Western Think Tanks Analyze Iran's Protests Future & Reality

It seems that statements issued by President Trump, his escalated rhetoric toward Iran, and his threat to deliver a very strong strike if more protesters are killed during the demonstrations that have continued for a second week due to deteriorating living conditions, have prompted many Western think tanks to issue situation assessments regarding the protests and the options available to the Iranian regime. 

The Stimson Center stands at the forefront of these institutions. Its report notes that the rapid flow of information about conditions and on the ground mobilization in Iran reflects a growing ability to break censorship constraints and expand societal awareness of events across different regions. 

However, this momentum has not yet translated into a cohesive organizational structure capable of unifying efforts and coordinating protests nationwide.

The Council on Foreign Relations report was not far from these assessments, as it focused on the coincidence of the Iranian protests with peak economic pressure and on how they reflect social anger taking on political dimensions without being anchored in unified leadership. 

Meanwhile, Trump’s rhetoric and threats add an external pressure factor that further complicates the scene without addressing the core of the internal crisis.

In this context, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies stated in a recently issued assessment that the limited options available to the Iranian regime reflect a growing inability to contain popular anger, amid a sense among the leadership of being besieged between pressure from the street and escalating American threats of military intervention. 

This situation narrows their room for maneuver and undermines state legitimacy. The Middle East Forum approached the issue from a different angle than other centers, though it remains among the most significant, arguing that the potential collapse of a political system in a country the size of Iran would not be a simple matter. 

Rather, the collapse of the Iranian regime could lead to a profound reshaping of regional balances in the Middle East. 

However, this scenario remains high risk due to the absence of an organized alternative and the likelihood of sliding into chaos and new conflicts. 

It also appears that the United States administration lacks an understanding of the expected reactions in the countries and societies of the region.

It is noteworthy that the Iranian protests constitute an unprecedented challenge to the Iranian regime since 2022, a point emphasized by the American Jewish Committee in a report issued two days ago. 

Protest demands have gone beyond the economic dimension to the political one, while reliance on security repression exacerbates the risks of escalation, increases internal and external pressure on the government, and threatens internal stability. 

Previously, the Israeli Institute for National Security Studies issued, on the last day of the past year, a unified assessment of the future of the Iranian nuclear program, concluding that the current stagnation in the Iranian nuclear file will force Tehran to take decisive decisions in the coming months. 

This comes amid a dispute with the International Atomic Energy Agency, confrontation with Washington, and ongoing threats from Tel Aviv. 

Given the limited options for negotiation, any solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis remains out of sight in the near term. 

In our modest assessment, Tel Aviv has succeeded in mobilizing the international community and focusing attention on Iran’s nuclear capabilities and nuclear program, while security and intelligence services penetrate the Iranian interior and work to inflame feelings of anger.

Perhaps the coming days will bring more surprises to our troubled region. 

However, sound logic and key states, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, are well aware that the emergence of another failed state in the Middle East across its vast expanse, including the Horn of Africa and Central Asia, would not serve the security interests of the region as a whole or its areas of contact, such as the Arab Gulf and the western Maghreb. 

Trumpist thinking, which seeks to change political regimes by force and create alternative systems that perform functional roles serving its expansionist and economic objectives, makes the new year resemble a year of demonizing international relations.

This may appear as a virtual act of revenge against the planet for not awarding him the Nobel Peace Prize. 

As a result, Trump has decided to intensify policies of hostility and political and military interventions in diverse geographic arenas, including Venezuela and seemingly Greenland next.