The main headlines on Saturday in Iran were dominated by one issue: the brilliant victory of Iran's soccer team over Japan and its advancing to the next stage of the Asian Cup. Now that we are clear as to what Iranians are prioritizing right now, we can scroll down a bit and get to the news that interests us in Israel – namely,  the ongoing tit-for-tat between the Islamic Republic and the US in Syria and Iraq.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

On Friday evening, the US began attacking targets associated with the Quds Force – the external arm of the Revolutionary Guards – in Iraq and Syria. On Saturday, right below soccer news in the papers, there were reports of this attack as well as counterattacks by an organization called The Islamic Resistance of Iraq – one of many organizations supported by Iran – on American bases in Syria and Iraq. Attacking through proxy organizations allows the Islamic Republic to deny responsibility.

The US strikes on Friday came in response to a UAV attack on an American base in Jordan near the Syrian border – an attack for which that Iraqi organization claimed responsibility, and in which three American soldiers were killed.

The Americans failed to realize that it was an enemy UAV because they thought it was one of theirs returning from an attack. Biden concluded his speech in response to the incident with the words: "'Have no doubt, we will hold all those responsible to account at a time and in a manner of our choosing."

These words are very reminiscent of Iran's reactions whenever one of the Quds Force commanders is "martyred" courtesy of the US or Israel: revenge in a time and manner deemed appropriate.

Neither the US nor the Islamic Republic in having the situation in the region escalate into World War III. Therefore, the Islamic Republic prefers to leave the dirty work to proxy organizations, especially the Islamic Resistance in Iraq.

Nevertheless, there have been several attacks that the Revolutionary Guards have directly taken responsibility for, against Iran's enemies in Pakistan and Kurdistan. In Kurdistan, a wealthy businessman was killed along with his baby daughter in an attack on their home that was identified as a "Mossad headquarters." The "proof" that he was a Mossad agent was a picture of him with a Chabad rabbi in Russia, which was quickly proven to be a Photoshop fake. After each assassination and attack, the targeted side declares that revenge will come "in a time and manner that seems appropriate to us."

This happened four years ago after the US had General Qassem Soleimani promoted to the coveted status of "martyr" (or as the Iranians say – to the status of cutlet); it happened on each of the anniversaries of his death, especially on the last anniversary, and also nine days before that when Razi Mousavi, Quds Force's chief logistician, was assassinated in Syria; it happened after Hamas senior terrorist Saleh al-Arouri was assassinated in Lebanon on the eve of Soleimani's anniversary and on that very day ISIS carried out a mass attack on the Soleimani memorial procession.

The reason for the declarations and reprisals through proxy organizations is that both powers know that if they let things slide, the other side may try the next time to carry out an even bigger operation or assassination. The second danger for Iran is domestic public opinion. The regime in Tehran is certainly authoritarian and violent, but public opinion still matters: It is important that opponents of the regime understand that they should not rear their heads. The regime has to show that it won't let people just attack it and its interests without hitting back. It also faces criticism from the right, and it needs to show its critics that it does not display weakness.

It is likely that this delicate equilibrium will be maintained. Neither side really wants this war, but neither side can back down when the other is still attacking.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Why the Iran-US spat has not turned into war appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Iran is going through an unprecedented wave of protests: global support from leaders, celebrities and social media users; university professors going on strike in solidarity; nationwide strikes; the hashtag Mahsa Amini has been used over 100 million times; demonstrators are challenging security forces with casualties reported on both sides; at least one city declared as liberated from the Islamist regime; the Revolutionary Guards launching an artillery attack on militants in Iraqi Kurdistan; and who knows what else will happen.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

But each protest wave seems unprecedented until the next one arrives. And most commentators predict that the demonstrators will subside or will be suppressed, but not decisively. Is it possible we are talking about a historic event that will change the Islamic Republic forever?

Firstly, Mahsa Amini, whose death ignited the protests, was innocent. The beautiful 22-year-old did not demonstrate, did not protest, did not defy, she did not even remove her hijab completely. And still, she was arrested by Iran's so-called "morality police" who beat her (which CCTV footage circulating on social media proves) and was only given medical attention hours later after losing consciousness. She eventually died after being in a coma for three days.

It was an awakening for the Iranian people who realized that even if they played by the rules – kept a low profile and did not demonstrate – their personal safety would still not be guaranteed. As such, they had nothing to lose by going out to protest.

Secondly, most demonstrations in Iran's history have so far focused on issues that did not defy the very essence of the Islamic Republic. When the presidential elections were allegedly rigged in 2009, the protesters were basically saying that they wanted Musawi but got Ahmadinejad.

In 2007, and later in 2019, when Iranians demonstrated against fuel prices, it was an economic matter. Most of the demonstration waves were local, and resolvable if the leaders of the Islamic Republic chose so.

In 2011, there was another attempt to get rid of the system inspired by the Arab Spring. Demonstrators called for an end to Iran's religious government, but they were outnumbered by the security forces.

Make no mistake! The current protests are not about the hijab. It was never about that. The current protests started because of an event related to the head covering, many of which have since been removed and burned in protest, but the hijab has always been a symbol.

Contrary to the fuel protests, the teachers' protests, the workers' protests, and demonstrations by truck drivers, farmers, pensioners, residents of Shemiran, the Arabs of Khuzestan, and others, Iran cannot resolve this problem just by wishing to do so.

Even if the protests are suppressed this time, the leaders of the regime will no longer be able to claim that legitimate issues were "hijacked" and turned political by foreign entities. The protesters aren't just demanding freedom to dress as they wish. They are demanding complete liberation from the oppressive yoke of the Islamic Republic.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post A new wind is blowing in Iran appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

In the eyes of the Islamic republic's leadership, the most interesting aspect of Biden's visit to Israel is the direct flight from the Jewish state to Saudi Arabia, or more accurately, its significance and the talks that will apparently take place surrounding it. It seems the very thought of the possible implications of the visit has put the authorities in Tehran on the defensive.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

In the cabinet meeting in Tehran on Wednesday morning, Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi issued a warning: "If the visits of American officials to the countries of the region are aimed at strengthening the position of the Zionist regime and normalizing its relations with certain states, these efforts will not bring security to the Zionists."

Tehran doubly afraid

The Islamic republic is doubly concerned about the Abraham Accords in general and growing Israeli-Saudi ties in particular. First and foremost, this is a justified existential fear that Israel will do to Iran what Iran has been doing to Israel for years through its presence in Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza: It is becoming its "neighbor" by forging military alliances with enemy countries on its borders.

Israel is already in Iraqi Kurdistan and Azerbaijan and is now getting friendly with Iran's neighbors to the south: the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia. The Iranian authorities describe this as a "knife in the back." Raisi said in his speech that he has already sent the Americans several messages via mediators, threatening "a decisive response to even the slightest movement against Iranian sovereignty."

The second concern pertains to the Islamic republic's standing in the Islamic world. It's clear that Saudi Arabia is the leader of the Sunni world and Iran is the leader of the Shiite world, but the fight for the mantle of leadership of the Muslim world is yet to be decided. Saudi Arabia possesses one significant advantage over Iran: Mecca. And lots of money.

The only thing the Islamic republic has left in this fight is to unite all streams of Islam against a common enemy.  And who is more suited than Israel for this role? The excuse, of course, is "defense of the oppressed Palestinian people," despite the fact that Iran's Arab inhabitants in Khuzestan Province are fighting for the exact same things: They are discriminated against and aspire to self-determination. Within the framework of its efforts to unite the Islamic world against Israel, any inkling of rapprochement between Israel and Arab countries is immediately interpreted as a betrayal of the Palestinian people. Tehran's obsessive defense of the Palestinians has often been described as "overprotection" – in other words, the Iranians try defending them in areas where the Palestinians don't want or need to be protected, starting with negotiations and cooperation, when these things do occur, to joint soccer matches.

Iranians care about the hijab

And why am I mostly writing this time about the authorities in Iran instead of the reactions online? Because Iranians on social media are less interested in the travels of Joe Biden this week. There are practically no independent tweets or posts on the matter. Those that do exist in Farsi are largely anti-American and anti-Israel, but are essentially written by Afghanis (the languages are almost identical in writing, but some of the words, along with the spelling of names and personal information, reveal the writers' identities).

Iranians this week have been far more interested in women's head coverings. Tuesday marked the anniversary of the Goharshad Mosque rebellion in 1935, when worshippers clashed with the Shah's security forces, which wanted to enforce a Westernized dress code on men in Iran. While the government declared it "National Hijab and Decency Day" and has sponsored pro-hijab women's rallies (at the same stadium where women are fighting for the right to attend soccer games!), secular women, led by journalist Masih Alinejad, launched their own "#No2Hijab" campaign – in which many women removed their head coverings in public places and even posted videos on social media. The battle between the pro-hijab and anti-hijab camps has grabbed far more attention on social media and in the press than Israel, the US, Saudi Arabia, and their joint plots against Iran.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Biden's Mideast trip has Iran's leaders on edge appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Iran hasn't had a dull moment in recent weeks. Amid frequent power cuts, cries of "death to the dictator" emanate from the dark in the nights, though this has yet to reach the point of protests in the day. With that, during one daytime power outage in Tehran, the infamous electronic billboard counting down the seconds to Israel's demise went black.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

The power cuts have shut down nuclear power plants, sparking rumors and headlines across the globe – especially when the reactor is located in Bushehr. The story the regime is telling, however, is actually credible. Bitcoin mining has become one of the more productive industries in Iran, and bitcoin miners consume electricity equivalent to that of half of Tehran – a city with 8 million people. They also use a lot of electricity in the sweltering summer months. Indeed, in our neighborhood – the Middle East – summers are hot and air conditioners work overtime. Moreover, in severe droughts, hydroelectric power plants are always at risk of being shut down.

And if there is electricity, does that mean everything is fine? Not really. On Friday afternoon, a cyberattack paralyzed Iran's railroad system. Hundreds of lines across the country were postponed or canceled. In response, Iran's state railway company denied that a cyberattack had been the cause of the chaos. However, the information hotline passengers were urged to call listed the phone number of the office of the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

On Saturday, meanwhile, the website of Iran's Transportation Ministry was taken down by what state television said was a "cyber disruption." The menacing message that appeared on employees' computer screens linked the various attacks: "Transportation minister, we carried out cyberattacks against the computer systems of the railway company and the Transportation Ministry! This message is for your bosses: Don't stretch your leg more than your rug." That expression, in Farsi, is the equivalent of saying "don't get too big for your britches" or "don't let your eyes get too big for your stomach."

All of this is going on, and we haven't even mentioned the explosion at Mellat Park in Tehran, which didn't cause any casualties or damage to property; or the coronavirus pandemic still raging across the country. In Tehran alone, 100 people are dying from COVID-19 every day, there's a medicine shortage, and a recent poll found that just 21% of the public has faith in the government's handling of the crisis. In other sectors, the price of chicken soaring again and in some areas of the country, there is a sugar shortage. Does any of this mean the regime is nearing its end? It's one day closer than yesterday.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post When the ayatollah regime learns the limits of power appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Iran's latest election will be remembered as the time the Islamist Republic stopped pretending it was a democracy. No wonder it recorded the lowest voter turnout in its history – less than 50% of Iranians bothered to show up at the polling stations.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

The undemocratic system that made sure Ebrahim Raisi became president begins with the Guardian Council, which is responsible for screening presidential candidates and approving or vetoing laws passed in the Iranian parliament.

Out of 592 such candidates, it only approved seven, disqualifying many prominent figures, among them former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, current Vice President Eshaq Jahangiri, and former Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani.

Most young Iranians had never heard of Raisi up until four years ago. However, the older generation remembers that in the 1980s, he was a member of the so-called "Death committee," which sentenced thousands of political prisoners to death. He has since served in several positions in the judicial system, most recently as Chief of Justice.

It seems that Raisi has been chosen by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to one day replace him, just as Khamenei was selected by his predecessor Ruhollah Khomeini to follow in his footsteps.

After Khomeini's death, then-President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani sought to strengthen his position. Before he died in 2017, he said on his deathbed that Khomeini had told him that the two roles of president and prime minister should be merged into one – to which Rafsanjani was happy to oblige – and that the most deserving person to replace him was Khamenei, who was not even an ayatollah at the time.

Rafsanjani supported the appointment of Khamenei as supreme leader, for he was an inexperienced politician, who lacked skills and charisma, and was, therefore, easy to control. Khamenei himself referred to being unfit for the role in his famous speech that began with the words: "First of all, we should shed tears of blood wailing for the Islamic society that has been forced to even propose me [as supreme leader]."

Rafsanjani forgot that he had been a leader his whole life and a president for two terms and actually created a monster. It seems that Raisi's victory stems from similar considerations. Iran has not learned.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Iran has not learned its lesson appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The attack on the Israeli-owned cargo ship in the Gulf of Oman on Friday has brought out the best in the Islamic republic in the sense of its classic reaction to it.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

On the one hand, the regime issues a limp denial, in the form of a statement by First Vice-President of Iran Eshaq Jahangiri who said, "On a regional and international levels, anything that happens… the finger is pointed at Iran, like they [Israel] are doing over the fire on the ship with the Zionist ties."

Iranian media, however, boasted that the attack was very much the work of Tehran, illustrating the disconnect between Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and the executive branch – President Hassan Rouhani and the Iranian government, which also reflects the tension between the two.

Ultra-conservative newspaper Kayhan, considered Khamenei's mouthpiece, declared on Sunday that the attack on the MV Helios Rayan, which suffered an explosion that left holes above the waterline on both sides of the hull, was reprisal "for Israeli aggression in the Middle East."

Its report hints that the Helios Rayan was not a vehicle-carrier as reported, rather an espionage vessel sailing under the foreign flag as a disguise, and claimed that not only is the owner Israeli – he is "close" to the head of the Mossad intelligence agency – which fits perfectly with the theory that the "Zionist regime aspires to tighten its grip on the Persian Gulf by exposing its ties to the UAE and Bahrain so it can more closely supervise its crimes against and axis of the resistance.

"The age of the hit and run is over!" Kayhan exclaims.

The "axis of the resistance" is, of course, what the West calls the "axis of evil" or – to use more politically correct language – the "Shiite crescent." This axis does not use terms like "normalization" or "peace" to describe the rapprochement between Gulf kingdoms and the Jewish state. Instead, it uses terms like "making it public" allowing conspiracy theories to thrive.

Arab social media leveled harsh criticism at Kayhan for fanning the flames, but also note that the attack itself was an act of aggression. Some, of course, rejoice over the fact that "the Zionists have to swim to Europe," saying this was long overdue revenge for the elimination of senior Iranian officials, others are concerned of Israel's reaction, and others still ever dare hope that any such Israeli reaction would topple the Iranian regime.

Special attention should be paid to surprising reactions that level criticism at the United States, Europe and even Israel for not doing everything they can to end the ayatollahs' regime.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Iran's boasts may be premature appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh is gone. According to the heads of the Islamic Republic, the Zionists assassinated him, and this time around, the Zionists aren't exactly denying it. Their revenge, they promise, will be "calculated and decisive" and exacted at the appropriate time.

At this point, it remains unclear exactly when and where this will be, and what exactly the appropriate form of revenge looks like. The regime in Tehran has opted for "strategic patience" in its response to the "despicable murder," the Iranian reports of which seem to change every few hours. "Strategic patience," a term coined by the ayatollah's copywriters in Tehran, is aimed at allowing the regime to maintain a sense of dignity. The use of the word "strategic" sends the message to hardliners that this is just a waiting period that will come to an end, and that the ayatollahs are carefully planning their next move. To those on the left who seek regime change, the word sends the message that, just because the regime hasn't punished the killers who assassinated Fakhrizadeh, or Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani, doesn't mean they will get away with acts against the regime.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

While I believe the ayatollahs genuinely want to avoid dragging the region into war, they will need to exact some kind of revenge to save face.

We've seen similar language used in the past, for example during the nuclear talks, when pressure on the regime from the right and expectations of the country opening up to the West from the Left birthed the term "heroic flexibility." This term was used every time the republic was forced to present the people with more concessions to the West.

And how have the people responded? Online and in the streets, the initial reaction has been one of rage and calls for revenge, some sadness over Iran's third significant loss following the US killing of Soleimani and Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, alongside joyous declarations celebrating that Fakhrizadeh was now a martyr and revenge would be forthcoming.

Out in the streets, there were cries of "No compromise, no surrender, war with America!" and calls to kick out UN nuclear watchdog inspectors. While the regime would prefer to avoid the former, the latter is in fact resonating with many senior regime officials.

On the other hand, opponents of the regime have tweeted out remarks along the lines of "Nice job. Keep it up." Quite a few of them have asserted Fakhrizadeh and Soleimani are not Iran's heroes, but rather those young people who sacrificed their lives in protests against the regime.

It's hard to predict what the coming days will bring. We can try to compare this latest assassination to that of Soleimani at the beginning of the year. There was definitely more anger online and in the streets at the time. That's to be expected since Soleimani was a prominent symbol of the regime throughout his lifetime, while Fakhrizadeh has been dubbed Iran's "mystery man."

Strategic patience could in fact serve to maintain anger outwardly. The response to Soleimani's killing was just a little too rushed. Had they taken their time to plan things a little more carefully, they might have taken down a US military jet instead of a plane full of innocent and mostly Iranian passengers.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Iran will have its revenge appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The initial response to the virus was arrogant and cavalier. It took Iran three weeks and 55 flights more than the rest of the world to sever contact with China. We all remember Iran's deputy health minister, Iraj Harirchi, declaring at a press conference that the panic over the coronavirus was inappropriate. 

 Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

When the very next day Harirchi announced he had contracted the virus, the reactions on social media -- beyond those wishing him a quick death and some wishing him a speedy recovery -- raised doubts that he was even ill, and that at the very least he would recover within days and show that the virus was nothing to worry about.  

While he did recover, this theory was apparently quite wrong, because at least 12 senior Iranians have already succumbed to the virus and another 43 have been infected. In a regime where most of the senior leadership consists of men who smoke and are over the age of 60 (in fact, just one minister was born after the 1979 revolution), it isn't surprising that the Islamic republic started responding to the virus too late. The official figures are startling -- but according to the rumor mill the actual numbers are far higher. Some Iranian lawmakers are also questioning the Iranian health ministry's credibility regarding its official numbers. Although the Majlis (Iran's parliament) has been suspended, some representatives have communicated through various channels that the numbers of infected and dead are far larger than the official figures.

On social media, medics, doctors and nurses are reporting hundreds of patients in every hospital. According to the news sites, even regime mouthpieces, hospitals are already beyond the point of collapse. Opposition websites are reporting tens of thousands of people dead, but we should note that they, too, are biased. The true numbers are likely somewhere in between. 

There's no need to officially cancel Iran's new year festivities. The Nowruz celebrations, which begin March 20th and continue for 13 days of mutual house gathering and parties, apparently won't be held this year because people aren't leaving their homes. The second round of parliamentary elections, which was supposed to take place in April, will likely be postponed until August-September. In Isfahan they have started manufacturing medical masks, and by Nowruz, regime officials have promised us, Iranian-made testing kits will be ready for use. 

In the meantime, we are seeing on the one hand ghost cities, a sharp rise in the sales of disinfectants, and around 70 people who were hospitalized after drinking industrial-grade alcohol to disinfect their bodies from the inside; and on the other side audacious youngsters who are licking the stones at holy sites to affirm their belief that Islam will save them from the coronavirus (what's apparently saving them is their age).

So are we closer than ever to a regime change? Indeed, people aren't leaving their homes now, not even to buy milk, and god knows how many senior officials will survive this pandemic or how mistrust of the regime has seeped into the minds of even its traditional supporters, those who lost quite a bit of faith in the regime after the Ukranian airline disaster. In short, we are one day closer than yesterday.

The post Will coronavirus bring down Iran's ruling elite? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

That the hardline conservatives won the majority of seats in the Majlis is a surprise to no one. Not only did regime opponents stay home, but they also had no one to vote for in any case.

The Islamic republic holds parliamentary elections every four years, and the president, who heads the Majlis, is also elected every four years. The Council of Experts – the deliberative body that oversees the supreme leader of Iran and will eventually choose his replacement – holds elections every eight years. A celebration of democracy, indeed. Putting a damper on this party, however, is a tiny council known as the Guardian Council of the Constitution. Its 12 members are directly or indirectly appointed by the supreme leader. They approve (or disapprove) the laws passed by the Majlis, and they filter the candidates running in every election. They also learn from their own mistakes.

For example, after reformist candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi didn't win in 2009 and all his supporters and regime opponents took to the streets, in 2013 the Guardian Council of the Constitution filtered the candidate list to exclude all "problematic" contenders. This facilitated the election of current President Hassan Rouhani – the most moderate of all the filtered candidates, who wasn't perceived as a threat to the regime.

In the wake of the 2016 election, in which the reformists flooded the Majlis, the Guardian Council of the Constitution filtered out the reformists, including 90 serving parliamentarians. Iranians seeking change simply had no one for whom to vote.

Additionally, for years many Iranians didn't vote at all, viewing it as tacit support for the system. After 2009 and the "where's my voice" protest, we saw greater voter turnout in 2013 (which was one of the reasons Rouhani won), and indeed, Khamenei was quick to congratulate and declare that the real winners in the election were the Iranian people. He didn't forget to mention that high voter turnout indicates the public's faith in the system.

The current election race, which is coming on the heels of two gigantic protest waves – in November, over gas prices, and in January, over the regime's attempt to cover up its role in the downing of a Ukrainian passenger airline – was largely characterized by immense resistance to the false presentation of democracy.

We saw photos and video footage of election banners being ripped up and torched, windows at various campaign headquarters being shattered, and slogans saying "I don't vote."

The hardliner takeover of the Majlis would have happened regardless. The miniscule voter turnout rate points to the severe and persistent crisis of faith between the regime and the people. Is change around the corner? It's one day closer than yesterday.

The post Iran: The fabrication of democracy appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

In 1963 Mohammad Reza Shah launched a series of reforms, the official aim of which was to propel Iran forward, meaning westward. The reforms' unstated, though rather obvious aim, was to weaken the existing power groups – the landowners and especially the clergy – and build a new base among what up until then had been the lower classes. The reforms were attractively called the "White Revolution" or the "Shah and People" revolution, though the Iranian people, for the most part, was not particularly eager to join in.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

The introduction of literacy studies and vaccinations, reaching every village, was welcomed by one and all. However, the accelerated development of higher education, without providing employment to new graduates, broadened the cadres of intellectuals seething at the Shah. The land reform, intended to create a new middle class supportive of the Shah, backfired, causing massive internal migration of villagers to the cities, which were unprepared to absorb them.

The landowners, now stripped of their lands, were enraged, as well as the clergy, as the waqf was a major landowner. The latter also fumed at the fact that the revolution had attempted to oust them from their superior status, in fact achieving the exact opposite. The mosques filled with people, including intellectuals who had previously shied away from any religious affiliation.

The regime's openness to the West was perceived as a sign of weakness, while the attempt to cultivate and emphasize the nation's links with its ancient history met with contempt. The Iranians, after all, had been Muslims for 1,300 years; why should they all of a sudden (in 1971), join in a lavish and incredibly wasteful jubilee celebrating the 2,500^th anniversary of the foundation of the Persian Empire by Cyrus the Great while people went hungry in the streets and were jailed for voicing their opinions?

The 1979 revolution toppled the shah, one of its slogans being "Neither East nor West – the Islamic Republic". It was an utter rejection of the "plague of Western culture."

Who, then, succeeded in Westernizing Iran? Who emptied the mosques, causing the Iranian masses to define themselves as non-religious (not even as secular Muslims!), the youth to prefer Western music, women to remove their hijab and dress less modestly? What forces achieved what the Shah had failed to do – weaken the status of the clergy, who now refrain from appearing in public wearing a mantle and the traditional turban, for fear of being attacked in the streets? Who is responsible for the huge traffic jams before the tomb of Cyrus on Cyrus the Great Day (the day when Cyrus entered Babylon), jams so overwhelming that in the past three years the roads leading to the tomb have been closed?

The culprit of all these is, of course, the Islamic Republic. Iranian identity is torn between the Iranian school and the Islamic school. The former looks to the West since the Iranians are an Indo-European people and not a Semitic people. As a consequence of this split identity, whenever the regime pulls in one direction, the people pulls in the other. In the 1940s, intellectual Ahmad Kasravi said that Iran should place its regime in the hands of the clergy in order to break the spell of Islam. Kasravi was murdered in 1944, before seeing his prophecy fulfilled to the letter: the Islamic Republic realized the dream of the Shah.

It should be noted, however, that the picture painted above – of today's Iran compared to the same country before the revolution – is a gross generalization. Iran is a country of different shades and contrasts, and at each point in time, there have been those who have supported the regime and its stated mission.

Dr. Thamar Eilam Gindin is a linguist and scholar of ancient Persia and modern Iran at the Shalem College in Jerusalem.

The post 4 decades after the Islamic Revolution, Iran is at a crossroads appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.