultaneously
encouraging
protesters
by
signalling
external
backing-without
yet
committing
to
direct
intervention.

The
tweet
(
now
X)
above,
which
fits
squarely
into
this
pressure
tactic,
reads:

“US
locked,
loaded,
ready
to
go:
Trump
warns
Iran
against
using
force
on
protesters”

Regionally,
Iran
today
occupies
a
far
more
complex
and
contested
position
than
in
previous
protest
cycles.
Its
influence
stretches
across
Iraq,
Syria,
Lebanon,
and
Yemen
through
a
network
of
allied
militias
and
political
actors.
However,
that
influence
has
come
at
a
cost.
Years
of
regional
engagement
have
strained
Iran’s
economy
and
fuelled
domestic
resentment
over
resources
being
spent
abroad
while
living
standards
at
home
deteriorate.
This
internal-external
contradiction
is
now
sharper
than
ever.

The
post-Israel-Gaza
war
environment
has
further
tightened
the
screws.
Iran’s
alignment
with
the
so-called
“axis
of
resistance”
has
put
it
in
indirect
confrontation
with
Israel
and,
by
extension,
the
United
States.
Washington,
still
managing
the
aftershocks
of
Gaza,
is
acutely
sensitive
to
any
instability
that
could
widen
the
conflict
into
a
regional
war.
An
Iran
consumed
by
internal
unrest
is
both
a
vulnerability
and
an
opportunity-from
the
American
perspective.
It
weakens
Tehran’s
capacity
to
project
power,
but
it
also
raises
the
risk
of
miscalculation
if
the
regime
lashes
out
externally
to
rally
domestic
support.

The
intensity
of
the
current
protests,
therefore,
is
not
an
isolated
domestic
event;
it
is
embedded
in
a
larger
geopolitical
chessboard.
Economic
despair
has
ignited
public
anger,
sanctions
have
narrowed
the
regime’s
room
to
manoeuvre,
and
regional
tensions
have
amplified
the
stakes
of
every
internal
decision
Tehran
makes.
For
Washington,
signalling
readiness
serves
as
both
warning
and
wager-
betting
that
pressure
will
restrain
Iran’s
hand
without
triggering
open
conflict.

The
tragedy
is
that
ordinary
Iranians
remain
caught
between
a
defiant
state
and
a
relentless
external
squeeze.
As
history
shows,
moments
like
these
rarely
resolve
cleanly.
They
either
force
recalibration,
or
push
adversaries
closer
to
confrontation.