Why Foreign Intervention Won’t Save Iran – OpEd

The Islamic Republic of Iran faces its most critical moment in 2026 because its economy has completely failed, and its people have lost trust in their government, while demonstrations continue across the country. The idea of U.S.-led military intervention to eliminate the clerical regime and establish a secular government under Reza Pahlavi has progressed from being an extreme concept to becoming a potential strategic approach. The strategy attempts to match Iranian foreign policy with Western goals while supporting secular living, but it fails to gain support from the local population. A government established through foreign intervention is likely to experience complete collapse and prolonged civil war, resulting in the emergence of separate territories that will undermine the stability foreign powers aim to establish. The method fails to consider how Iranian citizens maintain their national identity while the current political system exists through its intricate system of power relationships.

The successful transition faces its greatest challenge because the 1953 military takeover, which removed Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh from power, created a lack of public trust in the government. The U.S. military action to stop Iranian democratic progress for oil gain has made the Pahlavi dynasty known as a foreign-controlled regime throughout history. The United States would need to support Reza Pahlavi's return, but this move would be seen as a new attempt to establish colonial control. A government dependent on American directives cannot adequately respond to the nationalist aspirations of the Iranian people. The decision between foreign control and clerical rule presents citizens with a dilemma because it appears to surrender national autonomy to either option, which could trigger a nationalist reaction that would bring different political groups together against the current government.

The Revolutionary Guard, together with other internal power structures function as a major barrier that stops the country from shifting toward secular governance. The Revolutionary Guard operates as a large military-industrial complex which controls half of the national economy through its semi-private foundations while maintaining power in vital industrial sectors. The process of dismantling this organisation would fail because of the lack of social and economic protection systems, which would force military personnel to become insurgents. The Iraqi Ba'ath Party collapsed quickly, but the Revolutionary Guard continues to control rural and working-class areas, which would lead to long-term internal conflicts for any US-backed government.

A workable solution needs Iran to take control of institutional development instead of foreign interference through the creation of an Interim Governing Council, which would include domestic technocrats, secular defectors and civil society leaders. The main function of Reza Pahlavi should be to serve as a symbolic figure who maintains historical connections without obtaining executive authority, while a democratically chosen assembly creates a new national constitution. The United States should use its economic stability dividend to restore frozen Iranian funds, which will support vital infrastructure development, focusing on essential water and power systems. The delivery of concrete improvements at the start would prove foreign interference allegations wrong through evidence which demonstrates domestic recovery operations succeed.

The threat of fragmentation continues to exist. A government backed by foreign powers which cannot establish control will experience the breakdown of national unity because ethnic minority populations will start their own independence movements. The social detachment patterns of the present time exist in three regions, which include Sistan-Baluchestan, Khuzestan and Iranian Kurdistan. The current division of Iran into separate regions would create a situation which would produce civil wars that would become more violent than the conflicts which occurred in Iraq and Syria. The strategic position of Iran, together with its population distribution, makes its potential civil war more likely to become a violent and destructive conflict. The breakdown of central authority would lead to nuclear weapons, and proxy groups in the Middle East would launch retaliatory attacks. The establishment of a secular state through Western policy could bring advantages, but it would create a long-term conflict area, which would become a destabilising force in Iran.

The 2025 regional realignment process has established new obstacles which prevent the achievement of restoration targets. The Iranian government faces an impossible task to stay isolated because the nation requires participation in new worldwide economic alliances. The company operates in Eastern markets, which makes it immune to standard U.S. sanctions that affect most other businesses. The Western-backed government, which would establish itself in Tehran, would encounter resistance from neighbouring countries because these nations seek to preserve their independence from a proxy government, which could lead to domestic conflicts. The ambitions of the Pahlavi era as the Gulf's policeman are outdated and would only heighten tensions with regional powers like Saudi Arabia and Turkey. The implementation of historical solutions for present-day problems will probably encounter unexpected opposition.

The attempt to establish a Pahlavi-led secular government through foreign intervention represents a dangerous political move which chooses to follow international powers instead of building lasting national independence. The program faces multiple weaknesses, which stem from its client-state structure, so it needs to solve the legitimacy problems that any government backed by foreigners would encounter to prevent disorder. For a secular government to endure, it must ultimately secure an authentically Iranian mandate. Personally, I do not support the U.S. government's efforts to overthrow the current regime at this time. The expenses of such actions would be too high to bear, and past experiences show that democracy transition efforts through military intervention tend to create more problems than they solve. The true indicator of success would appear when the Islamic Republic fell, but the new government stayed free from foreign domination. The Pahlavi restoration needs this natural transition to survive as an externally backed entity because it would otherwise face the same collapse which caused the 1979 Revolution. History functions as a strict educational institution which teaches people to prevent previous errors which led to major destruction and substantial losses throughout the area.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author's own.

                                                      Reference

• Aydıntaşbaş, A. (2026). Is Iran on the brink of change? Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/is-iran-on-the-brink-of-change/
• Golkar, S., & Brodsky, J. (2026). What’s new about this wave of protests in Iran? Foreign Policy. https://foreignpolicy.com/2026/01/05/iran-protests-islamic-republic-regime-change/