Trump Wants Musk to Restore Internet Access in Iran While Tehran Suppresses Its Citizens

2026-06-20 23:39:01

Credit: Custom

Four Days Without Internet Access

Since last Thursday, Iran has been experiencing a near-total internet blackout, according to NetBlocks, the organization that monitors internet freedom worldwide. This disruption in communications comes at the very moment that protests are intensifying across the country. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi promised foreign diplomats in Tehran on Monday that internet service would soon be restored, stating that the government is coordinating on this issue with security forces. But this promise rings hollow as the blackout enters its fifth day and reports of violence continue to surface despite the censorship.

NetBlocks stated in a social media post that this outage follows a series of escalating digital censorship measures targeting protests across the country. The organization emphasizes that this disruption hinders the public’s right to communicate at a critical moment. Without the internet, Iranians cannot organize their protests, document abuses by security forces, or alert the international community to what is really happening in their country. This is a deliberate strategy of isolation and suppression.

Starlink: A Ray of Technological Hope

Elon Musk has previously supported providing Starlink to Iranians to help them circumvent government restrictions, notably during the 2022 protests that followed the death of Mahsa Amini. The 22-year-old woman died in police custody after being arrested by the morality police for violating Iran’s strict dress code. The Biden administration then collaborated with Musk to set up Starlink in Iran. The satellite internet service has also been used in other regions marked by unrest or conflict, such as Ukraine, although Musk ordered Starlink to be shut down in 2022 during a crucial Ukrainian offensive, according to Reuters.

Trump told reporters that he would speak with Musk about this issue, adding that the billionaire is very good at this sort of thing and runs an excellent company. This statement comes as the relationship between Trump and Musk has had its ups and downs. The billionaire had helped finance Trump’s successful presidential campaign and subsequently orchestrated massive cuts to the federal government. The two men had a public falling-out last year when Musk opposed Trump’s signature tax bill, but they appear to have rekindled their relationship, having been seen dining together at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort this month.

Starlink. A name that resonates like a promise. Like a lifeline thrown to people drowning in enforced silence. But here’s the paradox: this technology, which could set voices free, depends on the whims of a capricious billionaire and his relationship with an unpredictable president. Is this our modern world? Hope hanging on tweets and social dinners?

Protests: From Economic Anger to Political Revolt

The Economic Spark

The protests initially erupted due to skyrocketing prices in Iran. Merchants in Tehran’s Grand Bazaar closed their shops and took to the streets on December 28, 2025. The movement then spread to other Iranian provinces. The Iranian economy is suffering from several problems. The country fought a twelve-day war against Israel in June 2025, which caused infrastructure damage in several Iranian cities. In September 2025, the United Nations reimposed sanctions on Iran regarding its nuclear program, after the Security Council voted against the permanent lifting of economic sanctions.

In December, Iran introduced a new tier in its national fuel subsidy system, effectively raising the price of what was previously the cheapest gasoline in the world. Authorities will now reassess fuel prices every three months, paving the way for further increases. At the same time, food prices are expected to rise after the Central Bank recently eliminated a subsidized dollar-rial preferential exchange rate for all imports, with the exception of medicines and wheat. Majid Ebrahimi, a taxi driver, said in late December that if only the government, instead of focusing solely on fuel, could lower the prices of other goods, that would already be something. Prices for dairy products have increased sixfold this year, and those of other products have risen more than tenfold.

From Bread to Freedoms

While the protesters’ slogans initially focused on the faltering economy, they have shifted to opposition to Iran’s clerical establishment. Some protesters have also begun chanting their support for Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran’s deposed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and heir to the former Pahlavi monarchy. Many of Pahlavi’s supporters are calling for a return to the monarchy, although Pahlavi himself says he favors holding a referendum to determine what kind of government structure Iranians want. After Mohammad Mosaddegh, Iran’s democratically elected prime minister in 1951, nationalized the British-controlled oil industry, he was overthrown in a 1953 coup supported by the United States and the United Kingdom to secure Western oil interests.

Calls for democracy and opposition to the Islamic government’s strict laws have been building for some time, particularly since the death of Mahsa Amini in police custody in 2022. Maryam Alemzadeh, an associate professor of Iranian history and politics at the University of Oxford, said that chants in support of Pahlavi were heard in the streets of Iran alongside other slogans during this wave of protests. For many in Iran, life has become unbearable under current economic conditions, which many view as the result of corruption, mismanagement, and international sanctions. Furthermore, Iranians have been denied freedom of expression and lifestyle choices for decades.

Mahsa Amini. Her name still echoes. A 22-year-old woman who died because of an ill-fitting headscarf. And now, hundreds more are falling for daring to demand bread and dignity. How many more names must be etched into the collective memory before anything truly changes?

The human toll: hundreds of deaths in the shadows

The Horrifying Numbers

More than 100 members of the security forces have been killed in recent days, according to state media, while opposition activists claim the death toll is higher and includes hundreds of protesters. Al Jazeera cannot independently verify these figures. The U.S.-based organization HRANA said it had verified the deaths of 490 protesters and 48 members of the security forces, with more than 10,600 people arrested during two weeks of unrest. Iran has not released an official death toll, and Reuters has been unable to independently verify these figures. Experts fear that the actual death toll may be much higher.

Alemzadeh said that the limited information managing to get through the total internet blackout suggests that thousands of citizens may have been killed by government forces. Protesters have faced a crackdown of unprecedented brutality, even by the Islamic Republic’s notorious standards. The Fars News Agency reported that limited protests took place on Sunday evening in the Navvab and Saadat Abad neighborhoods of Tehran. Protesters also gathered in the cities of Hafshejan and Junqan in the southwestern province of Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari, and a separate gathering took place in Taybad County in the northeastern province of Razavi Khorasan. Fars reported that security forces intervened and dispersed these gatherings.

Repression Without Witnesses

The internet blackout makes it nearly impossible to document the violence. Without videos, photos, or real-time eyewitness accounts, the crackdown is taking place in a complete shadow. This is exactly what the Iranian authorities are seeking: the ability to act without being observed or held accountable by the international community. Amnesty International has condemned this internet blackout, which conceals human rights violations amid an intensifying and deadly crackdown. The organization has called on the international community to take action to protect Iranian protesters and to demand the immediate restoration of communications.

Protests have also spread to other countries with large Iranian communities—including the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Turkey, and Pakistan—in solidarity with the protesters in Iran. These support rallies abroad help maintain some media and political pressure on the Iranian regime, even though information from inside the country remains extremely limited. Iranians in the diaspora are desperately trying to contact their loved ones back home, often without success due to the communications blackout.

Hundreds of deaths. Perhaps thousands. And we watch the numbers roll by as if they were abstract statistics. But behind every number, there is a face, a family, shattered dreams. And the silence imposed by the blackout makes their sacrifice even more unbearable. They are dying in the darkness, far from the cameras, far from our consciousness.

Trump and the Threat of Military Intervention

Warlike Rhetoric

Since the protests began in December, President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened that Washington could intervene militarily in Iran in the event of a violent crackdown. Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi alleged that the nationwide protests had turned violent and bloody to give Trump an excuse to intervene militarily. He added that Trump’s warning of military action against Tehran if the protests turned violent had motivated terrorists to target protesters and security forces in order to encourage foreign intervention. “We are ready for war, but also for dialogue,” he said.

Araghchi also stated that Iranian authorities have gathered video footage of weapons being distributed to protesters, adding that they will soon release confessions from detainees. The protests have been incited and fueled by foreign elements, he said, noting that security forces will track down those responsible. This rhetoric of foreign interference is a classic tactic of the Iranian regime to delegitimize any internal dissent. By accusing external powers of orchestrating the unrest, the authorities are attempting to divert attention from the population’s genuine economic and political grievances.

The Specter of Escalation

The situation is explosive. On one side is an Iranian regime that is economically weakened and facing internal challenges. On the other is the Trump administration, which is stepping up its threats of intervention. The risk of military escalation is real, especially since tensions between Washington and Tehran are already heightened by the nuclear issue and sanctions. A U.S. intervention could have catastrophic consequences for the region, potentially triggering a regional conflict involving Iran’s allies, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon or Shiite militias in Iraq. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is scheduled to visit a SpaceX facility in Texas on Monday, a sign that the Trump administration is taking the technological option via Starlink seriously.

However, some analysts believe that Trump’s threats are more a matter of political posturing than a genuine intention to intervene militarily. The U.S. administration might favor alternative means of pressure, such as tightening economic sanctions or providing technological support to protesters via Starlink. But the mere suggestion of military action contributes to rising tensions and could push the Iranian regime to further intensify its crackdown, thereby creating a vicious cycle of violence and counter-violence.

War. Always war as the solution. As if bombing a country would suddenly bring democracy and freedom. As if Iranians needed American missiles rather than the Internet and international support. Trump brandishes the military threat like a rattle, without considering the human consequences of such an escalation.

The Trump-Musk Relationship: A Fragile Alliance

Converging Interests

The relationship between Donald Trump and Elon Musk is complex and volatile. The billionaire financially backed Trump’s presidential campaign and subsequently played a role in drastically reducing the federal government’s workforce. But the two men had a public falling-out last year when Musk opposed Trump’s signature tax bill. Despite these tensions, they appear to have reconciled, having been spotted dining together at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort this month. This reconciliation could facilitate collaboration on the Iran issue, with Starlink representing a potentially decisive strategic tool.

Musk and SpaceX did not immediately respond to a request for comment regarding Trump’s statements. The billionaire’s silence on this issue is intriguing, especially since he is usually very active on social media and does not hesitate to comment on current events. It is possible that Musk is waiting to see how the situation develops before making a public statement, or that he is negotiating behind the scenes the terms of a potential Starlink deployment in Iran. The stakes are considerable, both from a humanitarian, geopolitical, and commercial standpoint.

The Ukrainian Precedents

Starlink’s experience in Ukraine offers both reasons for hope and cause for concern. On the one hand, the satellite internet service has enabled Ukrainians to maintain their communications despite Russian attacks on infrastructure. On the other hand, Musk has demonstrated that he can unilaterally cut off access to Starlink, as he did during a crucial Ukrainian offensive in 2022. That decision drew sharp criticism and raised questions about Starlink’s reliability as a tool of resistance against oppression. Can we really rely on a service controlled by a private individual for issues as crucial as freedom of expression and the documentation of human rights violations?

The Iranian case presents specific challenges. Unlike in Ukraine, where Starlink was deployed with the government’s consent, in Iran it would involve actively circumventing restrictions imposed by the authorities. This could expose Musk and SpaceX to diplomatic or economic retaliation from Iran and its allies. Furthermore, the Iranian regime could attempt to jam Starlink signals or track down users of the service, putting Iranians who dare to use it at risk. These technical and security considerations significantly complicate the implementation of a Starlink solution in Iran.

Here’s where we stand: a people’s freedom depends on the whims of an eccentric billionaire and his business calculations. Musk could decide overnight to cut off access, just as he did in Ukraine. And we’re supposed to applaud this solution? It’s pathetic. Technology should liberate, not create new dependencies.

Regional Geopolitical Issues

A Middle East in Turmoil

The Iranian crisis is not unfolding in a vacuum. It is taking place against the backdrop of an already extremely tense regional situation. The twelve-day war between Iran and Israel in June 2025 left deep scars and exacerbated tensions between the two countries. The Iranian infrastructure damaged during that conflict has not been fully repaired, contributing to the current economic difficulties. Furthermore, Iran’s regional allies—such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shiite militias in Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen—are closely monitoring developments. A major destabilization of the Iranian regime could trigger a chain reaction throughout the region.

The Gulf states, traditionally hostile to Iran, are also closely monitoring events. Some may be tempted to take advantage of the Iranian regime’s weakening to strengthen their regional influence. Saudi Arabia, in particular, might view this crisis as an opportunity to further marginalize its Persian rival. However, a total collapse of Iran could also create a dangerous power vacuum, with risks of regional chaos, massive migration flows, and weapons proliferation. The geopolitical balances in the Middle East are so fragile that a sudden change in Iran could trigger an unpredictable chain reaction.

The Role of Russia and China

Russia and China, Iran’s strategic allies, will not stand idly by in the face of a potential Western intervention. Moscow and Beijing have major economic and geopolitical interests in Iran, particularly in the energy and infrastructure sectors. A Western-orchestrated destabilization of the Iranian regime would be perceived as a direct threat to their interests. Russia could provide technological support to Iran to counter Starlink, using jamming systems or other countermeasures. China, for its part, could offer economic support to help the regime survive sanctions and international pressure.

This multipolar dimension considerably complicates the situation. What might seem like a simple matter of freedom of expression and internet access is rapidly turning into a contest between major powers. Iran is becoming a battleground for indirect confrontation between the West on one side and the Russia-China axis on the other. In this grand geopolitical game, the legitimate aspirations of the Iranian people risk being exploited by all sides, each seeking to capitalize on the crisis to advance its own strategic interests.

And while the major powers play chess with Iran’s fate, Iranians are dying. They are dying for bread, for freedom, for dignity. But their lives are nothing more than pawns on the geopolitical chessboard. Moscow calculates, Beijing negotiates, Washington threatens. And blood is being shed.

The Uncertain Future of Protests

A Revolt That Will Not Die Down

Maryam Alemzadeh believes that an uprising could intensify in Iran if the protesters’ demands are not met. The grievances will not be appeased this time, she asserts. For many in Iran, life has become unbearable under current economic conditions, which many view as the result of corruption, mismanagement, and international sanctions. Furthermore, Iranians have been denied freedom of expression and lifestyle choices for decades. Even if this wave of protests is suppressed with extreme violence, another could quickly emerge until radical change occurs.

This change could be initiated at the national level by factions within the political elite, by sidelining Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and dismantling the oligarchic economy—effectively abandoning the Islamic aspect of the republic and its beneficiaries. Or it could result from U.S. or Israeli intervention, which would likely lead to chaos and further grievances—though perhaps of a different nature—for the Iranian people. In any case, the status quo seems unsustainable. The regime can repress, kill, and imprison, but it cannot erase the anger and frustration that have built up over decades.

Possible Scenarios

Several scenarios are emerging for Iran’s future. The first is total repression that temporarily crushes the protests, but at the cost of increased international isolation and an even more devastated economy. The second is a gradual reform of the regime, with economic and political concessions to appease the population, but this scenario seems unlikely given the ideological rigidity of the current leaders. The third is a full-scale revolution that overthrows the regime, but with all the risks of chaos and violence that this entails. The fourth is foreign intervention, with unpredictable and likely catastrophic consequences.

None of these scenarios is encouraging. Each brings its own share of suffering and uncertainty for the Iranian people. What is certain is that the current situation cannot last indefinitely. The 2022 protests following the death of Mahsa Amini had already revealed the depth of popular discontent. The current protests confirm that this discontent has only grown worse. The Iranian regime faces a profound crisis of legitimacy, and no amount of repression, however brutal, will be able to restore its authority in the long term without substantial reforms.

Iran’s future is being decided right now, in these streets where blood is flowing, amid this imposed digital silence. And we, as powerless spectators, wonder which scenario will prevail. But deep down, we all know that whatever the outcome, it is ordinary Iranians who will pay the highest price. Again and again.

Technology as a Battleground

The Internet: A Weapon of Liberation

The Internet blackout in Iran illustrates just how much connectivity has become a major strategic issue in the 21st century. For authoritarian regimes, cutting off the Internet has become a reflexive response to popular protests. It prevents protesters from organizing, limits the spread of compromising information, and isolates the country from the rest of the world. But this strategy also has its limits. In a hyperconnected world, a total communications blackout immediately attracts international attention and draws condemnation. Moreover, it also paralyzes the economy and essential services, exacerbating the very problems the regime is trying to solve.

It is in this context that technologies like Starlink take on a new political dimension. By providing internet access independent of government-controlled terrestrial infrastructure, satellite constellations offer a potentially revolutionary alternative. But this technology also raises complex ethical and legal questions. Who decides on its deployment? Based on what criteria? With what safeguards for users? Is it desirable for a private company to hold such power? These questions extend far beyond the case of Iran and concern the future of global internet governance.

The Limitations of the Technological Solution

As promising as Starlink technology may be, it is not a silver bullet. First, its deployment in Iran would require distributing specific terminals to users, which poses major logistical challenges in a country under close surveillance. Second, the Iranian regime could attempt to jam the signals or track down Starlink users, putting those who dare to use it at risk. Finally, even with restored internet access, protesters would still face brutal repression on the ground. The internet can help with documentation and organization, but it cannot stop bullets or prevent arrests.

It is also important not to overestimate the impact of technology on social movements. Revolutions are not made on Twitter or via Starlink; they are made in the streets, at the cost of blood and sacrifice. Technology can facilitate communication and coordination, but it is no substitute for the courage of protesters or the determination of a people to change their destiny. History has shown that even without the Internet, oppressed peoples find ways to rise up and make their voices heard. Technology is a tool, not a cause or a solution in and of itself.

We place so much hope in technology. As if satellites and internet connections were going to miraculously topple dictatorships. But freedom cannot be downloaded. It must be won—and it comes at a high price. Starlink can help, certainly. But it is the Iranians in the streets who are making history, not Elon Musk from his air-conditioned office.

The Burden of Economic Sanctions

A tightening noose

The economic sanctions imposed on Iran by the United States and its allies have created a devastating vicious cycle. Reimposed by the United Nations in September 2025 following the Security Council’s vote against permanently lifting the sanctions, they have contributed to the collapse of the rial and the current economic crisis. Officially, these measures are intended to pressure the Iranian regime to abandon its nuclear program and change its regional policy. But in reality, it is ordinary citizens who are paying the price. Medicines are becoming scarce, food prices are skyrocketing, and the economy is contracting dangerously.

The debate over the effectiveness of sanctions is deeply divisive. Some experts believe that sanctions weaken the regime by depriving it of financial resources and creating popular discontent that could lead to change. Others point out that sanctions paradoxically strengthen the regime by allowing it to blame the West for all the country’s ills and by creating a war economy in which elites close to power enrich themselves through the black market and smuggling. The current protests seem to prove both sides right: they show that sanctions have indeed created an unbearable economic crisis, but also that the regime is using this crisis to justify its repression and blame foreign powers.

Alternatives to Sanctions

Given the relative failure of sanctions to bring about a change in the Iranian regime’s behavior without causing massive suffering among the population, some analysts are calling for alternative approaches. Targeted sanctions aimed specifically at leaders and their inner circles, rather than the economy as a whole, could be more effective and less harmful to ordinary citizens. Freezing the personal assets of regime members abroad, imposing travel bans on those responsible for repression, and other similar measures would help maintain pressure without exacerbating the humanitarian crisis.

Others suggest a more nuanced approach combining pressure and dialogue. Diplomatic engagement, even with a repressive regime, could open channels of communication that would allow for the negotiation of gradual concessions. History has shown that the total isolation of a country rarely leads to positive change, but rather to a hardening of positions and radicalization. However, these alternative approaches come up against political reality: in the current climate of international tensions, few Western governments are willing to soften their stance toward Iran, especially while the regime is violently repressing its own people.

Sanctions. This economic weapon is brandished as a miracle solution. But who really suffers? Not the leaders in their palaces, nor the Revolutionary Guards who control the black market. No, it is ordinary families who can no longer afford medicine, who watch their children go hungry. And we, meanwhile, congratulate ourselves on our moral resolve while innocent people pay the price for our selective outrage.

The International Community Faces Its Responsibilities

Between Outrage and Inaction

The international community is watching events in Iran with growing concern, but its responses remain largely symbolic. Verbal condemnations are mounting, human rights organizations are sounding the alarm, but concrete action is slow in coming. The economic sanctions already in place have not prevented the crackdown, and new sanctions are likely to exacerbate the suffering of the Iranian people without significantly weakening the regime. The military intervention mentioned by Trump is rejected by most countries, which are aware of the risks of regional escalation. So what can be done?

Some advocate for increased technological support for the protesters, via Starlink or other means of circumventing censorship. Others call for coordinated diplomatic pressure on the Iranian regime, by mobilizing international bodies such as the UN or the European Union. Still others suggest targeting the personal assets of Iranian leaders abroad to deprive them of their resources. But all these approaches face practical and political obstacles. The reality is that the international community has few effective levers to influence the situation in Iran without risking a dangerous escalation.

The Duty to Remember and Bear Witness

Given the international community’s relative powerlessness, the role of the media and human rights organizations becomes crucial. Documenting violations, collecting testimonies, and keeping the world’s attention focused on what is happening in Iran—all of this helps exert moral pressure on the regime and support the protesters. The internet blackout makes this task extremely difficult, but not impossible. Information continues to trickle out, bit by bit, through indirect channels. Every video, every photo, every testimony that manages to leave Iran is a victory against censorship and oblivion.

It is also essential not to let this crisis fall off the media’s radar. The international news cycle is saturated, crises follow one after another, and public attention is fleeting. But the Iranians risking their lives in the streets deserve to have their struggle remembered. They deserve for the world to keep watching, bearing witness, and remembering. Because even if we cannot save them directly, we can at least refuse to look away. That is the least we owe them.

The international community. These words ring hollow when we see the widespread inaction. Everyone is outraged, but no one is really taking action. And meanwhile, Iranians are dying, wondering if anyone, anywhere, truly cares about their fate. The answer is painful: not enough to take risks, not enough to make a difference.

Conclusion: A Turning Point for Iran

A Time for Decisions

Iran is at a pivotal moment in its history. The current protests are not merely a social upheaval, but the expression of a deep-seated crisis that has been undermining the regime for years. The economy is in ruins, the population is exasperated, and the regime’s legitimacy is being challenged as never before. The internet blackout and brutal crackdown are symptoms of a regime on the ropes, which has no response to the protests other than violence. But this strategy has its limits. You cannot govern a country of 85 million people indefinitely through terror and censorship. Sooner or later, something has to give.

The question is no longer whether change will come, but how and at what cost. Iranians have already paid a terrible price, with hundreds dead and thousands arrested. How many more sacrifices will be necessary before their voices are heard? And what form will this change take? A gradual reform of the regime? A full-scale revolution? Foreign intervention? Each scenario carries its own risks and uncertainties. But the status quo is no longer tenable. The Iran of 2026 can no longer be the Iran of 1979. The Iranian people’s aspirations for freedom, dignity, and prosperity are legitimate and unstoppable.

A Call for Solidarity

At this critical moment, international solidarity with the Iranian people is more important than ever. This involves technological support—such as the Starlink project mentioned by Trump and Musk—but also diplomatic pressure, support for human rights organizations, and above all, a refusal to remain indifferent. The Iranians are not asking us to carry out the revolution for them; they are doing it themselves at the risk of their lives. They are simply asking that we not let them down, that we not look away, that we not forget them in the silence imposed by the media blackout.

History will judge our generation by its response to these cries for help. Have we risen to the occasion? Have we done everything in our power to support those fighting for freedom? Or have we preferred the comfort of indifference and the ease of inaction? These questions concern us all, for the Iranians’ struggle for freedom is also our own. In an interconnected world, the oppression of one people concerns us all. And the victory of freedom in one place is a victory for all of humanity. The Iranians remind us that freedom is never a given; it must be defended and reclaimed time and again. This is a lesson we must never forget.

I watch these images seeping through despite the news blackout. Determined faces, raised fists, slogans chanted in the face of gun barrels. And I ask myself: would I have that courage? Would I have the strength to take to the streets knowing I’m risking my life? Probably not. That’s why I owe them at least this much: not to forget them. Never forget them. Their struggle is ours, even if we don’t know it yet.

Share this post

Copied!