For many years, the downfall of the Islamic Republic of Iran has been a topic of intense speculation among policymakers and analysts. However, the more pressing question—one that often gets overlooked—is whether this regime should indeed crumble. To the millions of Iranians who have left their country since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, the answer seems clear and profoundly personal. Prior to the rise of the mullahs, Iran was a modern and secular nation where women enjoyed significant political and social freedoms. Western influences were embraced rather than outlawed, and the nation’s oil wealth supported economic growth instead of funding terror abroad. By most accounts, the Iran of today is a stark failure compared to its past.

For many critics, the regime’s faults are rooted in morality. The Shia theocracy in Iran enforces a draconian interpretation of Islamic law, oppresses women, silences dissent through executions, and governs through a climate of fear. It also aims to spread its extremist ideology beyond its own borders, posing a threat to freedom-loving individuals worldwide. Yet, the most compelling reasons for opposing the regime are strategic, aligning with the principles of “America First.” The Islamic Republic is not just an oppressive regime domestically; it is also believed to have killed thousands of protesters during the largest uprisings since its inception. Moreover, it stands as the most aggressive state sponsor of terrorism globally, orchestrating a network of proxies spanning from Yemen to Lebanon, Gaza to Venezuela.

Over the past 40 years, Iran and its affiliated groups have been responsible for the deaths and injuries of thousands of Americans, making it one of the most formidable adversaries faced by the United States since World War II. Presently, Tehran continues to pose threats, with potential militia attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria, the reactivation of its nuclear weapons program, and the development of a substantial missile arsenal, including intercontinental ballistic missiles that could threaten the U.S. homeland, Israel, American forces, and key regional allies. Additionally, Iran is supplying Russia with drones to bolster Vladimir Putin’s war efforts in Ukraine.

These are not isolated acts. They are components of a single, coherent Iranian strategy: to bleed American power, destabilise U.S. allies, and reshape the regional order in Iran’s favour. As long as the mullahs rule in Tehran, the United States remains under constant threat. No diplomatic agreement has changed this reality. Sanctions relief did not moderate the regime’s behaviour. Engagement did not empower reformers. On the contrary, every outreach to Tehran strengthened the Revolutionary Guard and expanded Iran’s external aggression. After four decades, the lesson is unmistakable: the problem is not Iran’s policies. It is Iran’s regime.

Critics warn that calling for the end of the Islamic Republic risks chaos or a nationalist backlash that could prop up a wobbling government. This fear rests on outdated assumptions. For almost two decades — since 2009 — Iranians have flooded the streets, chanting ‘Death to the dictator’ and ‘Our enemy is right here.’ A majority have rejected clerical rule that has delivered only economic collapse, repression, and international isolation. The mullahs remain in power through violence, censorship, and fear — not popular consent. Supporting the Iranian people is not about imposing a Western system or engineering a revolution. It is about aligning American policy with the clear aspirations of a population that overwhelmingly rejects theocracy. Importantly, Iran’s democratic opposition abroad has spent years developing a detailed, credible plan for the day after the regime’s fall — addressing governance, economic recovery, and relations with the outside world — undercutting claims that collapse would mean chaos.

What would come after the mullahs? No one should pretend the transition would be easy. But the choice is not between a perfect democracy and the status quo. It is between a collapsing theocracy that exports terror — and a post-Islamic Republic Iran that, at minimum, no longer wages permanent war against its neighbours and the United States. A post-regime Iran would not need to become a Jeffersonian democracy to represent a dramatic strategic improvement. A government more accountable to its people would have powerful incentives to rebuild an economy shattered by corruption and sanctions — and to redirect resources from foreign militias to domestic needs. For the first time in decades, regional de-escalation would become possible.

Until recently, Hezbollah’s arsenal of more than 150,000 rockets threatened Israel, Hamas’s war machine hung over Israel like a sword, and Houthi terrorists endangered global shipping lanes. A combined U.S.–Israeli response after October 7 severely degraded these threats. The world is safer for it — but only temporarily. Given time and space, Iran’s proxies will rebuild. The United States does not need to invade Iran to end this menace. But it must abandon the illusion that the Islamic Republic can be reformed or indefinitely managed. A strategy of targeted military and cyber strikes, maximum financial pressure, diplomatic isolation, information support for the Iranian people, and clear political alignment with their demands for change is not reckless. It is overdue. Ending the Islamic Republic is not about revenge or ideology. It is about removing the single greatest driver of instability, terrorism, and nuclear risk in the Middle East.

The truth is uncomfortable but unavoidable: as long as the mullahs rule in Tehran, the Middle East will remain a factory for terror, missiles, and nuclear blackmail. Every delay buys the regime time. Every illusion of reform prolongs the danger. The Islamic Republic has spent 45 years declaring war on the United States and its allies — and it has never meant peace. History will not judge America by how carefully it managed this regime, but by whether it finally had the resolve to end it. The moment is coming. The only question left is whether Washington has the courage to act before the next catastrophe forces its hand. Mark Dubowitz is the chief executive of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.