On January 28, the Valdai Discussion Club hosted an expert discussion, titled “The International Situation Around Iran: Trends and Risks”. Moderator Ivan Timofeev framed the issue as one of critical complexity and paramount importance for Russia’s foreign policy and bilateral relations. Understanding the true state of affairs within the Islamic Republic, he stressed, is essential from the perspective of Russian national interests.
Vladimir Sazhin, a Senior Researcher at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, began by underscoring Iran’s enduring regional and global significance, rooted in its vast resources and strategic geography. He then presented a stark analysis of its domestic trajectory, arguing that the Iranian governance system has begun to falter and is increasingly out of step with the populace. Since 2009, Sazhin noted, the country has been rocked by periodic waves of dissent. While their nature has shifted–from political (2009) to socio-economic (2017, 2019) to ideological (2022)–the underlying protest potential has not diminished. The latest unrest, ignited by the currency’s sharp devaluation, has evolved into broader anti-government demonstrations. “Political, ideological, economic, and social rejection of the regime has taken on a tinge of revenge in recent days. This is very dangerous,” Sazhin warned. He offered a potent metaphor for the situation: a “peat bog fire.” The visible flames might be stamped out, but beneath the surface, intense and smoldering processes continue to rage.
Shifting the focus outward, Lana Ravandi-Fadai, Head of the Oriental Cultural Centre at the same institute, painted a grave picture of external threats. She assessed Iran as a resilient state but argued that Israel remains intent on its “Balkanisation.” While the methods are unpredictable, the objective is clear: to fragment the Islamic Republic, largely by leveraging US power. However, she cast doubt on the immediate likelihood of a US-led war. President Donald Trump, she suggested, operates as a businessman for whom “the price is the most important thing.” His recent rhetorical shift–claiming victory by having “intimidated Iran” to the negotiating table–signals a preference for coercive pressure over open conflict.
Adlan Margoev, a research fellow at the MGIMO Institute of International Relations, argued that the current status quo is unsustainable. Iran faces a stark choice: make significant foreign policy concessions to relieve external pressure or undergo a fundamental change in its governance model, driven primarily by economic rather than political reform. “Iran could use good economic and monetary policy advisors,” Margoev concluded.
Yuri Lyamin, a senior researcher at the Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST), analysed the military-political aspects of the situation. He suggested that the US and Israel have different options. Maintaining prolonged military pressure without strikes is fundamentally possible, with Iran being worn down by constant combat readiness. However, such a strategy would require a long-term US military presence in the region, something Trump prefers to avoid. Various military options are also possible, such as attempts to block Iranian oil exports by intercepting tankers. However, Iran could retaliate by blocking the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf from the US and its allies. Iran has long been preparing for possible attempts at decapitation strikes, developing contingency plans. The US could also attempt to strike Iran’s oil refining infrastructure in order to trigger an economic crisis in the country and provoke uprisings. Lyamin emphasised that Iran should not fall into the “limited response trap”–the Islamic Republic must be prepared to respond to any US strikes “with full force.” The analyst believes that the only way for Iran to rid itself of the external threat is to demonstrate its readiness for a protracted, all-out war, which the US finds undesirable.
