To Save The Regime, Iran’s Islamist Rulers Are Latching On To Persian Nationalism

-Analysis-

Just when the Iranian regime is seeing its structural legitimacy collapse from within and facing unprecedented military and diplomatic blows from without, we are suddenly seeing the same Islamic government resort to using jingoistic terms like “patriotism” or “loyalty to Iran.”

These are the very notions it has spent decades trying to erase from the nation’s historical memory.

From its very inception in 1979, the Islamic Republic sought to erase historical national figures, ancient Iranian symbols and cultural institutions, and even downgrading the Persian language. Now it wants to portray itself as defender of Iran. The effort is not only meaningless, but also clear evidence of a system’s identity crisis and increasing inability to maintain legitimacy.

Islamic vision

To examine the relationship between loyalty to the nation and acceptance of the Islamic Republic, one must first recognize Iran in its historical, cultural and civilizational context. In the historical memory of the people, Iran is not merely a physical geography, but a reality of culture and identity. There is a link running through language, history, institutions and ways of living based on shared and collective notions of truth, love, wisdom and giving and receiving.

Being Iranian is not just a function of an identity card and geographical address, but rather a profound experience of civilizational life, historical memory and of belonging to a national culture.

The Islamic Republic always had a starkly different vision of this nation and its homeland. In its thought system, Iran is not a historical nation, but a protective rampart for the wider Islamic ummah or community. Likewise for the regime, the Iranian citizen is not an independent member of a national corpus, but simply a subject within the regime’s religious ideology. Thus, national identity, historical language and indigenous culture are not only considered invalid, but even obstacles to be eliminated. Whenever Iranians have sought to revive those elements, the regime saw it as a security threat and responded with repression.

There is an ongoing project to negate the reality of Iran as a historical entity

Evidence of this opposition abounds: replacing historical and traditional street or place names with “revolutionary” or “Islamic” versions; stripping Iran’s flag of the longstanding lion and sun emblem, and removing the Shahnameh (the 10th century Book of Kings and a landmark text in the evolution of modern Persian) and national myths from the education curriculum while boosting its share of religious Arabic, are just some examples.

National celebrations like Nowruz (the new year on March 21), Mehregan or Chaharshanbeh-e-suri, (an ancient fire celebration) among others, have also been discredited or emptied of their original content under the pressures of “Islamization.” In recent decades, the state has sought to stamp out gatherings for the birth anniversary of Cyrus, the founder of the ancient Persian empire, while ramping up a plethora of events relating to the Shia calendar.

Loyalty claims

These are not isolated signs, but parts of an ongoing project to negate the reality of Iran as a historical entity. In such a system, even the defense of our geographical borders — should the regime manage it — is not about safeguarding Iran but rather ensuring the regime’s survival. With this perspective, the country’s resources are not to be used to tackle environmental, economic and social difficulties in Iran, but for spending on proxy forces in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and Gaza.

Thus any claim of loyalty to Iran by the regime is not just baseless, but belied by its actions for the past half-century. A system that rejects the Iranian identity and its historical foundations cannot defend it, which means that any such loyalty entails moving beyond the Islamic Republic. There is here a structural contradiction between a nation with a civilizational background, and a rootless, ideological and anti-national entity that only wants Iran as a “shield” for its survival. Thus no argument in defense of Iran today could envisage keeping the regime.

The problem is with the very notion of Iran

The rift is all the more dangerous when the Islamic Republic does not even recognize the nation-state’s independence. Its vision shines through its vocabulary: the regime says the entire nation is God’s Party (Hizbullah), and cites the regional Resistance Front or Global Islam, but not the “Iranian nation.” For the regime, proper Iranians are those who would ‘dissolve’ themselves in the bigger flow of its religious, internationalist and revolutionary narrative, with its leitmotivs of selfless struggle, martyrdom and liberation (for the Palestinians) that have nothing to do with Iran and its history. Indeed, the regime’s big decisions, taken at historic junctures, are directly at odds with the wishes and interests of Iranians.

The clash goes beyond politics and policy-making. The Persian language is downgraded, Arabic is forcibly introduced into the official discourse, Iranian culture has ceded its place to Shia eulogies, historical names and traditional attire are denounced as “deviations” and the Iranian way of life mocked in favor of the model being enforced. The problem is, essentially, with the very notion of Iran.

Faux patriotism

Only, in times of trouble like now — or during an election campaign — the regime grabs hold of patriotic language. It invokes the “homeland,” “national security” and unity. It’s a temporary ploy of course, for when the crisis has passed, ideology returns. It is a pattern with which Iranians are by now entirely familiar.

True loyalty to Iran means working toward a better future where citizens live in security and freedom, where our language and culture are respected, state and religion are separate, and ideology cannot encroach on a person’s dignity. And that is not compatible with the survival of the Islamic Republic.

Loyalty to Iran does not mean another, tepid round of reforms or a ‘moderate’ president, but a socio-political overhaul focused on the nation’s interests. It means a total transition, and that is not just a political choice: it is a human, and historical commitment.