Revolution in Iran—The West Watches

Tehran, Iran traffic & skyline (Wix Stock Image)

The geopolitical landscape of the 21st century is frequently a mirror of the 20th, and almost nowhere is this more evident than in the escalating unrest within Iran. Headlines speculate on everything from an overthrow of the Ayatollah's regime to a possible return of the Pahlavi dynasty.

Iran Has a History of Mixed Secularism & Theocratic Rule

To understand the present crisis in Iran, one must look back to the pivotal shifts of the mid-20th century. During World War II, the Pahlavi family’s grip on power was challenged by a burgeoning secular movement. By 1951, the public elected Mohammad Mosaddegh, a nationalist prime minister who championed the democratization of Iran. Mosaddegh’s defining act was the nationalization of the country's oil assets, which had been controlled by the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (now BP). This move directly threatened Western interests.

Then, in 1953, the British and Americans engineered a coup, known as Operation Ajax, to depose Mosaddegh and reinstate Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the father of the current crown prince, as the Shah. Once restored to the throne, the Shah granted significant oil rights to a consortium of American, British, and Dutch companies. While this period saw a rapid push toward Westernization and modernization, the Shah's rule was increasingly perceived as tyrannical, corrupt, and subservient to foreign powers. This angered many across Iran and led to widespread resentment which united diverse groups, from secular leftists to religious hardliners, under the leadership of the Islamist cleric Ruhollah Khomeini. Then, famously, in the 1979 Iranian Revolution, Khomeini deposed the Shah, transforming a nation that had been on a secular, Western trajectory into a rigid, repressive theocracy. Today, rumors persist that the present Crown Prince, Reza Pahlavi, may be negotiating with Western powers, namely the U.S., to regain his throne in exchange for favorable oil rights.

The Reality of Ordained Power

We see images of people uniting to fight against such oppressive governmental overreach. We hear reports of untold numbers executed for their part in the rebellion. We may even feel a certain affinity for those seeking to crush the tyrannical authority over them. But, however interesting this news is, we must also be aware that this too must be filtered through the Biblical worldview that pervades through the entirety of the Christian life. And when we look to Scripture, we read, without question, that a foundational principle of Christian civic duty is found in the doctrine of ordained authority. Scripture is unequivocal: "the powers that be are ordained of God" (Romans 13:1). This reality leaves no room for the revolutionary impulse. Is there a caveat for corrupt power? No, Romans was penned under one of the most oppressive rulers in human history. Paul wrote this letter in AD 57 from Corinth, Greece, At that time, Greece was under the control of the Roman Empire, ruled by Emperor Nero, who reigned from AD 54 to 68. Nero publicly crucified Christians, fed them to lions, and even burned them as human torches. Did Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit in all his Biblical writings, advocate for rebellion or instigation of a revolution? No, in fact he insisted on submission to authority, honor to those in power, and prayer be made for leaders in all capacities. And what about aiding a nation in such a rebellion? In a 2012 conversation with Ben Ditzel of The Allied Report, the late pastor, John MacArthur, addressed the folly of Western interference in foreign uprisings.

"I think as a Christian I have a responsibility to submit to my government and to submit to those that are in authority, and I think the Scripture is very clear on that. I don’t think I have a right to rebel. I don’t think I have a right to be revolutionary." (MacArthur & Ditzel, Bible Questions and Answers, Part 59 2012)

MacArthur’s perspective, firmly rooted in Titus 3:1, provides a necessary corrective to the modern urge to "aid and abet" revolutions. He noted that even under dictators, a degree of societal order exists that prevents the total chaos that arises from anarchy. He illustrated this point by observing that in the Middle East, order was maintained by unilateral empires that checked and balanced each other. "Aiding and abetting a revolution doesn’t make any sense at all, I don’t care what the revolution is, because God produces order by those kinds of leaders," MacArthur argued.

The Fallacy of Protestors and Revolutionaries

An opposing view frequently surfaces, during these moments in history, suggesting that geopolitical movements, such as the uprising in Iran, are primary vehicles for justice. This perspective often posits that when a people risk everything to ease the afflictions of themselves and their neighbors, we are witnessing a genuine protest for justice that Christians should join and champion as a catalyst for change. This view suggests that the pursuit of democratic "rights" and the dismantling of oppressive regimes is a moral imperative that may justify even revolutionary interference or the support of secular "liberators" such as the U.S. Of note, the same should be said for uprisings here in the U.S. itself. No matter the stance held on ICE and the situation in Minneapolis, Christians are not to be joining in and championing rebellion against authority set up over them. Such a stance is flawed, from the Christian perspective, because it subordinates the sovereignty of God to human political maneuvering. It places the Christian protestor or revolutionary in a role that claims his or her desired outcome is inherently more aligned with God's will than the existing authority God has already allowed to be in place. Many Christians cry out, "What about all these people being killed in Minneapolis and Iran?" John MacArthur, in his conversation with Ben Ditzel, answered this question with a poignant reminder, "If they’d just go home and have dinner, they’ll live. If they take guns and try to kill the people in power, they’re going to die!" Furthermore, a view for revolution ignores the historical reality that revolutions almost always create a vacuum. As MacArthur warned, "into that vacuum will come the coalition of people who have the most clear and focused ideology... and the people with the most cohesive ideology and the greatest power and the greatest threat is the Muslim Brotherhood." Supporting revolution under the guise of "creating democracy" is, as MacArthur put it, "just stupidity." (MacArthur & Ditzel, Bible Questions and Answers, Part 59 2012)

The Contrast of Protest: Iran vs. the United States

We have covered the Christian's responsibility under oppressive regimes and brutal governments. But, in the same breath, it is important to also draw distinction between the current uprisings in Iran and the domestic unrest within the United States under the leadership of President Trump. In Iran, the populace faces a brutal theocracy that offers no mechanism for relief or checks and balances. They are literally dying for basic liberties that the U.S. has possessed since 1776 while being crushed by a system that offers no hope for relief from daily oppression. While not part of the Biblical worldview, it is understandable to see protests and uprising among the citizens of such a nation. Conversely, many "anti-establishment" movements in the West resort to "brute force" tactics and ad hominem attacks against a far different form of government. Far from a brutal theocracy, the U.S. is globally known to have a fully functioning constitutional system. And yet, these domestic protesters often impede traffic, harass civil servants, or cause damage to personal property, yet it remains unclear how such insubordination is intended to improve society. The tale of these two protests are not equal.

Even more bizzarely, support for oppressive regimes and leaders such as Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela, have even been seen simply as a knee-jerk reaction against the U.S. leader that took that leader out of power in early 2026. While these protestors raise claims that President Trump is close to imposing a Christian theocracy, fascist regime, or other such oppressive form of government, many simultaneously are found chanting in favor of regimes led by the theocratic Ayatollah Ali Khamenei or inherantly corrupt socialist leaders who systematically crush the very liberties these protesters use to voice their grievances. To be clear, advocacy in favor of such oppressive regimes is not called for by the Biblical mandate to yield to the powers orained by God. Yet, it does mean recognizing that even a flawed domestic authority deserves the loyal, faithful, submissive citizenship of the Biblical Christian.

The Christian Mandate: Prayer and Conscience

So what do Christians do in times of deep national distress or difficulty? The Christian response to global affliction is not political activism but intercession. According to 1 Timothy 2:1–2, believers must pray for "kings and all who are in high positions." The goal of such prayer is not a specific geopolitical outcome, sudden death to one or the other political party, or even a trade deal involving oil rights, but that "Christians are able to lead Godly, quiet, and dignified lives."

When the state refrains from putting onerous burdens on believers and leaves the church alone to do its job, the whole society ultimately benefits. The Christian functions as the "conscience of the nation" through the preaching of the Gospel, not through secular activism. Ultimately, whether the headlines concern a crown prince in exile or a protest in the United States, the Christian's hope is not found in the "Establishment" or the "Revolution." It is found in the Lordship of Christ, who remains the ultimate judge of all nations. The duty of the believer is to remain a harmless, submissive citizen of their temporal nation while maintaining an unyielding allegiance to the Kingdom of God.