Iranian Regime Change: Does the United States Adhere to Its Own Democratic Values

Photo via Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

***

Operation Epic Fury in late February 2026 and President Trump’s genocidal threats towards the Iranian people on April 7th raise a fundamental question: Is destabilizing and invading an undemocratic sovereign nation in the name of democracy and “regime change” an effective or acceptable approach in accordance with our own history and democratic values? 

Historically, the answer has almost exclusively been no. Laid out in America’s founding documents, it is evident that the “democratic values” (while not always perfectly exemplified) are fundamental human rights, freedom for all, and the rule of law. Under domestic and international law, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution as well as the UN Charter, the Trump Administration’s war in Iran is illegal and disregards these same values. Constitutionally, military action is only permissible by the president in response to a sudden attack on U.S. soil (including its territories) or an imminent threat. Otherwise, the declaration of war and “engaging in hostilities against another country” require congressional approval. Not only did Iran not attack the U.S., ruling out self-defense, the 2025 Defense Intelligence Agency assessment also reported that Iran does not possess and is incapable of producing a long-range missile that could reach the U.S., ruling out Trump’s justification of an imminent threat. Under international law, even with the justification of self-defense, Trump was required to seek approval from the UN Security Council before using force, which he did not. Therefore, by violating the Constitution and the international legal system that also upholds these same beliefs (of which the U.S. was a key architect), Trump has gravely undermined America’s own “democratic values.” Therefore, this raises the question of whether a nation that disregards democracy and its own fundamental values can spread democracy to another country.

Although Trump’s justification for military action remains incoherent, one of his claimed prerogatives for “regime change” is to bring democracy and freedom to the Iranian people. However, will Trump’s bomb campaign and economic sanctions in Iran result in a homegrown democracy? Reza Aslan, an Iranian-American scholar, recently discussed with CNN the implications of Trump’s activity in Iran as well as the effects of past international efforts to denuclearize the region. Aslan remarks that similar bombing campaigns and failed negotiations with Iran, rather than undermining authoritarianism in the Middle East, often reinforced their power. Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA nuclear deal in 2018 is a perfect example of this, as it weakened Iran’s economy and effectively closed the productive denuclearization efforts of the permanent five members of the UNSC (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), as well as Germany (under the European Union). The fallacy that the U.S. can free the Iranians through economic struggle that is cultivated through secluding them from a free global market to enhance political pressure on the regime, along with the idea that somehow American bombs will result in Iranian democracy, is inherently paradoxical. Rather, it has dissolved a possible opportunity for struggling middle-class Iranians to gain a voice and rise in a political climate that allows them to be less reliant on the regime. Resulting in a handicapped population at the will of the regime to survive as the U.S. continuously establishes itself as the colonial enemy, incapable of negotiation, rather than a leader of peace and democracy.

Aside from the justifications from Trump and his administration lacking true clarity, the social-political climate they are producing within Iran does not promote breeding grounds for democracy. In addition to this, the assumption that a nation whose  own scholars believe is turning towards authoritarianism can bomb another nation into democracy is a “wish-fulfillment fantasy” that “must be put to bed.” If the U.S. is to lead by example and bring democracy to authoritarian nations, it must do so in a democratic manner that reflects the legislative systems that enshrine values of freedom, human rights, and the rule of law. By disregarding Constitutional democratic institutions and the rule of law, as well as the fundamental freedoms and rights of the Iranian people protected under international law, the U.S. relinquishes any legitimacy in its claim to spreading democracy to Iran. Furthermore, this bombing campaign will never be effective, as it frames the foreign attacker (the U.S.) as the enemy, pushing the Iranian people into a mode of survival in which they rally for their existing government, regardless of their previous disdain. 

***

This article was edited by Simon Shalett and Cynthia Duchitanga.