Warnings ignored, crises multiplied—how four decades of miscalculation empowered a system built on exporting instability and repression
Iran today stands at the epicenter of what can only be described as an “exceptional situation.” The current Middle East crisis is not a historical accident, but rather the logical outcome of deeply flawed Western policies initiated over four decades ago—policies that, compounded by structural inaction from global powers, have culminated in a dangerous and destabilizing reality.
During the post-Cold War era, when much of the world was immersed in optimism and geopolitical recalibration, the Iranian Resistance consistently warned of the emergence of a “new monster.” Over the years, it issued repeated alerts, exposed critical threats, and sought to identify the roots of instability before the situation escalated to its present state.
These warnings were neither abstract nor rhetorical. They included revelations about the rise of religious fundamentalism as a global threat in the 1990s, the exposure of secret nuclear facilities in the early 2000s, and the identification of key elements within Iran’s extraterritorial military and intelligence structures. Further disclosures highlighted the regime’s destructive interventions in Iraq, its extensive role in the Syrian conflict, and systematic human rights violations that ultimately led to dozens of condemnatory resolutions at the United Nations.
Such efforts went far beyond intelligence activities. They were part of a broader attempt to reveal the true nature of a system that has redefined its survival through the continuous production of crisis. From transnational terrorism networks to covert nuclear infrastructure and biopolitical interference in neighboring states, the pattern has been consistent and deliberate.
These developments point to a fundamental reality: the system of Velayat-e Faqih does not function as a conventional state. Rather, it operates as a hub for exporting extremism and instability—one that remains inherently incompatible with the principles of negotiation, mutual trust, or social contract.
History has consistently judged harshly those who sacrifice the freedom of others in exchange for temporary security. The policy of appeasement adopted by Western governments toward Tehran reflects a similar intellectual stagnation seen before the major conflicts of the 20th century. This “deep slumber of democracies” allowed a form of religious fascism to entrench itself across the region.
Today, the cost of that silence is paid in the currency of blood and destruction—from the streets of Beirut to Baghdad and Damascus. Appeasement, in this context, was not merely a diplomatic miscalculation; it represented a profound moral failure. It enabled the ruling system in Iran to leverage oil revenues and international passivity to evolve into an existential threat to regional and global peace.
One of the more sophisticated strategies employed by this system has been the manufacturing of fear—specifically, the fear of chaos in the event of its fall. By promoting a binary choice between the status quo and a return to outdated political models, it seeks to trap society in a false dilemma: continuity of repression or regression to the past.
However, an alternative perspective challenges this narrative. It argues that hereditary dictatorship and religious authoritarianism are simply two manifestations of the same historical deadlock. Recent efforts to revive the image of monarchy under modern branding reflect what can be described as a form of “romantic neo-fascism”—an attempt to reverse the course of history rather than address contemporary demands.
A return to the past cannot satisfy a generation that has risen in pursuit of self-determination and human dignity. The demand today is not for a mere transfer of power among elites, but for a democratic transformation that rejects all forms of domination—whether rooted in clerical rule or in the legacy of authoritarian monarchy.
In this context, the question facing Iran is no longer whether change is necessary, but whether the international community is prepared to recognize the consequences of past policies and support a future aligned with the aspirations of its people.
