The Islamic Republic of Iran stands at an inflection point, its nuclear program advancing toward weaponization while its domestic legitimacy crumbles under the weight of popular opposition. American policymakers face a choice that will determine not only Iran’s trajectory, but the stability of the broader Middle East for decades to come.
During my recent appearance on Iran Uncovered, a podcast of the National Union for Democracy in Iran hosted by Cameron Khansarinia, I articulated the Middle East Forum’s comprehensive approach to Iran policy. The extended conversation allowed me to move beyond soundbites and explain why the conventional binary choice between military action and diplomatic appeasement fails to address the fundamental challenge posed by the Islamic Republic. I believe American policymakers must embrace a “third way” through supporting the Iranian people’s democratic aspirations as the most viable path to lasting regional stability.
The false dichotomy between appeasing Iran and bombing it has paralyzed American policy for decades. This binary thinking serves the Islamic Republic’s interests by obscuring the most promising path forward: systematic support for the Iranian people’s democratic aspirations. The Middle East Forum’s recent strategy document outlines this approach, but the urgency of implementing it grows daily as the regime’s nuclear program advances and its regional aggression intensifies.
The 1946 War Department memorandum that identified Islamism as America’s second greatest post-war threat was remarkably prescient. Yet Washington squandered this foresight by attempting repeatedly to weaponize Islamist movements against other adversaries. The Carter administration’s “green belt” strategy—using political Islam to contain Soviet expansion—created the conditions for our current crisis. We tried to wield one existential threat against another and midwifed the Islamic Republic.
The false dichotomy between appeasing Iran and bombing it has paralyzed American policy for decades. This binary thinking serves the Islamic Republic’s interests by obscuring the most promising path forward: systematic support for the Iranian people’s democratic aspirations.
This historic failure illustrates a broader pattern: American policymakers consistently misread Islamist movements as potential partners rather than civilizational adversaries. The Islamic Republic represents state-sponsored Islamism in its most dangerous form. While public attention fixates on terrorist groups, Iran operates a sophisticated global network that penetrates Western societies through seemingly innocuous channels. The Rafsanjani pistachio empire in California, intelligence operations in Vienna, automotive manufacturing in Senegal, and financial networks in Pakistan all constitute visible elements of an apparatus designed for subversion, not co-existence.
The convergence on Iran policy of isolationist conservatives and appeasement progressives poses a distinct threat.
When Tucker Carlson’s talking points echo regime propaganda, or when conservatives excuse the murder of American soldiers because they were deployed overseas, we’re witnessing intellectual capitulation to Tehran’s narrative. The isolationist right’s “America last” and the progressive left’s “diplomacy first” policies lead to the same end: American retreat and Iranian victory.
History teaches that ignoring threats invites catastrophe. Israel’s fourteen-year policy of bribing Hamas produced October 7. America’s pre-9/11 neglect of al-Qaeda led to the Twin Towers’ collapse. The pattern repeats with predictable regularity, yet each generation must apparently learn these lessons through fresh blood.
The nuclear negotiations exemplify this willful blindness. No agreement can permanently prevent a revolutionary regime from pursuing weapons that serve its ideological objectives. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action delayed yet legitimized Iran’s nuclear program while filling regime coffers. Current negotiations, whatever their outcome, rest on the same flawed premise: that the Islamic Republic can be bribed into abandoning its revolutionary mission.
Changing the status quo requires recognizing what binary thinking obscures: the Iranian people represent the decisive factor. With 80 percent opposing the regime, they constitute an army awaiting mobilization. The question becomes how to empower this supermajority without repeating the mistakes of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Tailored deterrence provides the mechanism. By targeting regime decision-makers while avoiding measures that harm primarily ordinary Iranians, we can bring unbearable pressure on the system’s critical nodes. This means precision sanctions on IRGC commanders and clerical elites, not broad measures that empty the pockets of Tehran’s shopkeepers. It means cyber operations disrupting regime command structures, not attacks on civilian infrastructure. It means supporting labor strikes and civil disobedience, not armed insurgencies.
Emphasizing Iran’s territorial integrity addresses a crucial strategic imperative. Nothing unites Iranians faster than threats to their borders. Partition talk drives fence-sitters into the regime’s camp. The Kurdish question, Azeri autonomy, Arab grievances in Khuzestan—these are matters for a democratic Iran to resolve through constitutional processes. Foreign-imposed solutions would prove as counterproductive as previous Western interventions.
The Iranian people represent the decisive factor. With 80 percent opposing the regime, they constitute an army awaiting mobilization.
Democracy’s viability in Iran should not be questioned by serious analysts. Iran’s 1906 Constitutional Revolution preceded most European democracies. The country possesses a sophisticated civil society, an educated population, and democratic traditions the Islamic Republic has suppressed but not eliminated. Those who claim democracy cannot flourish in the Middle East ignore Israel’s success and Iran’s own history.
The regime’s influence operations in the West demand particular attention. From the National Iranian American Council to the Quincy Institute, Tehran’s fellow travelers have constructed an echo chamber that shapes policy debates. These organizations exploit American political divisions by presenting regime talking points as original policy alternatives. When isolationist conservatives and progressive internationalists unknowingly parrot Tehran’s propaganda, they prove these operations’ success.
American policy must proceed from a clear premise: the Islamic Republic cannot be reformed because reform would undermine it from within. A regime founded on “Death to America” cannot become America’s partner. A system based on revolutionary Islam cannot accept the international order. Expecting behavioral change is like expecting water to flow uphill.
The strategic implications of democratic change in Iran extend throughout the region. A democratic Iran would eliminate the Middle East’s primary source of instability, end the Sunni-Shia proxy war, and create a natural ally for Western interests. The transformation would exceed any peace agreement’s impact or military intervention’s achievements.
Implementation requires both strategic patience and tactical urgency. Strategic patience recognizes that sustainable change must emerge organically from Iranian society. Tactical urgency demands immediate action to support labor strikes, amplify protests, and maintain maximum pressure on regime institutions.
The United States should pursue concrete measures immediately. First, expand targeted sanctions on regime elites while creating humanitarian exemptions that benefit ordinary Iranians. Second, provide secure communications technology to bypass regime censorship. Third, expose and prosecute regime agents operating in the West. Fourth, coordinate with regional allies to interdict Iranian weapons shipments and squeeze proxy networks. Fifth, prepare contingency plans for supporting a democratic transition when the opportunity arises.
A democratic Iran would eliminate the Middle East’s primary source of instability, end the Sunni-Shia proxy war, and create a natural ally for Western interests.
The cost of inaction grows daily. Each negotiation that legitimizes the regime, each concession that fills its coffers, each moment of strategic ambiguity extends Iranians’ suffering and increases dangers to American interests. The regime’s regional proxy network may be under pressure, but it remains lethal. Its nuclear program advances despite negotiations. Its domestic repression intensifies as its legitimacy erodes.
The Iranian people have demonstrated their courage repeatedly—in 1999, 2009, 2019, and 2022. They have paid for resistance with their blood. They do not request American soldiers or imposed solutions, but ask only that we stop empowering their oppressors. That is a minimal obligation we can and must fulfill.
The contest between the Islamic Republic and the Iranian people admits only one acceptable outcome. Our choice is not whether to support change, but whether to facilitate peaceful transition or risk the chaos following inevitable collapse. The third way—neither war nor appeasement but systematic support for democratic forces—offers the only sustainable path to regional stability and American security.
The Middle East Forum will continue advocating for policies that recognize these realities. We will expose influence operations, support authentic opposition voices, and promote strategies empowering Iranians to reclaim their country. The work matters because 85 million Iranians deserve better than revolutionary tyranny, and because American security depends on their success.
Time favors freedom in Iran. The regime’s base shrinks while its opposition grows. Its economy crumbles while its people’s aspirations soar. The question is not whether the Islamic Republic will fall, but when and how American policy should accelerate this transition while ensuring it produces democracy rather than chaos. The moment for choosing has arrived; history will judge whether we met it.
