The case for foreign intervention in Iran

By: Luis Fleischman - 05/02/2026

Share:     

As with many contemporary challenges, the argument for foreign intervention in Iran has a clear precedent: NATO's intervention in the former Yugoslavia against the regime of Slobodan Milošević.

That regime did not pose a direct military threat to NATO. The intervention was, rather, moral and humanitarian, undertaken in response to the mass violence, ethnic cleansing, and a campaign of systematic brutality that followed the disintegration of multinational Yugoslavia.

These interventions marked a turning point in international politics. They legitimized the principle that the protection of civilian populations can prevail over absolute national sovereignty and eroded the traditional distinction between internal repression and international conflict when fundamental human rights are at stake.

In 1995, NATO launched Operation Deliberate Force, a sustained air campaign against Bosnian Serb military targets. Four years later, in 1999, NATO conducted Operation Allied Force, attacking Serbian military infrastructure and regime assets in Kosovo to protect the Albanian civilian population from mass killings.

These actions compelled Serbia to negotiate the Dayton Accords, ended the Bosnian War, and forced the withdrawal of Serbian forces from Kosovo. The Milošević regime eventually collapsed. Although the region continues to face political, ethnic, and institutional challenges, it has not experienced large-scale civil or interstate wars since then.

It is worth noting that this intervention model was replicated in Libya in 2011 and culminated in the fall of Colonel Gaddafi (with the support of a UN Security Council resolution) but it has not been applied in other humanitarian catastrophes — such as those that occurred in Syria, Sudan or Nigeria — where the international response has been largely limited to economic sanctions rather than military action.

Could the case of the former Yugoslavia be repeated in Iran?

Iran presents a compelling opportunity to revive the Balkan precedent.

Current tensions between the United States and Europe could hinder transatlantic coordination. Ideally, the US administration would be able to persuade its European allies to participate in a targeted air campaign against regime military bases and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

Like the Milošević regime, the Iranian theocracy has perpetrated mass killings against its own population, murdering tens of thousands of people in a matter of days. Some observers have compared these atrocities to Babi Yar, where more than 30,000 Jews were murdered by the Nazis in 1941. Imagine, that's the same number of victims that the Argentine military junta claimed during its seven years in power, but in a period of just two days. From a human rights perspective, the moral argument requires little explanation.

Unlike the Milošević regime, however, Iran poses a direct and persistent threat beyond its borders. The Islamic Republic destabilizes the Middle East, threatens Israel, and jeopardizes Western interests, including those of the United States, Europe, and Latin America. In Europe, Iran's criminal and terrorist activities are widely documented. In Latin America, Iran and Hezbollah maintain a deeply entrenched presence.

If NATO is unwilling to intervene, the United States and Israel should not rule out acting independently. Iran’s proxy forces—the pro-Iranian militias in Iraq and Syria, as well as the Houthis in Yemen—have repeatedly attacked U.S. forces and U.S. allies, including Saudi Arabia, and threaten U.S. partners throughout the Persian Gulf.

If the United States chooses not to intervene, Israel may have no option but to act alone. From the Israeli perspective, a political solution in Gaza and the disarmament of Hamas will remain impossible as long as the Iranian regime continues to arm, finance, and direct its allied groups. Furthermore, Israel cannot be expected to continue, as it has for the past two decades, enduring the persistent threat posed by the advancing Iranian nuclear program and its sponsorship of terrorism on its borders.

It goes without saying that a nuclear-armed Iran would constitute a grave global threat, triggering regional proliferation and dramatically increasing the risk of large-scale war.

There are multiple courses of action—by NATO, by the United States and Israel, or by Israel alone. What is beyond doubt, however, is that for the sake of the Iranian people, regional stability, and global security, the Ayatollahs' regime must come to an end.

«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».