Great commentary. One similarity between the Islamic regime and the U.S. politicians (and probably most politicians worldwide) came to mind while reading this- they all purport and say otherwise, but by their actions they really believe that they (along with their bureaucrats) ARE the nation and are the only ones that matter. They are all willing to bargain as long as they get what THEY want.
Thank you for your wise commentary to the tragedy which is happening. Of course, we'd all agree about the distinction between Nezam (the oppressive system) and Vatan (the society). Regarding the other points of the story, I'd love to agree that the Nezam is hurting themselves - but I don't see it. Earlier in the article you pointed out that it's Iran that is being hurt - and that's correct: the Vatan, not the Nezam, is paying the price. It's been proven historically that in totalitarian systems, the members of the elite are the last to suffer - by contrary, often they position themselves in such a way that they benefit additionally on sanctions. I come from another country that once was dictatorial. In the time of worst oppression and international isolation, the government speaker cynically said in public: "the government will always have enough food". The examples of Cuba, North Korea, Syria and many more prove this scenario, and I can't see how this can be different here. That said, I am glad someone of your perspective, broader than mine thinks differently and that gives me hope :) To finish lightly, I want to leave reference to my Iran travel memoir of 2019, unfortunately also sad. Thank you for your story. https://nomadicmind.substack.com/p/too-much-said
Another faux pas by the regime was to annoint Mojtaba Khamenei as the new “Supreme Leader,” in violation of the entire construct of legitimacy put forth by the clerics. It lays bare to all that the regime is nothing more than a theo-kleptocracy.
Hormuz leverage, deterrence, and hard power are what stand between Iranian security and those trying to break the country by force. Iran was never choosing between missiles and fantasy prosperity.It was choosing how to survive pressure, isolation, and military inferiority without losing its independence. This was moral story telling.
100% correct. Their massive failure was crushing domestic trust. But it's a tragic Catch-22 because moderation is an economic luxury. When sanctions act as a socioeconomic bomb and wipe out the middle class, the state's incentive structure collapses into pure survival. This inevitably empowers the most hardline factions. By using hard power to police the public's resentment, the state liquidates the exact domestic trust it needs to endure the siege.
Great commentary. One similarity between the Islamic regime and the U.S. politicians (and probably most politicians worldwide) came to mind while reading this- they all purport and say otherwise, but by their actions they really believe that they (along with their bureaucrats) ARE the nation and are the only ones that matter. They are all willing to bargain as long as they get what THEY want.
Thank you for your wise commentary to the tragedy which is happening. Of course, we'd all agree about the distinction between Nezam (the oppressive system) and Vatan (the society). Regarding the other points of the story, I'd love to agree that the Nezam is hurting themselves - but I don't see it. Earlier in the article you pointed out that it's Iran that is being hurt - and that's correct: the Vatan, not the Nezam, is paying the price. It's been proven historically that in totalitarian systems, the members of the elite are the last to suffer - by contrary, often they position themselves in such a way that they benefit additionally on sanctions. I come from another country that once was dictatorial. In the time of worst oppression and international isolation, the government speaker cynically said in public: "the government will always have enough food". The examples of Cuba, North Korea, Syria and many more prove this scenario, and I can't see how this can be different here. That said, I am glad someone of your perspective, broader than mine thinks differently and that gives me hope :) To finish lightly, I want to leave reference to my Iran travel memoir of 2019, unfortunately also sad. Thank you for your story. https://nomadicmind.substack.com/p/too-much-said
Another faux pas by the regime was to annoint Mojtaba Khamenei as the new “Supreme Leader,” in violation of the entire construct of legitimacy put forth by the clerics. It lays bare to all that the regime is nothing more than a theo-kleptocracy.
Hormuz leverage, deterrence, and hard power are what stand between Iranian security and those trying to break the country by force. Iran was never choosing between missiles and fantasy prosperity.It was choosing how to survive pressure, isolation, and military inferiority without losing its independence. This was moral story telling.
Your mistake is pretending the islamic regime is representative of the iranian people.
I didn't. But does an unpopular state somehow need less hard power to survive its geography than a popular one?
An unpopular state has to devote significant hard power assets towards controlling a hostile populace.
100% correct. Their massive failure was crushing domestic trust. But it's a tragic Catch-22 because moderation is an economic luxury. When sanctions act as a socioeconomic bomb and wipe out the middle class, the state's incentive structure collapses into pure survival. This inevitably empowers the most hardline factions. By using hard power to police the public's resentment, the state liquidates the exact domestic trust it needs to endure the siege.
The IRGC is walking a tightrope
Bravo author. Simple concise clear thinking.