Editorial
Many Iranians are openly critical of their government, frustrated by economic hardship, political repression, and social restrictions. Widespread protests and expressions of dissent signal deep domestic dissatisfaction. Yet, this internal discontent does not easily translate into support for regime change driven from outside the country.
Attempts to influence Iran’s political future through foreign intervention, particularly those associated with Israel or the West, face a fundamental paradox. While public calls from the United States and its allies for the Iranian government to fall are intended to encourage reform or challenge the regime, they can inadvertently reinforce it. Iranian nationalism is a powerful force. When a country perceives threats from external actors, citizens often rally around existing institutions, even those they otherwise oppose. What might be seen as a moment for internal reform can quickly become an occasion to defend sovereignty.
This dynamic reveals the limits of coercive or performative diplomacy. Calls for regime change may satisfy international audiences or signal resolve, but they rarely win hearts on the ground. In fact, such rhetoric risks deepening the gap between ordinary Iranians and the international actors claiming to support them. The more external pressure is applied, the stronger the regime can portray itself as a defender of national pride against foreign meddling.
For policymakers, this is a cautionary lesson: meaningful change in Iran is likely to emerge from within, through social, economic, and political evolution shaped by Iranians themselves. External efforts to force change, however well-intentioned, may backfire—empowering the very government they aim to weaken. Constructive engagement, rather than confrontational demands, may offer the only viable path to long-term reform.
