The New Faces of Absolutism

Absolutism has never belonged to a single ideology. It has appeared in the red banners of communism, in the divine mandates of theocracy, and in the iron grip of military rule. What unites these systems is not their philosophy but their structure: concentrated power, enforced obedience, and a military arm that protects the ruling elite rather than the nation. From Stalin to Hitler, from the Cuban politburo to Iran's clerical regime, the pattern repeats.

Khomeini's Fire

Few modern examples illustrate this more starkly than the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini. Read here an article about Khomeini's Fire (translate the article) — a fire that was created under deceiving messaging and then brutally enforced by the military, with the deeply religious part obeying and faithful followers falling in line.

In the early days of Iran's revolution, the Shah's opponents — leftists, nationalists, religious groups — believed they were forming a temporary alliance to topple a monarchy. They assumed pluralism would follow. Instead, they drank from what one might call the "hemlock cup," agreeing to a referendum whose consequences they did not yet understand.

Only later did Iranians learn what "Islamic Republic" meant in practice. The new constitution vested absolute power in the Supreme Leader. Once enthroned, Khomeini revealed the full extent of his ambitions. He persecuted not only the Shah's loyalists but also the very revolutionaries who had helped bring him to power. He reshaped society according to rigid religious doctrine — lowering the marriage age for girls to nine, as permitted in his own legal writings, and sanctioning practices that would be unthinkable in any modern civil society.

Iran's dual military structure — the regular army and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — ensured that the regime's ideology was protected not just by law but by force. The IRGC became the guardian of the revolution, not the people.

This is the anatomy of absolutism: a political movement fused with a military arm, insulated from accountability, and justified by ideology.

The Final Solution Redux?

Is the operation with Iran really about oil, or cover for the Epstein files, or a rescue mission before Iran has the military potential to expand its influence over all of Europe — and complete Hitler's "Final Solution" ? The "Jewish question" was the official code name for the murder of all Jews within reach.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has been explicit: "It is the mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to erase Israel from the map of the region." And: "Israel is a hideous entity in the Middle East which will undoubtedly be annihilated." And: "This cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region."

Call the International Court for its ruling, or the UN — but the pattern is unmistakable.

Domestic Politics Through the Lens of Power

While the United States debates ICE funding, voter ID laws, and the SAVE Act, the rhetoric has grown increasingly detached from the global stakes. Critics of ICE often focus on tactics rather than mission, but some go further — advocating sanctuary policies and weakened enforcement that most Americans do not support.

Meanwhile in Congress, the communist-influenced and Iran-friendly arm mourns the loss of three lives in the Minneapolis riots, frets and wants to abolish ICE. Compare that to the above, and send the message. The same "rioters" support anarchic sanctuary cities as a theocratic mission, and many other ideological actions disapproved by 80% plus of the population. So it needs one of the three forms of government to succeed: communism, theocracy, or military dictatorship.

The Iran war powers vote in the House shows the peaceniks running hot on questions about legitimacy and abuse of powers.

The debate over voter ID is a prime example. A birth certificate — costing roughly thirty dollars — is the foundational document for identity, citizenship, and access to government services. It is required for school enrollment, bank accounts for minors, REAL ID, and in some jurisdictions, voter registration. Yet the political fight over requiring photo ID at the polls has become a proxy for broader ideological battles over immigration, national identity, and federal authority.

So Voter ID is not voter suppression — but they drank from the hemlock cup that was about to kill them. From now on, the government of God officially ruled in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Just call it the government of the Democratic Party, like God Newsom, or Abigail Spanberger — a moderate until she had the votes.

A World in Flux

While Washington argues, the world moves. The Gulf states align with the U.S. under the Abraham Accords. The Russia–Ukraine war grinds on. Europe remains paralyzed. The UN and WHO condemn the escalating conflict involving Iran, Israel, and the U.S., warning of threats to international peace. Yet these same institutions say little about Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Houthis — groups whose actions helped ignite the crisis. Their selective outrage undermines their credibility and simply nullifies the UN as a real party.

Are we witnessing global destabilization or a geopolitical realignment? The answer may be both.

Philanthropy as Political Engine

Activist philanthropy — whether from the Obama Foundation , the MacArthur network committing $100 million to "protect democracy" , or Singham's international revolutionary front — has become a political engine, shaping narratives and funding movements under the banner of charity. The question is no longer whether philanthropy influences politics, but how openly and to what end.

Domestically, the political agenda appears fixated on defeating Donald Trump, undoing his policies, and framing every crisis as a referendum on his leadership. Some openly call to "eradicate Trumpism" as if it were a crime requiring accountability.

If oil prices spike to $200 a barrel due to conflict in Iran or disruptions in Russia, some political actors may see opportunity rather than danger — an affordability crisis that can be weaponized, a war that can be blamed on an opponent, a narrative that can be shaped. Call it a win-win for Democrats: not really vote for the war powers but claim it politically on Trump if it goes south.

The Larger Question

We stand at a moment when global tensions, domestic polarization, and ideological activism intersect. The world is shifting, and the United States must decide whether it will respond with clarity or be consumed by internal battles.

Next month, the question becomes even sharper: When does philanthropy stop being charity and start becoming political machinery? The glow of moral authority often hides the gears of influence beneath it.

For now, the lesson from Iran's revolution remains relevant: when people underestimate the consequences of political choices, absolutism fills the vacuum.