If Trump retreats on Iran, US global credibility will be damaged, Georgian analyst Koberidze

Tensions in the Middle East are approaching a critical phase. The administration of US President Donald Trump is considering tougher measures against Iran, including the possibility of military action. What lies ahead for the Islamic Republic’s leadership? How realistic are large-scale airstrikes, and how might decisive US action reshape the global geopolitical environment - from Venezuela to the war in Ukraine?

In an interview with Front News, international relations expert Giorgi Koberidze analyzes Iran’s internal dynamics, the calculations of regional actors, and potential scenarios that could fundamentally alter the balance of power in Tehran.

President Trump has warned Iran of direct intervention and “tough measures.” How realistic is the prospect of US airstrikes, given reports that a list of 50 Iranian military targets has already been prepared?

US airstrikes against Iran are a realistic possibility. Such operations would most likely focus on infrastructure, economic assets, and energy facilities, particularly oil and gas production sites. Political and security targets would also be included, such as facilities linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. In parallel, extensive cyber operations could be conducted, potentially disrupting Iran’s communications nationwide.

It is worth noting that strikes would not necessarily target nuclear facilities, as the United States possesses alternative and effective means of exerting pressure.

Following such explicit warnings, a failure to act would seriously damage both US credibility and President Trump’s personal standing. Repeated threats without follow-through could embolden Tehran and lead to more repressive behavior by Iranian authorities. In this context, recent developments involving Venezuela have reinforced expectations that Washington may pursue a more assertive foreign policy approach.

At the same time, reports suggest that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and even Israel have urged caution. Could President Trump face a dilemma between acting on his threats and accommodating allies’ concerns over oil prices and possible Iranian retaliation?

Assertions that Israel is unprepared for such a scenario are misleading. Any hesitation is more likely tactical and short-term, potentially involving delays measured in hours or days rather than weeks. A prolonged delay would reduce the operation’s effectiveness, as the Iranian authorities could intensify internal repression and consolidate control.

If the objective of potential strikes is regime change, this would imply preparation for a broader military confrontation, which requires time. If, however, the aim is deterrence - to compel Tehran to reduce repression, release detainees, and pursue reforms - then action would likely be swift. The nature of US strategy should become clear in the near term.

Iran’s judiciary leadership has emphasized the speed of repression to maintain its “effect.” Does this indicate internal instability within the regime?

Iran is not governed solely from Tehran. Key decisions are made in Qom, under the authority of the religious establishment. Without approval from the senior clergy, political participation at the highest level is impossible. As a result, the system is unlikely to collapse unless Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei either leaves power or dies.

The ruling elite is acutely aware that relinquishing control would expose them to accountability for extensive human rights violations. This explains their reliance on both domestic repression and external proxies. Iran continues to support armed groups such as Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Hamas, positioning itself as a central actor in regional instability.

Tehran has threatened to strike US bases in neighboring countries. How credible is this threat, and could it deter regional states from cooperating with Washington?

In the event of a large-scale, coordinated US operation, strikes would extend well beyond symbolic targets. Iran possesses ballistic missile capabilities that are difficult to intercept due to their speed and trajectory. However, if US operations successfully neutralize Iran’s command-and-control infrastructure, its capacity to coordinate retaliation would be significantly reduced.

For regional partners, denying airspace access would severely strain relations with Washington. Moreover, the US maintains strategic assets such as the Diego Garcia base, which enables operations against Iran without reliance on regional airspace. The scale of US air power allows for hundreds, potentially thousands, of precision strikes in a short timeframe.

China has opposed external interference in Iran’s internal affairs. How far is Beijing likely to go in supporting Tehran?

China is unlikely to take direct action. Beijing remains focused on its own strategic priorities, particularly Taiwan. While China could provide limited diplomatic or intelligence support, direct military assistance to Iran is improbable.

How are developments in Iran connected to the war in Ukraine? Would pressure on Iran affect Russia’s military capabilities?

Russia has expended a substantial portion of its resources in Ukraine. While Iran has provided military support, much of Russia’s current production now relies on domestically assembled systems incorporating Iranian technology. Nevertheless, the loss of Iran as a strategic partner would represent a significant setback for Moscow, both economically and geopolitically.

A change of power in Iran would also influence global energy markets, potentially increasing supply and exerting downward pressure on prices. More broadly, it would send a strong signal internationally regarding accountability for state-led violence against civilians.

Failure to act would risk strengthening Tehran’s position. Action, however, could trigger internal instability, including the possibility of prolonged unrest or civil conflict, with profound regional consequences.

By Elza Paposhvili