Iran has emerged as the big winner of the so-called “Arab Spring.” Russia also benefited greatly – it achieved its aims in Syria by helping to preserve the Assad regime, and in the process, became the key broker of the postwar settlement – but Tehran made major gains not only in Syria but in Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon as well.

The social protests now sweeping across Iran reflect the deep tension between the Islamic regime’s commitment of vast resources to the assertion of Tehran’s regional hegemony and the yearning of middle class Iranians for an improvement in their economic wellbeing. And while the Islamist establishment that took power in the 1979 revolution is keenly aware of the perils of popular restiveness, history teaches that prolonged retention of power often makes regimes oblivious to the needs and yearnings of their subjects. This could upset the delicate balance between state and society.

In supporting recent anti-government protests in Iran, both Iranian hardliners and the US State Department might want to be careful what they wish for. Not only are the protests unlikely to spark the kind of change either of the two adversaries might be hoping for, but they are also refusing to stick to the different scripts the Trump administration and opponents of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani prefer to read into them.

Reports emerged recently suggesting that Iran-backed forces are closer to controlling the Syria-Iraq border. This would mean Tehran will now be able to link up with its Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah. If this scenario is correct, after 12 years of conflict in Iraq and another conflict in Syria, Iran is steadily transforming into a more powerful geopolitical player whose influence will be projected hundreds and maybe thousands of kilometers beyond its borders.