r/iranian

Is it true that Iranian society must choose between one freedom and another? A coordinator at the One Democratic State Initiative interviews four members of the Iranian "Tanide" collective. This is a shortened version of the interview, which can be found in full on our website:

https://mobadara.ps/en/articles/iran-a-third-path-for-true-liberation-and-democracy/

1- How are things in Iran? What is the media not reporting?

What is often underreported is the entanglement of domestic repression and external geopolitical aggression alone. Civilian populations are going through economic crisis, inflation, political repression, monetary instability. External sanctions, military or strategic pressures are frequently framed as solutions or interventions, but in practice, they tend to intensify precarity for ordinary people.

Media sources are highly polarized: The state-controlled media broadcast propaganda, such as military victories; while media aligned with U.S.–Israeli political interests present highly misleading narratives, such as mistranslating Trump’s “return Iran to the Stone Age” as “return the Islamic Republic to the Stone Age.” Even when they reflect reality, they reflect only fragments of it.

2- How does all of that make people in Iran feel?

The answer is multilayered. The fact the country functions without major disruption and is capable of defending its sovereignty in the face of foreign imperialist aggression is a source of reassurance for many, while it is disappointing for those who may have seen this moment as their only chance to overthrow the regime.

The most recent crackdown on protests across Iran, with a death toll exceeding thousands, remains an open wound. The internet blackout which remains in place after the ceasefire is something that must be taken very seriously. New regulations that restrict access for the majority are also being introduced. I see this moment as marking an irreversible shift toward the total securitization of communication. This is deeply troubling.

3- What do you think the U.S. and the colony’s aims in Iran are?

There are several goals, and those of the U.S. do not entirely coincide with those of Israel. Israel seems to be interested in a very weak and destabilised Iran which could be either divided or embroiled in civil war. Although not a goal in itself, regime change would weaken Iran and allow them to curb its nuclear ambitions, missile plans and regional power.

But this aggression needs to be situated within broader regional and global dynamics: the United States’ concerns over its declining global hegemony and its competition with China and Russia, as well as Israel’s efforts to consolidate a regional coalition to secure its dominant position through its genocidal will. It also is part of a broader authoritarian turn within global capitalism, alongside the rise of reactionary nationalisms across the world.

4- How has the aggression affected Iran? Has it changed people’s perception or position on the regime?

Although the Islamic Republic had already lost substantial legitimacy among the general population, the war has reinforced cohesion among loyalists. This is consistent with the well‑established “rally‑around‑the‑flag” effect, in which external aggression temporarily consolidates support for the state among its core constituents, even if long‑term legitimacy remains deeply eroded.

There is also a third position — one that has consistently opposed both war and the regime’s oppressive nature, while insisting that people must determine their future through their own movements and collective action, and resist any normalization of foreign intervention.

5- You speak of a third position, but aren’t there only two sides here, either with the aggressors or against them?

This binary is itself a political tool designed to eliminate the space for a third position: a position that rejects both authoritarianism and militarism of the Iranian state as well as USA and Israel imperialistic intervention. It is a position that stands against all human rights violations, committed by the U.S. and Israel —particularly the genocide of the Palestinian people— as well as by the Iranian state.

Iran is currently the target of illegal and aggressive attacks, and it has the right to defend itself. At the same time, the Iranian regime has not historically been a force for peace in the region. So regarding the dichotomy I would say: Neither with foreign aggression nor with the Islamic Republic.

6- Some claim that now is not the time to talk about the regime’s oppression, as it justifies the invasion. How do you view this?

This argument is based on a false causal link. The United States and Israel did not launch military attacks on Iran because the Iranian state is authoritarian or oppressive. Neither of them are interested in freedom! Furthermore, the authoritarian character of a state does not grant other states the right to use military force against the country. Therefore, discussing the Islamic Republic’s repression cannot logically be interpreted as justifying the aggression.

In my opinion we can never stop talking about the regime's oppression. The recent massacre was just a few months ago. The regime has never stopped repressing its own people. We should also not forget the successive waves of popular uprisings across the region, including the Arab Spring and several uprisings in Iran and Turkey. The fact that all regional powers have aggressively repressed such movements should caution us against overlooking a key contradiction.

7- The Islamic Republic claims identitarian legitimacy. Do you feel this has weakened Iranian society, made it more susceptible to foreign infiltration?

I would say yes. There has been discrimination on the basis of identity at several levels. The doctrine of Velayat-e Faqih is imposed on non-Shiites, but also on Shiites that have different beliefs or opinions. There are prohibitions on Kurds and Balochs learning in their mother language or learning about their own cultures and histories at school. There also is economic disparity in the regions they inhabit.

The Iranian regime has imposed a “normative identity” that is Shi’a, Persian, and male. This is a form of supremacy that has been consolidated through the constitution and across a range of social and cultural institutions that structure everyday life. All of this weakens society's capacity to protect itself from those wielding, but also weakens it in the face of external aggression.

8- What future do you envision for Iranian society?

In the short- and medium-term, I expect an intensification of repression. Iranian civil society appears to be in one of its weakest positions in decades. Even channels that once allowed for some degree of navigation within the political landscape have largely disappeared.

For example, even the country’s largest and most influential charity organization was shut down a few years ago — a move that effectively stripped society of an important civic capacity to sustain and repair itself independently of the state. Similar patterns can be seen in the treatment of teachers’ union activists and other segments of civil society.

9- How can Iranian society both within their country and outside it shape that future? How can those who support freedom and democracy for Iran help achieve it?

Immediate efforts could be focused on economic hardships and on Internet access. But political efforts are key. Although they are enemies, the U.S.-Israel and the Iranian regime are co-producers of the same trap: you are either with us or with them. This is not accidental. Both poles benefit from the binary, because it eliminates the political space where a genuine emancipatory alternative could breathe.

So it is important to resist this binary. The third path must work harder and speak more clearly than either side. It is the only honest political position because it is the one that refuses to make the suffering of people into an instrument for either pole's power. That is precisely why it is so hard to build. And precisely why it matters.