With a new leader, bombs raining all over the country and a war to which there is no end in sight, Iran It now presents hundreds of unknowns and hardly any certainty. USA e Israelwith its offensive started last February 28have assured that their objective is the fall of the Islamic Republicestablished after the Islamic revolution of 1979.
Almost two weeks later, that goal seems distant. Arash AzizIranian historian and professor at the Yale Universityin fact believes that “change, if it occurs, will come from within the system”, and not because of the bombings against anti-aircraft batteries, oil stations or ships of the Persian navy in the Strait of Hormuz. The war, however, has reinforced the most radical members within the Iranian power, according to Azizi, in this interview with EL PERIÓDICO.
What is Iran’s final strategy with this war?
Iran’s final strategy is defensive, since the country was attacked. The decision to end the war does not lie with Iran. Therefore, Tehran tries to resist, move forward, maintain the regime structures and survive to fight another day. This is how the Iranians see it.
Do you think they will be able to achieve their goal?
So far they have succeeded. If the goal is to keep the regime intact, to keep the command structures intact, to not lose this war… and if losing is defined as a collapse of the regime, then they can go on like this for a long time. They maintain control of the country. They have demonstrated remarkable cohesion. They elected a new leader under very difficult conditions. And, on the other hand, the United States and Israel do not have objectives that are easy to define or very easy to achieve, frankly. The question is: what price are they willing to pay to continue pursuing their goals, and what are those goals? There is no clear answer.
If the Islamic Republic survives, what will Iran be like after the war?
First, they will try to present this as a victory. They will say: “Israel attacked us, they said they would overthrow the regime, but they failed.” With some justification, they will be able to claim victory. But they will have to oversee a destroyed economy, a fed up, dejected, disappointed, sad and mourning population. The thing about the Islamic Republic is that it only knows instability and crisis. Survive despite constant unpopularity. Its leaders have learned that all the Islamic Republic needs to do to stay in power is kill enough people when its rule is threatened and, most importantly, prevent any potential alternative from forming. There are really only two ways to overthrow the regime: either with overwhelming military power that attacks Iran enough to turn it into a failed state. Or much more difficult: for the Iranian opposition to forge a political alternative that will earn the loyalty of the security forces.
It doesn’t look like this is close.
No. I have always believed that the Islamic Republic will disintegrate, and I continue to believe so. I just think that this change will probably come from within the regime, which will be forced to abandon some of its main policies.
Following the killing of thousands of protesters in January, there has been a feeling among many Iranians that the regime has lost its internal legitimacy. Do you agree?
That is an illusion. First, a government is legitimate if it is capable of exercising control. Iran does it. That’s the first thing. The second thing is: does the world recognize it as a State? Obviously yes. The Iranian opposition believes that if it somehow morally demonstrates to the world that the Islamic Republic is evil, it will automatically be overthrown. It doesn’t work like that. The Syrian regime, under Hafez al Assad, killed thousands of people in the 1980s. But it managed to stay in power. His son held it until he was violently overthrown in 2024. History is written with material force, not moral condemnation. If opponents of the Islamic Republic want to overthrow it, they must muster enough material strength to achieve this. Not only have they not done it, but they have not even seriously tried.
Syria is a great example.
Exactly. The opposition had an alternative and fought for it. They triumphed even though the Assad regime enjoyed much more international legitimacy in 2024 than in 2019. The Arab League had reaccepted Assad. The Emiratis had established diplomatic relations with Damascus.
The Iranian historian Arash Azizi. / ASSIGNED
And the group that ended up winning the war had no international legitimacy. He was a former member of Al Qaeda, registered as a terrorist group in the world. Does legitimacy, then, not matter?
Exactly! The head of Ahmed al Sharaa, the current Syrian president, had a price. International legitimacy comes from power, and this is the downfall of the Iranian opposition. They cling like limpets to other foreign powers, waiting for the United States and Israel to come and change the government for them. Now, this doesn’t mean I don’t believe a collapse is impossible. Tehran’s policies are unsustainable in some deep ways, and I believe that this change we are talking about, if it comes, will come from within the system. They will have to abandon the anti-Americanism they have had and relax social repression.
Do you think this change is on the way? There are fears that Iran could become the North Korea of the Middle East.
The North Korean option always existed. But I always thought it was the least likely. Now, because of the war, American and Israeli attacks have strengthened defenders of the North Korean model. But I don’t think they will finally achieve their goal. Because North Korea survives thanks to its isolation and China. The Islamic Republic is strategically isolated, but it is surrounded by Arab countries and Turkey, whose governments are not interested in Iran becoming a North Korean-style hostile power. I think it is much more likely that Iran’s future will resemble that of Pakistan or Algeria than that of North Korea.
Militarized countries that maintain relations with their surroundings?
Militarized countries that have a more normalized relationship with the West. A more mundane and corrupt type of military states. But not a revolutionary who tries to fight the United States and Israel every minute. But I try to be humble. One can be wrong. I never thought the North Korea option was possible, and today it seems like a real possibility. I also didn’t think Mojtaba would be the leader, but here we are.
How would you describe him?
He is a great unknown. We know he will probably start out as a weak supreme leader. Some high-ranking members of the Government have acquired immense power in the last month. Will they easily accept the new authority? There are many unknowns.
What does seem clear is that his election shows continuity in the fight against the US and Israel.
Sure, he is a continuing candidate, but things can change. You never know for sure. We don’t know anything about him. We do not know what type of policies he will implement. We do not know what approach the United States and Israel will take in the long term. I think the key is Iran’s relationship with its neighbors. Iran will have to find a way to reset its relations.
With all the attacks against the Gulf countries, isn’t that much more difficult now than it was two weeks ago?
Sure, but things can change. Nothing changes in two weeks that cannot be reversed in another two. Yes, it will be difficult, but Iran is here to stay. Iran is a huge country, and an ancient civilization. He will always be in this neighborhood and will always be a headache for his neighbors. It may be a more benign headache. It can be a scarier headache. But there will need to be some kind of integration and understanding in the region. There has to be.
Subscribe to continue reading
