With that said, first idea that came to my mind is that not every place must be with internet connection as only one person can have the internet like the star link you stated and the rest can simply just go for it and set up a local node, with the local node others can actually sign an offline transaction, save it as a file and look for other offline method to transmit this file to the local node like modem, drive or other means like that and help broadcast it,
I read today that there is a kind of local communication network in Iran that wasn't shut down during the protests, but has limited functionality. This "intranet" could be used for this purpose. However, mesh networks would be more resilient as there is no way to shut them down (other than raiding those with equipment).
But honestly, the bigger risk isn’t sending or receiving Bitcoin. The real problem is converting that Bitcoin into actual goods or services. At some point, you still need an exchange or someone willing to accept it for what you need, and that’s where exposure usually happens. If they get caught at that stage, we already know what the consequences could be.
The reason I wrote that Bitcoin could see some acceptance in the country is that in a place in crisis with a very weak local currency, there is always a temptation to accept everything which can eventually be exchanged into "hard" currency. Even if you have to use complicated ways like P2P, or wait until the regime change happened. In poor and emerging countries there are also typically black markets where you get almost everything, where you could thus exchange the BTC.
Perhaps even things like offline Bitcoin ("sealed paperwallets", like the old Casascius coins) could be used for this purpose to circunvent the Internet blackout.
As for your question about how to help, I think the most realistic part is simply enabling access to the internet so they can receive Bitcoin in the first place. Beyond that, things get complicated fast.
The ideas from the OP could be splitted into "short-term" and "long-term" strategies.
The short-term strategies are to create an emergency platform for transactions and communication during the current Internet shutdown. Here indeed satellite technology is probably the best bet.
For the long term, i.e. if the regime stays in power for now, mesh networks and software platforms which can be used reliably, and are very difficult to control or even detect by the government, are imo the way to go. It's difficult to forbid someone to encrypt the traffic of his wireless router, so building up such a network should be possible.
It's not that they haven't already tried, but a video has appeared showing that the authorities seized one such shipment.
Of course there's risk involved, but if a country has dozens of millions of smugglers and traitors who will support those who use that equipment, then the government will have a hard time. The regime seems to be highly unpopular in vast sectors of the population, probably the majority.
The question is how much neighboring countries want to help when it comes to something like this, and also the authorities at the border can place devices that block/jam wireless signals. A mesh network or something similar inside the country that would be difficult to detect would be the best choice, but that would require thousands of people risking their lives.
I think it's difficult to control such large borders like Iran has. There would be also Pakistan as a choice to "infiltrate".
Of course it's not an easy task to "help the opposition". I think if the regime didn't fall now, then the opposition will have to build indeed very strong structures like mesh networks, and occasionally somebody will be arrested due to this when discovered. A regime change in Iran will probably require not only this, but also external pressure, but military attacks probably could backfire because it gives the regime again the opportunity to point out "external enemies". But for at least a part of the process, perhaps Bitcoin and crypto technology (Monero?) can indeed help.
Let everyone ask themselves why the US and Israel did not help the Iranian people prevail but left them to slaughter.
You mean they should have launched a military attack? I think this isn't as easy in such a country like Iran without risking even (much) more lives. Limited strikes like a year ago wouldn't have helped much, a full scale invasion would have been needed to stop the massacres.
