Economic dysfunction has been a consistent driver of riots in recent years. Countries such as Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and most recently Iran have witnessed mass protests triggered by economic turmoil. Unemployment, inflation, and mismanagement of resources compelled the masses to express their discontent through protest and strife.
The ‘educated unemployed’ class, historically cited as one of the catalysts for the outbreak of World War I, has also remained a source of unrest in South Asia. In Iran, however, the disillusioned and frustrated populace was exploited by external actors seeking to widen the fault lines between the state and its people.
In the recent Iranian case, protests began in downtown Tehran over economic dissatisfaction and a steep currency slump. Localised and peaceful demonstrations, commonly regarded as indicators of a politically conscious and aware society asserting its rights, were transformed into foreign-instigated unrest.
The brazenness with which external actors inflamed the situation in Iran was a defining feature of these riots. President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu openly encouraged otherwise benign protesters to create chaos. Moreover, MOSSAD’s Persian-language Twitter account openly boasted about its agents being on the ground alongside Iranian demonstrators. What began as peaceful protests was hijacked by Israeli agents, turning them violent and uncontrollable.
Protesters were instigated, armed, and coordinated to undermine the regime, employing a sophisticated regime-change playbook. As the Iranian authorities sought to suppress the protests, they faced threats of attack from the United States.
The full spectrum of the US’s kinetic and non-kinetic instruments of war against Iran aimed unmistakably at regime change. Economic warfare through long-standing sanctions, coercive posturing, the June 2025 conflict, and threats of further military strikes were all designed to destabilise the regime. Yet Iran withstood the full suite of US–Israel military and coercive measures. For Iran, adversity bred resilience, but also offered sobering lessons.
Powerful states increasingly feel unrestrained in interfering in other countries’ internal matters, often disregarding international laws and norms
Despite holding the world’s third-largest oil reserves, Iran’s economy remains severely constrained. This is largely because its natural resources and nuclear potential have exposed it to persistent external pressures, including sanctions and market manipulation, undermining its economic sovereignty. The recent events demonstrate that resource-rich countries lacking the capacity to defend or independently manage their assets are vulnerable to foreign interference, which can trigger internal instability and economic regression.
Another critical takeaway from the Iranian riots is the normalisation of external intervention in sovereign affairs. Powerful states increasingly feel unrestrained in interfering in other countries’ internal matters, often disregarding international laws and norms. While the US and Israel continue to threaten the Iranian regime for its internal policies, they fail to account for their own violations and aggressive actions.
The riots and the US role in them must also be viewed through the lens of Washington and Tel Aviv’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear and missile programme. Iran’s defence and nuclear capabilities have consistently drawn aggressive pressure from both countries. President Trump repeatedly emphasised his willingness to go to any lengths to prevent Iran from advancing its military capabilities. The combination of Israel’s insecurity and the US’s coercive stance makes it clear that both powers will continue attempting to neutralise Iran.
However, successful internal regime change requires certain prerequisites, such as a military coup or revolution. The US's ambition to intervene under the guise of an internally driven regime change failed because these prerequisites were absent. The Iranian army remains loyal to the regime, and the public was not uniformly opposed to it.
Having witnessed the decades-long consequences of American intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Iranian populace was even less likely to trust the US to deliver a promised golden age. The US strategy of promoting the Shah’s son as an alternative also backfired, as he prematurely exposed his intentions, pledging to recognise Israel, end Iran’s nuclear programme, and expand the Abraham Accords, thereby undermining his credibility.
Although Iran recently succeeded in containing the riots while retaining its current regime, the future remains uncertain. With ongoing US military deployments near Iranian waters, the likelihood of renewed confrontation is rising. As Trump issues fresh threats and Iran vows severe retaliation, another conflict appears increasingly inevitable.
Any future engagement would pose significant challenges for the US. Given Iran’s strategic access to the Strait of Hormuz and regional US air bases, any Iranian response could have serious geoeconomic and military consequences.