Contributor: Iran’s crisis is a test of U.S. moral leadership
Right now, as you read this, Iranian protesters are facing live ammunition on the streets of Tehran. Women are in danger of being executed for removing their headscarves. Some 12,000 to 20,000 people It is feared that they may have died due to protest pressures. The regime is vulnerable, weakened by attacks on its nuclear program, facing economic collapse, and a population that has repeatedly chosen death rather than submission. The window to support regime change is open. But it’s closing quickly.
The Trump administration has made commitments to the Iranian people. Now, as we face the moment of decision, there is an uncomfortable hesitation. This is not just another foreign policy problem: it is a dual test of whether the American leadership still has the will to act according to stated principles. Fail here and we confirm that international relations has completely lost its moral compass.
Harvard’s Joseph Nye taught that foreign policy ethics requires integrating intentions, means, and results. Without adequate implementation, good intentions produce disastrous results. We stated our intention. The question is: Will we use these tools or let bureaucratic caution and geopolitical calculations paralyze us until the opportunity passes?
The Iranian regime is a 47-year-old totalitarian theocracy that terrorizes its people, supports terrorism from Hezbollah to Hamas to the Houthis, provides Russia with drones to kill Ukrainian civilians, and pursues nuclear weapons while declaring itself America’s mortal enemy. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei ordered the protesters to be “put in their places.” The judiciary announced that all participants will be tried moharebe – “Enmity against God” – a crime punishable by death.
But the international left remains conspicuously silent, frozen in power analysis and identity politics. In the opinion of many around the world, Iranian protesters are failing to create solidarity because their oppressors—the mullahs—are classified as victims of Western imperialism.
This pattern is repeated globally. There are 32 Christians in Nigeria reportedly killed daily – 7,087 people were killed in the first 220 days of 2025 alone. More than 50,000 in five years. In Sudan, 3,384 civilians died in the first half of 2025 alone. Genocide Watch explains that this is the ninth stage: extermination. Only a small portion of the humanitarian aid needed was allocated. Some of the suffering of Palestinians sometimes provokes international outrage. Selective morality is destructive and intentional.
Consider the Tudeh Party, Iran’s communist left. While protesters face bullets, they condemn the demonstrations, warning against American imperialism. Some progressive Iranian American academics have dismissed calls for change as Westernized and illegitimate. They use anti-imperialism to silence Iranians demanding their God-given rights. When ideology replaces principles, you end up with moral blindness masquerading as complexity.
The risks go beyond Iran. State sovereignty has been the basis of international law since the modern nation-state system was regulated by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1688. But it has become a shield for regimes that brutalize their own people. The post-1945 American-led international order assumed that sovereign states would protect citizens’ fundamental rights and that the international community would take action when they did not. We face a choice: sovereignty tied to the protection of citizens, or cynical realism where might is right.
What is needed is clear. First, a clear statement that the United States supports the right of the Iranian people to choose their own government and will not accept the continuation of mullah rule. Second, increasing sanctions targeting the economic foundations of the regime while ensuring that humanitarian aid reaches Iranians. Third, strong communication infrastructure support so that protesters can coordinate despite censorship attempts. Fourth, diplomatic isolation and coalition building. Fifth, material support to opposing forces sufficient to tip the balance.
The question is whether the Trump administration accepts this as a decisive test; The question is whether failure understands the signal to every authoritarian regime that the West lacks resolve, to every oppressed population that American principles are empty rhetoric, to every ally that American commitments are negotiable.
If we allow the window to close, if bureaucratic hesitation or fear of opposition paralyzes us, the regime will become stronger again. It will crush the protests with even greater brutality. He will execute thousands more. And there will be a sense that the West lacks the will to challenge this in a meaningful way. Every enemy will be encouraged. Every ally will question our words.
Only if we take action, if we give real support to the elimination of the mullahs, will we confirm that moral principles still matter in international relations. We show that the Judeo-Christian foundations of the American order are still alive and viable. We show that universal human dignity still requires our commitment, that freedom is still worth defending at cost and risk.
The American founders understood that rights come from the Creator, not from the government. They established a republic that accepted transcendental moral law as the basis of human law. Thomas Jefferson realized that resistance to tyranny meant obedience to God. The Iranian people ask us to respect these principles; Not abstractly, but concretely.
Despite knowing the cost, the protesters stood up. Although they faced torture and execution, they demanded freedom. They trusted that America represented something beyond geopolitical calculations. Now it’s time to decide. Not next month, not after more research has been done, not when conditions are perfect. Now. And this decision hangs not only the fate of Iran, but also the moral credibility of the entire international order we claim to defend.
We can support the Iranian people’s efforts to eliminate the mullahs, or we can watch another opportunity for freedom slip away as we hesitate. History will record which one we chose.
Daniel J. Arbess is the founder of Xerion Investments and a life member and co-founder of the Council on Foreign Relations. No TagA political group that promotes bipartisan cooperation.
