Iran is facing a crisis unlike any it has seen in decades. Between domestic unrest, economic instability and heightened tensions with the US and Israel, Tehran is navigating a perilous landscape with profound regional and global implications.
The United States has carried out a major military build-up around Iran, deploying additional naval forces, aircraft, and support assets amid escalating tensions. As one of the most significant US military concentrations near Iran in decades, the move is widely viewed as preparation for a potential confrontation and has drawn sharp warnings from Tehran.
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump has pursued a regime-change strategy in Iran.
Last June, Israel launched a dramatic military campaign based on a strategy known as “top-down government collapse, bottom-up uprising”. Israeli and American planners assumed that by assassinating top Iranian political, military, security and nuclear officials, the population would embrace regime change and flood the streets.
They further assumed that by targeting Iran’s missile capabilities, they would prevent any counterattack, paving the way for a rapid collapse. The June strikes killed dozens of senior Iranian officials, yet the population largely rallied behind the government.
Iran retaliated with hundreds of missile and drone attacks against Israel, delivering significant counterblows. Analysts now agree that these two factors were decisive in the failure of the 2025 operation.
In response, Trump authorised strikes on three key Iranian nuclear facilities, potentially delaying Iran’s nuclear breakout by several years. A temporary ceasefire followed, primarily aimed at protecting Israel from further Iranian missile attacks.
By the end of 2025, however, economic grievances had ignited a new wave of protests, as merchants in Tehran took to the streets to decry the rial’s collapse and soaring living costs. The unrest quickly spread to other cities.
Hijacking protests
This environment created an opportunity for the US and Israel to deploy Plan B, whose strategy could be summarised as “bottom-up uprising, top-down military assault”.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi accused Israeli-affiliated networks of infiltrating the protests, engaging in sabotage, targeted attacks and acts of violence to escalate clashes and increase casualties.
Trump indicated that a surge in civilian deaths could justify US military intervention. Casualties among security forces and protesters were significantly higher than in previous rounds of unrest.
But the US-Israeli strategy to hijack the protests ultimately failed. Public revulsion against violent infiltrators prompted hundreds of thousands of people to join a government-organised rally in the second week of January, signalling opposition to foreign interference. Iranian security forces dismantled internal networks, cut off external communications, and arrested thousands of people, forcing a US retreat from direct military action.
The next potential phase of the US-Israeli strategy may involve an attempt to remove Iran’s top leader – a scenario inviting comparisons to the recent operation in Venezuela.
Trump has publicly stated that the time has come to remove Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, while Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has likened the Iranian regime to the Nazis, noting on X (formerly Twitter): “We cannot allow this historic moment to pass … The downfall of the ayatollah and his regime would be on par with the fall of the Berlin Wall.”
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has warned against such a move, vowing that “an attack on the great leader of our country is tantamount to a full-scale war with the Iranian nation”.
Moreover, US-based pro-Israel hawks have suggested that rather than launching a full-scale invasion, President Trump should revive a 1979 proposal by Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, which calls for seizing Iran’s Kharg oil terminal – responsible for roughly 90 percent of its oil exports – as a way to economically cripple the country and potentially force regime change.
Risk of destabilisation
Several factors will shape Iran’s trajectory in the days and months ahead. The first is domestic governance and social cohesion. Economic hardship, unemployment, corruption and deep social divides remain the primary sources of public unrest.
While the government has regained control for the time being, simmering dissatisfaction could reignite large-scale protests. Political fragmentation among Iran’s four main currents – conservatives, reformists, moderates and nationalists – complicates national cohesion, making broad-based reform and unity essential to long-term stability.
The people of Iran cannot withstand the escalating trend of rising prices and inflation. The most important factor is thus how Iran’s ruling establishment can contain the economic crisis and improve people’s living conditions in the face of crippling US sanctions.
Moreover, the thousands killed and injured in the January 2026 unrest have left thousands of Iranian families in mourning, dealing a devastating blow to the people’s psyche.
The second factor is the US-Israeli drive for regime change. Unchecked hostility from both nations, combined with punishing sanctions, creates an unprecedented level of external pressure on Iran. Trump’s overt calls for regime change in Tehran mark a historic escalation in decades of bilateral relations.
These pressures not only threaten Iran’s security but also risk destabilising the wider region. It remains to be seen whether Trump will enter into negotiations with Iran for a mutually satisfactory, face-saving deal, while distancing himself from Israel’s policies – or whether he will continue the “surrender or war” approach.
The third factor that will shape Iran’s trajectory involves the capabilities of US allies in the region. Crucially, US-aligned Arab states – including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Oman and Qatar – have opposed military intervention in Iran, amid fears of regional escalation and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s vision of an ever-expanding “Greater Israel”.
Will Muslim countries allied with the US be able to prevent another war and facilitate a deal with Iran, or will Israel’s ambitions prevail?
The way forward
The fourth factor amid this backdrop, Iran has strengthened ties with Russia and China, joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and Brics.
This alignment seeks to provide Tehran with military, economic and political support against western destabilisation efforts, creating a new axis of geopolitical tensions. This will serve as a critical test of Iran’s “pivot to the East” policy, with far-reaching implications for the future of the region.
Last but not least, several of Iran’s key regional allies, often referred to as the “Axis of Resistance”, have publicly warned that they would enter a wider conflict if the United States or Israel attacks Iran. Lebanon’s Hezbollah leadership has expressed it would not remain neutral.
Yemen’s Iranian-backed Houthi government hinted it was ready to resume attacks on shipping in the Red Sea. Moreover, Iraq’s Kataib Hezbollah paramilitary group issued a direct threat in response to any attack targeting Iran, warning a “total war” in the region would be a result.
This suggests that, unlike earlier conflicts where Tehran’s regional allies stayed largely on the sidelines, an attack on Iran now risks activating parts of the “Axis of Resistance” in a wider war.
Some American and European experts told me that Trump has made his decision to carry out a new attack on Iran.
This moment is a “bloody pause” before a potential “regional explosion”. For Iran, a next US–Israeli attack would be an “existential war”, eliminating any incentive for restraint and unleashing a conflict that would be impossible to control.
If catastrophe is to be avoided, President Trump must rethink a “surrender-driven strategy” and move toward a “broad, face-saving deal” with Iran – ending 47 years of confrontation before the region is pushed into irreversible war.
Source: MEE
