Hey America, Take Your Hand Off Iran!

Dear readers,

This article is not written to defend the Iranian regime, but to draw your attention to the double standards and power-centric morality that are becoming increasingly commonplace in international politics.

Today, the United States, with all its political, economic, and military might, has effectively blockaded Iran. Washington's demands on Tehran can be grouped under two headings: an end to the killing of protesters in Iran and Iran's abandonment of its nuclear program.

It is impossible not to feel sorrow for the thousands of protesters who have lost their lives in Iran in recent weeks. The state's use of lethal force against peaceful protests is a clear violation of human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances. This situation must be condemned both morally and in terms of international law. There is no hesitation on this point.

However, the issue is not solely about present-day Iran. We witnessed the same suffering during the systematic torture and executions carried out by SAVAK, the notorious intelligence organization of the Shah's regime in Iran in the 1960s and 1970s. At that time, clerics, socialists, intellectuals, Kurds, Azerbaijanis, and political actors belonging to other ethnic groups were similarly killed. Human rights violations existed in Iran then too. But in those years, no one militarily threatened Iran to "change the Shah's regime" nor put forward any other imposition.

Here, a fundamental truth must be remembered: Iran is a nation-state. It must determine its regime, political system, and future not through external pressure, but through the historical, cultural, and political dynamics of its own society. This process may seem slow, painful, and even unbearable to outsiders. However, this rule applies not only to Iran but to the entire world. The internal transformations of nation-states occur through internal social struggles, not external threats.

America's imposition of conditions that directly interfere in Iran's internal affairs is incompatible with the fundamental principles of international law. For one state to tell another, "if you don't do this, I will bomb you," is not defending human rights but instrumentalizing power. The threat of force is not a moral superiority but a legal violation.

A simple example from recent history clearly demonstrates this contradiction. Recently, ICE agents in America brutally killed a US citizen. This incident is a clear example of state violence. However, no one imposed on America to "change its regime." No one attempted to bring Washington into line with military threats. This means the issue is not human rights. The issue is who is powerful.

The discussions currently underway regarding Iran's nuclear program also contain similar hypocrisy. It must be clear here: This article does not advocate for nuclear weapons. The fact that nuclear weapons are a threat to humanity is undeniable. However, the problem is not the existence of nuclear weapons, but the double standards applied to them.

During the Shah's era, Iran was merely a regional power. However, after Khomeini, Iran transformed into an actor with global influence. For such a power to seek nuclear capability to assert itself in its surroundings is consistent with the nature of the existing international system. Iran does not become morally justified by this choice, but presenting Iran's choice as an "exceptional threat" alone is not realistic.

Iran's neighbor Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons. Israel and India possess nuclear weapons. There is no universal guarantee that the nuclear weapons in the hands of these countries will be used correctly and responsibly under all circumstances. Who can guarantee that Israel or any other nuclear power will always use these weapons rationally? Despite this, presenting only Iran's pursuit of nuclear capability as an absolute threat is inconsistent with global reality.

Another accusation leveled against Iran is that it conducts "proxy wars." Its support for Hamas, Hezbollah, actors in Yemen, and various regional structures is presented by Washington as a threat to global stability. However, this criticism does not align with the reality of the contemporary international system. In today's world, there is almost no state that has achieved a certain military, economic, and geopolitical power that does not conduct proxy wars. It is a known fact that America conducts conflicts not directly, but through allies and local actors, in geographies extending from the Middle East to Eastern Europe, from Africa to Asia. Russia, China, European powers, and regional actors similarly use indirect warfare methods. Therefore, the issue is not the existence of proxy wars, but who defines this method as "legitimate" and who defines it as a "threat." While condemning Iran for this reason, ignoring other powers that systematically use the same method is not a moral stance in international politics, but a practice of selective accusation.

America wants to present itself to the world as an ethical international actor. The discourse of "I am good, and I will teach the bad ones a lesson" is the most familiar form of modern imperial language. Yet, recent history has repeatedly shown how fragile and insincere this discourse is.

Until yesterday, America unconditionally supported armed forces in Western Kurdistan, referred to as "Rojava" in Syria, but withdrew this support overnight. This stance is a bitter example where America itself proved that the concept of "friend" is effectively invalid in international relations. When interests change, principles also change.

At this point, blaming only America would be incomplete. Kurdish political actors and intellectuals who try to keep alive the dream of a federal or independent Kurdistan by leaning on America, Israel, or other global powers are also responsible for this picture. Political projects relying on external power have historically not been permanent; on the contrary, they have produced new disappointments. In the international system, there are "permanent interests," not "permanent friendships."

In conclusion, the issue is not to defend or oppose the Iranian regime. The issue is to object to the double standards in international relations, the power-centric morality, and the habit of external intervention. The Iranian people's struggle for freedom can gain meaning not through threats from Washington, but through the internal dynamics of Iranian society.

America must abandon its claim to appear as an ethical global actor. Because those who want to distribute morality to the world must first learn to limit their own power. History has written about regimes that hardened under external pressure, not peoples who gained freedom through external pressure.