(Publish from Houston Texas USA)
(By: Mian Iftikhar Ahmad)
The wave of protests and unrest that has emerged in Iran over recent months is not merely an expression of domestic economic frustration or social discontent but represents a far broader and deeper phenomenon connected to the evolving global power struggle, competition over energy resources, renewed regime changes strategies adapted to the modern era, and the increasingly aggressive posture of the United States in international affairs.
What began in various Iranian cities as protests against inflation, unemployment, the collapse of the national currency, shortages, and the pressures created by long-standing sanctions gradually transformed into politically charged demonstrations questioning state authority and, in some places, openly challenging the existing system. These protests spread across dozens of major cities and hundreds of towns, with reports of thousands of arrests, large numbers of injured protesters, and casualties ranging from dozens to several hundred according to non-official sources, while the Iranian state has consistently disputed these figures.
What is undeniable, however, is the scale and intensity of the unrest, which cut across social classes, involving youth, workers, segments of the middle class, and even parts of the commercial sector, making it impossible to dismiss as a localized or temporary disturbance. This breadth immediately drew the attention of global powers, reviving the question of whether the situation represents a natural internal uprising or a carefully engineered attempt at regime change. Iran’s history makes this question unavoidable, given that it has previously been a target of overt and covert regime change efforts, most notably the 1953 overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh.
In the current era, while there is no open military intervention, modern regime changes strategies rely on economic pressure, sanctions, information warfare, cyber operations, and the amplification of internal divisions. The United States and Israel view Iran not only as their principal strategic rival in the Middle East but also as a central pillar of the emerging China-Russia aligned bloc, which makes Iranian instability an attractive strategic opportunity for them.
In contrast, Russia and China strongly oppose any forced change in Iran, understanding that a collapse or pro-Western transformation of the Iranian system would directly undermine their geopolitical interests, energy security, military cooperation, and long-term strategic positioning. China’s long-term economic agreements and Russia’s diplomatic and security cooperation with Iran are designed precisely to prevent such an outcome. When viewed from Pakistan’s perspective, the risks become immediate and tangible. Pakistan shares a long and sensitive border with Iran, and any major instability could trigger refugee flows, border security challenges, increased smuggling, and the movement of militant elements, while also disrupting trade, energy cooperation, and regional diplomacy.
At a time when Pakistan itself faces economic fragility, a new regional crisis would be extremely costly, forcing Islamabad into an increasingly delicate balancing act between its relationship with the United States and its regional realities involving Iran, China, and Russia. The relevance of Venezuela’s experience cannot be ignored in this context. Despite possessing vast oil reserves, Venezuela has suffered years of sanctions, political destabilization, legal actions against its leadership, and intense external pressure aimed at gaining control over its energy resources.
The pursuit of legal cases, arrests, and international isolation of Venezuelan leadership illustrates a model where energy control is central to geopolitical strategy. This raises the question of whether a similar approach could be applied to Iran. While Iran is far stronger militarily, geographically, and institutionally than Venezuela, sustained pressure, internal unrest, and prolonged instability could still serve long-term strategic objectives. This broader picture becomes clearer when examined alongside the Trump Doctrine announced in November 2025, which marked a shift away from traditional diplomatic language toward an unapologetic assertion of power.
The doctrine emphasized preventing adversaries from controlling energy resources, rebuilding American economic and military dominance, and guaranteeing Israel’s security at all costs. These were not rhetorical flourishes but the foundation of a policy framework with far-reaching consequences. In the Middle East, this doctrine intensifies pressure on Iran, Syria, and allied movements while emboldening Israel. For China, it represents a direct challenge, as China’s industrial engine depends heavily on stable access to Middle Eastern, Iranian, and Russian energy.
For Russia, already under pressure due to the Ukraine war, the seizure and targeting of Russian oil shipments signal that energy has become an explicit weapon of geopolitical confrontation. If such actions expand, global energy markets will face volatility, rising prices, and instability, with import-dependent countries like Pakistan suffering the most.
The Trump Doctrine’s explicit linkage of American power with Israeli security further destabilizes the region, sharpening fault lines involving Iran, Lebanon, and Palestine. If Iran’s internal unrest evolves into a serious regime change attempt, the consequences will extend far beyond Iran’s borders, affecting Iraq, Syria, the Gulf states, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, threatening oil transit routes, the security of the Strait of Hormuz, and the stability of global trade. In this environment, Pakistan’s greatest challenge will be to safeguard its economic survival and internal stability without becoming entangled in the agenda of any single global bloc.
From a long-term perspective, Iran’s unrest and the international reactions to it reveal an even deeper transformation of the global order. Russia views Iran as a strategic partner essential for counterbalancing Western pressure, especially after the Ukraine conflict intensified Moscow’s isolation. Energy cooperation, arms coordination, and diplomatic alignment with Iran have become vital for Russia, making any regime change scenario deeply threatening to its interests. While higher oil prices caused by instability might offer short-term gains, prolonged uncertainty would ultimately damage Russia by reshaping energy markets and empowering alternative suppliers.
China, perhaps the most cautious yet most vulnerable actor, relies heavily on uninterrupted energy flows to sustain its economic growth. Iran is not only a critical energy supplier but also a cornerstone of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, connecting East Asia to the Middle East and Europe.
Any prolonged chaos or regime collapse in Iran would severely disrupt China’s strategic vision, which is why Beijing consistently emphasizes non-interference while quietly supporting Iran through economic engagement and alternative financial mechanisms. Europe’s position remains conflicted, torn between human rights rhetoric and the harsh reality that major instability in Iran would trigger refugee flows, energy shortages, and further regional chaos that Europe would ultimately have to absorb. As a result, European states tend to limit themselves to statements and selective pressure rather than openly pursuing regime change. For Pakistan, the path forward demands restraint, foresight, and strategic clarity.
Securing the western border, maintaining functional relations with Iran, managing ties with the United States, and strengthening economic resilience must all be pursued simultaneously. History shows that global powers exploit economically weak and internally divided states, making internal stability Pakistan’s strongest defense. Over the next five to ten years, the world is likely to move further toward bloc politics, with one camp led by the United States relying on military strength and sanctions, and the other led by China and Russia advocating a multipolar order.
Iran has become a central battleground in this contest. If stability prevails, it will mark a significant strategic success for the China-Russia axis; if prolonged unrest or regime change occurs, it will be seen as a victory for the United States and Israel. In either case, the costs will be borne not only by Iran but by the entire region and the global economy. Iran’s current turmoil is therefore not a passing headline but a defining chapter in the emerging world order, a reminder that modern conflicts are increasingly fought through economies, narratives, and internal fractures rather than conventional armies, and that for countries like Pakistan, survival in this environment depends not on slogans or haste but on wisdom, balance, and long-term strategic thinking.
