Since the end of 2017, the Iranian protests have calmed down. This decline brings many analysts to wonder about the reasons, offering various interpretations. The Iranian iron fist, by which the Revolutionary Guard chases the opponents of the regime, seems to be a logical explanation for such a decline. But other controversial interpretations are based on a purely political debate.


The West's abandonment of protesters is one of the reasons behind their refraction, said some analysts. This analysis primarily brings back the scenario of unrest in several Arab countries in 2011. At that time, American and Western pressures led to overthrow some Arab regimes. According to this view, the protests could have been successful if the US called on the regime to step aside. That's not true. Washington, especially Trump, is eager to see the Iranian mullahs collapse.


The US has provided direct support to the Iranian protests since their beginning, while the EU is cautiously watching without making any move. Generally, the American and Western position cannot be compared to the situation of the Arab regimes in 2011. The Iranian regime is not an ally of Washington and does not depend on the American support. For the US decision makers, it is a rogue regime. The mullahs have accused the US of organizing and supporting the protests in order to overthrow the regime.


The mullahs regime learned from the situations of unrest in the Arab countries and fortified itself so as not to have the same fate. More importantly, Iran is an introvert State, like North Korea. Foreign intelligence cannot penetrate Iran in the same way it did in several Arab countries, both before and after the collapse of their regimes. Qatar, for example, is a country which funded terrorist organizations that managed to reach presidency in Egypt. The Iranian policy of the iron fist makes it difficult for foreign countries to easily and freely penetrate Iran, as they did in Arab countries.


The Iranian protests were purely popular. There was no leadership. The regime is well-known by his control against the opponents and has tightened its iron fist on the State's departments since 1979.


The doctrine of the security forces is a key factor in both the Arab and Iranian situations. In some Arab countries, the security forces collapsed under the pressure of increasing protests and confusion that hit the hierarchy of the leadership. They are regular official forces and have a professional, unmediated security doctrine. Ideology is one of the most important differences between Arab security forces and the Basij militias and the Iranian irregular security forces. The Iranian forces operate according to an ideology that does not allow the collapse, but the shedding of blood and fighting to defend their doctrine.


In his first State of the Union address, US President Donald Trump described the Iranian leader as a "dictator," declaring his stand with the Iranian people for his freedom. "When the Iranian people rose up against the crimes of its corrupt dictatorship I did not stay silent," said Trump. He gave explicit, direct and strong support to the Iranian demonstrators, describing them as tenacious. But the words from the White House are not enough to resolve the complex Iranian situation.


Analyses of the recent Iranian protests reflect that there are several reasons for their decline. The abandonment of the West is not included. I mentioned in a previous article that the situation in Iran is completely different from what happened in 2011 in several Arab countries. The recent protests did not fail, as some might believe, but have achieved some goals. Maybe this is just a prelude to stronger protests that will eradicate the regime but through bloody clash. The mullahs’ regime will not simply give up the rule overnight and declare their desire to stop the bloodshed. Iran's history shows that it is an exceptional situation for the Iranian regime.