While Russia and China remain the biggest threats to America and its Western allies, there is a third unfriendly power that Western leaders should remain watchful of: the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Like Russia and China, Iran is directed by an authoritarian and seemingly bellicose regime with some strong anti-Western interests. For now, that regime shows no serious signs of losing power internally. This is despite a series of recent threats to its authority: Iranian women protesting the violence of the state-sanctioned Islamic morality police; the American assassination of Iran’s talented and nefarious expert in warfare on foreign soil, General Qasem Soleimani; the humiliating and avoidable death of the President during a helicopter crash; and the impending demise of the 85-year-old Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Iran has been brutalised and woefully governed in recent years. Faced with moral, political, economic as well as ecological issues, Iran might appear to be floundering. The question is now: will one of the great civilisations of world history fall victim to its deep-seated internal crises or will it remain immovable and intransigeant? As the state begins to crumble, will Iran resist collapse?
The nation has endured against the odds before. More than any other region which succumbed to the Islamic conquests of Late Antiquity, Persia preserved a strong sense of its civilisational identity under the banners of the Caliphate.
Dualism has always been the key to Iran’s identity. The Zoroastrian religion of ancient Iran is renowned for its supposed cosmic dualism, positing a battle between good and evil in which the former is eventually triumphant. Iranian self-understanding has also been shaped by how Persian poets of the early Islamic era blended pre-Islamic Iranian histories and mythologies into their masterpieces. The 10th-century Abolqasem Ferdowsi preserved legendary stories of old Persian kings, and voiced nostalgic dismay that the minbar (a mosque’s pulpit) should have become as exalted as the Persian throne. Islam and Persian civilisation ended up existing in a creative tension that is peculiarly Iranian.
Modern Iran is in some respects similarly dualistic, possessing both what Westerners would recognise as the ordinary instruments of secular republican government and an Islamist constitutional superstructure. A President, parliament, and more or less modern state apparatus coexists with a Supreme Leader, a clerical Guardian Council which “supervises” elections and can veto legislation, and a legal system incorporating sharia. This dualism is by design, realising the Islamic Republic’s legal-theological ideal of the velayat-e faqih or guardianship of the Islamic jurist. Described by Ayatollah Khomeini as “one of the most important obligations” of the Iranian people and “more necessary even than prayer and fasting”, this hyper-politicisation of Shia Islam was a hallmark of his rule. While this ideology guarantees the Islamic character of the state, it is less traditionally Islamic than one might expect. Rather, as one academic analyst of Iran’s constitutional order observes, it “reinvents the [Shi’ite] tradition in response to the postcolonial crisis of Muslim-majority contexts”. The Islamic Republic’s construction of a velayat-e faqih deep state is best understood, then, as a strange fusion of Shia Islam and 20th-century revolutionary politics.
Can Iran’s unique hybrid system survive? Ali Ansari, Professor of Iranian History at the University of St Andrews, describes the socio-theological hold of radical Shi’ite Islam over the Iranian population as the Islamic Republic’s “moral problem”. He estimates that as many as five to six million Iranian women now refuse to wear the veil, and as many as two or three times that number tacitly support their rebellion. This is a significant challenge to the regime’s Islamic authority. Stories of elite corruption and the brutal and sexualised repression of female protestors are hardly an advert for the moral probity of the Islamic Republic’s guardians. There must be some in Tehran who worry that the theological and political ruling class is burning through its reserves of moral-religious capital.
Ansari nevertheless warns against Western liberals being too cynical about the regime’s commitment to a particular reading of Shia Islam. The people running Iran are, by and large, “true believers”. This makes for a tense, brittle situation, in which there is a real risk of religiously inflected protests boiling over into much more serious civil strife.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeA functioning state doesn’t appear to be a prerequisite of Islamic regimes. Only a very bloody civil war with lots of external interference would unseat those clowns.
I have a friend who spent one year in Evin prison for crimes of conscience. Iran is laced with people looking for someone to take down the “regime”. Their eyes are on the West, looking for those sanctions and clear red lines to put pressure on the barbaric occupiers. I’ve been told “only Arabs sit on the floor and eat with their hands”. They are fiercely proud of their historic presence on the world, and want that respect back. My friend does not want to seek permanent refuge in another country. She wants to return to Persia.
My impression of Iran is of a great civilisation ruined by a religious cult. It could even be argued that their way of eating has a more civilised element than the Western way, with its pretence at “manners” whilst looking mainly to exclude those in society who either don’t know or don’t care about “which fork to use”.
The regime in charge are barbaric, but they’re not “occupiers” – they’re indigenous and, of course, misogynistic. Your friend is genuinely brave. Meanwhile, we argue over marginal tax rates and the use of pronouns.
Can’t help but wish that all Iranians would connect with their inner Zoroastrianist, or inner Mithrist, and throw off the Islamic yoke (which is the only way I can see it). There has to be a lot of pent up positive energy there.
Sorry to -1 this comment, but ‘wish’ is the operative word. Inner spirit won’t shift the regime any more than it did the Soviet state. Failing economics and a pileup of internal contradictions might.
Every civilisation is stuck in ‘endless cycles of violent tragedy’. That’s just how humanity is.
“The people running Iran are, by and large, “true believers”. This makes for a tense, brittle situation, …”. Indeed. A regime that is expending a huge fraction of its insufficient budget for an religion-driven fight against a country, thousands of km away, that doesn’t threaten it in any way, can only be motivated by “true belief”. While Ansari speaks of Iran’s internal politics, the real tension is in Iran’s external politics, and to what extent such an a ideologically committed regime can be relied on to always act rationally. Whatever happens with Iran might very well be for the worse.
Sticks and stones may break their bones, but hasn’t happened so far. And name calling like this will never hurt them. They’ve already proven they’re not in need of those who might be influenced by that.
If the outgoing regime in Washington is not smart enough to reach out to the new Iranian President then things will continue to go against Western hopes and expectations. The seat of the problem is actually in Israel where the current set up seems determined to take all their ‘friends’ down with them.
The wise thing to do when dealing with totalitarian regimes is to believe what they tell you about their intentions. The destruction of both Israel and the Sunni supremacy in the Gulf is a religious imperative for the Iranian regime. They have been entirely clear about this for a long time.
‘Reaching out to them’ as Biden/Obama have tried to do will just result in. A much better idea is to re-impose the sanctions and destroy their capacity to export the oil that finances Hamas, Hesbollah and the Houthi.
Like the Taliban regime, the Iranian regime is its own enemy. A religious regime founded on serving an imaginary god rather than its real citizens is bound to fail sooner or later!
Oh dear – a Chatham House special for UnHerd – only you are the herd and it isn’t original.
And what are you then? Hm? Apart from just another Unherd subscriber?
Agree with all that the brave and brilliant Ali says, except that Russia and China weren’t threats until we pushed them, in our bellicose way, and created a self-fulfilling prophecy, in much the same way that as accomplished political actors from General George Marshall to Pat Buchanan have observed, we inadvisedly injected ourselves into the Middle East and helped set it aflame. Which did not much benefit them, Ayaan, nor the rest of us in the West. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Got a point. Iran, as far as I know, has never attacked another country. Iraq attacked Iran. Sending children to clear minefields can be seen as characteristic of its Islamic death cult, but it was not an aggressive act. Iran’s fledgling and imperfect democracy was systematically undermined by the UK and USA (as were fragile Central American states by the USA, so it was not an isolated behaviour). Whatever the Iranian theocrats are, they are not barefaced hypocrites. Recently I wandered through Cavendish Square in London and met there a gentle man who wanted me to add my name to a list of support for those imprisoned and tortured by the regime. It reminded me of the freedom that we in the ‘West’ still enjoy, for as long as we remain vigilant anyway. However, as nature is red in tooth and claw (qv The grizzly truth), politics can be red in untruth and law (sorry, I couldn’t help it). At least since the Marshall Plan, interventions by Western powers have only succeeded in making things worse. Iran is not the enemy at the gates. Best leave it alone.
“Iran has been brutalised and woefully governed in recent years.”
Surely Iran has been brutalised and woefully governed since Ayatollah Khomeni became its leader in 1979?
The dictator of Iran intentionally starves his own people. He is a major threat, and I am waiting for the United States to take action.
It would be intrigiung to know the inner workings of the US government with respect to Iran. The real question is whether they are a bona-fide threat. On the surface they would appear to be so with their death to America threats and the use of Houthi proxies to be a thorn in the side.
Biden apparently does not think so, as he is willing to spend hundreds of missiles in defensive action with little offense. I suspect the US does not feel they are a threat to national interests and is only interested in deterrence. It is likely we care little about oppression as long as it is contained.
Unheard readers must realize that US military capabilities far exceed what is publicly known. It may take us a day or two longer than Iraq to destroy Iran, but as we have found, that will do little towards the ultimate solution,
So expect more of the same, with the stealth execution here or there by the west.