Are the mass protests and uprising in Iran entering a phase of de-escalation? Witness Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi, assuring in an interview that there were no plans to hang anti-government protesters.
Earlier, President Donald Trump told Reuters he had received assurances that killings of demonstrators had stopped. One presumes or hopes that Trump’s statement is based on a good idea of the ground situation in Iran.
While there is a broader concern among activists that international pressure could dissipate before any structural change occurs, journalist and scholar Atul Aneja, who studies Iran closely, is sceptical about the protests overturning the system.
“The protests may not actually overthrow the current regime because the internal system of Iran is geared to adversity and events like this.”
Even if the protests were to gain enough momentum to challenge Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Aneja argues that succession itself is a fault line within the opposition.
“Monarchy is a symbol that is completely rejected in Iran. The revolution against the Shah of Iran took place because there was a deep animosity towards the royalty at that time.”
It’s a point not lost on the Americans. Trump indicated publicly that he is uncertain whether Iran’s exiled prince could make a political comeback, reinforcing the problem of a fragmented opposition.
If neither regime change nor U.S. military intervention materialises, Aneja believes internal reforms are the most plausible outcome, though he stresses that economic recovery hinges on sanctions relief.
For India, continuity in Tehran could be beneficial, as sanctions have pushed Iran to deepen engagement with blocs such as BRICS.
However, Aneja warns that if Iran’s basic institutions begin to unravel, the United States and Israel could invest resources to pursue regime change. In that scenario, India’s interests tied to Chabahar Port would be directly affected.
“That’s the gateway, not only to Iran, counter to Gwadar, but the second thing is the route to Afghanistan and Central Asia. And the north-south transport corridor, which the Chabahar route will eventually link up to. So, our outreach to Eurasia will also be compromised big time if a regime change takes place in Iran.”
What happens if the regime itself decides to change, discarding some elements that are the target of public ire? Perhaps President Pezeshkian, a known moderate who has taken a conciliatory stand on the uprisings (at least in the beginning, although little has been heard from him since). It’s a view articulated by India’s former ambassador to Iran, Gaddam Dharmendra, who believes that ordinary Iranians do not want the country to end up like Syria.
Change from within will ensure stability while reassuring people that their cries have been heard. But is that asking too much of this regime?
