The West and U.N. Should Withdraw Recognition of the Islamic Republic

It Is Quite Likely Today That the Islamic Republic Has Greater Support in the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft than It Does Among the Iranian People

Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi speaks during a U.N. Security Council meeting on the Middle East at the United Nations Headquarters in New York; September 25, 2024.

Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi speaks during a U.N. Security Council meeting on the Middle East at the United Nations Headquarters in New York; September 25, 2024.

Shutterstock

As Iranians openly mock Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and as many film without fear while crowds chant “Death to Khamenei,” the Islamic Republic and its unelected leadership claim nevertheless to represent the Iranian people.

President Donald Trump left the G7 early to meet with his National Security Council. He repeated to press that Iran must not maintain a nuclear capacity, though he said he hopes the issue will resolve before it becomes necessary for the United States to involve itself. On one important issue, though, he should not wait.

Until President Barack Obama upended precedent, successive administrations spoke directly to the Iranian people and deliberately avoided mention of the Islamic Republic in annual Nowruz (Persian New Year) greetings.

The United States, the United Nations, and the Western world should withdraw any recognition of the Islamic Republic as the leadership of Iran. For the United States, this should be easy. Until President Barack Obama upended precedent, successive administrations spoke directly to the Iranian people and deliberately avoided mention of the Islamic Republic in annual Nowruz (Persian New Year) greetings.

For Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, such a move would both reflect reality and infuse the Iranian people with hope and support. After all, if the Iranian people are now chanting “Death to Khamenei” in the streets — and multiple videos circulated on Telegram show that is what they are doing — then well-meaning Western diplomats who often speak of human rights and international law should signal their support and not throw them under the bus by continuing to embrace their oppressors.

It is quite likely today that the Islamic Republic has greater support in the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and Penny Wong’s inner circle at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Canberra than it does among the Iranian people.

For the United Nations, there is precedent. Against the backdrop of the Afghanistan government’s collapse, first in 1996 and again a quarter century later when President Joe Biden pulled the carpet out from beneath the elected government, the United Nations held Afghanistan’s seat open until it became clear what government exerted control and over whom. The first Trump administration acted similarly when it ceased recognizing Nicolas Maduro’s government in Venezuela as that country’s legitimate authority.

By withdrawing any recognition of the Islamic Republic’s legitimacy, the West would essentially also help define the negotiations that are sure to come.

Trump may have opined against assassinating Iran’s unelected Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. There is logic here. After all, Khamenei should not permanently leave the battlefield until the international government helps Iranians form a transitional government to fill the vacuum. That does not, however, mean anyone should embrace Khamenei’s legitimacy.

By withdrawing any recognition of the Islamic Republic’s legitimacy, the West would essentially also help define the negotiations that are sure to come. In July 1988, then-Supreme Leader Ruhollah Khomeini likened his decision to accept a ceasefire in the Iran-Iraq War to “drinking from a chalice of poison.” He had no choice but to take a sip, though, to ensure the Islamic Republic survived.

Today, it is time for all liberal countries to support the Iranian people and offer Khamenei a similar chalice, only his sip will ensure just his own survival and perhaps a safe passage to become former Syrian leader Bashar Assad’s roommate in Moscow.

Published originally on June 17, 2025.

Michael Rubin is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he specializes in Middle Eastern countries, particularly Iran and Turkey. His career includes time as a Pentagon official, with field experiences in Iran, Yemen, and Iraq, as well as engagements with the Taliban prior to 9/11. Mr. Rubin has also contributed to military education, teaching U.S. Navy and Marine units about regional conflicts and terrorism. His scholarly work includes several key publications, such as “Dancing with the Devil” and “Eternal Iran.” Rubin earned his Ph.D. and M.A. in history and a B.S. in biology from Yale University.
See more from this Author
The Rational Move for the Iranian Regime, If It Wishes to Survive, Would Be to Concede Military Defeat and Renounce Its Nuclear Ambitions
The MEK Claimed to Be Iran’s Most Popular Movement and Said They Were the Real Deal, but There Were Red Flags
The Prison in Tehran for Decades Has Been the Top Symbol of the Islamic Republic’s Oppression
See more on this Topic
The Rational Move for the Iranian Regime, If It Wishes to Survive, Would Be to Concede Military Defeat and Renounce Its Nuclear Ambitions
It Is Quite Likely Today That the Islamic Republic Has Greater Support in the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft than It Does Among the Iranian People
In the First Incident of Its Kind Since the Fall of the Assad Regime, Two Rockets Were Fired from Syria at the Golan Heights on June 3