What began in Iran as a strike by bazaar merchants in response to the sharp collapse of the national currency quickly escalated into broader protests against worsening economic conditions. These developments unfolded in a country emerging from a recent war that, in one of its core dimensions, aimed to shake the foundations of the regime’s security and military control and to undermine its strategic projects, most notably the nuclear programme and the missile manufacturing complex.
The protests, which received an unprecedented level of international attention, reopened wide-ranging speculation about the future of a regime that has, for decades, functioned as both a pillar of balance and a source of instability in Middle Eastern equations. Iran has long been an unavoidable regional actor, at times a conduit for escalation and at others a channel for de-escalation, depending on shifting calculations of interest, influence, and regional alignments that continue to shape the region.
These developments are unfolding at an exceptionally sensitive historical moment. The Middle East is entering new levels of uncertainty amid an increasingly aggressive Israeli posture that now operates through raw force, largely detached from political or legal constraints. This coincides with a United States administration that has discarded traditional foreign policy frameworks and is actively reshaping the international order, showing little hesitation in breaching diplomatic norms, including the unprecedented seizure of a sitting head of state.
Within this complex environment, questions have intensified about the potential fate of the Iranian regime established after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. This is particularly the case given mounting American insistence on military action as a tool to generate a shock within the structure of the Islamic Republic, a position intersecting with parallel Israeli pressure. These scenarios have triggered deep concern across the region, where policymakers fear that any uncalculated trajectory could produce wide-ranging security and geopolitical repercussions from which no regional capital would be insulated.
From Protest Waves to Serious Regime-Change Talk
While protest movements are not new in Iran, and have recurred throughout the history of the Islamic Republic, previous waves never crystallised into serious proposals to overthrow the regime. From the Green Movement in 2009, to the protests of November 2019, and the “Woman, Life, Freedom” protests in 2022, authorities managed to contain these upheavals despite their political and security costs, without reaching an existential threat.
What distinguishes the current moment is not merely the scale of the protests, but the context in which they are unfolding. Internal unrest now coincides with unprecedented external military and political escalation. Israeli mobilisation for a potential new strike on Iran has continued, aimed at preventing Tehran from completing its ballistic missile development and rebuilding nuclear facilities damaged during the twelve-day war. This threat has moved beyond Israeli rhetoric, receiving open backing from the United States president in coordinated positions with the Israeli prime minister.
This atmosphere was further reinforced by a qualitative event that preceded the peak of protests by days: the American operation that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro and his transfer to the United States. This marked a stark breach of sovereignty and immunity norms and contributed to a perception within Washington that political and security realities can be imposed through force without adherence to traditional international constraints.
For the first time, American discourse openly combined encouragement of Iranian protesters with direct threats against the government in Tehran. Statements warning of strikes on nuclear and missile facilities gradually evolved into explicit expressions of a desire for leadership change. Reports indicated growing pressure within Washington for decisive military options, alongside the deployment of additional forces to the region, signalling a shift from deterrence toward serious consideration of regime collapse.
Israel mirrored this trajectory. Public statements from Israeli leadership openly supported regime change, framing the issue as opposition to the system rather than the Iranian people. While Israeli hostility toward Iran follows a long-standing pattern, the more consequential shift lies in the clarity of the American position and its linkage to actionable military scenarios. This moves regime change from theoretical discussion into the realm of concrete international decision-making, with open-ended regional consequences.
An Unprecedented Regional Sensitivity
Contrary to expectations, regional states did not respond with relief. Instead, both Gulf states and Turkey treated these developments with heightened caution and vigilance, closely monitoring internal Iranian dynamics and the expanding American military posture.
Turkey adopted a balanced and cautious stance. Its foreign minister acknowledged that the protests stemmed from real structural problems while warning that external actors were exploiting them. Ankara emphasised dialogue with Tehran as essential to regional stability and made clear its rejection of any use of force against Iran.
More striking, however, was the Gulf response. Despite decades of tension with Tehran, Gulf positions exceeded their usual boundaries in both clarity and intensity. Western media reports indicated that Gulf pressure played a decisive role in delaying an American strike that was, by some assessments, imminent.
Saudi Arabia, supported by Qatar and Oman, reportedly led efforts to dissuade Washington from military action. Gulf officials warned that any attempt to topple the Iranian regime would destabilise global oil markets and ultimately damage the American economy. Saudi officials also conveyed to Tehran their intention to remain neutral and refused the use of their airspace for attacks, signalling a desire to avoid entanglement in open conflict.
Qatar echoed this position publicly, emphasising that the region was already at a critical level of tension and urging a return to diplomatic pathways in dealing with Iran’s nuclear file. While other Gulf states remained publicly silent, all indications suggested little appetite for an American gamble aimed at collapsing Iranian state institutions without a credible post-collapse plan.
A Geopolitical Earthquake in the Making
The fall of the Iranian regime would represent a geostrategic shift comparable in magnitude to the 1979 revolution itself. That transformation reshaped regional power structures, introduced new alignments, and generated prolonged conflicts driven by Iran’s reliance on revolutionary export and proxy networks.
A sudden or violent collapse would not necessarily yield a manageable political vacuum. Instead, it would likely produce layered chaos involving security, ethnic, and sectarian dimensions. Risks include the fragmentation of central authority, uncontrolled weapons proliferation, and the leakage of sensitive materials, including enriched uranium, to non-state actors. Such a scenario would echo the collapses of Iraq and Libya, but on a far more dangerous scale due to Iran’s geography and military weight.
For Gulf capitals, the preference for the regime’s continuity reflects a logic of risk management. Despite its destabilising behaviour, the existing system remains predictable and partially capable of restraining its regional proxies.
The regional fallout would be immediate. Turkey would view any Kurdish mobilisation inside Iran as a direct national security threat. Gulf states would closely monitor developments in energy-rich Khuzestan, home to a marginalised Arab population, where autonomy demands could invite dangerous external interventions. Pakistan would face heightened pressures in Balochistan, while Azerbaijan could be tempted to expand its influence among Iran’s Azeri population.
Globally, Russia would lose a key partner balancing Western influence, while China would confront a strategic dilemma due to Iran’s central role in the Belt and Road Initiative and in Chinese energy security. Prolonged instability would force Beijing to reassess its calculations rapidly.
Risk Management Over the Unknown
Against this backdrop, Gulf states have opted for managing tension rather than gambling on collapse. Maximum pressure or sudden breakdown could push Iran toward extreme measures, including closing the Strait of Hormuz, with catastrophic consequences for global energy markets.
The Gulf approach seeks to prevent military escalation while preserving communication channels with Tehran, all while maintaining strategic ties with Washington. This reflects a sober assessment that imperfect stability remains less dangerous than an unmanaged collapse of a state as large and complex as Iran.
