When Professors Defend Iran’s Regime

 by Anna Miller

Over the last few years, we have seen how American universities have been shifting into a rhetoric that not only accepts “Death to America,” but is openly chanting the same slogans of the oppressive regime.  

Following the recent U.S.–Israel strikes targeting Iranian leadership, protests erupted across several campuses. Demonstrators set up a truck with a digital billboard displaying “Marg bar Amrika,” the Farsi phrase for “Death to America,” a slogan promoted by Iran’s regime for decades.

What was once dismissed as fringe activism is now appearing alongside something far more troubling: professors and academic commentators publicly defending Iran’s regime or justifying its retaliation against the United States.

Across multiple universities, faculty members and campus figures have used their tools of influence, such as their social media platforms to belittle the struggle of Iranians by portraying the regime as the victim. This blatant ignorance to the civilians of Iran is in addition to the regime history of violent hostility toward the United States.

At Columbia University, Iranian studies professor Hamid Dabashi has published commentary accusing the United States and Israel of attempting to force Iran into “unconditional submission,” rhetoric that reads less like critical scholarship and more like a reproduction of Tehran’s propaganda line.  

Similar narratives appear in the commentary of figures such as Professor Diana Buttu, affiliated with programs connected to the Harvard Kennedy School, who repeatedly frames Iran as the aggrieved party while glossing over the regime’s repression at home and its support for militant proxies across the Middle East.

But in some cases, the rhetoric goes even further, forsaking apologetics in favor of open advocacy of both the regime itself and the terror groups that it commands in the region. Writer and frequent campus speaker Susan Abulhawa has used her large social media presence to defend Iran’s leadership and dismiss calls to weaken the regime, portraying critics of the Islamic Republic as ignorant of Iranian society and implying that efforts to challenge the regime are misguided or illegitimate.  

That kind of rhetoric does not merely criticize Western policy. It actively shields a government that has spent decades imprisoning dissidents, executing political opponents, and openly threatening the United States and its allies.

And the apologetics are not limited to commentary about leadership or geopolitics. At the University of Wisconsin-Madison, sociology professor Samer Alatout responded to the strikes on Iran by declaring that Iranian retaliation against American military bases was “highly logical,” effectively rationalizing attacks on U.S. forces.

When professors, like Samer Alatout, and academic figures use their authority to defend or legitimize the Islamic Republic of Iran, they are reinforcing the narrative of a regime defined by repression, executions, support for militant groups, and decades of promoting “Death to America.”

That message is now being repeated on American campuses. What begins as academic framing inside the classroom does not stay there. It shapes how students understand the world, and those ideas follow them into media, policy, and public life. At that point controversial speech is normalized by Americans themselves.

University officials responded by noting that faculty social media posts represent personal views and not those of the institution. Yet that distinction does little to address the real issue. Professors are not anonymous commentators. They are educators entrusted with shaping students’ understanding of the world, and their public statements carry the weight of that authority.

The pattern extends beyond isolated remarks. At Georgetown University, Professor Jonathan A.C. Brown was placed on leave after expressing hope that Iran would carry out a “symbolic strike” on a U.S. military base. At the University of Chicago, Professor Alireza Doostdar has suggested that “the only hope for peace is the power and durability of Iranian missiles.” Others have adopted even more explicit rhetoric. Fatemeh Shams has posted profanity-laced attacks against the United States and its allies, while Behrooz Ghamari-Tabrizi has repeatedly defended the Iranian regime and downplayed or denied atrocities committed by groups aligned with it. 

Support for Iran has not appeared only among professors. At the University of Maryland, members of the Student Government Association introduced a resolution pledging “solidarity with the Islamic Republic of Iran.” The proposal condemned U.S. strikes against the regime and called for divestment from companies connected to the military operations. Meanwhile, demonstrations supporting Iran have appeared on multiple campuses, with protesters repeating slogans historically associated with the Iranian regime.  

The question facing universities is not whether professors are allowed to express political views. Academic freedom protects that right. The deeper concern is what happens after students leave the classroom. When narratives promoted by professors begin to mirror the messaging of an authoritarian regime that openly calls for America’s destruction, those ideas do not remain confined to campus debates.

American campuses must be protected from the influence of hostile foreign regimes, and that protection begins with honest intellectual standards.

Iran's government has spent decades threatening the United States, funding organizations such as Hamas and Hezb’allah, and violently suppressing its own citizens. Yet on some campuses, this regime is increasingly framed as misunderstood. Its proxies, designated terrorist organizations responsible for attacks on civilians, are recast as legitimate resistance movements. This is not education. It is a vulnerability.

When students are systematically exposed to frameworks that blur the moral line around terrorism, the campus becomes a vector for narratives that serve hostile states. Graduates carry these ideas into newsrooms, policy offices, and classrooms, where they make real decisions with real consequences.

Protecting campuses means demanding intellectual rigor and balanced inquiry. It means ensuring debate is genuine, not a cover for one-sided indoctrination. Academic freedom is not served by giving hostile ideologies unchallenged access to young minds. It is undermined by it.

That is why Protect Our Campus has been documenting exactly this since October 7th. Our mission is to expose these narratives, hold institutions accountable, and defend the intellectual integrity of higher education. The work is ongoing, and it matters.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2026/03/when_professors_defend_iran_s_regime.html