Why isn’t Iran progressing?

Many commentators believe that Iran has not achieved the progress and development that other countries have experienced in the past decades, and that this progress has become an unattainable dream for Iranian citizens. Many people hold the Islamic Republic responsible for the current situation.

Iran Gate has examined three main reasons for Iran’s lack of progress in a two-part investigation, which ultimately covers the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. However, all three factors are rooted in the type of governance in Iran and do not have much to do with the nature of Iranian society. The first part of this investigation refers to the obvious issues that have always been neglected by Iranian rulers. Then, it focuses on the existing gaps in the government structure in Iran over the past century, which clearly have been centered around the shortcomings of the rulers.

This report is the second and final part of this investigation, which elaborates on two other major obstacles to Iran’s development. These obstacles are related to the existing gaps in the dual structure of the executive branch, and naturally have led to the halt of the development process in the country.

Governance based on conspiracy theories

Iran has never officially been a colony of any of the major powers in history, according to accepted definitions. However, Iranians have been victims of colonial policies by Western superpowers in various periods. Many sociologists believe that this historical damage and humiliation from foreigners has led Iranians to be easily swayed by conspiracy theories.

Naturally, Iranian rulers are not exempt from this rule. From the first and second Pahlavi to the officials of the Islamic Republic, there are numerous examples of their conspiratorial approach in the contemporary history of Iran. History will never forget the fear that Mohammad Reza Pahlavi had of Western conspiracies, especially from Britain and America.

Pahlavi trapped in a dangerous theory

Revisiting the book ‘Answering History,’ written by the last king of Iran in French after the 1979 revolution, clearly shows traces of his strong belief in conspiracy theories. Renowned historian Yervand Abrahamian describes the Shah as heavily involved in conspiracy theories, expressing his astonishment.

According to him, the Shah supports the main reason for the 1979 revolution in this book, which is Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s support for the Palestinian cause and defense of OPEC’s independence. Abrahamian believes that Mohammad Reza Shah has always been afraid of Western conspiracies against himself, starting from the time his father went into exile in Shahrivar 1320 until the day he permanently left Iran in 1357.

Surprisingly, in this book, the Shah strongly emphasizes the hypothesis that a group of clerics and extremist Shia communists, the seven oil sisters, the media of developed Western countries, and most importantly, the governments of the United States and Britain are the main obstacles to development in Iran.

It is well known that during the turmoil of the Islamic Revolution in 1357, on the famous day of the 17th of Shahrivar, the Shah had a meeting with the British ambassador in Tehran. It is said that Anthony Parsons, the then British ambassador to Iran, encountered a gathering of revolutionaries on his way to the court and was close to having the car carrying the ambassador set on fire. But when Parsons arrived to meet Mohammad Reza Shah, the king sarcastically told him that he had heard that he was close to burning in the fire that he himself had ignited. This sentence demonstrates the depth of the Shah’s entanglement in conspiracy theories.

The Islamic Republic and the presumed enemy

Despite the formal differences between the Islamic Republic and the Pahlavi regime, there are noticeable similarities in the character and behavior of the rulers and policymakers in Iran compared to the monarchy. Although the revolutionaries of 1979 believed that the Shah was a Western agent in the Middle East, it seems that both sides have many similarities in their views towards the West. Both sides believe that Western governments are constantly conspiring against Iran and its development, and this approach has its roots in the aggressive Anglo-Saxon mentality.

Many analysts believe that the anti-American and anti-Western policies in Iran in the past 45 years have their roots in the years after September 1981 in Iran. From the early days of his reign and after the coup on August 19, the Shah considered the United States as one of the conspirators. The excessive emphasis of the Islamic Republic’s rulers on conspiracy theories not only hinders the country’s development in the global arena, but also immobilizes actors in influencing their own destiny.

Iranian rulers aspire to change the world.

According to the slogans and statements of the revolutionary figures of the Islamic Republic in 1979, the promise was to create paradise on earth, establish the divine government, and build a world filled with freedom and justice. Ayatollah Khomeini established a system that aimed to achieve these goals and empower the Muslim community with significant political power.

However, after approximately 45 years since the victory of the Islamic Revolution, the established system has not only failed to create paradise on earth but has also made the world a more insecure place than before. Unfortunately, this illusion not only persists but also continues to impose additional costs on the people. It is natural that no one believes a country under such governance can achieve development. Even the experts believe that such a system hinders the country’s development and progress.

Struggling for survival

Almost all experts and historians agree that both the Pahlavi monarchy system and now the Islamic Republic, after a short period of riding the same horse, were forced to struggle for survival. They became a mixture of neglecting the basics of governance, relying on conspiracy theories in the structure of governance, and an ideological desire for power. These have been the main reasons for Iran’s stagnation in development. These conditions have led to a situation where not only has the country not progressed, but we are witnessing the system’s desperation to survive. Naturally, any country in similar circumstances as Iran, with leaders constantly concerned about their own survival, development is not and will not be a priority.

Why isn’t Iran progressing?

According to Iran Gate, many experts believe that Iran is one of the few countries in the 21st century that has had the necessary resources for development. However, not only has it stagnated, but it also faces extreme backwardness. Some believe that the Iranian people lack the necessary capacities for development, while others argue that the structure of the Islamic Republic’s governance hinders progress and national development.

Many sociologists believe that the government in Iran has never been able to put the country on the path of comprehensive development. Although there have been periods, such as the 1940s, late 1970s, and early 1980s, when the government aimed for development, it was not achieved due to underlying weaknesses in the structure. The process of development has faced serious obstacles. Before the revolution, the Shah’s dictatorship blocked the path, and after the revolution, the anti-Western ideology and the dominance of clerics have derailed the country from the track of development.

But the question remains as to why Iran, despite having abundant resources, has been unable to make progress and keep up with global development. Iran Gate has attempted to provide a suitable answer to these two questions and inform the audience in this regard. The present report is the first part of this dossier, which focuses on the reasons for lack of progress and one of the main obstacles in Iran.

We do not recognize the obvious.

Many sociologists believe that for rational governance in a governing structure, certain obvious principles such as adherence to natural laws, recognition of collective wisdom, governance based on common interests, must be recognized. However, a look at the track record of governments before and after the 1957 revolution in Iran clearly shows the absence of all or some of these factors.

Significant gaps

Experts believe that having constructive relations with the world is a priority over domestic politics for development and taking advantage of international opportunities, including accepted norms of governance. By taking this step, we can avoid factors such as prioritizing economy over politics or pursuing a self-interest-based and pragmatic foreign policy in the approach of the Islamic Republic towards governance. Although during the second Pahlavi era, some of these factors, including constructive relations with the world, had a special place in Iranian governance, in other cases, elements such as authoritarianism or prioritizing economy over politics are clearly evident.

An agent in the realm of tough ideology

Looking at the successful experiences of countries like Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and even China, it is evident that all of these countries have benefited from pragmatic and non-ideological leadership. However, in almost all cases, these leaders have established an authoritarian framework. Nevertheless, none of them had an ideological approach to governance.

For example, Deng Xiaoping, known as the father of modern China, despite being one of the prominent leaders of the Communist Party of China, his performance indicates a completely pragmatic and technocratic approach to governance. This pattern is also evident in other cases, such as General Park in South Korea, Mahathir Mohamad in Malaysia, Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore, and many others.

Of course, when it comes to Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, the element of global perspective may not be accurate, but it should not be forgotten that the foundation of Pahlavi’s oppressive regime in Iran was so strong that it overshadowed the reformist approach of the second Pahlavi and rendered it ineffective. However, both the founder of the Islamic Republic and Ayatollah Khamenei were from the clerical faction, with limited familiarity with the outside world, and even in many cases, they supported anti-modern and ultimately anti-development ideologies.

While it should not be overlooked that the 1979 revolution in Iran was ideological in nature, which naturally provided a platform for leaders who represented the dominant ideology, there are instances where Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani is referred to as a non-ideological and pragmatic figure among the officials of the Islamic Republic. However, he also had traces of revolutionary and ideological actions in his record until the mid-60s and even the early 70s.

But with all these characteristics, many believe that there are officials who have worked in the governing structure of the Islamic Republic after the revolution, and they serve as suitable role models for future generations. These individuals include figures like Mehdi Bazargan, Hashemi Rafsanjani, Mohammad Khatami, Hassan Rouhani, and even Ali Larijani. They are classified as elites who, in addition to their familiarity with the world and its dynamics, also have a significant distance from the ideologically-driven and revolutionary performance under the banner of the Islamic Republic.

In the next section of the file ‘Why Iran is not progressing,’ two other major reasons, which are among the most significant obstacles to Iran’s development, will be discussed.