U.S. lacks moral authority in Iranian dissidents' fight

For the past two weeks, Iran has been shaken by a surge of protests against the repressive rule of the ayatollahs. Could these protests topple the country’s 47-year-old theocracy, or are they far more likely to end in a bloodbath? Is there anything the United States or other democracies can or should do? And, at a time when millions of Iranians clamor for freedom, who has the moral authority to speak in its name?

Iran has experienced massive protests several times before — most recently in September 2022, after a young woman arrested for wearing her mandatory headscarf too loosely was apparently beaten to death in custody. Every time, the protests have been brutally suppressed while the world looked on.

This time, the protests have been unprecedented in scale. What’s more, they started with shopkeepers or “bazaaris,” a group traditionally loyal to the Islamic Republic but increasingly dissatisfied with spiking prices (partly related to the government’s banking policies) and shortages of basic goods. The economic protests have been joined by people long discontented with the country’s authoritarian religious policies — occasionally relaxed, but sometimes enforced in new crackdowns.

By now the protests have swept across more than 180 cities and towns in every one of the country’s 31 provinces. Exiled Iranian politician Reza Pahlavi, the son of the late deposed shah — now living in Potomac, Maryland — has stepped up to cheer and encourage the protests.

The regime has responded with repression — imposing internet blackouts, mobilizing state-run media to showcase pro-government rallies and depict the protesters as terrorists, and using troops to quell the protests. Human Rights Activists News Agency, an Iran-focused group based in the United States, reports that more than 540 people have been killed since the start of the protests and more than 10,000 have been arrested.

President Donald Trump has weighed in, posting “Iran is looking at FREEDOM” on social media and asserting that “the USA stands ready to help.” Speaking to reporters, he has also warned that if Iran’s leadership continues to unleash lethal violence against demonstrators, he would consider “strong” military action. He also said that he is imposing a 25% tariff on countries doing business with Iran. It’s unclear how successfully this move can pressure Iran’s government.

It’s also not clear what his military options are. Under international law, military intervention to protect another country’s citizens from their own government is impermissible; what’s more, U.S. military action in this case would look like just the kind of regime-change intervention Trump has always denounced. Trump’s announcement that he will talk to Iran’s leader may be a signal that he’s backing out.

What’s more dispiriting is that our current leadership lacks not only credible military options but moral authority to support the Iranian dissidents’ fight for freedom, given its increasing embrace of authoritarian rhetoric in domestic politics and might-is-right language in international affairs. For decades, the president of the United States was also the leader of the free world. The Trump administration has made a joke of that role.

Of course, the United States is not the only democracy letting down Iran’s brave protesters. In Europe, and at international institutions like the United Nations, the outrage that has been so loud in response to Israel’s violence in Gaza seems missing in response to Iran’s violence against its people.

We don’t know yet what actions, if any, the Trump administration will take — or how far the Iranian regime will go in its crackdown. Perhaps the freedom-loving people of Iran still have a chance to prevail. But is there still a free world to welcome their battle?

Opinions expressed by Cathy Young, a writer for The Bulwark, are her own.

By Cathy Young

Cathy Young is a writer for The Bulwark.