Iran on the Brink of Transformation: Domestic Pressures, an Adverse Regional Environment, and Washington’s Role in Shaping Regional Dynamics

At the outset of 2026, the Islamic Republic of Iran finds itself at a critical juncture, shaped by the accumulation of deep-rooted structural crises and an increasing fracture between the state and society. The protests that erupted in late December 2025 and intensified in early January cannot be understood merely as a transient wave of demands; rather, they signify a profound legitimacy crisis in which economic, social, and political factors intersect with an unfavorable regional and international environment.

The symbolic significance of the protests’ origin in Tehran’s bazaar is as important as its economic dimension. Historically, the bazaar has served as a pillar of social stability supporting the regime. Its emergence as a site of protest against currency collapse and soaring inflation indicates a shift of popular discontent from the margins to the core of the traditional structures underpinning the state. As the movement spreads to universities, labor groups, and broader urban populations, the situation reflects a multi-layered public grievance, even in the absence of unified leadership or a coherent alternative political project.

In response, the regime has reverted to its traditional crisis-management tools, primarily a security-centered approach. Internet restrictions, mass arrests, and fatalities in certain areas reflect a pattern repeated in previous episodes. Yet today, the challenge is not repression itself but its escalating strategic cost. While Iran has historically suppressed protests, the current international environment is less inclined to treat such actions as purely domestic affairs and more prone to framing them as cross-border political and legal issues.

Official discourse illustrates this dilemma. President Masoud Bazhkian has sought an inclusive language promoting dialogue, whereas the security apparatus insists on a strict approach, framing the unrest as a direct threat to national security. This divergence does not signify a structural split within the regime but highlights the limitations of providing political and economic solutions under sanctions and deep structural imbalances. Consequently, repression becomes a tactical choice rather than a strategic solution.

Scenarios for radical systemic change remain highly uncertain. The absence of widespread civil disobedience and meaningful defections within the military and security institutions renders a rapid collapse unlikely in the near term. The most probable trajectory is a prolonged phase of attrition, characterized by cycles of unrest and containment, and a gradual erosion of legitimacy without definitive resolution.

What distinguishes the current moment is that Iran’s crisis is no longer confined within its borders. The surrounding regional environment has become less sympathetic and more pragmatic. Neighboring states observe developments through the lens of national interest, repositioning themselves under the assumption that Iran may enter a phase of internal weakness or retrenchment, without engaging directly or assuming the cost of overt involvement.

Pakistan represents a notable case. Islamabad, which historically maintained a cautious balance in its relationship with Tehran, now appears less willing to uphold the status quo. Security concerns along the shared border, unspoken competition in Afghanistan, and the need to improve relations with Washington and Gulf states all incentivize implicit alignment with actors wary of Iran’s influence. While not overtly hostile, this posture means that any international measures against Tehran are unlikely to encounter practical resistance from Pakistan.

The broader regional neighborhood—from the Gulf to Turkey and Central Asia—follows a strategy of “active waiting.” These actors neither seek a chaotic collapse of Iran nor see continuation of the current order as guaranteeing stability. This creates space for silent understandings and tacit compromises that balance the prevention of disorder with recalibrating regional influence.

At the center of this equation is Washington, playing a decisive role in shaping the crisis’s outcomes. In its new term, the administration of President Donald Trump adopts a more stringent approach, linking internal repression in Iran to an expanded “maximum pressure” strategy. The U.S. approach does not appear to envision military invasion but rather the use of precise, cost-effective tools: targeted sanctions, intensified diplomatic pressure, and limited, strategic operations aimed at sensitive infrastructure under the guise of civilian protection or prevention of mass atrocities. These measures seek not necessarily to topple the regime directly but to weaken its grip and foster an internal environment conducive to reform led by Iranians themselves.

Any fundamental transformation in Iran will inevitably resonate beyond its borders. Iran occupies a central position in a network of balances stretching from the Gulf to South Asia. Afghanistan, in particular, will be profoundly affected. A decline or internal retrenchment of Iranian influence would alter the balance of power, whether in relation to the Taliban or on issues of minorities, water resources, refugees, and the informal economy. This relative vacuum may also intensify competition among Pakistan, Turkey, and other regional actors, rendering Afghanistan a direct reflection of Iranian dynamics.

Another critical factor weakening traditional state instruments is Iran’s diminishing control over technology and digital spaces. Despite strict internet restrictions, the state can no longer fully monopolize information flows. Alternative communication networks, satellite platforms, and cross-border digital channels have provided protesters with avenues for mobilization and international exposure, reducing the effectiveness of media blockades and increasing the political and international cost of repression. This structural shift places the state in a new paradigm: physical security control alone is insufficient to govern digital space or prevent internationalization of domestic unrest.

In conclusion, Iran stands at the threshold of a complex transformation that cannot be reduced to the question of the regime’s survival or collapse. Domestic pressures converge with an adverse regional environment and a U.S. role focused on reshaping strategic balances through unconventional tools. While repression may buy temporary respite, in the current international context it is no longer a low-cost option. Between a state endowed with coercive capabilities but lacking structural solutions and a society motivated for change yet organizationally fragmented, Iran’s future remains open to a protracted attrition scenario with implications that extend far beyond its borders, impacting the broader region.
The original Article published on the Flat form of White House Base Washington (Arabic )

Zalmay Khalilzad’s Visit to Kabul: Messages, Implications, and Prospective Scenarios

Our Pashto-Dari Website

  Donate Here