Islamic Republic of Iran: A "Mad State"

The contempt for the Iranian state's conduct—both domestically and abroad (notably in the Middle East)—is evident to anyone paying even the slightest attention to what has been happening over the past two years. And this is without even going back 46 years: the time we've already endured fanatical Shiite revolutionaries in charge of a country with thousands of years of (still) admirable history.

Mad state: a timeless definition

It's hard to disagree with AJ Caschetta, professor of English and political science at the Rochester Institute of Technology, New York, when he applies the concept of a "crazy state" to modern-day Iran. In his article "Stimulating Revolt in the Iranian Crazy State ," the scholar argues that Yehezkel Dror—an Israeli political scientist who rose to prominence in the second half of the last century—would readily classify the Islamic Republic of Iran as one of these states: "ideologically aggressive nations pursuing rational or counter-rational goals."

When we speak of counter-rational or unreasonable objectives, we refer to the fact that these states spend significant portions of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on efforts to control, reshape, annex, or destroy other states—often resorting to genocide. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute in Sweden, Iran ranked 34th in defense spending in 2024: $7.9 billion, equivalent to 2% of its GDP.

Dealing with Crazy States

Of the eighteen fallacies Dror recommended avoiding when dealing with mad states, Caschetta highlights three. First, the veteran political scientist warned that these states can act rationally at the instrumental level, choosing extremely effective means to achieve their erratic and destructive ends. Second, rational states must guard against the "convex mirror effect," the tendency to project their own values and intentions onto others. As Dror himself wrote, this is the "assumption that all countries want for themselves what the United States wants," which he considers an "insidious fallacy." Finally, the 17th fallacy refers to the old mistake of trusting that international agreements signed by mad states will be respected by those same states.

The first fallacy is particularly pertinent: while traditional states seek nuclear weapons as a means of deterrence, Iran has already made it clear that it desires them for offensive purposes—against Israel, the US, and their allies. Here, the means serve corrosive and irrational ends.

Before and after October 7, 2023

It was on June 13th, with the launch of Operation Crescent Lion, that Iran's name returned to the media spotlight. But in truth, the country had long been a nightmare for the free world in the Middle East.

For nearly two years, attention has focused on the war between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. However, Israel has also faced constant provocations from Hezbollah in the north and the Houthis in Yemen, who have sought to destabilize the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. These three fronts are manifestations of a broader dynamic—one that Iran is not interested in seeing end.

Israel and Palestine: The Perspective of Iran's Supreme Leader

Fourteen years ago, Seyyed Ali Husseini Khamenei, Iran's second supreme leader (since 1989), published a book entitled "Palestine." To understand how relevant the book's content is, it suffices to note that, although it does not directly refer to a nuclear program, the fanatical leader mentions that Iran's acquisition and production of nuclear weapons would enable it to deter any Israeli attack.

For Iranian journalist and Gatestone Institute president Amir Taheri, Khamenei's position is clear from the book's opening pages: Israel has no right to exist. The cleric singles out the Middle East's only Western-like country as an "adou" (enemy), a "doshman" (adversary), and a "cancerous tumor." And, since this is a "cancerous tumor," its elimination would, in his view, serve to warn the world that "Western hegemony and threats" would be discredited in the Middle East. This would be followed by the promotion of "Iranian hegemony."

According to the former chief executive of the Kayhan newspaper, the strategy outlined by Iran's supreme leader to destroy Israel is based on three concepts: "nabudi" (annihilation), "imha" (disappearance), and "zaval" (obliteration). Although he sometimes appears to recommend a "classic war" against the Jewish state—and implicitly desires a massacre of the Jews—the Iranian leader proposes an alternative: a short period of low-intensity warfare, destructive enough to make life in Israel unbearable, thus forcing most Jews to flee the country.

The cleric's proposed solution, therefore, does not allow for Israel's survival. The formula for a state, whose name would be "Palestine," would remain under Muslim rule, although some Israeli Jews who could demonstrate "genuine roots" in the region could remain as "protected minorities." More specifically, Khamenei plans to place the territory currently encompassing the State of Israel, the Western Hemisphere, and the Gaza Strip under a United Nations mandate for a short period, during which a referendum would be held that would result, the supreme leader presumes, in the creation of a Palestinian state. The mad cleric must be aware of the results of this hypothetical referendum: all "Palestinians," wherever they came from, would be able to participate, while Jews "from elsewhere" would be excluded. Most likely, the Jews would once again become the "dhimmis" (a term coined by Bat Ye'or) of this state. For example, a large portion of Jordan's citizens (about three-quarters of which is located in historic Palestine) could almost certainly participate in such a referendum. And Taheri mentions that studies by the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs have already indicated that about eight million Palestinians from around the world could participate.

This book was also an opportunity for Iran's supreme leader to boast of his responsibility for the terrorist attacks originating from Lebanon, especially the war launched by Hezbollah in 2006, and from Gaza, initiated by Hamas, against Israel, admitting his involvement in the scheme to recruit fighters in the Western Hezbollah.

Hope remains

If we are guided by somewhat basic political science concepts and are even minimally informed about Iran's political elite over the past five decades, it becomes clear that Israel and its allies face an existential threat. And this should be an eye-opener for all those who still doubt the legitimacy of the only Western state in the Middle East to act militarily against Iran, a truly destabilizing and bloodthirsty state. May democracies always be supported in their struggles against mad states.