After nearly two weeks of protests roiling major Iranian cities, it has become evident that the regime is facing its most severe existential threat since the founding of the Islamic Republic.
This crisis stems from a convergence of factors that have created a perfect storm. On one hand, the economy is in an unprecedented tailspin; runaway inflation, a currency devoid of value, water and electricity shortages, and deep-seated corruption have widened the chasm between the public and the ruling elite. On the other hand, the pillars of national security have suffered a devastating blow following the 12-Day War alongside the degradation of proxy forces, severe international isolation, and the tangible threat of another war. Together, these elements have deeply eroded the regime's legitimacy in the eyes of the public.
As in the past, the Iranian leadership accuses the United States and Israel of inciting the unrest. However, this time the regime relies on rhetoric emerging from Israel – which hoped to weaken the ayatollahs during the recent war – and leverages the statements of United States President Donald Trump to frame the events as a continuation of Operation Rising Lion. Against this backdrop, the regime perceives its crackdown on the protests as a battle for survival, legitimizing any means necessary. As the days pass and the death toll among protesters becomes clear, the American administration faces a decision on how to respond.
The gamut of options available to the White House ranges from a symbolic or significant military strike to crippling cyberattacks and a dramatic tightening of sanctions to worsen the economic plight. The American dilemma – and the personal challenge for the president – focuses on choosing a course of action that forces a clear decision while preventing a slide into a prolonged war, which runs contrary to his fundamental worldview. Facing the looming threat of American action, the Iranian regime finds itself with a nearly empty arsenal, and the few options remaining are detrimental and dangerous to its survival. Tehran threatens that if attacked, it will retaliate against US bases in the region, strike Israel, or close the Strait of Hormuz. Yet any of these actions would trigger a severe counterstrike on Iran, posing a greater risk to the regime than the protesters themselves.
It is hardly surprising, then, that in recent days Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has maintained direct contact with United States Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, offering a return to nuclear negotiations between the two nations. This is the final card the Iranians can play to prevent escalation, but it is contingent on accepting American demands for a complete halt to uranium enrichment – effectively ending the nuclear program. Under current circumstances, it is safe to assume the missile issue and potentially the cessation of support for proxies will also be on the table. These are terms the Iranians have historically refused, and it is difficult to envision Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei agreeing to the humiliation required to accept them.
Given the worse alternatives, and to prevent moves that pose a potential threat to the regime's survival, the leader may decide to adopt a strategy similar to that of his predecessor, Former Supreme Leader Ruhollah Khomeini, who "drank from the poisoned chalice" (a phrase referring to his 1988 acceptance of a ceasefire with Iraq) to save the system. Such a development, should it materialize, would meet President Trump's expectations for a deal on his terms, but it would deal a severe blow to the Iranian public, which has been emboldened by the president's promises of support. There is no doubt that we are facing critical days.
Sima Shine is a Senior Researcher and former director of the research program "Iran and the Shiite Axis" at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS). For most of her career, Ms. Shine served in the Israeli Intelligence Community. Her last position was Head of the Research & Evaluation Division of the Mossad (2003-2007).
