Attack on the Supreme Leader Means All-Out War: The Survival Logic of the Iranian Regime and Its Geopolitical Crisis.

On January 18, 2025, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian posted a brief yet highly significant statement on social media. He warned that any attack targeting Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei would be regarded as a full-scale war against the Iranian nation. This statement is not an isolated diplomatic rhetoric but is embedded within a broader and more perilous landscape: nationwide protest waves that have lasted for over a month and claimed thousands of lives, the most severe nationwide internet blockade in history, and increasingly sharp calls for regime change from Washington across the ocean. As warnings of all-out war intertwine with domestic suppression declarations aimed at breaking the backbone of the rebels, the Islamic Republic of Iran stands at a crossroads beset by internal and external challenges. Its response will not only concern the regime's survival but may also reshape the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East.

Internal repression and the performance of "normalization."

By the end of December 2024, price protests that began in Tehran's Grand Bazaar spread rapidly across the country like wildfire. The trigger was the overnight surge in the prices of basic food items such as cooking oil and chicken, while the underlying causes were the long-standing economic difficulties and the ongoing stranglehold of U.S. sanctions. Unlike previous instances, this time even the traditionally pro-regime merchant class, known as the Bazaaris, joined the protests, which was seen as a dangerous signal.

The response from the authorities was swift and brutal. Security forces were authorized to fire continuously at street protesters, and hospitals were overwhelmed with the wounded. Despite denials from Iran's judiciary, evidence collected by multiple international human rights organizations and the United Nations suggests the death toll may have reached several thousand. On January 17, Khamenei himself, in a rare admission, acknowledged the deaths of thousands but placed the blame entirely on armed rioters and their alleged backers, the United States and Israel. He ordered the authorities to break the spine of these rebels, with such severe wording highlighting the existential threat perceived by the regime's core leadership.

Amidst the brutal crackdown, a meticulously orchestrated performance of normalcy was simultaneously staged. Schools and universities reopened, symbolic internet services were partially restored, and Tehran's Grand Bazaar resumed business. The government attempted to signal to the outside world that the situation was under control. However, this normalcy was fragile and tinged with surveillance. The restoration of internet access was selective, with services like WhatsApp and Google likely under close monitoring. This digital normalization resembled a control mechanism more than a return to freedom.

More concerning is the handling of those arrested. A spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice announced that expedited trials would be organized, with some detainees charged with "waging war against God," a crime punishable by death. A Near East affairs expert based in Ankara analyzed that the Iranian leadership views executions as an effective tool. For the regime, executions incur short-term international costs but are seen as a long-term investment in domestic security. This logic reveals Tehran's fundamental consideration of prioritizing internal security over international reputation when facing internal challenges.

"Total War" Warning: The Red Line of Leader's Sacredness and Regime Survival

President Pezeshkian's comprehensive war warning was a direct response to remarks made by U.S. President Trump the previous day. Trump told the media that it was time to seek new leadership in Iran, describing the current Supreme Leader Khamenei as a sick man who should govern the country properly instead of killing people. This personal attack on Iran's Supreme Leader and the open call for regime change touched the most core and sensitive nerve of Iran's political system.

Under Iran's unique system of Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist, the Supreme Leader is not only the head of state but also a symbol of the Islamic Revolution and the embodiment of religious authority. Attacking Khamenei is ideologically equivalent to attacking the very foundation of the Islamic Republic, and politically equivalent to declaring war on the regime itself. Therefore, Pezeshkian's warning is not merely a military threat but an ultimate declaration based on the regime's survival logic. It draws an unquestionable red line: any external threat to the leader personally will trigger a comprehensive confrontation at the national level.

This warning also serves domestic political purposes. After experiencing large-scale turmoil, the regime urgently needs to consolidate internal unity and divert contradictions. Portraying internal crises as terrorist actions and color revolutions orchestrated by the United States and Israel, and linking the defense of the leader with the defense of the nation-state, is an effective narrative for mobilizing conservative forces and suppressing dissenting voices. Khamenei blamed protester deaths on armed thugs disguised as demonstrators and foreign intelligence agencies (accusing Mossad and CIA agents of destroying mosques and educational institutions). Although these allegations lack evidence and are highly unlikely, their purpose is precisely to construct a narrative of collusion between internal and external enemies, thereby providing legitimacy for the crackdown.

Digital Iron Curtain: From Temporary Internet Shutdowns to Permanent Digital Isolation

If street suppression is control in physical space, then internet censorship builds a new Great Wall in the digital realm. Since January 8, Iran has experienced its most extreme nationwide internet blackout in history, cutting off 92 million citizens from the global internet, with even telephone and SMS services severely disrupted. Initially, authorities claimed it was to counter externally directed terrorist operations, but observers widely believe the true aim is to stifle domestic dissent and block international scrutiny of the crackdown.

However, a growing number of signs indicate that this internet shutdown may not be a temporary measure, but rather the beginning of a permanent digital isolation experiment. According to the news website IranWire, government spokesperson Fatemeh Mohajerani revealed to reporters that international internet access will not be restored until at least after the Iranian New Year at the end of March. Meanwhile, the internet freedom monitoring organization FilterWatch, citing internal government sources, stated that the reopening of international internet access should not be expected, and even if it occurs, user access to the international internet will never return to its previous form.

The head of FilterWatch, Amir Rashidi, revealed to the BBC that authorities are accelerating the development of a layered system. In the future, accessing the global internet will no longer be automatic but will require application and approval after review. The technical infrastructure for such a system has been in preparation for years, and the current nationwide internet shutdown provides the perfect opportunity to implement technical switches and administrative orders. This suggests that Iran may be following the models of China and Russia to create a tightly state-controlled intranet. China's firewall and Russia's Ru-net under testing, along with its digital border kill switch, serve as blueprints for Iran.

Professor Alan Woodward, a computer security expert at the University of Surrey in the UK, analyzed that the Iranian regime may be leveraging the current cyberattacks to advance its long-term plan aimed at isolating everyone unless approved by the government. The motivations behind this digital isolation are multifaceted: concealing human rights violations, strengthening social control, preventing cyberattacks, and ideologically reducing the influence of harmful external information.

However, the technological confrontation has never ceased. Low Earth orbit satellite internet services like SpaceX's Starlink have provided new avenues to bypass blockades. During the protests, although the Iranian government attempted to interfere with and block Starlink signals, the company successfully circumvented some of the restrictions by updating its firmware and waived subscription fees for Iranian users. Activists utilized Starlink to transmit a large number of videos documenting the scenes of suppression. This cat-and-mouse game continues, with Starlink's performance even attracting close attention from the U.S. military and China, becoming a new focal point in geopolitical technological competition.

Geopolitical Chessboard: Abandoned Protesters and Uncertain U.S. Policy

Iranian protesters and their overseas supporters, after initial encouragement, are now sinking into deep disappointment and a sense of isolation. The sentiments of exiled Iranian filmmaker Sepideh Farsi, based in France, are quite representative: international public opinion stands with the Iranian people. However, politicians, institutions, and governments are absent. There should have been swift and firm condemnations from the United Nations and European governments, not just statements. We have not received these yet, and we still lack them.

This sense of abandonment largely stems from the ambiguity and contradictions in U.S. policy. At the beginning of the protests, Trump publicly encouraged Iranians to resist, promising that aid was on the way, which to some extent inspired the demonstrators. However, the U.S. government subsequently did not take any substantive intervention actions. Even more perplexing, on January 17, Trump thanked Tehran officials for canceling hundreds of planned executions—a claim that could not be independently verified and was severely inconsistent with the ongoing rapid trials and death threats. Such inconsistent and vague statements neither effectively supported the protesters nor exerted coherent strategic pressure on the Iranian regime, instead exposing the chaos in U.S. policy toward Iran.

Trump's rhetoric focuses more on personal attacks and inciting regime change rather than a clear, sustainable foreign policy strategy. Blaming all issues on Khamenei personally and hinting at his health problems, while catering to certain domestic political sentiments, does not help resolve the complex Iran issue. Instead, it may push the U.S. and Iran toward the brink of unpredictable military confrontation. Pezeshkian's warning of a full-scale war is a direct response to the danger posed by such rhetoric.

The response from the international community has been even more feeble. Beyond the usual statements of human rights concerns, European governments have not demonstrated coordinated and effective action. The reaction at the United Nations level has also fallen short of activists' expectations. This weakness in the international response may stem from concerns about further destabilization in the Middle East or from complex diplomatic considerations, such as maintaining the nuclear deal with Iran. Regardless, the outcome has left ample room for Tehran's crackdown.

The Iranian regime is simultaneously waging three wars: one is the street suppression and digital blockade against its own people, aimed at extinguishing the flames of internal resistance; another is the public opinion and strategic deterrence against external enemies, drawing red lines through comprehensive war warnings; the final one is a technological war concerning the nation's future, attempting to permanently control the information space by constructing a digital iron curtain.

The cruelty of Khamenei breaking the backbone and the determination of the Pezeshkian comprehensive war together outline a portrait of a regime fighting for survival. It is willing to pay the price of thousands of lives and international isolation to maintain its ruling foundation. The contradictory policies of the United States and the wait-and-see attitude of the international community have further obscured the prospects of this crisis.

In the short term, the regime may once again impose superficial calm upon society through high-pressure measures. However, economic difficulties, the anger of the youth, and the information infiltration in the digital age that is difficult to completely block mean that structural contradictions are far from resolved. In the long run, the warning of all-out war is a double-edged sword. While it raises the threshold for external intervention, it also deeply ties the regime to the personal safety of an 86-year-old leader, increasing the risks and uncertainties of future political transitions.

On the geopolitical chessboard of the Middle East, Iran remains a crucial and unpredictable player. Its internal turmoil and external brinkmanship of war amplify each other, and any miscalculation or accident could turn the warned-about full-scale war from rhetoric into reality. For the world, Iran's story is far from over—it is writing, in its own unique way, a brutal chapter about resistance, repression, and survival.