Until even a few months ago talking of regime change in Iran would have exposed you to the charge either of utopian fantasies or anachronistic miscalculation. The Islamic Republic founded by Ruhollah Khomeini was supposed to last until the return of the Mahdi at the end of time, that is to say longer than the 1,000-year Reich imagined by Alfred Rosenberg.
However, a year after the current phase of the 47-year war between the Islamic Republic and the United States started regime change is openly evoked inside Iran and in the 8-million string diaspora-as hope for the latter and fear for the former.
Last week, in a live interview on official TV, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi claimed that last December a nationwide uprising had pushed the nation to the edge of regime change. He noted that several cities among them Mash’had, the second most populous in Iran, had been on the verge of falling under the control of protesters.
At the time, other towns and cities, notably Bushehr in the south and Qazvin in the north, had also appeared on the edge of being taken over by unarmed protesters.
Araghchi wasn’t the first or the only official to evoke the threat of regime change.
Rahimpour Azghadi, a regime theoretician and member of the High Council of Islamic Culture, also warns of the “looming danger.” He even claims that the current war stopped the regime change momentum and that if the war suddenly ends the nationwide uprising may start again.
A number of veteran pro-regime “reformists” are also talking of regime change. Former Prime Minster Mir Hossein Mousavi, just released from 15 years of illegal house arrest, is calling for a new beginning to include a new constitution and presumably substantially reshuffled governing personnel.
Some pro-regime intellectuals also seem to be revising old certainties. Sadegh Zibakalam, a retired university professor and popular blogger, says he is no longer committed to his old pledge to “take up a gun and defend the revolutionary system” regardless.
Those within the system, who seek a negotiated halt to the war, use the threat of regime change against bitter-enders who want the war to continue regardless of the human and material cost.
This is one of President Masoud Pezeshkian’s favorite rhetorical tropes. His entourage, people like advisor Ali Rabi’i warn that the continuation of the war could produce widespread unemployment, poverty, ignite mass anger and threaten the regime.
There is little doubt that for the first time since its inception in 1979, the Islamic Republic faces a grassroots opposition present in virtually all of Iran’s 938 towns and cities. This opposition has formed local leaders and shown its ability to operate a horizontal campaign.
What it lacks is a vertical leadership to use the energy, thus released into abiding nationwide action. That in return requires the presentation of a credible alternative for the governance of the nation- a must because society like nature abhors a vacuum.
The tolerated semi-official opposition inside the country is still talking of the threat of or the need for regime change in coded language. It calls for a referendum to decide the future but does not say what choices would be available. The message is: We know this regime cannot last but don’t know what to put in its place.
Confusion also reigns over the broader opposition, including some 80 parties and groups mostly but not entirely active in the diaspora. Almost all of the 20 or so left groups, including two communist parties based in the US and backed by American leftist groups, are committed to regime change leading to a “Socialist” and pro-Palestine in Tehran.
Other left groups still support the regime’s “anti-Imperialist” and pro-Palestine stance and urge reforms rather than regime change.
The five Kurdish parties based in Iraq’s Autonomous Kurdish Region have abandoned their traditional policy of seeking a negotiated deal with Tehran and are now committed to regime change. However, they too have not shown what kind of alternative they have in mind, exposing themselves to the charge of secessionism.
The newly created National Rising, a party led by Prince Reza Pahlavi, son of the late Shah, is currently the highest profile opposition group in diaspora. It has attracted many formerly pro-Khomeinist and leftist figures by rejecting the option of a constitutional monarchy and promising a referendum to choose the future regime.
The National Rising, which has promised to name a government in exile, enjoys support from several right and right-of-center circles and parties in Europe and the US.
The National Rising supported military action against Islamic Republic and wants the current war to continue until the regime falls.
The People’s Mujahedin, one of the oldest opposition groups, remains committed to regime change and claims to have an alternative governing elite ready to take over in Tehran. Like National Rising, the Mujahedin also have support among political circles and parties in the US and Europe.
More importantly the possibility of regime change is being raised inside Iran not only in blogosphere but also in parts of the official media.
The issue has revealed rifts within almost all sections of society.
Among academics and the glitterati, there are figures that reject regime change “at this time” in the name of “defending the fatherland.” But there are also figures that castigate “scoundrels wrapped in patriotism” and argue that defeat in war is preferable to continuation of a regime addicted to war and repression.
A similar debate is going on within the 250,000 strong corps of the clergy.
Some like Hojat al-Islam Nabawian want the war to continue until the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s slaying is avenged. He was part of Tehran’s delegation in the first round of talks with US in Islamabad.
Paradoxically, Mostafa Khamenei, older brother of the current “Supreme Guide” Mojtaba, offers a moderate message aimed at preserving the regime as top priority with revenge seen as a future concern. Not surprisingly, pro-Pezeshkian media have elevated Mostafa to a higher rank and given him a pulpit from which to preach.
Is he being promoted as a putative successor to his younger brother who may or may not be alive or in the best of health?
In Iran today thinking the un-thinkable is no longer taboo.
