With Crackdown on Protests, Iran’s Government ‘Is Only Buying Time’

Its security forces have brutally defended the Islamic Republic, but the protests show that many Iranians consider it stagnant and ideologically hollow.

The protests in Iran against the Islamic Republic appear broader and more combative than ever before. The government crackdown is also more violent.

The regime and its 86-year-old Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, see the spreading protests as an existential threat, experts and analysts said, and they have responded with force to protect the government and their own institutional interests.

After the government’s nearly 50 years in power, many in Iran have come to see it as having betrayed its promise of a better life for all Iranians. They have turned out in large numbers across the country demanding an end to the regime.

Though many would like these protests to overthrow the government, much as the shah of Iran was overthrown in 1979, there is a degree of wishful thinking involved, the analysts suggested. The government is likely to quash the current unrest, they said, even as the demonstrations expose popular discontent that may be impossible to suppress in the longer term.

“The regime felt an existential angst and brought down the iron fist, so I feel this round is probably done,” Ali Vaez, Iran project director for the International Crisis Group, a research institution, said of the protests. “But since the regime can only suppress and not address the underlying causes, it is only buying time until the next round of confrontation between the state and society.”

With the internet blackout of Iran, it is hard to get a clear picture of the protests or a sense of the death toll. But public fury will persist, predicted Vali Nasr, an Iran expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington. “The protests were extremely significant, and even if they dissipate, the anger that they produced has not gone away,” he said in a briefing for the Quincy Institute, a Washington-based research organization.

The wild card, as ever, is President Trump. He has threatened to attack the Iranian government for its harsh crackdown on the protests and is said to be considering a range of options, from airstrikes to cyberattacks, having just proposed economic sanctions against companies dealing with Iran.

Yet Mr. Trump also appears to be interested in renewed negotiations with Iran, which could be an off-ramp for the government if it can secure some sanctions relief and help assuage some of the public outrage.

The protests show that many Iranians may now believe that the Islamic Revolution of 1979 has failed to address their everyday economic needs and has instead focused on extending its military might through its nuclear enrichment and proxy forces in the region.

At the same time, the government retains a monopoly on the use of force and has shown its willingness to use it to crush this challenge. The powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps is constitutionally obligated to protect the Islamic Republic—its revolution, ideology and Supreme leader— with political and theological foundations in the revolution that cast off Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi and his Westernizing, secular government.And the corps also is deeply embedded in the economic system, including oil, defense and smuggling.

There have been no serious defections so far from the security services or the army to the opposition. The opposition remains divided, and it’s not clear what kind of support it has. Among its aspiring leaders are Reza Pahlavi, the son of the former shah, who lives in exile.

His father left Iran for exile 47 years ago on Friday, noted Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa program at Chatham House. That may be a rallying point for further protest and support for Mr. Pahlavi, who presents himself as an unlikely new leader of a different Iran.

During the revolution, the shah pulled back from using overwhelming force, the military and elite split, and there was a popular figure to head the opposition — Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini — who had a fervent following among both the clergy and the poor.

This time, the collapse of the rial currency — first gradually, then suddenly last month — prompted an outcry from the powerful merchant class. It quickly spread to thousands of Iranians who could no longer afford the basics of daily life. Iran’s economy is subject to harsh sanctions imposed by much of the world over its nuclear program. The country is also running out of water.

At first, the government responded to the unrest with emollient words about listening to grievances and by firing the head of the Central Bank. When the moves did little to quell public anger, the regime shifted to violence and accusations of terrorism. Ayatollah Khomeini vowed to defend the revolution and accused the United States and Israel of instigating and paying for the protests.

Mr. Trump’s threats to intervene appear to have only solidified the government’s conviction that the demonstrations are a danger that needs to be extinguished. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people have been killed, according to rights groups and an Iranian health official.

“The radicalism among the protesters, and how quickly it has turned violent on both sides, is a testament to a bipolar country,” said Ellie Geranmayeh, an Iran expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations. “The regime and the security services see this as an extension of the U.S.-Israeli war and feel they must go full force to get to the terrorists.”

The June war and the protests seem to have reduced previous tensions between the Revolutionary Guards Corps and the military, she said.

If the regime may not be ending, the Islamic Revolution appears to have run its course. After nearly 50 years, its efforts to spread revolt through the Middle East have failed, and a new generation has different aims and less of a willingness to live by strict Islamic laws that the elite violate.

The new threats from Washington prompted Iranian officials to say they would like to renew and intensify their on-again, off-again talks with U.S. officials about Iran’s nuclear program and the protests.

Though difficult politically, if Iran were to finally agree to stop enriching uranium under international monitoring — after the bombings of last summer, it no longer seems to be enriching in any case — then Mr. Trump would likely respond by lifting some important economic sanctions, Ms. Vakil said. The government could present that outcome to Iranians as economic progress.

There is also the question of the future of Ayatollah Khamenei, who has been unwilling to make tough decisions for change. Ms. Geranmayeh predicted that the protests will intensify any debate over his role.

Succession is coming regardless, given the ayatollah’s age. “The odds of regime transformation are much higher than of regime change,” said Mr. Vaez of the Crisis Group.

Meanwhile, a hemisphere away, the installment of the vice president of Venezuela, Delcy Rodríguez, as its leader after the United States seized President Nicolás Maduro demonstrates that Washington is willing to live with the same structure if it has a different head, he noted.

Sustainable reform in Iran ultimately requires a bargain with Washington, Ms. Geranmayeh said. “Even if these protests ultimately lead to a new power structure, only a comprehensive deal with Washington will remove the constant shadow of war and sanctions under which too many generations of Iranians have lived.”

Related Content