The Specter of Srebrenica Over Tehran, Why Inaction on Iran is a Choice for Atrocity

The Specter of Srebrenica Over Tehran, Why Inaction on Iran is a Choice for Atrocity

The world has, for over four decades, engaged with the Islamic Republic of Iran through a labyrinth of diplomacy, sanctions, and nuclear negotiations. The calculus has often been one of realpolitik: managing a regional power, countering its proxies, and preventing it from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Yet, periodically, the façade of statecraft is violently stripped away to reveal the regime’s foundational brutality against its own people. The nationwide protests that erupted in late 2022 and the regime’s subsequent, horrific crackdown represent one of those raw moments. As Iranian activist and writer Masih Alinejad compellingly argues, the international community—and the United States in particular—now stands at a moral and strategic precipice. The familiar rituals of diplomatic concern, of “monitoring the situation,” have become not just inadequate, but complicit. The moment has come to move beyond rhetoric and explore meaningful action to support the Iranian people and disable the machinery of their repression.

The Ritual of Impotence and the Reality of Slaughter

Alinejad begins by exposing the hollow choreography of international diplomacy in the face of atrocities. Invited to brief the UN Security Council, she heard the same anodyne phrases: “We are watching. We are concerned. We condemn.” For the victims, these words are a “ritualistic” performance that ultimately allows the world to “move on.” The rulers in Tehran are masterful students of this ritual. They understand that a temporary communications blackout, combined with overwhelming violence, can often outlast the news cycle and the West’s attention span.

The scale of the violence, however, has been staggering. While Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has acknowledged “several thousand” deaths, independent reports from human rights groups and activists within Iran suggest a toll potentially reaching 16,500 or even 20,000. This is not crowd control; it is, as Alinejad describes, a “military-style assault on unarmed protesters.” Security forces, particularly the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and its affiliated Basij militia, have treated Iranian citizens as enemy combatants, gunning them down in the streets, torturing detainees, and conducting sham trials resulting in executions. The regime’s objective is clear: to terrorize the population into submission through a demonstration of absolute, merciless force.

For Alinejad, a founder of the campaign against the compulsory hijab and a target of Iranian assassination plots on U.S. soil, the personal is deeply political. Her dream, shared by “millions of my compatriots,” is to see Khamenei held accountable for crimes against humanity. This is not a call born of abstract idealism, but of visceral experience and constant contact with a grieving nation. The voices from inside Iran, she reports, are united in a plea: “we need the world to act.”

The Ghost of Betrayal and the Specter of Force

This plea is shadowed by a recent history of perceived betrayal. During the 2022-23 protests, then-President Donald Trump tweeted dramatic promises, stating the U.S. was “locked and loaded” and that “HELP IS ON ITS WAY.” That help, in any tangible form that could protect protesters from bullets, never materialized. For many Iranians, this reinforced a bitter lesson: Western powers are quick to instrumentalize their struggle for geopolitical posturing but ultimately abandon them when decisive action is required.

Alinejad now argues that the United States, and the broader international community, must move beyond empty threats and Twitter bravado. She is explicit in advocating for calibrated military action, though she is “no military planner.” Her proposal is surgical: “attacks on the infrastructure of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and the Basij militia.” The goal would not be regime change through invasion—a scenario she and most Iranians reject—but the degradation of the specific apparatus used to crush dissent. By targeting command centers, arms depots, communication networks, and training facilities belonging to the IRGC and Basij, external action could physically impair the regime’s ability to launch future massacres. It would be a strike not against Iran, but against the terrorist-designated entity (as the IRGC is classified by the U.S.) that subjugates it.

Deconstructing the Paralysis of “Sovereignty” and “Overreach”

This argument immediately confronts two powerful counter-narratives that have long paralyzed Western policy. The first is the sanctity of state sovereignty. Skeptics warn that any strike would violate Iran’s sovereignty and trigger a nationalist “rally-around-the-flag” effect. Alinejad offers a powerful rebuttal: “sovereignty comes from the will of the people, and a regime that mows down thousands of its own citizens has lost its legitimacy.” The protesters themselves have embodied this rejection, burning the flag of the Islamic Republic and waving the pre-revolutionary Lion and Sun banner. A strike aimed squarely at the instruments of domestic terror, rather than national infrastructure or symbols, might be seen by many Iranians not as an attack on their nation, but as an attack on their oppressors.

The second, more potent counter-argument is the specter of catastrophic intervention, drawing on the traumatic legacies of Iraq and Afghanistan. Critics will argue that any military action could spiral into a wider regional war, destabilizing the Middle East and dragging the U.S. into another quagmire. Alinejad does not dismiss these concerns lightly but argues they have been weaponized to create a state of permanent paralysis. This mindset, she contends, “turns failures into a permanent permission slip for every dictator watching: Kill enough people and the world will be too afraid of past mistakes to stop you.”

Moreover, she exposes the false binary at the heart of this paralysis. The debate is framed as a choice between full-scale invasion and passive indifference. This, she asserts, is “dishonest.” The Iranian people are not asking for foreign occupation; they are asking for the world to creatively employ the spectrum of options between those two poles. Inaction, she warns, is not a neutral position. It is an active choice that “gives a regime time to regroup, rebuild its machinery of repression and return with a cleaner narrative and a longer list of prisoners.”

A Menu of Precedent: Between Indifference and Invasion

To prove that other options exist, Alinejad points to a series of international responses that, while imperfect, broke cycles of violence without leading to full-scale occupation.

• Bosnia and Kosovo: In the Balkans, the world’s delayed response culminated in the Srebrenica genocide. This atrocity finally spurred a combination of NATO airstrikes (in Bosnia and later in Kosovo) and diplomatic pressure that halted the slaughter. The peace was “imperfect,” but the mass killings stopped.

• East Timor (1999): Following a violent backlash to an independence referendum, the UN Security Council authorized a limited, multinational force with a clear mandate: restore security and allow humanitarian aid. It was a focused intervention to protect civilians from militias.

• The Gambia (2017): When dictator Yahya Jammeh refused to cede power after losing an election, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) deployed troops, backed by a credible threat of force. This regional pressure ensured a peaceful transfer of power without a protracted war.

These cases are not fairy tales; they are evidence that the international community can act with precision and purpose. Conversely, Alinejad invokes the grim alternative: the graveyards of inaction. The Rwandan genocide is remembered not for “interventionist overreach,” but for “cowardice.” The ongoing atrocities against the Rohingya in Myanmar and the historical horrors of Darfur stand as “stain[s] on the international community for its lack of decisive action.”

She also recalls a specific moment of American hesitation: President Barack Obama’s decision in 2009 to offer only verbal support to the Green Movement protesters, fearing that stronger action would undermine them or jeopardize nuclear negotiations. Obama has since expressed regret. This historical footnote serves as a warning: opportunities to align with the Iranian people’s desire for freedom are rare and precious. Squandering them has long-term consequences.

The Path Forward: A Coherent Policy of Support

So, what does “acting” entail, if not invasion? Alinejad’s call for targeted strikes against IRGC infrastructure is one end of a spectrum of possibilities. A coherent policy must be multi-pronged:

1. Diplomatic and Legal Isolation: Leading a global effort to expel Iran from international bodies, and vigorously pursuing cases against regime officials in international courts for crimes against humanity.

2. Material and Technological Support: Providing protesters and civil society with the secure communication tools, satellite internet access, and other resources to overcome regime blackouts and organize safely.

3. Enhanced Sanctions with Precision: Moving beyond broad economic sanctions that hurt the populace to a relentless, forensic targeting of the assets and international business networks of the IRGC, Basij, and judiciary officials directly involved in repression.

4. A Credible Deterrent Threat: Making it unequivocally clear, through military positioning and declaratory policy, that the systematic mass murder of protesters will trigger direct consequences against the perpetrator entities.

5. Amplification of Iranian Voices: Using global platforms to center the demands and narratives of the Iranian opposition, breaking the regime’s monopoly on the story.

The arrival of a U.S. aircraft carrier strike group in the region, as Alinejad notes, provides a tangible option. It need not be used for a massive bombing campaign. Its presence could enforce a no-fly zone over protest hubs to prevent regime helicopters from firing on crowds, or it could be the platform for the precise, limited strikes she envisions.

The fundamental question Alinejad poses is one of moral and strategic clarity. The Islamic Republic is not a normal state; it is a revolutionary-theocratic entity whose survival depends on domestic terror and regional destabilization. A policy that seeks only to manage its external behavior while ignoring its internal war against its own people is inherently flawed and destined to fail. Supporting the Iranian people’s struggle for freedom is not merely a humanitarian imperative; it is the most profound strategic blow that can be struck against the regime’s core nature.

History’s judgment is already being written in the blood of Iran’s streets. As the body count rises, the diplomatic incantation of “We are monitoring the situation” will echo not as prudence, but as an epitaph for Western resolve. The moment has indeed come. The choice is no longer between action and inaction, but between taking a stand with the Iranian people or being complicit in the consolidation of a murderous theocracy. Inaction, as Masih Alinejad reminds us with devastating simplicity, has a body count.

Q&A: The Case for Action in Iran

Q1: What is the core criticism Masih Alinejad levels against the international diplomatic response to Iran’s crackdown?
A: Alinejad criticizes the international response as a hollow, “ritualistic” performance of impotence. Diplomats repeat phrases like “We are monitoring,” “We are concerned,” and “We condemn,” but then simply move on. She argues that the Iranian regime understands and exploits this cycle, using temporary blackouts and overwhelming violence, knowing global attention will fade. This ritual, she contends, fails to meaningfully address atrocities and ultimately signals to Tehran that it can act with impunity.

Q2: Why does Alinejad argue that concerns about violating Iranian “sovereignty” are misplaced?
A: She fundamentally redefines sovereignty, arguing it derives from “the will of the people,” not from a state’s coercive power. A regime that massacres thousands of its own citizens has, in her view, forfeited its legitimacy and moral claim to sovereignty. She points to the protesters themselves, who burned the Islamic Republic’s flag and waved the pre-revolutionary banner, as evidence that the people reject the regime’s authority. Therefore, action against the repressive apparatus (IRGC, Basij) could be seen as siding with the people’s will, not violating their nation’s sovereignty.

Q3: How does Alinejad address the fear that military action could lead to another quagmire like Iraq or Afghanistan?
A: She argues that the traumatic legacy of past interventions has been weaponized to create a state of paralysis. This mindset gives dictators a “permanent permission slip” to commit atrocities, knowing the world is afraid to act. More importantly, she rejects the false binary between full-scale invasion and passive indifference. She is not advocating for an occupation but for focused, surgical actions—like disabling IRGC repression infrastructure—that fall well short of a ground war. She insists the debate must move beyond this paralyzing dichotomy.

Q4: What historical examples does Alinejad provide to show that focused international action can work?
A: She cites several precedents:

• Bosnia/Kosovo: NATO airstrikes eventually halted ethnic slaughter after the Srebrenica massacre.

• East Timor (1999): A UN-authorized multinational force with a limited mandate (restore security, allow aid) stopped militia violence.

• The Gambia (2017): Regional pressure from ECOWAS, backed by a threat of force, forced a dictator to step down after a lost election.
  These cases demonstrate that the international community has a spectrum of tools between “invasion” and “indifference” that can be effective in protecting civilians and altering oppressive regimes’ calculations.

Q5: According to the analysis, what would a coherent U.S./international policy of support for the Iranian people look like beyond military options?
A: A multi-pronged policy would include:

1. Diplomatic/Legal: Expelling Iran from international forums and pursuing regime officials for crimes against humanity in international courts.

2. Material Support: Providing protesters with secure communication technology and tools to bypass regime internet blackouts.

3. Precision Sanctions: Relentlessly targeting the financial networks and global assets of the IRGC, Basij, and judiciary officials involved in repression.

4. Credible Deterrence: Clearly stating that mass killings will trigger direct consequences against the perpetrator entities.

5. Amplification: Using global platforms to center the voices and demands of the Iranian opposition, breaking the regime’s narrative control.