Iran's regime is not on the verge of collapse

Policy narratives in Washington often overshadow nuanced analysis, particularly regarding Iran. With President Trump back in office, three misconceptions currently dominate U.S. discourse: that Iran has been weakened to irrelevance due to Hezbollah’s setbacks, that it is desperate enough to pursue nuclear weapons as a last resort and that its government is on the brink of collapse.

These claims — frequently shaped by Israeli sources long advocating for military confrontation between Iran and the U.S. — distort reality and risk leading the new administration to dangerous errors. These misconceptions could lead policymakers to underestimate the true costs of war, foster a false sense of urgency for preemptive action and misjudge Iran’s internal resilience and political stability, ultimately steering policies fixated on regime change.

Regrettably, this flawed narrative is not confined to the most vocal hawks in American foreign policy circles. Richard Haass, in his recent Foreign Affairs article “The Iran Opportunity,” asserts that “Iran is weaker and more vulnerable than it has been in decades.” Similarly, Dennis Ross claims that Israel destroyed 90 percent of Iran’s missile-producing capability with its strikes in late October. Both use these assertions to suggest that military action against Iran is a viable option.

Even more troubling is Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoing similar views during his confirmation hearing. While emphasizing a perceived gap between the Iranian people and their government, Rubio cited Iran’s reduction in energy subsidies as evidence of its alleged weakening. In truth, debates about subsidy reforms have persisted for more than three decades and reflect long-term economic planning rather than any sign of political fragility.

The lack of formal diplomatic relations between Washington and Tehran further deepens these misunderstandings. Since 1980, Iran has lacked direct representation in the U.S., relying on the Pakistani embassy for limited consular functions. Likewise, Iran’s U.N. mission in New York operates under stringent restrictions, confining its diplomats and hindering engagement with American policymakers, media and think tanks.

Unlike nations with embassies and lobbying networks in Washington, Iran is unable to effectively counter misinformation or present its perspectives. Exacerbating the issue, scholars and analysts advocating for diplomacy or nuanced approaches to U.S.-Iran relations often face pushback from opposition groups within the Iranian diaspora. These groups, staunchly opposed to the Islamic Republic, dominate narratives on Iran to advance their political agendas.

Policymakers crafting U.S. policy toward Iran must address these gaps in understanding. Contrary to claims of weakness, Iran remains a formidable actor with robust defense capabilities and significant geopolitical leverage. With nearly 90 million people, advanced military technology and control over critical strategic chokepoints, Iran’s resilience is anchored in its demographic strength, strategic geography and self-reliant defense infrastructure.

In fact, Iran’s defense and deterrence capabilities have never depended on regional alliances with non-state actors like Hezbollah. Armed with the full suite of tools available to a sovereign nation, Iran’s position as a regional power makes any conflict a grave risk. War would threaten regional stability and trigger global economic repercussions.

Iran, as an ancient state with a deep history of navigating geopolitical shifts and external pressures, has demonstrated extraordinary resilience. Over the past four decades, it has faced an array of threats and challenges in a hostile security environment, including the sustained presence of U.S. military forces in the Persian Gulf. The country has endured significant trials, such as an eight-year war with Iraq, covert operations, economic sanctions, targeted assassinations of high-ranking officials, psychological warfare and the first Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign. In response to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, Iran intensified its defense efforts, investing heavily in advanced missile systems, drones and fortified infrastructure. These experiences have strengthened Iran’s ability to safeguard its sovereignty and adapt to adversarial conditions.

Spanning 1.6 million square kilometers, Iran borders 13 countries and controls access to the Strait of Hormuz — a chokepoint through which nearly 20 percent of the world’s oil supply flows. To secure this vital waterway, Tehran has developed a sophisticated network of naval, missile and air defense systems.

Despite claims from opposition groups abroad — which are reminiscent of tactics employed by figures like Ahmad Chalabi before the 2003 Iraq invasion — Iran’s population has consistently rallied to defend its sovereignty when confronted with external threats. This collective cohesion, driven by a shared sense of pride and resilience, bolsters Iran’s ability to deter aggression and withstand external pressure.

Opposition groups emphasizing the divide between the nation and the state have often relied on false narratives to escalate tensions between the U.S. and Iran. A prominent example was their claims in U.S. media that Iranians celebrated the assassination of Gen. Qassem Soleimani. In reality, millions took to the streets in mourning, showcasing a profound sense of national solidarity in the face of external threats, transcending political divisions and internal discontent.

As the Trump administration prepares to define its policy toward Iran, it must learn from the costly lessons of history and avoid the grave missteps that led to the invasion of Iraq. That decision, driven by a web of misconceptions, misinformation and oversimplified analysis, stands as a stark warning against repeating similar mistakes.

The narrative portraying Iran as weakened, isolated and on the brink of collapse is not only misleading but also perilous, distorting the reality of its resilience, strategic influence and geopolitical significance. The invasion of Iraq, based on false assumptions about weapons of mass destruction, the simplicity of regime change and the prospect of a stable, democratic successor, was a strategic blunder that resulted in immense human suffering, regional chaos and lasting global repercussions. Policymakers must steer clear of repeating the same overconfidence and reductive thinking.

The administration must embrace a more thoughtful and nuanced approach — one that critically examines prevailing narratives, engages diverse perspectives and recognizes the importance of diplomacy and dialogue. Addressing Iran requires a willingness to confront complexity, question assumptions and prioritize strategic caution over impulsive action.

The Trump administration must resist the temptation to pursue confrontation based on myths and a desire for regime change. Instead, it should seek a policy grounded in realism, prudence and a genuine commitment to peaceful resolution. Only by doing so can it steer clear of past pitfalls and contribute to a more stable and secure Middle East.

Reza Nasri is an international lawyer and foreign policy analyst.