Editorial: What’s Next for Iran?

The dramatic images emerging from Iran — mass protests, torched symbols of clerical rule and an internet blackout meant to hide the scale of dissent — invite a familiar question: Is the Islamic Republic nearing its end? History urges caution. Revolutions are not made by crowds alone, however courageous. They succeed when the institutions that enforce fear begin to fracture. The decisive contest unfolds inside the state — within the security services, the clerical elite and the financial networks that bind them together.

Drama can mislead. Regimes collapse slowly, then suddenly, or sometimes not at all.

This round of unrest appears broader than earlier waves. It is no longer limited to students or Tehran professionals. Demonstrations have reached provincial towns and bazaars, drawing in workers and merchants who once coexisted with the regime. That breadth matters because authoritarian systems endure so long as key social groups continue to tolerate them. Iran’s economic crisis has weakened that tolerance: inflation, shortages, failing infrastructure and the belief that national wealth has been siphoned into corruption and foreign wars have eroded the old social bargain.

Even so, discontent does not automatically translate into collapse. After 1979, Iran’s leaders set out to avoid the Shah’s fate, when the security establishment stopped protecting him. Power was deliberately fragmented across clerics, courts, militias and intelligence services so no single institution could defect and bring the system down. The Revolutionary Guard and the Basij were created as loyal counterweights to the regular army and rewarded with economic privilege and legal protection, tying their fortunes to the regime’s survival. They are not merely instruments of repression but stakeholders in the system. Protests can be contained so long as these forces remain united and willing to act.

For now, there is little public evidence that such unity has decisively cracked.

Ideology further tightens the bind. The Islamic Republic defends not only power but a revolutionary worldview that treats challenges to religious authority as existential threats. That helps explain why repression often intensifies when protests move beyond economic grievance to questions of legitimacy — and why internal splits may remain limited until succession becomes unavoidable.

Outside pressure adds uncertainty. President Donald Trump initially warned that the United States would act if the regime massacred protesters, a signal that may have deterred the worst violence. More recent statements suggest a tactical pause: Trump has said he has been told killings are slowing and has refrained from announcing military action while saying he is watching events closely. This recalibration highlights both the reach and the limits of American leverage. External pressure can deter extremes, but it can also supply hardliners with a familiar narrative of foreign interference.

Israel faces a parallel dilemma. Many Iranians resent the regime’s fixation on Israel and the costs of proxy warfare. Israel’s blows against Iranian allies have weakened Tehran’s regional standing, but direct Israeli involvement inside Iran would likely backfire by recasting dissent as national defense. Israel’s most consequential influence is therefore likely to remain indirect.

Several outcomes remain plausible: survival through repression; adaptation through leadership change; or a deeper rupture, likely chaotic, with no guarantee that what follows is liberal or stable. Iran’s rulers look vulnerable. But tipping points are visible only in hindsight. The streets apply pressure; whether the system breaks or endures will be decided inside the machinery of power.