Iran’s opposition needs to stop walking on eggshells

This discourse lacks political depth, historical awareness of the reality of Iran's circumstances or the nature of its ruling regime. It reveals no understanding of the country's internal structure, external dimensions and regional relations.

There is no sign of an appreciation of the patterns of governance and the quality of the political system — both domestically and internationally — and the network and entanglements with Iranian society and everything else related to it.

The political content of this discourse seems to lack depth or historical awareness of the reality of Iran's situation, the nature of its ruling regime, its internal structure, external reach and regional relations.

A lack of detail and depth

It means that the mechanisms needed to deal with Iran's problems, which would come from an awareness of such detail, are lacking. It is detail that any political opposition anywhere in the world, or indeed any political actor of any kind, needs to be effective.

Meaningful plans for the future should not only be drawn up the government, because the regime controls the media and is adept at propaganda, with the backing of a network of international relations.

The various Iranian political forces must shift towards a vision that combines lofty rhetorical ideals with a great deal of clear political commitment. Important issues should be addressed promptly, regardless of their sensitivity with the current ruling system.

Avoiding this approach is misguided, even if it based on concern that a more ambitious politics could come across as less credible and less appealing.

After all, Iranians living in the country have a better understanding of their situation than any political group simply because the country's policies impact their daily lives.

A lack of ambition should also not be suitable for regional and international forces abroad, who have a similar understanding of the ruling system.

The regime can easily counter the slogans and speeches of the opposition with its own vast array of equivalent rhetoric, and it is not held accountable or regulated in any way.

Vague words of opposition are almost like lyrical speeches that are suitable for the preambles of constitutions, which are identical between the constitutions of the most democratic countries and even the most oppressive ones.

The Syrian precedent of empty words

And so Iranian opposition forces make the same mistake as their Syrian counterparts. By trying to say things that are devoid of real content, failing to reveal the essence of the dispute with their country's authority, and postponing anything that may cause disagreement.

Consequently, they lose appeal and any chance of real internal political debates and negotiations.

In Iran, any real opposition must address the question of the external programme of the regime: Is Iran a sovereign state within its international borders only, or is it an imperial entity striving for hegemony over its surroundings?

This issue is not exclusive to the current Iranian regime; it was preceded by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and his father before him. The Qajar sultans were not any better.

The historical reform that the Iranian opposition aspires to should involve a vision that rescues the nation from the core source of its constant tragedies – namely, the expansion beyond its borders and interference in the affairs of its neighbouring countries through a political approach more akin to medieval kingdoms than any modern entity.

A complex identity – Iran's definition of itself

Another crucial matter relates to Iran's internal definition of itself. The characteristics of Iran as an entity with a single identity – be it religious, sectarian, or ethnic nationalist – does not amount to a political system that can be modernised while remaining stable.

The Iranian state, derived from historical imperial roots, has always been based on a spectrum of diverse sectarian and nationalist communities that possess their own political and cultural awareness.

Stability and a social contract can only be achieved through consensus and recognition, creating a completely decentralised state built on federations and local forms of governance.

The centre should deal only with issues that transcend regional matters, such as foreign policy and management of national sovereign borders, rather than forcing a single identity on diverse communities.

"Not an atom" – no real meaning

In this context, the slogan "Iran is not an atom," has no real meaning. The country is, rather, the possessor of a massive arsenal of ballistic missiles, military industries, and contracts with many armed factions in various countries in the region.

But it cannot be assured of any international support in the surrounding region or the wider world – which might in turn lead to aid or other help to overcome its hardships – as long as it remains the provocative entity it is, whether a nuclear-capable nation or not.

Behind all these details and many other considerations there is a stark question that any political movement in opposition is supposed to ask: how can it set about changing people's lives, via a fully thought out, fundamental plan?

Without that, there are only empty words, like those performed by a band that produces melodies designed to attract everyone, but which become known for a lack depth. There is no point on trying to please the very system you oppose.