US President Donald Trump's potential military intervention in Iran risks a severe backlash and could inadvertently strengthen the very regime it aims to pressure, leading international security experts have warned. The caution comes as Iran's foreign minister alleges that recent violent protests were orchestrated to give Trump a pretext to intervene.
The High-Stakes Gamble of Military Action
In the past fortnight, more than 500 protesters have been killed in a government crackdown within Iran. In response, President Trump and his national security team are reportedly considering a spectrum of retaliatory measures, from cyber-attacks to direct strikes, potentially conducted by the US or Israel. Trump has publicly stated he is reviewing "strong military options."
However, Dr Dafydd Townley, a Senior Teaching Fellow in International Security at the University of Portsmouth, argues that such action could prove counterproductive. "There is a significant risk of pushing people to unite in Iran against an existential threat like the United States," he explained. Dr Townley suggests that while Trump views Iran as a major destabilising force and desires a more pro-Western government, non-military interventions like technological or diplomatic support for protesters might be more beneficial.
He further cautioned that the administration, perhaps emboldened by the successful capture of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela, must tread carefully. "There is a huge difference between a covert Special Forces operation to kidnap an individual and conducting strikes in Iran," Dr Townley noted.
Could Strikes Empower the Regime or Expose Its Weakness?
Dr Andreas Krieg, an associate professor in Defence Studies at King’s College London, told Metro that US strikes could provide a convenient justification for Tehran to intensify its repression. "This could include wider lethal force, more arrests, and deeper information control," he said. The regime could frame its actions as necessary for national defence.
Conversely, Dr Anahita Motazedrad, a visiting Senior Fellow at LSE, believes the Islamic Republic is already acting from a position of perceived vulnerability. "A crackdown is in full force regardless of external threats," she stated, adding that the regime's capacity to suppress dissent is "more strained than it appears." In this context, limited US strikes might not unify the regime but could instead "deepen perceptions of weakness, widen internal fractures, and potentially accelerate the erosion" of control by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
Despite historic protests over inflation and corruption, Dr Krieg argues that regime "collapse" requires more than public hardship. "It requires fractures within coercive pillars or elite defection... At present, the IRGC appears cohesive, even if overstretched." He suggested the more likely outcome is the erosion of civilian governance, leaving the security sector as the government's most reliable pillar.
The Perilous Aftermath and Deep-Seated Distrust
Experts unanimously warn that the world is ill-prepared for the chaos that would follow a sudden collapse in Tehran. Dr Krieg outlined the danger: "The biggest danger is not only chaos in Tehran, but fragmentation in the provinces, score-settling among armed actors, and a scramble over strategic assets and prisons."
This scepticism towards Western intervention is deeply rooted in Iranian history and recent regional experiences. Dr Arshin Adib-Moghaddam, Professor at the University of London, pointed to the trauma of the 1953 Western-backed coup. Furthermore, he stated, "The majority of Iranians distrust Netanyahu and Trump in particular, because of the brutality of their policies in Gaza and the hypocrisy surrounding 'human rights'."
Dr Bamo Nouri, a professor at the University of West London, agreed, noting that combined with the legacy of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, the result is "a deep scepticism toward Western intervention." He warned that Iran's protest movement may deliberately distance itself from Western support to preserve its legitimacy.
Ms Motazedrad emphasised that any post-regime planning must be Iranian-led to avoid the chaos seen in Libya and Iraq. "The essential point is that Iranians themselves, not foreign powers, must shape the post‑regime landscape," she concluded. In a world grappling with pandemic recovery, war in Ukraine, and economic crises, Dr Nouri added there is little public appetite or financial capacity for the large-scale, prolonged intervention that would be required to manage a collapsed state.
