“How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing!” — Neville Chamberlain, Sept. 27, 1938.
“You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.” — Attributed to Winston Churchill, Oct. 5, 1938.
Policymakers have been searching for the elusive “moderates” in the Iranian regime for decades. They’re like unicorns: much discussed but never discovered. We need to be clear-eyed about what this regime is all about: the destruction of everything we, as Americans, hold dear. — Mike Pompeo, April 17, 2026.
As the conflict in Iran drags on, perhaps longer than some of its supporters had initially expected, it appears that understanding of what the founding rationale for its conduct has become increasingly diffuse. Therefore, it is imperative to underscore what the stakes in this conflict are, and why nothing less than the total capitulation of the theocrats in Tehran will suffice as an acceptable outcome.
A daunting historical comparison
Arguably, the most persuasive approach to driving this home is to document the chilling parallels between the scourge of despotism in Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 1940s and that in Iran in recent decades, since the 1977 Islamist Revolution.
Comparisons between the Nazi regime in Germany in the 1930-40s and the radical Islamist regime in Iran began almost immediately after the installation of totalitarian theocracy in Tehran.
Although initial comparisons were tentative and hesitant, as time passed, and the appalling nature of the Iranian regime began to emerge, these became increasingly robust and unequivocal.
Perhaps the best way to convey the ominous similarities between the two regimes is by juxtaposing the two principal pillars on which the respective regimes rest. The Schutzstaffel (SS)—on all its oppressive component organs—in Germany; and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)—on all its repressive constituent wings in Iran.
Even a cursory perusal of the structural and functional nature of these two organizations will—despite inevitable differences due to the decades that separated them—reveal chilling similarities, both in their brutal modus operandi and their totalitarian ideological foundations.
Berlin then vs Tehran today
In both Berlin and Tehran, focus was typically on:
(a) A fusion of religion/ideology –race-based superiority in the case of Germany and Shi’a Islamist doctrine in the case of Iran;
(b) Mass mobilization by means of regime-generated propaganda, regime-organized rallies and demonstrations, mobilization of youth movements (such as the Hitler Youth in Germany, and the youth sections of the Basij in Iran;
(c) The use of powerful paramilitary loyalists such as the SS and the SA (Sturmabteilung or Stormtroopers) in Germany, and the IRGC and the Basij in Iran;
(d) Both in Germany and Iran, total, unswerving loyalty was demanded of the citizens, to the Führer in Germany, and to the Supreme Leader in Iran
(e) In both Germany and Iran, the regime established parallel systems outside the conventional national structures—i.e., a state-within-a-state—with greater allegiance to the leaders/regime than to the state/nation—such as the SS in Germany and the IRGC in Iran:
(f) Accordingly, in both Germany and Iran, the regime maintained armed organizations—the Waffen SS and the IRGC, respectively—which were at the behest of the regime and were separate from the conventional military—the Wehrmacht in Germany and the Artesh in Iran.
Berlin vs Tehran (cont.)
In both Berlin and Tehran, the underlying reason why these parallel militaries were established is rooted in the distrust harbored by the leaders of the two regimes towards the conventional armed forces. Accordingly, in both cases, the purpose of the creation of these parallel paramilitaries was to prevent coups and ensure the continued survival of the regime.
In summation, the regimes in both Nazi-Germany and in today’s Islamist-Iran share overarching characteristics that underpin the similarities between the two.
They both:
• Maintained brutal totalitarian regimes with scant, if any, regard for human rights.
• Were based on absolute loyalty to the regime, rather than to the state.
• Engaged in brutal political enforcement to quash public dissent.
• Maintained and relied on parallel power structures, including armed forces.
• Had expansionist ambitions, which they endeavored to fulfill by means of proxies—with Germany utilizing like-minded regimes in France (Vichy) and Italy (under the Fascist government of Mussolini), puppet governments (such as Croatia, including Bosnia) and auxiliary organizations that shared the Nazi credo across Central and Eastern Europe;; while Islamist Iran activates allied/puppet regimes (the Houthi government in North Yemen, and Hezbollah-dominated Lebanon) as well as pro-Iranian armed organization/militias from Lebanon via Gaza (Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad) to Iraq (Kata’ib Hezbollah and other pro-Iranian Shia militias.
But arguably, the factor that distinguishes them the most is the incandescent enmity toward Jews, and the unwavering desire to eradicate them—as an ethno-religious entity in the case of the Nazis and as a sovereign political entity in the case of the Ayatollahs.
Preemption: Trump’s reaction
In view of the preceding analysis, the feigned outrage at the offensive launched against Iran appears distinctly out of place. Indeed, while nervously clutching their pearls, the critics of the law seemed to have lost sight of both the explicitly articulated intentions of Tehran and the historical parallels with the events that precipitated World War II. This is especially concerning when it comes from countries that have experienced the ravages and ruin at the hands of brutal tyrants.
One can only wonder how many lives could have been spared and how much destruction and destitution could have been avoided had Churchill’s clarion call as to the dangers of trying to appease the likes of Hitler, the futility of trying to do so, and the disaster such endeavors leave in their wake.
Policymakers have spent decades searching for “moderates” within Iran’s ruling elite. They remain elusive—discussed often, discovered never. As former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo recently noted, clarity is required regarding the nature of the regime in Tehran and the threat it poses.
As the conflict with Iran drags on—perhaps longer than some initially anticipated—understanding of its underlying rationale appears to be eroding. It is therefore imperative to restate what is at stake, and why anything short of the total capitulation of the ruling theocracy is unlikely to constitute a viable outcome.
A compelling way to grasp the magnitude of the threat is through historical comparison. The parallels between Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 1940s and the Islamist regime in Iran since the 1979 revolution are difficult to ignore. While early comparisons were tentative, they have grown increasingly stark as the character of the Iranian regime has become more evident.
At the core of both systems stand powerful instruments of repression: the SS in Nazi Germany and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran. Despite differences shaped by time and context, both organizations exhibit striking similarities in structure, function and ideological purpose. Each serves as a regime-loyal force tasked with enforcing totalitarian control and suppressing dissent.
In both Berlin then and Tehran today, several defining features emerge. These include the fusion of ideology and governance—racial supremacy in Germany and Shi’ite Islamist doctrine in Iran; the mobilization of mass support through propaganda and orchestrated public displays; and the reliance on paramilitary loyalists such as the SS and SA in Germany and the IRGC and Basij in Iran.
Both regimes demanded absolute loyalty—not to the state, but to a supreme leader. Both constructed parallel systems of power, effectively creating a state within a state, designed to ensure regime survival and prevent internal challenges, including military coups. These structures operated alongside, and often above, conventional national institutions.
In both cases, separate armed forces were maintained outside the traditional military framework—the Waffen SS in Germany and the IRGC in Iran—reflecting deep mistrust of regular armed forces and reinforcing the regime’s grip on power.
Beyond structural similarities, both regimes have exhibited hallmark characteristics of totalitarian rule: suppression of dissent, disregard for human rights, and expansionist ambitions pursued through proxies and allied entities.
While Nazi Germany relied on aligned regimes and auxiliary movements across Europe, Iran has cultivated a network of proxies and allied groups across the Middle East, from Lebanon and Gaza to Iraq and Yemen.
Yet perhaps the most chilling commonality lies in their hostility toward Jews. For the Nazis, it was an effort to eradicate Jews as a people; for Iran’s rulers, it is the declared objective of eliminating the Jewish state.
Against this backdrop, criticism of military action against Iran appears misplaced. The regime’s intentions have been repeatedly articulated, and history offers a sobering lesson on the consequences of ignoring such threats.
One cannot help but consider how different the course of the 20th century might have been had early warnings about Nazi Germany been heeded. The cost of delay, denial and appeasement was catastrophic. The question now is whether that lesson has truly been learned.
