Iran’s Islamic regime is facing what many observers describe as its most serious existential challenge in decades, as expanding public protests show little sign of abating despite calls from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to crush the unrest by force. According to analysts cited in international media, the demonstrations are gaining momentum rather than fading, raising the possibility that the system established after the 1979 revolution could eventually collapse.
Behind closed doors, diplomats and Iran watchers are increasingly focused not only on whether the regime can survive, but also on what might follow if it does not. The lack of a unified, organised opposition inside the country has complicated the picture, while fears persist that the ruling elite could attempt to preserve power through a superficial leadership change rather than genuine reform.
Behnam Ben Taleblu, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has cautioned Western governments against endorsing what he describes as a cosmetic transition. Speaking to Fox News, he warned of a scenario similar to Venezuela or Egypt, where entrenched systems retained control under new faces. Such an outcome, he said, would deny Iranians a meaningful path to change and could leave the underlying structures of repression intact. Taleblu also noted that transforming street protests into an organised political force before security services reassert control would be extremely difficult.
Among the most prominent figures associated with a potential post-regime Iran is Reza Pahlavi, the exiled crown prince and son of the last shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. His name has echoed through recent demonstrations, and supporters see him as a unifying symbol against the clerical establishment. Living abroad for nearly five decades, Pahlavi has emerged as a vocal supporter of the protests, calling for sustained demonstrations, nationwide strikes by energy and transport workers, and the seizure of city centres. He has also announced plans to return to Iran, framing himself as a possible figure in the country’s transition.
Pahlavi has sought to distance himself from the autocratic legacy of the monarchy, suggesting Iran could become a constitutional monarchy or adopt another system chosen freely by its citizens. However, his long absence from the country poses a challenge. Roughly one-third of Iran’s population is aged between 15 and 29, a generation with no personal memory of the monarchy. His open support for Israel during a recent regional conflict and his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may also alienate parts of the Iranian public. Former U.S. president Donald Trump has so far refrained from endorsing him, reportedly waiting to see how the protests unfold.
Another possible contender is Maryam Rajavi, the leader of the Mujahedin-e Khalq, also known as the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran. Rajavi has received backing from prominent U.S. political figures, including former vice president Mike Pence and former secretary of state Mike Pompeo. She has argued that the regime has reached a dead end after decades of dictatorship and corruption, insisting that change must come from within Iran rather than through foreign military intervention. In opinion pieces and interviews, she has claimed that her organisation’s resistance units have played a central role in organising protests, while proposing a provisional period followed by free elections and the drafting of a new constitution for a democratic, secular republic.
A third scenario gaining attention among analysts is a military takeover. With much of Iran’s political opposition imprisoned or marginalised, some experts believe the armed forces could emerge as the only cohesive power capable of filling a vacuum. Benny Sabti, an Iran specialist at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies, told Fox News that a coup by elements of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps cannot be ruled out, though he stressed that Iran’s military is deeply divided. While the IRGC is ideologically aligned with the regime, the regular army is seen as more professional and nationally oriented.
Such a development, analysts warn, would likely replace clerical rule with military authority rather than democracy, and could spark internal conflict between rival security institutions. Reports of quiet dissent within the armed forces suggest that any intervention could be chaotic, potentially triggering a civil war involving the Revolutionary Guard.
