After more than two weeks of unprecedented protests that placed the Iranian regime in its gravest danger since the Islamic Revolution, and amid threats by President Donald Trump to strike Iran, authorities in Tehran have managed to reestablish control. This was achieved alongside a series of calculated diplomatic moves that, at least for now, averted an American attack.
The regime secured these achievements through the use of unprecedented force, including the killing of thousands of protesters, as well as a near-total shutdown of internet access across the country. These steps were intended both to disrupt protesters' ability to coordinate and to conceal from the outside world the scale of the repression and bloodshed carried out in Iran.
At the same time, through sophisticated diplomatic maneuvers mediated by Gulf states that were deeply concerned about the consequences of a US military campaign for their own stability, Iran publicly signaled a willingness to refrain from executing protesters. This move provided the American administration with a convenient off-ramp, allowing President Trump to climb down and present the halt to executions as a diplomatic achievement of his own.
Yet despite these gains, the Iranian regime remains on the brink. Its fundamental problems persist: there is no economic horizon, and public legitimacy, already limited, has been almost completely eroded in the wake of extreme violence. Absent a substantive change in policy, it is only a matter of time before the protests resume and pose an even sharper challenge to the regime.
It can be assumed that despite the outward display of unity among senior officials, particularly the claim that the protests were driven by foreign actors, many within the leadership understand that this was an authentic eruption of a public fed up with its economic and social plight. Against this backdrop, power struggles are likely unfolding behind the scenes over whether Iran's policy should be revised.
Moreover, on the American front it is also clear that President Trump has not entirely abandoned the option of using force against Iran. In other words, the risk of confrontation with Washington, which Tehran is trying to avoid, continues to loom over the regime and could materialize in the absence of a diplomatic breakthrough between the two countries.
On the face of it, Iran's path to an agreement is clear: greater flexibility in negotiations with the United States, while exploiting the fact that Washington prefers to deal with an existing regime and has no interest in risking a scenario of state collapse with unpredictable consequences. Such an agreement could lead to the lifting of sanctions and improve Iran's economic situation.
Herein lies the familiar problem. Iran's leader, Ali Khamenei, is prepared to show tactical flexibility in negotiations, but he is unwilling to cross the ideological Rubicon, namely to give up continued uranium enrichment on Iranian soil, and certainly not to agree to meaningful limits on the missile program. Senior Iranian figures understand what is required to stabilize the regime, but it is Khamenei's ideological rigidity that could, in the end, bring it to ruin.
Only if Khamenei is forced to change course will the path to an agreement with the United States open. As long as Iran's supreme leader clings to his hawkish positions, out of fear of being seen as making an ideological concession to the West, the future of the regime will remain in grave danger.
