Iran, one of West Asia’s most strategically consequential states, is confronting a moment of profound internal and external tension. The protests that erupted on December 28th did not emerge in isolation; they are the outcome of long-simmering economic hardship, political exclusion, and a widening gap between the ruling establishment and Iranian society. While demonstrations on the streets remain the most visible sign of unrest, the deeper crisis lies in how Iran’s domestic instability now intersects with its geopolitical posture, its revolutionary identity, and the calculations of global powers watching closely.
From Monarchy to Islamic Republic: The Political Foundations of the Iranian State
To understand Iran’s present turmoil, it is necessary to revisit the ideological transformation brought about by the 1979 Iranian Revolution. The overthrow of the Pahlavi monarchy marked the end of centuries of royal rule and the birth of a new political order grounded in clerical authority. Iran was renamed the Islamic Republic of Iran, reflecting the fusion of religion and governance under the doctrine of Velayat-e Faqih, or Guardianship of the Jurist. This system vested ultimate power in unelected religious institutions, particularly the office of the Supreme Leader, while elections were tightly circumscribed. Though the revolution initially promised justice, dignity, and independence, the system it created gradually prioritised ideological control over political participation.
The December 28 2025 Protests: Economic Anger Turns Political
The protests that began on December 28 were initially driven by severe economic distress. Rising inflation, unemployment, and declining living standards pushed ordinary Iranians to the streets. However, what set this wave of unrest apart was the speed with which it evolved into a political challenge. Economic grievances quickly gave way to open criticism of the political system itself. Chants targeting the Supreme Leader signalled a decisive break from reformist demands and revealed a deeper crisis of legitimacy. The protests spread across cities and smaller towns alike, drawing participation from youth, workers, women, and sections of the middle class, indicating that discontent had penetrated far beyond traditional opposition circles.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: Absolute Authority and Eroding Consent
At the heart of Iran’s political system stands Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has held the position since 1989. His authority spans the military, judiciary, state media, and key oversight bodies, making him the most powerful figure in the country. Yet this concentration of power has also placed him at the centre of public resentment. For a growing number of Iranians, Khamenei symbolises political immobility, economic mismanagement, and a leadership insulated from social reality. From a geopolitical perspective, his rule has emphasised resistance to Western pressure and the expansion of regional influence, even as domestic consent has steadily weakened.
Why the System Is Cracking: Economy, Repression, and Legitimacy
Iran’s current crisis is rooted in structural failures rather than isolated events. Economic decline has become a strategic vulnerability, with sanctions exacerbating long-standing mismanagement and corruption. Political and social repression have further alienated society, particularly younger generations who feel no emotional attachment to the revolutionary ideals of 1979. Most critically, the regime is experiencing a collapse of ideological legitimacy. Elections offer little genuine choice, reformist avenues have repeatedly closed, and the religious narrative that once justified authority has lost resonance. Together, these factors have transformed dissatisfaction into outright defiance.
State Response: Repression as a Governing Strategy
The government’s response to the protests has relied heavily on coercion. Security forces, including the police, Basij, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, have been deployed to suppress demonstrations. Arrests, intimidation, and restrictions on internet access have aimed to contain both physical mobilisation and digital communication. From a strategic standpoint, this approach reflects a state that prioritises regime survival over reconciliation. While repression may temporarily restore order, it deepens mistrust and reinforces the perception that the government rules through force rather than consent.
Reza Pahlavi and the Politics of Exile
Amid the unrest, Reza Pahlavi—the son of Iran’s last Shah—has re-emerged as a significant symbolic figure. Living in exile since the revolution, Pahlavi has positioned himself as a pro-democracy and secular voice rather than a claimant to the throne. His background as the former Crown Prince and his access to Western platforms grant him visibility disproportionate to his organisational presence inside Iran. Through social media, particularly X (Twitter), he has voiced support for protesters and called for international pressure on Tehran. While his direct influence on events inside Iran remains limited, his statements amplify global attention and feed the regime’s long-standing fear of externally driven regime change.
The United States: Strategic Pressure Without Regime Change
The United States has responded to Iran’s unrest with a calibrated approach. Washington has condemned human rights abuses and imposed targeted sanctions on Iranian officials while avoiding explicit calls for regime change. This caution reflects broader strategic considerations, including nuclear negotiations, regional stability, and the risk of escalation. For the US, Iran’s internal unrest presents both an opportunity to weaken Tehran’s regional posture and a challenge that could destabilise an already volatile region.
Israel’s View: Internal Unrest as Strategic Opportunity
Israel interprets Iran’s internal instability primarily through a security lens. Publicly highlighting protests serves to undermine Iran’s image as a stable regional power and reinforce concerns about its nuclear ambitions. While Israel avoids direct involvement in Iran’s domestic affairs, it views internal dissent as evidence of systemic weakness within a long-standing adversary.
Conclusion: A Domestic Crisis with Global Consequences
Iran today stands at a critical crossroads. The unrest unfolding across the country is not simply a reaction to economic hardship but a fundamental challenge to a political system built over four decades ago. The Islamic Republic, forged through revolution and sustained by ideology, now confronts a society increasingly unwilling to accept repression as the cost of stability. Whether this moment leads to reform, intensified authoritarianism, or long-term transformation remains uncertain. What is clear is that Iran’s internal struggle has become a geopolitical event—one whose consequences will shape not only Iran’s future but the balance of power across West Asia.
