Cruz Demands US Arm Iran Protesters as Regime Brutality Escalates

Paul Riverbank, 1/28/2026Ted Cruz urges arming Iran protesters as regime violence escalates, igniting global and regional tensions.

Scores are hard to tally. Activist groups put the death toll past six thousand, though each new account threatens to nudge that figure higher. What began in late December as rallies against deepening repression and economic hardship swelled into daily acts of daring—yet those acts have sometimes ended with only silence and smoke.

Senator Ted Cruz didn’t mince words this week, urging America to go further: “We should be arming the protesters in Iran. NOW.” It’s a clarion call pitched to both hearts and strategic calculus, framing the unrest as not just a question of Iranian rights, but, in Cruz’s own terms, a matter of US safety. “For [the protesters] to overthrow the Ayatollah—a tyrant who routinely chants ‘death to America’—would make America much, much safer.” It’s a familiar tune for some policymakers, echoing long-held beliefs in Washington that regime change could turn the tide for US fortunes in the region.

But the region rarely moves in neat lines. Iran-aligned militias—never shy about drawing red lines of their own—have cranked up their warnings. Abu Hussein al-Hamidawi, a name equal parts shadowy and infamous, promised “total war” if Washington makes a move against Tehran. His language had that blend of bravado and menace: “Nothing of you will remain in our region, and we will strike terror in your hearts.” The backdrop? Fresh threats to Red Sea shipping, underscored by videos and boasts about what’s soon to come.

Meanwhile, over in Baghdad, political intrigue is hardly in short supply. Donald Trump—never one for understatement—sounded the alarm about Iraq’s possible reappointment of Nouri al-Maliki as prime minister. "Last time Maliki was in power, the Country descended into poverty and total chaos," Trump wrote, hinting that US aid hangs in the balance. He even warned, bluntly, that America would walk away if old patterns returned. Inside Iraq, politicians point to Maliki’s deep experience as reason enough for his return, even as others bristle at US threats of sanctions should more Iran-backed militia figures join the cabinet.

Foreign affairs—particularly in this corner of the world—tend not to fit into tidy formulas. Cruz’s vision of “bold action” meets firm resistance from those who remember how deeply US influence has cut in the Middle East—how interventions, meant to heal or secure, have sometimes left wounds instead. The idea that arming one side transforms an equation glosses over a grim arithmetic: real people risk everything, and the calculus often grows more brutal with each infusion of outside arms.

Yet for both Iran and Iraq, the internal drama is never far from international gaze. Decisions made in Washington ripple—sometimes unexpectedly—through neighborhoods in Tehran and government courtyards in Baghdad. Political deadlines approach, threats loom, ordinary people wait, world powers keep watch. If there’s any certainty in this landscape, it’s that every decision carries a cost, measured not just in strategy but in lives and futures—not all of them visible in the headlines.

On the streets of Tehran, what began as simmering frustration has boiled over into a climate of palpable fear—one that puts the world’s rhetoric about intervention to the test. Stories filtering out of Iran don’t come dressed in fine diplomacy. Instead, they’re raw dispatches from a place where, as one insider told a friend abroad, even the bravest now hesitate. “There’s nothing left for us to do here,” the message ran. Security forces, according to this account, have crossed every line: shooting live rounds deliberately, killing not only without pause but sometimes with grisly aftermath—“they come and behead you, and do countless other violent things.” At this point, the dangers of protest have tipped into futility. “Going out into the streets is literally suicide,” the contact confided, “It’s not about bravery anymore. It’s madness.”Scores are hard to tally. Activist groups put the death toll past six thousand, though each new account threatens to nudge that figure higher. What began in late December as rallies against deepening repression and economic hardship swelled into daily acts of daring—yet those acts have sometimes ended with only silence and smoke.Senator Ted Cruz didn’t mince words this week, urging America to go further: “We should be arming the protesters in Iran. NOW.” It’s a clarion call pitched to both hearts and strategic calculus, framing the unrest as not just a question of Iranian rights, but, in Cruz’s own terms, a matter of US safety. “For [the protesters] to overthrow the Ayatollah—a tyrant who routinely chants ‘death to America’—would make America much, much safer.” It’s a familiar tune for some policymakers, echoing long-held beliefs in Washington that regime change could turn the tide for US fortunes in the region.But the region rarely moves in neat lines. Iran-aligned militias—never shy about drawing red lines of their own—have cranked up their warnings. Abu Hussein al-Hamidawi, a name equal parts shadowy and infamous, promised “total war” if Washington makes a move against Tehran. His language had that blend of bravado and menace: “Nothing of you will remain in our region, and we will strike terror in your hearts.” The backdrop? Fresh threats to Red Sea shipping, underscored by videos and boasts about what’s soon to come.Meanwhile, over in Baghdad, political intrigue is hardly in short supply. Donald Trump—never one for understatement—sounded the alarm about Iraq’s possible reappointment of Nouri al-Maliki as prime minister. "Last time Maliki was in power, the Country descended into poverty and total chaos," Trump wrote, hinting that US aid hangs in the balance. He even warned, bluntly, that America would walk away if old patterns returned. Inside Iraq, politicians point to Maliki’s deep experience as reason enough for his return, even as others bristle at US threats of sanctions should more Iran-backed militia figures join the cabinet.Foreign affairs—particularly in this corner of the world—tend not to fit into tidy formulas. Cruz’s vision of “bold action” meets firm resistance from those who remember how deeply US influence has cut in the Middle East—how interventions, meant to heal or secure, have sometimes left wounds instead. The idea that arming one side transforms an equation glosses over a grim arithmetic: real people risk everything, and the calculus often grows more brutal with each infusion of outside arms.Yet for both Iran and Iraq, the internal drama is never far from international gaze. Decisions made in Washington ripple—sometimes unexpectedly—through neighborhoods in Tehran and government courtyards in Baghdad. Political deadlines approach, threats loom, ordinary people wait, world powers keep watch. If there’s any certainty in this landscape, it’s that every decision carries a cost, measured not just in strategy but in lives and futures—not all of them visible in the headlines.