What is unfolding around Iran right now is not chaotic, spontaneous, or confusing — it is familiar.
Iran is experiencing internal unrest, which Western media almost uniformly presents as organic, popular protest. At the same time, U.S. officials have repeatedly threatened military action against Iran, even though the United States and Iran were previously engaged in negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program.
Here is the part that should give people pause…
While negotiations were ongoing, the United States quietly supported and facilitated Israeli strikes against Iranian targets. Whatever one thinks of Iran’s leadership, negotiating “peace” while enabling airstrikes is not good faith diplomacy. It is a tactic — one that relies on the assumption that the public will never be forced to hold both realities in view at the same time.
Iran claims its security forces are not suppressing peaceful protesters but targeting foreign-backed operatives and terrorist networks. They allege the unrest has been encouraged, funded, and organized by outside powers, particularly the United States and Israel. Western audiences are told this explanation is propaganda and are discouraged from even considering it.
What is rarely mentioned is that large counter-protests in support of Iran’s government have taken place as well — events that receive little to no coverage in Western media. When one side of unrest is magnified and the other is ignored, the issue stops being about truth and starts being about narrative control.
This narrative fits neatly into a framework that has existed for years. Under the United Nations’ “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine, internal conflict can be used as moral justification for external military involvement. In practice, once unrest is framed as humanitarian crisis or democratic uprising, national sovereignty becomes negotiable.
This is not speculation.
Long before the current unrest, policy documents produced by Western think tanks — such as Which Path to Persia — openly outlined strategies for weakening Iran through sanctions, information warfare, and the encouragement of internal dissent. What we are seeing now follows that same blueprint.
Meanwhile, escalation signals continue to mount:
- A U.S. aircraft carrier strike group moving into the region
- Iran repeatedly closing its airspace
- Internet and communications shutdowns
- Western governments urging their citizens to leave Iran
These are not signals of restraint. They are the kind of moves that appear when a decision has already been framed, and the public is being prepared to accept it.
Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed; — Isa 10:1
This post is not about defending Iran’s government or excusing its actions. It is about recognizing how power behaves when unrest appears in a strategically important nation.
The West insists this is about human rights and stability. History suggests something else: that internal unrest is once again being used as the pretext for external control.
Whether people are willing to acknowledge that pattern — before events fully harden into war — is another matter entirely.