Trump's Explicit Remarks
Trump's words in an interview with CBS were unusually direct. He indicated potential US action if Iran started executing protestors, saying, "We will take
very strong action if they do such a thing." During a speech in Michigan, Trump also urged protesters to "take over" institutions. He warned of potential strikes if executions occurred. His statements extended to proposing measures like tariffs and the reinstatement of internet access through Starlink. This explicit language presents a complex dynamic, given Iran's established narrative about the protests being externally driven.
Tehran's Advantage
Trump’s statements have, perhaps unintentionally, provided a boost to the Iranian government. Tehran has consistently portrayed the protests as a form of “manufactured chaos” orchestrated by the United States and Israel. This framing has been used by Iranian officials, with their UN ambassador accusing the US of "interventionist rhetoric." Trump’s pronouncements reinforce this narrative precisely when it was beginning to lose its credibility within Iran, potentially giving the regime a tool to regain control. Historical examples, like the effect of the 12-day war with Israel and the US on anti-government protests, show that external conflict can shift citizens' focus away from internal reform towards survival, inadvertently offering the regime a lifeline.
The 'Venezuela Model'
The 'Venezuela model,' where the top authority is removed while the rest of the state machinery remains, has reportedly gained traction in some Washington and Jerusalem circles. This approach seeks to send a clear message: cooperation leads to continuity. However, applying this strategy to Iran faces significant challenges. Iran possesses a security apparatus refined over decades, strong institutional unity, and a more complex ethnic landscape compared to Venezuela. Implementing this model is not as simple as it sounds.
Possible Ethnic Conflicts
Military action could possibly fracture Iran along ethnic and sectarian lines. Two regional officials and two analysts told Reuters that such actions could potentially exacerbate tensions. The risk of fragmentation is particularly pronounced in areas like the Kurdish and Sunni Balush regions, where resistance movements have a long history. External military intervention could destabilize the region further. It is a very serious concern with potentially catastrophic results.
Restraints on US Action
Practical considerations also limit the scope of US intervention. The Reuters report mentions that US military resources are already stretched thin in other areas. Diplomats have noted, though, that deployment strategies can shift quickly. This indicates the complexity of international relations and the need for adaptable strategies. While direct military involvement has potential drawbacks, the scope of US action is limited for practical reasons. It is worth noting these real-world constraints.
