Iran, after the Twelve-Day War, is a complex and multi-layered problem. The 1979 Revolution overthrew the monarchy with overwhelming popular support. The Islamic Republic gradually—but rapidly—transformed into an Islamic electoral authoritarian state. Ayatollah Khomeini, who enjoyed the support of most of the Iranian people with his charismatic personality, sought to shape the republic under Islamism (not alongside or above it.) Saddam Hussein’s eight-year war further constricted the country’s political space. During the leadership of Seyyed Ali Khamenei, at least two presidents—reformist Seyyed Mohammad Khatami and moderate Hassan Rouhani—were elected by the people, yet their administrations failed to satisfy the leader. Lacking the founder’s charismatic personality, Khamenei has tried to govern the country according to his personal wishes by interfering more in the details of political affairs.
During Khamenei’s long rule (36 years), especially under the presidencies of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Seyyed Ebrahim Raisi, who came to power with the Leader’s direct intervention, Iran’s political and cultural atmosphere became more closed, economic growth declined, and foreign policy grew more aggressive. In line with these strictures, public satisfaction with the Islamic Republic declined sharply. In the last presidential and parliamentary elections, over half of eligible voters abstained. In major cities, especially Tehran, non-participation often approached two-thirds of the electorate. The fact that the leadership promoted Masoud Pezeskian, a reformist loyal to the Leader, in the recent presidential elections was due to the acceptance of the failure of his restrictive policies.
It can be said with certainty that more than 85 percent of Iranians are dissatisfied both with the macro policies of the Islamic Republic and with Khamenei’s leadership. Many believe that the country is not governed according to the consent of the people or national interests. The country’s senior managers are widely seen as incompetent, and a crisis of macro and institutional inefficiency is observed at all levels. The regime has not been successful in providing basic necessities, such as water and electricity, and has failed to control inflation. The unconstitutional interpretation of the Guardian Council divides Iran’s elections into two stages. In the first, the Guardian Council—composed of jurists appointed by the leadership—handpicks candidates aligned with the leadership. In the second, citizens are allowed to vote, but only for candidates aligned with the leadership in an election that is neither competitive nor fair. For this reason, the Assembly of Experts and the Islamic Parliament are not true representatives of the people.
The Leader personally manages all major affairs of the country by establishing parallel institutions, and the government practically does not have a major role in foreign and domestic policy. He holds absolute authority but is not accountable to any legal institution. For most Iranians, he is the main person responsible for the country’s major problems, while presenting himself as a creditor. While its main responsibility is to defend Iran’s borders against foreign aggression, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has practically expanded cancerously and now controls a large share of the economy, media, security affairs, foreign policy, and domestic policy, effectively functioning as a parallel government. Today, it is the most powerful institution in the country after the leadership’s office, and has taken on a major role in suppressing domestic peace-seeking critics.
The focus of various security institutions, including the IRGC and the Ministry of Intelligence, has largely been on women’s headscarves and peaceful union opposition by university students, teachers, workers, and intellectuals, while they have been extremely weak in identifying Israeli spies and infiltrators in the IRGC and other security forces. Institutionalized corruption has permeated the regime due to the governments’ lack of transparency and inefficiency. Revolutionary courts, which evolved from the military courts of the previous regime, have acted completely politically, lacking independence from the leadership’s office, and their rulings are not grounded in law. In the cultural sphere, efforts to enforce strict adherence to religious norms in public life—particularly regarding women’s headscarves—have failed. Adopting such a policy has led to widespread scapegoating of Islam among people, especially the youth.
Public demand now is to hold a referendum on the future of the system, or at least to implement a fundamental change in how the country is run. It can be said with certainty that rule by clerics, the guardianship of the jurist, and the Islamic government in general have failed. Of course, in a future referendum, the option to continue the Islamic Republic will be on the ballot, but I believe it will receive no more than 15 percent of the vote. The second option, a constitutional monarchy based on the pre-revolutionary constitution, is even less likely, with chances of under 5 percent. The third option is an Islamic Republic minus the guardianship of the jurist, as envisioned in the 1979 draft constitution of the interim government, and the fourth is a secular democratic republic, close to the constitutions of Tunisia, Iraq, or Turkey. I think the main contest will be between these latter two options, and the secular democratic republic appears to be growing increasingly popular among Iranians.
The Islamic Republic’s policy towards Palestine has been to hold a referendum in the occupied territories and hand over governance to representatives of the Palestinian people—Jews, Christians, and Muslims. A policy Iran itself has not been willing to implement for Iranians so far! This approach is progressive and defensible in international forums. However, the radical and ambitious slogan of “erasing Israel from the geographical map” has been promoted by the radical faction of the Islamic Republic, including the Leader and the IRGC, and it raises three important considerations. First, the Islamic Republic has never had the capability or the plans to implement such a policy. Second, the existing international order and the superpowers would never allow it, and the Islamic Republic has lacked any expert predictions of their countermeasures. Third, such a policy would require the support of public opinion, which has never been put to a vote in Iran. Promoting grandiose slogans without practical backing has provided Israel, the US, and their European allies with excuses and has done nothing but harm to Iran.
In the Twelve-Day War, the overwhelming majority of Iranians—despite their strong dissatisfaction with the regime—did not welcome the Israeli and American aggression against their country. Contrary to the predictions of Israel and the United States, they did not take to the streets against the Islamic Republic to complete Netanyahu’s plan to overthrow the state and disintegrate Iran. Even political prisoners, those under house arrest, and exiled intellectuals condemned the attacks against Iranian soil. This clearly signals that Iranians said a big “NO” to liberation from the Islamic Republic through a foreign assault, especially by Israel and the United States. They think that U.S.-backed coups and military interventions since the mid-20th century have never led to democracy or respect for human rights, and that Israel’s achievements in the Middle East since its establishment have been nothing but terror, genocide, mass murder, expanding war, and occupation. Yet, defending their homeland does not equate to defending the Islamic Republic. Interestingly, China and Russia, Iran’s allies, did not provide any assistance in terms of equipping Iran.
Israel attacked Iran militarily while Iran and the United States were negotiating. The United States also bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities during talks. Israel’s attack on Iran was intended to stop the Iran-U.S. negotiations. The military actions of both countries against Iran violated international law. Yet, the European Union has not condemned Israel’s aggression, and the German Chancellor even stated that “Israel is doing the dirty work on our behalf.”
With the unstinting help of the United States and most European countries, Israel continues to commit genocide and mass murder of Palestinians in Gaza, especially through torture by starvation and attacks on civilians, including children and those waiting in the food distribution line, in defiance of numerous UN resolutions. If the “Islamic State” has failed in Iran, “liberal democracy” in the West has also faced its most severe defeat after Israel’s brutal attack on Gaza and Iran. International law, human rights, humanitarian rights, ethics, and the United Nations and its subsidiaries have become little more than empty concepts, powerless against the will of warmongers like Prime Minister Netanyahu and U.S. President Donald Trump. The helpless Palestinian refugee who wants to live in the land of their ancestors, and the freedom-loving, patriotic Iranian, are alone, alone.
Cover photo: Mohsen Kadivar.
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).