Protests in IranWhat is unfolding in Iran cannot be understood in isolation from Iran’s role in sustaining the Assad regime. The same ideological-security system now facing mass rejection inside Iran is the one that preserved Bashar al-Assad through extreme violence, militias, and regional destabilization. Iran’s internal crisis is therefore also a regional one: it is the weakening of the primary external pillar that enabled Syria’s survival through repression.
For more than a decade, the IRGC and its proxy network linked Tehran to Damascus, exporting coercion as a governing model. After the fall of Assad in December 2024, this system quickly began losing its legitimacy and control at home as well as its capacity to project power abroad. Iran’s own nationwide uprising that began one year after the toppling of the Assad regime signals that its own repressive regime may be the next to fall, thus raising the hopes of many for further stability in the region.
Ultimately, what is unfolding in Iran is no longer protest, it is no longer unrest, it is no longer an internal crisis that can be managed, contained, or postponed. Iran has entered the phase of systemic collapse of a violent ideological regime that has exhausted all forms of legitimacy and now represents the single greatest obstacle to stability in the Middle East.
U.S. involvement in the toppling of Assad was limited in scope but the real question confronting Washington in 2026 is not whether the Iranian regime will fall, but whether the United States will lead the fall, or allow the region to descend into uncontrolled chaos afterward.
“The question for Washington is not the regime’s durability, but whether the United States is prepared to guide the aftermath.”
Karam Khalil
Iran 2026: From Economic Anger to Regime Rejection
The nationwide protests that erupted in late December 2025 and spread across all 31 Iranian provinces did not remain economic for long. Inflation and poverty were the trigger, but the demand today is the fall of the regime itself, including the Supreme Leader.
So far, hundreds have been killed, thousands arrested, and a near-total digital blackout was imposed. None of this restored control, rather it exposed the core reality: the regime can no longer rule society – it can only repress it temporarily.
This uprising comes only months after the June 2025 “12-Day War,” which shattered critical components of Iran’s air defenses and nuclear infrastructure through precise U.S.–Israeli strikes. Since then, the regime has been bleeding: militarily abroad, and psychologically at home.
An Ideological Regime That Cannot Be Reformed
The central illusion of past Western policy was the assumption that the Iranian system could be reformed or moderated. It cannot. The regime in Tehran is not a normal state. It is an ideological revolutionary system whose survival depends on: exporting violence, financing militias, manufacturing perpetual crises and sustaining fear as a governing tool.
Therefore, regime change in Iran is not a moral aspiration – it is a U.S. national security imperative. There will be no Middle East stability while this regime exists: no energy security, no regional settlement, and no closure of open conflicts.
“Tehran does not behave as a normal state; it functions as a revolutionary system that manufactures crises as a method of governance.”
Karam Khalil
The American Role: From Crisis Management to File Closure
In 2026, the United States, under Donald Trump, holds a rare strategic opportunity to close the most dangerous regional file since the Cold War.
A fundamental weakening or replacement of the Iranian regime delivers the potential for immediate American gains: dismantling the militia axis (Hezbollah, Houthis, Iraqi proxies), eliminating the existential threat to Israel, severing Russian and Chinese strategic penetration, securing global energy routes, and terminating the Iranian nuclear file permanently.
Iranian Americans gather near the White House on January 10thConcerns about direct military intervention are legitimate, but the alternative is not passivity. The alternative is intelligence-led regime transition.
The Intelligence Axis: How Regime Collapse Must Be Managed
Iran does not require invasion; it requires controlled strategic dismantling. This includes breaking the regime’s information monopoly, enabling secure communication inside Iran, isolating and financially suffocating the IRGC, and separating the military institution from ideological command, thus preventing civil war and fragmentation during transition.
This is not chaos engineering; it is collapse management.
Israel: Strategic Patience, Not Paralysis
Israel understands that premature large-scale military action would only consolidate internal Iranian support around the regime. Therefore, Tel Aviv watches, prepares, and aligns fully with Washington.
The fall of Tehran would automatically mean: the collapse of Hezbollah as a regional force, a strategic reset in Gaza and Yemen, and a rebalanced Middle East without a major war.
Restraint at this moment is not weakness, it is strategic timing.
After the Fall: The Realistic Scenarios
Scenario One (Optimal):
A managed transition supported by the U.S. and its allies, producing a secular liberal state that reintegrates Iran into the international system.
Scenario Two (Catastrophic):
Unmanaged collapse, internal fragmentation, prolonged instability.
Scenario Three (Most Likely if Washington Leads):
The fall of the ideological regime followed by an interim civilian leadership with symbolic legitimacy and international recognition.
Reza Pahlavi: A Necessary Transitional Anchor
Transitions require a political address, not a vacuum. In Iran’s case, Reza Pahlavi represents a viable secular, liberal, non-ideological option with credibility inside the diaspora and resonance within Iran.
This is not a call to restore monarchy; it is a call to utilize historical legitimacy to guide a transition toward a democratic republican system. Ignoring this option would be a strategic error. Washington needs a civilian partner, not uncertainty.
“In moments of regime collapse, legitimacy matters, and Reza Pahlavi represents a stabilizing civilian option rather than uncertainty.”
Karam Khalil
Iranian Americans rally in DC on January 10 in support of the uprising in Iran.Direct Recommendations to the U.S. Administration
- Publicly declare the Iranian regime a structural threat to regional order.
- Shift from containment to guided transformation.
- Support a clearly defined secular liberal transition.
- Engage Reza Pahlavi as a transitional political figure.
- Coordinate U.S.–European, regional alignment to prevent collapse chaos.
- Close the Iranian file as part of a doctrine of ending conflicts, not managing them.
Final Word:
A decision needs to be made. Iran is no longer an internal matter; it is the gateway to either Middle Eastern stability, or prolonged disorder. If Washington leads the collapse, the region enters a new era; if it hesitates, it will pay later. The end of the rule of fear is not a slogan, it is a decision, and the time is now.
I have read the article more than once. It is the first time I see this writer in your newspaper and with all transparency. He is a genius analyst and a distinguished writer who has a real and clear vision and that he describes the scene accurately and professionally. I am happy to read such people at this level of awareness and thought. I think Syria has many likes of the conscious writer Karam Khalil. I was impressed by this smart analyst. Thomas Richard Former Officers
I agree with the writer, our country must stand in the face of Iranian extremism, and the alternative must be secular, and the writer’s proposal was great and suitable, so I strongly support him.
Reza Pahlavi will not be accepted by the people of Iran.
He has no clear agenda, no relevant experience, and no demonstrated will to lead a genuine revolution for freedom.
The leadership of Iran’s revolution will not be appointed from abroad or promoted by foreign media. It will rise from the people on the streets of Iran. Iranians have not forgotten history. We have seen what happens when foreign powers impose “leaders” on us. The 1953 coup against Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and the return of the Shah is a painful reminder of that betrayal.
We do not want another puppet.
We do not want another imposed ruler.
Today, real resistance movements exist inside Iran. They are organized, interconnected, and strategically active. These movements were planned years ago, are now coordinating with one another, and maintain contact with revolutionary forces outside Iran. They are the ones facing repression, risking their lives, and fighting on the streets. They—not Reza Pahlavi—represent the future leadership of a free Iran.
Reza Pahlavi is a media product with nothing substantive to offer. In fact, injecting his name into the political equation serves the interests of the IRGC, whose strategy is to derail the uprising by reviving old, divisive narratives.
Let us be absolutely clear:
No to the Shah.
No to the Mullahs.
No to any form of dictatorship.
Yes to freedom.
Yes to democracy.
Yes to leaders chosen by the people of Iran.
We reject foreign intervention.
We reject American boots on Iranian soil.
What we ask of the international community is simple:
Recognize the Iranian people and their resistance for freedom. Stop appeasing the Islamic Republic.
We will do the job ourselves.
I am responding to Mr. Massoud Maqsoudi in a calm and professional manner, not from a place of personal attack or delegitimization, but to clarify what is meant by putting forward Reza Pahlavi as a secular, transitional option—one that understands the concept of individual freedoms and has a clear grasp of how to engage with the West—at a time when Iran is suffering from one of the most regressive phases in its modern history: the era of Velayat-e Faqih. This system has led to near-total international isolation, the export of extremist ideology, and deeply destructive relations with both East and West alike.
Yes, Reza Pahlavi may not represent the ideal or preferred choice for many Iranian opposition figures. However, politics is not governed by wishes, but by power balances and historical moments. The reality is that, at this stage, an alternative cannot be an internationally unknown figure, regardless of personal sacrifice or good intentions. We have all witnessed the visible presence of monarchist media and symbols within protests inside Iran, and we have seen their tangible impact—whether one agrees with this or not.
More importantly, this discussion is not about permanent rule or restoring a former system, but about a transitional phase. No regime change in any country occurs without international alignment. This is not theoretical; it is a political fact proven by experience. Without such alignment, the Assad regime would not have fallen. This reality must be acknowledged honestly, beyond slogans and emotional rhetoric.
The current disagreement should not be centered on individuals, but on the core objective: dismantling the Velayat-e Faqih system. What is urgently needed is unity—uniting the opposition and fully supporting the uprising inside Iran. Once this system collapses, and the rule of the Supreme Leader ends, Iranians can and must sit together at one table and agree on a political formula that satisfies all parties through clear democratic mechanisms.
The politics of accusations, personal attacks, and internal fragmentation at this critical stage constitute one of the most serious strategic errors. We Syrians paid an enormous price for such divisions, and we understand very well how internal conflict destroys revolutions from within before the enemy defeats them.
I also want to be absolutely clear: there is no scenario in which the United States imposes an alternative leader, nor any plan for American military intervention to install a new ruler in Iran. This is not how U.S. strategy operates today. The United States does not “appoint” leaders; it engages with those who are strongest on the ground and who hold real authority and internal legitimacy. Therefore, if you present a united front—cohesive and strategically clear—international legitimacy will be in your favor, not against you.
Ultimately, the ballot box will decide between Iranians—whether in favor of Reza Pahlavi or any other option. But reaching the ballot box first requires toppling the existing regime, not detonating divisions within the revolutionary camp.