Over the past two weeks, there have been widespread protests occurring throughout Iran. The country's foreign minister has made a claim that these protests have turned violent and bloody, giving the US president, Donald Trump, an excuse to intervene. It is reported that more than 500 protesters have been killed during the government's crackdown on these demonstrations.
In response to the situation, Trump and his national security team have been considering various options for how to handle Iran, including cyber-attacks and direct strikes by either the US or Israel. However, there is concern that if Trump were to take military action, it could end up backfiring as the majority of Iranians are opposed to any intervention from the US, according to a security expert.
Dr Dafydd Townley, a senior teaching fellow in International Security at the University of Portsmouth, believes that Trump sees Iran as a major destabilizing force in the Middle East and is therefore eager to get involved. "He definitely wants to see a more pro-Western or Western-leaning government in power," Dr Townley stated. However, he also believes that non-military interventions, such as providing technological or diplomatic support to the protesters, may be more beneficial to the US in the long run.
There is a risk that taking military action could unite the people of Iran against the perceived threat of the US. "At the moment, I don't think anyone in Iran sees the US as an ally, and military action is not going to change that," Dr Townley explained.
The recent success of capturing Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro may have emboldened the Trump administration to take action in Iran. However, Dr Townley advises caution, stating that there is a significant difference between a covert operation to capture an individual and conducting strikes on an entire country. He also notes that it is interesting how Trump, who has been hesitant to get involved in international issues in the past, has suddenly become more vocal in the last two months. However, getting involved in Iran may not strengthen his support among his supporters.
Dr Andreas Krieg, associate professor in the Department of Defence Studies at King's College London, believes that if Trump were to strike Iran, it could give the Iranian forces an excuse to escalate their crackdown on the protests in the name of national defense. This could result in more violence, arrests, and tighter control over information.
However, Krieg also believes that strikes do not necessarily strengthen the Iranian regime. If the public perceives the US action as targeted and punitive towards the government rather than the people, it may not have the desired effect of rallying support for the regime.
Dr Arshin Abid-Moghaddam argues that the more the Trump administration and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu endorse the demonstrations in Iran, the more securitized the situation will become. However, he also believes that the Iranian regime does not see these protests as an "existential threat" and will use violence to suppress them if necessary.
There is much speculation about the stability of the Iranian regime, especially with the ongoing protests. Anahita Motazedrad, a visiting Senior Fellow in International Relations at LSE, believes that the Islamic Republic is already acting as though its grip on power is slipping. She also notes that while the regime is committed to suppressing dissent, their ability to do so is strained. If the US were to take limited pre-emptive strikes, it is unlikely to unite the regime and may instead deepen internal divisions and weaken the control of the IRGC.
Over the past two weeks, protests have been spreading throughout Iran, causing chaos and unrest in the country. The country's foreign minister has recently spoken out, claiming that the protests have turned violent and bloody, giving the US President, Donald Trump, the perfect excuse to intervene. It's a tense situation, with the government cracking down on the protesters, resulting in over 500 deaths.
In response to these events, Trump and his national security team have been weighing their options, considering various potential responses against Iran. These include cyber-attacks and direct strikes, either by the US or Israel. However, there is a concern that any military action could backfire, as most Iranians are opposed to any intervention by the US. This is according to an international security expert, Dr. Dafydd Townley, from the University of Portsmouth.
Dr. Townley believes that Trump sees Iran as a major destabilizing factor in the Middle East, which may explain his desire to get involved. However, he suggests that non-military interventions, such as technological or diplomatic support for the protesters, may be more beneficial to the US. He also warns of the risk of pushing the Iranian people to unite against the US if military action is taken.
The recent successful capture of Nicolas Maduro may have given the Trump administration a boost of confidence, according to Dr. Townley. However, he advises caution when it comes to Iran, as there is a significant difference between a covert operation and launching strikes. It is interesting to note that Trump, who has previously been reluctant to get involved in international issues, has suddenly become very vocal in the past two months. Dr. Townley also points out that getting involved in Iran is unlikely to strengthen Trump's domestic support among his supporters.
Dr. Andreas Krieg, from King's College London, believes that if Trump decides to strike Iran, it could give the Iranian forces an excuse to ramp up their crackdown on the protests. This could lead to more arrests, lethal force, and tighter control over information. However, he also notes that strikes may not necessarily strengthen the regime if the public perceives them as targeted against the government rather than the people.
Dr. Arshin Abid-Moghaddam argues that the more Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu endorse the demonstrations in Iran, the more securitized the situation will become. However, he does not believe that the regime sees the protests as an existential threat and suggests that they will use violence to suppress them if necessary.
Many are wondering if the Iranian regime is on the verge of collapsing, especially with these historic protests. However, Anahita Motazedrad, a visiting Senior Fellow at LSE, believes that the regime is already behaving as though its grip on power is slipping. She suggests that the current crackdown is not just due to external threats, but also because the regime is internally vulnerable. She believes that any limited pre-emptive strikes by the US are unlikely to unify the regime, but may instead accelerate its erosion.
