Iran at a Crossroads: Legitimacy, External Pressure and Regional Order

What originated as a challenge to domestic legitimacy in Iran has increasingly taken on the character of a regional risk-management issue. As the Iranian authorities intensify coercive measures in response to diminishing public consent, external actors have adopted more stringent deterrence policies, including sanctions and advisories. In turn, the Iranian government cites these external pressures as grounds for further consolidation of internal control. This dynamic has produced a coercion-pressure spiral in which the regime’s reliance on force grows as legitimacy wanes, heightening the potential for miscalculation with implications extending well beyond Iran’s borders. 

Iran Under Pressure: Crackdowns at Home and Escalation of External Security Postures

As 2026 begins, the Islamic Republic of Iran faces an unusually severe convergence of domestic unrest and external constraint. Protests triggered by currency collapse and rising living costs spread nationwide and quickly evolved from distributive grievances into an open challenge to the ruling clerical order’s legitimacy (Hafezi, 2026a; Doran, 2026; Roman, 2026). As mobilization intensified, monitors reported a nationwide internet blackout and rights groups documented the use of lethal force against demonstrators, while casualty estimates rose amid disruption and competing claims (Amnesty International, 2026a; Reuters, 2026a). Against this backdrop, the situation has been widely described as the most acute stress test since 1979, reflecting both the scale of unrest and the depth of coercive response (Motamedi, 2026a). The key question is therefore not only whether Tehran can restore domestic order, but how the regime’s response will reshape regional risk dynamics by narrowing decision time, hardening narratives, and increasing the scope for miscalculation.

The economic shock is not merely background context; it is a driver of political instability that limits the state’s capacity to buy acquiescence through subsidies or selective concessions. Over six months, the rial lost more than half its value, falling from around 800,000 per US dollar in mid-2025 to roughly 1.5–1.6 million on unofficial markets by early 2026 (Mohamad Machine-Chian, 2026). Inflation remained elevated, and food prices rose sharply, eroding purchasing power and worsening everyday uncertainty (Anstey, 2026; Shamim, 2026). Meanwhile, capital flight in 2024 and the latter half of 2025 signaled a collapse in confidence. Emergency measures, including changes to preferential exchange rates, failed to stabilize expectations and instead renewed volatility (Nikou, 2026). When households cannot plan, and the state cannot cushion shocks, legitimacy becomes harder to reproduce through routine governance.

Information controls illustrate how coercive tools can generate second-order shocks that widen grievances. In early January 2026, authorities imposed a nationwide internet disruption that monitors described as unusually extensive, widely understood as a method to disrupt protest coordination (Prakash, 2026; Reuters, 2026c). Yet the shutdown also disrupted routine commerce as online services became intermittently inaccessible, leading online sellers to report cancelled orders and evaporating cash flow (Becatoros & Gambrell, 2026). By turning connectivity into control, the state constrained mobilization in the short term but deepened the economic and political grievances that sustain contention, reinforcing perceptions that the system is maintained by force rather than consent. To explain why this crisis escalates so quickly, we need to examine the regime’s institutional design.

Regime operating system: a theocratic command core with a republican shell

Iran’s legitimacy crisis escalates quickly because the Islamic Republic is built on a dual institutional logic: a republican shell paired with a theocratic command core. The 1979 constitution fused Khomeini’s doctrine of velayat-e faqih with republican institutions adapted from Iran’s 1906 constitutional tradition. Scholars describe the result as “dissonant institutionalization”: republican institutions exist and matter, but their authority is routinely subordinated to a theocratic command hierarchy when the regime defines “revolutionary” interests as at stake (Chehabi, 2001). Electoral and representative bodies can generate a procedural claim to popular sovereignty, but final authority rests with unelected clerical oversight and security institutions that can override outcomes when revolutionary interests are deemed at stake (Chehabi, 2001; Boroumand, 2020).

This architecture makes legitimacy disputes unusually prone to securitization. When consent weakens, the regime often substitutes coercion for consent, then retroactively justifies repression through narratives of defending Islam and the Revolution. That move expands security prerogatives while deepening the legitimacy deficit that triggered coercion in the first place (Boroumand, 2020). The theocratic core also relies on disciplining clerical pluralism: mechanisms such as the Special Clerical Court have been used to silence dissident clerics, while seminary interventions consolidate governmental Shi’ism against more quietist or autonomous religious authority (Ghobadzadeh & Akbarzadeh, 2020). Yet the clerical establishment, particularly in Qom, retains autonomy through financial independence and networks the state cannot fully monopolize, sustaining persistent tension between religious authority and political power (Mikail et al., 2025). In short, the system preserves the command core under stress, but this design also makes cycles of coercion and ideological hardening more likely as legitimacy erodes.

Mounting External Pressures on Tehran 

Iran’s domestic legitimacy crisis is unfolding under intensifying external constraint. In 2025–2026, Western and regional actors have increasingly treated Iran’s weakness not only as a humanitarian emergency but also as a strategic opening to reshape Tehran’s risk calculus. The resulting pressure package combines military posture, economic coercion, and diplomatic signaling, tightening the regime’s options precisely when internal consent is eroding.

The United States’ posture toward Iran in early 2026 illustrates coercion as signaling: it raises the perceived costs of Iranian defiance while also generating domestic political cover for escalation options. In January, President Donald Trump publicly referenced major naval movements toward Iran, alongside reports that the administration was weighing limited strike options, signaling that Washington was prepared to translate crisis narratives into operational readiness if deterrence failed (Nakhoul et al., 2026). Mechanistically, this kind of overt posture is not neutral. It sharpens Tehran’s siege narrative, strengthens hardline claims that compromise invites regime-threatening pressure, and makes internal coercion easier to justify as “defense” rather than repression (Amnesty International, 2026b; Kahalzadeh, 2025).

Europe’s pressure is increasingly structured as risk governance, meaning regulatory and operational tools designed to reduce spillovers and constrain risky behavior, rather than classic bargaining over concessions. This shift matters for Iran’s internal securitization because it turns the Iran file into everyday compliance and safety decisions. The EU’s move to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps(IRGC) as a terrorist organization recodes engagement as a security liability, tightening legal and political constraints and raising the compliance costs of “normal” interaction (Reuters, 2026d). In parallel, EASA’s conflict-zone bulletin treats escalation as an operational risk for civil aviation, reframing Iranian and neighboringairspace as a misidentification-prone environment rather than a routine transit corridor (EASA, 2026). Together, these measures push external policy from persuasion toward crisis management, while reinforcing Tehran’s perception that the confrontation is structural rather than negotiable.

Even Iran’s neighbors are now operating within a risk-governance logic, but their diplomacy reshapes thresholds rather than simply “relieving” pressure. As indirect U.S.–Iran talks in Oman resumed and both sides signaled interest in continuing, Gulf actors’ central objective has been to prevent spillover onto bases, infrastructure, and shipping routes, while discouraging both U.S. escalation and Iranian retaliation (Farhat, 2026; Lewis & Pamuk, 2026; Motamedi, 2026b). The result is a narrower corridor of options: escalation becomes politically costlier for Washington, retaliation becomes riskier for Tehran, and the regional system treats Iran less as a normal state to bargain with and more as a systemic risk to be managed.

In summary, external pressure does not accumulate linearly; it reshapes incentives inside the regime. As legitimacy erodes, coercion becomes the substitute for consent, and when pressure is framed in security terms, it strengthens siege narratives and elevates the risk of miscalculation across multiple theatres.

Escalation Spiral: How Coercion, External Securitization, and Siege Narratives Reinforce Each Other (2025–2026)

Iran’s escalation spiral is not a metaphor; it is an observable feedback loop in which domestic coercion invites external securitization, which then strengthens the regime’s siege narrative and legitimizes further coercion. Mechanistically, the loop tightens through two visible channels. First, coercive instruments can generate second-order economic shocks that expand grievance. During the crackdown, Iran was “cut off” as authorities blacked out the internet to curb protests, while external actors issued sharper warnings and signaled readiness to escalate (Reuters, 2026b). The blackout also crippled routine commerce and online livelihoods, adding economic stress to political anger and increasing the likelihood of the next round of coercion (Reuters, 2026c). Second, external securitization narrows the space for de-escalation and rebounds into domestic consolidation. The EU’s agreement to designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization signals a shift from engagement to containment (Reuters, 2026d). Tehran can then credibly frame compromise as dangerous and dissent as foreign-enabled subversion, reinforcing the domestic logic of tightening control (Al Jazeera, 2026; Keath, 2026). As noted earlier, Europe’s designation of Iran’s IRGC and its aviation risk guidance translate securitization into binding compliance and operational constraints, reinforcing siege narratives in Tehran and compressing decision time under heightened alert (Reuters, 2026d; EASA, 2026). Tehran may tolerate calibrated external actions for deterrence or distractionunder pressure, while aligned non-state actors act opportunistically or defensively, creating incidents others interpret as deliberate escalation. The result is a thinner margin for error, where a proxy-linked incident or an air-defense misidentification can escalate rapidly before diplomatic off-ramps engage.

Contesting Eurasian Order: Divergent Approaches of Russia, China, and the European Union to the Iranian Crisis

Iran’s crisis is no longer just a domestic legitimacy problem or a Middle East flashpoint. It is increasingly anEurasian order shock because major external players respond to Iran’s instability through different strategic lenses, and those lenses determine which tools they use. In practice, these choices matter: sanctions, security designations, and risk advisories do not only pressure Tehran from the outside. They also shape how the regime interprets the crisis at home, often reinforcing a securitized, siege-style politics. One reason these dynamic travels across Eurasia is that Iran, Russia, and China share a similar narrative reflex: external pressure is frequently framed as an attack on sovereignty and regime survival, making resistance politically useful domestically (Hellmeier, 2020). This does not mean they form a tight ideological bloc. Reuters, for example, notes talk of an autocratic alliance while emphasizing that the relationships are loose and often transactional (Grajewski, 2022). The Iran file shows this conditional alignment. In 2025, China and Russia backed Tehran in rejecting European efforts to restore U.N. sanctions, aligning with it, which constrained Western leverage at relatively low cost (Reuters, 2025b). Moscow’s 2025 partnership treaty with Tehran similarly fits Russia’s interest in blunting Western sanctions and coordinating against coercion (Azizi, 2025). The broader point is conditionality: convergence is strongest when it supports domestic legitimation narratives and weakens Western tools, and it fades when costs rise, or interests diverge.

For Russia, the key variable is strategic depth on its southern flank. Moscow has publicly urged U.S.–Iran talks and warned against the use of force, signaling that it sees uncontrolled escalation as a generator of regional chaos rather than a manageable pressure tactic (Reuters, 2026e). Russia’s interest is not reducible to supporting Tehran. Rather, Iran’s stability functions as a buffer and corridor node linking the South Caucasus, the Caspian, and Central Asia, at a time when Moscow’s capacity is already stretched. Russia’s 20-year strategic partnership agreement with Iran, signed in January 2025 and repeatedly invoked in official messaging, underscores a preference for predictable state-to-state continuity over the uncertainty of regime collapse (Meister & Jalilvand, 2025; Palmer & Syzonenko, 2025). In this frame, Iran’s crisis becomes a question of preventing a pivotal Eurasian space from becoming a political vacuum that others can exploit.

China’s stake is transactional yet structural: sanctions-shadow energy flows align with a consistent preference to resist unilateral coercion while avoiding overt security ownership. In 2025, Iran’s seaborne crude exports were overwhelmingly absorbed by Chinese buyers, making discounted Iranian barrels a meaningful part of China’s import mix, especially for independent “teapot” refiners,e.g., smaller non-state Chinese refineries, operating on thin margins and opportunistic procurement strategies (Liu & Chen, 2025; Khan, 2026). In early 2026, as alternative sanctioned supplies became less attractive and price differentials widened, these refiners leaned further into discounted Iranian heavy grades, showing how Iran’s crisis transmits into Asia’s import system via substitution, storage drawdowns, and freight-routing adaptations (Liu, 2026). Beijing thus benefits from discounted supply and the strategic complications sanctions create, yet remains wary of bearing regional security burdens if instability deepens. This tension shapes compliance-risk management, shipping adjustments, and a diplomatic posture that sometimes aligns with Russia and Iran against Western sanctions, including at the U.N., without consolidating into an ideological front.

Europe, by contrast, approaches Iran primarily as a spillover problem to be managed rather than an internal crisis to be resolved. Its toolkit increasingly relies on regulatory constraints and operational guidance that raise the costs of routine interaction and prioritize crisis containment. The focus is therefore less on fixing Iran than on limiting external consequences, including aviation risk, escalation pathways, and energy-market volatility, while keeping minimal diplomatic channels open (Bayer & Irish, 2026).

This containment logic raises a second question: if Iran cannot be fixed externally, what regional alignment patterns can lower escalation incentives around it? A practical reference point is the Abraham Accords. They did not address Iran’s internal legitimacy breakdown, but they showed that selective normalization can rewire ties between Israel and several Arab states, adding channels for crisis management and reducing the risk that the region hardens into a single, polarized bloc (Middle East Institute, 2026). For the EU, the value is not “owning” the framework but widening de-escalatory pathways that can function even when Tehran remains unreformed.

Considered as a whole, Eurasian interests do not form a unified front either against or in support of Iran. Instead, each major actor prices Iran differently: Russia treats Iran as a strategic buffer; China primarily as a discounted energy supplier whose utility is constrained by sanctions; and the EU as an instability to be managed. This diversity narrows Tehran’s strategic room and heightens miscalculation risk, as external actors apply different instruments and thresholds. The interaction often reinforces the regime’s siege perception and incentivizes tighter internal security responses.

When Systems Falter: Political Transition Dynamics, Religious Division, and Regional Ripple Effects

If Part 1 explains how legitimacy erosion and external securitization can lock Iran into a coercion–pressure spiral, this part asks a deeper question: what would change if the center stopped functioning as a single command node? In Brzezinski’s Grand Chessboard, Iran is not merely a Middle Eastern concern but a geopolitical pivot whose internal trajectory can reshape wider regional orders. Brzezinski lists Turkey and Iran as critically important geopolitical pivots, meaning states whose domestic dynamics can alter the surrounding configuration even without great-power status (Brzezinski, 1997, pp. 30-41). The implication is that regime collapse in Iran is not routine government turnover. It would signal a breakdown of central authority, fragmentation of the monopoly over force, and the loss of a final decision point. Once that occurs, spillover risk becomes structurally embedded rather than contingent, because uncertainty, armed autonomy, and external hedging are no longer exceptions but the baseline.

In a system failure scenario, the key issue is not democracy versus dictatorship, but who controls organized coercion and how quickly command-and-control fragments. In the context of a coordinated transition, national chains of command can maintain a minimal level of security and border control. By contrast, fragmentation typically results in the devolution of power to competing local security centers, such as provincial strongmen, factionalized units, or parallel armed networks. This process gives rise to uneven policing, opportunistic violence, and unreliable signaling to external actors. The implications extend beyond the domestic sphere. When a pivot-state experiences internal fracture, neighboring states begin to hedge their positions; border militarization increases, refugee flows are recast as security concerns, and regional rivals increasingly interpret internal disorder as an external contingency. It is for this reason that Brzezinski’s pivot concept remains instructive, as it underscores the extent to which Iran’s internal cohesion is a variable in regional order rather than solely a matter of domestic politics (Brzezinski, 1997, p. 41).

In a transition scenario, nuclear risk would likely rise less through immediate weapon use than through a rapid erosion of transparency and oversight. As authority fragments, it becomes harder to maintain visibility over facilities, material stockpiles, specialized personnel, and decision procedures (Congressional Research Service, 2025). External actors then default to worst-case assumptions because there is no single, accountable interlocutor. This is the core dilemma for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA): verification is fundamentally dependent on continuous access, data, and cooperation, all of which are vulnerable to upheaval. Even short of collapse, reporting shows how monitoring can be restricted or contested, turning what was routine diplomacy into crisis management (IAEA, 2025; Murphy, 2025). The logic is direct: as transparency declines, fears of breakout or transfer rise; those fears increase the incentives for pre-emptive military or covert action, which tightens the risk of escalation.

A post-crisis legitimacy aftershock would not remove religious authority from politics; it would fragment it across competing clerical and political claimants. If the theocratic center weakens, religion does not exist inpolitics. Instead, it becomes a contested source of authority that multiple actors can claim (Middle East Political Science, 2017). The Islamic Republic has never fully monopolized Shi‘i clerical standing. Seminaries in Qom have been penetrated by state-sponsored institutions, yet they still retain traditions of autonomy and independent religious capital that cannot be eliminated by decree (Ghobadzadeh & Akbarzadeh, 2020; Mikail et al., 2025). Under system stress, three dynamics are likely. Some senior clerics may distance themselves from the state through a quietist or above politics posture, signaling that obedience is no longer religiously self-evident. Rival clerical voices may compete to define what counts as lawful order, turning legitimacy into an internal debate rather than a regime asset. The state may then respond by policing the clerical field more aggressively through disciplinary tools and selective elevation of loyalist clerics, which further politicizes religion and deepens the legitimacy problem it aims to solve (Ghobadzadeh & Akbarzadeh, 2020). The net effect is not secularization but religious fragmentation that complicates settlement, since factions can justify incompatible outcomes on religious grounds.

If Tehran’s coordinating capacity weakens, the ‘Axis of Resistance’ would face corridor disruption and patronage uncertainty, raising Gulf risk premiums through unpredictability rather than intent. Should Tehran’s central coordinating role diminish, Iran-linked armed networks are more likely to face operational-survival constraints than an ideological rupture (Ali-Khan & Cambanis, 2025; Şimşek, 2025). The immediate problem set is practical: financing, materiel access, directives, and the maintenance of logistical corridors. Tehran’s historical value has never been only funding and equipment; it has also provided joint training, standardized expertise, intelligence connectivity, political cover, and theatre-to-theatre synchronization of pressure (Brandenburg et al., 2025). This support architecture already shows signs of strain. Battlefield setbacks, shifting political environments in key arenas, and tighter sanctions constraints raise coordination costs and reduce reliability even without a decisive political break in Tehran (Defense Intelligence Agency, 2025; Khan, 2026). Fragmentation, therefore, should not be read as automatic collapse. It more often produces divergence: local adaptation, leadership splits, patron-shopping, and greater autonomy to preserve deterrence or relevance (Brandenburg et al., 2025; Khan, 2026). That unpredictability, rather than declared intent, is what lifts Gulf risk premiums.

Great-power response will shift from deterrence to crisis management. As the center falters, external actors stop treating Iran mainly as a target of pressure and instead as a generator of systemic spillover risk. The objective moves from changing Tehran’s behavior to preventing accidents and containing disruption: maintaining visibility over the nuclear file, lowering miscalculation under high alert, protecting partners and forces in-theatre, and stabilizing trade routes. Here, risk governance becomes the organizing logic becauseregulators and operational agencies can move faster than diplomacy, shaping behavior via safety, insurance, and routing decisions. Conflict-zone aviation guidance illustrates this shift by institutionalizing airspace risk under high-alert conditions and misidentification dynamics (EASA, 2026; Reuters, 2026f). Brzezinski’s pivot lens explains why: at corridor junctions, major powers prioritize containing transmitted disorder over owning the transition (Brzezinski, 1997, p. 41).

Iran’s Upheaval and the Russia Connection: Beyond Drones to the Reshaping of Alliances and Informal Networks

The drone link remains the most visible and operationally consequential channel of Russia–Iran cooperation. Iranian-designed one-way attack drones, commonly associated with the Shahed or Geran family, have been used by Russia at scale. Crucially, this relationship has shifted from external supply toward Russia’s effort to expand domestic production capacity for Iranian-designed systems (Atalan & Jensen, 2025; Osborn, 2025). The mechanism, therefore, is not simply hardware transfer. Iran functions as an enabling node in a production-and-learning ecosystem: design familiarity, components access, and know-how diffusion can be routinised and made resilient under sanctions pressure. The European Union’s 2026 sanctions messaging reinforces this framing by treating Iran’s UAV-related support as part of a coercive toolkit that must be constrained, positioning the drone file as both a battlefield issue and a sanctions-governance issue (Council of the European Union, 2026). Because Russia is scaling production, the main vulnerability is better understood as friction rather than a cutoff. If Iran destabilizes, the likely effects are higher costs, slower throughput, and greater uncertainty in inputs, training channels, and workaround logistics rather than an immediate stop.

Zooming out from battlefield supply to geopolitical positioning, the deeper issue is political alignment and network stability. For Moscow, the risk is not simply losing a friend but losing a pivot-state that helps stabilizeits southern strategic environment and facilitates anti-Western coordination when sanctions and diplomatic isolation bite. Brzezinski’s pivot concept is useful here: Iran can reshape regional configurations even without being a global great power (Brzezinski, 1997, p. 41). A stable Iran dampens volatility across the Caspian–South Caucasus–Central Asia junction; a fragmented or realigning Iran creates openings for rival influence, raises corridor and border risks, and forces Russia into more expensive contingency management. This helps explain why Russia has framed escalation around Iran as a generator of regional chaos and urged negotiations rather than force (Reuters, 2026e). Should Iran become less authoritarian or less coordinated, Russia would lose a reliable partner for diplomatic synchronization and a buffer that helps maintain stability along its southern periphery.

These two layers point to the same bottom line. Drones are the visible link, but the strategic exposure runs through networks: procurement channels, routing options, and coordination routines that reduce transaction costs under sanctions. If Iran experiences destabilizationor fragmentation, the most likely outcome is not a sudden rupture but rather ongoing repricing. This would manifest as a reduction in usable intermediaries, increased compliance exposure, extended timelines, and more expensive workarounds. The broader consequence extends beyond battlefield disruption to include heightened uncertainty and increased transaction costs throughout the networks that Russia depends on to operate under constraints.

Iran’s legitimacy crisis is best read as a regional risk problem, not only a domestic political dispute. As public consent erodes, coercion becomes the regime’s substitute for legitimacy, while external actors respond through securitization and risk governance rather than classic bargaining. These moves feed back into Tehran’s siege narrative, tighten decision timelines, and increase the chance that accidents, proxy actions, or air-defense misidentification outrun diplomatic off-ramps. For external stakeholders, the practical task is therefore less about solving Iran from the outside than containing spillover: preserving transparency on the nuclear file, keeping crisis-communication channels open, and reducing hair-trigger dynamics around airspace, shipping, and forward-deployed forces. The strategic warning is simple: once Iran is treated primarily as a systemic hazard, escalation can become an administrative default rather than a deliberate choice.

References

Al Jazeera. (2026, January 31). Iran’s president says Trump, Netanyahu, EU stirred tensions during protests. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/31/irans-president-says-trump-netanyahu-eu-stirred-tensions-during-protests

Ali-Khan, V., & Cambanis, T. (2025, March 19). Down but not out: Reassessing the Axis of Resistance. The Century Foundation. https://tcf.org/content/report/down-but-not-out-reassessing-the-axis-of-resistance

Amnesty International. (2026a, January 9). Iran: Internet shutdown hides violations in escalating deadly crackdown on protesters. Amnesty International. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2026/01/internet-shutdown-in-iran-hides-violations-in-escalating-protests

Amnesty International. (2026b, January 23). Iran: Authorities unleash heavily militarized clampdown to hide protest massacres. Amnesty International. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2026/01/iran-authorities-unleash-heavily-militarized-clampdown-to-hide-protest-massacres

Anstey, C. (2026, January 10). Why Inflation May Be What Finally Brings Change to Iran. Bloomberg.com; Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2026-01-10/why-inflation-may-be-what-brings-change-to-iran-new-economy

Azizi, H. (2025, June 16). Strategic Transactionalism: The Iran-Russia Partnership. Middle East Council on Global Affairs. https://mecouncil.org/publication/strategic-transactionalism-the-iran-russia-partnership/

Bayer, L., & Irish, J. (2026, January 29). EU designates Iran’s Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organisation in policy shift. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/eu-ministers-approve-new-iran-sanctions-response-crackdown-2026-01-29

Becatoros, E., & Gambrell, J. (2026, January 21). Internet shutdown squeezes Iran’s ailing businesses. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/iran-protests-crackdown-internet-business-costs-a0bd2df1d13355dcc28f46e5b5b3c893

Boroumand, L. (2020). Iranians turn away from the islamic Republic. Journal of Democracy, 31(1), 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2020.0014

Brandenburg, R., Citrinowicz, D., Dekel, U., Efron, S., Gordis, A. B.-S., Heistein, A., Koplow, M., Mizrahi, O., Nada, G., Schneider, Y., Shavit, E., Shine, S., Valensi, C., & Zimmt, R. (2025). Fracturing the Axis: Degrading and Disrupting Iran’s Proxy Network. In INSS. https://www.inss.org.il/publication/fracturing-the-axis

Brzeziński, Z. (1997). The Grand Chessboard : American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives(pp. 30–41). Basic Books, Cop.

Chehabi, H. E. (2001). The Political Regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Comparative Perspective. Government and Opposition, 36(1), 48–70. Cambridge Core. https://doi.org/10.1111/14777053.00053

Congressional Research Service. (2025, January 16). Iran’s Nuclear Program: Tehran’s Compliance with International Obligations. Congress.gov. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R40094

Council of the European Union. (2026, January 29). Iran: Council adopts new sanctions over serious human rights violations and Iran’s continued support to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. Consilium. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2026/01/29/iran-council-adopts-new-sanctions-over-serious-human-rights-violations-and-iran-s-continued-support-to-russia-s-war-of-aggression-against-ukraine/

Defense Intelligence Agency. (2025). 2025 Worldwide Threat Assessment. In Armedservices (pp. 17–19). https://armedservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2025_dia_statement_for_the_record.pdf

Doran, M. (2026, January 9). The Ayatollah’s Regime Is Crumbling. Hudson Institute. https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/ayatollahs-regime-crumbling-michael-doran

EASA. (2026). Iran and neighbouring airspace | EASA. EASA. https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/domains/air-operations/czibs/2026-02

Farhat, B. (2026, February 3). On eve of talks, UAE’s Gargash throws weight behind Iran-US deal. AL-Monitor: The Middle Eastʼs Leading Independent News Source since 2012. https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2026/02/eve-talks-uaes-gargash-throws-weight-behind-iran-us-deal

FRANCE 24. (2026, February 4). Iran demands Oman venue for US talks amid rising regional tensions. France 24; FRANCE 24. https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacific/20260204-iran-demands-oman-venue-for-us-talks-amid-rising-regional-tensions

Ghobadzadeh, N., & Akbarzadeh, S. (2020). Religionization of politics in Iran: Shi’i seminaries as the bastion of resistance. Middle Eastern Studies, 56(4), 570–584. https://doi.org/10.1080/00263206.2020.1748013

Grajewski, N. (2022). An illusory entente: The myth of a Russia-China-Iran “Axis.” Asian Affairs, 53(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/03068374.2022.2029076

Hafezi, P. (2026a, January 9). Iran’s Rulers Face Legitimacy Crisis amid Spreading Unrest. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/irans-rulers-face-legitimacy-crisis-amid-spreading-unrest-2026-01-09/

Hafezi, P. (2026b, January 29). Iran rounds up thousands in mass arrest campaign after crushing unrest, sources say. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-rounds-up-thousands-mass-arrest-campaign-after-crushing-unrest-sources-say-2026-01-29/

Hafezi, P., Dahan, M. E., & Gumrukcu, T. (2026, February 3). Middle East needs long-term solution, UAE says ahead of US-Iran crisis talks. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/middle-east-needs-long-term-solution-uae-says-ahead-us-iran-crisis-talks-2026-02-03/

Hellmeier, S. (2020). How foreign pressure affects mass mobilization in favor of authoritarian regimes. European Journal of International Relations, 27(2), 135406612093452. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066120934527

International Atomic Energy Agency. (2025, May 31). Verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231 (2015). IAEA. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pdf

Jensen, B., & Atalan, Y. (2025, May 13). Drone Saturation: Russia’s Shahed Campaign. Csis.org. https://www.csis.org/analysis/drone-saturation-russias-shahed-campaign

Kahalzadeh, H. (2025, December 10). Costly Adaptation, Not Capitulation: Iran’s Likely Trajectory Under the Post—JCPOA Pressure Campaign. Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. https://quincyinst.org/research/costly-adaptation-not-capitulation-irans-likely-trajectory-under-the-post-jcpoa-pressure-campaign/#

Keath, L. (2026, February 5). Iran’s supreme leader Khamenei tries to avert US attack. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/ali-khamenei-supreme-leader-iran-war-israel-us-1da18e4d4047d78001103429d8e3eb36

Khan, S. (2026, January 13). China’s dependence on Iranian oil: Strategic leverage and exposure. Modern Diplomacy. https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2026/01/13/chinas-dependence-on-iranian-oil-strategic-leverage-and-exposure/

Lewis, S., & Pamuk, H. (2026, February 4). US pushes to widen talks with Iran beyond nuclear issue. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-iran-hold-nuclear-talks-oman-amid-heightened-tensions-diplomat-says-2026-02-04/

Liu, S. (2026, February 2). China’s teapots buy Iranian oil to replace Venezuelan supply, sources say. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-teapots-buy-iranian-oil-replace-venezuelan-supply-sources-say-2026-02-02/

Liu, S., & Chen , A. (2025, April 11). China’s march Iranian oil imports surge on US sanctions fears. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/chinas-march-iranian-oil-imports-surge-us-sanctions-fears-2025-04-10/

Meister, S., & Jalilvand, D. (2025, June 20). Limits of a partnership: Iran-Russia relations after the recent escalation in the Middle East. Dgap.org. https://dgap.org/en/research/publications/limits-partnership-iran-russia-relations-after-recent-escalation-middle-east

Middle East Institute. (2026, January 6). The Abraham Accords – Middle East Institute. Middle East Institute. https://mei.edu/research/abraham-accords/

Middle East Political Science. (2017). New Analysis of Shia Politics. https://pomeps.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/POMEPS_Studies_28_NewAnalysis_Web.pdf

Mikail, K., Hadi, A., Munir, & Jody, J. Moh. (2025). Shiʿi Clerical Authority and Its Role in Iran’s Political Landscape (1941–2024). Journal of Islamic Thought and Civilization, 15(1), 113–123. https://doi.org/10.32350/jitc.151.07

Mohamad Machine-Chian. (2026, January 31). Why Iran cannot stop its currency collapse. Iranintl.com; Iran International. https://www.iranintl.com/en/202601308271

Motamedi, M. (2026a, January 30). Iran prepares for war as US military “armada” approaches. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/30/iran-prepares-for-war-as-us-military-armada-approaches

Motamedi, M. (2026b, February 6). Iran says talks with US in Oman “a good start”, more discussions expected. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/6/iran-us-hold-talks-in-oman-as-fears-of-war-hang-over-region

Murphy, F. (2025, July 4). IAEA pulls inspectors from Iran as standoff over access drags on. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iaea-pulls-inspectors-iran-standoff-over-access-drags-2025-07-04/

Nakhoul, S., Pamuk, H., Ayyub, R., & Hafezi, P. (2026, January 29). Trump weighs Iran strikes to inspire renewed protests, sources say. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trump-weighs-iran-strikes-inspire-renewed-protests-sources-say-2026-01-29/

Nikou, I. (2026, January 29). Governing crisis—sanctions, austerity and social unrest in Iran. Middle East Research and Information Project. https://www.merip.org/2026/01/governing-crisis-sanctions-austerity-and-social-unrest-in-iran/

Oman attends Extraordinary Meeting of the GCC Ministerial Council | fm.gov.om. (2025). Fm.gov.om. https://www.fm.gov.om/en/25989

Osborn, A. (2025, July 21). Russian TV shows teenagers at “world’s biggest drone factory” making arms to hit Ukraine. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/russian-tv-shows-teenagers-worlds-biggest-drone-factory-making-arms-hit-ukraine-2025-07-21

Palmer, A., & Syzonenko, S. (2025, July 8). The limits of Russia’s friendship: How Moscow sees the Iran crisis. Csis.org. https://www.csis.org/analysis/limits-russias-friendship-how-moscow-sees-iran-crisis

Prakash, N. (2026, January 26). Iran’s internet shutdown signals a new stage of digital isolation. Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2026/01/irans-internet-shutdown-signals-new-stage-digital-isolation

Reuters. (2025a, June 12). Explainer: How Iran’s network of Middle East power faded. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/how-irans-network-middle-east-power-faded-2025-06-12/

Reuters. (2025b, September 1). China, Russia join Iran in rejecting European move to restore sanctions on Tehran. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-russia-join-iran-rejecting-european-move-restore-sanctions-tehran-2025-09-01/

Reuters. (2026a, January 7). Rights groups say at least 25 dead in Iran protests. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/rights-groups-say-least-25-dead-iran-protests-2026-01-06/

Reuters. (2026b, January 8). Nationwide internet blackout reported in Iran as protests persist. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-warns-suppliers-against-overpricing-or-hoarding-goods-2026-01-08/

Reuters. (2026c, January 26). Iranian businesses suffer new blow as internet blackout lingers. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/society-equity/iranian-businesses-suffer-new-blow-internet-blackout-lingers-2026-01-26/

Reuters. (2026d, January 29). EU to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as terrorist organisation, Kallas says. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/eu-designate-irans-revolutionary-guard-terrorist-organisation-kallas-says-2026-01-29/

Reuters. (2026e, January 29). Russia urges US-Iran talks, warns against use of force. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/russia-urges-us-iran-talks-warns-against-use-force-2026-01-29/

Roman, G. (2026, January 29). Iran’s protest crackdown is an American national security problem. Middle East Forum. https://www.meforum.org/mef-online/irans-protest-crackdown-is-an-american-national-security-problem

Shamim, S. (2026, January 12). What we know about the protests sweeping Iran. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/12/what-we-know-about-the-protests-sweeping-iran

Şimşek, H. F. (2025). Iran’s proxy war paradox: strategic gains, control issues, and operational constraints. Small Wars and Insurgencies, 36(6), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/09592318.2025.2512807