Why Libya’s tragedy made Iranians resist Trump’s call for regime change

 

Libya’s collapse and Iranian protests are shown in a split-scene illustration of war and resistance.

Iran was already going through one of the most difficult times in its recent history before the war broke out. In January 2026, widespread protests had begun, initially motivated by intense economic dissatisfaction. 

The national currency was still depreciating, inflation had risen to all-time highs, and business owners, particularly those in Tehran's Grand Bazaar, were among the first to openly express their outrage.

From Economic Anger to Political Defiance

What began as economic discontent quickly evolved into a nationwide political movement. Demonstrators shifted from criticizing government policies to openly demanding the end of the Islamic Republic. Chants such as “Death to the Dictator,” directed at Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, echoed across major cities. Some protesters even called for the return of Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of the former Shah, as a possible alternative to the current system.

 

By early February 2026, the unrest had intensified. Students joined the demonstrations, accusing the regime of holding their future “hostage.” Nightly rooftop chants became a symbolic act of civil disobedience. The government responded with force, violent crackdowns, internet shutdowns, and mass arrests, further fueling public resentment. All of this occurred before the U.S.–Israeli military operations and the assassination of Khamenei that later escalated into open conflict.

 

Trump’s Miscalculation: Expecting Iranians to Support Intervention

Amid this internal instability, President Donald Trump viewed Iran as vulnerable. Believing the population was ready to overthrow its leaders, he aligned with Israel to strike Iran, expecting that military pressure would trigger a popular uprising. Trump publicly framed the intervention as an effort to “help the Iranian people achieve the change they have long desired.” But the outcome was the opposite of what he anticipated.

 

Instead of rising against their government, many Iranians reacted with anger toward the foreign attack and the killing of their spiritual leader. Even those who had criticized the regime felt that Iran’s sovereignty had been violated. 

The support for Trump’s actions came mainly from longtime opponents of the Islamic Republic living abroad, including political asylum seekers in the United States, not from the Iranian population inside the country.

 

The Libya Factor: A Warning Etched in Memory

 

A major reason for this unexpected unity was historical memory. Iranians vividly remember what happened to Libya, another oil‑rich nation, after foreign intervention. Muammar Gaddafi’s removal was initially celebrated by some Libyans, but the country soon descended into chaos, civil war, and fragmentation. 

Many Iranians fear that foreign‑engineered regime change would lead to the same fate: instability, foreign exploitation, and the loss of national control over their resources.

 

This comparison resonated deeply. To many Iranians, the attack on their country looked less like a humanitarian mission and more like a geopolitical strategy centered on oil and regional dominance. The lesson from Libya was clear: foreign intervention rarely brings democracy, but it often brings destruction.

 

A Strategy That Backfired

 

The U.S. plan to leverage internal unrest and topple the Iranian government with public support ultimately failed. Instead of weakening the regime, the attack strengthened nationalist sentiment and pushed many Iranians, regardless of political views, to reject Trump’s call for regime change. The expectation that Iranians would welcome foreign involvement proved to be a profound miscalculation.

Moral Lesson: Nations Remember, and History Shapes Resistance

 

The Iranian response shows that people do not easily forget the consequences of past foreign interventions. Libya’s collapse became a cautionary tale, teaching Iranians that external promises of “liberation” can mask deeper strategic interests. When nations witness the suffering of others, they become more determined to protect their own sovereignty, even if they oppose their leaders.

 

The moral lesson is simple: true change must come from within a nation, not from the ambitions of foreign powers. History has shown that when outside forces attempt to impose political outcomes, the result is often instability, resentment, and long‑term suffering. Iranians chose to remember Libya, and that memory reshaped their destiny.