Israel says its attack on Iran could topple the regime. That's unlikely, experts say.

Iran's regime under unprecedented pressure but survival mechanisms intact

Exiled Iranians say regime's grip on power 'weakening day by day.'

Iran's inflation crisis reaches critical levels amid widespread unrest

IRGC's role in Iran's succession planning becomes increasingly critical

Nationwide protests sweep Iran as economic crisis deepens

Iran's Supreme Leader succession uncertainty creates regime vulnerability

<ul><li>Iran's Islamic Republic faces mounting existential pressures from economic collapse, sustained domestic protests, and military losses, but the regime's coercive apparatus remains intact and capable of maintaining power in the near term.</li><li>The Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) continues to serve as the regime's primary survival mechanism, with enhanced control over succession planning and domestic security despite recent leadership losses.</li><li>While opposition voices claim the regime's grip is "weakening day by day," structural collapse remains unlikely without significant external intervention or IRGC fragmentation.</li><li>Economic crisis indicators suggest the regime faces its most severe domestic legitimacy challenge since 1979, with inflation projected above 35% and widespread labor unrest.</li></ul>Iran's Islamic Republic confronts an unprecedented convergence of internal and external pressures that collectively pose the most serious threat to regime survival since the 1979 revolution. However, the regime's sophisticated coercive infrastructure and institutional adaptability continue to provide significant resilience against collapse scenarios (Dehghan, 2025). The economic foundations underpinning regime legitimacy are experiencing severe deterioration, with inflation projected to remain above 35% in 2025 under optimistic scenarios, while pessimistic forecasts suggest it could surpass 50% (Iran International, 2025). This economic crisis has triggered sustained labor unrest across multiple sectors, with doctors and pharmacists in Yasuj, Isfahan, and Ahvaz protesting over 18 months of unpaid wages, while broader grievances include soaring prices, excessive taxation, and economic instability.The protest movement demonstrates remarkable persistence and broad geographic spread, with 216 demonstrations recorded in February 2025 alone, followed by significant nationwide protests on June 8, 2025, as citizens from diverse backgrounds took to the streets across numerous cities (Radio Farda, 2025). These protests represent broad-based dissatisfaction spanning professional, working-class, and retiree demographics, suggesting systemic rather than sectoral grievances. Exiled Iranian opposition groups characterize the regime's grip on power as "weakening day by day," though this assessment may reflect wishful thinking rather than objective analysis of regime capabilities (Iran International, 2025).Despite facing military losses from Israeli strikes, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps remains the regime's most critical survival asset. Regional experts expect the IRGC to play a pivotal role in selecting a successor to the aging Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, which could further consolidate the organization's power beyond its current extensive influence (Middle East Institute, 2025). The IRGC's economic penetration provides additional regime stability, as the corps has enriched itself with billions of dollars by running illicit commercial and financial networks around international sanctions. The organization's institutional depth was demonstrated by the regime's ability to rapidly replace senior military leadership following Israeli strikes, with Khamenei appointing Abdolrahim Mousavi to replace Bagheri as chief of staff of the armed forces and Ahmad Vahidi to take Salami's position as IRGC commander, indicating organizational continuity despite tactical setbacks.The regime's most significant structural weakness lies in Supreme Leader succession planning. Khamenei, at 86 years old, has ruled since 1989 and holds ultimate authority over all branches of government, the military, and the judiciary. His uncertain health and the prospect of a destabilizing succession process represents a critical vulnerability that could provide opportunities for regime change if managed poorly (Reuters, 2025). However, the IRGC's enhanced role in succession planning may actually strengthen regime continuity rather than create opportunities for democratic transition.While Iranian opposition groups based in Iraq claim readiness to help build a new Iran, external opposition groups lack the domestic organizational capacity necessary to capitalize on internal dissatisfaction. The regime's security apparatus continues to prevent the formation of sustained opposition coordination mechanisms within Iran, limiting the potential for organized resistance movements to emerge. Recent Israeli military actions have created additional regime stress but are unlikely to trigger immediate collapse. Although Israel claims its attacks on Iran could topple the regime, experts assess this as unlikely, though the strikes could potentially shorten the lifespan of the theocratic government (Associated Press, 2025). The strikes eliminated key military leadership but have not fundamentally altered the regime's domestic control mechanisms.The regime will likely survive current pressures through increased repression and IRGC mobilization in the near term of 6-12 months. Economic protests will continue but remain fragmented without coordinated leadership, while the succession question will become increasingly critical as Khamenei's health deteriorates. Medium-term risks over 1-3 years include the potential for regime change if external factors align with the combination of economic collapse and succession uncertainty. However, the IRGC's institutional strength and willingness to employ lethal force make peaceful transition unlikely. Regime collapse would most likely result from IRGC fragmentation during a succession crisis, combined with sustained economic collapse and external military pressure. Current conditions suggest increased instability but not imminent collapse without significant external intervention or internal security apparatus breakdown. The Iranian regime faces its most serious survival challenge since 1979, but its coercive capabilities and institutional adaptability continue to provide substantial resilience against immediate collapse scenarios. The next 12-18 months will likely determine whether current pressures evolve into existential threats or manageable challenges.

Intelligence Brief: Iran's Regime Collapse Prospects Amid Escalating Pressures

June 21, 2025

Themes: Regime stability, economic crisis, domestic unrest, military coercion, succession planning, revolutionary governance

Geography: Iran, Tehran, Isfahan, Yasuj, Ahvaz, Persian Gulf, Middle East, Iraq

This intelligence brief assesses the viability of Iran's Islamic Republic amid mounting domestic and external pressures, examining whether current economic collapse, sustained protests, and military losses could precipitate regime change

Ziyad Chaouki

Could Iran's regime fall?

Trump leaves G7 summit early to deal with Iran-Israel conflict.

G7 leaders agree on critical minerals strategy amid China concerns.

Carney rejects Trump's 51st state comments at G7 summit.

G7 summit fails to reach consensus on Ukraine, Iran after Trump exit

G7 establishes Economic and Trade Working Group, deepens agreements.

Trump's inflammatory rhetoric overshadows G7 summit outcomes

Six G7 leaders discuss Ukraine, Iran without major agreements

Bottom Line Up Front<ul><li>&nbsp;The G7 summit in Canada (June 15-17, 2025) ended in strategic failure as President Trump's early departure to address the Iran-Israel crisis disrupted critical negotiations, preventing agreements on Ukraine, Iran, and other pressing global issues.</li><li>Despite provisional agreements on critical minerals strategy and trade mechanisms, the summit exposed deep fractures in Western alliance cohesion at a pivotal geopolitical moment when unified response capabilities are essential.</li><li>Trump's inflammatory rhetoric regarding Canadian statehood and Greenland acquisition created unprecedented bilateral tensions, undermining traditional diplomatic norms and alliance trust.</li><li>The summit's limited outcomes signal a potential shift from multilateral consensus-building to bilateral crisis management, fundamentally altering how Western democracies coordinate responses to global challenges.The 2025 G7 summit in Canada was intended to demonstrate Western unity amid escalating global crises. Instead, it became a stark illustration of alliance fragmentation when coordinated leadership is most critically needed. The summit's abrupt disruption and failure to achieve consensus on major security issues represents a significant intelligence concern for Western strategic coordination capabilities.President Trump's decision to leave the summit a day early to address the Iran-Israel conflict highlighted the tension between multilateral diplomacy and unilateral crisis response. While crisis management often requires rapid, decisive action, the timing disrupted carefully planned negotiations on Ukraine support, Iran sanctions coordination, and broader Middle East strategy. This pattern suggests potential challenges in maintaining alliance solidarity during simultaneous, escalating crises.The summit's economic outcomes, while limited, revealed both opportunities and vulnerabilities in Western strategic coordination. Leaders provisionally agreed on a critical minerals strategy designed to counter China's dominance in rare earth elements, a significant development for economic security. The establishment of an Economic and Trade Working Group and deepening of trade continuity agreements demonstrate continued commitment to economic integration. However, these modest achievements were overshadowed by the failure to address more pressing security challenges.</li></ul>Most concerning from an intelligence perspective was the complete breakdown in consensus-building on Ukraine and Iran. Six of seven leaders discussed these critical issues extensively but failed to reach any major agreements after Trump's departure. This represents a fundamental failure of the G7's primary function as a coordination mechanism for Western responses to global crises. The inability to present a unified position on two of the most significant security challenges facing the alliance has profound implications for deterrence credibility and strategic messaging.The bilateral tensions between the United States and Canada added another layer of complexity to alliance dynamics. Trump's repeated suggestions that Canada become the 51st U.S. state, coupled with similar rhetoric regarding Greenland, represent unprecedented diplomatic provocations between NATO allies. Canadian Prime Minister Carney's firm rejection of these overtures during their previous White House meeting set the stage for underlying tensions that permeated summit discussions.From a strategic intelligence standpoint, these developments suggest several concerning trends. First, the traditional G7 consensus-building model appears increasingly inadequate for addressing rapid-evolving, multi-theater crises. The summit's failure occurred precisely when Western coordination was most needed, amid active conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, escalating U.S.-China tensions, and growing concerns about alliance cohesion under changing U.S. leadership.Second, the early departure pattern establishes a problematic precedent for future multilateral engagements. If crisis management consistently takes precedence over alliance coordination, the fundamental architecture of Western diplomatic cooperation may require restructuring. This could accelerate the shift from multilateral to bilateral crisis management, potentially weakening collective response capabilities.Third, the bilateral tensions with Canada, traditionally one of America's most reliable allies, signal broader challenges in maintaining alliance cohesion under current U.S. leadership approaches. If similar tensions emerge with other key allies, it could fundamentally alter NATO's internal dynamics and operational effectiveness.The summit's limited outcomes also have significant implications for adversary calculations. Russia, China, and Iran likely view the G7's failure to achieve consensus as validation of their strategies to exploit Western divisions. The inability to coordinate responses to Ukraine and Iran may encourage further testing of Western resolve and unity.Looking ahead, the intelligence community must assess whether this represents a temporary disruption or a fundamental shift in Western alliance architecture. The upcoming NATO summit in The Hague will provide critical insights into whether alliance members can restore coordination mechanisms or whether they must adapt to a more fragmented approach to collective security.The economic agreements, while positive, cannot compensate for the strategic coordination failures. Critical minerals cooperation is important for long-term competitiveness with China, but immediate security challenges require more urgent, coordinated responses that the current G7 framework appears unable to deliver.For intelligence planning purposes, the summit suggests that Western responses to global crises may increasingly rely on smaller coalitions or bilateral arrangements rather than comprehensive multilateral coordination. This shift could create both opportunities and vulnerabilities that require careful monitoring and assessment.The G7's traditional role as the premier forum for Western strategic coordination faces an uncertain future. Without significant adaptation to address the challenges exposed in Canada, the alliance risks further fragmentation precisely when global threats demand greater unity and coordination.

This intelligence brief analyzes the 2025 G7 summit's strategic failures, focusing on how President Trump's early departure disrupted negotiations and prevented consensus on Ukraine and Iran. It examines the breakdown of Western alliance coordination, bilateral tensions with Canada, and the intelligence implications of these diplomatic fractures for future multilateral crisis management.

G7 Summit 2025: Alliance Fractures Expose Western Unity Crisis

Robert Prevost of the United States named Pope Leo XIV: Highlights.

Leo XIV elected as first American pope

First American pope: Vatican announces Pope Leo XIV's official schedule, May 18 inauguration

<ul><li>The election of Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost as Pope Leo XIV marks the first American pontiff in Catholic Church history, fundamentally altering Vatican-U.S. diplomatic dynamics.</li><li>Leo XIV's extensive Latin American missionary background and progressive theological positions suggest continuity with Pope Francis's social justice agenda despite potential tensions with the Trump administration.</li><li>The new Pope's early statements on global conflicts—particularly praising the India-Pakistan ceasefire while calling for peace in Ukraine and Gaza—signal an activist papal diplomacy approach.</li><li>Vatican influence in global Catholic populations (1.3 billion worldwide) now operates through American leadership, creating unprecedented opportunities and risks for U.S. foreign policy interests.</li></ul><hr>The Catholic Church entered uncharted territory on May 8, 2025, when Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost of Chicago was elected as Pope Leo XIV, becoming the first American pontiff in the Church's 2,000-year history. The rapid 24-hour conclave process reflected unusual cardinal consensus around a candidate who spent most of his clerical career outside the United States, primarily as a missionary in Peru where he gained dual citizenship. The 69-year-old former leader of the Order of St. Augustine was elevated to cardinal only in 2023 by Pope Francis, who clearly saw him as a capable leader worthy of the Vatican's most powerful office for bishop appointments.The election creates a complex diplomatic paradox for the Trump administration, which must now navigate relations with a Vatican led by an American citizen. While President Trump celebrated the selection as "a great honor for our country," Leo XIV's theological positions and early papal statements suggest potential friction points that could complicate traditional Vatican-U.S. cooperation. The new Pope previously shared criticism of Vice President JD Vance's interpretation of Christian doctrine, posting an article titled "JD Vance is wrong: Jesus doesn't ask us to rank our love for others" in February 2025. Vatican expert Massimo Faggioli noted that the election of a U.S. pope previously seemed impossible, but the "Trump effect" on U.S. and global order changed electoral calculations among the College of Cardinals.Leo XIV's first major papal address demonstrated immediate engagement with global conflicts, signaling an activist approach to papal diplomacy that could reshape Vatican involvement in international affairs. During his Regina Caeli prayer on May 11, he specifically addressed ongoing wars, stating "I carry in my heart the suffering of the beloved Ukrainian people" and called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, declaring "Let the fire cease immediately. Let humanitarian aid be provided to the exhausted civilian population and let all hostages be freed." Most significantly, he welcomed "with satisfaction the announcement of the ceasefire between India and Pakistan, and I hope that through the upcoming negotiations we can soon reach a lasting agreement," demonstrating papal willingness to engage in real-time conflict mediation.The new Pope's extensive Latin American experience fundamentally reshapes Vatican-regional relationships at a critical geopolitical moment when China and Russia are expanding their influence across the Americas. During his first papal address, Leo XIV spoke in Spanish to honor "my dearest beloved diocese in Peru," acknowledging the faithful who "has shared its faith and has given a lot." This deep connection to Latin American Catholicism provides the Vatican with enhanced credibility and influence across a region containing over 400 million Catholics, potentially creating new diplomatic opportunities for U.S. interests while also constraining American policy flexibility in regional affairs.Vatican analysts note that Leo XIV's selection suggests cardinal preferences for continuity with Pope Francis's progressive agenda rather than accommodation with conservative American political positions. Kurt Martens observed that the Pope's choice of the name Leo XIV, referencing Leo XIII's foundational social teaching encyclical, "suggests continuity with the church's direction under Pope Francis" and indicates continued papal focus on poverty, marginalized populations, and social justice issues. This theological positioning creates potential friction with Trump administration policies on immigration, economic inequality, and social issues, potentially forcing unprecedented public disagreements between the Holy See and Washington on matters ranging from refugee protection to climate change initiatives.The American Pope faces unique institutional challenges in maintaining Vatican independence while managing the diplomatic implications of his U.S. citizenship. Experts note that Leo XIV was considered the "least American" of U.S. cardinals within Vatican circles, suggesting awareness among Church leadership of potential nationality conflicts. However, his extensive international experience, diplomatic skills, and decades of missionary work outside the United States position him to navigate these complexities more effectively than a domestically-focused American cleric might. Security assessments indicate that Leo XIV "will be scrupulous and careful to avoid the thought that he is an American and not a Christian view" and will function as "a bridge builder" with world leaders broadly.Canadian Prime Minister Carney's response reflects broader international expectations that American papal leadership will advance progressive Catholic social teaching rather than align with conservative U.S. political positions. Carney called the election "a historic day for Catholics" and emphasized hopes that Leo XIV's pontificate would "carry forward a mission of solidarity, compassion, and dignity for all." Such statements from allied leaders suggest global anticipation that the Vatican under American leadership will maintain or even strengthen its advocacy for international cooperation, refugee protection, and economic justice—positions that may conflict with Trump administration priorities.The Vatican leadership transition represents a fundamental shift in global Catholic-political dynamics with unclear long-term implications for U.S. strategic interests. While American papal leadership creates unprecedented opportunities for soft power projection through the world's largest religious institution, it also constrains policy flexibility and may force public disagreements on key issues that could damage both Vatican authority and U.S. Catholic political support domestically. Leo XIV's early emphasis on peace mediation and social justice suggests an activist papacy that will engage directly with global conflicts and social issues, potentially creating new diplomatic channels that could complement or complicate existing U.S. foreign policy initiatives.The Trump administration must carefully calibrate its relationship with the new Pope to maximize diplomatic opportunities while avoiding public theological disputes that could undermine both Vatican moral authority and Republican Catholic voter support in key swing states. Early papal statements on global conflicts indicate Leo XIV intends to be an active diplomatic player rather than a symbolic figurehead, with the Vatican's unique access to global Catholic populations providing significant leverage in conflict mediation efforts. His success in maintaining Vatican independence while managing American identity pressures will significantly impact both Catholic Church unity and U.S. diplomatic effectiveness in regions where Catholic populations represent major political constituencies.Key variables requiring continuous monitoring include Vatican responses to Trump administration immigration and social policies, Leo XIV's role in mediating ongoing global conflicts, Catholic political alignment shifts in key U.S. swing states, Vatican diplomatic initiatives independent of U.S. interests, and international reactions to American papal leadership in multilateral forums. The unprecedented nature of this transition means historical precedents provide limited guidance for predicting outcomes, making real-time assessment of papal statements and Vatican policy decisions critical for understanding evolving U.S.-Holy See relations.

This intelligence brief analyzes the historic election of Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost as Pope Leo XIV on May 8, 2025, marking the first American pontiff in Catholic Church history. The assessment examines the strategic implications of this unprecedented development for U.S.-Vatican diplomatic relations, global Catholic politics, and international conflict mediation.

Analyses

By Program

By Department

Events

Event Types

Upcoming Events

3dpolicy

About 3dpolicy

Research at 3dpolicy

Analyses

Events

3dpolicy

Ziyad Chaouki

Biography

Education

Faculty of Governance, Economic and Social Sciences

Socials

Publications (3)

Could Iran's regime fall?

G7 Summit 2025: Alliance Fractures Expose Western Unity Crisis

Vatican Leadership Transition and Global Implications