Three The three broad scenarios which could occur concerning the current crisis in Iran are analysed as follows by Dr. David Bennett
Scenario One:
The Trump administration abandons the Iranian people by not providing military support to aid their revolt.
Scenario Two:
The positive ramifications of American military intervention leading to Reza Pahlavi becoming Iran’s transitional leader.
Scenario Three:
American military intervention facilitating a mutually beneficial political settlement.
Scenario One: The Trump administration abandons the Iranian people by not providing military support to aid their revolt.
The first scenario is alas, currently the most probable based on the most recent developments in Iran. The successful American air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025 have probably led to an expectation amongst many Iranians that the United States will provide military support for those who have risen up against the regime. Even though thousands of the Iranians are being slaughtered, the American president now seems to be backing away from his previous public announcements that implied that the United States would militarily intervene to support the Iranian people’s revolt against the regime.
This development is alarming and will lead to consequent understandable bitterness on the part of Iranians who have had the courage to demonstrate against the ruling Mullahs. It is therefore of concern that much of the western media appear to be downplaying the extent of the killings (as President Trump now also seems to be doing) until the revolt is crushed.
The Trump hating media seems to be complicit in this misrepresentation of events in Iran because the popular uprising is apparently supportive of the former Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi. A popular revolt in favour of the former Crown Prince goes against the prevailing popular liberal-left narrative that his father’s rule did not have profoundly positive ramifications for Iran.
The other major reason why the mainstream media is downplaying the extent of the bloody crackdown in Iran is because it goes against their belief that American military intervention can lead to positive outcomes such as the attainment of democracy.
However, once the Iranian revolt has been crushed the mainstream media will then undoubtedly report on the extent of the bloodshed in order to discredit President Trump. This shift in media concerning Iran reporting will feed into an anti-Trump narrative for the November 2026 mid-term congressional elections which may well be the most important in recent American history.
It should therefore be pointed out that centre-right Republicans (who are generally supportive of the Iranian people’s quest for freedom) will also go down with the Make American Great Again (MAGA) wing of the Republican Party unless they can affect a re-orientation in American defence and foreign policy.
For the 2026 midterm congressional elections will be because they could produce an unprecedented victory by the hard left of the Democrats. Such an election victory will at the very least cripple the second Trump presidency (providing that the president is not subsequently removed by impeachment) to lay the groundwork for the election of a far-left American president in 2028. A far-left American president will not stand in the way of a still clerical ruled Iran acquiring nuclear weapons to again threaten the world, particularly Israel, Arab nations and the United States.
An American failure to assist the Iranian people at such a critical juncture to help remove such a profoundly dangerous regime will also lead to a discrediting of American credibility that could be fatal to the economic interests of the United States. Already there are moves by the BRICS nations to devise an alternative method/system of paying for oil exports in American dollars and the subsequent purchase of US Treasury bonds.
Due to the fundamentals of the American economy being so vulnerable due to the massive budget deficit and incredibly high level of public foreign debt, the United States cannot afford to allow either an undermining of the American dollar or of US Treasury bonds. Already the Russian inspired ten member BRICS intergovernmental organization is trying to harness growing anti-American sentiment around the world in an attempt to sink the US economy by devising new international financial system.
President Trump’s focus on acquiring natural resources of other nations (such as the autonomous Danish territory of Greenland in the Arctic) is immeasurably aiding this Chinese and Russian campaign to destroy the American economy. This is because other nations, such as European Union (EU) member states and Canada, (yes Canada!) are possibly gearing to enter into new financial and trading relations at the expense of American economic interests.
It goes without saying, that as an oil-producing hub, the Middle East is a region of the world that the United States cannot afford (either economically or politically) to alienate. If the United States forgoes the opportunity of militarily supporting the Iranian people in their uprising against the regime, then American standing in the Middle East may be expected to plummet.
President Trump may not be bothered by an American loss of loss of power in the Middle East because he believes that the United States’ ‘sphere’ of influence is the western hemisphere. However, the current trajectory of American foreign policy is leading to a situation where the United States is losing its current allies. By contrast China and Russia have no qualms about establishing a sphere of influence which encompasses the entire world in which the United States is effectively destroyed.
The United States should therefore reverse this destructively downward spiral by assisting the ninety million people of Iran. The ultimate establishment of an internationally co-operative Iran would not only remove a tremendous source of trouble in the world but would also crucially help stabilize the global political order s which is sorely needed.
Scenario Two: The positive ramifications of American military intervention leading to Reza Pahlavi becoming Iran’s transitional leader.
This scenario is, to say the least, a positive one. The array of problems which a clerical-ruled Iran has posed to the United States and the world will be overcome if this regime is removed. That is not to say that there will not be challenges in removing the regime by the United States providing military assistance to the Iranian people’s uprising.
However, via the use of satellite technology the United States will be able to undertake precision aerial bombing of selected targets, such as Revolutionary Guard sites, so that pressure can be brought to bear on the regime of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to give way. The American aerial bombing campaign can be proportionate to the repression which Khamenei’s security apparatus applies against demonstrators so that the security forces will have an incentive to desist from killing and/or oppressing people.
However, because the Iranian security forces are possibly embedded amongst the population an aerial bombing campaign by the United States could present logistical challenges. A possible alternative to a US aerial bombing campaign might be for Washington to funnel weapons to Iranian opponents of the regime. Such a course of action would require careful planning and intelligence analysis. At the very least, the supply of weapons to Iranian opponents of the regime could supplement a targeted American aerial bombing campaign.
If however, Khamenei chooses the Assad/Ceausescu option of refusing to compromise, then American support to the Iranian people can continue so that provisional authority is transferred to a transnational government headed or at least supported by Reza Pahlavi. Masses of Iranians, whether they be monarchist or republican have decided that Reza Pahlavi represents both a symbolic and a practical focal point for which authority can be transferred to, in order to provide a provisional transitional government for Iran.
History has shown with regard to American led intervention in the Dominican Republic in 1965 or Grenada in 1983 that it has been successful when there has been a capable leader to fill the immediate vacuum. The selection by the American Organization of States (OAS) of Hector Garcia-Godoy as provisional president of the Dominican Republic was a masterstroke because he ably dealt with a myriad of challenges to take his country to democratic elections in 1966.
Similarly, in October 1983 American led forces of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States liberated Grenada from Marxist rule by ensuring that executive authority was transferred to the Governor-General Sir Paul Scoon (who was freed from regime custody at the time of this military intervention). The Governor-General then took over the day-to-day administration of Grenada until democratic elections were held in December 1984 which restored representative government.
Reza Pahlavi could also make an excellent transitional leader for Iran. He has already demonstrated great diplomatic and political skill in founding an umbrella group in 2013 called the Iran National Council for Free Elections (The Iran National Council). The Iran National Council has avowed republicans within its ranks who respect the former Crown Prince’s commitment to democracy.
Therefore, a Reza Pahlivi led transitional government would be able to utilize a wide-ranging talent pool to help govern Iran until elections to a constituent assembly are held. As important as it will be to hold Iranian democratic elections, a Reza Pahlivi transitional government would also probably see the good sense in influencing neighbouring oil producing Arab nations to continue to crucially support the American dollar should it come under dangerous attack from anti-American nations.
There is much to recommend this second scenario, but the so-called liberal left will undoubtedly be opposing American support being provided to the Iranian people because it fundamentally goes against their prevailing view concerning the efficacy of American military intervention in the Middle East and the long term positive legacy of the late Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
The most potent argument against American assistance to the Iranian demonstrators which will be used will be that such a policy will lead to the United States becoming involved in yet another so-called ‘forever war’ in the Middle East. The American left will undoubtedly accuse the Trump administration of unnecessarily embroiling the United States in yet another ‘forever war’ similar to Iraq and Afghanistan if the administration provides aerial and/or material support (as distinct from ‘boots on the ground’) to the people of Iran.
However, the American-led occupation of Iraq between 2003 and 2011 was ultimately a success but the socio-political price for the United States was high because the prolonged military campaign precipitated the re-emergence of both left-wing and right-wing American isolationism. An overview of why the American led occupation of Iraq was ultimately a success is reviewed in relation to analysing the third scenario concerning the situation in Iran.
Scenario Three: American military intervention facilitating a mutually beneficial political settlement.
The American led occupation of Iraq was ultimately successful in bringing democracy to that nation due to the statesmanship of the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. The Grand Ayatollah, who is actually Iranian, provided crucial support to the American led occupation of Iraq because he knew that the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussien was so effectively repressive that it could only be removed with external assistance.
The media and the anti-American Left portrayed resistance to the US led occupation of Iraq as opposition to foreign ‘imperialism’. Actually, this Iraqi resistance was an alliance between the ousted Baathist regime and Al-Qaeda aimed at restoring the political domination of the Arab Sunni minority (who make up about forty percent of the population) which had ruled Iraq since that nation’s creation in 1921.
Because of the Grand Ayatollah Sistani’s stance, Iraq’s majority Shia Arab population gave their grudging support to the American-led occupation on the correct assumption that their interests would ultimately be secured in the long-term. Similarly, the once severely repressed Kurdish minority endorsed the occupation on the correct basis that their rights would also eventually be advanced.
Furthermore, the interests of Iraq’s Arab Sunni minority have also been respected since the end of the occupation, due to the statesmanship of the Grand Ayatollah Sistani who could arguably be described as the Nelson Mandela of the Middle East.
Accordingly, selected and carefully targeted American aerial bombing of the regime’s military positions and/or the provision of arms in support of the Iranian people’s revolt could precipitate a scenario in which elements within the regime depose Ali Khamenei as Supreme Leader in favour another cleric nominated by the Grand Ayatollah Sistani. A new Sistani anointed Supreme Ruler could be accepted by the United States on the basis that he subsequently appoints a broad-based interim government which will take Iran to genuinely democratic elections to a constituent assembly.
Conclusion
These three scenarios for Iran as well as their ramifications will have a major global impact so careful consideration as to what the Trump administration does or does not do has to be considered. Ultimately history will be the judge of whether the Trump administration rises to the occasion with regard to whichever scenario eventually comes to pass in relation to Iran at this juncture.