US pressure on Iran intensifies; analysts assess strike scenarios and regional risks
Shafaq News– Washington
Iran and much of the region are facing a period of heightened unease as Washington escalates its rhetoric under President Donald Trump, warning of possible strikes against Iran’s leadership and nuclear facilities. The external pressure coincides with weeks of unrest inside Iran, where protests have continued amid reports of widespread repression and a near-total internet shutdown, deepening international concern over Tehran’s handling of domestic dissent.
The tense atmosphere has been reinforced by the arrival of US naval and military assets in the Middle East, fueling speculation about an imminent military move. The buildup, analysts say, has raised expectations that Washington may opt for a limited strike as a way to break the political deadlock with Tehran and respond to the growing instability inside the country.
Frank Mesmar, a Republican Party member and Chair of the Advisory Council at the University of Maryland, told Shafaq News that the scale of the US military deployment suggests that action is approaching, arguing that President Trump has positioned himself in a way that leaves little room to step back without political cost, “the [US] administration has amassed a massive military force near Iran’s borders, making a strike increasingly likely.”
Mesmar outlined several possible outcomes if the United States proceeds with military action. One scenario would involve precise air and naval strikes against bases linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the Basij paramilitary, missile launch and storage facilities, and what remains of Iran’s nuclear program. Such an operation, in his view, could accelerate the collapse of a system he described as already fragile, potentially opening the way —over time— to a genuine democratic transition.
He also pointed to a second scenario in which the regime survives but is forced to adjust its behavior, similar to what he described as a “Venezuelan model.” In this case, Iran would retain the structure of the Islamic Republic but would be compelled to reduce support for armed groups across the region, curb its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, and ease its crackdown on protests.
Mesmar stressed, however, that this outcome is unlikely, given that Iran’s leadership has resisted meaningful change for decades and appears incapable of altering its trajectory now.
The most probable scenario, according to Mesmar, is one in which the current system collapses but is replaced not by civilian rule, but by a military-led government. While repeated protest waves have steadily weakened the regime’s legitimacy, he noted that Iran still has a powerful and deeply rooted security apparatus with a vested interest in preserving the status quo. In the turmoil that could follow US strikes, power could ultimately shift to a strong military authority dominated by figures from the IRGC.
Despite the clear imbalance between US and Iranian conventional forces, Mesmar warned that Tehran retains the ability to respond forcefully. Iran’s missile and drone capabilities could be used against US bases spread along the Arab side of the Gulf, particularly in Bahrain and Qatar. “Tehran could also target critical infrastructure in countries it views as complicit in any US attack, including Israel or Jordan.”
Maritime security presents another major risk. Iran has long threatened to disrupt shipping in the Gulf, particularly by mining key waterways. The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow passage between Iran and Oman, remains a critical chokepoint for global energy supplies. Around 20 percent of the world’s liquefied natural gas exports and between 20 and 25 percent of global oil and petroleum products pass through the strait each year; therefore, “Iran has repeatedly trained for rapid naval mine deployment, and any attempt to close or disrupt the passage would have immediate repercussions for global trade and oil prices.”
Beyond military retaliation, Mesmar highlighted the dangers of a power vacuum inside Iran. The collapse of central authority, he said, could lead to prolonged chaos, raising fears among neighboring states of civil conflict similar to that seen in Syria, Yemen, or Libya. Such instability could also inflame ethnic tensions, as Kurdish, Baluchi, and other minority groups seek to protect their communities amid nationwide disorder.
A similar assessment was offered by US-based Iranian-American political analyst Hassan Hashemian, who said Tehran has largely lost its room to maneuver in negotiations with Washington, arguing that the United States is now seeking sweeping concessions that go well beyond the nuclear file, including uranium enrichment, missile development, regional proxies, and Iran’s broader role in the Middle East.
Hashemian told Shafaq News that Washington also wants “guarantees related to the rights of the Iranian people,” particularly an end to the killing and repression of protesters and the restoration of internet access. Entering talks under such conditions, he said, would amount to full surrender—something the Iranian leadership is unwilling to accept.
Describing the Iranian system as suffering from a profound legitimacy crisis, he pointed out that “decades of violence and repression have alienated the population.” In his assessment, the regime no longer has a supportive public base and instead relies on security forces and allied militias abroad.
“If senior figures, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and top IRGC commanders, were targeted in any attack, popular anger could quickly translate into mass action against state institutions.”
Hashemian also pointed to the European moves to classify the IRGC as a terrorist organization, saying such steps further isolate Tehran internationally and intensify pressure alongside US policy. He said this trend has effectively closed most diplomatic avenues, leaving the Iranian leadership with few options other than accepting both domestic and international demands.
Amid the mounting tension, Iranian officials have signaled a conditional openness to diplomacy. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, speaking during a visit to Turkiye alongside his Turkish counterpart Hakan Fidan, said Iran is prepared to return to negotiations with the United States if they are based on fairness and mutual respect. At the same time, he emphasized that Tehran would not bow to external pressure, adding that while Iran is ready for talks, it is also prepared for war.
The convergence of internal unrest, external military pressure, and a narrowing diplomatic path has pushed Iran into one of the most uncertain moments in its recent history. Whether the crisis leads to confrontation, forced compromise, or a deeper rupture with regional and global consequences remains unclear, but the risks of miscalculation continue to rise for all sides involved.
For Shafaq News, Mostafa Hashem, Washington, D.C.
