Zaher Baher

24/02/206

The third day of university student protests in Iran continues. The demonstrations began at Mashhad University and, by Monday, had spread to other campuses, including the all-women Al Zahra University. Protesters chanted anti-government slogans, and an Iranian flag was burned and torn. The demonstrations remained confined to university grounds and did not spill into the streets.

The most prominent slogans included “Death to the dictator,” “For every one killed, a thousand will rise,” and “The blood that has been shed will never be erased.” At the same time, the United States and Iran are engaged in talks aimed at easing the threat of war, even as both sides intensify their military preparations

Under these circumstances, people across the region are deeply anxious about the prospect of war, shaped by decades of lived experience with armed conflict. They understand that war offers nothing but hunger, deprivation, the loss of loved ones, and the devastation of land, nation, and environment.

They also recognize that wars justified in the name of “regime change” have rarely delivered freedom or stability. Instead, such interventions have often merely replaced one dictator with another, sometimes producing outcomes even more disastrous. This lesson has been painfully reinforced by their experiences in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and now Syria.

Another concern shared by leftist groups and some others centres on the perceived lack of viable alternatives following the collapse of Iran’s current regime. They argue that, in the absence of a genuine democratic option, the only scenario being promoted is the return of Reza Pahlavi, the son of Iran’s former king, facilitated by external intervention, particularly under the influence of Donald Trump.

In my view, concern about the possible return of Reza Pahlavi, the son of Iran’s former king, is understandable. Such an outcome would be deeply troubling, yet it would be no worse than the continued rule of the mullahs. This position does not imply a desire for war, nor does it signal support for a United States attack on Iran.

However, there is an uncomfortable reality that cannot be ignored. When a government relentlessly pursues authoritarian and fascistic policies and does not hesitate to kill hundreds of thousands of its own people, overthrowing such a regime through demonstrations and peaceful protests alone becomes extraordinarily difficult.

Why is the return of the former king’s son not considered worse than the continuation of the current regime?

First, conditions in Iran have deteriorated drastically under the current rulers, worsening across nearly every sphere of life. Assassinations, killings, kidnappings, and the execution of innocent protesters, as well as anyone who dares to speak out, have become routine instruments of repression.

Women’s freedoms have been severely curtailed to the extent that many women no longer tolerate these restrictions and, in some cases, feel compelled to take to the streets themselves, even when broader solidarity in defence of their rights appears limited.

Second, the collapse of the regime would create a space to breathe freely, even if only for a limited period. A new government would be unlikely to achieve immediate or lasting stability, creating an opening for people to organize themselves across Iran. This moment could allow the formation of mass organizations, trade unions, and a wide range of anti-authoritarian, anti-state, and anti-war groups, as well as women’s unions and numerous initiatives focused on the environment, the economy, freedom, and human rights. Such movements could work collectively to combat poverty, discrimination, and inequality.

Public demonstrations, open debates, and seminars would represent further gains, alongside the revival of press freedom, writing, publishing houses, and the emergence of countless independent publications.

Third, the restoration of self-esteem and collective confidence would be a decisive gain. Rebuilding faith in one another and trust in people’s capacity to stand up for their rights would encourage collective action and the emergence of mass uprisings. Successfully toppling a 47-year-old regime in Iran would instill a powerful sense of empowerment. That experience would not fade easily and would serve as a lasting source of confidence if a new ruling authority attempted to follow the same repressive path as the one it replaced.

Fourth, the fall of the Iranian regime would also mean an end to its support for various Iranian-backed militant groups in neighbouring and Arab countries and a halt to the assassination of regime opponents both inside and outside Iran. Simultaneously, with the collapse of this Shiite stronghold, Saudi Arabia would no longer view it as a critical strategic or military asset. Consequently, the demand for weapons, ammunition, and other war materiel would diminish for both Saudi Arabia and Israel, potentially easing regional conflicts to some degree.

Fifth, the collapse of Iran would significantly undermine the Iraqi regime. It could create an opportunity for the Iraqi people to challenge or even topple their rulers, or at the very least weaken the regime to the point that it can no longer pursue its current policies.

Sixth, the situation in Turkey could become highly unstable. If Iran were able to strike significant damage against U.S. military bases in Turkey with its missiles, it could trigger widespread chaos, potentially sparking large-scale protests and demonstrations. Such unrest would not only impact the Turkish population but could also create opportunities for Kurdish communities, while simultaneously weakening the Turkish regime considerably.

Seventh, the collapse of the Iranian regime could improve conditions not only for Kurds and other ethnic groups within Iran but also for the Kurdistan Region in Iraq. At the very least, the threat of bombings and assassinations targeting opponents of the mullahs would disappear in this part of Kurdistan. Simultaneously, there is a possibility that a new regime would retract from the incursions and abuses previously carried out in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Eighth, the fall of the current religious regime could permanently prevent the re-establishment of a theocratic government in Iran, given the bloody legacy and the profound suffering it has inflicted on Iranian citizens over the past 47 years of its rule.

In my view, the developments outlined above would significantly advance the struggle of Iran’s workers and oppressed, laying the groundwork for a social revolution and helping to eradicate oppression, hunger, and social injustice. They would also provide a crucial opportunity for libertarians and anarchists to forge connections, support one another, and build networks that strengthen self-organization and coordination of their activities.

All of these represent significant milestones and powerful momentum for the growth of the anarchist movement.