#iranislamist What the collapse of Iran’s regime would mean Thousands have died and America has threatened to strike back against the horror there
Save
Share Photographs of Ali Khamenei and deceased protesters Illustration: The Economist/Getty Images/AP Jan 15th 2026 | 5 min read Listen to this story WHEN PROTESTERS took to the bazaars and streets of Iran, the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, met them with bullets. After two weeks of chants of “death to the dictator”, militiamen allied with the Revolutionary Guards and toting automatic rifles rode in on swarms of motorbikes. With snipers, they shot their fellow citizens, aiming at their faces and genitals. Morgues are overflowing. Bodies in bags are stacked on bloodied pavements. Several thousand may be dead. Thousands of the wounded have been arrested, some dragged from hospital beds to prison cells and an uncertain fate.
This ought to be the moment that ends the theocrats’ 47 years in power. Iranians deserve to live in a democratic and prosperous country, not least because of their bravery. The world would benefit if Iran was turned from being a nuclear threat and an exporter of violence across the Middle East to a tolerant, stable trading power. But protests alone don’t end tyranny. What would an American strike contemplated by President Donald Trump do to bring about the mullahs’ downfall? And if the regime were to topple, what might follow?
Read the rest of our cover package
Bereft of legitimacy, the reeling regime in Iran massacres its own people How Iran’s regime tried to hide its brutal crackdown Reza Pahlavi says Iran is undergoing a revolution Iran’s rulers are merciless because of their weakness. They have nowhere to turn and nothing to offer their people but violence. At home, Iran’s citizens must endure a shrinking economy, rapidly rising food prices, joblessness and worsening poverty. Abroad, the regime has been humiliated, as its proxy forces in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza were battered or destroyed, mostly by Israel, since 2023. Last year’s 12-day war showed that the regime could not even protect its own commanders and nuclear sites. After crushing protests in previous years Mr Khamenei sometimes offered concessions, such as relaxing the dress code for women. This month his government proposed a general stipend worth $7 a month, hoping to buy off public anger. That was met with derision.
The days ahead are fraught with uncertainty and danger. The protesters have withdrawn from the streets, though for how long nobody can say. The bleakest outcome would be that the regime remains in power, bonded by blood, condemning Iranians to a stagnant, enduring oppression. Bad, too, would be a collapse of Iran into worse violence. The break-up of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and civil war in Syria offer stark lessons in how hard it is to end decades of repression without provoking mass bloodshed. Kurdish, Azeri, Baluchi or other separatists could rise up and Iran could descend into chaos. Add the presence of enriched uranium, nuclear scientists and religious extremists, and the risks are grave. Fear of what comes next may explain why some inside Iran have so far failed to join the protests.
In between are scenarios in which the regime fragments. Perhaps the Revolutionary Guards will oust the supreme leader. Or a faction of guards may seize power in the name of the people, and seek legitimacy by holding rival factions to account for the recent killings. If so, they could be helped by the regular army, which so far has stood aside. Either way, the new men in charge could seek to strike a deal in which America lifted sanctions in exchange for strict limits on Iran’s nuclear programme and ballistic missiles.
America could attempt to land a blow against a regime that has been a running sore in Washington for over four decades. This week Mr Trump first threatened “very strong” action against Tehran, while calling for more protests, and then appeared to retreat—whether as a ruse or out of caution is unclear. If he attacks, his preferred option would surely be a limited strike. Perhaps he could aim for a political decapitation, somewhat like the one he recently oversaw in Venezuela, whereby the detested Mr Khamenei is deposed or killed. Or America could drop bombs and missiles on selected sites inside Iran, perhaps targeting structures associated with the Revolutionary Guards.
At less risk, America could help end the communications blackout imposed by the regime, by smuggling Starlink kits into Iran. One sign this matters is that security forces are hunting for those already in the country. The White House is also giving tacit support to an exiled opposition figure, Reza Pahlavi, the former crown prince, who fled from Iran when the shah was toppled in 1979. From a safe distance in Maryland he, too, has been urging protesters to rise up to bring democracy. In the absence of organised opposition inside Iran, perhaps the country could restore some form of monarchy, (see our interview with Mr Pahlavi).
However, just to run through the options shows how hard it will be for American action to succeed. If Mr Trump orders strikes, Iran is armed with a formidable battery of short- and long-range missiles that could hit back across the Middle East, leading to an unpredictable escalation—which is why countries there are warning against an American attack. A decapitation from the air would require exquisite intelligence against an adversary who is forewarned. Even with the ayatollah gone, a Caracas-style deal with the Revolutionary Guards is unlikely to create lasting stability, because grieving Iranians will yearn for vengeance against generals with so much fresh blood on their hands.
The new way of the world The stakes are extraordinarily high. With Mr Trump in office, old certainties in geopolitics are melting away. His concern will never be to respect international law, nor to foster a club of liberal democracies. But, even as Iran is abandoned by its allies, China and Russia, he is readier than any recent American president to bring about big changes if he believes they will enhance America’s influence and his own prestige. Each intervention is a test of what sort of world that will create.
Once every popular uprising seemed to herald the birth of a new democracy. Alas, after the failures of the Arab spring, it is no longer easy to imagine that Iran’s path could be so simple. The hope nonetheless is that, in time, the collapse of the regime will favour Iran’s courageous people, who have proved once again that they are their country’s greatest blessing. ■
For subscribers only: to see how we design each week’s cover, sign up to our weekly Cover Story newsletter.
Thousands have died and America has threatened to strike back against the horror there
Save
Share
Photographs of Ali Khamenei and deceased protesters
Illustration: The Economist/Getty Images/AP
Jan 15th 2026
|
5 min read
Listen to this story
WHEN PROTESTERS took to the bazaars and streets of Iran, the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, met them with bullets. After two weeks of chants of “death to the dictator”, militiamen allied with the Revolutionary Guards and toting automatic rifles rode in on swarms of motorbikes. With snipers, they shot their fellow citizens, aiming at their faces and genitals. Morgues are overflowing. Bodies in bags are stacked on bloodied pavements. Several thousand may be dead. Thousands of the wounded have been arrested, some dragged from hospital beds to prison cells and an uncertain fate.
This ought to be the moment that ends the theocrats’ 47 years in power. Iranians deserve to live in a democratic and prosperous country, not least because of their bravery. The world would benefit if Iran was turned from being a nuclear threat and an exporter of violence across the Middle East to a tolerant, stable trading power. But protests alone don’t end tyranny. What would an American strike contemplated by President Donald Trump do to bring about the mullahs’ downfall? And if the regime were to topple, what might follow?
Read the rest of our cover package
Bereft of legitimacy, the reeling regime in Iran massacres its own people
How Iran’s regime tried to hide its brutal crackdown
Reza Pahlavi says Iran is undergoing a revolution
Iran’s rulers are merciless because of their weakness. They have nowhere to turn and nothing to offer their people but violence. At home, Iran’s citizens must endure a shrinking economy, rapidly rising food prices, joblessness and worsening poverty. Abroad, the regime has been humiliated, as its proxy forces in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza were battered or destroyed, mostly by Israel, since 2023. Last year’s 12-day war showed that the regime could not even protect its own commanders and nuclear sites. After crushing protests in previous years Mr Khamenei sometimes offered concessions, such as relaxing the dress code for women. This month his government proposed a general stipend worth $7 a month, hoping to buy off public anger. That was met with derision.
The days ahead are fraught with uncertainty and danger. The protesters have withdrawn from the streets, though for how long nobody can say. The bleakest outcome would be that the regime remains in power, bonded by blood, condemning Iranians to a stagnant, enduring oppression. Bad, too, would be a collapse of Iran into worse violence. The break-up of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and civil war in Syria offer stark lessons in how hard it is to end decades of repression without provoking mass bloodshed. Kurdish, Azeri, Baluchi or other separatists could rise up and Iran could descend into chaos. Add the presence of enriched uranium, nuclear scientists and religious extremists, and the risks are grave. Fear of what comes next may explain why some inside Iran have so far failed to join the protests.
In between are scenarios in which the regime fragments. Perhaps the Revolutionary Guards will oust the supreme leader. Or a faction of guards may seize power in the name of the people, and seek legitimacy by holding rival factions to account for the recent killings. If so, they could be helped by the regular army, which so far has stood aside. Either way, the new men in charge could seek to strike a deal in which America lifted sanctions in exchange for strict limits on Iran’s nuclear programme and ballistic missiles.
America could attempt to land a blow against a regime that has been a running sore in Washington for over four decades. This week Mr Trump first threatened “very strong” action against Tehran, while calling for more protests, and then appeared to retreat—whether as a ruse or out of caution is unclear. If he attacks, his preferred option would surely be a limited strike. Perhaps he could aim for a political decapitation, somewhat like the one he recently oversaw in Venezuela, whereby the detested Mr Khamenei is deposed or killed. Or America could drop bombs and missiles on selected sites inside Iran, perhaps targeting structures associated with the Revolutionary Guards.
At less risk, America could help end the communications blackout imposed by the regime, by smuggling Starlink kits into Iran. One sign this matters is that security forces are hunting for those already in the country. The White House is also giving tacit support to an exiled opposition figure, Reza Pahlavi, the former crown prince, who fled from Iran when the shah was toppled in 1979. From a safe distance in Maryland he, too, has been urging protesters to rise up to bring democracy. In the absence of organised opposition inside Iran, perhaps the country could restore some form of monarchy, (see our interview with Mr Pahlavi).
However, just to run through the options shows how hard it will be for American action to succeed. If Mr Trump orders strikes, Iran is armed with a formidable battery of short- and long-range missiles that could hit back across the Middle East, leading to an unpredictable escalation—which is why countries there are warning against an American attack. A decapitation from the air would require exquisite intelligence against an adversary who is forewarned. Even with the ayatollah gone, a Caracas-style deal with the Revolutionary Guards is unlikely to create lasting stability, because grieving Iranians will yearn for vengeance against generals with so much fresh blood on their hands.
The new way of the world
The stakes are extraordinarily high. With Mr Trump in office, old certainties in geopolitics are melting away. His concern will never be to respect international law, nor to foster a club of liberal democracies. But, even as Iran is abandoned by its allies, China and Russia, he is readier than any recent American president to bring about big changes if he believes they will enhance America’s influence and his own prestige. Each intervention is a test of what sort of world that will create.
Once every popular uprising seemed to herald the birth of a new democracy. Alas, after the failures of the Arab spring, it is no longer easy to imagine that Iran’s path could be so simple. The hope nonetheless is that, in time, the collapse of the regime will favour Iran’s courageous people, who have proved once again that they are their country’s greatest blessing. ■
For subscribers only: to see how we design each week’s cover, sign up to our weekly Cover Story newsletter.
Explore more