The polarised commentary around political consequences of the Iran-Israel war often supposed that Israeli strikes on Iran will be either welcomed by the population or cause a “rally round the flag” effect, pushing Iranians to go back to supporting the government.
But these neat distinctions don’t capture the Iranian politics. Many Iranians opposed the Israeli attacks while continuing to also oppose or criticise the Iranian leadership.
A most obvious example of this is Mostafa Tajzadeh, former deputy interior minister and currently a political prisoner in Tehran’s Evin Prison. In a message he issued on June 16, as Iran founds itself in the grip of the war, he condemned the Israeli attacks and warned that even if they were to cause a change in the leadership, they would lead to “a destructed Iran ready to be a failed state, chaos and even disintegration”.
But far from simply banging on the drums of support for the Iranian war effort, Mr Tajzadeh called for a ceasefire to be achieved by “wise and realistic diplomacy”.
In critiquing those who had supported Israel, Mr Tajzadeh noted that it was “a different story” for those who had been silent or cheered on the attacks. He thus made his political point without giving support to a possibly imminent crackdown in Iran.
Mr Tajzadeh’s anti-war message didn’t come with him shelving his long-standing demands for democracy in Iran either. In the very same statement, he boldly called for a peaceful transition to democracy, achieved by forming a constituent assembly which could change the constitution or write a new one. From his vulnerable state at Evin prison, Mr Tajzadeh showed real leadership.
Another bold figure in that corner of Iranian politics is Faeze Hashemi, a popular former MP. In a voice message she sent to media outlets abroad, Ms Hashemi made her position clear. She said that nobody should celebrate the Israeli attacks but straightly added that Iran was “reaping what we have sown”.
In other words, she blamed the policies of supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei for the war while calling on Iranian decision-makers and politicians to “realistically look for ways to save Iran, saying no to policies that have brought us to this point”.
Mr Tajzadeh and Ms Hashemi both belong to what could be called the post-reformist trend in Iranian politics. They were once major reformist figures, but they’ve gone beyond the cautious politic of reformists by calling the Iranian leadership into question. Yet, they have also maintained their red lines, as shown by their defence of their country when it came under attack.
Sadegh Zibakalam, a former University of Tehran professor, is something of an intellectual hero for this trend. Mr Zibakalam usually breaks all taboos by how far he is willing to go in criticism of the Iranian government. But in response to the events, he reserved much of his ire for the abroad-based opposition to the Islamic Republic, some of whose personalities had clearly banked on the Israeli attacks. The war showed them to be hapless and irrelevant, he said.
But when asked if he had given up his criticism of the leadership, Mr Zibakalam pointed out that there was still a gap between the government and its people. “The civic demands of a significant section of the Iranian population are there,” he said. “There are still demands for free elections, freedom for political prisoners and press freedom”.
Summing up his attitude, Mr Zibakalam said: “The complaints I have about the Islamic Republic now are the same as those I had a few weeks ago.” He also affirmed: “As an Iranian I can never stand with the US, Israel or any other foreign country or power that attacks our country”.
In the more mainstream segments of the reformist movement, there is more of an effort to emphasise support for Iran’s defence.
On June 13, Azar Mansouri, the head of the Iranian Reformist Front, strongly condemned “the aggression of the Zionist regime to our country” and “its terrorist measures”. She called for a broad unity to defend Iran.
In the days since, she has not criticised Iranian policies that helped bring us to this war, as people such as Mr Tajzadeh and Ms Hashemi have. Her main initiative was a letter to Rafael Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency chief, calling on him to not be silent about Israel’s attacks on Iran.
Ham-Mihan, a reformist Tehran daily, vociferously attacked a statement put out by a group of Iranian civic activists including Nobel peace laureates Narges Mohammadi and Shirin Ebadi and filmmaker Jafar Panahi. The statement condemned attacks on civilians by both Iran and Israel and called for Iran to give up on enriching uranium. In some ways, the statement wasn’t all that different from Mr Tajzadeh’s but its open demand on Iran to give up on a cornerstone of its nuclear programme was a bridge too far for Ham-Mihan that called it “a shameful statement against Iranian national interests and in line with interests of the Zionists regime.”
The daily also called on Iranian reformists to go to war with abroad-based media outlets of the opposition who, it claimed, were trying to weaken national resolve in Iran. It asked reformists to start a campaign for a “reasonable nationalist voice”.
Another reaction from this political camp came from Mohammad Ali Abtahi, former vice-president under Mohammad Khatami. Following the US attacks on Iran on the weekend, Mr Abtahi made a call for “avoiding extremism on either side.” He said: “Our dear Iran could be threatened with unreasonable sentiments”.
Iranian reformists are in a tough place, seeking to defend their country while not giving up on their critiques of its problems. But its most resolute representatives, such as Mr Tajzadeh and Ms Hashemi, have shown that they are ready to offer a bold programme even in the midst of war.
