Photo by Tianlei Wu on Unsplash
Iran’s political crisis is often reported in fragments: isolated protests, brief crackdowns, and sporadic diplomatic stand-offs with the West. What is less frequently conveyed is the enormous scale of violence used to suppress dissent, or the generational nature of the challenge now confronting the Islamic Republic. In early January 2026, those underlying tensions escalated dramatically, marking a potential turning point that may prove more consequential than the military manoeuvres and diplomatic warnings currently dominating international headlines.
Reporting from inside Iran remains extremely difficult. Severe internet restrictions, combined with intimidation and the removal of journalists, limit and often delay the flow of information out of the country. As a result, figures cited by opposition groups and international media cannot always be verified. Nevertheless, the emerging reports consistently point to a level of state violence that demands serious scrutiny.
While international attention has focused on the USS Abraham Lincoln and its carrier strike group moving toward the Persian Gulf, the most significant developments in the Iranian crisis have been unfolding inside the morgues of Tehran, Karaj, and Rasht.
President Donald Trump has reportedly presented the Pentagon with an expanded list of military options, including commando raids and targeted strikes. At the same time, the Iranian government has launched a sweeping domestic crackdown. Documents obtained by Iran International suggest that more than 36,500 people were killed over a 48-hour period on January 8 and 9, 2026.
The Daily Telegraph has compared the scale of the killings to the 1941 Babi Yar massacre, in which 33,771 Jews were murdered by Nazi forces in two days. In Iran, the majority of those killed are reported to be young people between the ages of 14 and 30, targeted in what appears to be a deliberate attempt to eliminate a generation seen as a threat to the survival of the regime.
One historian of modern Iran argues that the killings represent a calculated response to a rapidly shifting political landscape.
“These killings can – and should – be analytically linked to recent and ongoing US military preparations for a potential strike,” they explain. “The authorities perceived an existential threat and responded with violent repression.”
They add that while Western media coverage has been “notably selective and hesitant,” the European Union’s recent decision to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organisation constitutes a direct, if belated, acknowledgement of its role in the violence. They are now urging the UK’s Labour government to follow the EU’s lead.
Unlike the protest movements of 2019 or 2022, the current uprising has mobilised around a clearer political alternative. For years, Western diplomats argued that there was no viable replacement for Iran’s existing leadership. That assumption is now being openly challenged, as many demonstrators express support for Prince Reza Pahlavi, the son of Iran’s last Shah.
According to the historian, the renewed appeal of monarchy is not accidental.
“Monarchy in Iran is deeply rooted historically and culturally,” they say. “While an absolute or arbitrary monarch is no longer acceptable, a constitutional monarchy could serve as a unifying framework… one capable of fostering national cohesion, stability, and security.”
They note that for some Iranians, the Pahlavi era is increasingly viewed as preferable to the present system, with Prince Reza emerging as a figure capable of holding the country together should the current government collapse.
International responses remain a disjointed mix of military posturing and diplomacy. President Trump has issued a blunt ultimatum to Tehran: abandon nuclear ambitions and halt the killing of protesters. Speaking to reporters on Friday, he confirmed that he had been presented with options for US raids on Iranian facilities.
“We have a lot of very big, very powerful ships sailing to Iran right now,” Trump warned. “It would be great if we didn’t have to use them – but they are going to have to do something.”
According to The New York Times, Trump’s strategy echoes the “maximum pressure” campaign previously used against Venezuela, albeit with significantly higher military risks. The objective is to force Tehran into negotiations or, failing that, to authorise targeted strikes against its leadership.
With the Iranian rial continuing to lose value and internet restrictions tightening, the historian warns that the window for international engagement is rapidly closing.
“Any discussion of the mass killings needs to be disseminated promptly,” they argue, “before these events risk being rendered ‘outdated’ in the fast-moving news cycle.”
For the families of those killed, the crisis remains immediate and unresolved. The scale of the violence has created a national trauma and intensified pressure on a government now facing an increasingly determined and politically conscious population.
For governments, the media and the wider public, the main issue now is attention. If these events are allowed to fade from view, the violence is likely to continue, and the people paying the price will be those still living inside Iran. What happens next will depend not only on the decisions made in Tehran and Washington, but on whether the world continues to watch.
