Bombing Iran Won't Bring Freedom

The most likely outcome of an American-Israeli bombing campaign is not the advent of liberal democracy but something worse.

Published on Mar. 6, 2026

When the author saw images of bombs falling on Tehran, he felt a recognition that was almost immediate. He has lived inside this story for most of his life, first as a child in Iran, then as an immigrant to the United States, and later as someone trying to explain his country to Americans who often encounter it only in moments of crisis. The author argues that the most likely outcome of the American-Israeli bombing campaign is not the advent of liberal democracy but rather a shift in the regime's center of gravity from clerical dominance to military dominance, where one tyranny replaces another. He believes that durable change in Iran will most likely emerge from the slow accumulation of pressure inside the country, not from the sudden imposition of force from outside.

Why it matters

This case highlights the complex history of American intervention in Iran and the risks of relying on outside military force to bring about democratic change. The author's personal experience as an Iranian American provides a nuanced perspective on the challenges of supporting the Iranian people's aspirations for freedom without feeding the regime's narrative of foreign meddling.

The details

The author recounts his childhood memories of President Jimmy Carter's visit to Iran in 1977, when he felt the hope that the American president might act as a check on the shah's regime. However, that hope dissolved into something harder and more sober as the revolution unfolded and the storming of the U.S. Embassy led to decades of mutual suspicion between the two countries. The author argues that the current bombing campaign is more likely to strengthen the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, a military-intelligence and economic network woven deeply into Iran's institutions, rather than dissolve it. He warns that this could lead to a shift in the regime's center of gravity from clerical dominance to military dominance, where one tyranny replaces another.

  • In 1977, the author was five years old and witnessed President Jimmy Carter's visit to Tehran.
  • In 1979, the author's family fled Iran with little warning and arrived in America with almost nothing.
  • In 2022, the author was on a book tour for a biography of an American who died fighting for Iranian democracy more than a century ago, during the women-led uprising in Iran.

The players

Reza Aslan

The author of the article, who has lived inside the story of Iran for most of his life, first as a child in Iran, then as an immigrant to the United States, and later as someone trying to explain his country to Americans.

Jimmy Carter

The former American president who visited Iran in 1977, when the author was a child, and was seen by some Iranians as a potential check on the shah's regime.

Donald Trump

The former American president whose public language has revealed admiration for strongman power, and who the author believes is not the right leader to bring about accountable government in Iran.

Howard Baskerville

A 22-year-old American missionary who arrived in Iran in 1907 and joined his students on the barricades during the Constitutional Revolution, becoming a martyr in Iran.

Kermit Roosevelt

A CIA officer who directed the 1953 coup against Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, toppling a democratically elected government and restoring the shah, an event that planted a durable distrust of American intentions in Iran.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“The only difference between me and these people is the place of my birth, and that is not a big difference.”

— Howard Baskerville (The New York Times)

The takeaway

This case highlights the complex history of American intervention in Iran and the risks of relying on outside military force to bring about democratic change. The author's personal experience as an Iranian American provides a nuanced perspective on the challenges of supporting the Iranian people's aspirations for freedom without feeding the regime's narrative of foreign meddling. Durable change in Iran will most likely emerge from the slow accumulation of pressure inside the country, not from the sudden imposition of force from outside.