As the United States continues its military campaign against Iranian regime targets, a growing strategic debate is emerging in Washington: how to win the support of the Iranian people while pressuring their government. Analysts argue that current policies, particularly broad immigration restrictions, risk repeating historical mistakes by conflating the population with its rulers.
A History of Misaligned Support
Iranian political memory is long, shaped by centuries of navigating foreign influence. Historically, Iran sought partnerships with smaller or seemingly disinterested powers—like Austria for military modernization or Belgium for financial organization—to counter British and Russian ambitions. The U.S. initially gained favor by assisting with sovereignty in the early 20th century, a reputation that allowed even a wartime military presence during World War II to be tolerated.
That goodwill evaporated in the 1950s when Washington shifted from supporting Iranian sovereignty to direct political interference, culminating in the 1953 coup and unwavering support for the Shah. This pivot, scholars note, transformed the U.S. from a perceived guardian of independence into a pillar of the dictatorship, fueling the anti-American sentiment that the Islamic Republic later harnessed.
Current Policies Echo Past Errors
Today, analysts warn the Trump administration is making a similar error. Last June, President Trump suspended entry for most Iranian immigrants and non-immigrants. By January, the ban expanded to include even spouses and children of U.S. citizens, with the State Department halting nearly all visa issuance. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services also froze applications for status changes from Iranians already in the country.
While restrictions on members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and relatives of senior officials are widely seen as justified, the blanket ban on ordinary citizens is viewed as strategically flawed. It treats the entire population as hostile, despite widespread opposition to the regime within Iran. This approach mirrors what Secretary of State Marco Rubio has criticized as the "Venezuela model," which fails to distinguish between a dictatorship and those struggling under it.
A Strategic Opportunity
Ending the broad visa ban, argue American Enterprise Institute scholars Stan Veuger and Michael Rubin, would send a powerful signal that America sees the Iranian people as allies. The symbolic weight would be amplified precisely because it would come from an administration known for restrictive immigration policies and during an ongoing armed conflict. Such a move would directly counter the regime's narrative of American hostility.
The current visa process itself presents an anomaly. The U.S. allows the Islamic Republic to operate a de facto consulate—an "interest section" in the Pakistani Embassy—staffed by regime-appointed, dual-citizen Iranians. When the Bush administration sought reciprocal visa-issuing capabilities in Tehran to spare Iranians trips to third countries, the regime refused. It understood the damaging optics of long lines of citizens seeking to leave.
By maintaining broad bans, the U.S. effectively does the regime's "dirty work," controlling a population the mullahs wish to keep isolated. A more effective strategy, the analysts propose, would be to appoint a consul-general for Tehran now, someone prepared to establish operations immediately upon a change in government, while simultaneously lifting restrictions on ordinary Iranians.
This recalibration would recognize that the primary obstacle for Iranians seeking U.S. visas has always been their own government, not American policy. As the administration manages the aftermath of its military actions, including the recent declaration of victory in Operation Epic Fury and Tehran's rejection of ceasefire terms, and navigates domestic pressures like the stalled DHS funding deal, a targeted shift on visas could be a low-cost, high-impact diplomatic tool. It would align with the strategic need to separate the Iranian people from their rulers, a lesson underscored by decades of fraught bilateral history.
