THE question is one, yet the answers are many—shaped by desires and the pain of old wounds.
In this unfolding situation, the cunning of external forces is visible, but internal mistakes cannot be ignored. Behind every development, restless undercurrents persist. Human temperaments generally fall into two types. One remains captive to history, while the other, despite historical awareness, seeks to view events on a broader canvas. In Iran’s case, this canvas reveals a system born as a reaction to a Westernised, authoritarian Shah. The structure of this system was complex. Since religious scholars held power, Iranian society experienced rigid—often inflexible—application of Sharia and jurisprudence. This rigidity forms the internal dimension of Iran’s predicament and influenced its regional conduct.
The psychology of revolutions is complex. A revolution draws energy from ideology and arises through sacrifices. Leaders and supporters often wish to extend its influence beyond borders so their success radiates outward. Alongside concern for neighbours, this impulse is driven by ideological propagation and old rivalries. After the Iranian Revolution, these dynamics became evident, causing regional conflicts and a bitter new chapter in Middle Eastern history. The impact was not limited to the region; Pakistan too was profoundly affected. The attempt to export the revolution produced a struggle whose proxy dimension unfolded on Pakistani soil. This conflict damaged social fabric, fuelled extremism, encouraged armed groups, and normalized violence. Pakistan’s foreign relations also suffered. While grievances exist regarding Iran’s tilt toward India, the killing of Iranian diplomats on Pakistani soil left deep scars. Such bitterness widened the gap between the two brotherly states. Iranian policies—particularly on Kashmir—cannot be overlooked, as they once aided India diplomatically.
While Pakistan’s complaints carry weight, the gravity of Iran’s current ordeal requires temporarily setting them aside and examining recent events in a broader context. What is the broader context of Iran’s crisis? The prevailing view attributes the unrest to economic hardship. This explanation has merit, but why did these problems arise? The principal cause is sanctions, imposed because of the ideology underpinning the Iranian Revolution. This ideology is unacceptable to the West, especially the United States, which does not want a strategically independent Iran obstructing its ambitions or threatening Israel.
Assume for a moment that the protesters and the West succeed in removing the revolutionary government. Would the result simply be the end of clerical rule, as opponents claim? The reality would be far more consequential. The leadership of Iran’s anti-government movement remains unclear, but reports suggest the situation is complex. Protesters are frequently seen waving Shah-era flags after desecrating the current national flag, despite it bearing “Allah” and the Kalima Tayyiba. This act reflects the movement’s ideology. The United States and Israel seek to dismantle the revolutionary system, and their influence exists within Iranian society. In the recent unrest, this element is evident.
Observers familiar with Iranian society note there is virtually no middle ground between religious segments and their opponents; both sides are rigid. Openly anti-revolutionary forces have surfaced, indicating that if they succeed, they will attempt to revive the Iran that once functioned as a Western proxy. Such a development would produce scenes of counter-revolution, restoring an Iran resembling the Shah’s era. While this may define Iran’s internal trajectory, the external consequences would be profound. Whether Reza Pahlavi assumes power is uncertain, but one fact is clear: the United States and Israel stand behind the unrest. Rioters have fired upon security forces, while Trump has threatened military action if the government uses force. Marco Rubio remains in close contact with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. These manoeuvres suggest a coordinated effort to paralyse and dismantle the Iranian state. If successful, Israel would gain a strategic foothold with far-reaching implications.
What should Iran’s friends do in this complex scenario? One option is to strengthen Iran’s enemies, an easy but disastrous path that would fragment the Muslim world. The alternative is to assist Iran, but this risks direct confrontation with the United States. Leadership is tested in such moments. Muslim leadership’s foremost responsibility is to find a viable course that allows Iran to preserve its ideological identity without threatening itself, its neighbours, or the wider Muslim world. This is a defining moment—for both Iran’s leadership and that of the Muslim world.
—This writer is former advisor to President of Pakistan and an author.
(farooq.adilbhuta@gmail,com)
