In Tehran, Ali Akbar Velayati, a close adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader, sharply criticized the United States, claiming that the contradictions displayed by American officials are without precedent in global diplomatic history. Velayati’s charged statement comes at a time of heightened confrontation between Iran and Western governments over Tehran’s sustained support for militant groups operating across the Middle East. Regional tensions have surged since the October 7, 2023 massacre, when Hamas terrorists—armed and backed by Iran—launched an unprecedented cross-border assault against Israel, resulting in the deadliest mass killing of Jews since the Holocaust. In the wake of ongoing military operations, the Iranian regime has repeatedly denounced what it characterizes as double standards in U.S. foreign policy, pointing to Washington’s support for Israel and its imposition of sanctions on Iran while continuing to pressure Iranian nuclear ambitions and support for armed proxies across the region.
The international context for Velayati’s remarks is shaped by decades of friction between the Islamic Republic and the United States. Since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, Iran’s leadership has adopted a posture of ideological resistance to Western influence, framing its involvement in Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen as legitimate opposition to what it views as imperialist intervention. Iran’s regional strategy is realized through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and an array of militant organizations, including Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Houthis. According to U.S. State Department reports and official Israeli intelligence, these groups receive substantial financial, logistical, and technical support from Tehran, empowering them to mount sustained attacks against the Israeli state and to threaten neighboring Sunni-led governments, further destabilizing the region.
The current flashpoint in the Iran-West standoff centers on the IRGC-led “axis of resistance,” a network of armed groups that allows Tehran to project power beyond its borders while pursuing deniability. Western and Israeli security officials regularly point to intercepted weapons shipments, advanced missile and drone technology transfers, and communications intercepts as evidence of the integral role Iran plays in orchestrating attacks against Israeli and U.S.-aligned interests. These developments are part of a broader struggle to define the security architecture of the Middle East, where Iran’s theocratic leadership envisions a region free from Western influence and dominance. This approach is fundamentally at odds with the Western vision of a stable, rules-based regional order, anchored by Israeli democracy and supported by partnerships with Gulf Arab states and other Western-aligned governments.
Israeli and U.S. officials argue that Iranian policy is inherently destabilizing and constitutes a direct challenge to the security of the region. The October 7th massacre, seen by Jerusalem and Western capitals as the clearest demonstration of the risks posed by unchecked Iranian-backed terrorism, involved acts of mass murder, sexual violence, mutilation, and the abduction of civilians—crimes meticulously documented by Israeli authorities and corroborated by statements from the United Nations and leading international human rights agencies. In the aftermath, Israeli operations against Hamas in Gaza have sought to degrade the militant group’s operational capabilities while highlighting the long-term risk posed by an emboldened Tehran committed to its strategy of proxy warfare. Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system, coupled with ongoing “Iron Swords” operations, have limited the impact of mass rocket and drone barrages launched by Gaza-based terrorists, even as the IDF has repeatedly emphasized efforts to protect non-combatants and restore hostages to safety.
The United States under President Donald Trump—and, more generally, across successive U.S. administrations—remains committed to supporting Israel’s right to defend itself, while maintaining pressure on Iran through economic, diplomatic, and, where necessary, military means. The “maximum pressure” campaign, featuring comprehensive sanctions and diplomatic isolation, is paired with efforts to deter further Iranian escalation, whether through direct responses to Iran-backed attacks or by preventing further proliferation of advanced weapons technology to Tehran’s proxies. Nonetheless, diplomatic efforts remain hampered by deep mistrust. The collapse of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has exacerbated regional anxiety. European governments, while often pursuing an intermediary role, have echoed U.S. concerns that Iran’s continued uranium enrichment, its expansion of missile programs, and the persistent arming of militants represent an ongoing threat to regional and global security, in direct contravention of U.N. Security Council mandates.
The Iranian public, meanwhile, faces the consequences of its leadership’s regional ambitions. Years of international sanctions, economic mismanagement, and political repression have produced recurring waves of civil unrest and protest inside the Islamic Republic. Human rights organizations, as well as the U.S. State Department, document a continuing pattern of mass detentions, abuses against women and minorities, and harsh penalties for dissent. The regime’s pattern of blaming foreign powers for domestic failings is mirrored in its messaging regarding regional conflict, in which Tehran casts itself as the leading force resisting what it labels Western imperialism and Zionist aggression. Senior officials like Velayati routinely issue statements intended to deflect criticism and justify the regime’s assertive foreign policy as a necessary defense of national and Islamic interests.
For Israel, the stakes are existential. Unlike terror groups who make the deliberate targeting of civilians a core tactic, Israel—a sovereign democracy—operates under the constant threat of rocket fire, infiltration attempts, and information warfare, all rooted in a broader ideological campaign directed from Tehran. Israeli military and political leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir, have repeatedly emphasized Israel’s commitment to upholding international law, protecting non-combatants, and pursuing every option to return hostages taken by Hamas and its affiliates. The moral and legal distinction between the actions of Israel and those of Iranian-backed terrorists is a central tenet of Western reporting, underscored by a wealth of forensic, intelligence, and eyewitness evidence.
Israel’s security doctrine, developed over decades of conflict, emphasizes swift deterrence and robust alliances with global partners, most notably the United States. Bilateral cooperation includes intelligence sharing, joint military exercises, and ongoing technological development to counter threats such as missile barrages from Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza. Recent agreements such as the Abraham Accords between Israel and several Arab states have further altered the strategic landscape, reducing the room for Iranian maneuver and drawing new fault lines in the region. Iranian rhetoric and regional interference, as periodically voiced by figures like Velayati, reflect both a genuine ideological commitment and a tactical calculus designed to maintain the regime’s relevance in an environment increasingly hostile to its ambitions.
International agencies, including the United Nations, NATO, and the European Union, continue to monitor developments closely, regularly reiterating the dangers inherent in the proliferation of Iranian-supplied missiles, drones, and training to violent non-state actors. Western analysts and policy makers agree that a durable solution to Middle East instability is inseparable from curbing Iranian influence, holding the regime accountable for terrorism, and strengthening democratic institutions in threatened states. Calls for negotiation continue to meet little success, with Iran’s leadership prioritizing regime survival and regional leverage above the economic and social welfare of its citizens. For Western audiences, the necessity of principled, fact-based journalism remains critical—countering propaganda, preserving historical truth, and exposing the strategic stakes for regional peace and the broader international order.
