I was recently watching the movie National Treasure when Nicolas Cage’s character read a passage connected to the Declaration of Independence. The line that stayed with me was powerful: when something is wrong, those who have the ability to take action also have the responsibility to take action. It is the kind of sentence that sounds obvious when spoken in a movie, but becomes far more uncomfortable when applied to the real world.

Most of us recognize injustice when we see it. The harder question is what we are willing to do about it, particularly when the injustice is happening to someone else, in another country, under a government we do not have to live beneath.

The Declaration of Independence is remembered as the document that announced America’s separation from British rule, but its importance goes far beyond one country’s history. At its core, it makes a universal argument about the relationship between people and government. It states that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed, and that when any government becomes destructive of the rights it was created to protect, the people have the right to alter or abolish it. That said, the Declaration does not treat rebellion casually. It specifically warns that governments should not be changed for “light and transient causes.”

People are often willing to tolerate suffering for longer than they should because instability is frightening, change is unpredictable, and hope can survive even inside terrible circumstances. But the document also recognizes that there is a point when patience is no longer prudence, and submission is no longer peace.

That point was described as a “long train of abuses and usurpations” designed to reduce people under absolute despotism. It is difficult to read those words today without thinking about Iran.

I’m going to sound like a broken record, but for nearly five decades, the Islamic Republic has denied Iranians the most basic rights that people in democratic countries often take for granted. It has imprisoned journalists, academics, lawyers, environmentalists and dual nationals, including the Washington Posts former Iran Bureau Chief, Jason Rezaian in 2014.

the regime has executed political opponents over the decades. The 1988 prison massacres alone becoming one of the darkest chapters in modern Iranian history.

The Islamic Republic, while allowing some minorities to have representation in Parliament has suppressed religious minorities; most significantly the Baha’i faith. And if you convert to another religion from Shia Islam, you face severe persecution, imprisonment or death.

They discriminated against women to the extent that nationwide protests erupted in 2022 and sparked the Woman, Life, Freedom movement, which some suggested was close to achieving its goal of overthrowing the regime.

The regime censored the internet, and blacked out the countries internet service for almost three months just this year. The current reality are internet speeds comparable to dial up and the use of VPN’s.

Finally, the regime has mastered the use of brutal force and has crushed demonstrations with lethal brutality, treating it as a threat to national security.

The Islamic regime has spent the country’s wealth on repression at home and ideological expansion abroad while ordinary Iranians struggle with inflation, unemployment, corruption, environmental collapse, and the steady disappearance of hope.

Perhaps none of that matters to other people in democratic countries. My friends ask me, why should we send our boys and girls half way around the world from America to Iran to die in another endless war? I feel this is a legitimate question.

My answer is that this isn’t simply Iran’s problem. For decades, the Islamic Republic has exported violence beyond its borders. From the Mykonos assassinations in Berlin to the AMIA bombing in Buenos Aires, to more recent kidnapping plots targeting journalists and dissidents in Europe and North America, the regime has demonstrated that its ambitions do not end at Iran’s borders. Through Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Houthis and various Iraqi militias, it has built an entire network of proxy groups whose actions have affected regional and global security for decades; including the deaths of hundreds of US service members in Iraq. This strategy will continue until the Islamic Republic is no more.

I have lived under the Islamic Republic. I have seen how fear enters daily life so gradually that people learn to treat it as normal. They learn which subjects cannot be discussed openly, which words should not be written in a message, which photographs should not be posted, which opinions should remain inside the home, and which questions are too dangerous to ask. My parents taught me as a teenager there what not to say before I was old enough to understand why. Friends lower their voices in restaurants. Families worry when someone does not answer the phone. People become experts at pretending, not because they are dishonest, but because honesty can carry consequences.

The people of Iran have already demonstrated courage far beyond what should ever be demanded of them. Women have removed compulsory head coverings in public despite the threat of arrest. Students have protested despite knowing universities can become extensions of the security state. Workers, teachers, pensioners, athletes, artists, lawyers, and grieving families have all stood against a system designed to isolate them from one another. Many have paid with their freedom, their futures, and as the numbers above demonstrated, with their lives. The question is no longer whether Iranians want change. The question is whether the rest of the world is willing to hear them without filtering their demands through political convenience.

There is a strange contradiction in the way many people in the West speak about Iran. They celebrate the Declaration of Independence, praise resistance to tyranny, and repeat that governments must answer to the people. Yet when Iranians express those same principles, they are often told to be patient, to fear instability, to accept reform that never comes, or to remain trapped beneath a regime because the alternatives might be complicated. No one should romanticize revolution, war, or political collapse. The cost is always carried by ordinary people. But neither should fear of uncertainty become an excuse for permanent dictatorship.

The principles of the Declaration are not American property. The belief that people possess rights independent of government does not stop at a border. The idea that political power requires consent should apply just as much in Tehran, Shiraz, Tabriz, Mashhad, Sanandaj, and Zahedan as it does in Washington, Paris, London, or Berlin. Freedom cannot be a sacred principle when Americans invoke it and a dangerous slogan when Iranians demand it.

Those of us who have the ability to speak also have a responsibility. That does not mean pretending to know exactly how Iran’s future should be built. It does not mean speaking over the people inside the country or reducing their struggle to a Western political argument. It means refusing to normalize the regime’s violence. It means amplifying Iranian voices, challenging propaganda, supporting political prisoners, documenting abuses, and reminding the world that stability without dignity is not peace.

When Iranians have marched peacefully for freedom, the European Union and United Nations - institutions that rightly champion human rights - have too often responded with statements while avoiding meaningful pressure on the regime. More recently, military strikes by the United States and Israel significantly weakened parts of the Islamic Republic’s security apparatus. Whether intentional or not, many Iranians interpreted that moment as the first time in years that the balance of fear had shifted, however briefly, away from the regime.

One day, Iran will have its own declaration. It may not be written on parchment or signed by famous men. It may be written through the courage of millions of ordinary people who decide that fear will no longer define the future of their country. Governments exist to serve people. People do not exist to serve governments. That truth was written 250 years ago, but it belongs just as much to the people of Iran today. Perhaps it’s time the free world remembered that.

There are sounds you expect to hear in every city.

Whether it’s New York City or Tehran, you’ll hear traffic, car horns, construction, maybe music from a house or a car. Sometimes you’ll hear and see children playing in parks, people shopping and street vendors trying to make a living.

There are two major differences between New York City and Tehran though. In the latter, you’ll hear call to prayer, and while it might be strange, you also hear silence.

I couldn’t quite explain it at first. There was something about Tehran that felt different. Eventually I realized what it was. It wasn’t a sound at all, it was silence.

Not the kind you hear at two in the morning when everyone has gone to bed. A different kind of silence. One that exists in the middle of a crowded café. It took me years to recognize it because I’d grown up assuming people simply said what they thought.

In America, I can stand in front of the White House and talk to a friend about how much I hate President Trump. Or I can be sitting in front of Governor Newsom telling him how horrible of a Governor I think he is. In Hungary, I witnessed people changing their government through the ballot and throwing a rave in front of the outgoing Prime Ministers chambers. No one gets arrested or killed in these three scenarios.

In Iran, it’s not that people don’t have anything to say; they’ve just learned they shouldn’t. Around family dinner tables, inside taxi’s, at work and even amongst close friends, someone might make a harmless joke about the regime and everyone laughs. But then almost instinctively they glance around to see who heard what, if anything.

Taxi drivers often know exactly what’s wrong with the country. They’ll tell you about inflation, corruption and broken promises. Then they’ll suddenly stop talking. They’ll ask where you’re from instead. The silence isn’t because they changed their mind. It’s because they remembered where they were.

Living in a society like that changes you in ways you don’t even notice. You begin measuring your words before speaking. You stop asking certain questions, avoid certain topics and you assume someone is always listening, even when nobody is.

When I told a friend before the Woman Life Freedom protests, something was about to happen, it wasn’t because I have a crystal ball. It’s because rumors were spreading that the Supreme Leader, Khamenei had died.

People in central Tehran where I was walking during a hot summer afternoon weren’t whispering. They were joyfully celebrating that the dictator was dead. Vendors, store owners started giving out sweets and were celebrating. I walked into a locksmith and this absolute stranger offered me tea and cookies. And while making my keys he proceeded to invite me for moonshine later that night to celebrate!

Alas, they were just rumors.

That’s when I knew Iran was a dry tender box, just waiting to erupt. And later that summer, when the authorities killed Mahsa Amini for not properly wearing her hijab, the country erupted.

The sound of silence was no more, as people went on rooftops venting almost fifty years of frustration to the chants of “Death to the Dictator.”

Before I lived in Iran, I thought oppression looked like prison walls, riot police and censorship. Those things exist, but they’re only part of the story. That’s where the regime puts you to be silent.

The greatest success of an authoritarian system isn’t convincing people what to think. It’s scaring them to think twice before saying what they already believe.

Fear of speaking has largely gone away. People aren’t afraid of being imprisoned or beaten. After the January Massacre where the regime killed upwards of 40,000 people in forty-eight hours, the new fear is death.

And in some ways, that fear is being shattered day-by-day as parents or older generations are saying they will accept death so the next generation can have the freedoms they were robbed of.

While I may sound like a broken record, as I told a friend, history isn’t made over night. It happens when fear is broken, or when a population have nothing left to lose.

The Iranian diaspora doesn’t understand this. Western governments don’t understand it either. Truth be told, I didn’t understand it until I lived there and saw first hand how the sound of silence can be broken.

First, people were scared to speak. Then they were afraid of being imprisoned and or beaten. Finally, they were afraid of being killed. When that fear goes away, freedom will prevail.

Having lived in eight countries, twelve cities and moved homes nearly fifty times in the United States, the Middle East and Europe, it’s safe to say I’ve had a “nomadic” life. I have no regrets about that either, but one country has stood out, and that’s Iran, which is by far the most misunderstood country I have ever lived in.

That distinction matters because visiting Iran and living in Iran are two entirely different experiences.

Visiting Iran allows you to be seduced by hospitality, architecture, poetry, food, mountains, ancient ruins, and the kind of warmth that makes strangers insist you sit down and eat with them even though they met you three minutes earlier.

Living in Iran forces you to understand the contradiction beneath all of it. It forces you to understand how a country can be one of the most beautiful places on earth and also one of the most suffocating. It forces you to understand how people can laugh, date, build businesses, go to cafes, watch football, fall in love, argue about politics in whispers, and still live under the shadow of a system designed to make sure they never feel fully free.

That is the part most outsiders do not understand; especially in America and Europe.

Westerners often reduce Iran into whatever political argument they already wanted to make before they learned anything about the country. Conservatives see Iran and think terrorism, nuclear weapons, hostage crises, and chanting mobs burning American flags.

Liberals see Iran and too often fall into the opposite trap, romanticizing resistance to America so much that they end up making excuses for one of the most repressive systems on earth.

Journalists fly in meet a government minder, talk to a few approved voices, photograph some murals, eat kebab, write about complexity, and leave.

Academics bury the country under terminology, while activists sometimes flatten it into slogans like #NoWarWithIran.

Finally, policy people treat it like a chessboard. Everyone seems to have a version of an “Iran.” However, very few seem to understand Iranians; neither did I before living there. This is the tragedy that brings tears to my eyes looking at pictures I’ve taken, or writing about her.

Iran is not the Islamic Republic, even though the Islamic Republic has spent more than four decades trying to convince the world that it is. Iran is also not merely the ancient empire Westerners love to admire from a safe distance, with Persepolis, Cyrus, poetry, carpets, and pomegranates.

Iran is not just women burning headscarves, nor is it just clerics giving Friday sermons with pauses of “Death to America.” Essentially, it is all of these things and none of them at the same time.

It is a country where people can be deeply traditional and remarkably modern at the same time. It’s a place where a grandmother might wear a chador, but her granddaughter wears whatever she wants. It is a place where a woman may wear a mandatory hijab outside and then go home or to a friend’s house, or dare I say, a party and speak more freely about politics, sex, religion, alcohol, drugs and life than many Westerners ever do.

It is a country where young people may know more about American pop culture than many Americans, while also living under internet censorship, economic collapse, and the constant knowledge that one wrong post, one wrong photo, one wrong conversation with the wrong person, can change their life; or end it.

I did not understand this when I first returned to Iran as a twelve-year-old, nor did I in my twenties, and not again until five years ago in my forties.

I had been born in Tehran, but I had grown up in California. My world was beaches, skateboards, baseball, American football, ice hockey, basketball, shorts, t-shirts, and the casual freedom of a child who had no idea freedom was something people elsewhere had to calculate. Then in late 1991, my mother took me back to Tehran and suddenly I was in a country that was supposed to be mine but felt completely foreign.

Men could not wear shorts. Women wore black chadors. I barely spoke Farsi. There was no baseball, no organized basketball that I understood, no familiar rhythm to daily life. Even the air went from Los Angeles beach and smog to mile high altitude and, yes, smog.

What outsiders - including diaspora Iranians - miss about the country is it is not simply divided between pro-Islamic Republic and anti-regime. Divisions aren’t between religion and secularism, traditional versus modern, east and west.

It’s a country full of people forced to negotiate impossible contradictions every day. People who love Iran but hate the state that rules it. People who want freedom, but can’t or won’t leave their families. People who miss a national team they can no longer cheer for. People who want normal lives but are constantly dragged into politics by a regime that politicizes their clothes, music, internet, travel, money, sports, relationships, joy and ultimately as we’ve seen with the girls school, even death.

That is why Iran is so misunderstood. Because to understand Iran, you have to hold two truths at once. The country is extraordinary. The system ruling it is catastrophic. The people are not their government. The culture is not the regime. The beauty is real. So is the brutality. The warmth is real. So is the fear. The pride is real. So is the exhaustion. The emotions and frustrations are not a fifteen second social media story, nor are they the rubbish western media pushes you to see. They are raw, and run deeper than anything I’ve witnessed in all my travels and lived experiences.

Westerners often want simple categories because simple categories make foreign countries easier to discuss. Unfortunately, Iran refuses to be simple. It is too old, too wounded, too proud, too educated, too angry, too poetic, too cynical, too funny, and too alive to fit into the boxes outsiders build for it.

That is what makes Iran and Iranians fascinating. It is also what makes the Islamic Republic’s crime so profound. It did not merely repress a population. It distorted the way the world sees an entire civilization.

The most misunderstood country I have ever lived in is not misunderstood because it is unknowable. It is misunderstood because too many people keep confusing Iran with the people who stole it.

Subscribe now

Growing up, the Iranian National team, affectionately called “Team Melli” belonged to everyone.

In late 1991, my mom took me back to my birthplace, Tehran. The city bore the scars of the Islamic Revolution where men couldn’t wear shorts or t-shirts and women wore black chadors. A stark contrast from the beach and skateboarding lifestyle a twelve year old grew up with.

I could hardly speak or understand Farsi, there was no baseball, American football, ice hockey, or organized basketball. But there was football, or soccer, which I did not understand; at all.

One day in 1993, my cousin took me to a World Cup qualifier game at the countries largest stadium, now known as Azadi Stadium. It had a capacity of 100,000 people, and was meant to be the centerpiece of a larger Olympic Complex, as Iran was bidding for the 1984 Summer Olympic Games - which was awarded to Los Angeles. There were far more people that attended this game than the official capacity held, as myself and other children were generally standing or sitting on family member laps or shoulders.

The overcrowding, the heat, the stench of more than 100,000 men sweating - no females were allowed, and very limited amounts are now. Not of that mattered. It also didn’t matter if you were rich or poor, religious or secular, living in Tehran, Tabriz, Shiraz, Los Angeles, Toronto, or Sydney. For ninety minutes, the only thing that mattered was Team Melli. It was an experience that still gives me goosebumps.

When Team Melli scored, millions celebrated together. When they lost, millions suffered together. The team wasn’t the team of the Islamic Republic, nor was it the Shah’s. It belonged to the people. They played for the people, and for the Vatan - Motherland.

It remained the same for decades. For example In 1998 when Team Melli beat the United States in the World Cup France hosted, millions of Iranians celebrated throughout the world. In Los Angeles, people took to the streets, mainly with the old Imperial Lion and Sun flag, but some even had the Islamic Republic’s flag. Politics didn’t matter, because Team Melli was above the fray. The same scene played out wherever the Iranian diaspora was, and Iranian cities erupted.

Even though the match was called the most politically charged match in a long time, for Iranians it wasn’t because of the politics; it wasn’t about beating America - at least not for me - but because for the first time in decades, Iranians were all one.

Somewhere along the way, that changed though. In 2022, the year Qatar hosted the World Cup, Iran was put in a group with the United States, England and Wales. I told my friends, I really wanted to go and support Team Melli. They all scolded me, and when I asked why, their response was even more shocking “Team Melli isn’t for the people, it’s IRGC now.”

Then came Mahsa Amini and the Woman, Life, Freedom movement. For the first time, I began to understand why my friends had been so angry with me for wanting to support Team Melli. But the light bulb still hadn’t fully gone off.

The players and the Iranian Football Federation remained silent as protesters were beaten, detained, imprisoned, and killed.

As it was evident, it was unsafe for an American-Iranian to remain in the country, I left for the first of what ultimately would become three “I don’t know when I’ll be back” departures.

Even though I had tickets to the Iran v. USA match, I didn’t go to Qatar, and instead to Istanbul, Turkey. It wasn’t my protest, but out of respect to my friends who were boycotting Team Melli, and the Woman Life Freedom movement, it felt like the right thing to do.

During the match, I had an Iran T-Shirt I’d designed and an American flag draped around my shoulders. I was watching it at an Irish pub in Istanbul, with American, Turkish and Iranian friends - one who in fact was almost detained during the protests. I was very conflicted, as my two homes squared off; but inside, I was pulling for Team Melli because if they won, they would have made it to the elimination round for the first time. I figured, that would at least bring some joy to my friends in Iran. Little did I know they were rooting for any team except Team Melli.

They lost. To my surprise, Tehran and cities across Iran erupted in celebration.

Not because Team Melli had won. Because they had lost, and the exact opposite of 1998.

In January 2026, six months before the team’s first Wold Cup match against New Zealand in Los Angeles, the Islamic Republic Guard Corp (IRGC) - a designated terrorist organization in the America, Canada and the European Union - slaughtered an estimated 40,000 protesters in 48 hours. Iranians begged Team Melli players to say something; anything to be their voice. Instead, the silence was deafening.

I had seen more than I needed to see to understand what my friends felt. I felt it. The betrayal is something many Iranians will never forget, nor forgive, with as many as perhaps half the population inside Iran boycotting watching the games altogether. For the first time, not only am I rooting against them, but I’m boycotting their games as well.

When a government controls every major institution in society, sports inevitably becomes political. The national team becomes more than eleven players chasing a ball. They become a symbol. Fairly or unfairly, people begin asking whether the team represents the people or the state?

A national team is supposed to be one of the few things that unites a country. Yet Iran may be one of the only countries in the world where large numbers of citizens have found themselves cheering against their own team, not because they hate football, but because they feel disconnected from what the team has come to represent.

When a national team loses the support of a significant portion of its own people, it reveals something much deeper. It reveals a fracture between a nation and its rulers. When the people cheer the death of their leaders and IRGC commanders, there is no turning back.

The tragedy is that Team Melli will have to return to being the people’s team, once the Islamic Republic is gone. A free Iran will still a national team, a team people will cheer on during the World Cup. A team that will produce players who can inspire millions; even if it is for only ninety minutes.

And when that day comes, Iranians everywhere - from Tehran to Los Angeles - might finally cheer for the same team again.

The saddest part is that I remember what Team Melli used to be. I remember being twelve years old in Azadi Stadium, surrounded by more than 100,000 people who had nothing in common except being Iranian.

For ninety minutes, politics disappeared, but today, that team is gone.

Maybe one day it will return. Until then, when Iran takes the field against New Zealand, many Iranians won’t see Team Melli; they’ll see Team IRGC.

A few days ago, I ran a two-part poll on social media about LGBTQ+ rights in Iran.

The first question was simple: Under Iranian law, can a person be executed for consensual same-sex relations?

The second question was even simpler: Which is legal in Iran today? Being openly gay, or gender reassignment surgery?

To my surprise, everyone who responded answered both questions correctly, and without room for error.

The answers, however, reveal one of the strangest contradictions not only within the Islamic Republic, but also within parts of the Western political left.

During a now infamous address to Columbia University students in 2007, Former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad famously claimed there are no homosexuals in Iran. This sparked outrage amongst the students, and international media.

Under the laws of the Islamic Republic, same-sex relations can carry severe criminal penalties, including the death penalty in certain circumstances. At the same time, gender reassignment surgery is legal and has long been recognized by the state. The result is a bizarre system where being gay can make you a criminal, while changing your gender can make you legally acceptable, which is why President Ahmadinejad’s comment was not entirely wrong.

I bring this up not because I want to debate LGBTQ+ issues, but because I want to talk about hypocrisy.

Over the last several years, I have watched countless people in the West speak passionately about human rights, equality, inclusion, and protecting marginalized communities. In many cases, I agree with them. Human rights should apply equally to everyone. LGBTQ+ people deserve the same freedoms and protections as anyone else.

What I struggle to understand is how some of those same people become remarkably silent when the conversation shifts to Iran.

The same activist who would organize a protest over a controversial statement made by a Western politician will often say nothing about a government that criminalizes same-sex relationships. The same person who insists that words can be violence suddenly becomes uncomfortable discussing actual state violence carried out against people because of who they love.

Somewhere along the way, politics became a team sport.

For many people, particularly after Donald Trump entered politics, every issue became filtered through a single question: does this help my side or hurt my side? If it hurts Trump, it must be good. If it helps Trump, it must be bad. Nuance, context and critical thinking disappeared.

The media deserves some responsibility for this as well. Large portions of the public now consume information that reinforces what they already believe. People are told who the villains are supposed to be and who the victims are supposed to be. Once those roles are assigned, many stop asking questions. In this case when I see a young Anti-War with Iran person waving their rainbow flag, my questions spring forward. For example, does this person know if they were in Iran under the Islamic Republic, they’d be shot for their demonstration? Or worse, thrown off rooftops?

The problem is that the Islamic Republic refuses to fit neatly into those narratives, and instead manipulates the west.

The Islamic Republic is anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-Western, and anti-capitalist enough to attract sympathy from certain corners of the political spectrum. Yet it is also deeply authoritarian, deeply religious, deeply misogynistic, and deeply hostile toward many of the very groups those same activists claim to defend.

Rather than confronting that contradiction, many pick and choose. If I’m gay, and or a leftist, I therefore hate Donald Trump enough to turn a blind eye on what they do to my kind under the Islamic Republic.

As someone who has spent years living in Iran, I find this disconnect fascinating. I have listened to people lecture me about social justice while knowing almost nothing about the realities facing ordinary Iranians. I have watched people defend the regime in Tehran while simultaneously advocating for values that would be criminalized under the laws of the very government they are defending.

You don’t have to support sanctions, support military intervention or regime change. I’ve heard over and over how this is not “our war,” and it’s simply another exertion of “American Imperialism.”

But if you believe LGBTQ+ rights are human rights, then those rights do not stop at Iran’s borders. They do not become negotiable because the government violating them happens to oppose Washington. They do not disappear because acknowledging them would complicate a preferred political narrative.

During this pride month, try looking beyond the narrative you are told, and do your research. If they only matter when it is politically convenient, then they were never really rights at all.

It’s five in the morning and I suddenly wake up feeling like there’s an elephant sitting on my chest. I know this feeling all too well unfortunately, and no it’s not a heart attack. I was having yet another panic attack.

I was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder - PTSD - in my twenties from living through the Iran-Iraq War as a child. Panic attacks have been routine in my life during long periods of high stress; and therefore I know how to handle it when it hits.

While I haven’t been clinically diagnosed, it’s safe to assume, I’m currently going through a separate form of PTSD after being detained by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) leaving Iran a few months ago.

However, this time, it feels different. This attack lasted nearly four hours, and it was relentless. It was partially because I was in and out of sleep; and therefore not cognitively prepared to “override” my brain.

The difference this time wasn’t just the length, but that no matter what, I couldn’t get it under control. My thoughts were racing, and my brain convinced there was something wrong, even though I’m waking up in a city I’ve woken up in hundreds of times.

When I finally decided sleep was futile, I got up, washed my face and being me, naturally tried to analyze what was happening.

Then a few thoughts started connecting. I know I have PTSD, as well as dealing with a multitude of high stress events; not just politically related. But there was something else I was missing. So, I turned to my trusted friend - and yes, many of you will disagree with me on this - ChatGPT.

I described what happened during those four hours, and it mentioned a debate I was having with a friend in Iran a few months ago. I described myself as closer to an alpha than a beta; and this particular friend in Iran disagreed at the time. He claimed I was neither, but I had what’s called the “point guard mentality.”

This isn’t basketball specific, but ChatGPT brought up interesting points and agreed with my friend. As described it’s the guy that sees the whole floor, ie. why I didn’t panic while getting bombed. It’s the person that always looks ahead, ie. making sure all my ducks were in a row for my dad and myself. The point guard notices things before others do, ie. that “spidey-sense” when you know something is about to happen. The point guard is the one who doesn’t panic when things go wrong because they’ve simulated every possible scenario in their head.

I’ve spent most of my life operating this way. But after the way this morning started, I’m wondering if it’s something else. What if my nerves are shot? What if all the over-stimulation of being in fight or flight mode has translated into burnout? Because eventually the point guard mentality runs into a problem … what happens when there is no game to manage, or no crisis to solve? What happens when the danger is gone, but your mind keeps looking for it anyway?

For almost five years I lived in a country where uncertainty wasn’t theoretical. My first instinct after not being able to rationalize anything in Iran was to make sense of it by just shrugging my shoulders and say “hashtag Iran,” like that by itself made everything make sense. Why is the traffic so chaotic … “Hashtag Iran.” How are these mountains so beautiful, yet the world doesn’t know about them … “Hashtag Iran.” You see, it works.

But you also learn to pay attention, to read rooms, and read people assuming the truth is exactly the opposite of what they’re saying. You come to understand the currency can collapse at any moment, the internet can be turned off with a flick of a switch, borders can close, flights canceled, revolutions spring from nowhere and so do wars. You can’t be prepared for all of this, but somehow you have to justify it to yourself, and for me it was “hashtag Iran.”

Learning to be alert, or in a constant fight or flight mode wasn’t paranoia, it just made sense.

This is where ChatGPT helped me understand the point guard mentality that also has PTSD. The problem is that survival habits don’t always leave when the danger does. For example, in Budapest, I shouldn’t be worried about planes flying over, or police checkpoints; yet with every ambulance or bang sound, fight or flight kicks in to analyze the field of play.

Everyone talks about trauma, but nobody talks about competence becoming trauma.

In other words, the habits that helped you survive eventually becoming the habits that prevent you from resting; of living. You become so good at anticipating problems that your brain forgets how to exist when there aren’t any.

Last night my brain couldn’t turn off while I was sleeping. It was running scenarios. Thinking about my business ideas, my dad, my friends still stuck in Iran. Thinking about money, the future, where I want to call “home” for a year. How to not over-extend myself even more than I already have; physically and emotionally. All of these scenarios led to four hours of feeling like I’m being triple-teamed, not being able to call a timeout, and no one to pass the ball to.

At the same time, I’m somehow expecting the next thought to finally solve whatever my nervous system was upset about; except it never did. Despite my best attempts to rationalize it, panic is not logical, “hashtag panic” doesn’t work.

ChatGPT made me realize that perhaps PTSD and the point guard mentality speak the same language.

According to my little AI friend … One says:

“Be prepared.”

The other says:

“Be afraid.”

After enough years, it appears difficult to tell which voice is talking; and I’m afraid I don’t have an answer. Because this isn’t one of those articles where I wrap everything up with a nice quote and pretend I figured it out. I’m writing this because I needed to get it out of my head.

Throughout this process of writing, I started to realize, I can spend as much time preparing for the next disaster as my brain wants, but I’m forgetting to notice - and be proud of - having already survived the last one.

Maybe, just maybe, what I’m trying to learn is how to stop being the point guard, put the ball down once in a while and watch the game without controlling it.

For the remainder of this article, I want you, the reader to imagine and visualize what this writing is describing. It will be disturbing, but if you want to understand the Islamic regime in Iran, this will help you.

Imagine you’re a father or mother, and your child has been unseen for nearly thirty years because of the 1988 fatwa from Ayatollah Khomeini. Imagine you demonstrate and you get detained and sent to prison. Imagine you’re a brother or sister and you can’t visit your siblings grave because the police won’t let you.

Think about if you “like” or “heart” an anti-regime post, you risk being thrown in prison. Imagine if you want access to the World Wide Web like you’re accessing now, you risk getting killed, like Hesam Alaeddin did for installing Starlink.

Envision you’re driving down the road with your dogs head out the window, playing Tom Petty’s free falling. Then you get pulled over, you get detained and your dog is taken away. Not into a pound, but somewhere you can’t find them - this was a second hand experience in 2021. This was the personal reason I did not bring my German Shepherd to Iran, and instead had her be adopted somewhere safe.

Imagine you get incarcerated without cause, and you have to sign a document under duress to confess to something you didn’t do; then get hanged. Similar to what I had to do, except I was fortunate enough to be let go.

When you look at history, what does it tell you when the Nazi’s burned books? Or when the newly formed Islamic Republic shut down schools and universities in the early years of their victory, and even now during their war? Of course, there’s the Soviets who tried to change Russian history. Dictators know knowledge is power, and as long as they control the narrative, they’re in charge.

Think about a religious tyrant who commands total control over not only his country, but with proxies in various other countries chanting “Death to America.” Now imagine these people who for them becoming a martyr - Shaheed - is the ultimate prize possessing nuclear weapons. Do you think they will negotiate or hold the world hostage, like they have multiple times during the last forty-seven years.

After the Ayatollahs overthrew the last Iranian monarch, the country of Iran fell into a downward spiral. First, came the Iraqi invasion, then came the execution of at least 30,000 civilians. Many of their loved ones, of many faiths and beliefs have no idea where they are laid to rest.

Every year for forty-seven years the regime executes on average between 500-1700 civilians. This doesn’t include the tens of thousands who are killed and or detained during civilian uprisings (1999, 2009-2010, 2016, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020, 2021-2022, 2022-2023 and more recently 2025-2026) over the same forty-seven years.

Fast forward to January 2026, when in under forty-eight hours, the Islamic-Nazi regime slaughtered forty-thousand people marching in every Iranian city, demanding not only freedom but economic relief. To put this number in perspective, we, the countries of the western hemisphere went to war in Serbia because of the murder of nearly thirty-thousand Bosnians in three years.

The United States and Israel war against the Islamic regime costs the lives of 1,900 Iranian civilians and thirteen American service members. The Islamic regime has executed between two hundred to seven hundred civilians in 2026 alone. These can’t be independently verified, but they are accounts of eye-witness stories on social media and voice calls to news outlets such as Iran International and Manato.

As someone that should have at the very least been in an IRGC dungeon or at most executed, I can attest to the brutality of the Islamic regime.

When I asked one of my detainers if they’re worried about being bombed, he replied: we will be Shaheed for the Imam, and it should be an honor for you as well. While the world waits for the Trump administrations next move on Iran - whether to sign a long ceasefire or resume the conflict - people outside of Iran are fed IRGC approved propaganda by CNN, BBC and the rest of main stream media.

The truth is, hundreds of thousands of innocent people are in Islamic torture chambers, also known as prisons. The truth is the Islamic Republic will eventually fall; the question is how many more people the Mullahs in Tehran kill before they meet their seventy virgins. The bottom line is, You can’t negotiate with a snake.

In Iran, you learn early that nothing happens when it is supposed to.

You wait for internet to come back. You wait for electricity to stabilize. You wait for paperwork that has already been submitted, stamped, re-submitted, and forgotten. You wait for phone calls that don’t come. You wait for answers that may never arrive, and for others that arrive too late to matter.

At first, waiting feels like an interruption of life. Something temporary. A delay you plan around. You tell yourself that once this phase passes, life will resume at full speed, with clarity and momentum. As an American, this is painful to learn and adapt to.

But over time, you realize that waiting is not the pause between events or moments. Whether you want to accept it, or not, it is the structure.

As someone who worked in sales, part of your pitch to get results is to ask “when will you make a decision?” Well, in Iran people stop asking when very quickly. That word becomes impractical. Instead, they say things like “let’s see,” or “inshallah,” or nothing at all.

Plans, commitments and expectations become immaterial. You learn to live inside a series of temporary states that stretch on long enough to feel permanent. My friends, mainly western ones say things like “it’s been two years, you’re not done yet?” I ask my lawyer the same question and he says “you know what it’s like here.” So I’ve developed a defense mechanism and just say #Iran.

There is a kind of intelligence that develops around this; you become good at reading small signs. Waiting sharpens perception and it makes you alert to what is not being said; or more importantly done.

It also creates a strange form of social cohesion. Lines move slowly, but no one rushes you. Delays are understood without explanation. You stand next to strangers for hours and no one complains, because everyone knows the complaint won’t accelerate anything.

But, it comes with a cost. Not just the traditional American saying “Time is Money.” That would be too easy to explain to someone that grew up purely in this culture.

The danger of waiting is not boredom, it’s normalization; you become complacent. Over time, delay stops feeling exceptional and starts feeling normal. You adjust your expectations downward, not consciously, but gently, until they no longer hurt when they aren’t met.

People stop imagining urgency elsewhere. They stop believing that systems are supposed to respond. They stop expecting accountability and in fact, there’s a phrase for that “gardan nemigeereh,” which translates to “he/she won’t grab it by the neck,” ie. take responsibility.

I’ve noticed how waiting reshapes time. Days feel long, but years disappear. You look back and realize how much of life has been spent suspended — not moving forward, not retreating, just holding. As of this writing, I’ve been in Iran for 109 consecutive days. That is a record for me; and when I look back on what I’ve achieved during these days, it saddens me to say: nothing. Zip. Zilch. Zero.

The hardest part is that waiting is invisible. From the outside, it looks like stillness or laziness. From the inside, it feels like constant adjustment. Constant readiness for something that may never arrive; but you’ve already waited this long, so, why not wait a bit more?

Waiting teaches you how to endure. It does not teach you how to dream; maybe that’s why ambition feels heavier here.

You’d think a holiday associated with candlelit dinners, overpriced pre-fixed menus, and mild emotional manipulation wouldn’t survive in a place where morality police once raided parties.

And yet — here we are. Like a stereotypical male, I forgot Valentine’s Day. I know, it’s very cliché. But in my defense, I don’t have a girlfriend, so I was spared the annual audit of romantic competence.

In America — and honestly in much of Europe — Valentine’s Day feels like a corporate siege. Red hearts invade grocery stores in early January. Teddy bears appear before the Christmas decorations are fully packed away. Restaurants double their prices and Instagram doubles its cringe.

When I lived in Washington, D.C., my girlfriend at the time and I completely forgot it was Valentine’s Day until dinner that evening. Instead of candlelight dinner, a violinist or some dramatic declaration of eternal love, we ended up at our local Indian restaurant, Jyoti.

Fast forward to 2026 and I’ve swapped Washington, D.C. for Tehran and a stable relationship for what appears to be long-term bachelorhood with severe Peter Pan syndrome intact.

But this morning, a female friend texted me: “Happy Valentine’s Day.” And that’s when it hit me; Valentine’s Day is alive and well in Tehran.

Let me pause for context. This is a country where — not that long ago — mixed-gender parties could be raided. Where the Basij, the volunteer militia aligned with the regime, enforced “moral order.” This is a country where socializing between men and women could carry legal consequences such as flogging.

I personally spent time in their jails, I stood in their courts but at least I was fortunate to never get flogged.

And yet today, shops openly display heart-shaped boxes of chocolate.
Florists stack red roses in dramatic pyramids and cafés overtly advertise “Valentine specials.”

In some ways, Valentine’s Day feels more openly celebrated here than in the United States; and that’s the paradox.

Not an American Export — A Human Embrace

It’s easy to dismiss Valentine’s Day as an American invention. A Hallmark creation or simply put, a capitalist ritual.

But what I’m seeing in Tehran isn’t about Hallmark. I feel it’s about hunger; and not for chocolate, teddy bears or the quentessle human need; love. It’s for feeling normal in a country that is anything but. It’s for a population that thirsts for a connection with the outside world.

When a society is heavily regulated, even small gestures become acts of quiet uprising.

Buying roses isn’t rebellion, but it’s also not nothing.

The Regime vs. Reality

Officially, Valentine’s Day doesn’t exist here in any celebratory sense. There have been periodic crackdowns over the years. At times, shops were warned not to sell “Western” symbols of love.

The irony is almost poetic: A Muslim nation with strict social codes ends up embracing a “Western” romantic holiday more enthusiastically than the West that invented it. In America, Valentine’s Day feels commercial. In Tehran, it feels defiant, specially since the brutal crackdown protestors faced recently, where an estimated 50,000 people lost their lives.

As for me? No romantic dinner, no roses and definitely no dramatic confessions. However, I am craving Indian food.

There’s something humbling about watching red roses bloom on streets that were covered in blood and in a country defined globally by sanctions, terrorism, and nuclear weapons.

But on February 14th, it looks like any city in America.

The story isn’t that Valentine’s Day came to Iran. The story is it has taken a different meaning. Perhaps not just love, but defiance as well.

Persians by nature are persistent, and that persistence tells you something about the culture; not the regime.

In fact, Valentine’s Day in Tehran isn’t about America at all. It’s about the fact that no matter how tightly a system tries to define public life, the human emotion to be free will strive for it. Regardless if we look at it as a corporate ritual, Iranians see it as freedom to express themselves.

History does not always erase a people by destroying them.
Sometimes it tries something quieter: it replaces their language, thins their memory, and waits for them to forget who they were.

For Persia, that moment came after conquest, when political power slipped away and a far more dangerous question emerged beneath the surface: Would the culture survive without the state?

Empires had passed through the Iranian plateau before. This time felt different. Administration shifted. Language changed. Courts spoke in new tongues. Over time, even memory itself began to feel fragile—something inherited orally, imperfectly, like a story told too many times in the dark.

What saved Persia was not an army, or a rebellion, or a restored crown.

It was a book.

Or rather, it was what that book became.

Shahnameh — The Book of Kings — is often described as an epic. That label is accurate, but insufficient. Epics are usually admired. This one was lived.

For Persians, the Shahnameh was never just literature. It was memory infrastructure. It was an ethical framework. It was a way of remaining oneself when the world insisted otherwise.

The danger facing Persian culture after conquest was not disappearance overnight. Cultures rarely vanish that way. The danger was dilution—language thinning into utility, stories replaced by administration, myth slowly edged out by recordkeeping.

Arabic became the language of power. Persian risked becoming the language of the home—spoken, but no longer written with authority.

This is how civilizations fade: not in violence, but in silence.

And then there was Ferdowsi.

Ferdowsi was not a revolutionary in the modern sense. He did not call for revolt. He did not preach resistance. He did something far more patient, and far more dangerous to erasure: he remembered.

For roughly thirty years, he wrote. Quietly. Methodically. Almost stubbornly. He gathered what remained of Persia’s mythic past—kings and heroes, betrayals and moral failures, moments of grandeur and tragic collapse—and gave them language again. Persian language. Persian cadence. Persian memory.

He avoided excessive foreign vocabulary not out of hostility, but intention. The language itself mattered. Each word was a choice. Each line a small act of continuity.

The result was not nostalgia. It was reconstruction.

The Shahnameh did not pretend Persia had never fallen. In fact, it is obsessed with downfall. Kings rise and decay. Heroes overreach. Justice is delayed, denied, corrupted. Power is never permanent.

This is why the book endured. It was honest.

Unlike propaganda, the Shahnameh never promises salvation. It offers something harder and more durable: moral clarity without guarantees.

What made the Shahnameh a way of life was not its scale, but its utility.

It taught Persians how to think about power when they no longer possessed it.

Kings in the Shahnameh are not celebrated simply for ruling. They are judged. A good king is restrained, attentive, just. A bad one—cruel, arrogant, deaf to counsel—brings ruin not only upon himself, but upon the land.

Heroism is not triumph. It is responsibility. And often, tragedy.

Rostam, the great champion, does not win cleanly. His strength blinds him. His loyalty costs him. His greatest victory is also his greatest loss. The lesson is not subtle: force without wisdom destroys what it tries to protect.

These ideas mattered deeply to a society living without sovereignty. When law and governance were no longer theirs to shape, ethics became internal. Authority moved inward. Judgment became personal.

Parents quoted the Shahnameh to children not to glorify battle, but to warn against pride. Elders referenced it in disputes not to invoke tradition, but to remind others of consequence.

This is how a book becomes a social operating system.

The Shahnameh also preserved something even more fragile than ethics: continuity of self.

Language carries more than meaning. It carries rhythm, humor, metaphor, emotional shortcuts. To lose a language is to lose the way a people thinks when no one is watching.

By anchoring Persian in myth, Ferdowsi ensured it remained expressive, not merely functional. The language could still hold grief, irony, longing, and moral complexity.

Centuries later, Persians would still open the Shahnameh not to escape the present, but to understand it indirectly. The stories were distant enough to be safe, but familiar enough to feel intimate.

That distance was protective.

When direct speech became dangerous, metaphor remained. When clarity was punished, ambiguity survived. The Shahnameh trained generations to speak sideways—to say what could not be said plainly, without ever forgetting it.

This skill would prove essential, again and again.

There is a reason the Shahnameh never belongs entirely to any single period. It outlasted dynasties because it never depended on them. It was not written for a ruler. It was written for a people who understood that power is temporary, but memory must be maintained.

Empires rely on institutions. Cultures rely on stories.

The Shahnameh taught Persians that even when institutions fail—or are taken—identity can remain intact if it is carried deliberately.

This is not resistance in the modern sense. It is something quieter, and more enduring.

Patience.

Today, the Shahnameh still sits in Iranian homes. Sometimes unread. Sometimes half-understood. Sometimes opened at random, as if fate itself might offer guidance.

That matters.

Because books that are merely historical artifacts are archived. Books that function as moral companions are kept close.

The Shahnameh survived not because it was imposed, but because it was needed.

It reminded Persians who they were when the world told them who they were not. It preserved a language long enough for it to reclaim authority. It taught ethics without preaching, pride without triumphalism, and loss without erasure.

History often remembers conquerors by their victories. Cultures remember themselves by what they refuse to forget.

Persia did not survive by shouting. It survived by telling a story carefully, completely, and for as long as it took.

Empires passed through.

The Shahnameh stayed.

.

*This essay examines geopolitical and economic implications of potential future scenarios and does not advocate specific political outcomes.

For decades, Western policy toward Iran has been defined by containment. Nuclear negotiations, sanctions regimes, and crisis management have framed Iran as a perpetual problem—something to be boxed in rather than understood in full.

That framing is incomplete.

What happens in Iran is not a regional footnote. It is one of the most consequential geopolitical variables of our time—because of the scale of the country itself, and because of what its reintegration into the global system would mean.

A 90+ Million–Person Market Waiting to Reopen

Iran is a nation of more than 90 million people—young, urban, highly educated, and digitally fluent. Its internal market rivals that of major European economies. Its geography places it at the crossroads of Central Asia, the Middle East, South Asia, and Europe.

Today, that market is frozen. Not by lack of demand or capability, but by isolation. Sanctions and political estrangement have suppressed investment, innovation, and trade. Yet consumer demand, entrepreneurial capacity, and industrial know-how never disappeared; they simply adapted to constraint.

A future reintegrated Iran would represent one of the largest economic openings since the end of the Cold War. Energy, aviation, infrastructure, technology, logistics, finance, healthcare, and consumer goods would see immediate and organic demand. For Western economies facing saturation and slowing growth, Iran would not be a speculative bet—it would be a structural opportunity.

Ending State-Sponsored Terrorism at Its Incentive Level

Much of the Middle East’s instability is sustained not by culture or religion, but by incentives.

For decades, Tehran has invested heavily in proxy networks across the region—financing, training, and arming non-state actors as a means of projecting power while avoiding direct confrontation. This approach has exported instability while preserving regime security at home.

In a future scenario where Iran prioritizes legitimacy, reconstruction, and global reintegration, those incentives would change. Proxy warfare is expensive. It isolates economies, invites sanctions, and undermines growth. No government seeking normalization would continue to subsidize permanent conflict.

The result would not be instant peace—but a measurable reduction in one of the region’s most persistent sources of organized violence.

A Regional Ally—Not a Client State

The West does not need another dependent partner in the Middle East. It needs capable ones.

Iran’s size, population, military depth, and historical self-confidence position it to act as a genuine regional counterweight. A future Iranian government focused on growth and stability would naturally align with secure trade routes, diplomatic normalization, and regional de-escalation—not because of ideological affinity, but because of national interest.

Such an Iran would help stabilize neighboring states, reduce extremist spillover, and serve as a bridge between regions rather than a fault line dividing them.

Middle East Instability Is Engineered, Not Inevitable

The Middle East is often portrayed as chronically unstable, as though volatility were inherent. History suggests otherwise.

Much of today’s instability has been amplified by deliberate state strategies that externalize conflict to maintain internal control. When those strategies end, the regional temperature drops. Resources shift from militancy to development. Politics becomes less existential, more transactional.

Remove a major sponsor of proxy conflict, and the region does not transform overnight—but it does begin to recalibrate.

A Strategic Loss for Rival Power Blocs

Iran’s isolation has made it a valuable pressure point for rival powers - Mainly China and Russia. Cut off from Western markets, Tehran has leaned on alternative partnerships that trade economic relief for geopolitical leverage.

A reintegrated Iran would almost certainly diversify its relationships—seeking balance rather than dependency. That shift would weaken the ability of any external power to use Iran as a strategic lever against the West.

This would not be a dramatic rupture. It would be something more consequential: a quiet realignment driven by economic gravity rather than ideology.

The Cost of Inattention

Western caution toward Iran is often framed as prudence. But the status quo carries its own risks: frozen markets, sustained proxy conflict, hardened alliances, and a population alienated from the global order its people desperately want to rejoin.

The question is not whether Iran’s future matters.

It is whether policymakers, investors, and institutions are prepared for the consequences if—and when—it changes.

Subscribe now

Share

The seizure of Venezuela’s oil infrastructure and the capture of Nicolás Maduro by the United States under Donald Trump should not be understood as a rogue act of aggression or an impulsive return to Cold War–era interventionism. It is better analyzed as a structural response to a shifting international system—one in which energy security, supply chains, and geopolitical leverage are being quietly reconfigured by China.

For decades, American power rested not only on military dominance but on its centrality to global trade, finance, and energy flows. That centrality is now being challenged—not through open conflict, but through incremental, disciplined expansion. China’s strategy has been neither ideological nor overtly confrontational. It has been logistical. Oil contracts. Port access. Infrastructure financing. Long-term supply guarantees insulated from Western pressure.

China’s energy diplomacy has increasingly bypassed U.S.-aligned systems. Through strategic partnerships with Iran and Russia, Beijing has secured discounted crude, preferential transport routes, and political leverage over states already alienated from Washington. Simultaneously, Chinese firms have gained access to ports, refineries, and transport hubs across Africa and the Middle East, quietly constructing an energy corridor that minimizes vulnerability to U.S. sanctions, naval power, or diplomatic pressure.

This is not accidental. It is a deliberate attempt to decouple China’s economic future from American chokepoints.

Venezuela sits at the center of this contest.

Possessing the world’s largest proven oil reserves, Venezuela represents not just a failed petrostate but a strategic asset of global consequence. Under Maduro, the country drifted into economic collapse, political repression, and deep dependence on external patrons. China and Russia filled the vacuum—not out of ideological alignment, but out of opportunity. Loans-for-oil agreements, debt restructuring, and long-term supply contracts allowed Beijing to lock in future crude access at a time when Venezuela had few alternatives.

From Washington’s perspective, this arrangement posed a quiet but profound risk. Allowing a rival power to consolidate control over Western Hemisphere energy reserves would not merely weaken U.S. influence—it would normalize a post-American energy order.

Trump’s decision to act must be understood within this framework.

Rather than relying on sanctions alone—a tool that often entrenches regimes rather than dislodging them—the United States moved to directly seize control of Venezuela’s oil infrastructure and neutralize the regime that facilitated its strategic drift. This was not regime change for its own sake. It was supply-chain intervention.

By capturing Maduro and dismantling the structures through which Chinese and Russian interests operated, the U.S. effectively reasserted control over a critical node in the global energy system. Venezuelan oil, once leveraged against American influence, now functions as a stabilizing asset within it.

Critics will frame this as imperial overreach. But international politics does not reward restraint when rivals exploit it. The liberal assumption that markets self-correct and that authoritarian alliances dissolve under pressure has repeatedly proven false. Power, when unchallenged, consolidates.

China’s strategy relies on a slow accumulation of irreversible positions: ports that cannot be unbuilt, contracts that outlast governments, supply routes that operate beyond Western oversight. Venezuela was one such position. Leaving it untouched would have signaled acquiescence.

From a realist perspective, the intervention restores balance rather than disrupting it. Energy independence is not merely a domestic concern—it is the foundation of geopolitical autonomy. By securing Venezuelan oil, the U.S. reduces global price volatility, insulates allies from supply shocks, and constrains China’s ability to weaponize energy access in future crises.

There is also a deterrent logic at play. The capture of Maduro sends a clear signal that the Western Hemisphere remains a strategic boundary, not an open frontier for rival powers to exploit through proxy regimes and debt diplomacy. This is not about nostalgia for the Monroe Doctrine; it is about recognizing that geography still matters in an era of globalization.

None of this absolves the United States of responsibility for what follows. Control without reconstruction breeds resentment. Stability without legitimacy collapses. If Venezuela is to avoid becoming another prolonged occupation or failed transition, the post-Maduro phase must prioritize institutional rebuilding, economic normalization, and credible political inclusion.

But to focus solely on the moral discomfort of intervention is to ignore the strategic reality that made it inevitable.

China is not expanding through tanks or troops. It is expanding through contracts, pipelines, ports, and dependencies. Confronting that expansion requires more than speeches or sanctions. It requires decisive action at the points where influence becomes irreversible.

Venezuela was one such point.

Trump’s move, controversial as it is, reflects a recognition that the global order is no longer governed by goodwill or rules alone—but by who controls the arteries of energy that power the world.

For more than four decades, the West has spoken about Iran with extraordinary confidence.

It has sanctioned it, isolated it, negotiated with it, threatened it, predicted its collapse, and periodically declared its imminent transformation.

And yet, Iran continues to surprise Western policymakers, analysts, and media alike.

This is not because Iran is opaque or unknowable. It is because the dominant Western frameworks used to interpret it are fundamentally misaligned with reality. The problem is not access to information—it is the lens through which that information is filtered.

The West does not misunderstand Iran because it lacks data.

It misunderstands Iran because it insists on explaining it in familiar terms.

Iran Is Not Irrational — It Is Hyper-Rational

One of the most persistent Western assumptions is that Iran behaves irrationally: that ideology overrides strategy, that religious fervor replaces calculation, and that emotion dictates state behavior.

This assumption collapses under scrutiny.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is not an impulsive actor. It is a system built on historical memory, institutional survival, and learned paranoia. Its leadership operates with an acute awareness of vulnerability—shaped by foreign intervention, war, coups, sanctions, and sustained external pressure.

From this perspective, Iran’s behavior is not reckless. It is defensive, asymmetric, and often brutally pragmatic.

Western observers frequently mistake unfamiliar logic for irrationality. But Iran’s strategic culture does not seek approval, alignment, or moral clarity. It seeks endurance. Every decision is filtered through one overriding question: Does this preserve the system?

Understanding Iran requires abandoning the expectation that it should behave like a Western state—or even like a conventional authoritarian one.

The Regime and the Country Are Not Separate Universes

Western discourse often repeats a comforting distinction: the regime is not the people. While morally appealing, this framing obscures how power actually functions inside Iran.

The Islamic Republic did not simply impose itself from above. Over time, it embedded itself into the country’s institutions, economy, social hierarchies, and daily survival mechanisms. Millions of Iranians interact with the system not out of loyalty, but out of necessity.

This does not mean popular consent.

It means structural entanglement.

Teachers, engineers, doctors, lawyers, entrepreneurs, soldiers, bureaucrats—entire segments of society exist within frameworks shaped or controlled by the state. Participation is often compulsory, indirect, or transactional rather than ideological.

Western policymakers frequently assume that external pressure will naturally separate society from state. In practice, pressure often reinforces dependence, consolidates coercive power, and eliminates middle spaces where alternative authority might emerge.

Sanctions do not simply weaken governments. They restructure societies.

Protest Is Not Revolution — And Silence Is Not Submission

Every few years, Western media rediscover Iranian protests and ask the same question: Is this the moment everything changes?

It rarely is.

Iranian society is deeply political, but it is also deeply cautious. Protest inside Iran is not performative; it is calculated. People understand the costs, the risks, and the historical precedents. They remember what chaos looks like—not abstractly, but personally. There is also a real fear of where that chaos could lead; civil war.

Western audiences often misinterpret silence as apathy or submission. In reality, silence in Iran is frequently strategic. It reflects exhaustion, risk assessment, and an acute awareness that not all change produces improvement.

This does not make people passive.

It makes them rational actors navigating constrained choices.

Revolutions are not inevitable endpoints of dissatisfaction. They are rare, contingent events shaped by fractures within power structures—not merely by public anger.

Western Models Don’t Translate Cleanly

A major source of misunderstanding lies in projection.

Western analysis relies on assumptions that feel intuitive within liberal democracies:

• Economic pressure leads to mass revolt

• Information access leads to ideological convergence

• Youth demographics guarantee liberalization

Iran repeatedly defies these expectations.

National identity, religious symbolism, historical grievance, and collective trauma intersect in ways Western political theory struggles to categorize. Even opposition movements often articulate their demands in distinctly Iranian terms, drawing from national history, cultural memory, and indigenous political language.

When analysts equate social media presence or English-language fluency with representative power, they mistake visibility for legitimacy. Loud voices abroad do not always correspond to influence at home.

Iran’s internal dynamics cannot be decoded through Twitter trends or diaspora narratives alone. In fact, the realities of the diaspora are far removed from everyday life inside Iran.

Why the Misunderstanding Persists

Because misunderstanding Iran is convenient.

Simplified narratives allow policymakers to avoid uncomfortable tradeoffs. Media outlets benefit from moral clarity and dramatic arcs. Audiences prefer stories with heroes, villains, and clear resolutions.

Complexity is inconvenient. Contradiction is unsatisfying.

Acknowledging Iran’s internal logic forces the West to confront uncomfortable truths:

• Pressure can strengthen repression

• Isolation can entrench elites

• Moral certainty does not guarantee strategic success

It is easier to repeat failed assumptions than to admit analytical error.

Why This Matters

Misunderstanding Iran does not merely distort commentary—it shapes policy. Bad assumptions produce bad decisions, unrealistic expectations, and cycles of surprise when outcomes fail to match predictions.

False confidence leads to escalation. False optimism leads to disappointment. Both erode credibility.

Understanding Iran does not require sympathy for its leadership, nor silence about repression. It requires intellectual discipline: the ability to separate moral judgment from strategic analysis.

Iran does not need to be romanticized or demonized. It needs to be understood on its own terms.

Why I’m Writing This Here

This Substack exists because certain conversations do not survive compression. They don’t fit into captions, soundbites, or ideological camps.

I am not writing to defend the Islamic Republic.

I am not writing to sell hope or despair.

I am writing because shallow narratives are costly—and because clarity matters.

Iran will continue to matter geopolitically, culturally, and historically whether the West understands it or not. The question is whether future engagement will be guided by reality or by repetition.

The West keeps asking why Iran does not change the way it expects.

The better question is why those expectations remain unchanged.

— Rouzy

Subscribe now

Share