Speaking in a televised address, Pezeshkian said foreign leaders took advantage of public frustration caused by inflation and currency collapse, turning social grievances into what he described as an externally encouraged crisis.

The protests erupted in late December after sharp rises in food prices, housing costs, and unemployment placed heavy pressure on ordinary citizens

Demonstrations spread across multiple cities, drawing in thousands who voiced anger over economic mismanagement and declining living standards.

According to Iranian officials, the unrest lasted nearly two weeks before subsiding following a forceful security response by the authorities.

Human rights groups outside the country have reported very high casualty figures, while Iranian officials have provided lower but still significant numbers, highlighting the scale and intensity of the confrontation.

President Pezeshkian alleged that Washington, Tel Aviv, and European capitals provided encouragement and resources that pushed some protesters toward violence.

He claimed that foreign leaders were not motivated by concern for Iranian citizens but by a desire to weaken national unity and fracture society.

He argued that while the protests began as economic demonstrations, they were later transformed into something more dangerous.

In his words, the unrest was no longer just about livelihoods but had become a coordinated effort to sow hatred, division, and long term instability within Iran.

The Iranian president directly named U.S. President Donald Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and unnamed European leaders as key actors.

He said they publicly supported demonstrators while privately seeking to undermine Iran’s political system.

Trump has repeatedly expressed support for the protesters and warned Tehran against continued crackdowns.

U.S. officials have indicated that various options remain under review, including potential military measures, though no final decision has been announced.

Meanwhile, reports of increased U.S. naval activity in the region have heightened concerns about escalation.

Regional observers say such developments add to an already volatile security environment in the Middle East.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi echoed the president’s claims during interviews abroad, stating that thousands had been killed during the unrest, including security personnel.

He insisted that the protests were not a purely domestic phenomenon and accused foreign governments of interference.

Despite the sharp rhetoric, regional diplomacy has continued behind the scenes.

Countries such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates have reportedly been working to ease tensions and prevent a direct military confrontation between Tehran and Washington.

At the center of the broader dispute remains Iran’s missile programme and nuclear related concerns.
The United States has demanded limits on missile development as a condition for renewed talks, a demand Iran has firmly rejected.

Araqchi stated that missiles would never be part of negotiations and warned that Iran was prepared for both dialogue and conflict if necessary.

He also dismissed talk of regime change, calling it an unrealistic fantasy promoted by Iran’s adversaries.

Iranian leaders maintain that the political system is resilient and deeply rooted, capable of withstanding both internal unrest and external pressure.

They argue that while economic reforms are needed, foreign intervention only worsens hardship and delays solutions.

The protests have faded for now, but analysts believe the underlying economic challenges remain unresolved.

Rising costs, sanctions, and regional tensions continue to shape daily life in Iran and influence its foreign policy posture.

As rhetoric intensifies between Tehran and Western capitals, the risk of miscalculation remains high.

Whether diplomacy can prevail over confrontation will likely depend on how both sides address security concerns and economic pressures in the months ahead.

In a public message, Trump said time was running out for diplomacy and stressed that the United States would not tolerate Iran pursuing nuclear weapons. He framed negotiations as the only viable path forward, warning that failure to act would bring consequences far worse than previous military actions.

Trump referred to earlier strikes carried out last year as a clear signal of US resolve. He suggested that Tehran should view those attacks as a warning rather than an isolated episode, emphasizing that future responses would be more forceful if Iran ignored US demands.

Iran reacted swiftly, rejecting the tone of the warning while insisting it remained open to dialogue under certain conditions. Officials said Iran would defend itself vigorously if attacked, arguing that threats and military pressure would not force it into submission.

Iran’s mission to the United Nations pushed back by recalling past US military interventions in the region. It highlighted the heavy financial and human costs of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, suggesting that confrontation had historically brought little stability or benefit.

Tehran’s foreign ministry also indicated that no recent talks had taken place with US envoys and denied requesting negotiations. Iranian officials stressed that any dialogue would need to be based on mutual respect rather than pressure or ultimatums.

The situation has been further complicated by the movement of US naval forces into the Middle East. American officials confirmed that a carrier strike group had arrived in the region, a move widely seen as a show of force amid rising tensions.

Washington says the deployment is meant to deter escalation and protect US interests and allies. Iran, however, views the presence of additional US military assets as provocative and indicative of hostile intentions.

Tensions between the two countries have also been fueled by recent unrest inside Iran. Protests over economic hardship and political repression drew international attention, with Trump repeatedly condemning Tehran’s response and warning of possible intervention.

Although large scale demonstrations have subsided, the crackdown has left deep scars and contributed to worsening relations. US officials have linked their hardline stance partly to concerns over human rights and internal stability in Iran.

Trump has consistently argued that his administration will act decisively if Iran resumes activities linked to nuclear weapons development. He has pointed to earlier airstrikes on nuclear facilities as evidence that threats are not merely rhetorical.

Iranian leaders maintain that their nuclear program is peaceful and accuse Washington of undermining diplomacy by withdrawing from previous agreements. They argue that sanctions and military pressure have only deepened mistrust and hardened positions on both sides.

Regional analysts warn that the exchange of threats increases the risk of miscalculation. With military forces in close proximity and diplomatic channels limited, even minor incidents could escalate rapidly.

At the same time, some observers believe the rhetoric is intended to force negotiations rather than trigger conflict. Trump has often used strong language as leverage, while Iran has historically balanced defiance with selective engagement.

The coming weeks may prove decisive in determining whether the standoff moves toward talks or further confrontation. Both sides face domestic and international pressures that could shape their next steps.

As uncertainty grows, global markets and regional governments are watching closely. Any escalation between the United States and Iran would have far reaching implications for security, energy supplies and diplomatic stability across the Middle East.