Containing Iran: Calls for Immediate Action Beyond Biden's and Harris's Failed Appeasement

Iran stands on the verge of nuclear weapons development, yet the international community's response to Tehran’s aggression has been one of repeated appeasement — a strategy that has clearly failed. Now is the time for a bold, decisive approach to confront the regime's nuclear ambitions, terrorism, and destabilization of the region. The world can no longer afford to rely on diplomacy alone; a comprehensive strategy of sanctions and force is urgently required to protect global security.

1. The Failure of Appeasement: Diplomacy Has Run Its Course

For decades, the international community, led by the United States and Europe, has pursued diplomacy as the primary means of containing Iran's nuclear ambitions and aggressive behaviour. Negotiations, such as the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), aimed to slow down Iran’s nuclear enrichment and bring it into compliance with international norms. But appeasement has had the opposite effect — emboldening Iran to expand its nuclear program, enhance its missile capabilities, and extend its influence through proxy warfare.

Instead of deterring aggression, diplomatic overtures without credible threats of consequences have allowed Iran to test the limits of international patience. This gradual easing of red lines — reminiscent of the proverbial frog in boiling water — has only led to more egregious violations. The 2015 nuclear deal, while a diplomatic success on paper, ultimately allowed Iran to continue uranium enrichment and left key issues like ballistic missile development untouched. Since then, Iran has resumed enriching uranium at dangerous levels, expelled International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) monitors, and continued to support terrorism across the region.

2. Appeasement's Legacy: A More Dangerous Iran

The most glaring consequence of the failed appeasement strategy is Iran’s near-breakout nuclear status. Despite promises of transparency, Iran has enriched uranium to 60%, alarmingly close to weapons-grade levels. Meanwhile, Tehran has advanced its ballistic missile technology, creating delivery systems capable of striking far beyond the Middle East, threatening Europe and even the United States.

Iran’s defiance is not limited to its nuclear program. The regime continues to fund and arm proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis, spreading instability across the region. The massacre by Hamas on October 7, Iran’s increasing attacks on US forces, and its violation of international maritime law highlight how appeasement has failed to temper Tehran’s aggression.

The international community has watched as Tehran built the largest ballistic missile arsenal in the region, systematically violated human rights, and expanded its proxy influence throughout the Middle East — all while facing minimal consequences. This track record proves that engagement without the backing of hard power has only emboldened the regime.

3. The True Cost of Appeasement: Regional and Global Instability

By repeatedly extending diplomatic olive branches, the West has allowed Iran to manipulate the international system. Tehran has become adept at using negotiations as a stalling tactic, continuing its nuclear advancements and aggressive foreign policy while keeping diplomatic channels open just enough to avoid decisive action.

Worse still, the world has normalized Iran’s escalations. What was once considered an intolerable violation, such as uranium enrichment beyond acceptable levels, is now a mere talking point in ongoing negotiations. This gradual erosion of standards has enabled Iran to push the boundaries of international tolerance, all the while inching closer to becoming a nuclear-armed state.

In addition, Iran's destabilizing actions have broader implications beyond the Middle East. Iran’s alliance with Russia in the Ukraine war, its support for terrorism, and its repeated targeting of international figures illustrate that Tehran’s ambitions reach far beyond its own borders. This is not just a regional issue but a global one.

4. A New Strategy: Moving Beyond Appeasement

The strategy of appeasement has run its course and must be replaced with a firmer approach. The US and its allies can no longer afford to treat Iran as a partner for peace. A clear and robust message must be sent that Iranian aggression will no longer be tolerated, and there will be immediate and significant consequences for further escalation.

A global coalition, led by the United States, must pivot from ineffective diplomacy to a strategy that combines both economic sanctions and military deterrence. The international community should trigger the “snapback” sanctions mechanism within the JCPOA framework and impose further economic pressure to weaken Iran’s regime. At the same time, a credible military threat against Iran’s nuclear facilities must be communicated — Iran must understand that its nuclear ambitions will be met with decisive force if it continues its pursuit.

5. Restoring Deterrence: The Role of Force

To prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weapons capability, the US and its allies must demonstrate that they are willing to take military action if necessary. The failure of appeasement has left no other option. The Biden administration should be applauded for quickly deploying military assets to the Middle East, but this must be followed up with clear ultimatums to Tehran. Iran must be made to understand that any further attacks on Israel, US personnel, or other allies will result in direct military consequences.

6. The Path Forward: A Unified Global Response

It is time for the international community to recognize the full scope of the threat posed by Iran. This regime’s actions are not just about regional dominance; they aim to challenge the entire Western security order. Iran's growing alliance with Russia, coupled with its proxy network in the Middle East, shows a concerted effort to disrupt global stability.

To confront this, the US, G-7 nations, European Union, and Arab allies must form a united front. Sanctions should be reimposed immediately, targeting critical sectors of Iran’s economy, including energy and banking. A multinational naval force should be deployed to safeguard international maritime routes, and strict measures should be enacted to cut off Iran's ability to arm and fund its proxies.

Moreover, Iran must face the prospect of direct military intervention if it continues to pursue nuclear weapons. Tehran must be forced back to the negotiating table, but this time with a clear understanding that diplomatic solutions will only be possible if accompanied by firm consequences.

7. Conclusion: No More Appeasement

The failure of appeasement has led to a more aggressive, dangerous, and emboldened Iran. The international community must now move beyond ineffective diplomacy and pursue a new strategy that combines crippling sanctions and the credible threat of military force. Only through such a decisive and unified response can Iran's nuclear ambitions be curtailed, its regional destabilization contained, and global security restored.

The time for appeasement has ended. It is time to act. START!

Masked Protesters: A Threat to Democracy and Public Safety

The presence of masked protesters during demonstrations, across North America, must be unequivocally outlawed. Such actions must be labelled as attempts to undermine democracy, carried out by shirkers, idlers, and potential domestic terrorists under the Criminal Code. The anonymity provided by masks emboldens individuals to engage in destructive behaviours without accountability, threatening public safety, civil society and the rule of law.

One alarming example is the growing trend of masked gangs, often affiliated with student unions, storming university campuses and violently disrupting classes. This not only constitutes an attack on students’ rights to education but is also a criminal act of violence against individuals and property. Such behaviour is unlawful and unacceptable in any country or any democratic society.

The Rising Tide of Lawlessness across the USA and in Canada

In Toronto, Montreal, as well as in other parts of Canada, there has been a concerning rise in acts of lawlessness perpetrated by masked individuals—many of whom are delinquent juveniles or socially harmful elements within student union membership. This trend has been escalating at an alarming rate, with little intervention from politicians, law enforcement, or the courts. These masked protesters, often students or so-called "professional" activists, engage in activities that blur the line between protest and domestic terror.

The inaction of politicians and the judiciary has allowed these increasingly dangerous acts to go unchecked, endangering public safety and societal order. The courts, law enforcement agencies, and government officials must recognize these activities for what they truly represent: deliberate attempts to intimidate and coerce through violence in pursuit of political or social objectives. Such behaviour is nothing short of domestic terror.

No Room for Mischaracterization or Leniency

Unfortunately, today’s mainstream media—most of whom have socialist leanings—often mischaracterize these acts of violence as harmless pranks, hoaxes, or amusing displays of youthful defiance. Such trivialization undermines the seriousness of the situation and fails to acknowledge the true impact on society. Labelling masked protests as harmless fun excuses the dangerous anti-social behaviour of those involved, allowing them to evade responsibility for the harm they cause. In these instances, the media must be held accountable as well.

What the public must recognize is that this is not simply youthful rebellion or mischief; it is a calculated strategy to use fear and violence to force political or social change. By disrupting educational institutions, harassing students and faculty, and destroying property, these masked agitators demonstrate their contempt for democracy, order, and the rights of others.

Labelling Masked Violence for What It Is: Domestic Terror

The actions of these masked individuals, whether they are professional protesters, hooligans, or extremists within the student body, must be labelled for what they are: acts of domestic terror. These individuals use intimidation, violence, and property destruction to impose their will on the student body, the government, and the broader public, seeking to further political or social objectives. Such activities meet the very definition of terrorism under the USA; Canadian laws and international norms, as they aim to influence policy and society through violence and coercion.

These masked perpetrators are not merely disruptive forces within student unions. They are habitual offenders whose actions threaten the very fabric of democracy and social stability. They should be recognized and treated as social outlaws—shirkers and idlers who undermine the democratic values that Canada and the USA hold dear. The leniency with which they have been treated by political leaders and judges must come to an end. It is time to hold these individuals accountable under the full weight of the law.

A Call to Action: Protecting Democracy and Public Safety

Canada’s and US politicians, law enforcement agencies, and the judicial system must act swiftly and decisively to address this growing threat. Masked protests and violent disruptions of public order should be met with stringent legal consequences. No longer should these acts be trivialized or brushed aside as youthful mischief. Instead, they must be recognized for what they are: calculated attempts to destabilize democracy and coerce the public through violence.

The time has come to restore law and order and safeguard the values of democracy. Those who seek to destroy these values, whether through masked protests or acts of intimidation, must be held accountable. 

The US and Canada’s future depends on the strength of its institutions and the unwavering commitment to the rule of law.

 

Government Must Put Its Own Citizens First, Not Foreign Policy

By focusing on the needs of its citizens first, governments can create stronger, more prosperous nations that are better equipped to contribute meaningfully to the global community. Nationalism, when combined with responsible governance and a commitment to global cooperation, can serve as a force for good in both domestic and international spheres.

The text provides a well-rounded defence of nationalism by emphasizing its potential benefits and clarifying misconceptions. However, the implementation of nationalist policies must be carefully managed to avoid exclusion, ensure global cooperation, and prevent authoritarianism. Balancing national pride with global responsibilities and inclusivity is essential for the positive aspects of nationalism to be realized.

The primary duty of any government is to safeguard the welfare of its citizens. This principle forms the core of nationalism, a belief that a country's resources, policies, and decisions should prioritize the needs and interests of its people before those of other nations.

Nationalism, when applied thoughtfully, can strengthen national unity, boost economic growth, and foster a sense of pride and belonging. However, for these benefits to materialize, nationalist policies must strike a balance between national priorities and global responsibilities, avoiding isolationism and the risk of authoritarianism.

Historical Nationalist Leaders

Nationalist policies have shaped the course of history, with leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, Winston Churchill, and Donald Trump standing out as proponents of nationalism in varying forms.

• Mahatma Gandhi's nationalism was rooted in anti-colonialism, emphasizing the importance of India's sovereignty and independence from British rule. His focus on self-reliance, embodied in the concept of "Swadeshi," encouraged Indians to produce their goods rather than relying on imports.
• Winston Churchill, while seen as a patriot and nationalist, rallied the British people during World War II to defend their homeland. Churchill's brand of nationalism was essential in fostering resilience during a time of great peril for the nation.
• The Trump administration's "America First" agenda epitomized modern nationalist policies, focusing on renegotiating trade deals, holding NATO allies accountable for defence spending, and reducing America's entanglements in foreign conflicts. Trump's policies, such as sanctions on North Korea and China, were designed to protect American interests while also compelling other countries to bear a greater share of their global responsibilities.

Nationalism vs. Isolationism

It is crucial to clarify that nationalism is not synonymous with isolationism. Nationalists advocate for prioritizing domestic issues, such as the economy, infrastructure, and the well-being of citizens, before engaging in global interventions. This focus on "taking care of home first" is not a rejection of international relations but rather a recalibration to ensure that foreign engagements are beneficial and necessary.

• Isolationism, on the other hand, involves withdrawing from international affairs entirely, often leading to economic stagnation and diminished global influence. Nationalism, when properly implemented, ensures active participation in global matters but with a firm eye on national interest.

Nationalists believe that a strong, prosperous nation is better equipped to engage with the world on favourable terms. This approach can lead to more equitable trade deals, responsible military engagements, and a foreign policy that does not compromise the needs of the domestic population for the sake of distant conflicts or alliances.

Nationalism's Definition and Misconceptions

One of the key challenges in discussing nationalism is the pervasive misconceptions surrounding the term. Critics often equate nationalism with xenophobia, racism, or exclusionary policies. While it is true that nationalist movements can be exploited to promote divisive ideologies, this is not an inherent feature of nationalism itself.

• Patriotism vs. Racism: Nationalism, at its core, is about pride in one's country, culture, and heritage. It is a sense of belonging and loyalty to one's nation, not a belief in racial or cultural superiority. This distinction is critical to making nationalism a force for unity rather than division.

Local Leadership and Connection

In nationalist societies, the proximity of leadership to the people they serve is vital for effective governance. Nationalist policies often emphasize decentralization, ensuring that leaders have a close connection to the cultural, economic, and social realities of their citizens.

• Cultural Understanding: Leaders who share the experiences of their citizens, having lived through similar struggles and triumphs, are better equipped to address local issues. This local connection fosters trust and ensures that leadership remains attuned to the needs of the populace.
• Accountability and Responsiveness: Nationalist governments are more directly accountable to their citizens. The electorate has the power to remove officials who fail to meet their needs. In contrast, in globalist frameworks, leaders are often insulated by layers of bureaucracy and technocracy, distancing them from the people they serve.

American Nationalism

America’s foundation rests on nationalist principles, and this has contributed significantly to its rise as a global power. The United States has always prioritized its national interests, from George Washington’s policy of non-entanglement in foreign affairs to the Monroe Doctrine, which emphasized American autonomy in the Western Hemisphere.

• Unity and Integration: Nationalism fosters a sense of unity and pride among citizens, creating a shared identity that transcends regional or cultural differences. This can strengthen social cohesion and lead to greater national stability.
• National and International Balance: Prioritizing national issues does not mean neglecting global responsibilities. A balanced nationalist approach can ensure that a country is well-positioned to participate in international affairs without overextending itself. For instance, Trump's renegotiation of trade deals like the USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement) ensured that American workers were protected while maintaining important economic relationships.

The Future of Nationalism: Balancing National Interests with Global Realities

The resurgence of nationalism in the 21st century has reignited debates about the role of the nation-state in a globalized world. While nationalism offers a path to strengthen internal cohesion and improve governance, it must also evolve to meet the challenges of an interconnected world.

• Global Cooperation: Nationalist governments must still engage in global diplomacy, trade, and environmental efforts. Cooperation on international issues, such as climate change and global health, is essential for any country to thrive in the modern era. However, this cooperation should not come at the expense of a nation's sovereignty or the well-being of its citizens.
• Avoiding Authoritarianism: Nationalism, like any political ideology, can be exploited by leaders seeking unchecked power. To prevent this, strong democratic institutions and checks on government authority are essential. Nationalism should empower the people, not concentrate power in the hands of a few.

---

By focusing on the needs of its citizens first, governments can create stronger, more prosperous nations that are better equipped to contribute meaningfully to the global community. Nationalism, when combined with responsible governance and a commitment to global cooperation, can serve as a force for good in both domestic and international spheres.

Iran’s Global Terror Network: A Web of Proxies and Militias

 

Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran has established itself as a critical player in global and Middle East regional and Iran has established itself as a terrorist player in global and Middle East regional terrorism, using its proxy groups to project influence. 

Iran’s regime is the "foremost state sponsor of terrorism," Through its elite Quds Force and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Iran has developed a network of proxies that includes Hezbollah, Hamas, and various militias across Iraq, Yemen, and Syria. These proxies serve Tehran’s geopolitical interests, acting as tools of asymmetric warfare, and have contributed to widespread instability in the Middle East and around the world. The UN and world democratic governments have failed to take meaningful action against Iran for its use of terrorist proxies.

Hezbollah: Iran’s Most Formidable Proxy

Hezbollah, founded in 1982 amidst Lebanon’s civil war, remains Iran’s most formidable proxy force. The group is a unique hybrid: part paramilitary force, part political actor, and part terrorist organization. Iran provides Hezbollah with an estimated $700 million annually in funds, weapons, and training, cementing a deep strategic alliance.

Hezbollah's reach extends far beyond Lebanon’s borders. It has engaged in high-profile terror attacks globally, such as the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Argentina and the 2012 bombing of Israeli tourists in Bulgaria. Hezbollah’s global operations, including intelligence gathering and arms smuggling, are an extension of Iran’s strategy to destabilize its enemies and expand its influence.

In the context of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Hezbollah has used its vast rocket arsenal, with estimates exceeding 150,000 missiles, to target Israeli civilians. During the October 7 Hamas massacre, Hezbollah escalated its military activities on Israel's northern border, reminding the world of its pivotal role in Iran’s anti-Israel posture.

Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad: Iran’s Tools Against Israel

Hamas, a Sunni Islamist group, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), another militant faction, have both been instrumental in Iran's ongoing confrontation with Israel. While Hamas's ideological roots stem from the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran has long supported the group’s military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, supplying them with rockets, funds, and military training.

Though relations between Iran and Hamas cooled after the latter refused to support the Assad regime in Syria, their strategic partnership soon resumed. By 2017, Hamas leadership acknowledged Iran’s vital role in funding its military operations. The group's rocket attacks on Israel in 2008, 2014, and most recently in 2021 underscore Iran's enduring commitment to using Palestinian groups as a proxy in its broader anti-Israel strategy.

PIJ, despite being smaller than Hamas, plays a significant role in carrying out Iranian objectives in Gaza. Known for its radical alignment with Iran, PIJ has been instrumental in launching long-range rocket attacks on Israeli cities, heightening tensions in the region and amplifying the broader Iranian-Israeli conflict.

The Houthis: Extending Iranian Influence into Yemen

Iran’s strategy in Yemen revolves around the Houthi rebels, a Shia movement that Tehran has supported since their 2014 uprising. By backing the Houthis, Iran has gained a foothold on the Arabian Peninsula, directly challenging Saudi Arabia and threatening critical global shipping lanes in the Red Sea.

Tehran's material support for the Houthis includes advanced weaponry such as ballistic missiles and drones, which the Houthis have used to strike Saudi oil infrastructure and military targets. These attacks demonstrate how Iran uses the Houthis not only to wage a proxy war against its Gulf rivals but also to disrupt international trade and energy supplies.

The Houthis have similarly attacked the UAE and threatened the broader region’s stability, highlighting how Iran employs proxy militias to expand its influence, undermine rivals, and create chaos that distracts from its internal challenges.

Iraqi Militias: Iran’s Stronghold in Iraq

In Iraq, Iran has established an extensive network of militias, collectively known as the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF). These militias, which include groups like Kataib Hezbollah and Asaib Ahl al Haq, were instrumental in the fight against ISIS but have since turned their attention to enforcing Iranian dominance in Iraq.

Iran's support for these militias gives it significant leverage over Iraqi politics, ensuring that Tehran remains a key power broker in Baghdad. These groups often operate independently of the Iraqi state, engaging in acts of violence against U.S. forces and other coalition targets. The 2020 U.S. drone strike that killed Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis underscored Iran's deep entanglement with these militias, but it did little to diminish their operational capacity. Iran's militias continue to launch rocket and drone attacks on U.S. military installations, showing that despite sanctions and military losses, Tehran’s grip on Iraq remains strong.

Iran’s Global Reach: Terror Beyond the Middle East

Iran’s proxy network is not limited to the Middle East. Hezbollah, for instance, has established a global network that enables it to carry out attacks, smuggle arms, and launder money far from Lebanon. Operatives have been linked to terror plots across Latin America, Africa, and Europe, where Hezbollah’s criminal activities fund its military operations.

Iran’s reach into global terrorism serves as a reminder that Tehran’s objectives extend well beyond its immediate region. By destabilizing countries, supporting insurgencies, and striking at U.S. allies, Iran seeks to undermine the existing global order, all while consolidating power at home and deflecting attention from domestic unrest.

Conclusion: Countering Iran’s Terror Network. Meanwhile, the UN and world democratic governments have failed to take meaningful action to bring peace.

Hezbollah: Iran’s Most Formidable Proxy

Hezbollah, founded in 1982 amidst Lebanon’s civil war, remains Iran’s most formidable proxy force. The group is a unique hybrid: part paramilitary force, part political actor, and part terrorist organization. Iran provides Hezbollah with an estimated $700 million annually in funds, weapons, and training, cementing a deep strategic alliance.

Hezbollah's reach extends far beyond Lebanon’s borders. It has engaged in high-profile terror attacks globally, such as the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Argentina and the 2012 bombing of Israeli tourists in Bulgaria. Hezbollah’s global operations, including intelligence gathering and arms smuggling, are an extension of Iran’s strategy to destabilize its enemies and expand its influence.

In the context of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Hezbollah has used its vast rocket arsenal, with estimates exceeding 150,000 missiles, to target Israeli civilians. During the October 7 Hamas massacre, Hezbollah escalated its military activities on Israel's northern border, reminding the world of its pivotal role in Iran’s anti-Israel posture.

Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad: Iran’s Tools Against Israel

Hamas, a Sunni Islamist group, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), another militant faction, have both been instrumental in Iran's ongoing confrontation with Israel. While Hamas's ideological roots stem from the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran has long supported the group’s military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, supplying them with rockets, funds, and military training.

Though relations between Iran and Hamas cooled after the latter refused to support the Assad regime in Syria, their strategic partnership soon resumed. By 2017, Hamas leadership acknowledged Iran’s vital role in funding its military operations. The group's rocket attacks on Israel in 2008, 2014, and most recently in 2021 underscore Iran's enduring commitment to using Palestinian groups as a proxy in its broader anti-Israel strategy.

PIJ, despite being smaller than Hamas, plays a significant role in carrying out Iranian objectives in Gaza. Known for its radical alignment with Iran, PIJ has been instrumental in launching long-range rocket attacks on Israeli cities, heightening tensions in the region and amplifying the broader Iranian-Israeli conflict.

The Houthis: Extending Iranian Influence into Yemen

Iran’s strategy in Yemen revolves around the Houthi rebels, a Shia movement that Tehran has supported since their 2014 uprising. By backing the Houthis, Iran has gained a foothold on the Arabian Peninsula, directly challenging Saudi Arabia and threatening critical global shipping lanes in the Red Sea.

Tehran's material support for the Houthis includes advanced weaponry such as ballistic missiles and drones, which the Houthis have used to strike Saudi oil infrastructure and military targets. These attacks demonstrate how Iran uses the Houthis not only to wage a proxy war against its Gulf rivals but also to disrupt international trade and energy supplies.

The Houthis have similarly attacked the UAE and threatened the broader region’s stability, highlighting how Iran employs proxy militias to expand its influence, undermine rivals, and create chaos that distracts from its internal challenges.

Iraqi Militias: Iran’s Stronghold in Iraq

In Iraq, Iran has established an extensive network of militias, collectively known as the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF). These militias, which include groups like Kataib Hezbollah and Asaib Ahl al Haq, were instrumental in the fight against ISIS but have since turned their attention to enforcing Iranian dominance in Iraq.

Iran's support for these militias gives it significant leverage over Iraqi politics, ensuring that Tehran remains a key power broker in Baghdad. These groups often operate independently of the Iraqi state, engaging in acts of violence against U.S. forces and other coalition targets. The 2020 U.S. drone strike that killed Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis underscored Iran's deep entanglement with these militias, but it did little to diminish their operational capacity. Iran's militias continue to launch rocket and drone attacks on U.S. military installations, showing that despite sanctions and military losses, Tehran’s grip on Iraq remains strong.

Iran’s Global Reach: Terror Beyond the Middle East

Iran’s proxy network is not limited to the Middle East. Hezbollah, for instance, has established a global network that enables it to carry out attacks, smuggle arms, and launder money far from Lebanon. Operatives have been linked to terror plots across Latin America, Africa, and Europe, where Hezbollah’s criminal activities fund its military operations.

Iran’s reach into global terrorism serves as a reminder that Tehran’s objectives extend well beyond its immediate region. By destabilizing countries, supporting insurgencies, and striking at U.S. allies, Iran seeks to undermine the existing global order, all while consolidating power at home and deflecting attention from domestic unrest.

Conclusion: Countering Iran’s Terror Network

Iran’s proxy terror network represents one of the most significant threats to global stability. Through groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis, Iran exports its revolutionary ideology, undermines U.S. and Israeli interests, and destabilizes the Middle East. Its proxies have been essential in spreading violence, prolonging conflicts, and creating a security nightmare for the region and the world.

While efforts to counter Iran’s influence have included sanctions, military action, and diplomatic isolation, Tehran’s use of proxies has allowed it to evade direct confrontation, continuing its destabilizing activities. Addressing Iran's terror network will require sustained global cooperation, intelligence-sharing, and a multifaceted approach that includes cutting off Iran’s financial resources and supporting the stabilization of conflict-ridden regions once these terrorist organizations are defeated.

Only through coordinated international efforts can Iran’s far-reaching influence be curtailed, bringing the World and the Middle East closer to lasting peace and reducing the global threat posed by Iran's extensive terrorist proxy apparatus of using its proxy terrorist groups to project influence around the Globe.

FACTS:

Iran’s use of proxy groups, asymmetric warfare, and its global network of alliances continue to pose significant challenges to international security and stability. These activities have heightened regional tensions and contributed to conflicts across the Globe and the Middle East.

Key Activities:

• 1983 Beirut Bombings: Hezbollah, with Iran's assistance, carried out suicide bombings targeting U.S. and French military barracks in Beirut, killing over 300 people.
• Global Operations: Hezbollah has conducted terrorist attacks globally, including the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish community center in Argentina, killing 85 people.

· Rocket Attacks on Israel: Iran has supplied Hamas and PIJ with rockets and weaponry used in attacks against Israeli civilians, escalating tensions in the region.

· Training and Funding: Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has provided training and logistics to these groups.

· Attacks on U.S. Forces: Iran-backed militias like Kata'ib Hezbollah and Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq have been involved in roadside bombings and rocket attacks targeting U.S. personnel and interests in Iraq.

· Sectarian Violence: These militias have played a role in sectarian violence, contributing to instability in Iraq.

· Ballistic Missile Attacks: The Houthis have launched missile attacks against Saudi Arabia and the UAE, with Iranian assistance in missile technology and weaponry.

· Instability in Yemen: Iran's involvement has prolonged the conflict, resulting in one of the world's worst humanitarian crises.

· War Crimes: Iran-backed forces have been accused of committing atrocities against civilians and opposition groups in Syria.

· Proxy Warfare: Iran's involvement has fueled a wider regional conflict, pitting it against Sunni powers like Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

· Argentina Bombings (1992 and 1994): Iran was implicated in the bombing of the Israeli embassy (1992) and the AMIA Jewish center (1994) in Buenos Aires

· Assassination Plots: Iran has been linked to assassination plots against dissidents and foreign officials, including the attempted assassination of the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. in 2011.

· European Operations: In recent years, European countries like Denmark and France have accused Iran of planning or conducting assassinations of opposition figures on their soil.

· Taliban Support: Iran has reportedly provided financial and military support to Taliban factions, complicating U.S. efforts in the region.

· Strategic Influence: Iran seeks to maintain leverage in Afghanistan to counter U.S. influence and ensure stability on its border.

· Cyberattacks: Iran has engaged in cyberattacks on critical infrastructure and financial institutions globally, particularly targeting the U.S., Israel, and Saudi Arabia.

· Terrorist Financing: Iran has used its banking and financial networks to fund militant groups globally, in violation of international sanctions.