Massive Protests In Iran; Exclusive - Israeli Intelligence determines Iran at Its Most Unstable Point
In Israel, there is concern that unrest in Iran could trigger an outward diversion- possibly an escalation with Israel
Iran has entered its third consecutive day of demonstrations. What began as relatively isolated protests in Tehran has now spread to multiple cities across the country. An epicenter remains the University of Tehran, where confrontations between students and security forces continue. Videos from the campus show attempts by security units to disperse crowds- evidence that this is not a singular flare-up but an ongoing standoff.
One notable- and unusual - development is the regime’s public posture. Senior officials, including the president and the government spokesperson, have issued statements with a willingness to negotiate with demonstrators and justifying their demands.
It is hard to recall another moment in recent years when the Iranian regime appeared - at least publicly- restrained in the face of chants such as “Death to the dictator” or “Iran will never be free until the mullahs are dead.” That tone alone suggests a degree of concern and weakness at the top.
At their core, the protests are economic. They come from a convergence of pressures: the cancellation of subsidies, the historic collapse of the rial this week, attempts to liberalize markets by sharply raising prices on formerly subsidized goods, and substantial tax hikes. The regime’s problem is structural. Negotiation is difficult when, in the eyes of many protesters, the government itself is the probelm.
That said, caution is needed. We still lack more data on the true scale of the demonstrations. Iran is a big country, and social-media footage can be misleading. As we often say in television: a zoom-in is a political tool. Tight framing can make protests appear larger - and more decisive.
Iran experts I trust urge restraint in interpretation. Israeli analysts such as Dr. Raz Zimmt warn against “pink prophecies” predicting the regime’s imminent collapse. Even if the unrest escalates into a serious challenge, they do not expect a rapid disintegration of the Islamic Republic. For now, they argue, the jury is still out on just how destabilizing these events will prove to be.
Others have cautioned that Israel, the United States, and the broader West should avoid publicly calling for regime change right now. Such rhetoric, they argue, may actually help Tehran consolidate support by labeling the protests as foreign-driven. The regime appears to have anticipated unrest: police, Basij forces, and internal security units have been reinforced across the country and are actively confronting demonstrators.
One particularly important development is the participation of merchants. Videos from Tehran’s Grand Bazaar show protesters pressuring shop owners- some perceived as regime-aligned - to close their businesses. This matters both practically and symbolically. Practically, widespread strikes and market shutdowns disrupt daily life and strain regime stability. Historically, the bazaar carries immense weight: in 1979, the closure of the markets and a general strike were key drivers of the revolution that brought down the Shah.
Taken together, these are serious developments. They do not yet amount to a clear turning point, but could be in a matter of days.
Israel’s defense establishment and intelligence community maintain specific indicators to assess the stability of the Iranian regime. This internal index includes several factors, such as public support for the regime, the economic situation, the strength and activity of opposition groups, social volatility, and other related measures. Senior Israeli security sources have told me that this index is showing an unprecedented level of instability.
According to these sources, this is the worst stability score the Islamic Republic has recorded since these measurements began years ago. That does not mean, they stressed, that the fall of the regime is imminent. Rather, they are warning that the regime is so fragile that a serious escalation - one that could lead to heightened internal friction and broader destabilization across Iran - would not come as a surprise.
Importantly, these assessments were shared with me before the demonstrations now unfolding in Tehran and other Iranian cities.
One example cited by these sources relates to the regime’s recent decision to cut certain subsidies. Subsidies are widely seen as a structural weakness of the Iranian economy, and in this case the cuts were limited- fuel subsidies, in amounts that were not expected to have a major impact on Iranian consumers. Yet even these relatively minor steps triggered concern within the regime. This prompted the authorities to mobilize police forces, intelligence services, the Basij, and other security bodies to prevent mass protests.
As one senior source put it, the regime is currently so tense that even modest economic steps generate fear of a major public backlash. This, they argue, is itself a clear sign of the regime’s broader instability.
One concern within Israel is that if the Iranian leadership feels overwhelmed by internal instability, it may attempt to divert public attention through external confrontation. In such a scenario, a surprise attack against Israel might appear irrational in terms of military effectiveness or strategic gain - but highly rational as a tool for redirecting domestic anger away from economic and political grievances.