Donald Trump is no longer hinting. He is saying it outright.

In an interview published Saturday, Trump told Politico “it’s time to look for new leadership in Iran,” framing the current regime as beyond repair and openly aligning himself with the goal of regime change in Tehran. His comments land at a moment when the country is almost completely sealed off from the outside world and the available numbers from inside Iran point to a level of state violence that is hard to even process.

According to the latest figures from the human rights group HRANA, at least 24,348 people have been arrested in the crackdown. They have confirmed 3,766 deaths so far, with another 8,949 cases still under review. Most of those arrested are slapped with terrorist charges, meaning, a death sentence is on the table. The state has declared themselves that they intend to carry out these punishments swiftly. 

On HRANA’s own estimates, the current death toll is above 12,715 killed, a number that can be expected to rise as more information is verified. 

These are not casualties in a war between states. These are Iranians killed by their own government.

For almost two weeks, the regime has made sure that almost none of this is visible in real time. NetBlocks, which tracks global internet connectivity, reports that Iran’s nationwide blackout has now entered its twelfth day, with national connectivity “minimal.” In recent days, they say, the “filternet” has allowed occasional messages through, suggesting the authorities are testing a more heavily filtered domestic intranet that would keep outside platforms and independent reporting largely blocked even after the blackout is technically lifted.

What makes this moment so striking is precisely the lack of images. For the first time in history outside of places like North Korea, a state that presents itself as a normal member of the international community has effectively shut off the internet for its entire civilian population. Nothing in. Nothing out. Almost no video, no livestreams, no steady stream of phone footage that usually defines unrest in the age of the smartphone. If a country such as the United States, the United Kingdom, or Israel attempted to do this, the global response would be instant and furious. There would be protests in Western capitals and front-page headlines calling it a coup against basic freedoms. Everyone knows a government that has nothing to hide does not turn the lights off for 90+ million people at once. 

That’s usually when dictatorships start saying “it’s for your own safety”. 

Meanwhile, U.S. military buildup is underway around Iran’s borders in anticipation of some sort of attack. 

Much of the usual protest class has gone quiet. The same voices that fill the streets, comment sections, and university quads for almost every other cause outside their own borders have largely stepped back from Iran. In some cases, activists have gone further, embracing the regime’s talking points that the unrest is a plot by Israel or the United States and framing the demonstrators as pawns of Western intelligence rather than citizens facing live fire. Tehran has leaned hard into that narrative at home and abroad, directly blaming America for the demonstrations and, by implication, for the deaths—deaths carried out by Iranian security forces with Iranian bullets.

The logic collapses as soon as you say it out loud. Even if Trump’s rhetoric and policies helped inspire people to go into the streets, he did not order Iranian troops to fire on unarmed crowds. Washington did not command Revolutionary Guard units to shoot teenagers, drag bodies away, or flood morgues. The decision to respond to protest with mass killing belongs to the regime alone. The growing HRANA numbers, and the suggestion from people in contact with the ground that even these counts may be far below reality, all point in the same direction: this is a choice, not an accident.

That is the backdrop to Trump’s latest comments. In the Politico interview, he framed the situation not as a matter of minor reform but of replacement, saying it is time to “look for new leadership in Iran” and describing the current rulers as a threat to their own people and to regional stability. He tied that call directly to the internet blackout and the killings, arguing that a government that cuts off its people from the world and then opens fire has forfeited any claim to legitimacy.

Inside Iran, there is no public debate about that. People in the streets already act as if the question of whether the Islamic Republic should survive has been answered. Outside, the conversation is only beginning to catch up. The regime has done everything it can to make sure no one has to look the reality in the face. Twelve days of silence. Twelve thousand dead and counting. A foreign president saying plainly what many Iranians have been risking their lives to shout: this leadership cannot remain.

Trump is moving onto phase 2 of his Gaza plan…And is now launching a new international body to oversee Gaza's future. Many are comparing it to a new body competing with the UN.

The Gaza Peace Board, chaired by Trump himself in what reports describe as a lifetime position…..includes key U.S. figures such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio, envoy Steve Witkoff, and Jared Kushner.
A dedicated Gaza executive subcommittee will manage day to day operations focused on reconstruction, establishing technocratic Palestinian administration, demilitarization, and enforcing the ceasefire from October 2025.

Invitations went out to around 60 countries over the January 17-18 weekend.
Quick yeses came from Trump allies. Hungary's Viktor Orbán signed up. Argentina's Javier Milei called it an honor. Canada's Mark Carney agreed in principle. Vietnam accepted. Egypt and Qatar already mediate. Turkey's Hakan Fidan confirmed joining the Gaza group. Israel objects to both. Pakistan also received an invite, another big red flag for Israel.

France and Germany are reviewing the proposal carefully because they worry about funding a structure led by Trump. Australia, India, UAE, UK, Japan, Jordan, and Pakistan have confirmed they received invitations. Albania, Bahrain, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, and Paraguay have done the same.

Russia stands out in the list as a very interesting potential addition.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed that President Vladimir Putin received the formal invitation through diplomatic channels. Moscow is studying the proposal closely and has requested further clarification from the United States on its structure and responsibilities. No final decision has been announced yet. This comes from the same Russia that supplies arms to Iran, including defense systems that performed poorly during last year's events in Venezuela. Now Putin faces an offer to join Trump's Gaza effort.

The board builds directly on the Abraham Accords framework. Countries like the UAE and Bahrain normalized relations with Israel early on, while Egypt and Jordan have supported peace initiatives from the start. Saudi Arabia continues to monitor developments but has linked any normalization to progress on Palestinian statehood. Trump bypasses the United Nations entirely, which he has dismissed as ineffective. Many are hyper critical of this plan and we will just have to wait and see what happens. Many call it a Trump control plan…As if he doesn't want peace and simply wants to find a way to control the economic stream in the Middle East. Gaza, being the hot button issue at the moment, is just another way to make that happen. The list of potential allies are all pretty understandable, but Russia certainly stands out as an interesting choice.

There are moments when policy debates surface not as announcements, but as signals. This is one of those moments.

According to a Telegraph report yesterday, figures close to President Trump have discussed the possibility of offering asylum to British Jews, citing rising antisemitism in the United Kingdom. No policy has been announced. No executive order drafted. Yet the fact that the idea is being aired at all matters. Asylum is not normally extended to citizens of allied democracies. The United States has historically reserved such measures for populations fleeing authoritarian rule, civil war, or systemic state persecution. Britain, on paper, qualifies as none of these. That is precisely why the discussion is notable. The catalyst is the post October 7 environment. Jew Hatred incidents in Britain have surged. Jewish schools require increased security. Synagogues operate under constant threat assessments. Polling shows a sharp decline in the number of British Jews who feel safe in public life. These are not abstract concerns. They are daily realities.

The proposal reportedly originated with Robert Garson, a British born lawyer close to Trump, who has argued that the trajectory is clear and deteriorating. His view is blunt. If a minority population increasingly requires armed protection to live normal lives, then the state has failed in its most basic obligation. From a legal standpoint, the idea is unconventional. U.S. asylum law is designed around individual claims of persecution, not blanket eligibility based on identity or nationality. Implementing such a policy would require either statutory creativity or a narrow administrative workaround. It would also collide with a sharply reduced refugee cap for 2026.

From a strategic standpoint, however, the discussion aligns with a broader Trump era pattern. Moral arguments are framed through the lens of state failure. Alliances are treated as conditional. And long standing assumptions about Western stability are no longer taken for granted. There is also a diplomatic subtext. Declaring that Jews may need asylum from Britain is, implicitly, an indictment. It suggests that social cohesion in a core NATO ally is fraying in ways that governments are unwilling or unable to confront directly. Nothing may come of this. Most such trial balloons do not. But even unfulfilled proposals can clarify priorities. In this case, the message is less about immigration policy and more about perception. A perception that antisemitism in the West is no longer episodic, but structural. And that silence, especially from allies, is itself a data point. History often records these moments not as turning points, but as early warnings.