War, diplomacy or revolt: What could happen next in Iran?

After a week of demonstrations, the streets of Iran have fallen silent again.

A Tehran resident compared the atmosphere in the capital to the days around Nowruz, the Iranian New Year, when many people leave the city and shops close early.

But there is no festive joy, only eerie silence, they said.

Life goes on in the shadow of a deadly crackdown on protesters and under the specter of a possible new military confrontation with the United States.

The Islamic Republic hopes to celebrate the 47th anniversary of the revolution that brought it to power next month, writes CNN.

However, the atmosphere is likely to be much less festive, as the regime faces the biggest threat to its survival yet.

It may have been able to suppress the latest wave of protests, but the underlying grievances that motivate protesters have not disappeared.

How did it get here?

Last Thursday and Friday are emerging as some of the most decisive days in Iran's recent history.

Economic protests that began in Tehran's bazaars suddenly transformed into what could turn out to be the biggest threat the Islamic Republic has faced since its founding in 1979.

Large crowds took to the streets across the country chanting "death to the dictator," calling for the overthrow of the regime and, in a relatively recent development, some called for the return of Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of the last Shah of Iran.

The unprecedented digital shutdown, which has isolated Iranians from the world, means that the true scale of the brutality is still not fully understood.

Nearly 3,000 people have been killed since Iran's crackdown on dissidents began, according to the US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA).

Will the US and Iran face off?

Over the past few weeks, US President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to attack Iran if the regime uses violence against protesters.

However, on Thursday, Trump told reporters that "very important sources on the other side" had informed him that the killings had stopped in Iran - suggesting there would be no immediate US military action.

Gulf officials also said Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have urged the US to avoid attacks on Iran, warning of security and economic risks that could affect both the US and the wider region.

These diplomatic efforts appear to have led to a reduction in tensions.

But this may be temporary.

Analysts say the threat of American or Israeli attacks on Iran is not over yet.

“There has been no resolution to the real root of the tensions,” says Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Citizenship, adding that Israel’s tensions with Iran were never about the protests.

Is there still room for diplomacy?

Even if Tehran and Washington try to revive diplomacy, Iran will do so from its weakest position yet.

Iran's main nuclear facilities were severely damaged by US attacks last summer, degrading key parts of its program, and most of the intermediaries it used to project power have been effectively neutralized by Israel.

While Iran still maintains a significant stockpile of highly enriched uranium - a key ingredient for a nuclear bomb - the physical and symbolic blow is significant.

“The Iranians, in many ways, have lost a huge amount of influence,” Parsi thinks, predicting that “Trump will take a very maximalist stance” if negotiations resume.

Beyond the nuclear issue, any renewal of talks is likely to cover a broader range of issues.

The US would be willing to curb Iran's missile program and its support for affiliated groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, as well as Shiite militias throughout the region.

This is where things can get more complicated.

While Iran's leadership has in the past shown some leeway for a nuclear deal with the US, it has treated its missile program and support for what it calls "resistance" groups as non-negotiable.

Any compromise on these fronts would be seen as nothing less than complete capitulation to American demands.

But this would not be the first time that revolutionary Iran has been forced to accept an imperfect deal.

At the end of the Iran-Iraq war in 1988, the Islamic Republic agreed to a ceasefire it had long resisted, with the revolution's founder Ruhollah Khomeini famously saying it was like "drinking from a poisoned cup."

Nearly four decades later, the regime has found itself in an even more precarious situation.

He may be willing to make painful compromises to ensure survival again.

But even if it does, that may not be enough to regain the legitimacy it has lost after killing so many citizens.

The “social contract” is ‘permanently damaged’

Experts say the recent protests have shown that the social contract between the Islamic Republic and its people has been irrevocably broken.

The state has not only failed to protect its citizens from foreign attacks, provide economic prosperity, or allow political and social freedom; it has also consistently demonstrated a willingness to use brutal violence to silence them.

"The social contract was already weak," Parsi said.

"Now she is permanently damaged," she added.

For many Iranians, nothing less than fundamental change will suffice. This is an extremely difficult task.

During his decades in power, Khamenei and his vast security apparatus have systematically suppressed any form of domestic opposition capable of seriously challenging his rule.

Figures such as Mostafa Tajzadeh, former deputy interior minister, or Narges Mohammadi, Nobel Peace Prize laureate and human rights activist, have spent years behind bars for challenging the system from within.

If significant change were ever to emerge, it is more likely to come from within the same security and power structures that have benefited most from the regime, rather than from the reformist camp that has been steadily eroding.

"The most likely scenario is that another variant of the regime will exist, through elements from within the same regime," Parsi predicts.

No stable opposition

Outside Iran, the picture becomes even darker.

Opposition groups based abroad remain deeply divided.

Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of the last Shah, has reemerged as a potential supporting figure.

He insists he would be a transitional leader ready to steer Iran toward a more prosperous democratic future.

But after more than four decades in exile, he has struggled to build a diverse cross-political coalition or devise a plan to bring about change that does not involve US intervention.

And he's not even Trump's preferred candidate to rule the country.

"Most opposition figures have been out of the country and have not done their usual work," said Dina Esfandiary, head of Middle East research at Bloomberg Economics in Geneva, adding that someone like Pahlavi "is a very divisive figure and would significantly divide Iranians."

It is this uncertainty that weighs on many Iranians as they consider how far they will go for change.

Another potential concern is whether the potential fall of the regime will bring about the downfall of Iran as a nation.

With its ethnic and regional diversity, the risk of fragmentation is a clear possibility.

It is likely only a matter of time before another wave of protests emerges.

And as leaders in Tehran will surely recall, the 1979 revolution was itself a culmination of a year-long protest movement before finally toppling the Shah's regime.

"I don't think this is the last protest," Esfandiary thinks.

"A line has been crossed and we have reached a point of no return," she added. /Telegraph/