Iran has been convulsed by nationwide protests since December 28, triggered by a sudden collapse of its currency, the rial.

These protests were at first met with engagement by the reformist wing of the Iranian state, represented by President Pezeshkian, before the more conservative wing of the state initiated a brutal crackdown, resulting in the deaths of many protesters — the exact number is unknown, but conservative estimates indicate the deaths are in the thousands.

As I write, the protest movement seems to have largely ended. That being said, it is impossible to know at this time what to expect going forward — short-term, medium-term or long-term — although it does seem that the authorities have regained control and there were no significant (if any) defections of security forces to the protest movement.

While it has been curious watching people, who for the past few years have actively defended genocide, engaged in constant Islamophobia and otherwise been apologists for brutal repression of protests (from Black Lives Matter through to the murder of Rebecca Good) suddenly discover their support for protest and make the Iranian protesters their cause célèbre du jour, it is important to address the situation in Iran and situate it in historical context.

But first I want to be clear on the key aspect. Iran is a reactionary regime, a police state, one that has banned truly independent labour unions, that has systematically persecuted leftists (communists, socialists and social democrats), and brutally suppressed the fundamental rights of women. It is economically based around the interests of national capitalists, and is as brutal and repressive a regime as the Shah’s that it replaced in 1979.

That it is also fiercely anti-imperialist, especially in relation to Israel, and is the only real check on Israeli aggression in the region, does not eclipse these other aspects. Even broken clocks are right twice a day after all. All this notwithstanding, the future of Iran is that of the Iranian people alone — not Israel, and not the US. One can be opposed to the Iranian regime while simultaneously being opposed to the threat of imperialist intervention.

The immediate trigger for these protests stems from the collapse of the rial. This collapse was caused through a mix of factors, including economic mismanagement, but especially the accumulated impact of sanctions imposed on Iran since 2018, when the US unilaterally withdrew from the joint comprehensive plan of action that was put in place to restrict Iran’s nuclear energy programme.

It is worth noting that Iran was fully compliant with this agreement at the time. Another factor was the humiliations the regime faced in 2025, where its military capacity was demonstrated as limited — while its missile ability was proven effective, that Israel and the US were able to strike targets so easily was an embarrassment to the regime, eroding its legitimacy.

The wider historical context is important to keep in mind. For interest of space, I will keep this history brief — I would encourage readers to find more detailed histories.

In 1901, the then cash-strapped Qajar dynasty sold the rights to Iranian oil to the British mining magnate William Knox D’Arcy. At that time, Iran was thought to have only limited oil reserves, and oil was by far not as important a commodity as it would soon become. Vast oil reserves were discovered in 1908, which gave birth to what we now know as BP (British Petroleum), the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. In 1914, the British Empire seized a controlling stake in the company to supply the Royal Navy, just before the outbreak of the First World War, spurring the demand for oil globally. In the 1925 coup that overthrew the Qajar dynasty and began the Pahlavi dynasty, the new Shah renegotiated the oil concession — but the increased cut for Iran went to the Pahlavi elite, not the Iranian people, widening inequality and spurring anti-imperialist sentiment.

During the Second World War, London and Moscow conspired to overthrow the Shah and install his son as the new monarch. At the same time, Soviet and British forces occupied Iran to keep Iranian oil out of German hands.

After the occupation and war, Mohamed Mossadegh became the first democratically elected prime minister in 1951, and, with popular support, largely sidelined the Shah. He nationalised Iranian oil, and offered to compensate the British, citing the precedent of the nationalisation of British coalmines in 1947. The British refused, opting for economic warfare. This failed, and the British attempted a coup, which was exposed and theywere expelled.

The British then turned to the US for help, and the CIA then facilitated a successful coup in 1953, reinstalling the Shah. The Americans demanded 40 per cent of Iranian oil as tribute; the British were allowed another 40 per cent; and the remaining 20 per cent went to the Shah. Lacking popular legitimacy, the Shah relied on US support to maintain his regime, heavily reliant on the secret police, the Savak, itself trained by Israel’s Mossad. The brutal police state we see in Iran was created under the Shah, only appropriated and perfected by the clerical regime that overthrew it.

The revolution of 1979 was one based on genuine popular discontent with the brutality of the then regime. It was not clear at the time that the result would be the clerical regime we know today — it was led by the working class, initiated by the general strike of 1978, with key leftist leaders, many inspired by the works of Ali Shariati, who synthesised Marxism, existentialism and Islamic thought. Shariati, who died mysteriously in 1977 (Savak is widely thought to have assassinated him) made a distinction between what he called Red Shi’ism, based on social justice, and Black Sh’ism, based on domination by clerics (Shia is the dominant form of Islam in Iran — it roughly translates as “followers of Ali”). While Red Shi’ism may have led the 1979 revolution, it was Black Shi’ism that established itself in the aftermath — but central to both was opposition to imperialism.

US support for Iraq under Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war, killing more than one million Iranians, only cemented the valid concerns about imperialism by the Iranian people. Iranians may have chafed under the police state, but the regime maintained legitimacy in defending against imperialism. The memories of Mossad’s training of the Savak remain still, animating real concerns in Iran even today about foreign intervention.

US and Israeli attempts to hijack the protests, by threatening military strikes or alluding to Mossad involvement in the protests, rather than facilitating a genuine democratic revolution only hand ammunition to the regime to crush it. As noted, that these same entities have spent the past few years facilitating what I and many others believe is a genocide make their sudden concern for the welfare of the Iranian people more than suspect.

The people of Iran deserve freedom. They have the right to determine their own political destiny. But Iran must be free from imperialist intervention — be it from Israel or the US. We can — and should — support the Iranian people in their struggle for freedom, while at the same time holding the position of “hands off Iran” and rejecting the cynical positions of those who have facilitated or defended genocide in Gaza.

The night is black, but the dawn will come.

• Jonathan Starling is a socialist writer with an MSc in Ecological Economics from the University of Edinburgh and an MSc in Urban and Regional Planning from Heriot-Watt University