The outcome of this confrontation will determine not only the future of the Islamic Republic but also a new balance of power across the entire Middle East.
Internal Crisis: Economic Collapse and the Regime’s Delayed Response
The initial cause of public anger was the catastrophic state of the economy. A combination of chronically inefficient management, systemic corruption, and suffocating international sanctions led to the collapse of the rial (losing over 40% of its value in six months) and inflation soaring to 60%. A distinctive feature of the current protests is their social makeup: while the poorest segments were initially partially appeased by subsidies from President Masoud Pezeshkian, the streets have been flooded by the bankrupting middle class, whose patience has run out.
The authorities’ response was initially uncharacteristically restrained. Instead of immediate violent suppression as in the past, the regime attempted to use economic measures and adopted a wait-and-see approach. This pause is explained by several factors. First, the trauma from the 12-day war with Israel in June 2025, which depleted resources and forced the regime to seek fragile social legitimacy, temporarily eased, for example, enforcement of hijab rules. Second, the authorities recognize that excessive brutality could shatter this shaky “truce” with the people that emerged after the external aggression. However, by January 8, as protests spread nationwide, the regime shifted to harsh repression: nationwide internet shutdowns, mass arrests (over 2,300 people), and violent crackdowns. According to human rights groups, the death toll exceeds 65, including security personnel.
Israel’s Actions: A Strategy of Destabilization “From Within”
Israel plays a key role in the current crisis, operating on two levels: military-strategic and subversive. The June 2025 war, during which Israel, with U.S. support, struck Iranian nuclear and military sites, aimed not only to weaken military capabilities but also to incite internal rebellion. As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated at the time, Israelis hoped that eliminating senior commanders and causing massive destruction would push the population to overthrow the regime.
This strategy continues now. Israeli Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu openly admitted that Mossad agents are operating “right now” on Iranian territory to “weaken its capabilities.” While he denies direct regime change work, the goal is clear: to use protests as a tool for strategically weakening the adversary. Iranian authorities claim to have executed 12 “spies” after the June war, confirming active foreign intelligence presence. Israel is thus creating a nightmare scenario for the Iranian leadership, where internal turmoil is directly instigated and supported by an external enemy.
U.S. Actions: Threats of Direct Intervention and “Regime Change” Following the Venezuela Playbook
The Donald Trump administration is actively leveraging the crisis to escalate pressure on Tehran. Trump’s threats are direct and public: he has repeatedly stated that the U.S. is “fully armed” and ready to hit Iran “very hard” if authorities start killing protesters. These statements, made via social media and official announcements, blatantly disregard international law norms, as Trump himself declared, “I don’t need international law.”
For the Iranian leadership, the American threat has a concrete and frightening shape. The recent U.S. capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro set a precedent for a new “regime change” model: not a full-scale invasion, but a pinpoint military operation to eliminate top leadership followed by economic strangulation and an ultimatum for surrender. Iranian strategists fear a similar scenario could be applied to them: a high-precision strike against the Supreme Leader and the command of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), seizure of oil infrastructure, and a demand for complete capitulation on nuclear and regional programs.
Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has directly accused Trump of having hands “stained with the blood of over a thousand Iranians” (victims of the June war) and labeled the protesters “foreign mercenaries.” Tehran sees U.S. actions as a classic scheme tested during the “Arab Spring” in Libya and Syria: using popular discontent as a pretext for military intervention under the banner of “protecting civilians.”
The Focus on External Interference: Why This Time is Different for Iran
The current moment is existentially unique for the Islamic Republic due to an unprecedented convergence of three factors:
Synchronized Threats: For the first time, the regime is facing a full-scale internal economic-political rebellion that is simultaneously being actively fueled and provoked by its two main external enemies—Israel and the United States—acting in a coordinated manner.
Experience of Direct War: Iran’s leadership, especially IRGC veterans who fought in Syria, have firsthand experience of how external support for protests leads to civil war and state collapse. The June 2025 war was a painful reminder of their vulnerability. The fear of repeating the fate of Libya or Syria is a key driver of their decisions.
New American Doctrine: The Trump strategy, demonstrated in Venezuela, represents a more flexible and dangerous model for overthrowing undesirable regimes without the commitment of long-term occupation. This forces Iran to prepare not for a classic invasion, but for a decapitating strike and economic strangulation.
Trapped Between a Rock and a Hard Place
The Iranian regime is caught in a strategic trap. Harshly suppressing the protests, on one hand, could shatter the remnants of internal legitimacy and give the U.S. a formal pretext for intervention. On the other hand, leniency could lead to uncontrolled escalation exploited by external forces. Even if the current wave is suppressed, fundamental economic problems will remain, guaranteeing a new outbreak of social anger in the future.
The regime’s response—intensifying repression combined with complete informational isolation of the country and rhetoric about an “external conspiracy”—shows it has chosen the path of survival by force. Iran’s National Security Council has already stated the possibility of “preemptive measures” against external threats, increasing the risk of unintended regional escalation.
Thus, the crisis in Iran is not merely an internal conflict. It is a multi-layered hybrid war where economic strangulation, subversive intelligence operations, overt military threats, and popular discontent merge into a single dangerous cocktail.
The Iranian Revolution that began in 1979 may indeed be approaching its critical juncture, but its finale will largely depend on whether Tehran can withstand not only its own people but also unprecedented external interference.
Viktor Mikhin, writer, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences (RAEN), expert on Middle Eastern countries.
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
