By Paul Vallas

March 5t^h,2026

Iran under the Ayatollahs is an authoritarian theocratic regime that imposes strict Islamic law, including mandatory veiling, and severely restricts basic freedoms while brutally repressing dissent, particularly against women and minorities. It is the leading state sponsor of international terrorism, and major threat to regional stability, Israel’s security, and American interests in the Middle East. Trump’s decision to use force against the regime falls within a long pattern of presidents exercising their authority under the War Powers Resolution for limited military actions without prior, explicit congressional authorization. 

A Brutal Medieval Theocratic State

Based on findings from human rights organizations, United Nations bodies, and investigative reporting, the Islamic Republic of Iran operates as a brutal **theocracy** that employs medieval-style punishments and systemic repression in a modern state. Documented abuses include corporal punishment, public executions, torture, and violent crackdowns on peaceful protesters demanding basic rights.[

Women in Iran face far‑reaching, state‑enforced restrictions on dress, movement, and daily life, enforced by “morality police” and an expanding surveillance apparatus targeting those who defy compulsory hijab laws. Religious minorities such as Baháʼís endure discrimination, arbitrary arrests, and imprisonment, while ethnic minorities have been subjected to lethal force and structural repression. One of the regime’s most notorious crimes was the 1988 mass execution of thousands of political prisoners following sham proceedings, an atrocity widely documented by human rights groups and historians.

The authorities routinely invoke vague religiously framed charges such as Moharebeh (“waging war against God”) and “sowing corruption on earth” to imprison and execute dissidents. Since 1979, Iran’s clerical rulers have crushed multiple nationwide uprisings with lethal force; during the 2022–2023 protests sparked by the death in custody of 22‑year‑old Mahsa Amini over alleged hijab violations, at least several hundred protesters were killed and thousands were arrested. Human rights monitors estimate that by late 2023, at least around 500–550 people had been killed in those protests, including dozens of children, and more than 14,000 detained, while warning that the real toll may be higher because of censorship and intimidation of families.

The Major Sponsor of State Terrorism  

Iran is consistently designated by the U.S. State Department as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, using the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps–Qods Force (IRGC‑QF) and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) to arm, fund, and direct proxy groups across the region. Through this network, Tehran exports violence, undermines fragile states, and targets U.S., Israeli, and Arab interests well beyond its borders.

Hezbollah in Lebanon is Iran’s premier proxy, and U.S. officials have publicly estimated that Tehran provides Hezbollah alone with roughly 700 million dollars annually. Iran also channels about 100 million dollars per year to Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other Palestinian terrorist groups, while supporting militias in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, bringing its total terror support budget to nearly one billion dollars annually.

For years Iran has waged a shadow war against Israel using these surrogates, and senior U.S. counterterrorism officials have underscored that this financing and training infrastructure is central to Hamas’s ability to carry out large‑scale attacks that devastate both Israelis and Palestinians.

Since coming to power, the Iranian regime has been implicated in terrorist plots and attacks in over 40 countries including over 360 targeted assassinations. They’ve been involved in the deaths by some estimates, over 1,000 U.S. service members and citizens in the Middle East.

The Primary Obstacle to Middle East Peace  

The Middle East’s conflicts are complex, but Iran’s revolutionary project stands out as a central obstacle to any durable peace architecture in the region. Iran seeks regional dominance and the rollback of American influence; in that strategy, Israel’s existence and its potential normalization with key Arab states are strategic targets.

The Hamas attack on Israel fits into Iran’s broader asymmetric campaign against both Israel and the United States, executed in large part through proxies designed to derail diplomacy and embolden rejectionist forces. Tehran has been especially determined to sabotage efforts to normalize relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel, because a robust Saudi‑Israeli partnership—embedded in wider Arab normalization—would reshape the region’s security and economic landscape in ways that isolate Iran. Many Arab governments, particularly in the Gulf, now explicitly describe Iran’s ambitions and its missile and proxy networks as more threatening to their security than Israel, a stance reflected in their growing quiet or open cooperation with Jerusalem.

It is not accidental that major escalations by Iran’s proxies have coincided with periods when Israel and key Arab states have moved closer to normalization. Iran’s willingness to launch and direct missile and drone attacks against neighboring countries underscores that its leadership is prepared to risk wider regional war rather than accept a security architecture that marginalizes its revolutionary regime. This posture makes Iran the enduring spoiler of the broader peace vision embodied in successive normalization initiatives and the evolving Abraham Accords framework.

Trump’s Strike and the War Powers Act  

Trump’s decision to strike Iran’s regime assets is consistent with a long history of presidents initiating short‑term military operations under the War Powers Resolution without first obtaining a specific authorization from Congress. The War Powers Resolution requires that a president notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. forces into hostilities, and it allows such operations to continue for 60 days—with a possible 30‑day withdrawal period—before explicit authorization is required. Administrations of both parties have interpreted this framework to permit limited strikes, raids, and air campaigns while asserting compliance.

President Barack Obama expanded the use of force under the post‑9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which empowered presidents to target individuals and groups associated with the 2001 attacks or their affiliates across multiple countries. For years, this 2001 AUMF underpinned drone campaigns and other lethal counterterrorism operations in places like Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan, killing thousands of suspected terrorists and, controversially, some U.S. citizens without new, case‑specific votes by Congress.

In 2011, Obama’s intervention in Libya went beyond any 9/11 connection, as Moammar Gadhafi was not implicated in those attacks, and the administration instead argued that a sustained air war without U.S. ground combat troops did not constitute “hostilities” under the War Powers Resolution. This position effectively sidestepped the 60‑day clock even as U.S. and NATO airpower played a decisive role in regime change and Gadhafi’s eventual overthrow and killing. That Libya campaign, conducted without a direct congressional authorization and contributing to regime collapse, was nevertheless widely hailed in many political and media circles as necessary, humanitarian, or decisive leadership.

The pattern is clear: when presidents from one’s preferred party wield broad war powers, critics often mute their concerns and describe such actions as responsible or inevitable; when a rival president uses similar tools—especially in high‑profile operations—opponents reach for epithets like “king” or “tyrant.” Those condemning Trump for operating under the War Powers framework rarely apply the same scrutiny to George W. Bush, Obama, or Joe Biden for their own extensive uses of force in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and beyond.

Concerns that Trump’s actions betray his stated desire to end “forever wars” overlook the reality that the Middle East has become the quintessential forever war largely because of Iran’s revolutionary regime and its network of proxies. Moreover, there is no credible indication that either Trump or Israel intends to deploy large numbers of U.S. ground combat troops into Iran, and modern precedent exists for successful, air‑centric campaigns that avoided ground invasions. President Bill Clinton’s 1999 Operation Allied Force in Serbia, for example, was deliberately conducted as an air campaign from March 24 to June 10, 1999, without the commitment of U.S. ground combat forces, yet it pressured Belgrade into accepting NATO’s terms.

Viewed in this context, Trump has acted within his executive authority under the War Powers framework to confront a brutal, medieval‑minded theocratic regime long recognized for its human rights abuses and for being the leading sponsor of state terrorism. Weakening or toppling that regime would not only free the Iranian people to reclaim their rich Persian heritage but also remove the chief spoiler blocking deeper regional integration and the full realization of the Abraham Accords, which promise to end Israel’s isolation and create a more stable Middle East order.

-30-

Paul Vallas formerly ran the public school systems in Chicago, Philadelphia and the Louisiana Recovery School District. He was a candidate for Mayor of Chicago.

 

Click Here to View Sources