Iran stands at a dangerous crossroads. On June 21, 2025, the United States, under Donald Trump’s direction, launched an illegal and unprecedented military strike against three of Iran’s major nuclear facilities—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. These strikes, carried out in apparent alignment with Israel’s military attack, did not occur in isolation. Just days earlier, on June 13, Israel launched its own unprecedented invasion of Iran under the false pretext of preventing an “imminent nuclear threat.” This illegal act of aggression, backed by the United States and silently supported by much of Western Europe, unfolded during ongoing nuclear negotiations between Tehran and Washington. Benjamin Netanyahu and President Trump did not simply launch a war – they bombed the negotiation table, pre-empting diplomacy with destruction.
Ironically, Trump ran on an “anti-war” platform, yet has become the first U.S. president to directly attack post-revolutionary Iran, accomplishing a long-standing goal of Netanyahu, the Israeli lobby, and American neoconservatives. This is especially revealing given that a large part of Trump’s base, the isolationist MAGA wing, has historically opposed U.S. military interventions abroad. Yet it was under Trump’s leadership that the dream of attacking Iran materialized. Netanyahu skillfully exploited Trump’s political vulnerability and desire to appear “tough” on Iran, turning a manufactured crisis into a war that serves Israel’s strategic ambitions.
Two nuclear-armed states have launched illegal attacks on a non-nuclear state, Iran. The United States remains the only country in history to have used nuclear weapons against civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Israel, meanwhile, possesses an estimated 200 nuclear warheads, making it the sole nuclear power in the Middle East. Yet its arsenal remains undeclared, shielded by a policy of “deliberate ambiguity” (Amimut in Hebrew), unmonitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and completely outside the framework of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to which Israel is not a signatory. Iran’s nuclear program has been under the world’s most rigorous IAEA inspections. We are witnessing not simply a case of double standards and nuclear hypocrisy, but a structural injustice: a system in which international law and global institutions are routinely weaponized to serve the interests of hegemonic powers rather than uphold principles of justice or genuine non-proliferation.
The Israeli “garrison state” and the United States with its vast military-industrial complex do not bring peace or stability to the region through such illegal aggression. Quite the contrary, their attacks risk further militarizing the entire region and may reinforce the most authoritarian elements in Iran. Such assaults may contribute to the emergence of a garrison state within Iran. Their war may be counterproductive to the ongoing democratizing efforts within Iran and give Iran more incentive to move from a peaceful nuclear program toward potential weaponization.
But this should come as no surprise. Despite decades of rhetoric, Iran’s nuclear program has never been the primary concern for either Israel or the United States. The Israeli-American invasion reflects a complex web of long-standing colonial ambitions, opportunistic geopolitical calculations, and internal political crises within Israel and its Western allies. At its core, the assault on Iran is not merely about nuclear capabilities. It is about power, domination, and the effort to contain Iran as a rival to Israel’s hegemony in the Middle East. The US and Israel’s aims exceed “regime change.” Their aim is for Israel to be the dominant actor in the “New Middle East in a “multiplex world”. To achieve that goal, they want to weaken and destroy the Iranian nation-state. There are large segments of the Iranian diaspora who often overlook the geopolitical context. We must ask how we are to confront this aggression in ways that are ethical, effective, and rooted in reclaiming Iran for its people. This deserves a careful examination of two central questions: “how did we get here?” and “how do we get out?”
Answering the first question, the essay suggests Iran’s current crisis is marked by a convergence of external aggression, internal decay, and fractured resistance. In other words, the present turmoil is not accidental, but rather the product of three interrelated forces: the United States and Israel’s pursuit of geopolitical hegemony in the Middle East; the structural crisis and authoritarian resilience of the Iranian state; and the fragmentation and strategic confusion within the Iranian opposition. In addressing the second question, the essay examines three prevailing responses: the call for regime change through foreign intervention at any cost (“Iranians without Iran”!), the uncritical defense of Iran’s ruling elite amid war (“Iran without Iranians”!), and a third, more principled path: “Iran by and for Iranians.” The latter response challenges both imperialist aggression and domestic authoritarianism, advocating a dual resistance rooted in democratic values and national sovereignty. Building on this ethical stance, the essay proposes a two-pronged strategy: in domestic policy, genuine democratization centered on the will of the people and affirmation of the demos; in foreign policy, a reimagined version of Mohammad Mosaddeq’s doctrine of “negative equilibrium,” (movāzene-ye manfī) or active neutrality. In a multiplex world, this means engaging all global and regional actors constructively while maintaining national independence and prioritizing sustainable development and security for the Iranian people.
How Do We Get Here? External Aggression and Internal Decay
Netanyahu’s regime has been in deep trouble. He has faced intensified international and domestic pressure after months of genocide and ethnic cleansing in Gaza with no achievable endgame or exit strategy. Facing multiple corruption charges, Netanyahu risks political collapse and prosecution if he were to end the war. He needed a new narrative, a broader war, a bigger enemy. He has been calling for war with Iran since the mid-1990s. He had a convenient scapegoat. With Syria dismantled, Hezbollah weakened, and Hamas marginalized, Netanyahu calculated that this was the perfect moment to start the war.
Netanyahu did not need to work hard to win the West’s favor for war. He had to play on racial anxieties. Already frustrated with Iran for aligning with Russia in the Ukraine War, Europe tacitly approved Israel’s actions. Some European leaders were more vocal. Germany’s Chancellor praised Israel for doing the “dirty work” on behalf of the Western world.
The Trump effect, whether through deception or coordination, played a decisive role. Iran was scheduled to meet U.S. delegates in Oman on June 15, but the negotiations were a carefully constructed illusion. Just two days earlier, on June 13, Israel launched a surprise military invasion of Iran, catching Tehran off guard. It was unclear if Trump would enter the war since he had run on an “anti-war” platform. But alongside the isolationists in his base are the neo-conservatives, including Christian Zionists, who champion foreign intervention. When the US launched its strikes on June 21, two things were clear: the neo-conservates had gained the upper hand; the US and Israel coordinated these attacks. To add insult to injury, Trump gave Iran “two weeks” to respond two days before the US strikes and shifted Iran’s goal posts from a non-weaponized nuclear program to zero enrichment.
Yet as the Persian saying goes, 'az mâst ke bar mâst' or we, too, have some responsibility for what befalls us! The structural crisis of the Iranian state and the disunity of Iranians have made collective action against US-Israeli colonial aggression difficult.
Israel’s attack overpowered Iran in part because the US arms it with sophisticated weapons, in part because Iran is sanctioned from accessing advanced arms, but also due to internal factors. Since 1979, the ruling clerical oligarchy has prioritized internal repression over national defense, from the “reformist” movement of the 1990s to the 2020s, including Woman, Life, Freedom movement. They have excluded Iranians from having a say about foreign policy—from the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88), to the nuclear program and its policy towards the US, to the “Axis of Resistance,” Israel’s war in Palestine, the Russia-Ukraine war, and Syria’s proxy/civil war. They have instead turned the military-security apparatus towards their citizens rather than allocating their vast resources towards sustainable development and national resilience. Mossad’s ability to infiltrate Iran’s ranks speaks to how much the Iranian State has alienated its own people.
When civil society is crushed, national defense is compromised. The recent presidential and parliamentary elections revealed this legitimacy crisis: more than half of eligible voters abstained, and even moderate candidates failed to garner meaningful support. A state that has lost the trust of its people cannot easily defend its sovereignty. Tragically, this internal decay has not gone unnoticed by Israel’s apartheid regime or by the forces of Trumpism in the United States, regimes that themselves do not have the moral authority to speak of freedom in Iran. Authoritarianism at home has weakened resistance to imperialism.
The second dimension of Iran’s internal decay concerns the Iranian opposition in exile. Some members of the diaspora have become a mouthpiece for Israeli and American colonial aggression. Led by monarchists aligned with Reza Pahlavi, who infamously met with Netanyahu in April 2023 amid the ongoing genocide in Gaza, this group wants regime change at any cost. This was not the first time Reza Pahlavi appealed to Israel and particularly the Likud Party. He and his close circle of monarchists have maintained long-standing relations with both Tel Aviv and Washington since the 1980s, including meetings with figures such as Ariel Sharon and Moshe Katsav. They applaud war, dismiss civilian casualties, justify the bombardment of Iran’s infrastructure, and envision a “secular democracy” built atop the rubble! They are advocating for nothing short of an “Iranians without Iran”! They envision liberating an abstract concept of Iranians at the cost of obliterating Iran! This is not without precedent. During the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, the People’s Mojahedin of Iran aligned themselves with Saddam Hussein. They were widely discredited amongst Iranians and lost all trust. Today’s diaspora opposition must learn from their failure.
While a small number among these diaspora factions may act as foreign agents, many are so disillusioned by the Islamic Republic, they fall into the trap of believing that the enemy of their enemy is their friend. But history is clear: imperial powers do not build democracies. Israel and the West view this section of Iran’s opposition figures as disposable tools. They are “useful idiots” who will be discarded when their utility ends.
How Do We Get Out? Political Ethics Amid War, Authoritarianism, and Imperialism
Ethical resistance must avoid sacrificing Iranians on the altar of a free Iran. The US, Israel, and the right-wing of the Iranian diaspora mirror the very authoritarianism they claim to resist when they call for “regime change” by any means necessary. Their politics of disposability treats Iranians as pawns in a game. In this self-defeating vision of “Iranians without Iran”, Iran is destroyed in the name of defending its people. On the other hand, another position calls for unconditional support of Iran’s ruling authorities in war. Even some critics of the state have made this call. But history shows that authoritarian states use war to consolidate power. If we align uncritically with the Iranian State even in response to Israel’s illegal war, we run the risk of pursuing a strategy of “Iran without Iranians”! – a position that fails to centre the voices of Iranians themselves and justifies the clerical oligarchy’s oppressive governance. To practice genuine solidarity with Iranians in Iran demands of us to oppose both imperialism and authoritarianism without instrumentalizing one to excuse the other.
The centrist position asks that we maintain the ceasefire, rejecting imperialism and authoritarianism. While this position creates space for peace and the possibility of democratic change from within, it remains uneasy and uncertain. This is largely because Netanyahu and Trump may not genuinely want a permanent ceasefire since their calls for diplomacy mask their demand for Iran’s “unconditional surrender” and for its strategic infrastructure to dismantled. At the same time, Iran’s political elite may be unwilling to abandon Iran’s rights to uranium enrichment and missile defense. For a durable and just peace to hold, Iran will likely have to see internal political transformation.
This brings me to the principled and ethical position: The Iranian state shouldn’t yield to Israel or the US, but to its people. It would be far more difficult for Israel and the U.S. to sustain their illegal aggression against a state that enjoys the full support of its citizens. But this strategy, grounded in the idea of an “Iran by and for Iranians,” requires the state to take immediate and meaningful actions to regain public trust. In domestic policy these actions must include: releasing all political prisoners; allowing free and fair elections without the veto power of the Guardian Council; removing the military-security apparatus from both governance and the economy; dismantling the clerical crony capitalism sustained by massive, quasi-governmental, tax-exempt foundations; and sincerely apologizing to the Iranian people, followed by dismantling the power of the clerical-military oligarchy. These steps would open the path toward democratization, toward an Iran ruled by the people in all their diversity. Only through democratization can Iran build a durable and stable state. An Iran enriched by democratic institutions can enrich uranium peacefully. A democratic Iran can defend itself without dependence on foreign powers. It can assert its right to peaceful nuclear technology, challenge imperialism and American-Israeli exceptionalism, and expose the hypocrisy of the so-called rules-based, international order. In foreign policy, Iran must adopt a renewed approach to “active neutrality” suited to today’s multiplex world.
Lessons to Learn
My argument leads to five key conclusions:
1. The Israeli-American invasion of Iran will not lead to democracy. It will produce a weakened state and society. In The Narrow Corridor, Acemoglu and Robinson argue that liberty and democratic governance emerge from a balance between a capable state and an empowered civil society. War undermines this balance by producing a garrison state, destabilizing society, militarizing governance, securitizing public space, and expanding the military-security apparatus. We must not allow Iran to become the next casualty of such a predicament. If Netanyahu and Trump are to have their way, they will undermine Iranians’ efforts to “democratize” Iran.
2. Israel and the US were able to initiate war with Iran because they are immune from the rules of the rule-based order. Israel is effectively exempt from the Geneva Conventions, UN Security Council resolutions, international humanitarian law, and the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), granting it a free hand to commit genocide, ethnic cleansing, occupation, and war crimes with impunity, from the Nakba to the so-called “Dahiya Doctrine” in Lebanon. Israeli exceptionalism shields it from any meaningful accountability. American exceptionalism operates similarly. The US is permitted to assert dominance by any means necessary due to its status as a “beacon on the hill,” the exemplar of the free world. In this context, an independent Iranian opposition must refuse to play by the rules of this imperial game. By doing so, they undermine an ethical path to justice, sovereignty, or genuine democratic transformation.
3. History teaches anti-authoritarianism is not necessarily democratic. Some groups opposing the Islamic Republic seek to replace one tyranny with another under the banner of freedom and democracy. A truly democratic struggle must be pro-democracy, not simply anti-regime. Yet it is equally important to recognize that anti-imperialism and anti-Zionism can become empty signifiers, co-opted by states and opposition groups to mask self-serving agendas. Iran’s ruling authorities have frequently invoked anti-Zionist and anti-imperialist slogans while, at times, betraying the very ideals of justice, freedom, and dignity they claim to uphold. We must maintain our moral integrity by opposing anti-Semitic and supremacist rhetoric and practices. Iran’s regional and foreign policy has at times been counter-productive: it has benefited regressive and reactionary forces, pushed conservative Arab states closer to Israel, and provided a pretext for increased U.S. military support to both Israel and Arab monarchies. The key lesson: Don’t judge by words alone. Examine actions and their consequences in their specific political and historical contexts.
4. Iran’s clerical oligarchy has alienated a Muslim-majority society by weaponized sacred and secular values to consolidate power towards an “Islam without Muslims.” They have marginalized women, youth, workers, ethnic and religious minorities, and political dissidents. They have invited their critics to oppose pro-Palestinian and anti-imperialist causes, to feel hopeful that the US may be their saving grace, and to become nostalgic for monarchy, a form of retrotopia. When the state betrays its people, it is no surprise that some people will oppose all they stand for. Here again, as the saying goes: az mâst ke bar mâst, we, too, have brought this upon ourselves! But so too, secular autocracy, uncritical nationalism, and colonial modernity also betray the people. Iran needs neither: it needs an indigenous democracy nurtured by glocal (global and local) values of pluralism, freedom, and civil rights.
5. Iran should adopt a foreign policy of active neutrality that is aligned with the dynamics of today’s multiplex world. The Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq (1951-1953), overthrown by the joint British and American coup, made “negative equilibrium” his signature policy. Mossadeq aimed to safeguard Iran’s self-determination in response to British and Soviet ambitions to claim its oil reserves. In 1961, amidst the Cold War, the Non-Aligned Movement followed suit, advancing the political and economic self-determination of the Global South. But in today’s multiplex world order, the Cold War era model of “non-alignment” is insufficient. While Iran must remain committed to the foundational principle of negative equilibrium—refusing to take sides in great power competition—it must also adopt a proactive and principled foreign policy capable of navigating the complexities of twenty-first century geopolitics. Rather than strict neutrality, Iran needs flexible diplomacy and economic cooperation across multiple centers of power while avoiding dependency and remaining committed to ethical norms.
Instead of taking sides in great power rivalry, the post-revolutionary state needs to prioritize Iran’s development, democracy, and sovereignty, while remaining grounded in ethical commitments. Iran’s alignment with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine alienated much of Europe and its support of the Assad regime disappointed many regional states. Similarly, its anti-American and anti-Israeli rhetoric and policies have not substantially challenged imperialism and neocolonialism nor has it advanced the cause of Palestinian liberation. The ruling elite have used that rhetoric to justify their consolidation of power and Israel’s conservative forces have leveraged that rhetoric to manufacture consent for war. The Iranian State needs a revised policy of active neutrality if it is to materially and ethically secure its self-determination.
Let me close by noting that Israel has named its colonial invasion “Rising Lion.” As the great Iranian poet Ferdowsi(940–1020 CE) warns:
“It is a pity for Iran to be ruined / To become a lair for leopards and lions!”
(دریغ است ایران که ویران شود / کنام پلنگان و شیران شود) These lions are, to borrow Rumi’s metaphor, “symbolic lions” (شیران عَلَم / Shīrān-e ‘Alam), lions embroidered on a flag. When the wind blows, these paper lions appear to move, but it is the wind that moves them. Their power is not their own. The true lions are the people of Iran: women, students, workers, and the subaltern who resist authoritarians foreign and domestic. May they rise not in hatred, but in hope; not in revenge, but in justice; not for war, but for peace. So let us say yes to the people, no to neofascism.
