Get your free personalized podcast brief

We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.

External powers signaling potential intervention, as the U.S. did in Iran and others did regarding Syria, can create a dangerous "now or never" mentality among protestors. This moral hazard encourages riskier actions on the ground, but when the promised support never materializes, it's the local population that pays the ultimate price.

Related Insights

The author argues that the American left suffers from a 'moral paralysis' when oppressors are non-Western, as in Iran. This selective silence on human rights abuses prevents a unified national stance and leads to squandered opportunities for regime change, such as during the 2022 women-led protests.

Contrary to the typical anti-war sentiment in the West, anecdotal evidence suggests that an overwhelming majority of Iranians who oppose the regime—perhaps 80% or more—would welcome outside help. They feel abandoned after the US promised support for protesters, making them receptive to foreign intervention.

A destabilized Iranian regime is more dangerous, not less. Israeli intelligence fears Tehran might launch a strike on a foreign enemy like Israel to distract its populace, create a "rally 'round the flag" effect, and restore military pride after recent setbacks.

The bombing campaign, aimed at regime change, could be counterproductive. Prior to the conflict, Iran's regime was seen as unpopular and frail, potentially heading for collapse or moderation. The external attack risks creating a rally-round-the-flag effect, allowing the regime to consolidate power where mere survival becomes a victory.

Iran is caught in a strategic dilemma: claiming to be close to a nuclear weapon invites a preemptive US strike, while admitting weakness could embolden internal protest movements. This precarious balance makes their public statements highly volatile and reveals a fundamental vulnerability.

The ongoing war provides the Iranian regime with a pretext for heightened internal security. This allows it to suppress domestic protests and dissent, framing internal control as a necessary measure while managing an external existential threat.

Despite widespread discontent, the Iranian opposition is leaderless, disorganized, and lacks a clear plan for seizing power. A successful revolution would require external military support to neutralize the regime's security forces, such as the Basij militia, and guide the effort.

The current Iranian protests are uniquely potent because the regime is at its weakest geopolitically. The loss of regional proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas, coupled with key ally Russia's preoccupation with Ukraine, has left the Iranian government more isolated and vulnerable than during any previous wave of unrest.

Despite widespread internal protests and instability, history shows that an external attack is one of the few things that can unify the Iranian population. A potential Israeli strike, meant to weaken the regime, could backfire by creating a 'rally 'round the flag' effect that shores up support for the Ayatollah.

The Iranian regime's strategy extends beyond killing protesters; it actively dishonors their memory. By piling up bodies, charging families for their return, and limiting funerals, the state is purposefully humiliating the public, which in turn exacerbates anger and hardens opposition.