TEHRAN – Ted Cruz, the U.S. senator from Texas, has a reputation for rhetoric that often outpaces his grasp of its consequences. He was a central figure whose remarks fuelled the 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, and he remains infamous among his constituents for fleeing to Cancun during a deadly winter storm that crippled the state’s power grid. On the world stage, he is a reliable advocate for American military intervention, from West Asia to South America.

But his recent call for Washington to arm insurgents to destabilize Iran—ostensibly to make America “safer”—represents a new level of recklessness, even for a senator whose words are often dismissed as political theatre.

At a moment when global diplomatic efforts were focused on de-escalating tensions between Tehran and Washington to avert a regional war, Cruz took to X. He declared that America must be “arming protesters in Iran,” concluding that such a move would make the United States a “much, much, safer” country.

The “protesters” Cruz seeks to arm bear little resemblance to those who initially took to the streets. What began in late December as legitimate demonstrations against inflation—a persistent issue since the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign began in 2018—were quickly overtaken by coordinated, armed violence. Between January 8 and January 14, the situation fundamentally changed, descending from protest into what official Iranian assessments describe as a full-blown insurrection across multiple cities.

The scale of the destruction shows a violent, organized campaign. The unrest involved the widespread use of firearms, including pistols, Kalashnikov rifles, Israeli-made Uzi submachine guns, and sniper rifles. Assailants also wielded cold weapons such as knives, machetes, and axes, and deployed explosives ranging from Molotov cocktails to military-grade grenades. Rioters targeted military and police facilities as well as public and private property. In Tehran alone, the damages were estimated at 3 trillion tomans, with a tally that included over 700 shops, 750 banks, 414 government buildings, hundreds of police and Basij centres, and dozens of mosques, schools, and metro stations.

The human toll was equally staggering. Official reports state that 2,427 people, including civilians and security personnel, were killed by armed groups during the unrest. Victims included children as young as two, shot in public spaces or inside family vehicles. The violence was often extreme, with numerous documented cases of security personnel being stabbed, set on fire, and mutilated—methods reminiscent of tactics employed by extremist terrorist organizations.

Many detainees have admitted to contact with foreign spy services, including Israel’s Mossad. These claims followed public statements from several American and Israeli figures. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and a Persian-language Mossad account on X had, prior to the violence, both alluded to having “agents” inside Iran. Concurrently, Western-based social media influencers, who had previously supported a U.S.-Israeli war against Iran in June 2025, boasted that many “protesters” were already “armed.”

Analysts in Tehran believe the riots were engineered to create a pretext for a second war against Iran, weakening the country’s military by forcing it to contend with an internal insurgency. The successful neutralization of the riots, they argue, forced the plan for a foreign attack to be scrapped, at least for now. This view is bolstered by unofficial reports suggesting a U.S. strike was planned for January 14, the same day Iran abruptly closed its airspace. Against this backdrop, the Trump administration is now dispatching what the president has called a “big armada” to the Persian Gulf, leaving it unclear whether a direct military strike remains on the table.

Cruz’s proposal to continue arming these elements is seen by observers as a clear endorsement of war. Such a strategy seeks two possible outcomes: the violent overthrow of the Iranian government from within, or a softening of the country for an external U.S. attack. Even if the insurgency fails to topple the Islamic Republic, hawkish figures like Cruz—whose campaigns are heavily funded by pro-Israel lobbies such as AIPAC—believe the escalating pressure will ultimately force Iran to capitulate at the negotiating table. The concessions they demand are absolute: the complete dismantling of its nuclear program, severe limits on its missile capabilities, and the severance of its alliances with regional Resistance forces.

Cruz’s prescription is also a resuscitation of a bloody, failed playbook from the 1980s. During that decade, the U.S. strategy to topple the nascent Islamic Republic involved empowering insurgent factions to pave the way for foreign aggression—most notably Saddam Hussein’s invasion. The primary beneficiary of this support was the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Far from bringing democracy, the MEK embarked on a campaign of terror that claimed the lives of over 18,000 Iranians, ranging from high-ranking officials to ordinary citizens. 

This aggressive path is precisely what many regional powers have been urging Washington to avoid. Countries including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, and Turkey have called for a return to diplomacy to forge a win-win agreement, similar to the 2015 nuclear deal, or JCPOA, which the Trump administration unilaterally abandoned in 2018.

Should a new conflict erupt, the repercussions would extend far beyond Iran and the United States. Tehran has made it clear that it will treat any aggression, no matter how limited, as an all-out war and deploy strategic options it has previously held in reserve. These include closing the Strait of Hormuz, a conduit for nearly $500 billion in annual trade; targeting U.S. military personnel across the region; and striking strategic assets in any country that facilitates an attack on its territory. Retaliatory strikes against Israel, which many Israelis have acknowledged is unprepared for a sustained missile barrage, would be certain to follow. Furthermore, Iran’s allies from Lebanon to Iraq and Yemen have stated in recent days that they would enter any such war.

In advocating for arming these groups, Cruz is not only endorsing acts of terrorism and flagrantly violating international law; he is lobbying for a policy that can only be described as catastrophic. Cruz is not known for his deep strategic thinking, but this latest proposal risks a lesson taught not in the Senate chamber, but on the battlefield: Iran is not Iraq, Syria, or Libya.

**********CAPTION: US Senator Ted Cruz has cultivated a reputation for inflammatory rhetoric and proposals that critics argue are divorced from realities