In Iran’s contemporary history, there has rarely been a period when the country has been in such a state of suspense and uncertainty. Although an initial agreement has been reached between the Islamic Republic and the Trump administration, there is still a long way to go before a lasting peace can be achieved to protect Iran’s national interests.
Iran is still neither at war nor in a lasting peace; it is not on the path to reform, and there are no signs of the regime’s imminent collapse. The society, economy and politics are in a political limbo. Internal conflicts among the government’s own forces in the post-Ali Khamenei era, the unclear status of the newly appointed “Supreme Leader” and the escalation of conflicts over reaching an agreement with the Trump administration indicate a situation in which everyone talks about the crisis, but no one offers a clear perspective for exiting from it.
In recent weeks, we have witnessed the escalation of dangerous military conflicts that could reignite a full-scale war against Iran. First, there was Israel’s criminal aggression on Lebanese territory, which was a clear violation of the ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel. This was followed by Iran’s retaliatory missile attack on Israel in defence of Hezbollah. Then the criminal and racist Israeli regime bombed Iranian cities. And finally, we witnessed the widespread aggression of US imperialism on Iranian soil, bombing several cities in the country and targeting the country’s economic and civil infrastructure.
In the midst of these clashes, Trump threatened to attack Iran much harder and seize Iran’s oil resources. However, after the world expressed concern and condemned Trump’s position, and considering the adverse consequences that the long-term closure of the Strait of Hormuz would have had for the world economy including the US itself, Trump, claiming that the leaders of the Islamic Republic had been in contact with him and were serious about peace, announced that the principles of a general agreement or understanding with the Islamic Republic to end the war had been finalized and that an agreement or memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the two countries would be signed soon.
The events of recent months have shown once again that the Islamic Republic is facing a series of internal and external challenges, each of which alone can endanger the stability of the ruling political system.
Iran’s economy is going through one of the most difficult periods. Chronic inflation, devaluation of the national currency, increase in poverty and unemployment, and the spread of social inequality have had a negative impact on the daily lives of millions of hard-working Iranians. The concern of many families is to provide and secure the minimum necessities of life for survival.
In such circumstances, the resumption of social and trade union protests in recent days was not far-fetched. Workers, pensioners, and high-school students have once again taken to the streets to protest the state of their wages, working and education conditions, and livelihoods. Although these protests have not yet turned into a nationwide and coordinated movement, their persistence and expansion show that social dissatisfaction with the anti-people theocratic regime has not only not diminished, but has become embedded in the fabric of society.
The important point is that a lot of these protests are no longer motivated by purely economic demands. Behind the demands for higher wages or improved social services is a deep distrust in the ability of the ruling political system to solve the country’s problems.
The situation is no different in the arena of foreign policy. The strategy of the so-called “active resistance,” which had been the basis of the Islamic Republic’s regional policy in recent years, is now facing serious doubts. The regime continues to emphasize maintaining its regional influence, but the economic and political costs of this approach have been increasingly criticized and questioned. Although the military conflicts with Israel have at times stirred nationalist sentiments in some sections of society, this has not, on the whole, reduced the crisis of public acceptance and legitimacy for the regime.
In recent weeks, we have also witnessed serious signs of disagreement and division within ruling circles. Of course, divisions among government factions do not necessarily mean a deep and immediate crisis in the political power structure, but they do indicate that there is no clear consensus among them about the future direction of the country. The hardliners and forces close to the Revolutionary Guard and repressive institutions emphasize the continuation of current policies while others, concerned about the future of the regime, call for some kind of re-evaluation of domestic and foreign policies.
Perhaps no institution has benefited from this situation as much as the Revolutionary Guard. Over the past two decades, this institution has transformed from a military force into a major and decisive player in the country’s economy, politics and security apparatus. The continuation of regional crises and the escalation of tensions with the West have greatly contributed to this transformation.
Historical experience has shown that political systems are more likely to suffer from their inability to manage internal crises than from external pressure. Suppressing popular protests may temporarily prevent the spread of unrest, but it cannot eliminate the roots of discontent that result from the regime’s anti-people policies, widespread and systematic corruption in government institutions, and the continued climate of widespread repression and oppression.
In addition, the younger generation, which constitutes the majority of the population, has specific demands that reflect the conditions and social developments in the world today. Widespread access to information, communication with the outside world and changing social values have caused this generation’s expectations of the regime and society to change.
At the same time, the Islamic Republic has shown over the past four decades that it has a significant capability for survival and adaptation to circumstances. The regime has repeatedly faced serious crises and has been able to continue its rule with violent and bloody repression.
The fundamental question is not whether there is a crisis or not; the crisis is obvious. The real question is whether the regime can save itself despite all the serious internal and external challenges. The answer to this question will determine not only the fate of the Islamic Republic, but also the future of millions of Iranians.
When the threat of war looms large, democratic demands are marginalized. Any political criticism is labelled as “undermining national security.” Any social protest is labelled a “security threat.” In such an environment, “security” replaces politics and “survival of the regime” becomes the code name for the policy of violent and widespread suppression of people’s rights.
The invasion of Iran by US imperialism may have helped to preserve the ruling political system to some extent, but this does not mean that the accumulated problems of society have been solved. Poverty, corruption, unemployment, discrimination and the lack of basic freedoms will not disappear with “security” measures.
Today, Iran needs more than ever a lasting peace and the formation of an inclusive and democratic social movement, a movement that can transform the diverse demands of workers, women, students, teachers, pensioners, intellectuals and all progressive political forces into a common project for fundamental changes.
The weakness of Iran’s left and democratic forces lies in their fragmentation. The regime has been able to suppress or contain each movement separately, because no lasting link has been formed between these movements. But the future of Iran depends on overcoming this fragmentation. Today, the main issue is to create a democratic alternative that has a clear demarcation with both domestic tyranny and foreign intervention, and can organize the people’s struggle against both.
A society that has fought for freedom, justice and human dignity many times over now needs unity, organization and a progressive, shared vision more than ever. The future of the country will not be determined in the negotiating rooms of world powers, nor in the calculations of security apparatus. What will determine the future of Iran is the ability of social forces to transform public discontent into a democratic project and a joint, nationwide struggle with the people frustrated with oppression and deprivation.
Nameh Mardom, Central Organ of the Tudeh Party of Iran (edited for length)
Support working-class media!
If you found this article useful, please consider donating to People’s Voice or purchasing a subscription so that you get every issue of Canada’s leading socialist publication delivered to your door or inbox!
For over 100 years, we have been 100% reader-supported, with no corporate or government funding.
