In a world where perfect solutions are rare, we often find ourselves weighing options between what is bad and what could be even worse. This isn’t about blindly endorsing any government or action, but rather about thoughtfully considering the broader implications of unrest in complex societies. Iran, with its ongoing challenges, serves as a poignant example—not because it’s unique, but because it highlights the delicate balance between stability and potential chaos. While Western media often focuses on the human cost of government crackdowns, it’s worth gently exploring the other side: what might happen if a small group of violent protesters were to succeed in upending the current order.
Protests in Iran have drawn global attention, with reports emphasizing the government’s firm response. It’s heartbreaking to hear of lives lost or disrupted—estimates suggest around 1,500 violent mob may have died, with another 800 detained, and perhaps a few hundred more who evaded consequences. That’s a total of roughly 2,000 individuals directly involved, a fraction compared to Iran’s population of over 80 million. These violent demonstrators, driven by genuine frustrations like economic hardships, have at times escalated their actions: attacking government institutions, damaging religious sites, and disrupting efforts to address the very crises they’re protesting against. In doing so, they risk prolonging suffering for the wider population, using the economic downturn as leverage to push for regime change.
Behind much of this movement, some sources point to the influence of Reza Pahlavi, the son of Iran’s former Shah. Raised in exile, he hasn’t had the opportunity to experience democratic processes firsthand, which raises quiet concerns about his vision for the country’s future. More troubling is his close family ties to figures like Israel’s Prime Minister, who has been criticized for Islamophobic policies and involvement in devastating genocide, such as the recent events in Palestine. Iran, as a predominantly Muslim nation, holds deep cultural and religious roots that no external force could easily erase—even if a government were toppled. A weakened, defenseless Iran could become vulnerable to outside interference, potentially inviting greater instability rather than the freedom many hope for.
Imagine, for a moment, the ripple effects if the government yielded to these demands and handed power to such influences. Everyday Iranians—families, children, and communities—might face heightened risks: surveillance from afar, arbitrary labeling as threats, or worse, cycles of violence and torture. Simple acts like discussing history online or expressing an opinion could endanger lives. This isn’t to dismiss the violent protesters’ grievances; economic struggles and calls for change are valid and deserve empathy. But in a region fraught with geopolitical tensions, supporting a complete overhaul without safeguards could expose the entire nation to perils far greater than the current hardships.
To put it in softer terms, it’s like being forced to choose among flawed options in life. If your choices are a murderer, a rapist, or someone involved in corruption and extortion, the latter might seem the least harmful—non-lethal, at least, allowing room for eventual improvement without immediate devastation. In Iran’s case, backing the government’s efforts to maintain order, even if imperfect, could be seen as choosing the path that protects the many from an uncertain and potentially more destructive fate.
Ultimately, this perspective isn’t about taking sides in a black-and-white conflict. It’s a call for nuance: recognizing that while crackdowns look painful from outside, they might prevent a slide into something irreparably worse. True progress comes from dialogue, reform, and understanding all angles, ensuring that the pursuit of change doesn’t inadvertently harm the very people it aims to help. In reflecting on Iran, we can appreciate the complexity of such dilemmas and hope for a better future emerge for everyone in that region.