Iran - background

Regime change wouldn’t likely bring democracy to Iran. A more threatening force could fill the vacuum

Andrew Thomas, Deakin University

The timing and targets of Israel’s attacks on Iran tell us that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s short-term goal is to damage Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to severely diminish its weapons program.

But Netanyahu has made clear another goal: he said the war with Iran “could certainly” lead to regime change in the Islamic republic.

These comments came after an Israeli plan to assassinate the supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was reportedly rebuffed by United States President Donald Trump.

It’s no secret Israel has wanted to see the current government of Iran fall for some time, as have many government officials in the US.

But what would things look like if the government did topple?

How is power wielded in today’s Iran?

Founded in 1979 after the Iranian Revolution, the Islamic Republic of Iran has democratic, theocratic and authoritarian elements to its governing structure.

The founding figure of the Islamic republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, envisioned a state run by Islamic clerics and jurists who ensured all policies adhered to Islamic law.

As Iran was a constitutional monarchy before the revolution, theocratic elements were effectively grafted on top of the existing republican ones, such as the parliament, executive and judiciary.

Iran has a unicameral legislature (one house of parliament), called the Majles, and a president (currently Masoud Pezeshkian). There are regular elections for both.

But while there are democratic elements within this system, in practice it is a “closed loop” that keeps the clerical elite in power and prevents challenges to the supreme leader. There is a clear hierarchy, with the supreme leader at the top.

Khamenei has been in power for more than 35 years, taking office following Khomeini’s death in 1989. The former president of Iran, he was chosen to become supreme leader by the Assembly of Experts, an 88-member body of Islamic jurists.

While members of the assembly are elected by the public, candidates must be vetted by the powerful 12-member Guardian Council (also known as the Constitutional Council). Half of this body is selected by the supreme leader, while the other half is approved by the Majles.

The council also has the power to vet all candidates for president and the parliament.

In last year’s elections, the Guardian Council disqualified many candidates from running for president, as well as the Majles and Assembly of Experts, including the moderate former president Hassan Rouhani.

As such, the supreme leader is increasingly facing a crisis of legitimacy with the public. Elections routinely have low turnout. Even with a reformist presidential candidate in last year’s field – the eventual winner, Masoud Pezeshkian – turnout was below 40% in the first round.

Freedom House gives Iran a global freedom score of just 11 out of 100.

The supreme leader also directly appoints the leaders in key governance structures, such as the judiciary, the armed forces and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

The all-powerful IRGC

So, Iran is far from a democracy. But the idea that regime change would lead to a full democracy that is aligned with Israel and the US is very unlikely.

Iranian politics is extremely factional. Ideological factions, such as the reformists, moderates and conservatives, often disagree vehemently on key policy areas. They also jockey for influence with the supreme leader and the rest of the clerical elite. None of these factions is particularly friendly with the US, and especially not Israel.

There are also institutional factions. The most powerful group in the country is the clerical elite, led by the supreme leader. The next most powerful faction would be the IRGC.

Originally formed as a kind of personal guard for the supreme leader, the IRGC’s fighting strength now rivals that of the regular army.

The IRGC is extremely hardline politically. At times, the IRGC’s influence domestically has outstripped that of presidents, exerting significant pressure on their policies. The guard only vocally supports presidents in lockstep with Islamic revolutionary doctrine.

In addition to its control over military hardware and its political influence, the guard is also entwined with the Iranian economy.

The IRGC is heavily enriched by the status quo, with some describing it as a “kleptocratic” institution. IRGC officials are often awarded state contracts, and are allegedly involved in managing the “black economy” used to evade sanctions.

Given all of this, the IRGC would be the most likely political institution to take control of Iran if the clerical elite were removed from power.

In peacetime, the general consensus is the IRGC would not have the resources to orchestrate a coup if the supreme leader died. But in a time of war against a clear enemy, things could be different.

Possible scenarios post-Khamenei

So, what might happen if Israel were to assassinate the supreme leader?

One scenario would be a martial law state led by the IRGC, formed at least in the short term for the purposes of protecting the revolution.

In the unlikely event the entire clerical leadership is decimated, the IRGC could attempt to reform the Assembly of Experts and choose a new supreme leader itself, perhaps even supporting Khamenei’s son’s candidacy.

Needless to say, this outcome would not lead to a state more friendly to Israel or the US. In fact, it could potentially empower a faction that has long argued for a more militant response to both.

Another scenario is a popular uprising. Netanyahu certainly seems to think this is possible, saying in an interview in recent days:

The decision to act, to rise up this time, is the decision of the Iranian people.

Indeed, many Iranians have long been disillusioned with their government – even with more moderate and reformist elements within it. Mass protests have broken out several times in recent decades – most recently in 2022 – despite heavy retaliation from law enforcement.

We’ve seen enough revolutions to know this is possible – after all, modern Iran was formed out of one. But once again, new political leadership being more friendly to Israel and the West is not a foregone conclusion.

It is possible for Iranians to hold contempt in their hearts for both their leaders and the foreign powers that would upend their lives.

Andrew Thomas, Lecturer in Middle East Studies, Deakin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Technology - Uranium for civilian and military purposes - what's the difference ?

What is uranium enrichment and how is it used for nuclear bombs? A scientist explains

Uranium ore. RHJPhtotos/Shutterstock

Kaitlin Cook, Australian National University

Late last week, Israel targeted three of Iran’s key nuclear facilities – Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow, killing several Iranian nuclear scientists. The facilities are heavily fortified and largely underground, and there are conflicting reports of how much damage has been done.

Natanz and Fordow are Iran’s uranium enrichment sites, and Isfahan provides the raw materials, so any damage to these sites would limit Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons.

But what exactly is uranium enrichment and why does it raise concerns?

To understand what it means to “enrich” uranium, you need to know a little about uranium isotopes and about splitting the atom in a nuclear fission reaction.

What is an isotope?

All matter is made of atoms, which in turn are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons. The number of protons is what gives atoms their chemical properties, setting apart the various chemical elements.

Atoms have equal numbers of protons and electrons. Uranium has 92 protons, for example, while carbon has six. However, the same element can have different numbers of neutrons, forming versions of the element called isotopes.

This hardly matters for chemical reactions, but their nuclear reactions can be wildly different.

The difference between uranium-238 and uranium-235

When we dig uranium out of the ground, 99.27% of it is uranium-238, which has 92 protons and 146 neutrons. Only 0.72% of it is uranium-235 with 92 protons and 143 neutrons (the remaining 0.01% are other isotopes).

For nuclear power reactors or weapons, we need to change the isotope proportions. That’s because of the two main uranium isotopes, only uranium-235 can support a fission chain reaction: one neutron causes an atom to fission, which produces energy and some more neutrons, causing more fission, and so on.

This chain reaction releases a tremendous amount of energy. In a nuclear weapon, the goal is to have this chain reaction occur in a fraction of a second, producing a nuclear explosion.

In a civilian nuclear power plant, the chain reaction is controlled. Nuclear power plants currently produce 9% of the world’s power. Another vital civilian use of nuclear reactions is for producing isotopes used in nuclear medicine for the diagnosis and treatment of various diseases.

What is uranium enrichment, then?

To “enrich” uranium means taking the naturally found element and increasing the proportion of uranium-235 while removing uranium-238.

There are a few ways to do this (including new inventions from Australia), but commercially, enrichment is currently done with a centrifuge. This is also the case in Iran’s facilities.

Centrifuges exploit the fact that uranium-238 is about 1% heavier than uranium-235. They take uranium (in gas form) and use rotors to spin it at 50,000 to 70,000 rotations per minute, with the outer walls of the centrifuges moving at 400 to 500 metres per second.

This works much like a salad spinner that throws water to the sides while the salad leaves stay in the centre. The heavier uranium-238 moves to the edges of the centrifuge, leaving the uranium-235 in the middle.

This is only so effective, so the spinning process is done over and over again, building up the percentage of the uranium-235.

Most civilian nuclear reactors use “low enriched uranium” that’s been enriched to between 3% and 5%. This means that 3–5% of the total uranium in the sample is now uranium-235. That’s enough to sustain a chain reaction and make electricity.

What level of enrichment do nuclear weapons need?

To get an explosive chain reaction, uranium-235 needs to be concentrated significantly more than the levels we use in nuclear reactors for making power or medicines.

Technically, a nuclear weapon can be made with as little as 20% uranium-235 (known as “highly enriched uranium”), but the more the uranium is enriched, the smaller and lighter the weapon can be. Countries with nuclear weapons tend to use about 90% enriched, “weapons-grade” uranium.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran has enriched large quantities of uranium to 60%. It’s actually easier to go from an enrichment of 60% to 90% than it is to get to that initial 60%. That’s because there’s less and less uranium-238 to get rid of.

This is why Iran is considered to be at extreme risk of producing nuclear weapons, and why centrifuge technology for enrichment is kept secret.

Ultimately, the exact same centrifuge technology that produces fuel for civilian reactors can be used to produce nuclear weapons.

Inspectors from the IAEA monitor nuclear facilities worldwide to ensure countries are abiding by the rules set out in the global nuclear non-proliferation treaty. While Iran maintains it’s only enriching uranium for “peaceful purposes”, late last week the IAEA board ruled Iran was in breach of its obligations under the treaty.

Kaitlin Cook, DECRA Fellow, Department of Nuclear Physics and Accelerator Applications, Australian National University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Sydney Film Festival 2025 - Film Review - It was just an accident

It was an accident film still

Iranian director and screenwriter, Jafar Panahi has brought an Iranian style road movie to the screen broaching a subject with an intense moral dilemma but one which many people in many conflict zones must confront. What does the a victim of torture do, if the opportunity to take revenge against their tormentor inadvertantly becomes possible ?

This moral dilemma is presented clearly in this film with the story commencing late one night when a worker recognises the owner of a broken down car as being the intelligence agent who had tortured him many years previously when he was arrested for a protest. The worker takes it upon himself to track down the agent and kidnap him with the intention of exacting revenge. Having completed the abduction, the worker finds self doubt creeps into his actions and he then seeks out other victims of the agent (including a soon-to-be-married bride) to verify he has abducted the correct man and then to resolve what to do. The reactions of the different victims who are now confronted with this situation forms the bulk of the film.

Panahi adds some comedic relief to the film in parts which lessens the intensity of the storyline, nevertheless the choice between forgiveness and retribution remains the central focus. As a film maker Panahi has also experienced the power of the Iranian state having his films banned and being imprisoned himself.

'It was just an accident' was awarded the Sydney Prize by the festival jury at the 2025 Sydney Film Festival. The film also won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival in 2025.

Evaluation:

Production values: 9/10

Narrative and direction: 10/10

Cast: 8/10

Sydney Film Festival 2025 - Film Review - Orwell 2+2=5

Orwell 2+2=5 still slide

George Orwell's writings, particularly his diary and his acclaimed books, Animal Farm and 1984 are the focus of this film which seeks to apply the Orwellian observations to current international events. Documentary director and producer, Raoul Peck traverses Orwell's life from childhood to his experiences in Burma (as a colonial policeman), his participation in the Spanish Civil War and the progress of his writing. Current illustrations and examples which support Orwell's warnings (Trump, Musk, Putin and the war on Ukraine etc) are interspersed with quotations. 

The chief weakenss of this film is the seemingly random nature of drawing quotes from different Orwell sources then connecting with a variety of film clips from multiple sources including feature films with no direct Orwell connection. Constantly jumping from his diary to book quotes to film scripts often blurs the examples of the messages being conveyed.  The film has very high production values and has been carefully researched but it lacks a discipline in structural continuity to assist with easy viewing and comprehension.

Nonetheless the central message conveyed is that Orwell's warnings about totalitarianism and authoritarianism was very prescient and remains as relevant today as when he was first published.

Evaluation:

Production values: 10/10

Narrative and direction: 5/10

Cast: 7/10

Sydney Film Festival 2025 - Film Review - The Blue Trail

The Blue Trail - Rodrigo Santoro and Denise Weinberg

 

Screenwriter and Director, Gabriel Mascaro has provided a dystopian alternate fate for older citizens in this Amazon River 'road' movie set only a few years into the future. In this world, older citizens are relocated to a housing colony by the Government upon reaching old age (around 75). Failure to comply with the edict leads to be rounded up by civil authorities and detained before being given care backpacks and loaded onto buses. Wearing of adult diapers is mandatory before departing on the buses. 

Against this reality,  77 year old Tereza (Denise Weinberg) decides she will not be left to this fate and does a runner. She cannot buy any transport tickets for air or boat without the approval of an authorised family member who is designated her guardian (in this case her daughter) so she resorts to finding her own transport. She begins her journey through the Amazon's rivers and tributaries meeting a colourful cast of characters from a skipper (Rodrigo Santoro) of an Amazon smuggling boat (who introduces her to a psychedelic blue liguid from a snail and shows her how to run the boat) to a digital bible-selling woman running her own floating pulpit along the river.   

Mascaro's story is innovative with the stunning imagery of the Amazon as the backdrop. The anti-authoritarion theme is balanced with various playful surprises as Tereza makes good her escape.

Evaluation:

Production values: 10/10

Narrative and direction: 7/10

Cast: 8/10

Sydney Film Festival 2025 - Film Review - Vie Privee

Still from Vie Privee - Jodie Foster 

Described as a "gently comic murder mystery", Vie Privee is more absurdist than funny and somewhat muddled in the construction of the parts that form the storyline. With the well established and experienced principal actors (being Jodie Foster, Daniel Auteuil, Mathieu Almaric and Virginie Elfira) and a half decent story idea, it's surprising the film comes across as patently serious and misses most of the comedic elements, if there are any.  

In terms of the story, psychiatrist Lilian Steiner (Jodie Foster) is annoyed that her patient of the past nine years, Paula (Virginie Efira) has failed to appear for her sessions. She is horrified to learn her patient is dead and becomes convinced that Paula's husband (Mathieu Almaric) has murdered Paula. She seeks guidance from a hypnotist and engages her ex-husband (Daniel Auteil) to help investigate her theory.  

Jodie Foster is a very experienced French speaker although she has appeared in a very small number of French language films. Her intensity of presence however is not one that lends itself easily to comedy. Likewise the script does not provide much in the way of comedic relief and only Daniel Auteuil's character has softer dialogue. In general the characters appear more neurotic than amusing throughout the film.

Recommended viewing when perservance is possible.

Evaluation:

Production values: 9/10

Narrative and direction: 6/10

Cast: 8/10

Sydney Film Festival 2025 - Film Review - Mr Nobody Against Putin

Mr Nobody against Putin -  Pavel Talakin

Russian school teacher, Pavel "Pasha" Talakin enjoyed his job teaching at a primary school in the small Russian town of Karabash, famous only for its polluting copper smelter, the largest in Russia. Everything changed when Russia invaded Ukraine and the war began. The Russian state started to increasingly intervene into the curriculum and classrooms promoting nationalism and the war to the dismay of Talakin. Determined to ensure this situation was both documented and opposed, Talakin filmed the events as they occured eventually leading to police surveillance of his activities until he was forced to flee his country. 

His film documents the progressive requirements placed on teachers to recite propaganda against the West and Ukraine, the institution of military training for children and the shock appearance of uniformed Wagner mercenaries to provide weapons instruction to the school children. As the timeline of the film progresses, the sadness of former school graduates being killed in action in the war emerges. This is a heartfelt, sentimental and personal voyage documented by Talakin and serves again to reinforce the tragedy that authoritarian regimes can inflict on their communities.

Often filmed using a handheld camera, the documentary had post production assistance including historical footage added once Talakin reached the West.

Evaluation:

Production values: 9/10

Narrative and direction: 8/10

Cast: 9/10