Siamak Naficy
Western analysis of Iran suffers from a persistent, almost comforting delusion: that the Islamic Republic is fundamentally irrational. It’s easier that way. If Iran is driven by theology, fanaticism, or some opaque revolutionary mysticism, then its behavior can be dismissed rather than understood. Strategy becomes pathology. Policy becomes moral posture. But what if the opposite is true? What if Iran is not irrational—but rational in a way we refuse to take seriously? Because once you grant that premise, the last four decades of Iranian behavior stop looking erratic. They start looking disturbingly coherent.
Note that this is not an argument for sympathy. The Islamic Republic isn’t benign, and its leadership is not misunderstood in any charitable sense. But the prevailing story is analytically lazy. It replaces strategy with caricature. If you actually listen—really listen—to how Iranian leadership understands itself, a different picture emerges. Not a nicer one. A more dangerous one, precisely because it is coherent. At its core, the Islamic Republic does not think of itself as a religious project. It thinks of itself as the end of a historical condition: a century of humiliation, intervention, and subjugation. That’s the starting point. Miss that, and everything else looks like madness.
No comments:
Post a Comment