Note: Recently, I have been questioned about why I label the Islamic regime as a regime and not a government in my articles. Interestingly enough, a few years ago, a political attaché of the Islamic regime in Washington wrote a letter of objection, demanding that the Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies (CAIS) abandon the usage of the term 'regime' when addressing the Islamic regime in its news articles.

 

The subsequent passage comprises a segment of my response to that letter.

The question of whether the Shia-Oclotarian[*] Islamic regime in Iran is a government or a regime is not merely a matter of semantic nuance; it delves into the very essence of governance and its adherence to fundamental principles. Notwithstanding the leaders' obstinate rejection of the term 'regime,' the unassailable reality persists: the Islamic regime, rather than embodying a legitimate system, manifests the traits characteristic of a regime.

 

A legitimate government is inherently rooted in principles of transparency, accountability, and the rule of law, supported by an independent judiciary. It derives its authority from the consent of the governed and operates within a framework that upholds the rights and freedoms of individuals in society. Legitimate governments adhere to constitutional norms, democratic processes, and respect for human rights, drawing their legitimacy from a sincere commitment to the well-being of their nation.

 

Conversely, a regime often signifies a form of governance marked by a dearth of transparency, accountability, and adherence to the rule of law. Regimes typically consolidate power in a central authority, with limited or no checks and balances. Leadership relies on coercion, suppression of dissent, and manipulation of institutions to create an atmosphere of fear and control. Regimes disregard democratic processes and violate human rights, resulting in a governance structure that is arbitrary, capricious, and often self-serving.

 

In essence, a legitimate government operates within a framework that respects the rights and will of the people, while a regime tends to concentrate power in a manner that disregards such principles, relying on force or manipulation to sustain its authority. This distinction is pivotal in evaluating the nature of governance and its impact on the well-being and rights of the nation.

 

The crux of this distinction lies in the nature of governance. A bona fide system of governance, symbolising an all-encompassing authority bereft of justification, where an unbridled inclination to command and empower is viewed as the most lascivious aspect of power, inherently assumes sanctity.

 

However, when governance tilts towards a sacred realm, it ceases the Islamic regime to be considered or described as a 'legitimate government.' Instead, it metamorphoses into sheer disorder, chaos, irregularity, upheaval, destruction, corruption, insecurity, and violence. Additionally, the Islamic regime did not incrementally evolve into its current state; it was conceived as such from its inception, justifying its existence and rule in the names of God and Islam and values that belong to stone age and primitive societies of the sand dunes of Najad and Hijaz.

 

While some who believe in the Islamic regime but simultaneously yearn for a semi-civilized society call for reforms, their desires are nothing but a political mirage. This group of loyalists to the regime cannot comprehend that when a political system abandons rhetoric and seeks legitimacy through religious notions, bolstering its power through suppression, execution, and the rule of fear, reform becomes a Sisyphean task. It underscores that governance is inherently irreformable and demands a complete cessation and toppling from power.

 

The extant anti-regime protests in Iran stand as a poignant testament to the manifest failure of all endeavours undertaken by the regime to justify its governance and the concomitant erosion of its sanctity. At present, Iranian protesters find themselves bereft of recourse, possessing nothing to relinquish save for their chains. These protests, acutely emblematic, proffer a stark reminder that governance, rather than a synonym for security, encapsulates traits redolent of insecurity, manifesting as harsh, tumultuous, unyielding, illegitimate, and unconditional.

 

Henceforth, the most judicious course of action would be the overthrow of the regime. Its leadership, alongside the implicated security forces, must be subjected to collective scrutiny, standing trial for their complicity in the reprehensible act of terminating innocent lives, an egregious transgression against humanity.

 

 

The Totalitarian Regime in Iran: A Detachment from Iranian Identity

The current discourse delineates a pivotal distinction between the Islamic regime and a conventional government structure, categorising it not as a government but as a regime. An imperative facet demanding further exploration pertains to the nomenclature employed, specifically the habitual reference to the Islamic regime as 'the Iranian Regime.' This terminological choice constitutes a profound affront to the tenacity exhibited by countless Iranian men and women who steadfastly combat this draconian regime.

 

Certain states and nations engaged in hostilities with the regime in Iran frequently designate it as 'An Iranian regime.' This categorisation, evident across diverse media platforms, including articles, interviews, news broadcasts, and speeches, constitutes a conspicuous injustice. It undermines the sacrifices made by a myriad of Iranians who courageously resisted the Islamo-fascist regime, with a considerable number sacrificing their lives in the pursuit of a governance model anchored in democratic ideals, freedom, justice, and egalitarian principles.

 

The initial rationale underscoring the inappropriateness of designating this regime as Iranian lies in the self-appellation of its leaders as 'sayed,' denoting lineage traced to Muhammad and his progeny through his daughter's marriage to Ali. Consequently, the leaders of Iran, by virtue of their pride in an ancestral connection to Arabs from 1400 years ago, cannot authentically be classified as Iranian.

 

Moreover, since the inception of the Islamic regime in Iran during the Carter administration, Ruhollah Khomeini and his adherents have systematically waged an assault on Iranian culture and national identity. This multifaceted assault encompasses ancient Iranian history, the celebration of the national Iranian New Year (Nowruz), the preservation of the Persian language, and veneration of historical luminaries such as Cyrus the Great. Notably, Cyrus is revered as the progenitor of the Iranian nation. Furthermore, the assault extends to cultural stalwarts like Ferdowsi, whose magnum opus, the Book of Kings, revitalised the Persian language and, in turn, prevented Iran from succumbing to a linguistic fate akin to Egypt, which relinquished its ancient language in favour of Arabic. Egypt, as a consequence, has regrettably descended to a state of identification as Arab, its cultural standing juxtaposed with nations that emerged only in the early 20th century.

 

Hence, the imperative for these states engaged in hostilities with the ruling regime in Iran is to comprehend the intricacies of the situation. Beyond the immediate geopolitical confrontations, there exists a shared challenge in countering the regime's narrative, which paradoxically denounces Israel as an occupier while actively participating in oppressive practices within its own borders. This hypocritical stance not only highlights the regime's ideological inconsistencies but also underscores its disregard for international norms.

 

By acknowledging this common adversary, states can strategically align themselves with the Iranian nation, recognising that the regime's misrepresentations are a source of internal contention. To garner support from the Iranian nation, these states must engage in nuanced diplomacy that distinguishes between opposition to the regime and hostility towards the Iranian people. Failure to do so risks inadvertently reinforcing the regime's narrative of external threats, providing it with a convenient rallying point against perceived foreign aggression.

 

Furthermore, the alienation of the Iranian nation from external actors inadvertently plays into the regime's hands. Iranians, deeply connected to their national identity, are likely to rally behind the ruling authorities when faced with external pressures perceived as existential threats. This phenomenon has historically been observed in times of heightened geopolitical tension.

 

In essence, the astute approach for these states involves strategic outreach to the Iranian people, emphasising a distinction between opposition to the regime and a genuine concern for the well-being and aspirations of the Iranian nation. Such an approach not only aligns with democratic principles but also weakens the regime's grip on power by eroding its base of domestic support. In the grand scheme of geopolitical objectives, fostering alliances with the Iranian nation proves far more efficacious than inadvertently strengthening the regime through indiscriminate policies that may alienate the very demographic that seeks change from within.

 

Shapour Suren-Pahlav

11 February 2017

 

 

Footnote:

*, The political terminology 'Shia-Ochlotarian' was coined by this author in 2012 to encapsulate the multifaceted nature of the Islamic regime in Iran. The term encompasses autocracy, Shi'ism, Islamic fundamentalism, totalitarianism, Islamic extremism, ochlocracy, kleptocracy, mafiaocracy, and kakistocracy.