Why America Should Take The Islamic Republic's Threats Seriously

How the Islamic Republic Became a Threat to America & A Global Security Risk

To understand the Islamic Republic of Iran—and why it’s increasingly viewed as a global security concern—you have to start with its grievances.

The Roots of Resentment

In 1953, Iran’s parliament - or Majlis - put prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh under house arrest under the framework of Iran’s constitutional monarchy, or mashruteh. Mossadegh had sought to nationalize the oil industry, but he was also trying to consolidate more power for himself.

The MI6 and CIA-backed Operation Ajax planted a seed of distrust of foreign forces in Iran’s domestic matters. For many Iranians, this event permanently poisoned relations with the West and planted the seeds of mistrust that would later fuel the 1979 Revolution, which took fourteen months. After aligning closely with the United States for decades, the Islamic Revolution ended 2500 years of monarchic rule and adopted a new form of government, the Islamic Republic, which would go on to become a theocratic autocracy due to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s Velâyât-e-Faqih, Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist, where a supreme clerical leader would have final say on all matters - domestic and foreign policy.

Velâyat-e Faqih was, in a very real sense, a censored text—much like Mein Kampf. The crucial difference, however, is timing: Mein Kampf was widely scrutinized and restricted after the catastrophe it helped inspire, whereas Velâyat-e Faqih was censored before the 1979 Revolution. Iranians were largely denied the opportunity to read, debate, and fully understand its implications while it still mattered. By the time the revolution succeeded and the doctrine was enshrined into law, the consequences were no longer theoretical—and it was already too late.

The revolutionary leadership rejected Western influence outright. That rejection culminated in the U.S. embassy hostage crisis—and the birth of the now-infamous slogan: “Death to America.”

That year, revolutionaries stormed the US embassy and held diplomats hostages for over a year. Behind the scenes, the clerical Mullahs who had joined forces with the Marxists, had assured Republican presidential candidate Ronald Reagan that they would release the hostages after the US election. Moments after Jimmy Carter lost the election, that came to fruition. But instead of detente, it was the first chapter of what would become a tempestuous relationship between the newly christened Islamic Republic and the United States of America, whom the new regime in Tehran dubbed The Great Satan.

Trauma and Militarization

The Islamic Republic’s worldview hardened further during the Iran–Iraq War in the 1980s.Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons—often with Western indifference or tacit support—left deep scars. Throughout, the Iran Contra Affairs added another wrinkle in the relations between the regional and world powers.

Rather than confront future threats directly, the Islamic Republic adopted an asymmetric strategy: projecting power outside its borders through what it calls the Axis of Resistance.

This network included:

Hezbollah in Lebanon

Militias in Iraq and Syria

Support for Hamas and other proxy groups

One early and deadly result came in 1983, when Hezbollah operatives bombed a U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 American servicemen.

From Khomeini to Khamenei

After the passing of Khomeini, the clerics appointed Ali Khamenei as the new supreme leader as position he has held since, making him one of the longest lasting heads of state, though this has come with an oppressive domestic policy that has encroached on the kinds of freedoms and liberties enjoyed in the West.

His tenure, associated with standing up for the Palestinians in the holy land, positioning the Islamic Republic as a counter to America’s new regional ally Israel, and presenting himself as the leader opposed to so-called Western hegemony has won him supporters on the Arab street who may not necessarily be endeared by Shia Iranians, but who would gladly take in the revenues generated by Iran’s extensive resources in oil, gas, minerals.

Since then, the regime has invested tens of billions of dollars in the Axis of Resistance, to the chagrin of regular Iranians who are generally secular, liberal, and as an Indo-European ethnic group not necessarily all that sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, which many Arabs themselves look with skepticism.

And this is not just commentators:

9/11 and a Missed Reset

When 19 Islamists - of which 15 were Saudi nationals - part of Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network carried out the September 11 attacks, a striking contrast emerged. While celebrations erupted in some parts of the Middle East, Iranians held candlelight vigils.

The Iranian people mourned. The regime did not plan the attacks—but the aftermath changed everything.

The U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq alarmed Tehran.

Instead of escalating, the Islamic Republic temporarily pulled back, fearing it might be next.

That fear wasn’t unfounded. Former NATO commander Wesley Clark later revealed that the Islamic Republic was on a list of seven countries targeted for potential regime change by U.S.

Neoconservative figures like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz openly viewed Iran as unfinished business.

But the U.S. became bogged down in Iraq’s sectarian violence and instability rooted in Iraq’s artificial borders and social fragmentation.

Iran Is Not Iraq

Here’s the key distinction.

Iran is not Iraq.It is not a Sykes–Picot invention. It is one of the world’s oldest continuous civilizations dating back to 3200 BC.

And unlike the Taliban, Iranians are overwhelmingly secular, culturally liberal, and broadly aligned with Western values—a reality often ignored in foreign policy debates.

Polling, turnout figures, and decades of protest show that the Islamic Republic does not represent the Iranian people.

In fact, even a growing number of religious people have grown disheartened, disenfranchised, and despising of the kleptocratic regime

Reassessing the Bush Years

A common critique of the Bush administration was the invasion of Iraq, since it was neither harbouring bin Laden, nor possessed any WMDs. But with hindsight, Iraq, for all its flaws, with Saddam Hussein gone, Iraq is no longer ruled by a genocidal dictator, who was going to be succeeded by an even more sociopathic son.

After 9/11, the U.S. had little choice but to strike the Taliban for harboring Osama bin Laden.

The Taliban’s eventual return was not America’s intention, nor was Iraq’s sectarian collapse something Washington engineered.

Instead, the administration’s most consequential failure came before 9/11—when intelligence warnings about bin Laden’s plans went unheeded, allowing nearly 3,000 Americans to die.

As such, the lesson is less about invading Iraq and Afghanistan, but how it ignored the growing Al Qaeda threat, who had first sought to take down the World Trade Center in 1993, before doing so successfully in 2001.

In fact, the real lesson of Afghanistan was that if you don’t address the root of the problem, the cancer returns. The Taliban, for example, practice an intense misogyny by preventing women from getting their education while its leaders send their children abroad to school.

Similarly, in the Islamic Republic, Mahsa Amini and scores of other women were killed over antiquated hijab laws that have since been loosened (LEAVE underline in plz) even though the regime leaders send their kids to the West

While the UK, EU & Canada appease Islamists out of fear of offending or to pander for votes, for the West to survive it needs to at least be realistic and honest about these dynamics.

Nuclear Ambiguity

The Islamic Republic’s nuclear policy is strategically confusing, if not ambiguous. Despite a fatwa (or religious edict) by the previous supreme leader Khomeini forbidding weapons of mass destruction, the regime is advancing enrichment, limiting transparency with the IAEA, and maintaining a latent weapons capability without ever openly declaring its intent, which increases the risk of proliferation, undermines international monitoring, and forces Western powers to reckon with a regime that could covertly shorten “breakout” time toward a bomb while destabilizing regional security.

Its investment in missiles - ballistic and hypersonic - and drone development is no doubt impressive in that it is lethal.

Now that it is testing missiles reaching Siberia in Russian-approving tests, the regime itself is now claiming its missiles can reach Alaska.The Buenos Aires 1992 Precedent

The risk is not theoretical: the 1992 Buenos Aires bombings—attributed to Iran and Hezbollah—set a precedent that the Islamic Republic is willing to project mass-casualty terrorism far beyond the Middle East, underscoring that nuclear ambiguity in the hands of a regime with a global terror record poses a direct threat to Western civilians and interests.

“Regime Change Must Come from Within”

Western leaders often argue that Iranians must overthrow the Islamic Republic themselves.

But there’s a harsh reality: Iranians don’t have a Second Amendment.

When they rise up, they face:

Live ammunition

Mass arrests

Internet shutdowns

And summary executions.

Over the past decade alone, thousands—possibly tens of thousands—of Iranians have been killed during protests.

The January 2026 is now looking more and more like an outright genocideOfficial figures cited 3,000 deaths; regime’s internal meds suggested up to 30,000, Entire generations have endured repression by the IRGC for nearly half a century.

The Regime’s Own Evidence

Recent footage from Iran’s parliament reveals something unsettling.

Instead of a civilian legislature, viewers see:

Uniformed IRGC commanders

Clerics chanting militant slogansAND

Open threats directed outward

Mocking of the dead on state-sanctioned TV:

At the same time, Iranian officials speak abroad of diplomacy and peace. To critics, this dual messaging isn't a contradiction—it's a strategy.

A Broader Security Question

The Islamic Republic’s leadership is ideologically driven, rooted in revolutionary theology and apocalyptic belief systems centered on martyrdom and confrontation.

With Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei aging, analysts warn that instability—or escalation—could increase rather than fade.

At this point, the debate is no longer purely moral or humanitarian.

It has become a question of international and American national security.

But What About the Markets?

One common concern is economic: What would intervention do to global markets?

Historical data tells a consistent story.

Across nearly a century:

Markets tend to fall before or at the onset of wars

Once uncertainty clears, markets often stabilize and rebound

Wars rarely cause long-term market collapse

The probability of losing money drops from 46% in one day to 6% over ten years

Missing just a few of the market’s best days—often during crises—can devastate long-term returns.

In short: geopolitical shocks change headlines, not long-term market math.

The Bigger Picture

The Islamic Republic is not a normal government.

It is an ideologically driven regime, born in exile:

Khamenei’s father is from Najaf, and the Larijanis were born there themselves… with Ali Larijani claiming credit for the Tiananmen Square-inspired massacre in January 2026.It is obsessed with revolutionary end-times theology, and sustained by repression at home and proxies abroad — views that would shock anyone in the West if they actually listened.

Meanwhile, Iran’s people are pushing in the opposite direction—toward secularism, openness, and reintegration with the world. A reflection of the country before Islamists seized power.

And Iran had power and prestige.

History shows that revolutions don’t take generations to succeed:

The Russian Revolution unfolded in eight months.

Iran’s 1979 Revolution took fourteen months.

Many believe Iran is entering a similar moment—one driven not by strength, but by regime incompetence and internal decay. Iran is a country of 95 million, of which 80% reject the Islamic Republic.

Final Thought

When Iranians warn the world, they are not speaking ideologically.

They are speaking from experience.

Ignoring that warning once had catastrophic consequences.

The question now is whether the world listens—or says, once again, we didn’t know.

Iran, like America, was a secular, liberal country. Of course, it wasn’t modern day Sweden just by virtue of being a constitutional monarchy (despite giving women the right to vote before even Switzerland did). But, while history does not repeat itself, it does rhyme, and it does not take much for free societies to be overtaken by militants.

The stakes were hitherto limited to social practices, with the Islamic Republic showing it will kill as many citizens to stay in power and openly threatening America and the EU. The IRGC is now effectively making the argument that it needs to be dealt with, before America learns that, while Iranians were not involved in 9/11, Islamist radicalism knows no boundaries.