Iran's military is 'on the floor' - and its neighbours are desperate for a peaceful transition | Michael Clarke Q&A

That's all for our Iran Q&A today with our defence analyst Professor Michael Clarke and presenter Kamali Melbourne.

Hundreds of you submitted questions and we answered some of the most popular regarding developments in the Middle Eastern nation, gripped by protest in recent days.

We'll summarise some of the best answers here, but scroll down to catch up in full and you can watch the entire thing in the video at the top of the page.

• While the US could launch strikes against Iran to support protesters, action short of that, like a cyber attack, is more likely, Clarke says;
• After its proxies were knocked down one by one by Israel, Iran's military is "on the floor", our defence analyst tells us, adding that it has been turned inwards against its own population - leaving its threats against Israel and Washington ringing hollow;
• Clarke says that while protests in Iran are significant, it is unlikely that anything will spread beyond the nation's borders;
• He also suggest that we might be witnessing the end of a historical chapter that began with the Iranian Revolution in 1979, but one key problem to ending the current regime is the lack of a viable alternative;
• Elon Musk could play a surprising role in helping protesters, but the US needs to be careful it doesn't play into the narrative of its critics, Clarke explains;
• He also believes that Russia will take the political hit of the current Iranian regime collapsing without much action;
• And there are three reasons Trump might want to intervene in Iran.

"In world history, there have been two great millennial struggles within Islam between Shia and Sunni," says Michael Clarke.

"The first was in the seventh century, the original schism between Sunni Islam and Shia Islam."

Between 10 and 15% of the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world are Shia, says Clarke.

"There was another great schism in the 16th and 17th century that lasted a century.

"It's often been said that maybe in 1979, we saw the beginning of a third great millennial struggle between Shia and Sunni. 

"If this Iranian Revolution comes to an end, then I think we would say that that's not happening. 

"This one wouldn't have made that much difference. It will have  created some regional dynamics... but it won't have made a fundamental difference  to the way the first two great struggles did."

There are three key reasons Donald Trump might want to personally intervene in Iran, Michael Clarke says.

Iran has been a "malign actor" and rogue state to the West since 1979, so if that came to an end "that would be a plus" for the US president, he says.

Another reason would be if an agreement was reached on Iran not producing a nuclear weapon through its nuclear program, Clarke says, but that is currently "50-50". 

"The third thing would be if there was a new Iranian government, then sanctions would end probably," he adds.

"Then Iranian oil would come on to the oil market and the oil price would start to drift down even further, and although that's good and bad for different sectors of the world, it would be good for the American consumer because cheaper gas prices are the sort of thing that gets you re-elected."

Put simply, no, not that our defence analyst is aware of.

Instead, Professor Michael Clarke explains:

"It's not really in their interest to be caught stirring it up. It is in their interest to be seen to help or to sympathise. But I don't know of anything that they've done. Nothing that I've read or heard of that would indicate that."

Iranian officials from near the top echelons of Tehran's regime have claimed foreign interference is behind the protests.

They've largely skirted around the economic reasons that triggered the demonstrations.

"Not too bad," says Michael Clarke.

It would have been two years ago when Iran was supplying huge numbers of Shahed drones, but Russia is now producing them domestically.

"They don't really need Iranian help now. They are still getting it, but they can do without it.

"The Iranians know, in a sense, they've outlived their usefulness to Russia as far as weapons goes. 

"But the Russians will take a hit politically if the revolution fails in Iran. 

"That's a big strategic setback for Russia and for China, at least at that tactical level. 

"The Russians have had a lot of those sort of setbacks - in Iran, in Syria, in Venezuela. They may be getting a setback in Cuba as well.

"Although that does some harm globally, they're still getting the benefit of of America's sympathy in Europe and within their sphere of influence

"That's what they really care about."

Having addressed whether Iran's neighbours could see conflict, Professor Michael Clarke assesses how they might help Iran going forwards. 

"They are involved at a political level and they're all talking to each other, we know that," he says.

"I think as things start to change - if things start to change - then the neighbours will then all be falling over themselves to try to help with peaceful transition, both with money, with organisation and with facilitating people going backwards and forwards. 

"So I think we'll see quite a lot of low-level help by the neighbours once there is some transition underway. But that hasn't started yet."

Donald Trump said on Sunday he plans to speak with Elon Musk about restoring internet in Iran, where authorities have blacked out services for several days amid the ongoing protests.

Musk's SpaceX company offers a satellite internet service called Starlink that has been used in Iran.

"He's very good at that kind of thing, he's got a very good company," Trump told reporters.

Michael Clarke says that the key benefit of Starlink is just how many satellites there are.

"The idea is that although you can always jam things, there are always others that you are outside the jamming area. And so the ubiquity of Starlink, both the ground terminals or the ground receptors and the ubiquity of the satellites themselves [is key]."

So, Clarke explains, the US could help protesters get their story out better by getting more terminals into Iran.

But he warns this risks fuelling the narrative that the US "is supporting these protests, that Trump is behind them somehow".

'We're witnessing the beginning of the end of the Iranian Revolution that begin in 1979," says Michael Clarke.

"But it may take some time," he says, adding that means months, not years.

"It's a long way from collapsing this week, put it that way. And if anything, they've reasserted a certain amount of control in the last 24 hours. 

"That's to be expected. These things go in peaks and troughs."

One problem is there is no alternative government that can move in, though there are individuals such as exiled crown prince Reza Pahlavi who have staked a claim.

"Here is the son of the man who was the puppet leader, the Shah of Iran, proposing himself as the new leader," says Clarke.

Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi has "enormous influence" and may be interesting to watch, he says.

As is Yazdan Shohadai, part of the Transition Council based in the US.

There is a "shadow government beginning to develop, but not one that anyone in Iran really knows anything about".

In short, Michael Clarke says: "I doubt it."

US military intervention would be pretty serious and would certainly affect the way things develop in Iran in the future, but the idea of it sparking a regional war is "very hard to imagine", he says.

"It's possible that if it was a broken-backed government that was in pieces and an individual [Iranian] commander decided to do something - hit it out at regional neighbours - that would be serious, but it wouldn't cause a war, because all the regional neighbours would realise that this is just an angry reaction that doesn't really signify anything."

However, Clarke says a US intervention could lead to more "sectarian and retaliatory violence" across the Levant region.

On how Iran's neighbours have viewed the recent protests, Clarke adds: "A lot of the neighbours are very concerned because they they don't like the Iranian regime. 

"On the other hand, they don't want to see chaos in Iran because that would be destabilizing to their own societies."

"It's on the floor militarily now, as far as external affairs goes."

That's Professor Michael Clarke's summary of the state of the Iranian army. He explains that most of the security apparatus inside the country has been turned inwards on Iran's own people.

"It's essentially using the security apparatus against themselves, against their own population. So it's not in good shape to go and do anything else in the world."

Clarke says he wasn't surprised by Tehran's showing in the 12-day war last June (more on that below) because in the months leading up to it, Iran's power had been slowly chipped away at.

Our defence analyst runs through how Israel went up against, and defeated, Iran's various proxies such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

"They were all on the back foot," Clarke says of the proxies, before adding:

"Eventually, all together, you could see that Iran's power depended not on what the Iranians themselves could do, but what they could initiate across the region."

And this ability was severely limited come the 12-day war - and now.

Because of all of this, Clarke says, Iran's threats against the US and Israel ring slightly hollow.

For context: Israel's 12-day war with Iran erupted last June when Israel launched surprise air strikes on Iranian military and nuclear sites.

 Iran retaliated by firing hundreds of ballistic missiles against Israeli cities. In the days that followed, the two nations traded further barrages as casualties mounted on both sides.

The US entered the conflict on 22 June with strikes on Iran's nuclear enrichment sites before a fragile ceasefire was brokered two days later after Iran had fired missiles at America's largest airbase in the Middle East, based in Qatar.