At this critical moment, US-Iran policy must avoid attempting to shape a revolutionary Iran in the US’ own image.

Iran is convulsing under an uprising that has rapidly evolved from an expression of economic grievances to an existential threat to the Islamic Republic. What began in late December 2025 as spontaneous anger over crushing inflation, staggering unemployment, and a collapsing rial has galvanized into a nationwide rejection of the clerical establishment.

The future of Iran, whether collapse, fragmentation, or democratic transformation, will largely depend on how the United States chooses to engage, respond, and support Iranian aspirations. Iran faces three paths, and which prevails will depend largely on the choices Washington makes now.

Across all 31 provinces, millions poured into the streets, from bazaars and university campuses to small towns, united not just in economic grievance but in calling for the collapse of a regime that has ruled since 1979.

The government’s response has been brutal. Iranian security forces have engaged in mass killings, live fire, and extensive arrests; independent estimates place the death toll over 12,000, dwarfing any protest movement Iran has seen in decades, and drawing global condemnation.

The regime’s tactics, including a near-total internet blackout designed to cut civilians off from each other and the outside world, reflect a government that has lost legitimate authority and now clings to power through sheer repression. Reports of summary executions, fast-track trials, and the first death sentences for protesters underscore a leadership that has chosen violence over reform. 

Iran’s political elite are massacring their own people, even as they accuse foreign powers of fomenting unrest. In this crucible, figures in exile, most notably Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, have emerged as symbolic voices of resistance. But symbolism alone cannot conjure a stable future for Iran. 

Iran stands at a historic inflection point. The regime’s legitimacy, already hollowed by years of corruption, foreign adventurism, and economic stagnation, has collapsed. This crackdown may slow street protests, but it cannot extinguish the anger coursing through Iranian society. The protest wave has exposed fractures in the state apparatus, shaken elite confidence, and illuminated the divide between the rulers and the ruled.

Iran faces three potential futures. How the United States chooses to support a peaceful democratic transition will have a decisive impact on which path it takes.

The first potential outcome is totalitarian reprise: the regime, backed by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and hardline judiciary, doubles down on repression, escalating violence to crush dissent. This scenario risks not just thousands more deaths, but the transformation of Iran into an even more militarized police state, where repression is institutionalized, and society is atomized by fear.

The second is opposition fragmentation, a very real danger. Iran’s protest movement is leaderless and ideologically diverse, spanning liberals, ethnic minorities, secularists, and nostalgic monarchists alike. Without a disciplined, unified strategy, all the momentum on the streets could evaporate into factionalism, leaving the regime’s institutions intact and the reform energy dissipated.

The third and most hopeful path is negotiated transformation. In this scenario, moderate elements within the regime and broader society recognize that the status quo is untenable. They begin negotiations with civil movements to chart a constitutional transition toward a representative political system. Such a path would be neither easy nor smooth, but it offers the only viable alternative to continued bloodshed and authoritarian stasis.

The United States is on the right track, but more must be done. President Donald Trump has condemned the regime’s violence, imposed targeted sanctions, and voiced support for Iranian protesters and internet access. Washington must now intensify pressure, expand accountability mechanisms, and support civil society to shape Iran’s trajectory.

Next, Washington should prioritize non-military levers. Expanded sanctions on hardline security operators, targeted economic measures on the regime itself, and support for independent communications channels can empower Iranian citizens without triggering a wider war.

Finally, the United States must resist the siren call of military intervention. Threats of direct strikes, reported as contemplated by US strategists, would be devastatingly counterproductive, offering the Iranian regime a propaganda victory and provoking catastrophic regional escalation.

Equally important, Washington should collaborate with allies to support democratic currents within Iranian society, backing civil society initiatives, promoting human rights advocacy, and facilitating dialogue among diverse internal voices.

What the United States must avoid at all costs is treating this moment as a simple opportunity to reshape Iran in America’s image. Washington cannot impose a solution; it can only support Iranians in determining their own.

In the midst of this turmoil, a familiar name has re-entered the conversation: Reza Pahlavi. The son of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was deposed in 1979, Pahlavi has galvanized some factions of the diaspora and segments of protesters chanting for his return. But nostalgia is a poor foundation for political legitimacy.

History warns that the Pahlavi monarchy collapsed not merely from economic failure, but from authoritarian privilege and repression. Restoring a monarchy, even constitutionally, would revive grievances that fueled the 1979 revolution. For many Iranians, the shah symbolizes unequal justice, elite impunity, and a system detached from popular will, making restoration a regression.

Moreover, Pahlavi’s leadership lacks broad legitimacy across Iran’s diverse social and ethnic landscape. His appeal is strongest among expatriate and diaspora communities, not among the full spectrum of voices clamoring for change inside Iran. Without robust, domestic support and a clear, inclusive political platform, his return would risk splintering the opposition and empowering hardline counter-forces.

Rather than resurrecting a monarchy, Iran’s path forward is toward a secular democratic republic that guarantees liberties, minority rights, and the rule of law. Iran need not copy Western systems, but can draw from Turkey’s post-Ottoman transition, where republicanism and secular governance rested on popular consent, offering stability free from both theocracy and rule.

What protesters are demanding, whether articulated in slogans or implicit in their courage, is self-determination. To honor that, the international community must support an Iranian future defined not by imposed figures or foreign agendas, but by the collective will of its people.

About the Author: Abdullah Hayek

Abdullah Hayek is a senior contributor with Young Voices and an independent Middle East analyst and consultant based in Washington, DC. He previously specialized in the political, economic, and military affairs of the Levant, Iraq, and Arabian Gulf regions at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Follow him on X: @ahayek99.

Image: Melnikov Dmitriy / Shutterstock.com.

The post Iran Is Breaking, But Not in the Way the US Imagines appeared first on The National Interest.