(SeaPRwire) –   Following President Donald Trump’s suggestion this week that Iranians “would fight back” if they had access to weapons, Iranian dissidents, military analysts, and some Republican legislators are publicly reviving a once-forbidden question: ought the West to go beyond its “maximum pressure” campaign against Tehran and actively back armed resistance within Iran?

In an interview on “The Hugh Hewitt Show,” while discussing anti-regime unrest and the Iranian government’s crackdown on demonstrators, Trump stated: “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.”

These remarks come at a time when the Iranian regime is emerging weakened from weeks of conflict, and frustration remains palpable among many Iranians following years of unsuccessful protests and violent suppressions by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Advocates for a more assertive strategy contend that sanctions, diplomacy, and nonviolent protests have not brought about significant change in Iran, and they note the present moment might be the best chance in decades to challenge the regime from inside. Detractors caution that publicly debating armed resistance could put protesters in danger, widen rifts within the opposition, and risk pushing Iran toward civil war.

The concept of armed resistance mirrors elements of the Reagan Doctrine—a Cold War-era strategy where the U.S. supported anti-Soviet resistance movements globally, from Afghanistan to Nicaragua.

Brett Velicovich, founder of Powerus and a former U.S. military and intelligence expert specializing in drone warfare, told Digital: “We need to give Iranians the tools now, and they’ll finish the job themselves.”

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

Velicovich labeled this strategy “Reagan Doctrine 2.0,” adapted for the era of drones and decentralized combat.

He added: “Cheap FPV drones, loitering munitions, and small arms allow motivated fighters to turn Iran’s streets and mountains into a nightmare for the IRGC. This isn’t fantasy; it’s effective asymmetric warfare.”

Velicovich asserted that modern drone technology has drastically shifted the balance of power between governments and insurgent or resistance groups.

As he put it: “Drones democratize power. The regime’s monopoly on violence ends the day the people gain eyes in the sky and precision strike capabilities.”

Yet, even some opponents of the Iranian regime warn that drawing parallels to Cold War proxy movements has its limitations.

Unlike Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe or 1980s Afghanistan, Iran is a strongly nationalistic nation with a divided opposition and profound anxieties about foreign interference, stemming from decades of conflict in the Middle East.

Nonetheless, demands for more direct backing of anti-regime forces are increasingly entering mainstream Republican foreign policy conversations.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) recently advocated for what he termed a “Second Amendment solution” within Iran.

On “Hannity,” Graham stated: “If I were President Trump and I were Israel, I would arm the Iranian people heavily so they could take to the streets with weapons and turn the tide of the fight inside Iran.”

However, the issue of who exactly would receive such support remains highly contentious.

Some opposition backers continue to rally behind exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi—whose name has appeared during anti-regime protests in Iran and who has called on the international community not to offer Tehran “another lifeline.”

Another group that has carried out various operations against the regime is the controversial People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran (MEK), which has long presented itself as a structured opposition force against the Islamic Republic. The MEK recently shared videos showing its members targeting “regime centers and symbols of crime and repression” in retaliation for the execution of two of its members last month: Hamed Validi and Mohammad (Nima) Massoum-Shahi.

Others highlight existing armed or semi-organized anti-regime groups, such as Kurdish organizations, Baloch insurgent networks, and underground resistance cells operating within Iran.

Sardar Pashaei—director of the Hiwa Foundation and a former Iranian wrestling champion now residing in the U.S.—warned that publicly talking about arming protesters could itself endanger lives.

Pashaei told Digital: “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.”

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

Pashaei maintained that a better strategy is to support Iranian civil society, restore internet access, and back democratic opposition groups that represent Iran’s ethnic and political diversity.

The issue grew even more delicate after Trump stated in an early April phone interview with “Sunday” that his administration had previously tried to send firearms to Iranian protesters via Kurdish channels, though the attempt was unsuccessful.

“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.

Multiple Kurdish groups have denied receiving these shipments.

Pashaei cautioned that claims of foreign weapons support could widen rifts within the opposition and also expose Kurdish groups to more 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.

A source with knowledge of discussions about Iranian opposition strategy noted that advocates of a more assertive approach are increasingly convinced the current moment offers a rare chance to identify, train, and support local resistance networks that can protect protesters and challenge the regime from inside.

The source added that while Iran spent decades building and nurturing proxy networks across the Middle East, Western governments mostly refrained from investing in organized anti-regime infrastructure within Iran.

Others caution that empowering armed factions could spark ethnic fragmentation, civil war, or a Syria-like conflict in Iran.

Per the source, advocates of a more assertive strategy are increasingly of the view that the current moment provides a rare opportunity to identify, train, and support local resistance networks able to protect protesters and challenge the regime from inside.

It remains uncertain whether Washington will be willing to move past pressure campaigns and sanctions to adopt a policy closer to a modernized Reagan Doctrine.

For the time being, Trump’s remarks have brought a once-theoretical discussion into the public sphere, with some asserting that the current moment could be the best chance in decades to challenge the regime.