Middle East Forum founder Daniel Pipes spoke with TVP World’s World Talks about Iran’s latest wave of protests, the Islamic Republic’s response to mounting economic unrest, and the risks of U.S. intervention under President Donald Trump. They discussed whether the demonstrations could evolve into a revolutionary challenge to the regime, how Tehran is calibrating repression after events in Venezuela, and why Washington should support Iran’s opposition without committing American forces on the ground.
TVM: Hello and welcome back. You’re watching World Talks, and I’m your host, Claudia Tvinska.
Another escalation could be in the cards as Donald Trump has threatened to intervene in Iran if its government kills demonstrators who came out to protest rising living costs. This prompted warnings from senior Iranian officials that any American interference would cross a red line.
Daniel Pipes, founder of the Middle East Forum, joins me on the show to help me understand where the protests are headed and whether the U.S. could afford to get itself involved in a conflict. Thank you so much for joining me on World Talks. It’s a pleasure to have you.
PIPES: Thank you for the invitation.
TVM: So, how would you interpret Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s call to, quote, “put the perpetrators of unrest in line”? And what does it signal about the authorities’ likely response to the protests in the coming days?
PIPES: Well, as usual in a dictatorship, any protest or opposition is presented as treachery, as conspiracy, as working for the enemy. Khamenei did concede that there are economic issues, but he is unwilling to concede more than that, and he is ready to crack down.
However, the violence against the rebel forces so far has been quite limited. It does appear that the government is fearful of being too violent. It does seem that this round—maybe the tenth round in the last 46 years—is more profound and more widespread than any of the previous ones, and the economic situation is more difficult.
So this one could be the final one. Who knows? But this is more serious than any that has come before.
TVM: Final one. So when do you think there is going to be that straw that breaks the camel’s back? This is the biggest protest we’ve seen in Iran since 2022, and there’s a lot of social unrest—so much so that even Donald Trump said he’s going to step in.
Do you think we’re getting closer to a point where there could be a massive change of leadership following the protests?
PIPES: I think so. And I’d like to note that while there have been a number of major revolutions around the world—the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, the Iranian Revolution—it’s really only the Iranian one of 1978–79 that was massive, countrywide, involving millions and millions of people in the streets.
So Iran has a history of extraordinary revolution. I can’t tell you if that’s what’s going to happen here, but it looks like a real possibility.
In part because people are sick of the Islamic Republic and its draconian ways, and in part because people are sick of the mismanagement that has led not only to economic decline but even to a lack of water. People don’t have enough water. This is extraordinary.
There’s great impatience, and the possibility is certainly there that this time the Islamic Republic will not survive.
TVM: We’ve heard from President Trump, and I’d like to pay closer attention to what’s been said so far that sparked such a reaction from senior Iranian officials.
He said that if Iran were to shoot and kill protesters, the U.S. would, quote, “come to their rescue.” He also added that the U.S. is “locked and loaded and ready to go,” without explaining what that could mean in practice.
Do you think the U.S. would step in, and what would they do to stop the Iranian leadership from hurting its people—especially after what happened earlier today in Venezuela?
PIPES: It would be foolish to predict that Donald Trump will not take some extraordinary action. We’ve never had a president like him—so personal in his decisions. He just does what he wants to do. There is no guiding ideology, no consensus-building, no consulting Congress.
So yes, who knows? Trump could send U.S. forces into Iran. I wouldn’t bet against it, though I don’t quite see how it would work. Would he extract Khamenei as he extracted Maduro? I don’t know.
This morning’s news was such a shock. Americans wake up each day wondering what today’s shock will be. I can’t predict—but anything is possible with Donald Trump as president.
TVM: It’s fair to say we all woke up astonished by the latest developments.
Now, along with Trump’s comments, Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, wrote that U.S. intervention would lead to destabilization of the entire region and the destruction of American interests.
What consequences would U.S. intervention have for regional—and global—stability?
PIPES: That depends on the kind of move. If it’s attacking nuclear infrastructure, not much. If it’s removing leadership, not much. If it’s putting ground forces in, it could be very large.
I assume the president and his advisers know the American public is not ready for a war with Iran and will avoid it. But then again, I assumed they didn’t want a war with Venezuela, and yet Trump announced the U.S. would run Venezuela indefinitely.
I think a war with the Islamic Republic would be a mistake. We should help Iranian opponents of the regime—with money and arms—but not take down the regime ourselves.
TVM: Larijani also warned that American soldiers’ safety could be at risk. Do you think U.S. troops could be endangered, either regionally or even back in the U.S.?
PIPES: Iran has an infrastructure it could mobilize—personnel, drones, and other capabilities. They could harm Americans and American interests.
But Iran’s military cannot stand up to the American military any more than Venezuela’s or Iraq’s could. The danger would be guerrilla tactics—bombings, drones, and the like.
That’s precisely why we should not invade. We should help those who want to overthrow the regime, not do it ourselves. The same applies to Venezuela.
TVM: Could the U.S. afford engagement on multiple fronts—Ukraine, Venezuela, Iran—all at once?
PIPES: These are not peer rivals like China or Russia. Militarily and financially, the U.S. could afford it.
But Trump did not run on invading countries, and the American public—burned by Iraq and Afghanistan—is not ready for expeditionary wars.
This isn’t 1945. This isn’t total war. These are relatively minor problems by comparison, and Americans aren’t prepared for that level of engagement.
TVM: What would the response of Iran’s allies be if the U.S. took significant steps?
PIPES: Iran’s main allies are China and Russia, and we saw in June that they did nothing. I’d expect the same now.
Iran is quite isolated. Its allies won’t endanger their own interests on its behalf. They’ll offer words—but not much more.
TVM: After what happened in Venezuela, do you think Iran will tread more carefully?
PIPES: I believe so. The circumstances are similar, Trump used similar language, and there must be concern in Tehran about what happened in Venezuela.
Trump has shown he’s ready to take steps that conventional presidents would not.
TVM: Thank you. That was Daniel Pipes, founder of the Middle East Forum, joining me here on World Talks. Thank you so much for joining the program.
PIPES: My pleasure.
TVM: And that’s all for now. Thank you for joining me. I’m Claudia Tvinska, and I hope to see you back here on TVP World for more news and features in just a moment.
