Two things can be bad
On Iran, the United States, and military intervention.
This article was written prior to the initial illegal attacks on Iran by the US and “Israel” on February 28, 2026.
Tensions have spiked over the past few months between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Facing immense domestic pressure from nationwide student and local protests, the Iranian government has committed to an extraordinary crackdown that has killed countless people who have peacefully expressed their discontent with the government. Meanwhile, the United States has been looking for ways to undermine one of its main geopolitical adversaries in a time of weakness, now considering strikes or even a weeks-long conflict.
While the rapidly rising tensions have spurred extensive debate on all sides of the political aisle, the well-being of the Iranian people is generally disregarded from the discussion. While many (Western) leftists have thrown support behind the Ayatollah in favour of taking a general anti-American approach, the hawks on the right-wing do not have the interests of Iranians in mind either. We should do our best to avoid falling into a camp that generalizes the actions of either political side as entirely good or entirely evil, but instead approach this from a nuanced perspective that weighs the pros and cons of foreign interventionism.
Despite thumping their chest in favour of the protestors, the right-wing does not care about the well-being of Iranians, and as such, their desire for military action should not be seen as a humanitarian regard. There are a few reasons why this is the case.
First, the primary justification in the Western world for bombing Iran is its nuclear refinement program. This was the same justification used to bomb Iran in the summer of 2025. While there is justification for being concerned by the prospect of Iran having nuclear weapons, this is meaningless when it comes to addressing protests. Since Iran won’t nuke its own population, the nuclear strikes against the US are entirely for matters of national security. You cannot have both; if you’re bombing the nukes, you’re not bombing to help the protestors, and if you’re bombing to help the protestors, going after the nukes does nothing to reach that end. There’s a clear explanation for this: Americans do not care about the protestors and are using their struggle as a justification to further their national interests.
Second, if the US truly cared about the will of the Iranian people, they would pay no attention to Reza Pahlavi, the son of the last Shah of Iran. It’s important to remember that the unpopularity of the first Shah—which acted as a Western puppet—is what led to the revolution in the first place. Even if the only intention of the US was to deconstruct the current government and rebuild it with a new one, implementing a leader whose lineage is responsible for the current situation is an incredibly bad decision.
This is also not to speak of Pahlavi’s illiberal positions, such as being an open supporter of the Trump administration, his weird openness to restoring himself as a monarch, and backing Israel despite their ongoing genocide of the Palestinians. It’s hard to know if Pahlavi would be the candidate if the current regime collapsed: Trump backstabbed Maria Corina Machado in Venezuela, despite dedicating her Nobel Peace Prize award last year to Trump. So it’s not certain if he would back Pahlavi either, but the fact that we have to speak of preset candidates rather than what the Iranian people want should already be a red flag.
It is also fair to assume that the United States does not care about the protestors or their fight. This all excludes other ramifications of possible strikes. For one, it is still a breach of international law to impede on another state’s independence, even if the government you’re attacking has done incredibly immoral acts. But, this should not be interpreted as support for the current government or regime.
The Ayatollah, and his government, have committed heinous acts of state terrorism against their own population. In the recent set of protests in Iran, estimates of protestor deaths are several thousand on the conservative count, with a United Nations (UN) special rapporteur citing numbers as high as 20,000.
But, the Iranian government has a history of brutalizing its population more generally. While most Iranians enjoy very limited liberties, women are subject to even more oppression, including rights to marriage, divorce, the custody of children, participation in politics, sports, arts, work, with severe restrictions on their freedom of movement, speech, association, and religion. Women are forced to stay in line by being consistently monitored by the “morality police.” Disappearances and torture are commonplace, and the regime frequently rejects the UN rights resolutions and other liberal institutions.
By virtue of Iran being a geopolitical adversary of Israel and the US, there can be a reasonable assumption that one, or both of these countries, will intervene. Intervention, if done correctly, can be moral. Any government that oppresses its population in the way that the Iranian government does should not retain the right to office. The question is then how should they intervene? Striking protestors and their state is not the way to help the cause. Instead, working with regional allies to help deliver food, medicine, and other materials needed to keep the protests going should be considered.
Although the crackdown from the regime has been brutal, a lot has gone unnoticed because of an indefinite media blackout. Western governments should spend time and resources documenting and revealing the actions of the Iranian government both within Iran and externally. Several other things could be done, but it should have one objective in mind: support the protestors and their mission.
But, by no means, should there be a violent breach of sovereignty. As mentioned earlier, this does not help the protestors, but it also legitimizes the Ayatollah and his government. Public opinion of the US and Israel is (rightfully) not highly regarded, and people still remember the horror that was the War on Terror in the Middle East and do not want to replicate it. Striking Iran would not help the protestors but shore up greater support for a government that is internationally renowned as an immoral entity.
Ultimately, the liberation and prosperity of the Iranian people should be the primary concern for the major parties involved in this war. While the Iranian government has committed terrible acts of violence against its population, American intervention is not (in its currently projected form) going to make things better.
Support for the Iranian protestors is moral and necessary, but the way in which we do it is critical, and external violence is not the answer. Both parties—the US-Israel and Iranian parties—in this fight are bad, and the Iranian people are stuck in the middle of a geopolitical conflict; their struggles are dismissed to defend an immoral regime and weaponized to defend an equally immoral act of violence. We must meet somewhere in the middle to ensure that not only are the protestors protected, but that they are also given the chance to a life filled with liberty, prosperity, and in pursuit of happiness.
