The Terrorist State

The modern international system lacks a clear designation for what should be called a Terrorist State. While international law deals with terrorism and state responsibility, it stops short of applying a legal label to regimes that define themselves not merely by repression or aggression, but by the use of terror as a core instrument of rule and ideology. This gap leaves the global community without the vocabulary—or the policy tools—to confront regimes like Iran for what they truly are.

Iran is not simply a repressive theocracy or a regional aggressor. Since its Islamic Revolution in 1979, it has positioned itself as the vanguard of a transnational mission to remake the Muslim world in its own image. That mission is not economic or territorial, but ideological. It is rooted in a medieval, absolutist religious worldview that divides the world between believers and infidels, and that seeks to export the revolution by any means necessary—often through violence. Iran does not merely support terrorism; it defines itself through it.

What distinguishes a Terrorist State is not just the support it gives to militant groups, but its ideological commitment to political violence, its active sponsorship or direct engagement in terrorism beyond its borders, and its rejection of the legitimacy of the international system itself. In Iran’s case, this includes funding, training, and directing groups like Hezbollah and Hamas; open calls for the destruction of Israel; and a constitutional framework that enshrines the export of its revolution as a national duty.

Unlike other authoritarian regimes that may use violence internally, Iran wields terrorism as a tool of foreign policy, and it does so with doctrinal purpose. This sets it apart not just from democracies, but even from other autocracies. It does not participate in the international community in good faith because it does not recognize its legitimacy. To Iran’s leadership, institutions like the United Nations are products of an infidel world order that must be resisted and ultimately overthrown.

Given these facts, we need to articulate a clear, international definition of a Terrorist State—not just as a rhetorical flourish, but as a formal classification. Such a designation should be based on clear criteria: (1) a regime’s ideological commitment to violence as a central political tool, (2) its systematic support for terrorism beyond its borders, and (3) its rejection of sovereign legitimacy and international norms. Iran meets all three criteria.

Labeling a regime a Terrorist State would carry consequences: diplomatic isolation, expulsion from international organizations, global sanctions, and legal accountability for its leadership. But more than that, it would provide moral and strategic clarity. We cannot confront a threat we refuse to name. The inability—or unwillingness—of the international system to call Iran what it is has emboldened its leadership and endangered its neighbors. It's time to stop treating Iran like a normal country, and start treating it like the threat it openly declares itself to be.