Iran Faces New Round of Protests
DV coeditor Faramarz Farbod joined a panel on AnewZ.tv (Baku, Azerbaijan) on 31 December, the 3rd day of protests in Iran — now in its sixth day — to discuss the evolving situation.
Opinion: Iran — Teetering, in real trouble, and Trump wants to ‘rescue’ protesters
By Paul Wallis
EDITOR AT LARGE
By Paul Wallis
EDITOR AT LARGE
DIGITAL JOURNAL
January 2, 2026
A video posted on social media on December 31, 2025, showed protestors attacking a government building in Fasa in southern Iran - Copyright UGC/AFP -
The current situation in Iran is far more complex than headlines about protests and political discontent. The country is in big trouble.
Water resources are a dangerous major issue. A backlog of many dated infrastructure problems and a top-heavy social structure, common in theocracies, isn’t helping.
Iran has another serious problem. It’s a unique Shia nation, largely surrounded by Sunni nations with which relations are typically strained. Neighbors include the Taliban in Afghanistan and the ever-erratic Pakistan.
Iran’s belligerent position in relation to the West has been in place since 1979. That hasn’t helped much, either. Sanctions, the slow drip of obsolescence, and constant involvement with groups like Hamas outside Iran stretch money and resources. The confrontation with Israel also largely backfired.
The protests aren’t cosmetic. They’re systemic. You could say they were inevitable. They reflect current Iranian realities. When the ayatollahs came to power, you could easily argue that Iran lost a repressive regime. The West was seen as the enemy as much for supporting the old regime as for any other reason. That’s ancient history.
That was nearly 3 generations ago. Things are very different now. Iran’s extremely difficult problems are all here and now, at critical levels, and getting worse.
Enter Donald Trump, riding a white press release about rescuing protesters. Iran isn’t happy about it. That’s likely to get very ugly in a hurry in any sort of exchange of pleasantries with the US.
Iran is not toothless. It has a global reach through extended networks. It is quite capable of hitting targets around the world, not just the Middle East. It can’t win a direct confrontation with the US, but it can hit back. It is also more than capable of funding an ongoing Hamas-style underground war for decades.
What exactly can be achieved by military action by the US? Not much on the ground in Iran.
Iranian internal security is genuinely tough, nationwide, and entrenched. It works directly for the regime. It won’t be affected at all by strikes. Regime change is extremely unlikely unless a combination of internal Iranian social stress fractures and a true popular uprising occurs.
Much worse, any US action can and will be used as an excuse for retaliation against the protesters. It could trigger a severe national crackdown.
An American involvement could appeal to Iran’s hostile neighbors, like Saudi Arabia. It’s more of an entry in a popularity contest than any actual assistance to Iranian protesters.
Nor is there anything like a clear indication of American strategic objectives. A purely symbolic gesture could just get a lot of Iranians killed. Any such commitment will also be extremely expensive for the US. The Middle East has been soaking up US money like a sponge for decades.
The default expected strategy is more likely to be a very half-baked, unworkable attempt at regime change. The Iranian protesters may be much more than a bit skeptical of this sudden altruism on the part of the US.
It’ll also be very hard to sell an Iranian war as an “America First” initiative. More big money going anywhere but America will antagonize most Americans very effectively. Any degree of prolonged US military involvement in Iran will dwarf the recent bailout of US farmers by multiples.
This looks very much more like grandstanding and gaslighting than any sort of considered initiative or integrated strategy.
It looks frivolous and futile. What a surprise.
____________________________________________________________
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this Op-Ed are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Digital Journal or its members.
January 2, 2026
A video posted on social media on December 31, 2025, showed protestors attacking a government building in Fasa in southern Iran - Copyright UGC/AFP -
The current situation in Iran is far more complex than headlines about protests and political discontent. The country is in big trouble.
Water resources are a dangerous major issue. A backlog of many dated infrastructure problems and a top-heavy social structure, common in theocracies, isn’t helping.
Iran has another serious problem. It’s a unique Shia nation, largely surrounded by Sunni nations with which relations are typically strained. Neighbors include the Taliban in Afghanistan and the ever-erratic Pakistan.
Iran’s belligerent position in relation to the West has been in place since 1979. That hasn’t helped much, either. Sanctions, the slow drip of obsolescence, and constant involvement with groups like Hamas outside Iran stretch money and resources. The confrontation with Israel also largely backfired.
The protests aren’t cosmetic. They’re systemic. You could say they were inevitable. They reflect current Iranian realities. When the ayatollahs came to power, you could easily argue that Iran lost a repressive regime. The West was seen as the enemy as much for supporting the old regime as for any other reason. That’s ancient history.
That was nearly 3 generations ago. Things are very different now. Iran’s extremely difficult problems are all here and now, at critical levels, and getting worse.
Enter Donald Trump, riding a white press release about rescuing protesters. Iran isn’t happy about it. That’s likely to get very ugly in a hurry in any sort of exchange of pleasantries with the US.
Iran is not toothless. It has a global reach through extended networks. It is quite capable of hitting targets around the world, not just the Middle East. It can’t win a direct confrontation with the US, but it can hit back. It is also more than capable of funding an ongoing Hamas-style underground war for decades.
What exactly can be achieved by military action by the US? Not much on the ground in Iran.
Iranian internal security is genuinely tough, nationwide, and entrenched. It works directly for the regime. It won’t be affected at all by strikes. Regime change is extremely unlikely unless a combination of internal Iranian social stress fractures and a true popular uprising occurs.
Much worse, any US action can and will be used as an excuse for retaliation against the protesters. It could trigger a severe national crackdown.
An American involvement could appeal to Iran’s hostile neighbors, like Saudi Arabia. It’s more of an entry in a popularity contest than any actual assistance to Iranian protesters.
Nor is there anything like a clear indication of American strategic objectives. A purely symbolic gesture could just get a lot of Iranians killed. Any such commitment will also be extremely expensive for the US. The Middle East has been soaking up US money like a sponge for decades.
The default expected strategy is more likely to be a very half-baked, unworkable attempt at regime change. The Iranian protesters may be much more than a bit skeptical of this sudden altruism on the part of the US.
It’ll also be very hard to sell an Iranian war as an “America First” initiative. More big money going anywhere but America will antagonize most Americans very effectively. Any degree of prolonged US military involvement in Iran will dwarf the recent bailout of US farmers by multiples.
This looks very much more like grandstanding and gaslighting than any sort of considered initiative or integrated strategy.
It looks frivolous and futile. What a surprise.
____________________________________________________________
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this Op-Ed are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Digital Journal or its members.
No comments:
Post a Comment