Why Iran’s clerical establishment still holds as protests rage

DUBAI - Despite Iran’s nationwide protests and years of external pressure, there are as yet no signs of fracture in the Islamic republic’s security elite that could bring an end to one of the world’s most resilient governments.

Adding to the stress on Iran’s clerical rulers, US President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened military action over Tehran’s severe crackdown on the protests, which follow an Israeli and US bombing campaign in 2025 against Iran’s nuclear programme and key officials.

But unless the street unrest and foreign pressure can prompt defections at the top, the regime, though weakened, will likely hold, two diplomats, two government sources in the Middle East and two analysts told Reuters.

An Iranian official told Reuters that around 2,000 people have been killed in the protests, blaming “terrorists” for the deaths of civilians and security personnel. Human rights groups had previously tallied around 600 deaths.

Iran’s layered security architecture, anchored by the Revolutionary Guard Corps and Basij paramilitary force, which together number close to one million in strength, makes external coercion without internal rupture exceedingly difficult, said Professor Vali Nasr, an Iranian-American academic and expert on regional conflicts and US foreign policy.

“For this sort of thing to succeed, you have to have crowds in the streets for a much longer period of time. And you have to have a break-up of the state. Some segments of the state, and particularly the security forces, have to defect,” he said.

Iran’s mission to the UN in Geneva, the US State Department and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment sent by e-mail out of office hours.

The country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, 86, has survived several past waves of unrest. This is the fifth major uprising since 2009, evidence of the regime’s resilience and cohesion even as it confronts a deep, unresolved internal crisis, said Dr Paul Salem of the Middle East Institute.

Mr Alan Eyre, a former US diplomat and Iran expert, said that for this to change, protesters would have to generate enough momentum to overcome the state’s entrenched advantages: powerful institutions, a sizeable constituency loyal to the clerical rule, and the geographic and demographic scale of a country of 90 million people.

Survival, however, does not equal stability, the analysts said.

The Islamic republic is facing one of its gravest challenges since 1979. Sanctions have strangled the economy, with no clear path to recovery.

Strategically, it is under pressure from Israel and the US, its nuclear programme degraded, its regional “Axis of Resistance” proxy armed groups weakened after crippling losses to allies in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza. 

Prof Nasr said that while he did not think the Islamic republic had reached the “moment of fall”, it was “now in a situation of great difficulty going forward”.

The protests began on Dec 28 in response to soaring prices, before turning squarely against clerical rule. Politically, the violent crackdown has further eroded what remained of the regime’s legitimacy.

US-based rights group HRANA says it has verified the deaths of 573 people, 503 protesters and 69 security personnel. More than 10,000 have been arrested, the group said.

Iran has released no official toll, and Reuters was unable to independently verify the figures.

Trump weighs options

What sets this moment apart, and raises the stakes, analysts say, is Mr Trump’s explicit warnings that the killing of demonstrators could trigger an American intervention.

He will meet with senior advisers on Jan 13 to discuss options for Iran, a US official told Reuters on Jan 11.

Iran said it is keeping communications open with Washington.

Mr Trump, who says he may meet Iranian officials, on Jan 12 threatened tariffs on countries that trade with Iran. China is Tehran's top trade partner. 

In a phone call on Jan 10, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio discussed the possibility of US intervention in Iran, according to an Israeli source present for the conversation. 

Dr Salem said Mr Trump’s interest in the protests is likely tactical rather than ideological. The aim could be regime pliability – weakening the state enough to extract concessions such as curbs on Tehran’s nuclear programme, he said.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment about Mr Trump’s goals in Iran.

A diplomat and three of the analysts said the idea of a “Venezuela model” has growing appeal in some circles in Washington and Jerusalem. It envisions the removal of Iran’s top authority while signalling to the remaining state apparatus: stay in place, provided they cooperate, they said.

Applied to Iran, however, it collides with formidable obstacles – a security state entrenched for decades, deep institutional cohesion and a much larger and ethnically complex country.

Two regional officials and two of the analysts told Reuters that foreign military action could fracture Iran along ethnic and sectarian lines, particularly in Kurdish and Sunni Balush regions with histories of resistance. 

For now, constraints remain. US military assets are stretched elsewhere, though the diplomats said that deployments could shift quickly.

Mr David Makovsky at The Washington Institute, a think-tank, said that if Mr Trump acts, he expects a swift, high-impact action rather than a prolonged campaign – consistent with the President’s preference in recent conflicts for a single decisive action rather than deploying ground troops.

“He looks for this one gesture that might be a game changer, but what is it?” said Mr Makovsky.

Options range from maritime pressure on Iranian oil shipments to targeted military or cyberstrikes, all carrying serious risks.

Some measures, all the sources said, could stop short of force, such as restoring internet access via Starlink to help protesters communicate. 

The White House and State Department did not respond to Reuters questions about what action, if any, Mr Trump might take.

“Trump sometimes uses threats to delay decisions, sometimes to deter adversaries, and sometimes to signal he is actually preparing to intervene,” said Mr Makovsky. “We just don’t know yet which applies here.” REUTERS