The second week of protests in Iran finds the Iranian regime in what can best be described as a "mixed trend." On the one hand, the demonstrations have not stopped and their wide geographic spread continues. On the other hand, millions of people are still not in the streets, and for now the regime is not struggling to cope with the protests. If the demonstrations persist, and against the backdrop of threats from US President Donald Trump, the regime faces a dilemma whether to escalate its response in order to disperse the protests.
Since the protests erupted, the regime has been searching for the most effective way to stop them and restore stability. Its current strategy is twofold. On one hand, it is trying to offer economic "sweeteners" to signal a willingness to accommodate the Iranian public. On the other, it is raising the level of violence against those it claims are acting on behalf of "foreign elements."
So far, the results have been limited. The number of protesters has not approached the scale of major demonstrations seen in the past. There is no unified leadership, and even the protesters' demands are not uniform. At the same time, the regime has failed to stop the protests or confine their geographic spread. In other words, the regime is not "fighting for its life," but the persistence of the demonstrations poses a serious challenge.
That challenge intensified following a tweet by US President Donald Trump, aimed at deterring the regime from harming protesters. Tehran cannot take such a threat lightly. In an effort to dissuade the US from using military force, senior Iranian officials have stepped up their rhetoric in recent days, seeking to explain the differences between Iran and Venezuela. These threats, along with moves such as missile tests, are intended to underscore for Washington the price it would pay if it chose to intervene militarily. From Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's speech late Saturday, it was clear that the regime has no intention of backing down. Even if it is troubled by Trump's warning, it cannot afford to concede to the protesters, and no change in policy is expected. Still, it is evident that any shift in the regime's behavior depends on the American president's willingness to use force.
No good options
The nature of the protest itself also creates a dilemma for the regime. On one hand, there is no immediate sense of existential danger. On the other, the protests' prolonged nature is deeply unsettling, a fact reflected in coverage by local media outlets, which serve as a kind of barometer for the level of pressure within the supreme leader's office. Choosing to "break" the protests through force carries the risk that such a response could act as a catalyst. The alternative is to hope that existing tools, firm but limited repression alongside economic relief, will restore order to the streets.
The regime has no good options, only ones that may be less damaging to its ultimate goal: survival. And even if the protests fade on their own, the regime has no solution to Iran's economic predicament, certainly as long as the US maintains its sweeping sanctions. As a result, the end of this protest will merely set the stage for the next one.
In bottom-line terms, the future of Iran's regime is not currently in danger as long as the US stays out of the fray and the majority of Iranians do not take to the streets. Still, the continuation of the protests presents a challenge, as the situation could deteriorate rapidly. As for Israel, it would be wise to stay on the sidelines. Its ability to influence events inside Iran is limited, and any intervention would only provide the regime with justification to claim that the protests are being orchestrated by "foreign elements."
