Revolutionary youth’s frustration with harsh retaliation by the revolutionary government
Revolutionary youth are disappointed with the hard retaliation by the revolutionary government. Some young fundamentalists expressed their dissatisfaction with the policies adopted during the Gaza war, despite the fact that for the past two years, the desired government has been working on eliminating rivals and purifying itself. However, they feel that the decision-makers in Ibrahim Raisi’s government have also become bureaucrats. Therefore, they have proposed incorporating new sections into the administrative structure of current institutions, transforming organizations into councils, linking them in coordinating councils, and upgrading these councils to a form of active engagement.
Rajanews website has mentioned them under the title of ‘cohesion’. Although the names of the signatories are not well-known, their dissatisfaction and accusation of the current government of inaction can be attributed to the supporters of Saeed Jalili. However, it confirms the predictions of those who said in 2021, ‘Let them take control of the government and diplomacy so that their slogans can be put to the test and they can be held accountable for the requirements and necessities of their politics and diplomacy, and become realistic.’
Now, despite Hassan Rouhani and Javad Zarif being replaced by Ebrahim Raisi and Hossein Amir Abdollahian, the frustration of the principled justice-seeking youth’s criticism can still be sensed.
The statement reads as follows:
The operation on 7 October 2023 in Gaza was a severe earthquake, but the most important consequence was the creation of a public and humanitarian outcry against the regime worldwide, especially in the United States and Europe. It expressed a public anger that heralded the formation of an anti-regime political and popular alignment, or the global Western bloc. Who doesn’t know how much the fate of Israel has been influenced by this public anger in the baskets of votes supporting this regime?
It is surprising that such a furious and revenge-seeking atmosphere did not emerge with the presence and influence of the Resistance Front, as witnessed by the leaders of the Resistance Axis and the martyrdom of Western agencies. This atmosphere was not the result of public opinion engineering, cyber army attacks, or the manipulation of faces and groups close to the resistance. This situation is more than anything else indicative of a great opportunity that has emerged in the face of the Resistance Front without any direct action taken to bring it about. But are we ready to seize this opportunity?
The expansion of just demands against the regime could and can exert increasing political pressure on Western countries to put an end to the brutal massacre of the people of Gaza. It could also create a social environment in Europe and America that is ready to reconsider their always anti-Israel positions towards the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Resistance Front. However, a look at the social, political, and civil movements within the institutions of the Islamic Republic of Iran indicates otherwise.
Despite some baseless propaganda in the media, both domestic and foreign, we Iranians have not had a significant role in these widespread global movements. In fact, we are mostly lagging behind. This is astonishing for a country that has given the highest domestic and foreign costs for the cause of Palestine. To the extent that if it were not for the explicit positions of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution and some military movements, we could have asked ourselves whether we are truly steadfast and truthful in our opposition to Israel.
What is the result of this passivity? Which part of the foreign political development apparatus of the Islamic Republic of Iran should be held accountable?
In the military and security realm, the loyal forces of the Mujahideen and the dedicated supporters of the regime have incurred the highest costs in the past four decades to confront Israel and the United States in the region. They have sacrificed the purest youth and bravest men of the nation for the sake of resistance, to the extent that their military and security penetration has become a symbol of defiance against the arrogance. But has this continuous and sincere struggle received enough political and social support? Have we witnessed a similar movement of cultural and political forces in the intellectual, political, and cultural spheres in Europe and America?
If we don’t want to simplify the issue by attributing it to accessible factors such as budget shortages, lack of elite forces, or inadequate management of jihad, we need to consider the intellectual state within the institutions responsible for Iran’s foreign cultural policy, such as the Organization of Culture and Communications and similar entities. It does not see such movements as necessary or, on the contrary, it pursues activities that cannot foster scientific and political connections with susceptible and dissenting forces with diverse religious, ideological, and cultural inclinations worldwide.
One perspective sees the struggle of the Mujahideen as a means to develop a Shia identity, while the other seeks to find itself within religious categorizations and is focused on promoting religious beliefs and national rituals. However, the essence of resistance and revolution in Iran has always been an ideological interpretation of Shia Islam, carrying a global invitation to a power and political system. Yes, the root of all grievances lies in the irreparable injustices committed against the prophets and saints, peace be upon them. But if we do not show concern and care for these grievances and the pains of humanity today, where will the wounds and agonies of the people of God be heard and seen?
The result of this situation is not only passivity and backwardness in the face of the struggle against arrogance, but it also leads to unnecessary costs for the fighters of the resistance front. The roots of Shia-phobia should not only be sought in the propaganda of British and Israeli agents in the region. We must also consider the costs resulting from the national and religious identity-based choices made by the institutions responsible for intellectual and cultural communications. These are the very costs that occasionally prompt the leaders of the resistance to emphasize that the main confrontation is not between Shia and Sunni, or between Arabs and non-Arabs, but between resistance and submission.
What should be done with such root-finding that its mention has disappeared? What policy should be adopted? A policy that adopts a critical approach and warns against the dominance of identity-driven perspectives in cultural and public diplomacy institutions, a perspective that has infiltrated the deepest layers of decision-making in the sacred system and taken hold.
Such an approach, which means criticism and warning, although it can be unsettling for a few, in a situation where perspectives have turned into policies, policies have turned into routines, and routines have turned into repetitive and stagnant actions, and reactive choices waste opportunities one after another because they do not see the situations that arise as opportunities at all, warning and criticism cannot be the main task. Another policy is to initiate some administrative and structural changes, incorporating new sections into the current administrative structure, transforming organizations into councils, linking them to coordinating councils, and elevating these councils to a position of power and influence, although it may lead to some administrative movement, it cannot be the carrier of decision-making power.
These administrative actions are neutralized and reversed by the entrenched perspectives and habitual behaviors, and instead, they lead to frustration and disillusionment with the possibility of change. What we are facing is a state of mind, a state that perceives the struggle as concluded and has long prepared itself for a safe and ordinary life. The inclination to normalize relations with the United States, agree with the blocs of compromise in the region, and perceive the Islamic Republic of Iran as a normal actor are all consequences of such a situation.
It is not limited to the left and right, as the positions of conservative, reformist, and non-ideological politicians in these days after October 7, 2023, show. A response to such a situation requires a more fundamental approach. A strategy should be adopted that can attract revolutionary forces, forces that claim to be a form of human existence in this world and do not want to remain limited to historical and identity boundaries, and put them into action. In proportion to such an approach, courageous actions must be taken.
First, it is necessary to shape a coalition of forces who believe in the transformative ideology of Shiaism, which are ready to revive political affairs and halt the descent of politics into administration, culture, and security. By accepting the authority of this political coalition, all ideological forces within the government will be prevented from reproducing patriarchal and past patterns, especially the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as the center of these forces in the government and its main supporter in popular groups. It is expected that by trusting this movement, the path to independence and its maturity will be made smoother.
Secondly, the entry of the coalition into the political arena will be the second step, which can begin in the domestic scene by competing with nationalist and identity-based Shia groups through electoral mechanisms and public mobilization, starting from the twelfth parliamentary elections. At the international level, it should continue by developing appropriate political relations with non-sectarian groups.
The third cultural, public, and economic diplomatic institutions, such as the Culture and Communications Organization, regardless of their diplomatic nature, do not have a cohesive link with global susceptible and dissenting movements. Only by dissolving these low-capacity and high-cost organizations and utilizing their resources within structures arising from an ideological coalition, can we take advantage of this great global opportunity. This cannot be achieved through lobbying and manipulation alone, but only through the success of the coalition in political competition. Only then can we hope for such a transformative decision.
