Recollections of the past are indeed subjective and history can often sharply illuminate the conditions of the present as well as the particularities of the past. Today, the recurring patterns of historical precedent are echoing down the timeline of the past, as once more Iran is under possible threat of invasion.
In the early days of the Islamic Revolution, the ideological antagonism of the new regime towards the East and the West, left the country in extreme isolation during some of the most sensitive years of the Cold War.
At the same time, heavy sanctions were crippling the country’s economy and infrastructure. The internal political chaos and the campaign of assassination of new leaders by the opposition, led to assumptions that the political lifespan of the Islamic Republic would be short. At that time of uncertainty about the survival of the fledgling regime, Iraq (with the blessings of the West) invaded the country.
It seemed that the Iraqi invasion was the last nail in the coffin of the Islamic Republic. When the Iraqi military entered Iranian territory, there was no consolidated post-revolutionary political or military order. Institutional transition was still taking place, and effectively, there was no central authority to respond to the invasion. However, the external threat and the invasion proved to be an indispensable stabilising factor for a regime, which was struggling to consolidate its authority.
Apart from some exceptions such as Mujahedin, the fragmented and ideologically incompatible opposition became united to fight shoulder to shoulder with the government against the external enemy. Ironically, the regime of Saddam Hussein and his Western allies indirectly served the interests of the Islamic Republic and helped the new order to consolidate its stranglehold over power.
The war according to Saddam Hussein was supposed to be short and decisive. It was meant to be over in a matter weeks, but instead it lasted from September 1980 to August 1988. It was one of the longest and bloodiest conflicts in the 20th century. The trenches were tuned to rivers of blood where hundreds of thousands of people lost their lives and the economic infrastructure of both countries was seriously damaged.
Some contemporary historians have argued that, had Iraq not invaded the country at that sensitive time, the newborn Islamic Republic would not have survived. Now, once again, an external actor is drumming up the war against Iran which can, once again, serve the interests of a regime that is under tremendous internal pressure.
Most of the young radicals who took part in the revolution are now disillusioned with the existing order. The youth, which constitute 70 percent of the population, is discontent and hold the government responsible for the obstacles they are facing.
This month, the rate of inflation has reached 20.7 percent, which is the highest in the last decade. There has been 50 percent increase in housing costs and about 20 percent of the population lives below the poverty line; a conservative rate of unemployment is not less than 15 percent. Corruption seems to be widespread and some of the most influential figures within the establishment are accused of nepotism and fraud.
Beyond the economic problems, the socio-political pressures have also increased. Since Mr. Ahmadinejad has emerged as the sixth president of the Islamic Republic, freedom of the press has significantly suffered and consequently numbers of newspapers have been forced to close down. At the same time, the role of the so-called “morality police is greater than before, adding to the existing social anxieties. They are widely operating in the cities, enforcing the “Islamic dress code, arresting people for minor lifestyle issues such as hairstyle and communicating with the opposite sex.
The popular disillusionment with the existing conditions as well as the international isolation, can intensify the collective pressure on the regime for change.
However, a possible attack by the US or Israel may once again serve the interest of the system by distracting people from internal conditions to external threats. An invasion can legitimize the alleged efforts of the existing regime for acquiring nuclear weapons and stimulate Iranian nationalism to abandon the pressure on their government. Once people are exposed to invasion, violation of sovereignty, bloodshed and loss of innocent lives they will support their government’s policy for uranium enrichment and possibly acquiring WMD.
Among regional experts, Iranians are known to be pro-western. Unlike their government and many nations in the Muslim World, anti-Americanism is not part of their collective political consciousness. At a time that the region is immersed in anti-Americanism, Iranian civil society looks at America favorably.
However, a possible invasion by the US or Israel will fundamentally jeopardize American soft power in Iran. This can only benefit the Islamic State and reinforce their existing ideological antagonism towards the West. Even if Israel unilaterally engages in a military campaign against Iran, in the eyes of the Iranian people, the US will still be seen as responsible, as Israel cannot play with fire without America’s blessings.
As the popular saying goes, “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it .
Given the existing situation, an invasion and bloodshed can only repeat history. As the Iraqi invasion changed the fate of the Islamic Republic and contributed to its survival, an attack from Israel or the US can contribute to its stability.
Most experts have agreed that a possible invasion will not meet the proclaimed objectives and could only serve to intensify the process of acquiring WMDs, only this time with the wider support of the Iranian people.
It will portray the regime as a victim and therefore will legitimize any method that the Islamic Republic may use for self-defence. It will weaken Iranian civil society, distract citizens from internal problems and stop the collective pressure on the state for change. This can have implications for the evolution of Iranian democracy and can lead to another long and revengeful conflict, which will have serious consequences for the regional and world economy.
Afshin Shahi is a Cairo-based British Iranian PhD candidate of political philosophy specialized in Middle East affairs. Email: [email protected]
