The popular uprising in Iran and the role of Western powers

A popular uprising is underway in Iran against the theocratic regime that seized power in 1979. The uprising is the result, on the one hand, of the regime’s economic and sociopolitical policies and the widespread corruption that over a long period has severely deteriorated people’s living conditions, and, on the other hand, of the sanctions imposed on the country by the United States and other Western nations, which stem from the Islamic Republic’s conflicts with Israel.

The United States is now threatening to attack Iran in order to “protect demonstrators” and guarantee their “human rights.” It is difficult to imagine a more spurious and reality-detached justification for military intervention than this, as such an action in fact aims to serve US economic and geopolitical interests.

US interventions in Iran—aimed at destroying democracy, suppressing anti-colonial and anti-imperialist movements, and replacing them with puppet regimes such as the one led by the former shah, Mohammad Reza Shah—are well documented. When US and British economic and political interests were threatened by the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mossadeq, who nationalized Iran’s oil in 1951, they orchestrated and carried out a bloody military coup in 1953. The purpose was to crush Iranian democracy and eliminate nationalist and left-wing forces. This brutal coup was part of a long series of military coups around the world, led or supported by the United States, whose overarching goal was to secure its socioeconomic and political interests and to win the Cold War—regardless of the human suffering caused by these coup regimes and their subsequent dictatorship.

In Iran, the shah’s dictatorship between 1953 and 1979 did not target religious groups and leaders to the same extent as it targeted left-wing organizations. Leftist activists were subjected to systematic persecution, torture, long prison sentences, and systematic executions. At the same time, religious groups were able to organize relatively freely, run religious educational centres, publish religious journals, and strengthen their social and economic influence in the country. With financial support from the shah’s regime, they built a well-established network through the construction of new mosques. This was a direct consequence of US anti-communist policy during the Cold War, in which left-wing groups and nationalists were viewed as potential allies of the Soviet Union and thus as enemies of the so-called “free world.” While leftist and liberal nationalist groups were arrested, imprisoned, or executed, many religious leaders were able to openly propagate the idea of the “return of the saviour,” who would create an Islamic utopia—often described as an “equal and classless society” – a concept they acquired from leftist groups.

However, the religious groups’ seizure of power after the 1979 revolution cannot be explained solely by the role of the United States in Iran’s sociopolitical development. Although the shah loyally implemented U.S. political projects in Iran after the 1953 coup, there were other, deeper historical reasons why Khomeini and the religious forces were able to take political power.

Despite the fact that this modernisation weakened the social base of the religious leaders, the shah simultaneously sought to strengthen their religious influence in society. This was part of the United States’ long-term strategy in Muslim countries, aimed at creating a “green belt” around the Soviet Union. With the shah’s support and through the regime’s brutal repression of secular opposition forces, religious groups were not only able to preserve but also to expand their influence. They modernised their ideology by incorporating the political language and demands of the left and the nationalists, which further strengthened their position ahead of the 1979 revolution.

I demonstrated in my now classic study of the Iranian Revolution, “Revolutionary Iran: Civil Society and State in the Modernisation Process”, that Khomeini’s leadership and that of the religious forces over the revolution were far from unproblematic. They could not overthrow the shah without entering into alliances with segments of the nationalist movement and without winning support from certain left-wing groups through promises of democracy and economic reform. After the revolution, they effectively carried out a coup d’état by occupying the U.S. embassy in Tehran, excluded liberal forces from the revolutionary alliance, and brutally crushed all resistance to the emerging theocracy.

As long as left-wing groups and opposition forces that opposed U.S. imperialist strategies in the region and the influence of the Soviet Union were arrested, tortured, and executed, the United States and other Western countries remained silent or limited themselves to empty condemnations.

Neoliberalism with an Islamic face

After the Iran–Iraq War—also initiated with support from the United States and other Western countries—and following Khomeini’s death, religious neoliberals such as Presidents Rafsanjani and Khatami came to power. They launched an unrestrained and brutal neoliberalisation of Iran’s economy and society, putting an end to the few revolution-inspired reforms that had aimed to reduce socioeconomic inequalities. The neoliberal transformation implemented since the 1990s, regardless of government or president, has produced an extreme class society in which the state is controlled by immensely wealthy oligarchs who use it to further increase their fortunes at the expense of widespread poverty and social discontent. Many of these oligarchs’ children have already transferred billions of dollars abroad to countries such as Canada, France, the United Kingdom, UAE and the United States.

The conflict between the United States and other Western countries and the Islamic Republic does not concern Iran’s economic or social policies, but rather its foreign policy, its conflict with Israel, and its military capabilities. At the core of this conflict lies Israel’s interest in eliminating all resistance to its imperialist and colonial project of establishing a Greater Israel through war and ethnic cleansing.

The Zionist state of Israel and its allies in the United States and Europe have used sanctions to weaken Iran’s economic and military capacity. Yet instead of weakening the ruling elite, the sanctions have helped strengthen the oligarchs, who have further increased their power and wealth through networks designed to circumvent sanctions.

The Iranian people have risen up against this corrupt elite that in practice controls the state. Despite certain achievements—such as during the “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement, when compulsory veiling was in practice weakened—the grip of the regime and the oligarchs over the economy and society remains intact. The ongoing uprising must be understood against this backdrop. The strategic interests of the United States and Israel converge in their pursuit of regime collapse in Iran, followed by territorial fragmentation along ethnic lines. For these powers, the issue is neither the welfare, security, nor human rights of the Iranian people, but rather the permanent weakening of Iran and—at best—the installation of a new puppet regime that poses no threat to Israel or to Western long-term interests.

The popular uprising in Iran now risks being hijacked by the United States and its allies to legitimise military intervention and to install a weak and compliant regime—a neoliberal night-watchman state whose task is to safeguard the geopolitical and economic interests of the United States, Israel, and other Western countries. The pattern closely resembles the 1953 coup. Then, the shah was installed to facilitate the exploitation of Iran’s natural resources; today, the same goal is pursued through new scenarios. One such scenario is the promotion of the shah’s son, who lacks political experience—something that, in the Trumpian era, is paradoxically regarded as an asset. In a neoliberal world where markets and multinational corporations have colonised political power, the role of the state is reduced to guaranteeing, through police and military force, the unrestrained exploitation of resources and people.

In this order, it is no longer intelligence agencies that constitute the “deep state,” but global corporations such as Google, Meta, Amazon, Tesla, and Microsoft—actors whose power far exceeds that of traditional security apparatuses. Google’s role in the war in Gaza and in military attacks in the region is today well documented. Any potential attack on Iran by the United States and Israel therefore has nothing to do with the “safety of demonstrators” or with “human rights.” The Islamic regime has exhausted its historical role—first as a tool in the Cold War, later as a scarecrow used to legitimise arms sales and normalisation between Arab states and Israel. At the same time, Iran’s military capacity constitutes a real threat to Israel’s regional dominance.

The legitimate protests in Iran thus offer a golden opportunity to strike at one of the few remaining achievements of the revolution—namely Iran’s military and political independence—while disguising such attacks as humanitarian interventions. In light of the ongoing genocide in Palestine, no one should any longer take Western powers’ rhetoric on human rights seriously. These concepts once again serve as a cover for yet another military intervention—in a new form.

Sociological research shows, however, that even carefully planned interventions often produce unintended consequences that undermine the interveners’ long-term goals. The Iranian Revolution of 1976–1979 is a clear example of this.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.