Iranian Dissidents Rally Behind Trump’s Armed Resistance Comments, Sparking Reagan Doctrine Resurgence

In light of recent comments by former President Donald Trump about Iranian citizens potentially “fighting back” if armed, discussions are heating up among Iranian dissidents, military experts, and some Republican lawmakers. They’re considering whether the West should go beyond its “maximum pressure” strategy on Tehran and actively support armed resistance within Iran.

During an interview on “The Hugh Hewitt Show,” Trump remarked, “They have to have guns. And I think they’re getting some guns. As soon as they have guns, they’ll fight like, as good as anybody there is,” referring to the ongoing anti-regime protests and the Iranian government’s harsh response.

These statements come at a time when the Iranian government appears weakened after enduring weeks of conflict. Many Iranians remain frustrated, having seen multiple protests suppressed violently by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps over the years.

Proponents of a more assertive stance argue that sanctions, diplomacy, and peaceful protests have not led to significant change within Iran. They suggest the current situation might be the best chance in decades to instigate internal challenges to the regime. However, opponents caution that discussing armed resistance openly might endanger protesters, intensify splits within the opposition, and potentially push Iran toward a civil war.

The concept of supporting armed resistance brings to mind the Reagan Doctrine, a Cold War strategy where the U.S. supported anti-Soviet resistance movements in various regions, including Afghanistan and Nicaragua.

“We need to give Iranians the tools now, and they’ll finish the job themselves,” Brett Velicovich, founder of Powerus and a former U.S. military and intelligence specialist focused on drone warfare, told Fox News Digital.

“It’s their time to do something. There has never been a better chance.”

Velicovich described the strategy as “Reagan Doctrine 2.0,” updated for the age of drones and decentralized warfare.

“Cheap FPV drones, loitering munitions, and small arms let motivated fighters turn Iran’s streets and mountains into a nightmare for the IRGC,” he said. “This isn’t fantasy; it’s asymmetric warfare that works.”

He argued that modern drone technology has fundamentally changed the balance between governments and insurgent or resistance movements.

“Drones democratize power,” Velicovich said. “The regime’s monopoly on violence ends the day the people get eyes in the sky and precision strike capability.”

Still, even some critics of the Iranian regime caution that the comparison to Cold War proxy movements has limits.

Unlike Soviet-controlled Eastern Europe or Afghanistan in the 1980s, Iran is a highly nationalistic country with a fragmented opposition and deep fears of foreign intervention following decades of conflict across the Middle East.

Still, calls for more direct support for anti-regime forces are increasingly moving into mainstream Republican foreign policy discussions.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., recently called for what he described as a “Second Amendment solution” inside Iran.

“If I were President Trump and I were Israel, I would load the Iranian people up with weapons so they could go to the streets armed and turn the tide of battle inside Iran,” Graham said on “Hannity.”

The question of who would actually receive support, however, remains deeply controversial.

Some opposition supporters continue to rally around exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, whose name has surfaced during anti-regime protests inside Iran and who has urged the international community not to give Tehran “another lifeline.”

Another group that has acted in various operations against the regime is the controversial People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran, or MEK, which has long positioned itself as an organized opposition force against the Islamic Republic. The MEK recently posted videos showing its members targeting “regime centers and symbols of crime and repression,” in response to the execution of two of its members last month — Hamed Validi and Mohammad (Nima) Massoum-Shahi.

Others point to existing armed or semi-organized anti-regime groups, including Kurdish organizations, Baloch insurgent networks and underground resistance cells operating inside Iran.

Sardar Pashaei, director of the Hiwa Foundation and a former Iranian wrestling champion now living in the United States, warned that publicly discussing arming protesters could itself put lives at risk.

“I think we must be extremely cautious on this issue, especially publicly, because the regime can use it as a pretext to arrest protesters, fabricate cases and even justify executions,” Pashaei told Fox News Digital.

“For decades, the Islamic Republic has used accusations of ties to the United States, Israel, or espionage to target dissidents and political prisoners.”

Pashaei argued the better approach is supporting Iranian civil society, restoring internet access and backing democratic opposition groups that reflect Iran’s ethnic and political diversity.

The issue became even more sensitive after Trump said during a phone interview with “Fox News Sunday” in early April that his administration had previously attempted to send firearms to Iranian protesters through Kurdish channels, though the effort failed.

“We sent guns to the protesters, a lot of them. We sent them through the Kurds. And I think the Kurds took the guns,” Trump said.

Several Kurdish groups have denied receiving such shipments.

Pashaei warned that claims of foreign weapons support could deepen divisions inside the opposition while also exposing Kurdish groups to further retaliation from Tehran.

“During the so-called ceasefire period, Kurdish opposition groups were targeted more than 30 times with drone and missile attacks,” he said, adding that four young Kurdish Peshmerga fighters were killed, including 19-year-old Ghazal Mowlan.

One source familiar with discussions surrounding Iranian opposition strategy said supporters of a more aggressive approach increasingly believe the current moment presents a rare opportunity to identify, train and support local resistance networks capable of protecting protesters and challenging the regime from within.

The source argued that while Iran spent decades building and cultivating proxy networks across the Middle East, Western governments largely avoided investing in organized anti-regime infrastructure inside Iran itself.

Others warn that empowering armed factions could trigger ethnic fragmentation, civil war or a Syria-style conflict inside Iran.

According to the source, supporters of a more aggressive approach increasingly believe the current moment presents a rare opportunity to identify, train and support local resistance networks capable of protecting protesters and challenging the regime from within.

Whether Washington is willing to move beyond pressure campaigns and sanctions toward something closer to a modernized Reagan Doctrine remains unclear.

Members of security forces watch over the crowd during a funeral procession for IRGC Navy Chief Alireza Tangsiri and other senior naval commanders killed in U.S.-Israeli strikes in Tehran, Iran, on April 1, 2026. (Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

For now, Trump’s comments have pushed a once-theoretical conversation into the open, while some argue the current moment may represent the best opportunity in decades to challenge the regime.