Iran’s Future in the Haze of Doubt
Iran’s future is in the haze of doubt as Qalibaf promises that if security and calm are established, legitimate changes and a move towards new governance will be created in all areas of the country. Meanwhile, the microphone of the representative from Sistan and Baluchestan, who speaks of the oppression of the people in Khash, is cut off, and nearly 300 representatives also demand the swift execution of detainees.
This is where one must ask, Mr. Qalibaf, how should we believe your words when, in the very parliament you preside over, your colleagues add fuel to the fire instead of pouring water on it? Besides, many doubt the sincerity of your words, believing them to be nothing more than empty promises, similar to the judiciary chief’s invitation to dialogue, where in practice, not only is there no determination or will for it, but even the few available avenues for dialogue are closed.
Many believe that the precondition for the return of security is seeing clear signs from the power structure and governance in listening to and acting on the promises made to the protesters. At the very least, it means allowing the implementation of Article 27 of the Constitution regarding the right to freedom of assembly. The sign of the return of security and moving towards dialogue is not the suspension of an activity of a reformist party or the arrest of a university economics professor merely for his criticisms, nor is it the arrest and expulsion of students from education.
The Solo Notes Within Power
It seems that within the structure of principlists in power, there is a kind of disarray and division over how to confront the protests. Qalibaf’s words, even if not 100% sincere, express a portion of what is happening within this faction. Qalibaf can be considered the most pragmatic or technocratic figure in the current power structure, who, incidentally, has shown at critical moments that he is more committed to power than to ideology and some of its rigid values.
An example is his political action years ago when, under the title of Dr. Pilot and with a new posture, he tried to distance himself somewhat from his political base and entered the 2005 elections in hopes of gaining the middle-class vote. Although he did not succeed, he showed that he is willing to make deals to stay in power. Some factions within the principlist movement understand this well, such as the Front of Stability, which made significant efforts to prevent his presence in parliament and later his acquisition of the parliamentary presidency, but they did not succeed.
Another of these figures, who tries to present himself as democratic, moderate, and willing to interact with everyone, regardless of his intentions or beliefs, is Ezzatollah Zarghami. He implicitly agrees with a retreat on the hijab issue. In a speech at Sharif University, he stated that today our young girls and students walk in the streets without headscarves. What happened? Do you think if the government does not retreat softly, what will happen? Some women in the streets have become unveiled. Can we now force headscarves on them?
The Duality of Words and Actions
However, it seems that the main power faction within the principlist movement has no desire to retreat, or if it does, it does not want to express it, or if it does express it, it acts contrary to it. Responsible figures in the Council for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice have repeatedly stated that they will not retreat on the hijab issue.
This duality can also be seen in the opportunistic appropriation of the famous photo of a blonde woman at the November 4th rally. After the publication of that image, which clearly showed the attendees protesting and arguing with the woman, value-oriented and principlist accounts on social media began exploiting it with the message that not only do we tolerate unveiled women, but we are also willing to engage in dialogue with them without any physical confrontation.
These types of reactions led others to question the identity and real actions of the woman in the image. Some said it was a project to lead them to such exploitation. If they are so tolerant and lenient about the hijab, then why have there been so many arrests and detentions until now? Why was Mahsa Amini arrested? Why was Donya Rad arrested for publishing a photo without her hijab in a coffeehouse? Why do the ruling tribunes still defend compulsory hijab, and many more questions of this kind?
The expectation people have is that they wish the same rationality, logic, and tolerance we witnessed regarding the unveiled woman, which principlist media pride themselves on and rightfully so, had prevailed all these years. Not only in the field of hijab but in all areas. Then, the tragic story of Mahsa Amini would not have become part of Iran’s contemporary history, and so many innocent people would not have lost their lives. In such rationality, we would have had the best relations with the world, a strong economy, prosperous people, and a powerful society.
The issue is that the power structure is not only unwilling to retreat on the hijab issue but is also unwilling to relent on matters even less significant. These days, the discussion of women’s motorcycling has resurfaced, but the head of the police traffic information center has resorted to the same old tactic, stating that the law says anyone with a motorcycle license can drive, but no woman has a motorcycle license. The law is silent on this matter, so we remain silent too. One user on social media humorously wrote that to make motorcycling for women free, we probably need a revolution.
Recommended content exclusively prepared in Iran Gate
- Where Are the Protests Heading? Will Iran Become Venezuela?
- Iran’s Movement Towards a Dead End
- Disaster at Istanbul’s Crossroad
DMCA Protected Cover