Democracy as a Shield: Examining Legitimacy in US, Israel, and Iran

Democracy is often put forward to show moral legitimacy in war, whereas Iran's regime rests on various political, religious, and historical foundations. However, democracy itself is not the enemy; its misuse is the main problem.

For decades, Western political discourse has linked legitimacy solely to elections—a count of votes on a specific day, certified by institutions operating within systems driven by vast economic power. The result is alarming: legitimacy has become merely procedural rather than moral.

In the United States, democracy operates within a political economy deeply influenced by corporate investment, lobbyist structures, and media ownership concentrated in the hands of a few. Public opinion there is not just informed; it is systematically engineered. Electoral competition exists, but only within the lines drawn by wealth and institutional continuity.

But when Donald Trump wins an election, his legitimacy is considered full and absolute. Criminal misconduct charges or accusations of constitutional violations against him hold no weight. His policies might violate international humanitarian law, or his administration's military actions might result in civilian deaths abroad, but this is overlooked.

He is legitimate because the vote count went in his favor.

The premise here is clear: democracy automatically sanctifies power. But electoral success does not neutralize war crimes. It does not erase violations of international law. And it does not transform controversial policies into moral truths.

Democracy is valuable. But it is not a moral restraint against atrocity.

Israel's 'Democratic Shield'

This branding is nowhere clearer than in Israel.

Israel's claim as the “only democracy in the Middle East” has long served as its diplomatic shield. This phrase is used not just as a political description but as a shield against scrutiny.

Despite facing international legal action and accusations regarding the Gaza genocide, Benjamin Netanyahu continues to present Israel's democratic structure as proof of its moral standing. Elections are cited as proof of legitimacy. Parliamentary debates are put forward as evidence of healthy political balance.

But democracy does not legitimize military occupation. It does not validate collective punishment. It does not forgive grave violations of international humanitarian law. And it does not make genocide acceptable.

The problem is not that Israel holds elections. The problem is how the language of democracy is used to sideline genocide accusations and redefine military aggression as the conduct of a civilized state defending itself.

Since World War II, democracy has often been used rhetorically to justify regime changes, invasions, and wars of resistance. Iraq was invaded in the name of “liberation.” Afghanistan was occupied under the banner of “freedom.” Interventions in Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East have been framed as attempts to defend democratic values.

The problem is not democracy. The problem is “democratic exceptionalism” (the belief that a state's electoral structure grants it moral immunity).

Iran's Narrative

The debate surrounding the war on Iran is also shaped by this same logic.

Iran is constantly portrayed as illegitimate because it does not conform to Western liberal democratic standards. Calls for regime change are presented not just as strategic imperatives but as moral obligations.

Critics of Trump or Netanyahu often operate within this same framework. They may oppose specific policies, but they accept the broader premise that “Western democracies possess inherent moral authority, and non-Western systems must prove their legitimacy.”

This perspective is fundamentally flawed.

When one's moral supremacy is assumed, civilian casualties become unfortunate but tolerable collateral damage. Blockades that devastate economies become tools for enforcing discipline. Military buildups become principled defense.

International law becomes selective—binding on adversaries, flexible for allies.

When the language of democracy is weaponized, it turns into a linguistic shield behind which power operates without accountability.

Iran's Legitimacy

To understand Iran's resilience, one must look beyond the superficial picture.

Iran is not a liberal democracy in the Western sense. But neither is it a simple autocracy sustained only by force. Its legitimacy is driven by a multi-layered political system rooted in history, religion, and institutional design.

At its apex is the Supreme Leader, chosen by the Assembly of Experts, a constitutional body composed of elected Islamic jurists. This assembly is itself elected through nationwide elections and holds the authority to appoint and supervise the Supreme Leader.

This structure reflects the principle of Velayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Jurist). In Shia political thought, this principle links religious authority with political oversight, emerging from both jurisprudential tradition and revolutionary ideology.

However, Iran's system is not solely run by religious leaders.

The President is chosen by popular vote. The Parliament (Majlis) is elected. Political factions compete within certain constitutional parameters. Institutions like the Guardian Council oversee laws and elections to ensure constitutional and ideological continuity.

Critics argue these mechanisms limit pluralism. Supporters claim they preserve unity and sovereignty.

Regardless of one's stance, legitimacy in Iran comes from multiple sources:

• Revolutionary legitimacy derived from the Islamic Revolution of 1979.

• Religious legitimacy based on Shia jurisprudence.

• Electoral legitimacy gained through continuous popular participation.

• Nationalist legitimacy strengthened by resistance against foreign pressure.

These forms do not mirror Western liberal frameworks. But legitimacy is contingent on cultural and historical context. It is not a single universal truth applicable everywhere.

Inside Iran, these structures have garnered sufficient acceptance to maintain political continuity despite extreme external pressure.

Survival as Proof

For over four decades, Iran has endured a devastating war with Iraq, decades of sanctions, economic isolation, cyberattacks, assassinations of senior officials, and repeated military threats.

States lacking structural legitimacy collapse under such pressure. They fracture internally or disintegrate institutionally.

But Iran did not.

This does not mean there is consensus on everything. There have been protests. There are political divisions. Economic grievances are real.

But legitimacy is not the absence of dissent. It is the presence of sufficient cohesion.

When external conflict intensifies, national unity often strengthens. In times of existential crisis, people unite behind sovereignty, even while criticizing governance.

Western discourse often assumes that increasing pressure will inevitably lead to regime collapse in Iran. But this assumption has been proven wrong repeatedly.

The Question of Legitimacy

The debate here is not democracy versus non-democracy. It is authenticity versus deception.

Democracy is a meaningful system of governance when it operates transparently and within the rule of law. But when the brand of democracy is used to justify war, shield leaders from accountability, or normalize violations of international law, it becomes an instrument of power.

The United States and Israel advance electoral legitimacy to morally justify military aggression. Iran, on the other hand, derives its legitimacy from a hybrid structure combining religion, revolution, and republican institutions.

One system is marketed globally. The other is globally delegitimized.

Yet, its continued existence speaks its own story.

Ramzy Baroud is an American-Palestinian journalist, media consultant, author, and internationally published columnist. He is an editor for The Palestine Chronicle (1999–present), former Managing Editor of Middle East Eye in London, former Editor-in-Chief of The Brunei Times, and former Deputy Managing Editor of Al Jazeera English.