Iranian protests create a short window for change - opinion

Witness accounts sent to the outside via Starlink are egregious: The wounded are located in hospitals and shot in the head; families are asked for thousands of dollars in “bullet fees” to receive the body of their loved ones; and the extent of the massacre is beyond comprehension, with reports indicating an overflow of bodies in morgues and conservative estimates of 20,000 Iranians shot point-blank. In the diaspora, thousands of Iranians held gatherings in front of United States embassies and consulates, begging President Trump to take military action against the Islamic Republic.

Supporting regime change in Iran is a rational strategy to reduce long-term American costs and rebalance power.

Now that deterrence and compliance have failed, the threat environment must be altered. Decisive kinetic action must be paired with coordination through the Pahlavi-led alternative to mobilize – captured in Pahlavi’s latest message on January 20:

“The moment of returning to the streets will arrive: broader, stronger, more determined than ever, for the conquest of Tehran, for reclaiming Iran.”

The pairing of external support with internal mobilization offers a credible path to transform Iran from a spoiler state into a status-quo power, thereby eradicating containment costs, stabilizing the regional balance, and ultimately diminishing the geopolitical leverage of Russia and China without sustained military escalation.

The Islamic Republic’s military was already dealt a blow with Operation Rising Lion – targeting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ chain of command on the first day – followed by Operation Midnight Hammer of the United States, using GBU-57 bunker busters against the Fordow and Natanz nuclear sites, which emphasized that the United States and Israel are prepared to impose real costs.

With the recent developments, the United States’ approach must evolve beyond a human-rights-only framework and openly support regime change. Outside support should be decisive and kinetic.

If Washington is serious about stopping the bloodbath and ending the destabilizing cycle of the Islamic Republic – currently under de facto curfew, waiting for headlines to fade before resuming the massacre – then President Trump should carry out targeted kinetic action against the Islamic Republic’s core, and in particular, its instruments of repression and terror: the command-and-control nodes, bases, and capabilities the IRGC uses to coordinate crackdowns.

This includes the bases inside Iran housing Iraqi militias that the Islamic Republic brought to shoot Iranians – who have also targeted American bases and servicemembers in past conflicts.

The goal must be to destabilize the core of the regime and eradicate its ability to survive through repression. At the same time, ensuring direct logistical support for protesters is imperative. That means keeping Iranians connected when the Islamic Republic pulls the plug, ensuring communities can organize and endure.

The Islamic Republic wins when it isolates people, breaks coordination, and turns fear into silence. The United States should make that playbook fail by cutting the Islamic Republic’s violent capacity from above while strengthening the people’s ability to mobilize from below.

What distinguishes the 2026 uprising from prior cycles is the scale paired with the clarity and consistency of slogans rallying around Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi and the growing sense that a coherent alternative exists. This clarity and consistency is precisely why millions took to the streets after Pahlavi called to mobilize.

Pahlavi’s message on January 14 lays out a vision of a post-Islamic Republic Iran that is defined by normalcy, stability, and reintegration with the world – what he calls the “real Iran.” Pahlavi’s vision is built around clear policy commitments in security, diplomacy, energy, governance, and the economy.

Economically, he portrays Iran as a major future energy supplier with transparent policymaking and predictable pricing, alongside the adoption and enforcement of international standards, dismantling of corruption and money laundering, and opening of Iran’s untapped market to trade, investment, and innovation – replacing isolation with opportunity and positioning a free Iran as a partner for peace and prosperity.

The cost of merely keeping the Islamic Republic in check has become prohibitively high. Containment through sanctions, limited deterrence, nuclear monitoring, and episodic military responses has failed to produce durable results. Instead, it has locked the United States into a cycle of constant crisis management: nuclear brinkmanship, proxy wars, maritime insecurity, and hostage diplomacy.

Each round of pressure is met not with reform but with adaptation. The Islamic Republic disperses risk through non-state proxies, and politically, it weaponizes negotiations to buy time. In effect, containment no longer constrains the Islamic Republic; rather, it subsidizes its survival by normalizing perpetual instability as an acceptable baseline. The Islamic Republic’s volatility imposes escalating costs not only on the United States but also on global energy markets, regional allies, and international security architectures.

A post-Islamic Republic Iran, anchored in Pahlavi-era principles, would dramatically alter the Middle East’s balance of power. It would reduce the need for constant military presence, neutralize the Islamic Republic’s proxy network, and stabilize key energy corridors. The United States’ footing in the region would shift from reactive deterrence to a durable partnership.

It is significant that an alternative already exists in the form of the Pahlavi restoration movement. This is not an argument for foreign-imposed leadership but for strategic alignment with an indigenous movement that has already demonstrated national legitimacy, organizational maturity, and international credibility.

When a nation coherently articulates both what it opposes and what it seeks to replace it with, limiting action to soft signaling, as the European Union commonly does, will only embolden the Islamic Republic. Supporting regime change in this context is a decisive step toward stability and peace as President Trump envisions.

Continuing to manage the Islamic Republic is the most expensive and least effective option available. Supporting a credible, American-compatible Iranian alternative is strategically sound and morally consistent with the values the United States upholds. The Pahlavi alternative offers clarity where ambiguity has failed, stability where volatility has been normalized, and opportunity where containment has only prolonged crisis.