Students at several universities in Iran have staged anti-government protests – the first such rallies on this scale since last month’s deadly crackdown by the authorities.

The BBC has verified footage of demonstrators marching on the campus of the Sharif University of Technology in the capital Tehran on Saturday. Scuffles were later seen breaking out between them and government supporters.

A sit-in was held at another Tehran university, and a rally reported in the north-east. Students were honouring thousands of those killed in mass protests in January.

The US has been building up its military presence near Iran, and President Donald Trump has said he is considering a limited military strike.

The US and its European allies suspect that Iran is moving towards the development of a nuclear weapon, something Iran has always denied.

US and Iranian officials met in Switzerland on Tuesday and said progress had been made in talks aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear programme.

But despite the reported progress, Trump said afterwards that the world would find out “over the next, probably, 10 days” whether a deal would be reached with Iran or the US would take military action.

The US leader has supported protesters in the past – at one stage appearing to encourage them with a promise that “help is on its way”.

Footage verified by the BBC shows hundreds of protesters – many with national Iranian flags – peacefully marching on the campus of the Sharif University of Technology at the start of a new semester on Saturday.

The crowds chanted “death to the dictator” – a reference to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – and other anti-government slogans.

Supporters of a rival pro-government rally are seen nearby in the video. Scuffles are later seen breaking out between the two camps.

Verified photos have also emerged showing a peaceful sit-in protest at the capital’s Shahid Beheshti University.

The BBC have also verified footage from another Tehran university, Amir Kabir University of Technology, showing chanting against the government.

In Mashhad, Iran’s second-largest city in the north-east, local students reportedly chanted: “Freedom, freedom” and “Students, shout, shout for your rights”.

Sizeable demonstrations in other locations were also reported later in the day, with calls for further rallies on Sunday.

It is not immediately clear whether any demonstrators have been arrested.

Last month’s protests began over economic grievances and soon spread to become the largest since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

The US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (Hrana) said it had confirmed the killing of at least 6,159 people during that wave, including 5,804 protesters, 92 children and 214 people affiliated with the government.

Hrana also said it was investigating 17,000 more reported deaths.

Iranian authorities said late last month that more than 3,100 people had been killed – but that the majority were security personnel or bystanders attacked by “rioters”.

Saturday’s protests come as the Iranian authorities are preparing for a possible war with the US.

The exiled opposition is adamantly calling on President Trump to make good on his threats and strike, hoping for a quick downfall of the current hardline government.

But other opposition groups are opposed to outside intervention.

The opposing sides have been involved in disinformation campaigns of social media, trying to maximise their conflicting narratives of what Iranian people want.

Additional reporting by BBC Persian’s Ghoncheh Habibiazad, and BBC Verify’s Richard Irvine-Brown and Shayan Sardarizadeh.

Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : For decades, the United States has exercised unmatched global influence. From military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria to sanctions regimes and regime-change rhetoric elsewhere, Washington has often justified its actions as necessary to defend democracy, human rights, or international security. Yet power, when exercised without consensus or legitimacy, invites resistance. The recent tensions surrounding Greenland, Europe’s diplomatic pushback, and disagreements over Venezuela and Iran reveal a deeper transformation underway in the international system—one where even long-standing allies are increasingly unwilling to accept unilateral dictates.
The controversy over Greenland became symbolic of this shift. When suggestions emerged from Washington that the United States had strategic interest in acquiring Greenland—a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark—the reaction from Europe was swift and unified. Denmark rejected the notion outright, and European leaders closed ranks in defense of territorial sovereignty. The message was clear: Europe would not tolerate transactional geopolitics that treated sovereign territories as negotiable assets. What might once have been dismissed as rhetorical bravado instead triggered serious diplomatic backlash, reinforcing Europe’s commitment to sovereignty and collective unity.
This episode reflected a broader pattern. European leaders, long accustomed to operating within the transatlantic alliance, have increasingly asserted strategic autonomy. Disagreements over trade tariffs, defense spending, immigration policies, and approaches toward Russia and China have widened the transatlantic gap. When criticism of Europe’s social and immigration policies was delivered in blunt terms from Washington, European officials responded not with silence but with institutional confidence, reiterating that domestic policy decisions belong to sovereign governments and the European Union collectively—not external actors.
The Ukraine war further deepened these tensions. While Europe and the United States remain aligned in supporting Kyiv, debates over burden-sharing, diplomatic engagement, and long-term security guarantees exposed differing strategic visions. Europe began discussing the possibility of enhancing its own defense capabilities independent of U.S. leadership, including increased defense spending and greater coordination under EU frameworks. The conversation about “strategic autonomy” gained momentum—not as a rejection of NATO, but as recognition that overreliance on any single power carries risks.
Beyond Europe, the situation in Venezuela has also sparked controversy. The U.S. position toward Venezuela’s leadership, including recognition of opposition figures and sanctions targeting state institutions, has been criticized by some international actors as interference in sovereign affairs. Supporters argue such measures promote democratic accountability; critics contend they undermine international norms. Regardless of perspective, the episode underscores a central question of modern geopolitics: who has the authority to determine legitimacy within another state?
Iran represents perhaps the most volatile example of this dynamic. U.S. naval deployments in the Persian Gulf, sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear program, and rhetoric surrounding regime behavior have heightened tensions. European states, while critical of certain Iranian policies, have often favored diplomatic engagement and adherence to negotiated frameworks such as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The divergence illustrates a growing reluctance among U.S. allies to endorse military escalation without clear multilateral backing.
Meanwhile, global power distribution is shifting. China’s Belt and Road Initiative has expanded infrastructure and trade partnerships across Asia, Africa, and parts of Europe. More than 140 countries have engaged in some form of cooperation under this framework. For many developing nations, China’s model—emphasizing economic investment without overt political conditions—offers an alternative to Western engagement strategies. Whether one views this approach as pragmatic partnership or strategic influence expansion, its appeal signals dissatisfaction with older interventionist models.
Canada, too, has demonstrated quiet but meaningful recalibration. In response to trade pressures and tariff disputes, Ottawa diversified its trade relationships, signing agreements beyond the United States and strengthening ties with Asia and Europe. This was not confrontation, but adaptation—evidence that even close allies hedge against unpredictability.
At the heart of these developments lies a philosophical tension about power. The principle that “power corrupts” is often invoked, but power can also isolate when it disregards consensus. In a globalized world, economic interdependence, multilateral institutions, and diplomatic networks limit unilateral action. Aircraft carriers and sanctions regimes remain formidable tools, yet legitimacy increasingly derives from coalition-building rather than coercion.
This brings us to the role of the United Nations. Critics frequently describe the UN as toothless or ineffective. Yet the UN’s authority depends entirely on the willingness of its member states—especially permanent Security Council members—to abide by collective decisions. When powerful states exercise vetoes to block resolutions or bypass UN authorization for major actions, institutional credibility erodes. Reform debates persist, but strengthening the UN requires political will from its most influential members.
The larger lesson emerging from Europe’s assertiveness and broader global reactions is not the decline of American power, but the recalibration of global expectations. Allies are no longer passive recipients of U.S. leadership; they are stakeholders demanding consultation and respect. Sovereignty, multilateralism, and rule-based order remain guiding principles for much of the international community. When any nation—however powerful—appears to deviate from these norms, resistance grows.
There is also a practical dimension. Military intervention in complex societies has historically produced unintended consequences, including instability and migration flows that affect neighboring regions. European reluctance to engage in new conflicts reflects lived experience from past interventions. Diplomacy, sanctions calibrated within international law, and negotiated agreements may lack dramatic visibility, but they offer more sustainable outcomes than unilateral force.
The evolving geopolitical landscape suggests a transition toward multipolarity. The United States remains a superpower with unmatched military and economic capabilities. Europe is consolidating political cohesion. China continues to expand its economic footprint. Regional actors assert greater independence. In such a system, responsible leadership requires restraint, coalition-building, and respect for sovereignty.
Power, in its most constructive form, means capacity to stabilize rather than destabilize; to convene rather than coerce; to strengthen institutions rather than circumvent them. History demonstrates that even dominant powers benefit from alliances grounded in mutual respect. The pushback witnessed from Europe over Greenland and other policy disputes may, in fact, serve as a corrective—reminding all nations that diplomacy anchored in international law carries greater legitimacy than unilateral declarations.
Ultimately, the question is not whether the United States possesses power. It undeniably does. The question is how that power is exercised. In an interconnected world facing shared challenges—from climate change to economic inequality to nuclear proliferation—cooperative frameworks are not signs of weakness but instruments of durability. Strengthening multilateral institutions, respecting sovereignty, and engaging adversaries through dialogue may not yield immediate victories, but they preserve long-term stability.
The future international order will not be shaped by dominance alone. It will be shaped by responsibility. And in that responsibility lies the true measure of leadership.

Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : During the height of the Israel–Iran confrontation, Benjamin Netanyahu once again returned to his most familiar refrain: that peace in the Middle East—and by extension global stability—requires “regime change” in Iran. It was not a new idea, nor even a new sentence. It was the same narrative he had relentlessly promoted against Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Bashar al-Assad, and Palestinian leaders such as Ismail Haniyeh.
In every case, the promise was identical: remove the leader, and peace will follow. In every case, the result was the opposite—state collapse, prolonged civil war, regional destabilization, mass displacement, and the rise of extremism. Iraq did not become peaceful after Saddam Hussein; it descended into sectarian violence that killed hundreds of thousands. Libya did not stabilize after Gaddafi; it fractured into rival militias and became a transit hub for arms and human trafficking. Syria’s attempted regime change ignited one of the worst humanitarian disasters of the 21st century. Gaza, after repeated leadership assassinations, remains trapped in endless cycles of war.
Yet Netanyahu now repeats the same formula for Iran—this time targeting not merely political leadership but the entire ideological structure of the Islamic Republic, including its supreme leadership and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
At one critical moment, even Netanyahu himself acknowledged that Israel’s military apparatus had Iran’s leadership “locked in.” According to public statements later echoed in Western media, Israeli intelligence and strike capabilities were ready, awaiting only political clearance. That final authorization, however, never came. Donald Trump, despite his otherwise confrontational posture toward Iran, reportedly withheld the green light. Whether due to fear of uncontrollable escalation, economic consequences, or intelligence assessments predicting catastrophic regional blowback, the decision spared Iran’s leadership—and possibly the region—from immediate catastrophe.
Today, however, the situation appears far more dangerous. Protests inside Iran—some organic, some amplified—are now being framed internationally as the prelude to regime collapse. Western intelligence narratives increasingly mirror those seen before Iraq in 2003 or Libya in 2011. The Central Intelligence Agency has historically played such roles before, and Iran itself is no stranger to this pattern.
The first modern regime change in Iran occurred in 1953, when the CIA and Britain’s MI6 overthrew Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh after he nationalized Iran’s oil industry, expelling Anglo-American corporate control. The result was the installation of the Shah, whose authoritarian rule—backed by Western security services—lasted until 1979. When the Shah later attempted to reclaim economic sovereignty and assert independence, he too became expendable. The Islamic Revolution that followed did not emerge in a vacuum; it was the direct outcome of decades of foreign manipulation.
Since 1979, hostility between Iran and Israel has remained constant, driven by ideology, regional rivalry, and competing security doctrines. But the current moment feels different. It is not merely about Iran. It is about a global order unraveling.
The second term of President Trump has accelerated this breakdown dramatically. In just over a year, Washington has openly undermined the United Nations, weakened NATO, and normalized threats of territorial acquisition—from Greenland to Venezuela. The seizure of assets, the weaponization of sanctions, and the use of military force outside UN authorization have become routine rather than exceptional.
Recent U.S. naval seizures in the Caribbean—targeting vessels carrying oil allegedly destined for China, some flying Russian or Chinese flags—represent a dangerous escalation. This is not law enforcement; it is strategic provocation. By intercepting energy supplies linked to China and Russia, Washington is signaling willingness to internationalize conflict zones and draw both powers into kinetic confrontation.
This shift reflects a deeper reality: the United States has failed to contain China economically and has been unable to decisively defeat Russia militarily through proxy war in Ukraine. As economic and diplomatic leverage erodes, kinetic power becomes the last remaining tool. The danger is that military reach replaces strategic wisdom.
Europe, meanwhile, stands weaker than at any time since World War II. Decades of dependency on U.S. security guarantees have hollowed out independent defense capacity. If Washington chooses to act unilaterally—whether in the Arctic, Greenland, or beyond—Europe has little capacity to resist or even influence outcomes. The old alliance-based order is being replaced by raw power politics.
What we are witnessing is not isolated crises but a systemic transformation. Venezuela, Gaza, Iran, Somalia, Nigeria, Ukraine, Greenland—these are not disconnected flashpoints. They are symptoms of a collapsing rules-based system. International law, once imperfect but functional, is being abandoned openly. The very institutions designed to prevent global war are being sidelined by the powers that created them.
This trajectory is unsustainable. A world governed by regime change, sanctions warfare, naval seizures, and unilateral military action is not a stable world. It is a prelude to catastrophe. A third world war—if it comes—will not resemble the first two. It will be faster, more technologically devastating, and far less controllable.
History has already delivered its verdict on regime change as a strategy. It does not produce peace. It produces chaos, radicalization, and endless war. Iran will not be the exception. Nor will the Middle East be pacified by repeating the same failed experiment under a different banner.
There remains only one rational path forward: diplomacy, restraint, and the revival of international institutions—not as tools of dominance, but as platforms for collective survival. The alternative is a world governed by force alone, where no nation, however powerful, remains immune from the consequences.
Let us hope sanity prevails—before repetition becomes annihilation.