The Livelihoods of the Iranian People: Donald Trump’s Battlefield
WANA (Jan 23) – If war means forcing a society into submission, it does not necessarily require bombs or missiles.
In Donald Trump’s strategy toward Iran, war has taken on precisely this form: the deliberate disruption of the economy, pressure on supply chains, and the intentional shrinking of people’s everyday livelihoods.
A project that some analysts, in informal discourse, have described as “engineered famine.”
This project is not an unintended consequence of sanctions; it is a core component of the “maximum pressure” strategy—a pressure designed to raise the cost of ordinary life so high, without firing a single bullet, that social resilience is gradually worn down.
Crushing sanctions and economic threats have driven Iran’s national currency to its lowest level in history. The rial has plunged to unprecedented records, a clear indicator of the direct impact of external economic pressure on the daily lives of citizens.
People walk past a sign at a currency exchange as the value of the Iranian Rial drops, in Tehran, Iran, December 30, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)
Contrary to analyses that portray sanctions merely as tools to pressure governments, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated openly: “These [sanctions] are being used to destabilize Iran’s economy and trigger public unrest… This is an economic tool—without firing a single shot.”
It was precisely this economic instability that sparked Iran’s recent protests, which, in a short time and with coordination, escalated into widespread unrest.
Nationwide protests in Iran, beginning around December 28, 2025, were explicitly triggered by the unprecedented collapse of the national currency and mounting economic pressure—factors that international analysts have directly linked to people’s livelihoods and economic hardship.
The sharp devaluation of the rial and soaring prices of basic goods (with the dollar reportedly reaching around 144,000 tomans) were among the main drivers of these protests.
The protest crisis has affected more than just commodity markets and exchange rates. Reports of internet shutdowns in Iran describe them as an additional economic shock, costing the country’s digital economy billions of tomans each day.
Iranian officials have identified the United States and its allies as key contributors to these conditions. Masoud Pezeshkian, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, wrote on his X (formerly Twitter) account:“If there is hardship and constraint in the lives of the dear people of Iran, one of its main causes is the longstanding hostility and inhumane sanctions of the U.S. government and its allies.”
People walk past closed shops, following protests over a plunge in the currency’s value, in the Tehran Gold Grand Bazaar in Tehran, Iran, January 15, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)
To drive Iran’s oil exports to zero, the Trump administration has imposed a complex web of 520 sanctions packages targeting individuals, companies, ships, refineries, and ports. The objective is not merely to cut oil revenues, but to paralyze the entire logistical and financial ecosystem surrounding them—from ship insurance to cargo unloading at ports.
This pressure is reinforced by an extraterritorial layer: a 25 percent tariff against any country that trades with Iran. The message to global markets is unambiguous—engagement with Iran must be costly, risky, and economically irrational. In this model, sanctions impose a form of enforced isolation.
According to available information, this multilayered strategy designated late December and early January as the timing for a major economic shock: the creation of a widespread artificial famine aimed at undermining societal resilience—a famine not caused by lack of production, but by disruption of distribution.
Within this framework, warehouses and distribution centers were identified as critical targets. Reports indicate that during the unrest, organized cells seeking to disrupt the distribution of essential goods set fire to 419 chain stores across the country. The meaningful detail in these operations was that goods were not looted; they were destroyed. The objective was not consumption, but removal of goods from public access.
In cities with limited numbers of chain stores, these attacks had consequences beyond localized destruction, disrupting supply networks and even the implementation of programs such as food vouchers. Put simply, stores were targeted not as economic assets, but as chokepoints in food security.
Ultimately, according to official statements, planned attacks on warehouses and transport trucks were thwarted by security forces, and shortages in the distribution network were largely mitigated. Yet the very design of such a scenario reveals a critical reality: food security has become the new frontline of conflict.
The direct targeting of civilian livelihoods to politically erode governments is not new in U.S. foreign policy. A classic example is the sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s—sanctions that, according to UN reports, led to the collapse of economic infrastructure and a widespread food crisis. In 1996, when asked about the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children as a result of sanctions, then–U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright replied: “This is a price worth paying.”
Another example is the decades-long sanctions against Cuba—a policy aimed at weakening the government in Havana that directly affected citizens’ living standards without bringing about political change.
Even in the case of Venezuela, documents released by the U.S. Treasury show that sanctions deliberately targeted vital sectors such as energy and imports of essential goods—a policy the UN Special Rapporteur has described as exacerbating a humanitarian crisis.
In this context, what is unfolding in Iran today is not an exception, but the continuation of a familiar pattern: sanctions, tariffs, and supply-chain disruptions have replaced tanks and missiles. This time, however, the focus of America’s maximum pressure policy has shifted—from the state to society, and directly to people’s livelihoods.
In this model, even if the government does not collapse, it is forced to expend enormous resources merely to prevent collapse—resources spent not on development, but on maintaining minimal stability.
All of this coincides with Trump’s claim of readiness to negotiate with Iran—claims accompanied by military threats, secondary sanctions, and pressure on Iran’s trading partners. This simultaneity raises a fundamental question: If this is diplomacy, what does war look like?
The Cost Of The Largest Terrorist Operations In Iranian History
WANA (Jan 19) – Between January 8 and 10, 1404, Iran faced one of the most extensive and organized terrorist operations in its modern history; attacks that targeted urban infrastructure, government offices, banks, relief equipment, educational centers, and cultural heritage, and, according to officials, left heavy economic and human consequences. Initial estimates show that […]
