The political structure of any country is a reflection of its sovereignty, a nuanced expression of the values and principles shaping its governance. In the context of Iran, the term “garrison system” has emerged as a descriptor employed by officials to characterize the nature of the ruling structure. While on the surface, Iran’s political apparatus may bear the trappings of democracy, a closer examination reveals a complex and deceptive landscape.
In the outward narrative, Iran presents itself as a republic with ostensibly democratic features. Regular elections, ostensibly involving the selection of officials by the people, create an illusion of participatory governance. However, beneath this veneer lies a stark divergence from the democratic ideals it claims to embody. The regime’s facade is carefully crafted to mislead both its citizenry and international observers, fostering a narrative that belies the true nature of its governance. Decades of experience have equipped the people of Iran with a keen awareness of this deception.
The regime’s charade becomes apparent when one delves beyond the surface. While political rivals engage in the semblance of democratic competition, the harsh reality emerges through the regime’s warmongering activities and a troubling escalation in the number of executions. Despite the annual elections mirroring democratic processes, the inherent authoritarianism of the regime remains intact, serving as a reminder that appearances can be deceiving.
Global events, such as the tragic conflict in Gaza, have provided a backdrop against which the Iranian regime has intensified its suppression of dissent through mass executions. August witnessed the execution of 25 individuals, a number that surged to 81 in September and a staggering 105 by October. These figures lay bare the true nature of the regime—an oppressive garrison system that deploys brutal tactics to quell opposition and silence dissent.
A significant revelation emerged in mid-November when the resignation letter of Elias Naderan, a former member of the Iranian parliament, was made public. Naderan cited the garrisoning of the parliament as the primary reason for his resignation, a decision made a year earlier but unveiled in the wake of recent uprisings. His act not only exposed the true nature of the regime but also highlighted the pervasive garrison model corrupting Iran.
Naderan’s revelation speaks to a broader issue: the entrenchment of a garrison system throughout Iran. This system, akin to a police-military dictatorship, is plagued by corruption fueled by wealth and power. The regime’s dependence on repressive military and police forces is so profound that any disruption to this garrison structure could lead to the collapse of the entire government, given its lack of internal order.
Jalil Rahimi Jahanabadi, another former parliament member, echoed Naderan’s concerns in an interview where he criticized the increasing influence of military institutions and personalities in key administrative, political, and economic roles. His words resonate with the growing perception that Iran is transforming into a garrison state, with military figures assuming positions traditionally held by civilians.
The consequences of this garrison governance extend beyond the political realm, manifesting in economic and social domains. Reports from November 14 indicate that the regime plans to establish 27 coastal towns along the southern coast of the country. However, when juxtaposed with the apparent neglect of provinces like Sistan and Baluchistan during crises such as water shortages, a darker agenda comes to light.
Mehrdad Bazarpash, the Minister of Roads and Urban Development, revealed that the coastal town plan involves the provinces of Khuzestan, Hormozgan, Bushehr, and Sistan and Baluchistan. Ostensibly centered around a ‘sea economy,’ these settlements are set to be established in collaboration with an organization known as the ‘Supreme Council of Free Commercial-Industrial and Special Economic Zones.’
This seemingly innocuous plan takes on a sinister undertone when viewed in conjunction with the regime’s broader strategy. By altering the population structure of these provinces and redirecting a significant portion of their residents to these new coastal towns, the regime aims to preemptively quell potential protests and dissent, consolidating its control over the populace.
Iran’s political structure, while masquerading as a democracy, reveals itself as a garrison system deeply entrenched in oppression and military control. The revelations from former parliamentarians and the regime’s actions underscore the urgency of recognizing this reality. The international community must see beyond the deceptive facade and address the human rights abuses, military influence, and conspiratorial schemes that threaten the well-being of the Iranian people. Only through a collective acknowledgment of the true nature of Iran’s governance can meaningful change be pursued for the nation and its citizens.
