Iran, Trump: Between work and Failure

Trump paradox

The Donald Trump administration has for years provided liberal commentators with reasons for criticism. From a hard migration policy, through the activities of services specified as U.S. Immigration and Customs Forcement, to chaotic customs wars and flirting with the isolationist rhetoric of parts of the MEGA movement – the directory of charges is long. I have repeatedly pointed out that a imagination of America withdrawing from global leadership would be a strategical gift to authoritarian powers.

The greater the paradox is the present situation. A policy of facts made by the White home broke with the doctrine of isolationism and decided to straight strike the government in Tehran – 1 of the key pillars of the anti-Western axis. Together with Israel, the United States militarily humiliated the power that has been actively supporting Russia for years in its aggression against Ukraine. In a geopolitical dimension, this means a real weakening of the Kremlin's back.

However, this does not mean that all decision of Washington deserves uncritical approval. The key problem is not the attack on the authoritarian government itself, but in the absence of a visible "day after" strategy. Armed interventions in the 21st century teach that overthrowing power can be easier than building a unchangeable order. Without a plan for political transit even a legitimate usage of force can bring chaos.

The minute of intervention is besides incomprehensible. If its aim was to support Iranian society, it should have taken place earlier – during mass protests brutally suppressed by the regime. According to various estimates, 20 to 30,000 people could have been killed as a consequence of repression. The scale of force was shocking and was a classical example of a situation where the global community faces a dramatic question of work for protecting civilians.

However, I do not find any substantive or moral justification for Polish commentators comparing US actions with Russia's aggression on Ukraine. The Kremlin attacked a sovereign, democratic state solely due to the fact that its citizens – with difficulties but consistently – chose a course of integration with the West. Rejecting participation in the authoritarian – a mafia strategy of power built by a Russian dictator. Vladimir Putin's decision was driven by an imperial, messianist imagination of the recovery of the sphere of influence.

The American strike was aimed at a forty-year-old government that systematically violated the rights of its own citizens, sponsored terrorist organizations – from Hamas to Hezbollah – destabilizing the region and working militarily with Moscow. This is simply a fundamental difference: imperial aggression against a sovereign, peaceful democratic state is not the same as intervention against an authoritarian terrorist sponsor tormenting its own citizens.

Areas of work and Crimes of the ultimate spiritual Leader of Iran.

Bloody suppression of social protests

The most serious charges against Ali Chamenei concern the violent suppression of civilian protests. As early as 1999, safety forces utilized force against academic youth during student demonstrations in Tehran, making many arrests and beating themselves up.

In 2009, after controversial presidential elections, hundreds of thousands of Iranians took to the streets as part of the alleged Green Movement. The government responded by repression, torture and deaths among demonstrators. The state apparatus operated in full compliance with the line designated by the ultimate Leader.

The November 2019 events were peculiarly bloody erstwhile economical safety forces utilized sharp ammunition in consequence to protests. Human rights organizations reported hundreds killed. From 2022 to 1923, after the death of Mahsa Amini, there was again mass repression, and death sentences against demonstrators became part of a strategy to intimidate society.

Chamenei publically supported a tough line of safety apparatus and rejected demands for liberalisation.

Systemic human rights violations

Iran under Chamenei's leadership functioned as a profoundly repressive state. Freedom of speech was reduced, the media and the net were controlled, and the criticism of power active the hazard of imprisonment.

The muslim Revolutionary defender Corps and the safety apparatus played a key function in maintaining the system. Women opposed to hijab, spiritual minorities, including Bahaits, and opposition activists, were subjected to repression.

Iran was besides among the most frequently executed countries, including those charged with political crimes.

Export of destabilisation and support to armed organisations

One of the pillars of Tehran's abroad policy was to support armed organisations in the region. Iran financed and armed, among others, Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as supported the Huti movement in Yemen.

These actions contributed to destabilising Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and Yemen, strengthening regional tensions and armed conflicts. The support included funding, training, arms supply and transfer of rocket technology.

Co-responsibility for the Syrian War

Tehran played a key function in sustaining the Bashar al-Assad government during the Syrian civilian War. Iranian military and logistical support enabled Damascus to conduct violent operations against civilians.

The presence of Iranian military advisors and formations associated with the Revolutionary defender Corps was an crucial component of this strategy.

Military support for Russia in the war against Ukraine

Iran provided Russian Federation with conflict drones and technologies utilized in attacks on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure. It thus became an crucial military base of the Kremlin in the war against Ukraine.

Nuclear programme and voltage escalation

Under Chamenei's rule, Iran has consistently developed a atomic program and a ballistic rocket program. These actions raised concerns for the global community, expanding tensions in the Gulf region.

The improvement of the deterrent possible had not only a defensive but besides a political dimension – it strengthened Iran's position as a confrontational state towards the West.

Responsibility of the ultimate Leader

As ultimate Leader, Ali Chamenei had a decisive influence on the armed forces, the justice strategy and strategical abroad policy directions. The Iranian strategy is not a classical presidential republic – real power was concentrated in its hands.

The work for the functioning of the repressive apparatus of the state and for strategical global decisions so rested on the political and moral dimension. As ultimate Leader, Chamenei: controlled the armed forces, had a decisive influence on the judiciary, approved key political and military appointments, designated the strategical direction of abroad policy.

What's next?

Does this mean that all usage of force is justified? Of course not. But past knows cases where inaction was a greater sin than intervention. European UN troops helplessly watching the Srebrenica massacre became a symbol of the moral failure of the global community. The doctrine of work for protection came not from militaristic fantasy, but from the experience of genocide that could be prevented.

The problem is that moral right does not replace strategy. Today's question is, what's next with Iran? Does the Trump administration have a realistic plan to support pro-democracy forces, or will it limit itself to demonstrations of force? The consequence to the attack, including the retaliatory attacks on arabian states in the Gulf region, can paradoxically strengthen the coalition of countries fearing destabilisation. The declarations of support from London and the movements of the French Navy show that conflict can take on a wider dimension.

Information about the death of Ali Chamenei has caused authentic relief among parts of Iran's diaspora. For many, it was a symbol of decades of repression. However, the failure of the unit does not mean automatic dismantling of the system. Authoritarian regimes have the ability to reproduce elites and adapt to fresh conditions.

On a geopolitical level, the weakening of Iran is simply a blow to Russia. In moral terms, it can be a signal to another dictators that violent repression and export of destabilisation are not without consequences. In the political dimension, this is only the beginning of a long and uncertain road.

The want of many is to rapidly collapse the full strategy in Tehran and return the Iranians to a average life in which the state is not an oppressor. Realism, however, suggests caution. The past of the mediate East teaches that the power vacuum can be as dangerous as tyranny and the question of the US's further strategy seems to be very justified.

The intellectual consequence present requires hard things: simultaneous criticism of Trump's administration where its actions are chaotic or unthinkable, and designation that in certain situations the usage of force against a criminal government can be morally and strategically justified. The planet is not black and white, and work for words – especially in times of war – requires intellectual integrity.