As large-scale protests continue across Iran, a central question has emerged: why has the country’s ruling system remained intact so far?
From the outset of the current unrest, some Iranian officials—including President Masoud Pezeshkian—have voiced understanding of public grievances and called for efforts to address economic problems. Those statements, however, have not translated into broader political shifts, and there are no indications of divisions within Iran’s security elite that could threaten the system itself.
The protests on the ground do not appear to be the only source of pressure on the authorities. They have been accompanied by international pressure, culminating in repeated threats by U.S. President Donald Trump of military action in response to the crackdown Tehran has launched against protesters.
Reuters cited two diplomats, two Middle East government sources and analysts as saying that unless street protests and outside pressure can trigger fractures in power, the system is likely to endure despite its weakness.
An Iranian official said about 2,000 people had been killed in the protests, blaming “terrorists” for the deaths of civilians and security personnel. Human rights organizations had previously reported about 600 deaths.
Vali Nasr, an expert on regional conflicts and U.S. foreign policy, said Iran’s multilayered security structure—anchored by the Revolutionary Guard and the Basij paramilitary force, which together total close to 1 million people—makes it extremely difficult to impose external pressure unless there is an internal split.
Nasr said that such a scenario would require large crowds to remain in the streets for a much longer period, the state to begin to unravel, and defections among some sectors—especially the security forces.
The system and Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, 86, have survived several previous waves of protests.
Paul Salem, of the Middle East Institute, said this is the fifth major uprising since 2009—evidence of resilience and cohesion even as the government confronts a deep internal crisis that has yet to be resolved.
Alan Eyre, a former U.S. diplomat and an Iran expert, said that “for the situation to change, protesters must be able to muster enough momentum to overcome the state’s entrenched advantages: strong institutions, a large popular base loyal to clerical rule, and the geographic and demographic scale of a country of 90 million people.”
Analysts say the system’s survival does not mean stability. The Islamic Republic is facing one of its most serious challenges since 1979, amid economic sanctions and without a clear path to recovery. Strategically, it is under pressure from Israel and the United States; its nuclear program has been damaged; and armed groups aligned with it in the region’s “axis of resistance” have been weakened.
Nasr said he does not believe the Islamic Republic has reached a “moment of collapse,” but that it “now faces an extremely difficult situation in the next phase.”
The protests began on Dec. 28 because of rising prices and the deterioration of Iran’s currency, before quickly turning directly against clerical rule. Politically, analysts say the violent crackdown on protesters has further eroded the system’s legitimacy.
The Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA), a U.S.-based rights organization, said it had verified the deaths of 573 people, including 503 protesters and 69 security personnel, adding that more than 10,000 people had been arrested.
The current protests mark the latest chapter in a series of similar protest waves in Iran in recent years.
Analysts say what makes the current moment different, and heightens tension, is Trump’s explicit warning that the killing of protesters could lead to U.S. intervention.
Tehran has said it is keeping channels of communication open with Washington.
Trump, who has indicated the possibility of meeting Iranian officials, threatened on Monday to impose tariffs on countries that trade with Iran.
Reuters cited an Israeli source who attended a phone call between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Saturday as saying the two discussed the possibility of U.S. intervention in Iran.
Salem said analysts tend to see Trump’s interest in the protests as tactical rather than ideological. He added: “The goal may be to weaken the system enough to extract concessions, such as imposing limits on Tehran’s nuclear program.”
A diplomat and three analysts said the idea of a “Venezuelan model” is gaining increasing traction in some circles in the United States and Israel. They said the model involves removing Iran’s top authority while sending a message to remaining state institutions: stay in place as long as you cooperate.
Applying such a model in Iran, however, runs into enormous obstacles, including a security state entrenched for decades, deep institutional cohesion, and a vast, multiethnic country.
Two regional officials and two analysts said foreign military action could cause Iran to splinter along ethnic and sectarian lines, particularly in Kurdish areas and among Sunni Baluch regions with a long history of resistance.
David Makovsky, of The Washington Institute, said that if Trump moves, he expects swift action with “high impact—not a prolonged campaign,” consistent with what he said has been the president’s recent preference in conflicts: a single decisive step rather than deploying ground forces. “He’s looking for that move that could change the trajectory,” Makovsky added. “But what is it?”
Options range from maritime pressure on Iranian oil shipments to targeted military or cyber strikes—each carrying significant risks.
All sources said some measures may fall short of the use of force, such as restoring internet service via Starlink to help protesters communicate.
Makovsky said Trump “sometimes uses threats to delay decisions, sometimes to deter adversaries, and sometimes to signal he is already preparing to intervene. But we still don’t know which applies here.”
