&w=3840&q=100)
A nation shaped by defiance and intervention: Will Iran's next chapter be any different?
Iranian flags fly as fire and smoke from an Israeli attack on Sharan Oil depot rise, following Israeli strikes on Iran, in Tehran, Iran, June 15, 2025. File Image/WANA via Reuters
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has gone beyond his initial aim of destroying Iran's ability to produce nuclear weapons. He has called on the Iranian people to rise up against their dictatorial Islamic regime and ostensibly transform Iran along the lines of Israeli interests.
United States President Donald Trump is now weighing possible military action in support of Netanyahu's goal and asked for Iran's total surrender.
If the US does get involved, it wouldn't be the first time it's tried to instigate regime change by military means in the Middle East. The US invaded Iraq in 2003 and backed a NATO operation in Libya in 2011, toppling the regimes of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, respectively.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
In both cases, the interventions backfired, causing long-term instability in both countries and in the broader region.
Could the same thing happen in Iran if the regime is overthrown?
As I describe in my book, Iran Rising: The Survival and Future of the Islamic Republic, Iran is a pluralist society with a complex history of rival groups trying to assert their authority. A democratic transition would be difficult to achieve.
When the Shah was overthrown
The Iranian Islamic regime assumed power in the wake of the pro-democracy popular uprising of 1978–79, which toppled Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi's pro-Western monarchy.
Until this moment, Iran had a long history of monarchical rule dating back 2,500 years. Mohammad Reza, the last shah, was the head of the Pahlavi dynasty, which came to power in 1925.
In 1953, the shah was forced into exile under the radical nationalist and reformist impulse of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. He was shortly returned to his throne through a CIA-orchestrated coup.
Despite all his nationalist, pro-Western, modernising efforts, the shah could not shake off the indignity of having been re-throned with the help of a foreign power.
The revolution against him 25 years later was spearheaded by pro-democracy elements. But it was made up of many groups, including liberalists, communists and Islamists, with no uniting leader.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The Shia clerical group (ruhaniyat), led by the Shah's religious and political opponent, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, proved to be best organised and capable of providing leadership to the revolution. Khomeini had been in exile from the early 1960s (at first in Iraq and later in France), yet he and his followers held considerable sway over the population, especially in traditional rural areas.
When US President Jimmy Carter's administration found it could no longer support the shah, he left the country and went into exile in January 1979. This enabled Khomeini to return to Iran to a tumultuous welcome.
How an Islamic Republic was birthed
In the wake of the uprising, Khomeini and his supporters, including the current supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, abolished the monarchy and transformed Iran to a cleric-dominated Islamic Republic, with anti-US and anti-Israel postures. He ruled the country according to his unique vision of Islam.
Khomeini denounced the US as a 'Great Satan' and Israel as an illegal usurper of the Palestinian lands – Jerusalem, in particular. He also declared a foreign policy of ' neither east, nor west' but pro-Islamic, and called for the spread of the Iranian revolution in the region.
Khomeini not only changed Iran, but also challenged the US as the dominant force in shaping the regional order. And the US lost one of the most important pillars of its influence in the oil-rich and strategically important Persian Gulf region.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Fear of hostile American or Israeli (or combined) actions against the Islamic Republic became the focus of Iran's domestic and foreign policy behaviour.
When Khamenei took power
Khomeini died in 1989. His successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has ruled Iran largely in the same jihadi (combative) and ijtihadi (pragmatic) ways, steering the country through many domestic and foreign policy challenges.
Khamenei fortified the regime with an emphasis on self-sufficiency, a stronger defence capability and a tilt towards the east – Russia and China – to counter the US and its allies. He has stood firm in opposition to the US and its allies – Israel, in particular. And he has shown flexibility when necessary to ensure the survival and continuity of the regime.
Khamenei wields enormous constitutional power and spiritual authority.
He has presided over the building of many rule-enforcing instruments of state power, including the expansion of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its paramilitary wing, the Basij, revolutionary committees, and Shia religious networks.
The Shia concept of martyrdom and loyalty to Iran as a continuous sovereign country for centuries goes to the heart of his actions, as well as his followers.
Khamenei and his rule enforcers, along with an elected president and National Assembly, are fully cognisant that if the regime goes down, they will face the same fate. As such, they cannot be expected to hoist the white flag and surrender to Israel and the US easily.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
However, in the event of the regime falling under the weight of a combined internal uprising and external pressure, it raises the question: what is the alternative?
Will the Shah return?
Many Iranians are discontented with the regime, but there is no organised opposition under a nationally unifying leader.
The son of the former shah, the crown prince Reza Pahlavi, has been gaining some popularity. He has been speaking out on X in the last few days, telling his fellow Iranians:
The end of the Islamic Republic is the end of its 46-year war against the Iranian nation. The regime's apparatus of repression is falling apart. All it takes now is a nationwide uprising to put an end to this nightmare once and for all.
Since the deposition of his father, he has lived in exile in the US. As such, he has been tainted by his close association with Washington and Jerusalem, especially Netanyahu.
My Fellow Countrymen,
The Islamic Republic has reached its end and is in the process of collapsing. Khamenei, like a frightened rat, has gone into hiding underground and has lost control of the situation. What has begun is irreversible. The future is bright, and together, we… https://t.co/XEyL5IM05t — Reza Pahlavi (@PahlaviReza) June 17, 2025
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
If he were to return to power – likely through the assistance of the US – he would face the same problem of political legitimacy as his father did.
What next for Iran?
Iran has never had a long tradition of democracy. It experienced brief instances of liberalism in the first half of the 20th century, but every attempt at making it durable resulted in disarray and a return to authoritarian rule.
Also, the country has rarely been free of outside interventionism, given its vast hydrocarbon riches and strategic location. It's also been prone to internal fragmentation, given its ethnic and religious mix.
The Shia Persians make up more than half of the population, but the country has a number of Sunni ethnic minorities, such as Kurds, Azaris, Balochis and Arabs. They have all had separatist tendencies.
Iran has historically been held together by centralisation rather than diffusion of power.
Should the Islamic regime disintegrate in one form or another, it would be an mistake to expect a smooth transfer of power or transition to democratisation within a unified national framework.
At the same time, the Iranian people are highly cultured and creative, with a very rich and proud history of achievements and civilisation.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
They are perfectly capable of charting their own destiny as long as there aren't self-seeking foreign hands in the process – something they have rarely experienced.
Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern and Central Asian Studies, Australian National University; and Vice Chancellor's Strategic Fellow, Victoria University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
11 minutes ago
- Mint
Why Mortgage Lenders Are Ignoring Trump's Rollback on Home Appraisal Reviews
At one midsized US mortgage lender, almost a quarter of customers who dispute property appraisals find that the value of their home had been miscalculated. It's an industrywide issue that has historically penalized minority groups, and now President Donald Trump has offered lenders the chance to ignore his predecessor's attempts to make it easier for homeowners to question the valuations assigned by property appraisers. Trump has scrapped some of the guidelines, part of his team's vow to stamp out what it sees as initiatives that support diversity, equity and inclusion. Many financial professionals agree that home appraisals can be unreliable, and that Black homeowners and other minorities are often put at a significant disadvantage. This can be especially damaging given that home ownership is the top wealth-creation tool in the US — and an appraisal is a key determinant of how much, if anything, someone can borrow. With their decision to end some of the requirements related to home valuations, however, Trump and his cabinet members may have little impact on lenders' practices. That's because there's fresh evidence that the changes the Biden administration put in place are supported by the industry. Some of the country's biggest lenders, including JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp. and U.S. Bancorp, said they would make no policy changes as a result of the rollback. New American Funding, which also isn't planning to change its approach, was the only financial institution of more than 10 contacted by Bloomberg to disclose information about disputed home valuations. The Tustin, California-based mortgage lender, which provided roughly $14 billion of mortgage loans last year, said an average 2.5% of its customers request new valuations each month. Of those contested, roughly 22% are found to need an adjustment. New American didn't share a breakdown of borrowers' requests by race. 'The changes have made it much easier for the borrower,' said Michelle Rogers, New American's chief valuation officer. 'It's more transparent and the borrower knows they can initiate it.' The appraisal directives were put in place following a deep dive by the Biden administration into prejudices in the business. One of Trump's housing regulators, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner, said rolling them back was part of an attempt by the president to put an end to the 'obsession' with DEI. The administration also has vowed to make deep cuts to the federal apparatus that enforced fair housing and fair lending laws, from slashing Consumer Financial Protection Bureau staff to gutting the Justice Department's Civil Rights division. A HUD official who spoke on background said the department's recent reforms simply reverted its stance to the way things were before Biden-era regulators imposed their standards. Lenders aren't being barred from letting borrowers dispute their appraisals, said the official who declined to be identified. The White House hasn't responded to a request for comment. Black homeowners have long reported having their homes valued more highly after taking down all evidence of their race. Research from the Brookings Institution and the federally controlled housing finance agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, has shown that home appraisals can be affected by racial bias, which in turn affects the value of homes in entire neighborhoods. Brookings found, for example, that homes in neighborhoods where the majority of residents are Black are valued between 21% and 23% lower than comparable homes in white neighborhoods, with appraisal bias as one of several contributing factors. Economists at Freddie Mac reported in 2021 that greater percentages of homes in majority Black and Latino census tracts were undervalued compared with those in white census tracts, leading them to conclude that there was a 'valuation gap' between homes in different neighborhoods. The appraisal problem for minority borrowers also is a problem for lenders, since having low appraisals can prevent a homeowner from qualifying for a mortgage refinancing or a new home loan. That means the lender loses out on valuable business. Banks also suffer when appraisers make mistakes in the opposite direction, valuing properties too highly, because it means the bank can't safely rely on the value of a property as collateral for a loan. The reforms that the mortgage industry recently adopted to try to make the appraisal process fairer originated with a Biden administration task force called PAVE , which was formed in 2021. The group consisted of public officials from 13 different agencies, and its goal was to produce a report with recommended changes to a suite of different mortgage industry standards. PAVE recommended more training for home appraisers and higher standards for appraisers seeking to qualify for professional licenses. Those changes were handled by the Appraisal Foundation, a nonprofit organization that serves as the regulator for home appraisers. A spokeswoman for the foundation declined to comment on the Trump administration's recent changes, but said that new education and licensing standards put in place last year are still in effect. PAVE also called for an industrywide requirement for mortgage lenders to let borrowers request 'a reconsideration of value' if they disagreed with an appraiser's determination. Last year, regulators began requiring mortgage lenders to decide how they would standardize their procedures and to explain them clearly to their customers. In a rare win for the government, the policy received support from the Mortgage Bankers Association. Federal housing regulation includes a web of rules issued by different agencies, including HUD and also Fannie and Freddie. The new home-appraisal guidance went into effect for all of the housing agencies. But so far, the Trump administration has only rolled back the policy for mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration, which help low- to moderate-income families attain home ownership. On July 17, Senator Raphael Warnock, a Democrat from Georgia, proposed a bill that would make mortgage lenders' ROV policies required by law. It also would expand public access to data on mortgage appraisals by forcing a federal housing regulator to more regularly share details. While fair-housing advocates support the proposal, the bill also has backing from a more unlikely source: the National Association of Mortgage Brokers. The group represents more than 500,000 mortgage brokers across the US. Its president, Jim Nabors, called the proposed bill 'critical' for ensuring fairness for homebuyers and added: 'Our entire board of directors and membership applaud Senator Warnock.' This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Mint
11 minutes ago
- Mint
UN Lays Out Survival Plan as Trump Threatens to Slash Funding
Secretary General Antonio Guterres is slashing more than $700 million in spending and laying plans to overhaul the United Nations as its largest sponsor, the US, pulls back support. Guterres's plan calls for 20% cuts in expenditures and employment, which would bring its budget, now $3.7 billion, to the lowest since 2018. About 3,000 jobs would be cut. Officially, the reform program is pegged to the UN's 80th anniversary, not the new US administration. But the scale of the reductions reflects the threat to US support, which traditionally accounts for 22% of the organization's budget. President Donald Trump has suspended that funding and pulled out of several UN bodies already, with a broader review expected to lead to further cuts. 'We're not going to be part of organizations that pursue policies that hamper the United States,' Deputy State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott told reporters Thursday. The planned cuts at the UN come as the Trump administration has eliminated tens of billions of dollars in foreign aid as part of its drive to focus on what it sees as US interests. Conflicts from the Mideast to Ukraine and Africa have added to the need for global assistance. After years of financial struggles, the UN under Guterres already was planning to make sweeping structural changes. He warned in January it was facing 'a full-blown liquidity crisis.' Overall, spending across the UN system is expected to fall to the lowest level in about a decade - down as much as $20 billion from its high in 2023. 'UN 80 is in large part a reaction from the Secretary General to the kind of challenges posed by the second Trump administration,' said Eugene Chen, senior fellow at New York University's Center on International Cooperation. Guterres is expected to release details of his overhaul plans in a budget in September. The plan calls for restructuring many of its programs. Guterres controls the UN's regular budget, which is only a fraction of the total expenditures of its affiliates. Facing funding shortages of their own, agencies like UNICEF and UNESCO are also planning major cutbacks. The Trump administration already has stopped funds from going into the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, withdrawn from the UN Human Rights Council and left UNESCO. Guterres' plan has also drawn criticism, both from Trump allies and inside the UN. 'There are some things that the UN does that arguably should be increased in terms of resources,' said Brett Schaefer, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. 'And then there are some things that the UN shouldn't be decreasing but eliminating altogether.' He cited the UN's nuclear watchdog and the World Food Program as contributing significantly to US interests and singled out the Food and Agriculture Organization and Human Rights Council as having mandates at odds with American policy. Meanwhile, UN staff in Geneva announced last week they passed a motion of no confidence in Guterres and the plan. 'Staff felt its slash and burn approach lacked focus, had no strategic purpose, and was making the UN more top-heavy and bloated,' Ian Richards, president of the UN Staff Union in Geneva, posted on LinkedIn about the UN 80 report. That vote has largely symbolic importance, according to NYU's Chen. Still, Guterres' efforts to get ahead of the inevitable cuts that reductions in US support will bring could help the UN adapt, he added. 'Maybe that's a silver lining,' Chen said. 'We'll all be primed for reform.' With assistance from Eric Martin. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
News18
36 minutes ago
- News18
Palestinian Guards Detained As Firebrand Israeli Leader Ben-Gvir Storms Al-Aqsa With Settlers
Last Updated: Ben-Gvir, who openly prayed at the compound in defiance of long-standing agreements, was condemned by Palestinian leaders, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia Three Palestinian guards at Al-Aqsa Mosque were arrested by Israeli police on Sunday after far-right Israeli minister Itamar Ben-Gvir entered the holy site with thousands of settlers. According to the Ministry of Islamic Endowments, the detained guards were Muhammad Teena, Muhammad Badran, and Ahmad Abu Aliya, Al Jazeera reported. Earlier in the day, Ben-Gvir, Israel's National Security Minister, visited the compound in occupied East Jerusalem on the Jewish day of mourning, Tisha B'Av. He was accompanied by more than 1,000 Israeli settlers, including members of the ultra-nationalist Temple Mount group. Reports suggest the number of visitors may have reached 3,000. Although the visit occurred during designated hours, Jewish prayer at the site remains prohibited under long-standing agreements known as the status quo. Despite this, Ben-Gvir openly prayed at the compound, becoming the first government minister to do so publicly. His actions drew swift condemnation from Palestinian leaders, as well as from Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Nabil Abu Rudeineh, spokesperson for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, described Ben-Gvir's visit as dangerous and provocative. Jordan's Foreign Ministry also condemned the incursion, urging Israel to avoid actions that could escalate tensions. During his visit, Ben-Gvir called for Israel to annex the Gaza Strip and encourage Palestinians to leave. 'This is the only way that we will return the hostages and win the war," he said. His remarks came shortly after Hamas released distressing videos of hostages held in tunnels, including one showing 24-year-old Evyatar David in poor health. Ben-Gvir condemned the footage and used it to justify his controversial stance. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office said after the visit that Israel's policy of maintaining the status quo at the compound 'has not changed and will not change." (With inputs from agencies) view comments Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
