[On January 12, 2026, the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft held a webinar on”Iran at a Crossroads: Protests, Repression, and the Risk of U.S. Military Escalation.” The program was hosted by Trita Parsi. The following is our summary of key takeaways and is not intended as a transcript. To watch the entire program click here.]
Vali Nasr, Professor, Johns Hopkins-SAIS: There is a lack of leadership in the protests. Even if the demonstrations dissipate, the underlying anger remains.
Ellie Geranmayeh, Senior Policy Fellow, ECFR. After previous protests the regime responded with some flexibility. The question is whether the degree of anger we have seen will produce some measure of reconciliation from the state. Sanctions and corruption make any meaningful concessions difficult.
Mohammad Ali Shabani, Editor Amwaj.com. In the past protests led to a form of regime change, but not the kind the Western powers sought. The system moved towards its factory settings: The empowerment of hard-liners.
Trita Parsi, moderator. What if anything has been the impact of Trump’s statements that he would protect protesters?
Shabani. The government is not trying to hide its crackdown. In recent years, Khamenei has abandoned rationality, bombing empty American military bases.
Nasr. It is difficult to correlate the protests or the government’s response to Trump’s remarks. There was a turning point where the demonstrations became more violent and more about regime change than economic issues. There is a perception that the longer the protests go on the stronger the motivation for Trump to attack, which would motivate the regime to act more aggressive and brutally.
Geranmayeh. At first the government sought a national dialog, but what we have seen since Thursday is that security forces seek to establish control. This is because unfortunate comments by high US officials has given the state more fodder to claim (as they always do) foreign plotting behind the protests. The government thinks Trump only respects strongmen, like Putin. Iran’s FM was just in Lebanon, but under the current circumstances we cannot expect Iran to play a helpful role in the disarmament of Hezbollah.
Parsi. How should we view the pro-government protests?
Geranmayeh. The Islamic Republic has a base but they are shrinking that base by the repressive crackdowns.
Shabani. The real hardliners believe their authority is divinely derived and do not care about popular support. But there are segments of the population who are not supporters of the regime, but want to deter foreign intervention. Imagine if protesters in the U.S. killed 100 security officers. People do not want a complete collapse of stability. This factor must not be ignored.
Nasr. The President of Iran has said people should protest but should not attack security officials.
Parsi. But there is also a segment of the population that believes the regime must come down. What are the arguments for or against Shah Reza Pahlavi’s claim to leadership.
Nasr. Pahlavi did not start the protests and his supporters are not leading the protests in any way. The people want to know not who will encourage the demonstrations, but who can lead afterwards. The current leadership feels that if the regime falls there will vengeance.
Geranmayeh. Too often we in the West forget about people in prison who oppose both foreign intervention and violent demonstrations.
Parsi. Israel and Mike Pompeo have both said there are Israeli agents on the grounds among the demonstrators.
Shabani. It is naive to deny any foreign interference. Some militant groups are putting out videos of their violence. Israel bombed Evin prison where some of the potential leaders of the opposition are imprisoned. Why are people chanting the name of the shah’s son? Because it is the harshest insult you can shout at the regime, not because is actually leading the demonstrations.
Nasr. The regime, as it is, is at a dead end. It is significant to what degree these issues are openly discussed in a supposedly closed society. IRGC is not loyal to Khamenei, but to Iran. I do not see them going down with the political leadership without asking questions. Iran has a deep state (not just intelligence but politicians, technocrats, and bureaucrats).
Parsi. What would be the most likely outcome of American military action in the near future?
Geranmayeh. It depends on what type of strike Trump conducts. There is a real risk of theatrics that don’t change any facts on the ground but open the door to an Israeli strike. The U.S. and Israeli endgames are not the same. The U.S. would welcome strong Iran open to trade while Netanyahu sees an Iranian collapse as in Israel’s interests.
Parsi. What would be the impact of a deal between the U.S. and Iran.
Shabani. The majority of Iranians would welcome a deal that insured the removal of sanctions. The sanctions do not threaten the regime, rather they strengthen its hold. There is irony in the fact that the IRGC commanders killed by Israel were mostly of or near retirement age, thus forcing the state to install a young generation of leaders.
Nasr. Iranians want a different future but they must accept the least bad option, which may be negotiations. But Trump is not really keen on talking to Iran, saying a meeting is scheduled but that he may have to attack before the meeting. Iran has a reason to talk: to avoid war, but things are not ripe for this to happen right now.
Parsi. What would your message to European diplomats be?
Geranmayeh. There are ways to coordinate with NGOs to protect protestors on the ground while continuing to push for civil rights, the release of political prisoners, and a pushing back against the death penalty.
Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad
Minaret of Freedom Institute
www.minaret.org
Leave a Reply