The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) recently released an open letter to the American people. It is an important document on the irradicable link between morality and peace.
1. A Moral Document, Not a Legal Brief
The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps’ open letter to the American people is, before anything else, a moral document. It does not rest its case on Security Council resolutions, treaty provisions, or the fine print of self-defense doctrine. It rests on a simpler and more demanding claim: that a nation has the right to control its own affairs, and that attacking it because it refuses foreign domination is a moral crime. The letter’s legal language is real—it speaks of “a war, in violation of international law”—but the law is not where its argument lives. Its argument lives in the description of what was attacked and who was killed.
The letter opens with a salutation that establishes its moral register immediately: “We begin this letter by saluting the noble souls of God’s greatest prophets—Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad, may His peace and blessings be upon them all.” This is not the opening of a military communiqué. It is the opening of an appeal addressed to a shared humanity, grounded in the shared prophets of the Abrahamic traditions. The letter is written to “the honorable people of the United States of America—the scholars, the students, and the members of the media,” not to a government or a state.
The letter’s foundational moral claim is that Iran was attacked not because ordinary Iranians threatened Americans, but because Iran refused to submit to foreign control. The letter makes this claim by asking why the United States has failed for five decades to restore its domination over Iran. The word is not “influence” or “containment.” It is domination. And the letter’s answer is that Iran’s refusal to accept domination is the reason for the war.
This is a moral argument, not a legal one. It does not ask whether the war satisfied Article 51 of the U.N. Charter. It asks whether a nation that has done nothing to another nation deserves to be bombed because it will not submit. The letter’s answer is unmistakable, and it is grounded in a principle it states plainly: “The Quran teaches us to neither oppress nor succumb to oppression.” This is the moral spine of the entire letter. A nation that succumbs to oppression has failed a moral duty. A nation that resists oppression, even at great cost, has done what morality requires.
2. Minab: The Moral Center of the Letter
The letter’s moral argument becomes concrete in Minab. The attack on the school is not a passing reference. It is the event the letter returns to again and again, the event that gives the war its human face.
The letter states the facts in its second paragraph: “Seven months ago, the U.S. military, launched a war, in violation of international law, against Iran by attacking an elementary school in Minab, murdering 168 innocent schoolchildren along with their teachers. Simultaneously, they attacked the offices of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Imam Sayyid Ali Khamenei, martyring His Eminence and several members of his family, including his 14-month-old granddaughter.”
The figure of 168 schoolchildren is not a statistic in the letter. It is a moral accusation. The letter returns to Minab when it asks its American readers to understand why Iranians are not intimidated by American power: “If you want to understand why the Iranians are not intimidated by the extreme brutality of the American war machine after witnessing the mass killing of the children of Minab Elementary School and the assassination of their leader, you must read the tragedy of Karbala.”
The letter places Minab within a larger pattern: “To date, the war has claimed the lives of more than 3600 Iranians, the vast majority of them civilians, including 400 children. Eight universities, three hospitals, and eight schools have been bombed.” These are not abstractions. Each number is a person, a family, a community. The letter’s moral claim is that these deaths are the predictable result of a system in which powerful states may attack weaker countries while ordinary people suffer the consequences.
The letter’s most powerful moral passage comes near the end, when it turns the question back on its American readers directly: “Look to your conscience. Would any of you like to see 300,000 homes in American cities reduced to rubble, as Israel has done in Gaza and Jenin? How would you feel if dozens of American villages were bombed into oblivion, as Israel has done in southern Lebanon? How would you react if an enemy attacked an elementary school in the U.S. and killed all the schoolchildren, as the U.S. military did to a school in Minab?”
This is the moral heart of the letter. It does not argue from law or strategy. It argues from conscience. It asks Americans to imagine their own children in Minab, their own homes in Gaza, their own villages in Lebanon. The Golden Rule—”Do to others that which you wish to be done to you”—is not a legal principle. It is a moral one, and the letter invokes it explicitly, noting that “all three Abrahamic faiths affirm this principle.”
3. War as a Project of Political Elites
The letter’s moral argument is not only about what war does to its victims. It is also about who makes war and who pays for it. The letter presents war as a project of political elites—a project that serves the power, image, and strategic objectives of leaders rather than the interests of ordinary citizens.
The letter names Donald Trump directly and describes him in terms meant to shock: “America’s national security and the lives of its servicemembers are entrusted to someone who is not only an inveterate liar but is also an insanely avaricious man whose only motivation in life is the accumulation of greater wealth.” The letter describes him as “calibrat[ing] the pace of war not on the basis of American national interests but in line with factors conducive to compounding his personal wealth, making announcements and publishing social-media posts pertaining to the war that are intended solely to make his purchase and sale of stocks more lucrative.”
But the letter’s moral critique is not merely that Trump is a bad man. It is that the system he represents serves the powerful at the expense of everyone else. The letter describes the “military-industrial complex” as igniting “endless wars” in regions thousands of miles away, and it describes the cost of those wars as falling on ordinary Americans: “By imposing ungodly levels of taxes on Americans in order to finance the trillions of dollars needed for the endless wars the military-industrial complex ignites in regions thousands of miles away, U.S. leaders exacerbate their country’s inflation, unemployment, and poverty and cause the deaths of American servicemembers while inflicting death and devastation on the people of other nations.”
The letter’s most striking moral move in this section is its insistence that Americans are also victims. It states: “The injustice that the occupants of the White House subject the American people to is no less than that to which they subject other nations. In fact, one could argue that in some respects the injustice that Americans are made to suffer by their leaders is even greater.” It supports this with statistics: “The United States has four percent of the world’s population but 20 percent of its prisoners.” “Every year, more than 1,300 Americans are shot and killed by police in the streets.” “The polarization and factional anger that pervade American society today are at levels not seen since the Civil War.”
The letter’s moral claim is that these facts are connected to the war. A government that treats its own people as disposable will treat others as disposable too. A government that spends trillions on war while millions live in poverty has its priorities inverted. The letter asks Americans to see that their own suffering and the suffering of Iranians have the same root: a system that serves the powerful at the expense of everyone else. The letter states: “We genuinely mean it when we say that Iranians and Americans have been wronged by the same cohort of elite actors. We share the same pain.”
4. Ordinary Americans Are Not the Enemy
One of the letter’s most important moral moves is its distinction between the American people and the U.S. government. This distinction is not a rhetorical trick. It is the letter’s answer to the question its title raises: Why would an Iranian military organization write an open letter to the American people? The answer is that the letter believes the American people are not its enemy.
The letter states this explicitly: “The foregoing list of acts of hostility committed by the U.S. government against Iran is in no way an indictment of the American people. It is, rather, the shameful record of the inhuman crimes of America’s political leaders.” The letter describes the two nations as “both, each in their own way, victims of the oppression of the occupants of the White House—which should, if names were to reflect reality, aptly be named ‘the House of Oppression.'”
The letter’s discussion of “Death to America” is its most direct engagement with the question of hostility. The chant, which Iranians have used since the revolution, is often treated in American media as evidence of irrational hatred. The letter offers a different interpretation: “‘Death to America’ is a prayer for the eradication of the diabolical ruling elite whose seat of power is the White House. It is a cry born of the pain of oppression.” The letter asks: “Do the oppressed not have the right to wish death upon the evil oppressors responsible for killing their brothers, sisters, parents, and children, for plundering their natural resources, and for denigrating their millennia-old cultural heritage?”
The letter’s moral argument is that the chant is directed at a system, not a people—at the White House, not at the American family. The letter states: “The men enthroned at the White House oppress both Iranians and Americans. The difference between the two nations is that, as Iranians, we have made up our mind to free ourselves from their oppression, and we are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices.” And it adds: “Toward the people of other nations—including the hardworking and honest people of America—Iran not only harbors no ill-will but is ready to offer any help they may need to liberate themselves from the tyranny of oppressive powers.”
The letter’s appeal to Americans is that they should recognize their own oppression and act against it. It states: “If the American people truly understood the reality of the evil their leaders commit in their name, they would disavow their leaders—as they gradually are doing—and would stand by the people of Iran in indicting their common oppressor.”
The letter acknowledges that Americans may disagree with Iran’s government, political system, or religious principles while still opposing a war that kills civilians. The letter does not ask Americans to endorse the Islamic Republic. It asks them to recognize that killing children is wrong regardless of what they think of Iran’s government.
5. Faith, Resistance, and the Refusal of Humiliation
The letter grounds its moral argument in Islamic ethics and Iranian historical memory. This is not a decorative feature. It is the source of its account of why Iran fights and why it believes it can win.
The letter quotes the Qur’an: “Indeed, God does not alter the affairs of a people until they alter their own affairs” (13:11). It describes the Islamic Revolution as “the triumph of blood over sword,” a revolution fought and won exclusively by an unarmed people whose weapons were “their faith, their determination, and their willingness to shed blood.” The letter’s moral framework is grounded in the principle that the Quran teaches “to neither oppress nor succumb to oppression.” It states: “To surrender to the enemies of truth and justice would mean nothing less than resigning ourselves to the evisceration of the sacred values of the Quran and is therefore out of the question.”
The letter’s most distinctive moral move is its invocation of Karbala. The tragedy of Imam Husayn provides the letter with a vocabulary of endurance and moral refusal. The letter asks its American readers to “read about the tragedy of Karbala and come to know Imam Husayn, the archetypal exemplification of standing up for justice and welcoming death with open arms in defense of the truth.”
The letter describes Husayn’s nephew Abdullah rushing to protect his uncle with his bare hands and dying in his arms. It describes Husayn’s infant son Ali al-Asghar having his throat cut by an enemy arrow. It describes Hazrat Abbas, Husayn’s brother, losing both arms and then his life attempting to bring water to the parched children of the camp. It describes Lady Zaynab, Husayn’s sister, who “patiently managed Imam Husayn’s camp and lovingly tended to the children in the midst of a siege in which water was scarce or unavailable” and who “shaped and safeguarded Imam Husayn’s legacy by delivering fiery speeches in captivity.”
The letter’s moral claim is that these stories explain why Iranians do not yield. “Such are the stories that Iranians imbibe and internalize as they grow up.” The connection to the war’s immediate reality is direct: the killing of the children of Minab and the assassination of the Supreme Leader must be understood through the lens of Karbala. Mourning becomes political as well as personal. Grief becomes an argument against submission.
The letter’s moral argument is that resistance is not merely retaliation. It is a defense of dignity against coercion. The letter states: “The Islamic Revolution is perhaps the only revolution in the history of the world that was fought and won exclusively by the people—a people unarmed and unaided by a foreign government.” The revolution was, in the letter’s words, “the triumph of blood over sword.”
6. The Moral Case for American Self-Interest
The letter’s moral argument includes a direct appeal to American self-interest. It states: “It is the American taxpayers who will have to bear the cost of America’s unjust wars, and so they deserve to know the truth.”
The letter’s claim is that Americans have a right to know what their government is doing in their name. It states: “The biggest lies that come out of the White House are about America itself.” The letter describes Trump’s false promises: “He said he would end all wars, he would end U.S. intervention in the world, he would drain the Washington swamp, he would stand up to the billionaires. He not only intensified the ongoing wars in Ukraine, Gaza, and Lebanon and resumed the war in Yemen but also started the Iran war, the most disastrous war in U.S. history, one that will spell the end of U.S. hegemony.”
The letter’s moral argument is that Americans are being lied to. “They deliberately falsify the figures for human casualties, military losses, and the costs of the war, presenting them as many times lower than they actually are.” The letter states: “The U.S. economy is on the precipice of collapse, and yet he keeps on telling Americans that the economy is booming and the prices will soon start coming down. This is, perhaps, his biggest lie.”
The letter’s moral claim is that Americans should demand the truth. It states: “Over the past 47 years, no U.S. president has been willing to sit across from an Iranian journalist and answer his or her questions in a free and fair interview that would be broadcast on American media. American presidents are perfectly aware that if such an interview were to take place, they could not convince their fellow Americans of the legitimacy of America’s incurably belligerent and rapacious foreign policy, especially toward Iran.”
The letter’s moral argument is that Americans should question the narrative they are being told. “If Americans could only come on a short trip to Iran, they would immediately realize that their officials and their media are lying to them about Iran. Almost everything Americans are told about Iran—that it’s a dictatorship, that the government is massacring its own people, that Iran is scientifically backward and economically bankrupt, that the people have given up on their government, etc.—is a lie.”
7. The Moral Call to Action: How Americans Can Save Their Country
The letter does not stop at critique. It offers a moral program. It asks: “How can the American people be saved from the grim fate that will result from the collapse of the U.S. government?” And it answers with a series of concrete demands.
The letter invokes the Old Testament: “If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned” (Jeremiah 18:7–10). It invokes the Qur’an: “Indeed, God does not alter the affairs of a people until they alter their own affairs” (13:11). The letter’s moral claim is that change is possible, but it must come from the American people themselves.
The letter lists specific measures Americans can demand: “shutting down the 800 costly and useless American bases that are scattered throughout the world and bringing all American service members back home”; “put an end to the endless aid Israel has been receiving from you”; “avoid entering endless wars of aggression”; “shut down the hundreds of costly media outlets and intelligence networks used to instigate coups, support dictators, and sow unrest”; and “redirect the trillions of dollars spent on these subversive activities to advance scientific research high-tech industrial manufacturing in the U.S.”
The letter’s moral claim is that these measures would benefit Americans as much as anyone else. “There is no doubt that if the American government heeds these demands, the U.S. will once again take its place as the world’s leading economy and American will once again enjoy a prosperous life.”
The letter’s most striking moral passage in this section is its acknowledgment of America’s own past wrongs: “Although there are dark episodes in America’s history—the conduct of America’s founding generations toward its indigenous people and its history of slavery and racism—the fact is that the U.S. has the necessary resources to offer prosperity to all the people who call it home.” The letter’s moral vision is not that America is irredeemable. It is that America has the capacity for good, if only its people would demand it.
The letter states: “If the American people choose leaders that partake of the right characteristics—knowledge, integrity, and honesty—the U.S. can build a prosperous future for its people without having to plunder the resources of other nations, and it can also make amends for its past wrongs, especially the wrongs it committed towards the people of America—the Native Americans, the black Americans, and the underprivileged Americans.”
8. The Moral Vision of Peace
The letter’s ultimate moral vision is not of victory over America. It is of peace with America. The letter states: “We can live together in peaceful coexistence.” It asks Americans to “remove from power the evil, deceitful, and violent politicians who are responsible for America’s current state” and to “entrust your affairs to the wise, not the wily.”
The letter’s vision of peace is grounded in a shared moral framework. It invokes the Golden Rule: “Do to others that which you wish to be done to you.” It notes that “all three Abrahamic faiths affirm this principle.” The Jewish Talmud says, “Do not do to your neighbor what you yourself hate.” The Gospel says, “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12).
The letter’s moral vision is eschatological. It looks forward to a time when “Palestine will be liberated” and when “Jesus Christ along with Imam Mahdi, the final successor of the Prophet Muhammad” will “usher in the Kingdom of God and lead humanity toward liberation from all forms of oppression.” The letter states: “Mahdi and Christ will stand with the oppressed seekers of justice and against the oppressors. We, the people of Iran, would like to see you, the people of America, standing by our side as we are led by Mahdi and Christ toward final victory.”
This is the letter’s most audacious moral move. It does not call for the defeat of the American people. It calls for their joining with Iran in a common struggle against oppression. The letter’s final prayer is “for an imminent end to oppression and aggression, for the liberation of all nations from the grip of tyrants, for a life of loving fellowship and universal peace.”
And it closes with a quotation from the Qur’an: “Assuredly, We wrote in [David’s] Psalms…that the world will be inherited by My virtuous servants” (21:105).
Conclusion: A Moral Letter that Points to True Peace
The letter’s moral argument culminates in a vision of peace that is not merely the absence of war but the presence of justice. The letter argues that the 2026 war reveals the injustice of a system in which powerful states may attack weaker countries while ordinary people suffer the consequences. But it does not stop there. It argues that this system can be changed, and that Americans have both the power and the moral obligation to change it.
The letter’s moral claim is that Iran’s people have a right to security, sovereignty, and freedom from foreign attack. Americans have a responsibility to question wars conducted in their name and funded with their resources. A genuine peace requires diplomacy, accountability, respect for civilian life, and equal regard for human beings across national borders.
The letter’s invitation is explicit: ordinary Americans and ordinary Iranians need not be enemies. They can recognize that war enriches the powerful, but grief, death, insecurity, and loss belong to everyone else. The letter states: “The letter asks Americans to see in the ruins of Minab not an Iranian tragedy alone, but the predictable human cost of wars made by powerful men and paid for by people who never chose them.”
The letter’s moral argument is that this recognition is the beginning of a politics that serves human beings rather than states. It is a politics grounded in the Golden Rule, in the shared prophets of Abrahamic faith, in the conscience that God has placed in every person. The letter states: “Heed the native human conscience that God has placed in all people, and do not allow crooked politicians into positions of power.”
The letter’s final moral demand is for equality: that the lives of Iranian children be valued as much as the lives of American children, that the suffering of Iranian families be recognized as much as the suffering of American families, that the sovereignty of Iran be respected as much as the sovereignty of any other nation. This is not a demand that Americans endorse the Islamic Republic. It is a demand that they recognize the humanity of the people who live under its bombs.
The letter states: “Make sure that the congresspeople you elect will hold the government accountable for the massacre of 400 innocent Iranian schoolchildren.” This is the letter’s moral bottom line. It is not about geopolitics. It is not about strategic interests. It is about 400 children who were killed while they were at school. And it asks Americans to care about them as they would care about their own.
That is the moral core of the letter. It is an argument about the value of human life, the meaning of sovereignty, and the duty to resist oppression. And it is an argument that deserves to be taken seriously, not because it is always right, but because it asks questions that Americans have too often refused to answer.
The letter’s final words are a prayer: “We pray for an imminent end to oppression and aggression, for the liberation of all nations from the grip of tyrants, for a life of loving fellowship and universal peace.” This is not the language of war. It is the language of peace. And it is the language in which the letter’s moral argument is ultimately expressed.
