The Iranian regime this weekend expanded its nationwide internet crackdown to outer space, as military-grade jamming signals disrupted the connection of contraband equipment to Starlink satellites. Experts familiar with the history of protests against the Iranian regime feared that the internet blackout signaled an imminent intensification of the government crackdown, and they were right. The all-important, unanswered question is whether this crackdown proves fatal for the protests, or for the regime.

Over the weekend, the death toll from the latest wave of anti-regime demonstrations rose dramatically, from 34 killed from late December to last Friday, to a stunning 510 dead protestors, according to the U.S.-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA). These figures do not include the injured. One hospital physician described large numbers of protestors arriving at his residence, with many protestors suffering severe beatings, head injuries, broken limbs, and deep cuts; 20 victims at one hospital had been shot with live ammunition.

These casualties are one aspect of a snapshot of deepening conflict. HRANA also records that 89 members of the security forces have died, while government forces have detained more than 10,600 protestors over nearly three weeks.

Early in the protests, President Donald Trump pledged American support for the protestors if the Iranian regime began killing large numbers, and he reiterated his position on Saturday, “Iran is looking at FREEDOM, perhaps like never before. The USA stands ready to help!!!”

President Trump has not ruled out a military response, and administration officials have held preliminary discussions on what such an attack would look like. When asked by a reporter Sunday night whether the Iranian regime had crossed a red line, Trump gave an answer that kept his options open. “They’re starting to, it looks like, and there seem to be some people killed that aren’t supposed to be killed. … I’m getting an hourly report, and we’re gonna make a determination.”

Externally, the Iranian regime has tried to maintain a bold face. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi claimed that “the situation has come under total control,” blaming the U.S. and Israel for inciting the protests, while the parliamentary speaker warned that Iran would consider the U.S. military and Israel to be “legitimate targets” if the U.S. launched a strike to protect demonstrators.

Internally, Iranian officials have reached out to negotiate, “expressing a far different tone than what you’re seeing publicly,” explained White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. In the months before a U.S. strike destroyed its nuclear enrichment facilities, Iran tried diplomacy with the U.S., but President Trump finally decided they were just stalling for time.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said that Aragchi was “open to diplomacy,” but that talks must be “based on the acceptance of mutual interests and concerns, not a negotiation that is one-sided, unilateral and based on dictation.”

Trump himself told reporters that “a meeting is being set up,” assessing that, “I think they’re tired of being beat up by the United States. They want to negotiate.” However, he added, “We may have to act before a meeting.”

An analyst writing in the Middle East Forum compared the situation to Venezuela, where the Trump administration captured dictator Nicolás Maduro and then bargained with “the Venezuelan elites who traded loyalty for survival.” Likewise, he suggests, “Trump’s confirmation that Tehran has asked for a meeting paints a picture of pragmatic Revolutionary Guard commanders facing personal ruin, bartering via [former Foreign Minister Javad] Zarif for amnesty, asset protections, and a slice of post-theocracy power.”

At a minimum, the fact that Iran is negotiating suggests that they recognize Trump’s willingness to carry out a military strike, and that they do not want to find out how devastating such a strike will be. Due to the information blackout, it is difficult for outside observers to assess whether the Iranian regime is merely trying to avoid an unpleasant airstrike, or whether the situation is truly out of their control.

Despite heavy losses, some reports suggest that demonstrators have indeed caused damage to the regime. Even regime-controlled media reported that “rioters” had torched a municipal building in the city of Karaj, and that numerous security officers have been killed in multiple locations.

Some Iranian protestors are inspired by the cheers of Reza Pahlavi, son of the late shah who was exiled in 1979, who urged demonstrators to bring the regime “to its knees” and promised a return to the country. “Our goal is no longer merely to come into the streets; the goal is to prepare to seize city centers and hold them,” he said.

One signal that the widespread protests have damaged the regime is the fact that Tehran has felt it necessary to stage counter-demonstrations. On Monday afternoon, state television broadcast pro-regime demonstrators filling the streets of Tehran with scenes far different from the anguished cries for freedom uttered at the funerals of slain protestors.

The rally was billed as an “Iranian uprising against American-Zionist terrorism.” Araghi’s comments exposed the propaganda spin, “the demonstrations turned violent and bloody to give an excuse to the American president to intervene.”

Yet, despite publicly blaming America for inciting the demonstrations, Iran is also negotiating with America, a fact which may suggest the regime is internally divided.

Thousands of miles away, Democratic Party Chair Ken Martin likened the Iranian protests for freedom with the anti-ICE protests of leftist radicals. “From Tehran to my birthplace of Minneapolis, people are rising up against systems that wield violence without accountability,” he claimed. “In Iran, brave protestors confront a far-right theocratic regime that crushes dissent and denies basic freedoms. Here at home, tens of thousands are marching after the fatal ICE shooting of Renee Good.”

The two protest movements have little in common, of course. For one thing — one very important thing — Americans have a representative government, in which dissatisfied citizens have plenty of legitimate options for effecting change. Iranian demonstrators are fighting for such basic freedom.

But while the American Left bashes their government (without hindrance), that government is strategizing how to best help the people of Iran. Will it be military action? A cyberattack? More sanctions? And when will it happen? Reporters (and those who read them) are naturally interested in the answers to these questions, but they will simply have to wait to learn the answer. “I think one thing President Trump is very good at,” Leavitt said, “is always keeping all of his options on the table.”