Expert on Iran discusses the rapidly unfolding events in Iran
University of Baltimore Professor appeared with Gabriella Power on Sky News’s Power Hour
In a tense and revealing exchange, Gabriella Power pressed Dr. Ivan “Sascha” Sheehan to assess the dramatic escalation in Iran—with missiles launching, the IRGC on alert, and the regime’s stability in doubt. Sheehan framed the moment as unprecedented: well beyond the usual back-and-forth rhetoric, Iran now faces active threats from both Israel and possibly the U.S., while China warns its citizens to leave. This rare alignment of adversarial forces creates a true existential moment for Tehran.
Power began by asking: What does it signify when Israel openly states that Ayatollah Khamenei “can no longer be allowed to exist”? Sheehan responded that such language marks a profound escalation. When a state removes all ambiguity and targets a regime’s supreme leader by name, it shifts conflict from policy to personal—and places Iran squarely in the logic of regime change, not mere deterrence. In Sheehan’s view, that boldness is not reckless—it’s strategic. Israel is signaling resolve, showing both Tehran and the West that nuclear ambiguity is no longer acceptable.
Pivoting to China, Power noted Beijing’s directive for its citizens to leave Iran. Sheehan described that as critical, calling it China’s confession that a crisis is imminent. While China traditionally hedges, this withdrawal hints at deeper concern about instability. It suggests fears over energy markets—or a calculated move to avoid getting caught in the crossfire. By urging citizens to leave, Beijing joins Washington and Jerusalem in drawing a no-go line around Iran.
When Power asked about former President Trump publicly threatening to hit Iran’s nuclear sites, Sheehan highlighted the synergy between political pressure and military signaling. He asserted that talk of strikes serves to augment deterrence, making Israel’s warnings more credible. More importantly, it strengthens the message that the U.S. would not be a passive observer.
Sheehan emphasized that these parallel pressures—Israel, the U.S., and even China—illustrate the first true global-front challenge to the clerical regime. It’s not a local dust-up; it’s a global coalition, testing Iran’s endurance. The question isn’t if the regime will crack, but when—and under which pressure point it finally caves.
Power asked whether this moment could ignite the Iranian opposition within—particularly the NCRI and other pro-democracy forces Sheehan has long studied. She noted that harbingers of unrest are already visible: deep divisions within elite circles, growing economic desperation, and even IRGC commanders urging caution in public statements. Sheehan agreed: Iranian civil society is watching closely. With strategic hits and sanctions squeezing from the outside, the internal hunger for change is intensifying.
Finally, Power sought clarification on what should follow. Should Tehrannical leadership fall, who steps in—and what role should outside powers play? Sheehan affirmed the view he’s championed for years: foreign military intervention must be avoided. Instead, the West should amplify and assist indigenous actors—the nationalist and democratic opposition that genuinely reflect the Iranian people’s will. Even with the regime collapsing, outside boots on the ground would likely prolong resistance and empower the hardliners.
In closing, Power asked: Is this Iran’s inflection point—its undoing or its final stand? Sheehan responded with guarded optimism. “This is a moment of real potential. The alignment of Israeli precision, U.S. determination, and China’s fear offers Tehran no easy escape. That leaves one path: regime collapse through internal implosion—an outcome Iranian patriots have fought for.”
The conversation ended with Power thanking Sheehan for a sobering breakdown of where Iran stands—and where it may be headed. For Australian and global audiences, the interview underscored a moment few analysts expected: the walls closing in on a regime once thought invincible, and a possible democratic horizon rising from its collapse.
