THE protests in Iran do not yet have the “critical mass” needed to force regime change in Iran, according to former British ambassador Sir Richard Dalton.

Asked on the Camilla Tominey Show on GB News if we are closer to change than ever before, he said : “Yes, we are, but we’re not there, and that’s because there are a number of possible outcomes. One is that these demonstrations, which are not as large as some have been in the past, might fizzle out under heavy repression.

“Another is that sporadic clashes could go on for weeks and could eventually lead to some defections from the security forces. There’s often a breaking point when people in the street with guns don’t want to shoot any more at their fellow citizens.

“That could happen, in which case there could be some form of negotiation to lead to change, incremental change, but that would be fraught with problems.

“And thirdly, there could be some external intervention, but how that would play out would be on some spectrum, from a rapid decapitation and a good easy succession to prolonged chaos.”

He added: “This began as a protest by traders against massive inflation and massive devaluation of the currency, it spread to being a spontaneous movement of the poor against the appalling conditions imposed by the economic decline in Iran and then later more of the intellectual, the middle classes, came out in the streets.

“But what I’m hearing is that there’s not a critical mass yet to persuade the leaders of the regime, let alone the rank and file, that their time has come.”

On the prospect of US military intervention, he said: “I don’t trust the Americans to intervene in any Middle Eastern country. Their record of selling disorder and instability is appalling.

“From Iraq to Gaza to Yemen to Syria to Somalia, they don’t have a method of simply replacing one regime with another, in a country of 85 million people, as large as much of western Europe, and with people who don’t want to receive a new regime at the end of the barrel of a foreign gun.

“There would be people who will support American intervention, but it’s far from clear that there is any plan that could answer Alex Burghart’s question in a satisfactory way.

“Those who were listening to him just now will have seen that he supported foreign intervention, provided there was a way of doing it swiftly and easily and without prolonging the situation of chaos and casualties. And nobody has suggested any way of answering his question satisfactorily.”

Asked if bringing back the Shah was popular in Iran, he said: “No, it certainly isn’t, because the Shah’s era is something that not only have they been educated to think was bad, but it actually was bad, and the son is basically an American and has no record of developing a political movement which could unify the opposition inside or outside the country.

“Yes, his name is being shouted. Yes, there will be a lot of people who would see him as a figure who could hold the ring while political processes of a consultative nature developed to produce consensus across the country on an alternative way of running it, but getting him in there and getting that consent and avoiding a civil war is the big problem.”