Why Iran Cannot Be Bombed Into Democracy

Published: 18 January 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online

The idea that democracy can be delivered at the point of a missile has long haunted modern geopolitics. From Baghdad to Kabul, history has repeatedly shown that bombs may topple regimes, but they rarely build stable, free societies in their wake. As Donald Trump once again threatens military action against Iran, that lesson feels more urgent than ever. Iran cannot be bombed into democracy. But it can, with patience and purpose, be helped to find its own path there.

Donald Trump’s instinctive attraction to overwhelming force is well documented. Soon after taking office in 2017, he authorised the first-ever combat use of the GBU-43, the so-called “mother of all bombs,” against an Islamic State tunnel complex in Afghanistan. The strike produced dramatic images and headlines, killing scores of militants. Strategically, however, it achieved almost nothing. The Taliban continued its advance, Islamic State survived, and America’s longest war staggered on towards eventual failure. The episode revealed less about military necessity than about Trump’s desire to project strength, to be seen as a decisive commander-in-chief unafraid of spectacular gestures.

That same impulse now colours his rhetoric on Iran. Recent unrest and brutal crackdowns inside the country have been met with thunderous declarations from Washington, including threats of bombing and promises to Iranian protesters that “help is on its way”. Yet there is little evidence Trump’s concern is rooted in solidarity with unarmed demonstrators. His record at home, where federal forces have confronted protest movements with force, undermines any claim to principled commitment to democratic rights. Nor has he shown consistent concern for democracy abroad, whether in Venezuela, where he flirted with regime change theatrics, or elsewhere.

Instead, Iran represents a familiar temptation: a proud, defiant, energy-rich state that has resisted decades of US pressure. For Trump, it is an opportunity to impose American dominance where previous presidents failed, to demand capitulation rather than compromise. He does not seek a negotiated settlement with Tehran’s clerical leadership, but unconditional submission and regime change on his terms. Yet Trump also craves speed and spectacle. As seen in his erratic approaches to Ukraine and the Israel-Palestine conflict, he lacks patience for the slow, complex work of diplomacy and post-conflict reconstruction.

That contradiction has already tempered his actions. As the White House reviewed military options, it became clear that strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, missile systems or Revolutionary Guard bases would not deliver the instant success Trump desires. Regional allies, particularly Gulf states, warned that such attacks could trigger devastating retaliation and widespread instability. Even Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, urged caution, mindful that Iranian missile responses could endanger Israeli cities and his own political future.

The idea of “decapitation”, eliminating Iran’s supreme leader, has also been exposed as illusory. Trump boasted last year that US and Israeli forces could easily have killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. But assassinating one man would not dismantle a system. Iran’s theocracy is deeply entrenched, with multiple potential successors waiting in the wings, including Khamenei’s son, all shaped by the same hardline ideology. Far from accelerating reform, such an act could entrench repression, provoke nationalist backlash and delay change for a generation.

For now, Trump appears to have stepped back from the brink. Yet the underlying question remains: how can Iran’s people be supported in their clear desire for fundamental change, without plunging the country into greater bloodshed?

There is no doubt that Iran’s clerical regime has lost legitimacy. Installed after the 1979 revolution, it has presided over decades of repression, corruption and economic mismanagement. Its crimes did not begin with the latest wave of protests, nor will they end without radical transformation. The demand for change is visible in repeated uprisings, in surveys showing majority support for a secular constitution, and in the courage of women and young people who continue to challenge the system at immense personal risk.

But externally imposed regime change, particularly through military force, would be disastrous. It would likely strengthen hardliners, justify harsher crackdowns and devastate civilian life. Western governments must abandon the illusion that democracy can be delivered by shock and awe. Instead, the goal should be to help Iranians dismantle theocratic rule themselves, through sustained, nonviolent pressure and support.

That begins with isolating the regime, not the people. Targeted economic and financial sanctions against senior officials, security agencies and corrupt state monopolies can increase pressure where it hurts most, while minimising humanitarian harm. Diplomatic engagement that confers legitimacy on the regime should be suspended, including talks that normalise Tehran without meaningful reform. Embassies may need to close, and official contacts frozen, until clear change is underway.

Beyond sanctions, there are other tools short of war. Cyber and hybrid operations, already part of modern statecraft, can disrupt surveillance networks, communications and revenue streams used to repress dissent. Illicit oil exports can be intercepted, and pressure applied to states that continue to prop up the regime economically and militarily. None of these measures are without risk, but they fall far short of the catastrophic consequences of bombing campaigns.

Crucially, support must be directed towards Iranian civil society and opposition movements. The country’s opposition is fragmented, but that is not unusual under authoritarian rule. Western governments can help by offering platforms, protection and resources to activists, journalists and future leaders. Technology companies have a role to play by enabling Iranians to bypass internet shutdowns and censorship. Persian-language broadcasting and cultural engagement should be expanded, not cut, to counter state propaganda and keep channels of information open.

Justice must also be part of the vision. Those responsible for decades of abuse, from prison torture to extrajudicial killings, cannot simply fade into obscurity. International mechanisms, including UN investigations and courts, should be prepared to hold perpetrators accountable. This is not vengeance, but a necessary foundation for any credible democratic transition.

Ultimately, the driving force for change must come from within Iran. No foreign power can manufacture legitimacy or civic trust. What outsiders can do is create conditions in which peaceful transformation becomes possible, by weakening the structures of repression and amplifying the voices of those demanding freedom.

Trump’s promise that life in Iran “will change” rings hollow when paired with threats of bombs. Change imposed by force is rarely progressive or lasting. If he truly believes in morality, as he claims, then his obligation is clear. He must abandon the lure of short-term grandstanding and commit to sustained, constructive, nonviolent support for the Iranian people.

Dropping bombs is easy. Helping a wounded society rebuild itself, reclaim its dignity and choose its own future is far harder. But it is the only path that offers Iran, and the wider region, a chance at lasting peace and genuine democracy.