Is War Against Iran Imminent?

U.S. President Donald Trump stated that he is seriously considering military strikes against Iran, so is war with Iran imminent?

For his part, Iranian President Masoud Bezgichian urged security forces to exercise restraint and called for dialogue, distinguishing between those protesting due to the difficult economic situation and "instigators."

Meanwhile, the supreme authority represented by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei considered that there are foreign hands manipulating these demonstrations—"America, Israel, and foreign intelligence agencies"—and called for not being lenient with them.

Trump's hinted intervention in Iran will bring Iranian national unity back to the forefront and reassess the popular movement. America, which has practiced a long-term stranglehold against Iran, will not be accepted by the people; on the contrary, any American intervention will be exploited by the regime against the protesters.

The vast majority of the Iranian people believe that Iran is being targeted by America, Israel, and the West to prevent it from becoming a strong, economically and militarily independent state with significant regional influence. They are well aware that Israel initiated the aggression against Iran, carried out with America in June 2025, which resulted in widespread destruction in Iran and its nuclear facilities, and the death of around 1200 Iranians, according to official statistics.

Trump’s threat of intervention under the trite slogans of "saving the Iranian people" or "supporting the aspirations of the Iranian people" becomes a lifeline for the regime.

The protests come against the backdrop of an economic crisis, more evident in daily life than in official indicators. Persistent inflation is eating away at wages, and the purchasing power of the currency is collapsing.

Unemployment, especially among educated youth, the ongoing emigration of skilled individuals, and the sharp class disparity between a fortified minority "close to the plate" and a majority struggling to survive are all factors that have created widespread anger about living conditions. However, it is cautious anger, fearing that economic pressure could lead to chaos if coupled with foreign intervention or a comprehensive confrontation.

The Iranian street is angry with the authorities, yet at the same time, it is very sensitive. The Iranian protests, throughout their various waves, demand better living conditions and an expansion of freedoms. For the most part, they have not been a mandate or a call for external forces to redraw the country's future by force. How can this threat come from those whom the Iranian people perceive as their enemies and consider among the reasons for their economic crisis!

Israel's attempt to ride the wave of these protests through the rhetoric of "distinguishing between the regime and the people" is not met with the welcome that Israeli media would have the public believe.

Even among the staunchest critics of the Iranian regime, there is a firm conviction that foreign intervention would be a gateway to chaos, not reform.

In 1953, the United States and Britain overthrew what was known as "the Mohammad Mossadegh government," which was elected by the people, but he decided to nationalize oil, prompting the U.S. to topple him and re-establish the Shah's rule. This event is invoked whenever the rhetoric of "foreign intervention" rises to remind Iranians of the true intentions behind any foreign intervention.

Trump's threat of military intervention rearranges priorities within Iran. This means questions about corruption and freedoms are taking a back seat, with the defense of the homeland and the ancient nation taking center stage.

Recent regional experiences play a critical role in shaping this awareness. Scenes of what is happening in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Sudan are strongly present in the public Iranian discourse, seen as examples of countries where foreign intervention led to the dismantling of the state and the collapse of society, without bringing stable democracy or economic prosperity. Therefore, the ordinary Iranian does not see U.S.-Israeli intervention as a recipe for salvation, but rather a dangerous adventure with uncalculated costs.

The United States, despite its harsh rhetoric, understands this equation well. Therefore, Washington, like Israel, prefers sanctions, political isolation, cyber warfare, and limited strikes, being careful not to slip into a comprehensive confrontation. The goal is not to forcibly overthrow the regime but to exhaust it, restrict its regional movement, and prevent it from focusing on major issues like Gaza, Lebanon, and the nuclear program.

In conclusion, the U.S.-Israeli threat of military intervention to change the regime in Iran does not weaken the authority but rather legitimizes it.

Any change in Iran, if it happens, will be a long, complex internal process, filled with contradictions, and will not emerge through intercontinental missiles.

What the beleaguered Iranian regime fears most, due to regional entanglements and long-standing sanctions is not American and Israeli bombs, but time... which works from within, while external intervention gives it a dose of oxygen to extend its survival.