Ahead of Trump's inauguration: What awaits Iran in the new political reality?

Editor's note: Moses Becker is a special commentator on political issues for News.az, a PhD in political science and an expert on interethnic and interreligious relations. The article expresses the personal opinion of the author and may not coincide with the view of News.az.

The world is gripped with a sense of tense anticipation as the inauguration of the 47th President of the United States, Donald Trump, draws near. Nowhere is this anxiety felt more acutely than in Iran, where authorities fear for the regime’s survival. Having suffered defeats in Syria and Lebanon, where its proxies were decisively broken, Tehran now braces for the dual threats of intensified sanctions and potential strikes from Israel and the U.S. The regime has grown increasingly paranoid, convinced it is being encircled by hostile forces along its borders.

Adding to Tehran’s unease, Iraq’s Shiite factions have refused to support Iran's adventurism against Israel, and Armenia, once a reliable ally, is now actively courting the European Union and the U.S. Recently, Tehran hinted at the possibility of deploying troops to Armenia—a nation that, in the past, dutifully aligned with Iran’s regional policies. The influx of advisors and experts from countries unfriendly to Iran has alarmed the Islamic Republic’s leadership, who view this development as a prelude to the emergence of hostile forces near its borders.

Iran is particularly unnerved by the presence of a European Union reconnaissance mission near its territory, which it equates with NATO's regional encroachment. Compounding these fears are Armenia’s regular joint military exercises with the U.S.

Notably, a limited contingent of U.S. forces has been stationed in the Zangezur region, near the Iranian border. This contingent is equipped with advanced systems capable of tracking missile trajectories and other aerial movements originating from Iran.

In Israel, discussions are intensifying about the necessity of neutralizing the Iranian regime through strikes on its nuclear and military facilities. A special parliamentary committee formed in August 2024 to review Israel’s defense budget concluded that it is feasible to “eliminate the Iranian threat once and for all.” According to a report published on January 6, the U.S. is expected to launch a “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran following Trump’s inauguration. Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer, after a November meeting with Trump, expressed confidence that the U.S. would support an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear sites. This view was echoed by Marco Rubio, Trump’s future Secretary of State, who warned Iran’s partners to swiftly withdraw their assets, predicting dire consequences for the Islamic Republic. Rubio, a longstanding critic of Tehran, has labeled its leadership a “terrorist regime” due to its support for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. He emphasized that war with Iran is inevitable unless its nuclear ambitions are curbed.

When asked whether he would advocate for military action against Tehran, Rubio responded unequivocally: “Absolutely.”
In the current volatile situation, predicting the future remains challenging. Despite weak domestic support for the regime, its resilience in the face of external military pressure is uncertain. Economic collapse and a series of painful defeats on the international stage could plunge the nation into civil war. An estimated 60% of Iranians now live below the poverty line, with inflation officially pegged at 50% annually, though unofficial estimates suggest it is twice as high.

The root of Iran’s economic woes lies in its inefficient governance system. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) controls most large enterprises, both private and state-owned. Additionally, many social support funds, known as “bonyads,” are managed by the clergy and lack transparency in their financial operations. Sanctions have further crippled Iran’s economy by severely restricting its export capabilities, cutting off foreign investments, and denying access to modern technologies.

Privatization has exacerbated the plight of the working class, leaving many with low wages and unstable employment. A narrow elite of millionaires and billionaires tied to the IRGC and clergy is increasingly disconnected from the general population, deepening the chasm between wealth and poverty. Against this backdrop, public trust in the clergy, the IRGC, and the broader governance system is rapidly eroding.

Iranian society has undergone profound changes since the fall of the Pahlavi dynasty. Today, 75% of the population lives in urban areas, with many residing in major cities. The number of educated individuals, specialists, and skilled workers has grown significantly, transforming a traditional society into one far removed from the days when the clergy first seized power.

Sociological studies indicate that the most rebellious regions are not only the ethnically diverse peripheries but also densely populated urban areas with a high concentration of educated citizens who once benefited from substantial social support. Governing a largely uneducated rural population that views the imam's word as absolute is one thing; managing an educated urban populace is quite another—a challenge the clergy and the IRGC seem ill-equipped to meet.

Revolutionary movements typically arise under three conditions: the loss of moral legitimacy by the ruling system, a severe economic crisis with no exit strategy, and the regime’s inability to mitigate public dissatisfaction. In Iran’s case, all three elements are present, creating a fertile ground for civil war. Potential triggers could include airstrikes on military and industrial facilities by Israel or the U.S. However, steering Iran towards a more Western-friendly and less aggressive trajectory through military intervention is an extraordinarily complex task. Achieving this would require exploiting long-standing divisions between the IRGC’s officer corps and the regular army, who harbor mutual animosity. Only a fracture within the security apparatus could destabilize the regime.

Military intervention could also worsen the already fragile regional stability. History shows that regime change through force rarely leads to long-term positive outcomes and often triggers protracted conflicts and chaos—particularly in a multiethnic country like Iran. Cornered, the ayatollahs' regime has lashed out at Ankara and Baku. Recently, Iran has deployed radars and offensive systems, including long-range missiles, near the Azerbaijani border. It has also supplied Kurdish militias in Syria with air defense systems and other weaponry, further straining relations with Türkiye. Instead of fostering a security network of friendly nations, the ayatollahs' regime has cultivated enemies poised to deliver a potentially fatal blow.

(If you possess specialized knowledge and wish to contribute, please reach out to us at opinions@news.az).

News.Az