The Theoretical Future of Iran…

With the recent protests in Iran ebbing and flowing on, more quietly than when they had first begun, many Iranians fear that the momentum of this movement may die down.  While there is still much dissent and turmoil still occurring in Iran, it is not with the same magnitude of people nor with the same degree of media coverage (both from outside Iran and from citizen’s themselves within Iran).   While this movement has lost too many lives and caused so much injury and danger to many brave people, the numbers indicate that the movement is not merely a riot or small massacre that cropped up in Iran’s current events.  At the same time, the relative number of lives lost and people incarcerated in this event is small in comparison to other movements that hint at revolution.   This does not mean that future action is not in the works, indeed it means the very opposite.   The movement is far from over; it has yet to even clearly indicate in what manner it will grow.

            From a political and historical perspective, I personally have entertained notions of what may come out of the events brewing in Iran.  While there is no way of knowing for sure what form the movement in Iran will take in time, it is interesting to identify key components that may be indicative of the path that Iran will take.  The first of one such fictitious theories is the Berlin Wall Theory (a simple made-up name).  This theory stems from the events that occurred at the falling of the Berlin Wall, signifying the end of division between Western Berlin and West Germany with that of the Communist dominated East Berlin/Germany.  This historical moment from the late 1980’s has seared a familiar image in everyone’s minds.  Jean jacketclad, t-shirt bearing youth attacking the wall with the zest and celebration similar to that of Iranians in Tehran celebrating a soccer victory.  What had always stood out to me from these images, and perhaps from history itself, is the compliant appearance ofthe Communist guards who stand idly by, watching the populace take what is theirs.  Granted that the confusion and weakened state of the USSR had led to the mismanagement that allowed the wall to be brought down, but there is something else indicated in the photos.  These young guards standing on that wall only differ from those young people tearing it down by the appearance of their clothes.  These young people, guards and civilians alike, grew up in the deprived Eastern sect of Berlin with the prosperous West just a wall away. They had in common a generation of shared experiences and attitudes.  It seemed as though no amount of brainwashing and Communist propaganda could turn a generation against itself.  Perhaps the populations youth demographic made it necessary for lower level government positions and those of police forces in East Germany to be filled by younger citizens.  When the population becomes increasingly infiltrated by the younger generation, from an organization or administrative standpoint, the ideas or attitude that dominates that system begins to change with its majority. 

            I see Iranians facing a similar situation. The statistics on Iran’s population indicate an overwhelming majority of youths, which will one day quite soon be responsible for every aspect of running Iran.  From government to security forces, law-makers to justices, doctors to writers to artists will all be from a similar age group.  That younger generation that finds itself responsible for Iran one day will statistically out number the current generation who is in power in Iran.  Simple math combined with the process of time will push Iran’s youth into the forefront, whether they are prepared for it or not.  If the Berlin Wall theory holds true, the next generation within Iran will have an easier ability to overcome the setbacks from the past. As it stands, many events have recently occurred in Iran to show some chance of this happening.  There have already been members of police forces who have abstained or refused to shoot at crowds of students and protestors.  Some people in positions of authority have recognized that they share something with those protestors, be it ideology, attitude, or sheer, simple humanity. 

            The second theory is more unsettling and quite less idealistic.  I call my next theory the Che Guevara theory.  This theory relates to the specific tactics that Che Guevara had used to achieve revolution throughout South America and Cuba.  While the relationship to Communism was vital to his movement, I am going to specifically discuss the tactics, and not the politics, of Guevara’s actions.  The political circumstances in Cuba, as in many Latin American countries, had been violent and oppressive.  Wealth was in the hands of few, and those few wielded the stick of government to maintain their wealth.  Guevara and Castro had needed to find away to counter the massive violence the government unleashed on him and their movement if they were to ever sustain a chance at victory.  With few resources and an ambitious desire, Guevara and Castro retreated to the Sierra Maestra mountains in southeastern Cuba to prepare for guerilla warfare against Batista’s army.  Outnumbered and under armed compared to Batista’s men, Guevara and Castro succeeded in overcoming and defeating Batista.

            The tactics used by Guevara were meant to overcome an enormous and oppressive army.  He justified his right and his victory in battle to the support of the masses.  In his work, Guerrilla Warfare (1960), Guevara describes that, “The guerrilla band is an armed nucleus, the fighting vanguard of the people. It draws its great force from the mass of the people themselves. The guerrilla band is not to be considered inferior to the army against which it fights simply because it is inferior in fire power. Guerrilla warfare is used by the side which is supported by a majority but which possesses a much smaller number of arms for use in defense against oppression.”

            In this excerpt, much can be related to what is happening in Iran.  A country with a large mountain region(a geographic factor that repeatedly played a part in preparing for guerilla warfare) finds itself with an oppressive and violently armed government.  While the masses show a unity amongst themselves against the government, they do not have a discernible arsenal that can compete with that of the government’s.  If violence is used to oppress the masses, a grass roots mobilization could easily take place in Iran much like it did in Cuba.  All it takes is strategy, popular support, a charismatic and strong leader, and a training ground to prepare for the battle.  All these things could potentially crop up in Iran as government oppression increases. While I personally have no desire to see any sort of violent revolution on Iran’s soil,I do not rule out the possibility of it. History has shown us that the most righteous of causes have usually lead to the most loss of life.  One hopes that this particular occasion in history is different, but realism would imply that this battle is no different. 

            My third theory is Machiavellian in its school of thought.  This approach entails believing that if a government’s source of power is derived solely from the top down(vertically), then to sever the head would render the body (the government’s administration and bureaucracy) useless. The flipside to this theory is that if a government or movement derives its power from the masses (horizontally), much like a republic, that to severe the head would do no harm to its solid foundation.  This concept interests me because the parallels between the two structures and the Islamic Republic of Iran versus the opposition movement are striking.  While the vertical model of power is exhibited by the government in the form of the Guardians Council comprised of clerical leaders, the horizontal model is exhibited by the opposition movement as that movement finds its credibility in the masses.  Even with students being shot or leaders being detained, the movement can maintain a certain amount of strength through its foundation that is found in the masses.  These models stand to indicate the possibility of the people of Iran being able to maintain their momentum through the legitimacy of their horizontal model’s foundation.  In fact, it seems that any leaders executed or detained only serve to further fuel the masses and to harden their resolve against the illegitimated vertical powers.

            The separate theories that I have described may not play out in Iran’s future at all.  They may possibly play out in partiality, or in combination with one another.  The desire to create a change through legitimate avenues is only one of the many things these theories all share.  What one must hope for is that this movement should take shape bearing in mind the mistakes of the past and the lessons from history.  These theories derive from different periods in time and different places throughout the world.  The fact that any of them could apply to Iran’s future indicates the sense of behavior that people around the world have shared throughout history. Oppression causes people to demand for freedom.  It is human nature.  Let us hope that it is in the nature of these humans in Iran to forge their own more peaceful path in achieving their desire for freedom.  

Meet Iranian Singles

Iranian Singles

Recipient Of The Serena Shim Award

Serena Shim Award
Meet your Persian Love Today!
Meet your Persian Love Today!