The protests, riots and social movements we witnessed in Mashhad, Iran towards the end of 2017 became a hot issue in the country. As a matter of fact, Iran's position at the edge of danger could already be foreseen with U.S. President Donald Trump coming into power. His administration looks to repeal the Iran Nuclear Deal, reached under former President Barack Obama, called it a "rogue state" and would go as far to wage war if Iran's neighbors could be persuaded.
However, the Obama administration, as an extension of the U.S.'s invasion policy of Afghanistan and Iraq, urged the Iranian expansion over Shia ideology. Ironically, Shia governments in Iraq were helped by the U.S. successively by removing the Sunnis from the calculation. Iran could also increase its influence over the Iraqi government thanks to former Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki, who was backed and put into power by the U.S. Iran also increased its sphere of influence in Syria through one of its proxies, Hashd al-Shaabi. It did the same in Lebanon and Yemen through Hezbollah and the Houthis, respectively.
The boot is on the other foot
Indeed, following the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, paving the way for its expansionism in the Middle East became a strategic trap, since it created a bad image for itself at both regional and global levels. Different segments of the Iranian society observed that this expansionist policy was so costly for their prosperity and welfare. Therefore, the sociopolitical structure of Iran had a tendency to criticize the existing regime in many respects.
What lay behind the end of protests was the ramifications of post-Revolution outcomes. Firstly, President Hassan Rouhani could not dominate the economy as a reformist leader because the regime allowed him to control just half of the national economy. Secondly, he could not maintain public confidence and expectations for prosperity and welfare enhanced by mitigating the international embargo. Lastly he could not keep his promise to minimize the pressures of the regime on daily social life. All these parameters led to encourage the opponent groups and protestors against the regime.
Nevertheless, it is to be born in mind that there is no strong and coherent will to change and transform the regime in Iranian society. Even though widely-observed social discontent and strife led to categorize the society as conservatives and reformists, the cleavages between these two groups and sociopolitical identities are so little. Essentially even the reformists are regime-sponsored subjects rather than pro-revolutionary actors. Furthermore Iran has a strong and coherent national identity sponsored by both its rooted state establishment and protracted Shia ideology, notwithstanding her vulnerable ethnic, religious and linguistic diversity. Ordinary Iranian people derive lessons from the mistakes of Arab protestors during the so-called Arab Spring who were pushed into a permanent chaos and witness the comeback of dictators with a vengeance while attempting to shake the dictators off.
Was it a Persian Spring?
It was widely spoken that such protests were urged by the regime in and of itself for the purpose of consolidating it, intimidating the reformists and enhancing the safeguards of the regime more dominant over the streets. Indeed, former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as one of the leaders of the conservatives, was accused of committing such crimes and declaring some suspicious expositions. However, we believe that the protests in Iran were instigated by foreign powers and a kind of "Persian Spring" would be initiated. It was certain that there was no reason to take such risky steps for the regime while it was confronted with very challenging issues as a matter of life and death.
Israel's disturbance
Since we are suffering the problems of establishing a new world and newly emerged alliance over the Syrian war, the choices of regional actors become more crucial. During this period of time, it is argued that Iran overemphasized its strategic capacity as a pivotal power in the region and Israel felt itself threatened by this show of strength.
Especially the primary priority for the U.S. is the security of Israel, which was at stake because of two international megaprojects: First of all is the Silk Road Project which is relevant to more than sixty countries. This project, which intends to reshape the world trade routes, is perceived as a strategic thrust dividing the world into two parts by combining London and Pekin paradoxically. The first part falls into the globalist/internationalist category and is composed of the globalist wing of the U.S., United Kingdom, Qatar, Iran, Russia, France, Turkey and China; the second one is comprised of the nationalist wing of the U.S., Germany, Italy, Poland and so on. Iran is located is at the exact center of this composition.
From a different viewpoint, Iran is perceived as an obstruction of American policy to reshape the region over the alliance amid Israel, the Gulf States and the Saudi Arabia as well as terrorist organizations such the People's Protection Units (YPG) and the Democratic Union Party (PYD). However Saudi Arabia entered into U.S. service because of some threats such as having confiscated the petrodollars in exchange for sold petrol by U.S., being stigmatized a "rogue state" with the accusation of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and breakdown and regime change as a result of this game of thrones. However the U.S. administration attempts to create a "moderate Islam" over the modality of Saudi Arabia in order to fight with so-called radical Islam and stir controversy under the sectarian conflict within the Islamic world.
Although the protests in Iran were over, the same pressure over it may be still going on. Iran is subjected to foreign intervention due to its democracy deficit, regime pressure on the people, and an unfair distribution of welfare. Be that as it may the changing of the regime is essential in this country, and the citizens of Iran only decide for this transformation. For the Turkish side, even though the international media makes too much fuss about Iran, it has no plan to create an axis within the region under any ethnic, religious or sectarian category. This is what rationalist diplomacy requires. Turkey showed the same approach in the Qatar crisis and contributed to the regional peace. It is well aware of the projected sectarian conflicts within the Middle East and acts accordingly.
* Dean of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, head of Political Science and International Relations at Dumlupinar University