Ramin Jahanbegloo is an Iranian intellectual who, from his academic position in Tehran, organized international dialogues with leading thinkers from around the world, from Habermas to Rorty, from Ashis Nandi to the Dalai Lama, during the still promising period of President Khatami. He lived in Iran until 2006, when, under President Ahmadinejad, he was arrested and imprisoned in Evin for four endless months of torture, without trial. Only later was he charged, without any basis, with conspiring to carry out a “velvet revolution” to overthrow the regime. Thanks in part to a major international campaign mobilizing intellectuals, and to the efforts of various European governments, he was released before it was too late. A committed advocate of cultural pluralism and non-violence, Jahanbegloo once reported from Auschwitz for the European press while Tehran was hosting a campaign to deny the Holocaust. One could imagine him, wrote Richard Rorty, as a prominent figure in another Iran, yet to come.
Once upon a time, you lived and worked in Iran. Now you divide your time between Canada, India, and lectures around the world. As a cosmopolitan intellectual born in Iran, do you still see yourself as a citizen deeply engaged with the country’s public life and civil society?
Absolutely.
Can we really talk about a public sphere in Iran, given how heavily the regime suppresses open debate?
No – not in the liberal or European sense of the term. But despite the repression of the past 45–50 years, Iran still has a civil society: intellectuals, feminists, human rights activists, and above all, a large segment of young people deeply interested in art, ideas, and the outside world. About 70 percent of Iranians are under the age of 35. Many of them want to move beyond the Islamic regime and connect with global culture. What sets Iran apart in the Middle East is this large, resilient population that – despite everything – has tried to transcend the regime’s ideological constraints.
We’ve seen many protests led by young women and men. But how can genuine opposition flourish when public conversation is forbidden? In exile, the diaspora seems fragmented. Could new forms of connection emerge?
One key factor is social media. Young Iranians have built a powerful online presence beyond the regime’s control. A kind of “virtual civil society” has emerged – where people express themselves, form relationships, and engage with the world. I’ll give an example: a few years ago, a group of young Iranians filmed themselves dancing to Pharrell Williams’s Happy and posted it online. They were arrested, but they made their point – they want to live differently. This reminds me of Eastern Europe under communism, when people listened to the Beatles. Some even say the Beatles helped bring down the Soviet regime. In Iran, too, music, fashion, and small acts of defiance – like removing the hijab – are deeply political. The 2022 women-led protests were about to right to live freely. It’s not just rejection of the regime; it was the expression of a vision for change.
You once likened the current situation to Italy during World War II. There, a political future was being prepared even before the war had ended. In Iran, there’s despair. Directors like Jafar Panahi and Nobel laureate Narges Mohammadi call for an end to violence. They see only destruction in this war. What do you think?
The Israeli response – especially in relation to Iran’s nuclear ambitions – is driven in part by existential fear. But it’s not just military targets being hit; civilian areas are affected too. The Iranian people have always paid the price, starting with the Iran–Iraq war, and once again, they’re caught in the crossfire.
Iranian civil society is terrified. It does not support the regime, it rejects violence, and it wants a peaceful, stable future. Israel says it seeks regime change – but how, and at what cost? At the same time, the Iranian leadership continues to live under the illusion that it can win a war against Israel. Ordinary people have no say, no power to stop either side. That’s why so many Iranians turn to European and global public opinion: writing op-eds, signing petitions, trying to show they are not their regime.
Do you think the regime is using the current war to justify and intensify repression, especially after the 2022 protests?
Absolutely. The regime always turns its weapons inward when it senses a lack of nationalist support. It conflates Iran with itself – but many Iranians love their country while opposing those in power. The leadership knows it has lost the people and now governs through fear, not persuasion. We’ve seen this since 2009. Today, there’s no real dialogue between rulers and citizens. Only fear.
Iran is not a homogeneous society. There are Kurds, Sunnis, Arabs – what if war leads to fragmentation? And is there any chance the current leadership could change from within?
Since the late 1990s, real power in Iran has shifted from the clerics to the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC). They now control the economy, foreign policy, arms trade, nuclear program, and relations with Russia and China. Qassem Soleimani symbolized this transformation. Recently, Khamenei has even expanded their authority. The clerics no longer rule Iran – the IRGC does. If they reject diplomacy and escalate the conflict, they may impose martial law. In practice, they already maintain extensive surveillance of civilians. Meanwhile, minorities – Kurds, Arabs, Baloch – could rebel, especially if armed from outside. There’s a real risk of a “Balkanization” of Iran. I remember hearing Kurdish and Arabic spoken in prison – languages of those resisting central authority. Iran’s frontier regions are restive, and the regime fears they could become entry points for foreign intervention. For now, Tehran insists this is an “operational” war – not a regional one. But that could change.
Are we witnessing the collapse of the so-called Axis of Resistance? And what might that mean for the region?
Since the 1990s, Iran has invested heavily in building regional influence – arming Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and intervening in Syria. For a time, that strategy extended Tehran’s reach. But now the tables have turned. Israel is militarily dominant – in Lebanon, Yemen, Gaza. The Iranian regime is running out of weapons and strategic options. It underestimated Mossad’s reach and how easily Israeli forces could infiltrate Iranian territory. While Israel is backed by the U.S. and supported by European governments, Iran is isolated. At this point, diplomacy is the regime’s only realistic option. The Iranian people don’t want war. They want peace, dignity, and a life free from fear. The regime’s old narratives no longer persuade – neither the world nor Iranians themselves. If the leadership refuses to change course, it risks leading the country toward self-destruction. Still, Israel must understand that seeking hegemonic power in the Middle East must not turn into an enterprise of vengeance. As long as Israel understands this process, the Israeli establishment should understand not to make a new Gaza out of Iran.
Cover photo: Ramin Jahanbegloo attends a conference in Prague on September 11, 2009. (Photo by Michal Cizek / AFP)
Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn to see and interact with our latest contents.
If you like our stories, events, publications and dossiers, sign up for our newsletter (twice a month).