Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
Opinion

Opinion: In Iran, precarious situation does not mean state-collapse soon

26 February 2020

Benyamin Poghosyan assess parliamentary elections in Iran held amid a coronavirus crisis and constant pressure from the US, in this op-ed for commonspace.eu

On February 21, 2020 Iranians went to polling stations to elect their new parliament. Despite all the statements of Iran's leadership, including Supreme Leader Khameni, of the importance of a high turnout, only 42 percent of registered voters cast their ballots, the lowest figure since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Many inside and outside Iran see the low turnout as a tacit protest of a large part of the electorate against the Guardian Council's decision to cancel the registration of many moderate and reformist candidates. Supreme Leader blamed the low turnout on the "negative propaganda" about the new coronavirus by Iran's enemies. The final election results, announced by the Interior Ministry, showed big gains by hard-line conservatives. In Tehran, a list of conservatives gained 30 seats from the capital.

Since late 2017 Iran has entered a permanent state of instability, with occasional large scale protests, followed by almost daily small demonstrations. The most recent upsurge of protests was in November 2019 as a response to the petroleum price hike. The killing of General Soleimani by the US drone strike seemingly united Iranians in their defiance against their archenemy, but the accidental shoot down of the Ukrainian passenger jet by the Iranian air defense forces, and subsequent attempts to hide the truth, boosted anti-government sentiments. Given the sharp decline of the Iranian economy due to the re-imposed US sanctions after President Trump decision to withdraw from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, some Western experts believe that the "maximum pressure" campaign against Tehran has started to bring results. According to this mindset Iran is in a viscous circle of protests, government's tough reaction, and stronger protests as a response. Thus, according to this thesis, Iran has only two options - to renegotiate the 2015 nuclear deal and accept all American demands, or prepare to face the collapse of the state.

However, this logic has some weak points. The ongoing protests are not a novelty for Iran. The country has witnessed many anti-government protest movements, among them the large youth protests in 1999 and the 'Green movement" in 2009, which were a much more serious challenge for the ruling elite. Yet both failed to bring about significant changes. The current economic situation in Iran is tough, but we have to take into account that since 1979 Iran has developed a "Resistance economy" and despite all Western and international sanctions and isolation was quite successful in establishing a modern defense industry and other branches of high tech economy.

Another problem in these predictions of Iran's inevitable collapse is the lack of understanding of what this may entail. Obviously, Iran is neither Libya nor Yemen and any state disintegration will result in catastrophic ramifications for the entire Middle East. In a worst case scenario several de facto entities based on ethnic identity may emerge, including Balochistan and Iranian Kurdistan. Up to 20 million Turkish speaking population of Northern Iran also may think about creating its own state entity, though currently this part of population is well integrated into the Iranian state. Meanwhile, possible establishment of Iranian Balochistan definitely will trigger instability in Balochistan province of Pakistan and Iranian Kurds will complicate the situation in both Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq and Northeastern Syria controlled by Kurds led Syrian democratic forces. Creation of any new Turkish speaking state entity along the borders of Azerbaijan, Nagorno Karabakh and Armenia will have unpredictable implications for the security dynamics of the South Caucasus. One thing is clear, state collapse in Iran will not result in establishment of the new Iranian Republic based on the liberal democratic institutions and values, but will make Middle East even more messy, chaotic and dangerous place. Given the well-developed defense industry, including production of mid and long range (up to 2000 km) ballistic missiles, state collapse in Iran may result in missile technology proliferation which will threaten all Middle Eastern states.

Thus, all experts claiming the inevitability of a quick regime change in Iran do not take into account the history of the Islamic Republic and fail to assess the potential devastating implications of such development for the entire Middle East. Yes, Iran is facing tough times, and there is a growing resentment among the middle income parts of society, but Iran is still far   from collapse and the state leadership maintains a strong influence over large parts of the low income population, which is also the part of society most susceptible to manipulation by the religious establishment.

Meanwhile, the conservatives' victory in the 2020 Parliamentary elections most probably will have significant influence in the upcoming 2021 Presidential elections. Moderate camp leader incumbent President Rouhani can not run again due to the term limits. Given the latest victory the hardliners are better positioned to support their own candidate for the 2021 Presidential elections. Iran thus faces the prospect that in 2021 conservatives have control over both the legislative and executive branches of the Iranian government. If President Trump is reelected in November 2020, we may face the growing tensions in US - Iran relations in 2021-2024. It's unlikely that President Trump will abandon his "maximum pressure" campaign; simultaneously Iran under the total control of conservatives will neither collapse nor accept American demands. In this state of affairs the two states may come dangerously close to direct military confrontation.  It is the task of the international community to prevent such an outcome, as it will have truly catastrophic ramifications for the Middle East and beyond. 

source: Benyamin Poghosyan is the Founder and Chairman of the Center for Political and Economic Strategic Studies in Yerevan.

photo: Parliamentary elections were held in Iran on 21 February 2020.

The views expressed in opinion pieces and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the position of commonspace.eu or its partners

 

 

 

 

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?
Trending

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

19 October 2026
Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
News
Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security
Trending

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

13 November 2026
Ukraine and Russia could see European countries join the next round of peace negotiations, following talks between US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday (November 12). However, conflicting positions over European military involvement, Ukraine’s territorial future and the continent’s security arrangements highlight the difficulties facing the diplomatic process. Speaking after the meeting, Witkoff said European participation would be an important development, describing the countries concerned as key partners. Kushner also indicated that Washington had noticed a shift in European attitudes and believed their involvement would not obstruct progress. In a statement published on X, he said the expanded discussions would address broader European security arrangements alongside territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine. The US envoys subsequently travelled to Dublin, where they met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a European summit. Zelenskyy welcomed the possibility of European participation and expressed hope that the negotiations would include measures to reduce tensions and establish ceasefires. He also reiterated the importance of European representation in decisions concerning the continent’s security. Moscow, however, has offered a more cautious interpretation of the proposed expansion. Putin's aide, Yuri Ushakov, suggested that European countries should first reconsider their military assistance to Kyiv, arguing that their current actions demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue peace. Putin similarly called on Washington to work with its European allies to establish whether they genuinely wanted peace or continued confrontation with Russia. The Russian president also rejected the prospect of European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine following a potential agreement, describing such a presence as a continuation of the war. His position reflects wider disagreements over the future European security architecture, with Moscow seeking discussions on the continent's broader security arrangements, while European leaders insist that such negotiations cannot replace a settlement of the war. Simultaneously, Zelenskyy raised concerns about disruptions to Starshield, the US-made satellite communications service used by Ukrainian forces. He described Washington’s discussions with Moscow about Europe's future security as unusual and warned against decisions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. Despite the diplomatic activity, fighting continued. Russian drone attacks killed two people in Ukraine's Sumy region and injured five in Rivne, while a separate attack in Russia's Belgorod region killed one person and injured four. Ukrainian agricultural company Kernel Holding also suspended operations at all its oilseed extraction facilities following repeated Russian attacks.

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest
Trending

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

7 September 2026
Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”
Trending

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

21 September 2026
There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)
Dennis Sammut