To the Editors:
Oberlin College’s March 12 teach-in on Iran, organized by the Oberlin chapter of the Young Democratic Socialists of America, featured professors from the Departments of Religion, Politics, History, and Comparative American Studies. Based on the account provided by The Oberlin Review, the speakers misrepresented some key facts about the recent conflict between Iran, the U.S., and Israel and omitted important context. One speaker “argued that Israeli leaders including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were responsible for shifting their nation toward enmity with Iran, culminating in the recent attacks.” Another speaker “argued that western imperialism and interference in the nation had shaped the history that led to today’s conflict” (“YDSA Hosts Teach-in On Iranian History in Wake of U.S., Israeli Attacks,” The Oberlin Review, Mar. 13, 2026). Such statements convey a monochromatic view of the current conflict, potentially absolving the Iranian regime of agency and responsibility. Moreover, they could be misinterpreted to suggest that the U.S. is waging “Israel’s war,” a claim increasingly widespread both on the far right and far left.
The roots of the current conflict with Iran are far more complex. The conflict with Iran is part of a larger geopolitical chessboard, involving Iran and its regional proxies aligned with China and Russia on one side, and the U.S. with Israel along with its other Middle Eastern allies on the other. The teach-in offered little opportunity to appreciate this deeper historical context. It also failed to emphasize the Islamic Republic of Iran’s egregious human rights record, including the two-day crackdown of Jan. 8–9, 2026, where a reported 30,000 protestors may have been killed, or Iran’s support for Hamas, the militant group responsible for the Oct. 7, 2023 attack, resulting in the murder of 1,200 Israelis, primarily civilians, and the abduction of 251 hostages, including children. When academic discussions downplay the human rights abuses of authoritarianism, it is worth asking what assumptions are shaping the analysis.
Among the deemphasized facts at the teach-in is that since 1979, Iran’s leaders, beginning with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, have made the destruction of Israel a central pillar of the regime’s ideology. In 2017, for instance, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei publicized a countdown clock that projected Israel’s destruction by 2040. Iran has also developed a sophisticated cyber apparatus to disseminate virulent antisemitism and Holocaust denial worldwide, constituting an affront to human dignity and universal values. Moreover, Iran has organized numerous terror plots targeting Jewish and Israeli individuals and institutions, as well as Iranian dissidents. Iran’s support of extremist militant groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which are dedicated to Israel’s destruction, deserves to be highlighted. Hamas’ founding 1988 charter explicitly called for the killing of Jews and the destruction of Israel. In this context, the widespread slogan that “antizionism is not antisemitism” can be deeply misleading.
Iran’s destabilizing role extends well beyond Israel. Through its network of proxy militias, Iran has expanded its footprint across the Middle East and has been linked to attacks that have killed and wounded numerous American soldiers and personnel in the region. After the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iran embedded itself in the country’s political and militia networks, gaining significant influence over parts of its economy, its military, and its political system. It and its proxies also played a decisive role in Syria, supporting the Assad regime in a brutal civil war that claimed more than half a million lives and displaced more than 13 million people. Iran’s reach has extended to the U. S., too. Former national security advisor John Bolton recently noted on 60 Minutes that attempts to assassinate senior U.S. officials, including himself and the U.S. President on American soil, nearly amounted to acts of war. Iran’s impact has also been deeply felt in the war in Ukraine, where it supplied Russia with weapons that were used to attack Ukrainian cities and infrastructure. This has prompted Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy to call for stronger actions against Iran.
The teach-in argued that the Sunni–Shiite divide was being exploited by U.S. intervention and imperialism, an interpretation that deemphasizes the regime’s own agency and the centuries-old origins of that schism. Tehran has repeatedly pursued its own revolutionary ambitions against its Sunni neighbors and exploited sectarian divisions when convenient. At the same time, it has demonstrated a willingness to bridge those divisions when it serves its strategic goals. It has done so by cultivating alliances with Sunni actors like Hamas and, at times, elements of the Muslim Brotherhood. These relationships are transactional, reflecting Tehran’s pursuit of regional influence rather than ideological alignment, and they were instrumental in supporting the Oct. 7 assault against Israel, among many other attacks.
U.S. intervention in the Middle East has often been controversial and, at times, deeply flawed. Still, reducing the situation to a story of American or Israeli aggression ignores the reality of many Iranians: that their own government has been the main source of the country’s suffering for four decades. Observers may debate the legality or wisdom of war or sanctions, but for many Iranians, the struggle is moral — between a repressive totalitarian regime and citizens seeking freedom.
The purpose of a teach-in on any issue of importance should be to expose students to different perspectives and provide deeper historical context. Judging by the report in The Oberlin Review, the recent teach-in fell short of that standard.
– Veljko Vujacic, Professor of Sociology
