The Ayatollahs' Grip Is Weakening

In the wake of the Israel–Iran war in June, all the signs point to a regime in Tehran that is nearing collapse. Iran is facing unprecedented electricity and water shortages, which are exacerbating domestic unrest.

Yet the opposition groupings inside Iran are more focused on fighting each other than bringing down the regime. While the iron grip of the ayatollahs has been weakened, who takes their place is less clear. Take, for example, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), a coalition of dissident Iranian groups led by the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (MEK). It presents itself as the only opposition force that can bring down the Islamic Republic of Iran. And it says it has a clearly articulated programme for transition.

Ali Ansari, a leading scholar of Iranian history at the University of St Andrews, has pointed out to me that none of the opposition groupings has a vision for the future. Reza Pahlavi could have established an elaborate government in waiting with a proposed constitution. ‘Pahlavi has made no commitment to return to the country,’ he points out.

This is hardly bold leadership. The opposition groups in Iran are fighting among themselves and too busy focusing on each other rather than the Islamic Republic. They are all living in 1979. If you want to be successful in Iran, you have to talk to young Iranians. You have to have a vision for the young. There is, to be sure, a powerful nostalgia for the Pahlavi era in Iran today with many contrasting the social freedoms of the past with the restrictions imposed today.

Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian–Israeli author who teaches Iranian politics at Reichman University, maintains that Pahlavi is the best known of all the opposition figures. Many in Iran have a yearning for the Pahlavi family and view his heritage as the son of the late shah as a significant advantage. Javedanfar points out that the NCRI opposes Pahlavi because the MEK fought against his father. It partnered with Ayatollah Khomeini in overthrowing the shah’s regime, although the mullahs later turned against the MEK and many of its people were killed.

As with Ansari, Javedanfar believes that there are strong disagreements between the various opposition groupings, but there is a good reason for this:

The opposition is very disorganised abroad. The regime assassinated prominent members of the opposition in Europe, especially during the 1980s and 1990s. It has been difficult to foster new members of the opposition who have any standing. At home, the regime is very brutal in cracking down on the opposition, which adds to the problem of creating a united front against the regime.

So if deliverance is unlikely to emerge from the secular opposition groupings within Iran, where will it come from? Ansari believes that, if history is any guide, the place to look is not the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, since it has done a poor job in defending the country from the recent Israeli and U.S. strikes. Rather, it is the military.

‘On balance, people want a break from the Islamic Republic: they do not want continuity,’ says Ansari. ‘If change comes from someone in the military, it will be more nationalistic, not Islamic. After the Israeli attacks, there was an unprecedented dramatic upsurge in nationalistic propaganda in Iran. Out goes Hussein and Mohammed and in comes Shapur, Cyrus, Darius and Xerxes,’ all great kings of Persia. ‘This is a reminder that, at heart, this is what the Iranians are about. They are not about Islam in the way people think they are. Reading between the lines it is clear to me that what people are looking for in Iran today is a strongman—an “enlightened despot” who can get things done and open the doo

Azriel Bermant is a senior researcher at the Institute of International Relations Prague and a lecturer in International Relations at Anglo-American University in Prague.

This article appeared originally at The Strategist (ASPI).