Why do they say it’s their own doing?
Why do people say it’s their own doing? This phrase has become a recurring theme in the analyses of many people in response to the Shahcheragh terrorist incident. The answer lies in the social wall of distrust between the people and the government, a wall that has now crumbled beyond mere cracks. Even when ISIS issues a statement or releases images of the terrorist with a weapon and ISIS flag, it doesn’t significantly alter public perceptions.
The public perception is that the power structure, instead of confronting ISIS, has directed its attacks towards the protesters. Some have also referred to the 1994 bombing at Imam Reza’s shrine, where later Ali Younesi, the intelligence minister of Khatami’s government, stated it was the work of an extremist group called Forqan, but the Rajavi terrorist cult was suspected and accused. This disbelief was especially reinforced when some officials and media outlets began suggesting that protesters were to blame or facilitated this terrorist incident.
On social media, they began claiming that all protesters, or as they call them, rioters, have blood on their hands from the Shahcheragh martyrs and that there should be no leniency, but rather decisive action. The Minister of Interior officially stated that the recent disturbances that troubled the people are taking dangerous paths in different forms by the enemy, and the terrorist movement has acted by exploiting the chaos.
Why protests are not the reason for the terrorist attack
Their claim was that because protesters have made the country unsafe, ISIS or other terrorist groups found the environment ripe and took the opportunity to easily carry out this act. They even published cartoons or graphic designs with this content, suggesting that protesters have so occupied the police and security forces that they have been distracted from their main duties. However, responses to these claims have been noteworthy, pointing to previous terrorist operations in the country when there were neither protests nor riots.
Mostafa Hemmat, the son of martyr Hemmat, wrote on Instagram in response to a similar claim that in 2017 when ISIS attacked the parliament, what protest was happening that we were unaware of? Or perhaps in each year between 2005 and 2010, when the Jundallah terrorist group carried out 24 terrorist operations in Iran, there were protests and we were uninformed? Or during the bloody attack by the Ahvaz terrorist group on the army parade in 2018, were there protests and people didn’t know? Don’t you find your claims laughable?
Blood Seekers
Another issue contributing to this distrust is labeling the recent civilian casualties in protests as fabricated deaths while calling the deaths of police and security forces martyrs. When they created a hashtag for Artin for the victims of the terrorist incident and held funeral ceremonies, they ignored and disregarded the images and videos related to the recent casualties. Although, on the other hand, more people simultaneously condemned this terrorist incident and declared that there is no difference between this blood and the blood spilled on the streets.
Salman Kadivar, in an article titled ‘Blood Seekers,’ wrote that our society is highly polarized and ready to turn anything into its own dichotomy, even the Shahcheragh terrorist attack. He criticized that one side, even after it becomes clear that the attack was ISIS’s doing, refrains from expressing condolences and giving media attention because, in their view, blood must flow in the streets to keep the fire burning.
According to him, the second pole sees this blood as having political value and uses it as a tool to defeat and accuse the rival. For this pole, the blood spilled on the streets or in Zahedan is different from the blood spilled in Shahcheragh. One is considered their own blood, and the other is outsider blood. They scare people with the idea of becoming like Syria, while the country’s management itself is the greatest threat to Iran’s existence. Innocent blood is innocent, whether it belongs to a pilgrim or an unveiled person, whether in Shiraz, Zahedan, Tehran, or Saqqez.
Whose share of the blood seekers is greater?
However, Salman Kadivar missed an important point in his analysis: this polarization is not necessarily and solely a polarization between people in an equal situation. One end of this polarization is within the power structure, which coincidentally has some people on its side. One end of this pole has access to all the tools of power, while the other end has only some of the tools. Therefore, the responsibility of the side with more power, which should ideally remain neutral in response to the shedding of innocent blood, is greater in creating and directing this polarization.
For this reason, some rightly believe that blaming the protesters for the tragic Shahcheragh shrine terrorist incident is shirking responsibility, both for the attack by ISIS on the shrine and for failing to understand and respond correctly to the protesters. All of this has led people to say it was their own doing in light of their lost trust in the power structure. In reality, the power structure, by erasing the problem and discriminating between the dead and ignoring the protesters’ demands and attributing them to this and that, is itself complicit in creating this disbelief.
The conservative supporters in power, however, lack the rationality or maturity to seek out why this belief exists among the people. Instead, they continue to use the language of threats. Mehdi Solhshour, the brother of the late Farajollah Solhshour, a filmmaker with traditional values, tweeted that more dangerous than the terrorist committing atrocities in Shahcheragh is the terrorist who, with the phrase ‘it’s their own doing,’ paves the way for future enemy crimes.
This article was published following the killing of Zhina Amini (Mahsa Amini) by the security police. Other reports and analyses on this matter have also been shared by Iran Gate.
- The Guidance Patrol’s crime during Raisi’s government
- Iranian people’s protests and the question of non-violence: Yes or No?
