Trump Publicly Thanks Iran for Halting Executions On Jan. 16, 2026, former President Donald Trump told reporters outside the White House that Iran had canceled scheduled hangings of more than 800 prisoners, a figure he repeated in a brief “Thank you!” post on social media [1][2]. He said he “greatly respects” the decision and framed it as a positive development while the United States weighed its next steps on Iran. Trump added that no foreign officials had persuaded him; he convinced himself of the stance [2].

Human Rights Groups Cite Rising Death Toll Iranian activists, citing the Human Rights Activists News Agency, reported that the death toll from the nationwide protests that began Dec. 28, 2025, had climbed to 2,797 and continued to rise [1][2]. While streets in Tehran have largely quieted, an extensive internet blackout that started during the crackdown remains in effect, limiting real‑time reporting [1][2]. The combination of subdued public demonstrations and restricted communications underscores the lingering volatility despite the apparent calm.

Exiled Crown Prince Calls for Renewed Demonstrations Reza Pahlavi, the exiled Crown Prince of Iran, used his X account on Jan. 16 to urge Iranians to take to the streets again from Saturday through Monday, promising clearer international support for a “national revolution” [1][2]. He also appealed directly to the United States, describing Trump as a leader who keeps his word and urging U.S. intervention in line with prior pledges [1][2]. Pahlavi’s messaging adds a political counterpoint to the U.S. administration’s cautious posture.

Iranian Cleric Labels Protesters as Foreign Pawns In a Friday sermon, Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami described the protesters as “butlers” of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and “Trump’s soldiers,” warning that both Netanyahu and Trump should expect “hard revenge from the system” [1]. This characterization, absent from the AP report, highlights internal Iranian rhetoric that frames the unrest as driven by external adversaries. The divergent coverage illustrates differing editorial focus on Iran’s domestic narrative versus external diplomatic reactions.