Opinion: Why hopes for regime collapse in Iran are misguided - National Post
Iranian commuters pass a huge anti-American billboard reading in Persian, "The devil army will be drowned in the Persian Gulf," in Tehran on Monday. Photo by ATTA KENARE/AFP via Getty ImagesArticle contentBritish historian G. M. Trevelyan memorably described the European revolutions of 1848 as “the turning point at which modern history failed to turn.” The current of history seemed to sweep European states towards ever greater personal freedom, expanding democracy and nationalism. But those liberal revolutions fizzled out.
In our own time, the turning point where history fails to turn is the collapse of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Every wave of nationwide protest, every round of sanctions, every economic crisis and every military confrontation since the Iran-Iraq War has been presented as the moment when the system would finally give way. Despite rising internal discontent, regime incompetence and external pressure, the Islamic Republic endures.
The answer as to why this is the case begins with a persistent analytical mistake. Policymakers and commentators wrongly assess the Islamic Republic as though it were a conventional government whose survival depends primarily on economic performance, public consent and diplomatic legitimacy. They assume that falling living standards, political isolation, widespread anger and military pressure must eventually produce regime change.
Columnist Jesse Kline keeps you up to date with what’s happening in Israel and the effects of antisemitism on life here in Canada. Friday mornings.
A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.
The next issue of Channel Israel will soon be in your inbox.
We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again
But the Islamic Republic does not exist for the sake of prosperity, but for two unrelated purposes: to preserve the revolutionary order established in 1979; and to resist the United States, Israel and the broader western world. Doing so is not merely a foreign-policy position, but a vital source of the regime’s identity and legitimacy. Confrontation allows Iran’s leadership to present economic hardship as sacrifice, sanctions as proof of independence and isolation as evidence of revolutionary commitment.
Compromise, or even the appearance of compromise, is therefore a serious threat. Concessions to the West may occasionally be necessary, but they are rarely presented as genuine changes of direction. The Islamic Republic continues to practise a politics of resistance and performance for its domestic audience, even when senior officials recognize that the existing social contract is morally bankrupt, economically destructive and fiscally unsustainable.
The Islamic Republic’s endurance also depends on its willingness to deploy force. The security establishment has repeatedly shown that it is prepared to suppress domestic opposition with extreme brutality whenever it believes the system faces a mortal threat. The massacre of protesters deepens public anger and further destroys political legitimacy, but the regime has consistently placed its survival above social reconciliation.
