SARASOTA, Florida โ Watching the current debate, I find myself asking a basic question:
How did Iran suddenly become the victim?
For 47 years, the Iranian regime has funded terrorism, armed proxy groups, destabilized the Middle East, openly threatened Israel, and repressed its own people. And yet today, much of the political conversation, particularly on the political left, is shifting toward an anti-war posture that, intentionally or not, casts Iran as the aggrieved party.
How did we get here?
I say this as a lifelong Democrat and an active party member.
We do not have to choose between blind support for President Trump and blind opposition to everything he does. Both are forms of partisanship that obscure reality.
There is plenty to criticize about President Trump. He has often disregarded established norms, sidelined consultation, and created confusion where clarity was needed. Those concerns are real.
But none of that changes the larger truth.
The Iranian regime has been the aggressor for nearly five decades.
From the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing that killed 241 U.S. Marines, to the Khobar Towers attack in 1996, to its ongoing funding and arming of Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis, the pattern is consistent. Iran has used proxy forces to expand its influence through violence while attempting to avoid direct accountability.
This is not a partisan talking point. It is a historical record.
Iranโs ambitions do not stop at Israel or the Middle East. Across Europe and increasingly in the United States, radical Islamist networks, propaganda, intimidation campaigns, and ideological pressure have disrupted civic life, inflamed antisemitism, and challenged liberal democratic values. Not all of that comes directly from Tehran, but Iran has been one of the most aggressive state sponsors of this broader movement. Its regime understands that war is not fought only with missiles and militias. It is also fought through ideology, fear, propaganda, and the erosion of Western confidence.
And it is not only about what Iran does abroad.
It is about what the regime does to its own people.
The Iranian people are not the regime. Anyone who doubts that should listen to Iranian voices themselves.
In one video, an Iranian woman now living in Australia explains how deeply misunderstood her country is. She describes how Islam has been imposed on the population for 47 years, and how ordinary Iranians simply want peace and freedom like anyone else.
She talks about everyday freedoms that do not exist under the regime. Women are not allowed to sing in public. Walking a dog can be forbidden. Even something as simple as going for a run without fear is not guaranteed.
These are not abstract policy debates. These are real human lives.
And when they protest, the regime responds with brutality.
Millions of Iranians have reportedly taken to the streets across the country, including in major cities, demanding change. The exact number of those killed is difficult to verify because the regime has repeatedly imposed internet blackouts and restricted communication during crackdowns. But reports from activists and outside observers describe large-scale repression, mass arrests, and significant casualties.
That is not the behavior of a government defending its people.
It is the behavior of a regime afraid of them.
And yet, in much of todayโs debate, this reality is being overshadowed by a different narrative.
Opposition to President Trump is leading some to treat any confrontation with Iran as inherently wrong, regardless of the underlying facts.
That is a mistake.
It is possible to hold two truths at the same time.
President Trumpโs approach may have violated norms and bypassed important processes.
And the Iranian regime still represents one of the most dangerous and destabilizing forces in the world.
Those two things are not mutually exclusive.
In fact, acknowledging both is what responsible leadership looks like.
If we reduce everything to โfor Trumpโ or โagainst Trump,โ we miss the larger question:
What outcome actually makes the region safer and gives the Iranian people a better chance at freedom?
I graduated from Rutgers in 1979, the same year the Islamic regime took control of Iran. This has been my entire adult lifetime.
For nearly five decades, we have watched the same regime export violence, repress its own people, and destabilize the region.
So when I hear people ask how much this conflict will cost, I think a better question is:
How much will it cost if this regime remains in power for another generation?
Americans are also right to ask what this conflict will cost them at home, especially at the gas pump.
But we are not powerless.
In a recent article, โCall Grows For U.S. Energy Emergency To Shield Economy From Global Oil Shocks,โ I argued that the United States and Canada could treat North America as a unified energy zone, requiring domestic demand to be met before exports and stabilizing prices within the continent.
As a practical benchmark, I suggested $67 a barrel, roughly the average price in January, when gas prices were far more manageable for consumers. The exact number can be debated. It could be $60, $70, or $75. But the principle matters:
American consumers should not be forced to absorb the full economic shock of a war while oil companies profit from global volatility.
Strategy abroad should be matched with stability at home.
I have spoken with people who privately acknowledge the danger of the Iranian regime and even hope it collapses.
But publicly, they say nothing.
Publicly, they align with the safer political narrative.
And that silence matters.
Because when people who understand the threat stay quiet, the political will to confront it disappears.
The Democratic Party should not let opposition to President Trump go silent about the Iranian regime.
In fact, this is exactly where Democrats should lead.
However we got here, we are here now. The question is no longer whether President Trump handled every step correctly. He did not. The question is whether America and its allies will now have the courage to finish the job in a way that strengthens freedom, weakens jihadist power, and gives the Iranian people a real chance to reclaim their country.
Democratic leaders should reach out to our traditional European allies, to Persian Gulf partners, and to freedom-seeking Iranians themselves and say clearly: we cannot leave this regime in place, more emboldened, more dangerous, and more convinced that the West lacks the will to confront it.
That is not warmongering.
That is facing reality.
If Democrats show that kind of strength, I believe the American people will recognize it. They will see leaders willing to rise above reflexive partisanship and deal with the world as it is. They will see a party serious about human rights, serious about Israelโs security, serious about protecting Western democracies, and serious about creating a more peaceful 21st century.
This is not about occupying Iran. It is not about repeating the mistakes of Iraq or Afghanistan.
Lasting change cannot be imposed from the outside.
It must come from within.
That means working with the Iranian people, coordinating with European allies, and engaging with regional partners to apply consistent pressure while supporting the populationโs desire for freedom.
Iran is not Iraq. It is not Afghanistan. It is a highly educated, historically sophisticated society with a population that has repeatedly shown its desire for democracy in its future.
That matters strategically. If the United States and its allies work with the Iranian people, rather than treating Iran as a country to be occupied, regime change does not have to mean a long-term ground war. It does not have to mean repeating Iraq or Afghanistan. The pressure can come from the air, from intelligence, from sanctions, from cyber operations, from regional cooperation, and most importantly, from the Iranian people themselves.
If regime forces move to slaughter civilians in the streets, the democratic world should not look away. If nuclear materials need to be secured, that may require targeted special operations. But that is very different from occupying a country and trying to build a government at gunpoint.
The goal should not be occupation.
The goal should be liberation.
And if the regime begins to collapse, the United States should not have to act alone. European democracies and Persian Gulf nations that also want this regime gone should be ready to help stabilize the transition. The point is not to impose a foreign future on Iran. The point is to help the Iranian people reclaim a democratic future that was stolen from them in 1953.
If we truly want to end the cycle of violence in the Middle East, we have to go to the source.
The source is not only Hamas. It is not only Hezbollah.
It is Tehran.
Until the regime that funds, arms, and directs these forces loses its grip on power, the violence will continue under different names and on different fronts.
The people of Iran deserve better.
The region deserves better.
And the world deserves better.
Imagine a year from now, the dust has settled.
Imagine that the Iranian regime has failed under the weight of its own corruption, repression, and isolation.
Imagine an Iran where women are not policed for how they dress, where journalists are not jailed for speaking the truth, where young people can build businesses, travel freely, and participate in the global economy.
Imagine Iran joining the Western world.
Imagine an Iran that chooses cooperation over confrontation.
That future is not guaranteed.
But it is possible.
And it becomes far more likely when leaders dare to say clearly what many already know:
Iran is not the victim.
Its people are.
