Iran’s foreign minister has claimed nationwide protests in his country ‘turned violent and bloody to give an excuse’ for US president Donald Trump to intervene.
In the past two weeks, more than 500 protesters in the country have been killed during a bloody crackdown by government forces.
In response, Trump and his national security team have been weighing a range of potential responses against Iran, including cyber-attacks and direct strikes by the US or Israel.
But if he were to launch strikes against Iran, Trump, who says he’s looking at some ‘strong military options’, could see his actions backfire – as most Iranians are opposed to any US intervention, according to an international security expert.
Dr Dafydd Townley, senior teaching fellow in International Security at the University of Portsmouth, said Trump sees Iran as a major destabilising factor in the Middle East, which could explain his desire to get involved.
‘He certainly wants to have a more pro-Western or Western-leaning government in place,’ Dr Townley said. ‘But it may be more beneficial to the United States to pursue non-military interventions, such as technological or diplomatic support for the protesters.
‘There is a significant risk of pushing people to unite in Iran against an existential threat like the United States.
‘At the moment, I don’t think anyone there views the U.S. as an ally, and military action is not going to change that.’
Dr Townley suggested the administration could be ‘emboldened’ by the success of capturing Nicolas Maduro, but they should proceed with caution when it comes to Iran.
‘There is a huge difference between a covert Special Forces operation to kidnap an individual and conducting strikes in Iran. Trump has said they are “locked and loaded,” but ready to do what, exactly?
‘It is quite interesting that Trump, who has been very reluctant to get involved in international causes before, has suddenly become very vocal over the last two months.
‘Getting involved in Iran will not bolster his domestic support among MAGA Republicans.’
Dr Andreas Krieg, associate professor in the Department of Defence Studies at King’s College London, told Metro that if Trump decides to strike Iran, it could allow Iranian forces to ramp up their crackdowns on the protests in the name of national defence.
‘This could include wider lethal force, more arrests, and deeper information control,’ he said.
‘That said, strikes do not automatically strengthen the regime. If the public perceives U.S. action as targeted and punitive against coercive organs rather than society at large, the “existential threat” narrative may not translate into durable rally-around-the-flag effects.’
Dr Arshin Adib-Moghaddam argues: ‘The more the Trump administration and, in particular, Benjamin Netanyahu endorse the demonstrations in Iran, the more securitised the situation will become.
‘However, I don’t think the IRGC or any other organ of the Iranian state considers these demonstrations an “existential threat”. Neither do I believe that they need an excuse to quell them with violence, if necessary.’
Is the Iranian regime collapsing?
Dr Anahita Motazedrad, a visiting Senior Fellow in International Relations at LSE, told Metro the Islamic Republic is already behaving as though its grip on power is slipping.
She added: ‘A crackdown is in full force regardless of external threats. They don’t need a new “existential threat” narrative to justify repression; they have already committed to it.
‘At the same time, their capacity to suppress dissent is more strained than it appears… the regime is internally vulnerable. Against this backdrop — and amid a nationwide uprising — limited US pre‑emptive strikes are unlikely to unify the regime.
‘Instead, they could deepen perceptions of weakness, widen internal fractures, and potentially accelerate the erosion of the IRGC’s control rather than strengthen it.’
Even with historic protests over inflation, currency collapse, shortages, and perceived corruption in Iran, ‘collapse’ of the regime requires more than hardship, Dr Krieg argues.
‘It requires fractures within coercive pillars or elite defection dynamics that deprive the system of enforcement capacity. At present, the IRGC appears cohesive, even if overstretched.’
Given the IRGC’s apparent strength, it seems more likely that the civilian governance would lose credibility in the aftermath of these protests, leaving the security sector as one of the only reliable parts of government, Dr Krieg said.
‘The leadership would likely default to repression and information control to keep its base intact,’ he explained.
Even if the regime were to collapse as a result of these protests or potential strikes from the US, the world isn’t prepared for the power vacuum it would leave, he said.
‘The biggest danger is not only chaos in Tehran, but fragmentation in the provinces, score-settling among armed actors, and a scramble over strategic assets and prisons.’
What could US involvement mean after a regime collapse?
Dr Motazedrad told Metro that if the regime is toppled, the international community – and the US – wouldn’t want to see the post-intervention chaos seen in countries like Libya and Iraq.
She explained: ‘That’s why the focus is already on immediate diplomatic coordination, support for an Iranian‑led transitional process, and clear limits on external involvement.
‘The essential point is that Iranians themselves, not foreign powers, must shape the post‑regime landscape.’
Many Iranians have expressed fears that what happened in 1953 could happen again – a Western-backed coup, like the one orchestrated in the 50s by the US and UK, could leave many Iranians without a say in their future.
Dr. Arshin Adib-Moghaddam, Professor in Global Thought and Comparative Philosophies at the University of London, said the coup which ousted Iran’s first democratically elected President is a trauma.
He added: ‘However, the rhetoric of “freedom” is largely discredited by the fact that US foreign policy in the region and beyond has never been geared to democracy and human rights.
‘The majority of Iranians distrust Netanyahu and Trump in particular, because of the brutality of their policies in Gaza and the hypocrisy surrounding “human rights” in Western foreign policy discourse that the relative silence about the daily killing of Palestinians reveals.’
Dr Bamo Nouri, a professor in International Relations at the University of West London, agrees.
‘When combined with more recent regional experiences – Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria – the result is a deep scepticism toward Western intervention,’ he explained.
‘In this context, it is entirely plausible that Iran’s protest movement may deliberately distance itself from Western support – not out of hostility, but as a protective measure to preserve legitimacy and avoid being recast as a foreign-engineered project.’
If the regime is overthrown through these protests, Dr Nouri said a ‘precarious’ power vacuum would form.
‘The world is emerging from a pandemic, facing ongoing war in Ukraine, inflationary pressures, debt crises, and political fragmentation across the US and Europe,’ he said.
‘This is not 2003 -there is little public appetite or financial capacity for large-scale reconstruction or prolonged intervention. Without a credible, indigenous transition process, the risk is not democratic renewal, but fragmentation, instability, and a repeat of the post-intervention chaos seen elsewhere.’
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at [email protected].
For more stories like this, check our news page.
