The London-based Financial Times, which exists in order to be the voice of City of London interests, published a lengthy analysis article on Iran which should be read more as a statement of intent than any kind of serious analysis.
“Even without having toppled the [Iranian] regime or its leader, the military onslaught could profoundly reshape Iran,” the article asserted hopefully, “exposing its weaknesses and setting into motion what some observers argue could be the most consequential changes since the 1979 Islamic revolution.” They then quote Mohammad Sadegh Javadi-Hesar, a reformist politician and former political prisoner: “The Islamic republic of Iran after this war will be reborn, very different from what it was before the war. It won’t change in name but will change in manner.” And that is followed by handy, but unnamed, “analysts”: “The shocking repercussions of Israel’s devastating bombing campaign mean that a shift in direction now seems inevitable, analysts say.”
Vali Nasr, professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, is quoted: “So I think the exact moment is not clear, or the exact leadership, but I think we’re on the verge of that.… The war has accelerated it because it has brought the republic to the verge of collapse, it’s extremely vulnerable.”
Only at the end of the article does FT admit that “a key difference to past moments of upheaval is that there is no organized, credible opposition inside or outside the republic.” Regardless, Sanam Vakil, Middle East director at Chatham House, said regimes don’t collapse, “they change.” “This is what’s going to happen,” she said. “It’s just going to evolve, perhaps at a faster pace than it was evolving already.”
