On the 29th of October 2017, the commemoration of Cyrus the Great by the Iranian nation unfolded with notable distinction, albeit unintentionally facilitated by the Shia-Ochlotarian regime in power. Paradoxically, the regime's actions inadvertently contributed to a more commendable observance than in any preceding years.

 

In the current year, the regime prohibited the commemoration, deeming it an anti-regime demonstration. According to Article 610 of the Islamic Penal Code, attendance at the mausoleum of Cyrus the Great warranted arrest and the most stringent punitive measures. Simultaneously, the regime instituted roadblocks, impeding access to the revered site.

 

Moreover, the regime fortified the mausoleum using metal bars shielded by Admiralty scaffolding or Obstacle Z.1, a World War II-era British design for anti-tank and anti-boat obstacles crafted from tubular steel. Atop these barriers, a considerable contingent of Revolutionary Guards stood vigilant. Additionally, the regime deployed tens of thousands of heavily armed forces, clad in anti-riot gears.

 

 

A Blessing in Disguise

The regime, by instituting a prohibition and implementing comprehensive security measures, signalled an expectation of larger assemblies exceeding those of preceding years. The discernible implication is that the regime, over an extended period, has conscientiously orchestrated strategic plans and conducted military exercises. This elaborate preparation extends beyond the mere enforcement of the ban; it encompasses a proactive stance geared towards addressing and quelling any potential uprising, drawing parallels with the occurrences of the antecedent year.

 

1. In the inaugural phase, the orchestrated amalgamation of the regime's coercive machinery, intricately interwoven with strategically positioned impediments surrounding the Mausoleum, poignantly underscored the regime's discernible anxiety vis-à-vis the escalating wave of Iranian nationalism. This calculated assembly of suppressive forces and methodically deployed obstacles not only functioned as a conspicuous manifestation of the regime's trepidation but also served as a poignant tableau depicting its unwavering concern in response to the upsurge of fervent Iranian patriotic fervour. This orchestrated display, within the context of the Mausoleum visitation, thus becomes emblematic of the regime's resolute stance against the burgeoning sentiments of nationalistic fervency within the Iranian nation.

 

2. The events, reported by Iranians utilising their mobile phones as broadcasting powerhouses, rapidly disseminated and garnered international coverage. Even those news anchors who diligently adhere to a policy of refraining from broadcasting anything that highlights the facet of Iranian nationalism among the demonstrators found themselves compelled to abandon such restraint and report it comprehensively. These news anchors, somewhat disgracefully, attempted to portray the demonstrations as a consequence of poverty and local demands rather than the unequivocal pursuit of regime change by the Iranian nation.

 

Consequently, this development propelled the name of Cyrus the Great into the forefront of their scrutiny, prompting non-Iranians unfamiliar with the historical figure to search for his name. This unexpected turn of events posed a notable quandary for both the regime and foreign powers whose interests align with the continuity of the regime, as it functions as a formidable deterrent force. The ensuing predicament placed them in a precarious position, given that the regime, acting as a potent scarecrow, found itself subjected to heightened scrutiny and potential ramifications.

 

3. Certain oppositions advocating for regime change, such as the MKO/MEK Islamist organisation, which paradoxically advocates for the establishment of another Islamic regime based on communist economic principles, were compelled to acknowledge the pervasive strength of Iranian patriotism. In an act of duplicity, they modified their rhetoric, attempting to portray themselves as groups that hold reverence for Cyrus the Great. However, it is plausible that, in the aftermath of this event, they aim to cloak themselves in a veneer of Iranian nationalism, strategically positioning it as a tool to garner support from Iranians who harbour profound resentment towards them, comparable to the disdain directed at the existing regime.

 

Iranians, wearied not only by anything Islamic but also unforgiving of those who supported Saddam Hussein's war with Iran, during which they fought alongside Iraqis, resulting in numerous Iranian casualties and captures, steadfastly retain their historical memory. The U.S., in recent years, has futilely sought to depict the MKO/MEK as the primary opposition group, a narrative persistently met with scepticism and resistance from the Iranian nation.

 

4. Upon learning of the security measures implemented by the regime to thwart the commemoration of Cyrus the Great Day at his mausoleum, opposition groups advocating for freedom and democracy called for the liberation of Tehran from the regime, specifically endorsing the takeover of the Radio and TV headquarters. This call not only instilled profound fear within the regime but also, as a notable portion of its suppressive forces were deployed to Pasargadae, the location of Cyrus the Great's mausoleum, the regime found itself inadequately equipped to defend the capital.

 

In response, the regime resorted to mobilising mobs onto the streets of Tehran, armed with an array of weapons, including guns, knives, and machetes. This reactionary move not only underscored the regime's vulnerability but also laid bare its inherent fragility. While these mobilised mobs possess the capability to inflict serious injuries and death, their inadequacy in halting mass demonstrations, where a level of training is lacking, becomes apparent.

 

5. In the days preceding the celebration, as news of the regime's forces being stationed at the mausoleum of Cyrus the Great disseminated, individuals intending to travel to Pasargadae from various parts of the country opted to commemorate the occasion in their respective towns and cities. This marked the inaugural instance of a nationwide commemoration and unexpectedly drew masses surpassing anyone's anticipations, thereby eliciting expressions of anger and frustration from the regime's leaders. Iranians, gaining insight from this experience, subsequently adopted the practice of commemorating the event on a wide scale in the following years, using it as a symbolic demonstration of their defiance and unwavering determination to bring down the regime.

 

6. The same slogans that the demonstrators chanted last year at the mausoleum of Cyrus the Great were now resounding throughout the country, signifying a notable triumph for constitutional monarchists who can now ascertain the backing of the majority of the Iranian nation. These slogans included:  'Cyrus is our father; Iran is our country'; 'Never sleep, Cyrus: Iran has no father'; 'Not Gaza nor Lebanon; My life for Iran'; 'Freedom of thought cannot take place with beards. No Gaza, no Palestine, we will only sacrifice ourselves for Iran'; 'Iran is our country, Cyrus is our father and 'Happy Birthday, O Prince!', a reference to Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, whose birthday coincided with the events.

 

7. This event serves as a poignant illustration that any prospective government in Iran must not only endorse democratic principles but, with heightened emphasis, intricately align itself with the nuanced tapestry of Iranian cultural and national identity. Failure to engage in such meticulous alignment not only renders the governance structure bereft of merit but, more notablely, triggers categorical rejection from the Iranian nation, thus foreclosing the viability of alternative governance frameworks.

 

A future governmental system that reveres the deeply rooted national identity of Iran as an ancient nation is imperative. Establishing such a system does not constitute a regressive return to the past; rather, it embodies a forward-looking commitment to a 'bright future' while remaining rooted in a profound understanding of historical origins. This outlook is anchored in the essence that rendered Iranians torchbearers of human civilization, a heritage entwined with dignity, pride, and glory. It signifies a return to the core identity and beliefs that transcend temporal and spatial confines.

 

This resurgence is not a retreat but, instead, a forward gaze to the essence that positioned Iranians as torchbearers of humanity in the annals of history.

 

Finally, it serves as a stark reminder that the regime has yet to release the remaining 62 constitutional monarchist political activists arrested during last year's 'Cyrus the Great Uprising.' Shockingly, out of the 74 arrested, 12 have met a tragic end through execution. Regrettably, the fate of the remaining 62 activists remains shrouded in uncertainty, leaving only the faint hope that they are still alive.

 

It is a great shame on so-called human rights groups, notably Amnesty International, that, to date, have avoided explicitly mentioning the names of these individuals. The silence on their plight echoes loudly, underscoring the imperative for a resolute and unwavering commitment to human rights advocacy, irrespective of geopolitical complexities or considerations. The plight of these activists demands international attention and condemnation, emphasizing the urgency for concerted efforts to secure their release and safeguard their basic human rights.

 

 

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the multifaceted events surrounding the commemoration of Cyrus the Great Day at his mausoleum have not only underscored the regime's vulnerabilities but have also catalysed a broader societal shift in Iran. The resonance of democratic principles intertwined with a meticulous alignment with Iranian cultural and national identity emerges as a non-negotiable imperative for any prospective government. The rejection of alternative governance structures, coupled with a collective determination to embrace a forward-looking yet historically grounded future, signals a profound societal awakening.

 

The aspiration for a future system that honours the ancient roots of Iranian identity is not a retreat to the past but a stride towards a 'bright future.' It is an affirmation of the essence that made Iranians torchbearers of human civilization, transcending the constraints of time and place. In essence, this trajectory positions Iranians not only as stewards of their national heritage but also as torchbearers of humanity on the global stage, as they were in the storied chapters of their past. This isn't a nostalgic retreat to bygone eras; it's a stride towards an illuminating future.

 

Shapour Suren-Pahlav

30 October 2017