Shafaq News– Washington
Iran and much of the region are facing a period of heightened unease as
Washington escalates its rhetoric under President Donald Trump, warning of
possible strikes against Iran’s leadership and nuclear facilities. The external
pressure coincides with weeks of unrest inside Iran, where protests have
continued amid reports of widespread repression and a near-total internet
shutdown, deepening international concern over Tehran’s handling of domestic
dissent.
The tense atmosphere has been reinforced by the arrival of US naval and
military assets in the Middle East, fueling speculation about an imminent
military move. The buildup, analysts say, has raised expectations that
Washington may opt for a limited strike as a way to break the political
deadlock with Tehran and respond to the growing instability inside the country.
Frank Mesmar, a Republican Party member and Chair of the Advisory
Council at the University of Maryland, told Shafaq News that the scale of the
US military deployment suggests that action is approaching, arguing that
President Trump has positioned himself in a way that leaves little room to step
back without political cost, “the [US] administration has amassed a massive
military force near Iran’s borders, making a strike increasingly likely.”
Mesmar outlined several possible outcomes if the United States proceeds
with military action. One scenario would involve precise air and naval strikes
against bases linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the Basij
paramilitary, missile launch and storage facilities, and what remains of Iran’s
nuclear program. Such an operation, in his view, could accelerate the collapse
of a system he described as already fragile, potentially opening the way —over
time— to a genuine democratic transition.
He also pointed to a second scenario in which the regime survives but is
forced to adjust its behavior, similar to what he described as a “Venezuelan
model.” In this case, Iran would retain the structure of the Islamic Republic
but would be compelled to reduce support for armed groups across the region,
curb its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, and ease its crackdown on
protests.
Mesmar stressed, however, that this outcome is unlikely, given that
Iran’s leadership has resisted meaningful change for decades and appears
incapable of altering its trajectory now.
The most probable scenario, according to Mesmar, is one in which the
current system collapses but is replaced not by civilian rule, but by a
military-led government. While repeated protest waves have steadily weakened
the regime’s legitimacy, he noted that Iran still has a powerful and deeply
rooted security apparatus with a vested interest in preserving the status quo.
In the turmoil that could follow US strikes, power could ultimately shift to a
strong military authority dominated by figures from the IRGC.
Despite the clear imbalance between US and Iranian conventional forces,
Mesmar warned that Tehran retains the ability to respond forcefully. Iran’s
missile and drone capabilities could be used against US bases spread along the
Arab side of the Gulf, particularly in Bahrain and Qatar. “Tehran could also
target critical infrastructure in countries it views as complicit in any US
attack, including Israel or Jordan.”
Maritime security presents another major risk. Iran has long threatened
to disrupt shipping in the Gulf, particularly by mining key waterways. The
Strait of Hormuz, a narrow passage between Iran and Oman, remains a critical
chokepoint for global energy supplies. Around 20 percent of the world’s
liquefied natural gas exports and between 20 and 25 percent of global oil and
petroleum products pass through the strait each year; therefore, “Iran has
repeatedly trained for rapid naval mine deployment, and any attempt to close or
disrupt the passage would have immediate repercussions for global trade and oil
prices.”
Beyond military retaliation, Mesmar highlighted the dangers of a power
vacuum inside Iran. The collapse of central authority, he said, could lead to
prolonged chaos, raising fears among neighboring states of civil conflict
similar to that seen in Syria, Yemen, or Libya. Such instability could also
inflame ethnic tensions, as Kurdish, Baluchi, and other minority groups seek to
protect their communities amid nationwide disorder.
A similar assessment was offered by US-based Iranian-American political
analyst Hassan Hashemian, who said Tehran has largely lost its room to maneuver
in negotiations with Washington, arguing that the United States is now seeking
sweeping concessions that go well beyond the nuclear file, including uranium
enrichment, missile development, regional proxies, and Iran’s broader role in
the Middle East.
Hashemian told Shafaq News that Washington also wants “guarantees
related to the rights of the Iranian people,” particularly an end to the
killing and repression of protesters and the restoration of internet access.
Entering talks under such conditions, he said, would amount to full
surrender—something the Iranian leadership is unwilling to accept.
Describing the Iranian system as suffering from a profound legitimacy
crisis, he pointed out that “decades of violence and repression have alienated
the population.” In his assessment, the regime no longer has a supportive
public base and instead relies on security forces and allied militias abroad.
“If senior figures, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and top IRGC
commanders, were targeted in any attack, popular anger could quickly translate
into mass action against state institutions.”
Hashemian also pointed to the European moves to classify the IRGC as a
terrorist organization, saying such steps further isolate Tehran
internationally and intensify pressure alongside US policy. He said this trend
has effectively closed most diplomatic avenues, leaving the Iranian leadership
with few options other than accepting both domestic and international demands.
Amid the mounting tension, Iranian officials have signaled a conditional
openness to diplomacy. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, speaking during a visit
to Turkiye alongside his Turkish counterpart Hakan Fidan, said Iran is prepared
to return to negotiations with the United States if they are based on fairness
and mutual respect. At the same time, he emphasized that Tehran would not bow
to external pressure, adding that while Iran is ready for talks, it is also
prepared for war.
The convergence of internal unrest, external military pressure, and a
narrowing diplomatic path has pushed Iran into one of the most uncertain
moments in its recent history. Whether the crisis leads to confrontation,
forced compromise, or a deeper rupture with regional and global consequences
remains unclear, but the risks of miscalculation continue to rise for all sides
involved.
For Shafaq News, Mostafa Hashem, Washington, D.C.
