Iran and the US: Brands of Political Violence

Domestic political violence begins by defining who the enemy is. Donald Trump is the only president to have faced three highly visible assassination attempts. Trump and some former presidents, such as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, have exceeded that number under a broader definition of attempts, including those that were disrupted and uncovered in serious plots. Since Obama’s presidency, Presidential historian Timothy Naftali has described our political climate as a “political tinderbox” that has become toxic, fueled by political figures. 

Many political and media personalities can be accused of fomenting a venomous environment, but political leaders have access to the largest megaphones, none more so than the nation’s leader. This is true across all forms of government, from democratic republics to theocratic autocracies. 

In the last ten years, the leaders of America and Iran have labeled their domestic adversaries as enemies of the people, deserving to be feared and hated. One leader was elected by popular vote in a democratic republic, and the other was selected by a religious elite that represented a plurality, if not the majority, of their citizens.

There are significant differences in their legal powers. Nevertheless, when one strips away the details of their policies, behavior, and beliefs, one is left with the realization that they see the world as a battle between good and evil. It’s a view that goes back about 2,000 years to the ancient Manichaean belief that replaced the early Christian church for dominance. Are we reviving that struggle today? 

At the memorial for conservative activist Charlie Kirk, President Donald Trump, in his eulogy, disagreed with Charlie in not hating opponents: “I hate my opponents, and I don’t want the best for them. I’m sorry.” Later, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt explained that Trump was just being “authentically himself.”

This is a prime example of how Trump is a performer who entertains even as he says hateful things. Casual, offhand remarks like that one are accepted by his supporters as simply telling the truth: there is evil out there that must be fought. 

When America’s President Trump and Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, view their domestic opponents as enemies, they are rejecting a government where liberals and conservatives can pursue compromises that limit their power. One doesn’t compromise with enemies; one defeats them in any way possible. 

Domestic Political Violence in America

Some sixty years after George Wallace, the four-time Governor of Alabama who became a prominent and polarizing national figure during the 1960s and 1970s and practiced domestic political violence, Trump has similar targets to Wallace’s: elite colleges and lawless immigrants. But his delivery is far more snidely humorous than wildly angry. The crowd is entertained, but he’s pushing the same buttons of fear and resentment by attacking politicians who are not supporting his MAGA agenda. That anger has contributed to a 74% increase in threats/harassment against local officials from the mid-term election year of 2022 to the end of the presidential campaign in 2024. 

For example, on May first, Trump posted on his Truth Social platform a photo of Democrat Minority Leader, Hakeem Jeffries, holding a baseball bat, with the caption that he “is nothing but a THUG, and he is a danger to our Country! — President DONALD J. TRUMP. “ 

Trump’s mantra of fearing a dangerous domestic enemy was standard fare in his last Presidential campaign. On Veterans Day 2023, he claimed that “The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous and grave than the threat from within.” He would root out the “vermin” in the country that would do anything to destroy America. New York University historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat, wrote in The Washington Post that “calling people ‘vermin’ was used effectively by Hitler and Mussolini to dehumanize people and encourage their followers to engage in violence.”

Trump’s authority has been constrained by the independence of our other two branches of government, the legislative and judicial. Should those institutions be fatally weakened, Trump’s critics see an autocratic presidency attacking diversity of thought as means to silence anyone who challenges his executive power. Iran’s people have experienced that condition since a revolution overthrew a corrupt authoritarian monarchy 47 years ago, replacing it with a more authoritarian theocratic regime topped with a Supreme Leader. 

Domestic Political Violence in the US versus Iran

To understand how violence and hatred manifest in Iran, it is necessary to understand that Iran is a theocracy, combining the authority of the state and the church. Consequently, comparing the politically generated domestic violence in Iran with that in America is not straightforward, even though both are republics with an elected president, an elected legislative body, and an appointed judiciary. However, the founding principles of each government are fundamentally different. 

The United States was created as a democratic republic through a revolution whose founders insisted on separating religious beliefs from the state’s political power. The 1979 Iranian Revolution led to the exact opposite: the founding of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Its main principle was to establish a Shia Islamic system of governance. Just as our constitution forbids a “church” from running the state, their constitution enshrines it as the state authority. 

While White Christian Nationalists would have the US government embrace Christianity as the national religion above all others, Iran goes much further by making all laws subject to approval by an elite religious body ruled by the Shia branch of Islam. Iran is the largest country with a Shia majority, claiming global leadership of Shia Muslims, who represent no more than 15% of all Muslims worldwide.

Our president heads the government, not society.  In Iran, the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, as the religious and government leader, oversees all facets of the country’s activities. The American media has referred to Iran’s chief leader simply as the Ayatollah, but that is an honorary title held by more than 100 Muslim clerics in Iran. The correct title for Iran’s Shia leader is “Supreme Leader,” who is appointed by a group of 88 elected clerics, and serves as the political and constitutional “Guardian of the Islamic Jurist.” 

His authority extends over the legislative and judicial branches of government, including the military. Their Shia Islamic jurisprudence (Ja’fari) is enshrined in their constitution, which legitimizes the Supreme Leader’s authority. The state’s violent actions against citizens are not random but are taken in accordance with Ja’fari, as interpreted by the Supreme Leader. 

While the president and parliament are elected, the Supreme Leader’s power is exercised by the Guardian Council, a 12-member body consisting of six clerics appointed by him and six jurists approved by Parliament. The Council must sign off on all legislation to ensure it complies with its interpretation of Shia Islamic law. In addition, no candidate can run for the presidency or parliament without the Council’s approval. 

Critics of Iran, be they US or Israeli officials and media influencers, rarely understand that Iran has a well-thought-out distribution of political power that can survive the execution of its top leadership by the US and Israeli governments. 

Individual Iranian leaders range from mildly reformist to hardline fundamentalists. For instance, former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami is the ideological leader of the Iranian reform movement. His activities and travel are restricted, and he needs approval to speak publicly. Consequently, he is no threat to the regime, having described it as a “sturdy tree.” Hardline fundamentalists have controlled Iran since the 1979 revolution, which toppled King Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s 38-year-old autocratic monarchy. 

Domestic Political Violence in Iran

Despite some variance in how to apply the Shia laws, the overall Iranian governing system tightly binds together all the political and military leaders as a coherent force resisting any fundamental change. This explains why they will mercilessly crush any large nonviolent popular gathering that is seen as an existential threat to their regime. 

After Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in a US-Israel airstrike at the end of February, his seriously injured son, Mojtaba Khamenei, was selected as the Supreme Leader. A consensus among independent experts is that Mojtaba’s general pronouncements provide the Revolutionary Guard with considerable flexibility in how to carry them out. They are a power separate from the president and parliament, reporting directly to the Supreme Leader. 

In January 2026, they carried out Ali Khamenei’s orders to the Revolutionary Guard to suppress the protests “by any means necessary” because it was the first major domestic uprising calling for the Islamic State to fall.

Large gatherings pushing to reform the Islamic regime began in 2009, saying that the national election was rigged after the reform candidate was defeated. Slogans then emerged calling for reform of the regime’s stringent laws. The protests of late 2025 and early 2026 shifted to calls for the return of a monarchy or democracy and for an end to the fundamentalist religious regime. 

Although many of the banners this year simply stated “Freedom,” others were more direct: “Until the mullahs are buried, this homeland won’t prosper”, “Khamenei is a murderer; his rule is illegitimate”, “Death to Khamenei” (Marg bar Khamenei), and “Death to the dictator.” 

The protests in Tehran spread across the nation, with demonstrations, street rallies, and labor strikes in 88 cities in 27 of the 31 provinces, as well as at 17 universities. Most telling was that protesters chanted pro-monarchy slogans in Qom, a core stronghold of Shiite clerics and the Islamic Republic; this was a major symbolic break in the Supreme Leader’s power, since the city had long been seen as politically untouchable.

Authoritarian leaders, across all forms of government, resort to violent suppression of dissent if it threatens their existence. An Iranian scholar living outside Iran noted that violence will follow when the material foundations of governance erode to the point that authority can no longer translate power into control. 

And it was very apparent that its power was fading as protests occurred during a period of dire economic decline, while the state’s limited resources were diverted to sustain its capacity to violently protect the ruling elite. According to sources within and outside Iran, the Revolutionary Guard controls and directly profits from up to half of the oil exports, which generate most of Tehran’s revenue: Iranian oil revenues were $53 billion in 2023. 

The regime was apparently betting that brutal force was necessary to quell a dangerous public uprising whose anger was not just about the lack of freedoms but also the increasingly higher cost of living. According to Fortune, the Iranian rial has lost 60% of its value since the start of the war. Meanwhile, residents of Tehran and other cities told Reuters that some prices had increased 40% in that period as well.  

Since the protests began in December 2025, the regime has killed between 6,000 and 30,000 protesters, according to various sources in and outside Iran. The protestors are accused of being “rioters,” backed by the U.S. and Israel. Those leaders didn’t help protect them; rather, they increased their vulnerability to accusations that foreigners were manipulating them.

From their safe residences in their own countries, they exhorted civilians to take to the streets to overthrow the whole regime. Exiled Prince Reza Pahlavi urged Iranians to “take control of the streets” in Tehran to bring down the Islamic Republic. Trump posted on his Truth Social platform, “If Iran shoots and violently kills peaceful protesters, which is their custom, the United States of America will come to their rescue. We are locked and loaded and ready to go.” That was the last time Trump said anything about intervening to help them. 

Israel was publicly silent in supporting the protests, but Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu said that Israeli operatives are active in Iran “right now”. Were they there to help protect the protestors or to encourage them to fight the authorities? After Eliyahu’s comment, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered his officials to stop giving interviews.

Still, the killing continues. As of May 2026, according to the Center for Human Rights in Iran (CHRI), the situation has led to intensified executions of protesters being charged with crimes such as “propaganda against the regime” and “collusion against national security.” In other words, they are enemies of the people. 

Bottom Line

Political violence in Iran is a systematic government process of eliminating any threatening opposition to the Islamic ruling elite. The regime’s leaders are more concerned with direct challenges to their authority than with physically oppressing minorities. The Kurds are the exception, with the number of executions being higher in the region where most of them reside. 

Although Iran is a theocratic autocracy, their constitution recognizes three non-Muslim religious minorities:Zoroastrians, Christians, and Jews, which has the largest intact Jewish community in the Middle East outside of Israel. State violence is not directed toward those groups and other recognized ethnic groups, but rather violence is used against any group that refuses to submit to the regime’s Islamic laws. 

The level of domestic US political violence stems from agitation by public leaders who blame their opponents for endangering the nation or public safety. Some groups amplify those charges and violently attack ethnic, racial, and religious groups identified as “evil” and threatening our nation. In a democracy, these violent attacks are diffuse and not coordinated by the government; ironically, this can be viewed as a democratic approach that allows violence to be free of government interference. In Iran, the delivery of violence is monopolized by the central government.

Our government’s violence toward dissenters is tempered by exposure through a wide range of open media, from print to the internet. The federal government’s response to ultimately distance itself from ICE killing non-threatening citizens was a direct result of being publicly exposed. That type of open media coverage is nonexistent in Iran’s theocracy.

Lastly, public restraints on government violence stem from popular support for principles articulated in our Constitution that protect a diversity of thought, including peaceful protest. That societal norm is under attack when government leaders label their opponents “enemies of the people,” reflecting a Manichaean belief in an existential battle between good and evil. 

The danger that America faces today is not that it will overnight become like Iran’s theocratic republic, using violence to maintain a wealthy elite. The danger is that we drift from being an open, secular society toward a republic that disparages diversity of thought and begins to adopt religious beliefs that justify violence to silence enemies. 

Consider how, during working hours, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth personally holds a monthly “Christian Prayer & Worship Service” focusing on our “biblically sanctioned war” to pray for “overwhelming violence” against enemies. Could that logic be used to suppress domestic enemies?

The path forward to mitigate domestic political violence is to promote a secular-framed republic that respects and protects all citizens’ personal beliefs and practices. To that end, the public must insist that our executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government not interpret our Constitution or legislation that permits elevating one religious belief above others, such as White Christian Nationalism or Shia Law, to shape our laws.