Iran’s state-run media and some regime officials are painting a bleak future for the ruling theocracy. Many of them, while attacking the regime’s refusal to comply with the demands of its foreign interlocutors in the ongoing nuclear talks, has warned of the dangerous consequences of that approach.
Others have attacked the regime’s hasty and irrational decision to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, especially after it has become clear that Russia has failed to reach its objectives when it launched its onslaught.
Commenting on the adverse implication of the regime defending Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh, Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Security and Foreign Policy, said, “Our government suffered at a time when everyone was benefiting from the state of war in Ukraine.”
In an interview with the state-run daily Mostaghel on April 3, regime expert Ali Bigdeli warned the regime’s officials about Tehran’s critical political and international situation. “The six-party meeting in Israel, involving Egypt, Bahrain, the United States, the UAE, and Morocco, increase the pressure, as a new political-security alliance is formed against us, to which Jordan and Turkey will probably join. Jordan’s overt and covert meetings with Israel and Iraq and the transfer of gas to these countries will change the geopolitics of the region. If we cannot fundamentally change regional policies, we will become increasingly isolated,” he said.
Discussing the regime’s regional defeats, Falahatpisheh added, “Our regional policies have not worked very well so far; I wonder why our officials insist that the depth of our strategy is to pursue these policies. Evidence suggests that these policies have failed and have so far resulted in nothing but a political liability. We spent so much in Syria, but now Syria is gravitating toward the Arab World.”
He further suggested that the regime cease its recalcitrance immediately and reach an agreement with the Western countries, otherwise, it will face serious social consequences.
Falahatpisheh said, “There is no other way, but negotiations that open a path forward. But not the current talks that have reached a point of ambiguity. Iran’s economy is also paralyzed, and if it does not find a way to improve, we may witness social uprisings this year and next year.”
He is not the only one to warn the regime about the critical situation they are facing. Many others are advising the regime’s officials to stop their extremist actions against the Iranian people, like the latest incident in Mashhad where the security forces attacked female soccer fans. They suggest that the regime must heed the people’s demands before it becomes too late.
On April 1, the state-run daily Farhikhtegan, a publication affiliated with the regime’s so-called principlist faction, warned, “Ignoring these kinds of demands create a gap between an important part of society and the Raisi’s government, and even in some cases with the inappropriate performance of the officials, it creates deep social schisms.”
Remembering the huge capacity of Iran’s middle class for change, they added, “The middle class of Iran has been able to play a role as one of the most important actors in two great political transformations in the last century, namely the Constitutional and the 1979 Revolutions, respectively. In a situation where Iran has such a strong middle class, any blow to this class can cause severe shocks in society and change the fate of the country and its development.”
In reference to the regime’s latest draconian decisions, such as preventing female soccer fans from entering a soccer stadium, or the regime’s decision to intensify internet censorship, in an article entitled “Fundamentalism and the Conquest of the Government,’’ the state-run daily Shargh, wrote, “This phenomenon gradually pits the people, especially the non-political sectors, against the government.”
Last but not least, on April 3, in an article entitled “Things not to do in the new century,” the state-run daily Ebtakar, wrote, “Despite many claims, we have made social schisms wider and wider. In our managerial style, the selfishness of tyranny is still evident. Like all classic dictators, we make authoritarian and chaotic decisions and do not take responsibility for them. The material and spiritual resources of this country can no longer afford to pay so much.”