In reactions posted on X (formerly Twitter), international activists highlighted economic hardship, social instability, and ongoing internal crises in the US, arguing that Trump should focus on the problems facing American citizens rather than intervening in Iran.
In a post published on his social media platform, Trump wrote that if Iran “shoots and violently kills peaceful protesters,” the United States would “come to their rescue.”
"If Iran shots and violently kills peaceful protesters, which is their custom, the United States of America will come to their rescue. We are locked and loaded and ready to go. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President Donald J.Trump," he wrote on one of his social media accounts.
Over the past week, Iran’s security and intelligence agencies announced the detention of several individuals accused of maintaining ties with foreign-based adversary groups and attempting to incite riots under the guise of public protests.
Tehran has repeatedly emphasized the distinction between lawful civil expression and coordinated acts of violence, warning that foreign actors routinely attempt to exploit social grievances to destabilize the country.
Trump’s remarks are deeply ironic, considering the United States’ own record of forceful crackdowns on protesters. Trump’s statement follows a familiar pattern in which US officials portray themselves as defenders of human rights abroad while overlooking or justifying harsh domestic responses to dissent.
The statement quickly triggered widespread backlash among foreign activists, many of whom linked Trump’s position to the recent visit of the Israeli regime's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the United States. Several users suggested that Netanyahu’s influence played a role in Trump’s rhetoric, casting doubt on Trump’s repeated claims of being a “president of peace.”
According to many commentators, Trump’s remarks are not driven by humanitarian concern but by strategic and economic interests. Users argued that the real objective is not the protection of Iranian civilians but access to Iran’s oil, gas, and natural resources.
Others pointed to what they described as double standards in U.S. foreign policy, questioning why Trump has not taken action to protect civilians and children killed in Gaza while continuing to arm Israel.
Some users framed Trump’s comments as a classic example of U.S.-style regime change tactics, drawing parallels with previous interventions, including events in Ukraine and Venezuela. They warned Iranians against trusting Washington, arguing that history demonstrates how such narratives typically end.
Overall, the reactions reflect deep skepticism among international users toward U.S. interventionist narratives. Many argued that Trump’s statements represent coercive diplomacy rather than genuine humanitarian concern, warning that such rhetoric historically precedes foreign interference and escalation.
MNA
Your Comment