In the complex chessboard of international politics, it seems the current administration believes in giving the world a déjà vu moment by rehashing old strategies with Iran. Yes, there’s a new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in the mix, a fancy term that might easily be mistaken for a Memorandum of Misunderstanding if you ask the critics. The idea is simple enough to grasp: if Iran behaves nicely — like a school child promised extra recess for good behavior — then a transformative era will dawn in the Middle East. However, if penning epic-cycle dramas based on history is any lesson, the chance of Iran’s radical regime nodding solemnly and turning over a new leaf seems rather fanciful.
The harrowing reality is that the Iranian regime has consistently scored top marks in brutal repression, with more than 7,000 Iranians estimated to have been killed during protests earlier this year. The actual figure? Probably worse if human rights activists are to be believed — and you might wanna believe them since they’re the ones risking life and limb on the ground. So, what’s the fresh MOU going to do about these human rights issues? Well, it’s hard not to chuckle dryly at the notion that the plan involves gently nudging the regime with economic incentives, hoping they’ll drop their aversion to basic human decency.
Washington’s optimistic fantasy appears to be banking on the existence of some less radicalized factions within Iran’s leadership. Sprinkle some financial incentives, and presto, one might think! Unfortunately, that perception is about as realistic as expecting penguins to thrive in the Sahara. If money was truly the magic wand, then why is Iran, flush with funds from previous agreements, still behaving like a regime stuck in a time warp of oppression? As an Iranian student pointed out, the regime barely waited before executing protesters and handing out lashes like party favors at a particularly grim soirée.
And here’s the kicker — the people expected to now be ‘less radicalized’ than before are boasting about plans to liberate Jerusalem with the jolly subtlety of a twelve-ton anvil falling off a cliff. At least the regime is consistent in its love for dramatic announcements harking back to less peaceful times. Yet, the comparison between this agreement and the JCPOA or whatever new three-letter diplomatic term is in vogue clearly still weighs heavy on the minds of many who remember the last cycle of dashed hopes.
What’s baffling is how despite these grim facts, there remains an unshakeable faith among some Iranian citizens towards past tough-love diplomacy factions. Apparently, naming streets after former President Trump was one way that appreciation was shown. Why? Maybe because they saw strength as more meaningful than mere talks and long sheets of paper that end up languishing in drawers. After all, when the threat of appeasement was replaced with action, it gave hope and a sense of someone actually listening to their plight. Presently, though, those hopeful signals seem dimmer as the conversation shifts to the Iranian people’s agency to enact change autonomously. As much as the notion of self-liberation is noble, the road to such freedom is still a treacherous one laden with obstacles, and one might argue a little external support wouldn’t hurt.
