America and Iran: 73 Years of Undermining Democracy

E-International Relations  |  Mojtaba Mahdavi

The United States and Israel launched major military campaigns against Iran in June 2025 and February 2026, striking nuclear infrastructure, assassinating senior leadership, and devastating critical economic sectors alongside civil infrastructure in Minab where 168 schoolgirls were killed. These kinetic strikes mark the culmination of a seventy-three-year American posture toward Tehran that repeatedly undermined domestic democratic prospects through military coercion, economic sanctions, and strategic containment.

Originating with the 1953 Anglo-American overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, Washington prioritized regional stability, oil flows, and Israeli security over popular sovereignty, supporting authoritarian rule under the Shah and subsequently penalizing Iranian civil society. Unilateral American withdrawal from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2018 further crippled moderate political factions while empowering hardline domestic elements. Broad economic blockades and direct external aggression ultimately impede internal reform, proving that foreign military intervention and regime-change doctrines suppress democratic civil movements rather than enabling self-determination.

Comment

Pre-emptive counter-proliferation strikes alter defensive doctrine by forcing targeted states into hardened decentralisation. When primary command structures face persistent air targeting, operational authority devolves to autonomous regional units, as formalised in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' mosaic defense posture. This decentralisation prioritises retaliatory survivability over central political oversight during active combat operations.

The physical dispersion of critical nuclear and military assets into subterranean complexes like the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant illustrates how kinetic pressure drives environmental hardening. Consequently, neutralizing deeply buried installations requires specialised systems like the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, shifting theater strike planning from brief air campaigns to protracted logistics.

Strategic Question for Discussion

If kinetic campaigns force target states to rely permanently on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' mosaic defense doctrine, how does that operational dispersion affect the central government's capacity to negotiate binding international security agreements?

The pattern suggests that operational devolution under the mosaic defense doctrine inherently fractures command control, making central diplomatic commitments harder to enforce locally. When regional commanders hold autonomous authority, central political leaders lose the strict oversight necessary to guarantee verifiable compliance with international agreements. This structural friction indicates that military containment ultimately undermines the administrative coherence required for durable diplomatic resolution.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

To read in details click here