Iranian diaspora in US caught between security, politics, collective responsibility
By Sharareh Abdolhosseinzadeh
Political sociology researcher
For more than four decades, the fraught relationship between Iran and the United States has not only shaped the foreign policy of both countries but has also directly played into the social and political lives of Iranian Americans. The Iranian diaspora in the US, one of the most highly educated and economically successful immigrant communities, has consistently occupied an in-between space. On one hand, they are an active part of the host society, and on the other, they were compelled to bear the symbolic and political costs of a geopolitical conflict in which they had no role.
From a political-sociology standpoint, what is unfolding today is not just a “migration issue,” but rather a clear case of the securitization of an ethno-national population amid geopolitical tensions.
Diaspora & security policy: from individuals to collective
Diaspora studies show that migrant communities often become, unintentionally, “security subjects” at critical junctures. When states or media tie a perceived threat to a national or ethnic identity, the boundary between individual and collective collapses, and individual accountability is replaced by collective suspicion.
In the case of Iranian Americans, ongoing tensions between Washington and Tehran have prompted “being Iranian” to become, in certain political or media narratives, potentially associated with danger, distrust or questionable loyalty, even when individuals have lived legally in the US for years, paid taxes, worked in professional sectors, and maintained no institutional ties to Iran.
What emerges is not rational policymaking but security labeling, a process in which individuals are judged not by their conduct but by an ascribed identity.
Distinct qualities of Iranian-American expats
The paradox deepens when attention is turned to the actual characteristics of Iranian diaspora. Sociological data indicates that Iranian-Americans entered the country largely through legal, academic or professional pathways; possess high levels of human capital in academia, medicine, engineering and technology; and rank among the strongest immigrant groups in terms of economic participation.
A substantial part of this diaspora is not an “extension of the Iranian state” but rather a product of the divide between state and society in Iran, a point routinely overlooked in security policymaking.
State conflict, public cost
One key concept in political sociology is the transfer of conflict costs, meaning states clash at the international level, but the social, psychological and symbolic consequences are passed down to citizens or migrants associated with those states.
For Iranian Americans, such costs may surface in various forms, including heightened discriminatory scrutiny, restrictive visa and immigration procedures, psychological pressure rooted in social distrust, or the recurring need to “prove collective innocence.”
This dynamic runs counter to core liberal-democratic principles such as individual responsibility for wrongdoing and legal equality among citizens.
Diaspora as a quiet actor
Despite such pressures, the Iranian diaspora has often navigated the American public sphere cautiously or silently. Part of this reticence stems from previous experiences of political stigmatization; another part is rooted in uncertainty about the consequences of collective action.
Yet, recent research suggests that under conditions of securitization, silence brings neither protection nor neutrality. Instead, the absence of intra-community narratives clears the way for stereotypical, politicized storylines.
From this perspective, civic engagement within the diaspora, grounded not in ideological defense of any state but in the promotion of legality, social participation and democratic values, can help push back against the logic of “us versus them.”
Ultimately, the Iranian diaspora in the US sits at the intersection of foreign policy, internal security and social identity. Reducing this community to a “security problem” is not only analytically flawed, but from a political-sociology perspective, it reflects a failure to distinguish among states, ideologies and individuals.
If the core principles of a democratic society are to be upheld, one simple, yet crucial, norm must be reaffirmed. No population should be judged in place of individuals, and no migrant should bear the cost of conflicts in which they played no part.
The Iranian diaspora is not a security threat but a source of social and human capital, provided that politics is willing to draw a line between identity and danger.