How long before Pakistan faces an Iran-style systemic collapse?

Iran’s streets show what happens when economic hardship combines with political exclusion. As trust in the system fades in Tehran, worrying parallels appear closer home. Pakistan’s crisis is slower and quieter, but deeply rooted. History shows that such systems do not suddenly fail; they weaken and break over time

The images coming out of Iran this week are a continuation of what we saw in 2025, and they could unsettle capitals far beyond the Middle East. What we are seeing in Iran is not just another protest. It is something far bigger and far more serious.

Across Iran, ordinary people—especially women appearing without Islamic hijabs—have taken to the streets as daily life has become unbearable. What began as protests driven by economic despair, currency collapse, inflation, and declining living standards has evolved into something deeper and more consequential: a nationwide challenge to the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic itself.

Independent online platforms such as Tusis TV, run by Iranian journalists living abroad, have been showing these events live to the world. During Israel’s strikes on Iran in 2025, these platforms revealed how fragile the system had become. Today, they are once again showing a nation filled with anger, fear, and uncertainty.

This time, the protests are everywhere. Demonstrations have spread across all 31 provinces of Iran. Despite internet shutdowns and heavy police action, people continue to gather. Some reports suggest that parts of the security forces are unhappy and that cracks may be appearing within powerful institutions such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Most importantly, people are no longer protesting only prices or jobs. Many are directly questioning the authority of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the religious system that has ruled Iran for decades. This is not just unrest; it is a crisis of trust between the state and its people.

How Iran reached this point

To understand today’s Iran, we must go back to 1979, when the Islamic Revolution replaced the Shah with a strict religious system. That system reshaped society, especially in large cities that were once relatively modern and open. Over the years, personal freedoms were reduced. Political choices became limited. Fear replaced consent.

Women suffered the most. From strict dress rules to harsh punishments, the state’s control over women became a symbol of its power. In recent years, the deaths of young women during morality-policing incidents deeply shocked society. What began as fear slowly turned into anger and then resistance. Today’s protests are the result of decades of frustration. Many Iranians feel the system no longer represents them. And when a government loses the trust of its people, even the most powerful security forces struggle to maintain control.

Why Pakistan must be jittery

As Iran faces this moment, a natural question arises: when could something similar happen in Pakistan?

Pakistan, like Iran, is under economic stress. Inflation is high, the currency is weak, debt is growing, and unemployment is widespread. Unlike Iran, Pakistan does not have oil revenues to fall back on. It survives on loans, aid, and international support. But economics alone do not create such crises. The deeper issue is legitimacy—whether people believe the system truly works for them.

Pakistan is officially a democracy. Elections are held. Governments change. Yet real power has long rested with the military establishment, especially the Pakistan Army. Over time, this imbalance has created silent frustration.

The Imran Khan turning point

That frustration exploded in May of 2023, when former prime minister Imran Khan was arrested. What followed shocked the country. Protesters attacked military buildings—something that had never happened before. The army, once seen as untouchable, suddenly became a target of public anger.

The state responded firmly and restored order, but trust was not restored. For the first time, a large number of Pakistanis openly questioned the military’s role in politics. The belief that the Pakistani military leaders always know what is best for the nation took a serious hit.

Imran Khan is not attempting to overthrow the state or replace it with a new ideology. But he represents a threat to the establishment: a popular leader capable of directly challenging its authority. That challenge has been pushed underground, but it has not disappeared.

Quiet voices of dissent

On new-age digital platforms, people are increasingly expressing their views more freely, discussing economic hardship, governance failures, and the limits of political power. These conversations, once confined to private spaces, are now visible to a wider public.

Even in Parliament, speeches have begun to reflect this shift. Lawmakers from different parties are cautiously but clearly questioning economic mismanagement and the influence of unelected forces in steering the country toward repeated crises. The language may be restrained, but the message is no longer hidden. History shows that major political shifts rarely begin with slogans or mass rallies.

They begin quietly, when ordinary citizens, professionals, and elected representatives start to believe the system is no longer working for them.

Cracks within the state

Pakistan is experiencing growing pressure within its institutions. Much of this strain has emerged in recent years, particularly after Operation Sindoor, carried out by Bharat, which challenged long-held assumptions about the strength and deterrence of Pakistan’s establishment.

Although India’s military action was limited, it exposed weaknesses in Pakistan’s strategic narrative, especially the belief that strong backing from China and the United States would always guarantee security.

These developments appear to have affected morale within the system. While the military remains intact as an institution, its public image has suffered. Internal matters such as promotions, transfers, and command decisions, once shielded from public view, are now openly discussed in the media and online spaces.

The newly minted Field Marshal Asim Munir leads at a time when public trust in the institution is at one of its lowest points in decades. Signs of internal insecurity have also become visible. Recent images of the army chief addressing officers from behind bulletproof glass cabins have drawn attention, symbolising not only concerns about external threats but also a growing trust deficit within the ranks he commands.

Such moments may seem small, but they point to a deeper issue: when confidence within powerful institutions weakens, the impact often extends far beyond their walls.

Freedom movement

Pakistan is also under pressure from armed movements. In Balochistan and parts of the northwest, separatist groups continue to grow, fuelled by decades of political neglect, economic deprivation, and disputes over control of natural resources.

These conflicts force the state to deploy large security forces and spend heavily on operations, draining resources that could otherwise support economic growth. Over time, prolonged unrest weakens state authority and increases resentment among affected communities.

Why Pakistan has not reached Iran’s moment—yet

Despite similarities, Pakistan is not Iran. Several factors still prevent a sudden collapse.

First, international interests matter. The United States prefers a stable Pakistan, mainly because of nuclear weapons and its geopolitical location. Chaos is the last thing Washington wants. Second, Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal itself acts as protection.

The world may tolerate dysfunction, but it fears losing control over nuclear assets. Third, Pakistan lacks a single alternative leader with global backing. Iran’s opposition benefits from an international narrative against religious rule. Pakistan’s opposition remains divided and domestic. Exiled figures such as Altaf Hussain no longer command broad national support.

How Bharat can increase pressure—without war

Bharat does not need conflict to affect Pakistan’s stability. By maintaining diplomatic pressure, tightening financial scrutiny, supporting global watchdogs, and highlighting terror-financing risks, India can indirectly deepen Pakistan’s economic stress.

Reduced foreign investment, delayed bailouts, and stricter loan conditions increase pressure on Islamabad. A weaker economy means less money for subsidies, salaries, and development, raising public anger at home. Bharat’s advantage lies in appearing stable and responsible while Pakistan struggles to manage repeated crises.

The final warning

Iran’s unrest is a warning to all systems that rely more on control than consent. Pakistan has weathered many storms, but once legitimacy is lost, it is difficult to rebuild.

The real question for Rawalpindi is not whether dissent can be suppressed, but how long control can be maintained before everything breaks loose. Tehran shows what happens when such warnings are ignored.

(The author is the founder of MyStartup TV)