The Cost of Ignoring the Islamic Republic of Iran’s 47-Year Ideological Aggression

What now?

The Trump administration finds itself at a crossroads with the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), which has ruled since overthrowing the Shah in 1979. The US began its current war on Iran on February 28, 2026, launching strikes only after years of pressure, sanctions, and diplomacy failed to shift Tehran from its 47‑year pursuit of ballistic‑missile expansion, a nuclear arsenal, proxy warfare, Israel’s destruction, and the export of its Sharia‑based ideology westward. The regime has maintained power through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a security force separate from the regular army and built to protect the leadership. It has crushed dissent through systematic repression, killing an estimated tens of thousands of political opponents, dissidents, and protesters.

Of Iran’s roughly 93 million people, about one million have a vested interest in keeping the regime in place. The vast majority of Iranians oppose the government’s policies, preferring a non‑belligerent foreign policy and prioritizing national development over military expansion and proxy warfare. But because Iran is not a functioning democracy, even overwhelming public opinion has no influence on government policy; only ideology and self‑interest matter. The IRI’s hostility toward Israel, openly calling for and pursuing its destruction, stems not only from its support for the Palestinian goal of dismantling the Jewish state, but primarily from Israel’s status as the only Middle Eastern country aligned with Western and US values: democracy, pluralism, women’s rights, free courts and press, along with political accountability. Branding Israel “the Little Satan” and the US “the Great Satan,” the regime rejects normal relations with Washington and instead seeks to export its revolution by backing anti‑US movements, Shi’a fundamentalist groups, and efforts to weaken pro‑Western governments across the Middle East.

Iran’s foreign policy has poured billions of dollars into arming and funding its terrorist proxies, Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and others. These groups function as states within states, occupying forces that are destructive both internally and externally. Beyond attacking the US, Israel, and regional rivals, they operate as coercive, parasitic entities accountable to no one except Iran. Wherever they entrench themselves, they repress local populations, initiate conflict with Israel triggering military retaliation, drain national resources, and drive their host societies into dysfunction and instability, pushing once prosperous countries like Lebanon to the edge of bankruptcy.

Iran itself, despite having vast natural resources in addition to oil, has nevertheless become one of the poorest countries in the region, with inflation around 50%, a direct consequence of the regime’s priorities of putting ideology above good governance.

The present United States policy toward Iran is aimed at neutralizing its nuclear military program, ballistic missiles development, and regional proxy network, relying first on diplomatic and economic pressure, but prepared to escalate to direct confrontation if absolutely necessary to achieve these goals.

In the past, American administrations, both Republican and Democrats have called for change. President Regan emphasized that US dealings with Iran were intended to end state‑sponsored terrorism, stop subversion, and seek a more stable Middle East. President Clinton issued Executive Orders imposing a petroleum embargo and broad sanctions on Iran, explicitly stating these actions were in response to Iran’s support for international terrorism and threats to US national security. George W. Bush designated Iran and its proxies as an “axis of evil”. Barack Obama officially stated that a change in behavior and a respect for human rights was required. Unfortunately, none of these otiose policies pursued by past administrations produced any constructive change in the IRI’s behavior. The opposite occurred. The regime intensified its repression at home, continued backing its proxies, and remained unapologetic in its drive to develop a nuclear arsenal. US intelligence agencies assess that untethered, Tehran’s rapid advancements in space-launch vehicle technology could allow it to develop a militarily viable ICBM in the future with the capacity to hit US continental targets.

The conflict reached its peak after October 7, 2023, when Iranian‑backed Hamas launched its assault on Israel and carried out one of the worst atrocities in modern times. Rather than pursuing further confrontation, Trump achieved what many considered impossible: a brokered ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, with Hezbollah and the Houthis also participating. Iran, however, refused to alter its imperialistic and belligerent policies. After diplomacy and economic sanctions failed to bring about change and following a prolonged campaign of militia attacks on US bases in Iraq and Syria, the United States, along with Israel, launched a 12‑day confrontation in June 2025. Despite the extensive damage caused to Iran, the IRI refused submit, ultimately leading to a 40‑day joint US–Israel war in 2026 which also did not bring about a change. Iran has continued its aggressive posture, including clamping down harder on internal opposition, expanding its missile program and blocking the Strait of Hormuz, which is a violation of international law, as the strait lies in international waters.

Trump and the American administration are at a crossroads. They can either capitulate, allowing Iran to keep entrenching itself, expanding its ballistic and nuclear programs, and strengthening its proxies, or they can increase further economic pressure and, if necessary, military force to compel the regime to back down. Given Iran’s track record, the choice is increasingly stark: only decisive pressure, backed by the credible threat of force, diplomatic, economic and likely military, has any chance leading to a constructive change.

Despite this clear picture, it is disconcerting to examine how Western mainstream media and Western European leaders respond to Trump’s Iran policy. Many routinely describe it as reckless, incendiary, provocative, or destabilizing. One wonders what these supposedly educated and informed commentators actually mean. Do they deny the existential threat posed by Iran? Unlikely, as very few analysts, even those who are hostile to Trump, dispute the danger Iran represents. If they acknowledge the threat, then what exactly do they oppose in current US policy? Every previous American administration failed to restrain Iran. And while opponents’ frustration over rising oil prices is understandable, one would expect them to grasp a basic strategic truth: long‑term security sometimes requires tolerating short‑term instability and economic pain.

Is there another way, an easier or more effective path? In fact, there is, but Western opponents refuse to use it. If America did not have to shoulder this burden almost alone, with only Israel firmly aligned; if Western governments supported US Iranian policy rather than undermining it, as Spain has done; and if the mainstream American media along with prominent Democrats backed the effort to force change in Iran, the regime would be far more likely “to blink”. Instead, seeing a divided West and a US president lacking support even from those European countries who would benefit, Iran likely interprets the present American stance as unsustainable and feels emboldened to hold its ground.

The absurdity of the situation is that Trump is acting more on Europe’s behalf than America’s. First, regarding immigration related problems, unlike Europe, the US is not dealing with large waves of Muslim immigrants. Struggling to adapt to a society very different from their own, and entering host countries with weak integration policies, many newcomers continue to follow the same social norms that contributed to instability in their home countries, effectively bringing those problems with them and potentially leading to unplanned Islamization of some Western European countries. In addition, inadequately filtered mass immigration has imported occasional Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. Second, regarding oil, Western Europe depends on a stable Middle East, with oil‑producing states cooperating and selling energy at reasonable prices, something impossible if Iran is allowed to hold these regimes economic hostage. The US, by contrast, produces enough of its own oil to function without relying on the region.

There is no encouraging reason to expect that Iran voluntarily will cease their nuclear military aspirations, their ballistic missile expansion their proxy support, and their export of Islamic fundamentalist. If not arrested, such a trajectory will likely lead to further instability and conflict not limited to the Middle East along with uncontrollable oil supplies and pricing.