On January 22, Iran’s parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf spoke by phone with Turkish parliamentary speaker Numan Kurtulmuş to discuss bilateral ties and regional developments. Ghalibaf framed recent disturbances as a continuation of last June’s “12-day war,” accusing Israel and the United States of supporting “terrorists” who fomented unrest inside Iran. He said that thanks to the efforts of security forces and popular unity, ‘‘all cities’’ in Iran have returned to peace.
Kurtulmuş welcomed the restoration of calm and warned that Israeli actions risked undermining solidarity among Muslim-majority states, urging Iran to maintain stability. The exchange illustrates Ankara’s cautious posture: while critical of Israeli measures that stoke regional tensions, Turkey also seeks predictable relations with Tehran amid overlapping strategic concerns. Both speakers emphasized order rather than addressing the underlying grievances that triggered the protests.
Iran’s recent unrest has resulted in casualties among civilians and security personnel, and has prompted repeated public warnings from Washington about possible military involvement. Tehran has repeatedly characterized the disturbances as part of a foreign-orchestrated campaign, a narrative reiterated by President Mohammad-Pezeshkian on January 19, who blamed a U.S.–Israel plot. The competing accounts harden domestic rhetoric and complicate international mediation efforts.
The Iranian government’s swift attribution of blame to external actors serves several domestic and international purposes: it delegitimizes dissent, consolidates support among conservative constituencies, and signals to regional partners and rivals that Tehran sees the unrest in geostrategic terms. For foreign governments, Washington’s public threats of intervention amplify risk perceptions inside Iran and can be used by Tehran to rally nationalist sentiment and justify security measures.
For outside observers, the episode underscores two connected realities. First, the Iranian state remains determined to project control and to internationalize blame for domestic turbulence. Second, regional actors such as Turkey are balancing criticism of Israel with a desire for stability in neighbours whose instability carries cross-border economic and security costs. Absent credible channels for independent inquiry or political reform, renewed cycles of protest and securitized responses are likely to persist, with attendant regional spillovers.