Iran is discovering the cost of empire
Most people can bear adversity. But if you wish to know what a man really is, give him power. This is the supreme test.”
The challenge laid down by 19th-century jurist Robert Ingersoll still rings true – for individuals, institutions, states and even fledgling empires. Defeat and deprivation are nothing; skilled rulers can weave from them a tale that lulls whole populations into silence. Were it not for external Great Satans, the story goes, the Promised Land would have long since been theirs, the milk and honey flowing.
But what do you tell them when you’ve won? How do you convince them to tighten their belts when you are declaring victory?
This is the dilemma facing the Iranian government. Viewed on high from a Tehran balcony, everything looks rosy: deadly 1980s enemy Iraq has now been dragged into Iran’s zone of influence. In Syria, Bashar al-Assad (clearly beholden to Iran) is more firmly ensconced than at any point since the start of the civil war and Hezbollah is more battle-hardened and influential than ever, having extended its sphere beyond its power base of Lebanon.
Yet at home instead of celebrations there are rumblings of discontent. Over the past few weeks, at least 20 people have died during widespread protests which began with Iranians decrying the high prices of everyday items and raising their voices against perceived widespread corruption and an economic model that does not look after their needs.
The protests – which began in areas considered bastions of Iran’s hardliners – appeared intended to embarrass President Hassan Rouhani (who made economic reform a major electoral plank), but slogans soon targeted the country’s powerful clerical establishment. Significantly, protesters adopted the cry “not Gaza, not Lebanon, my life for Iran” – an indication of discontent at what is seen as an expansionist foreign policy at the expense of ordinary Iranians.
This is the cost of empire, as Iran’s expansion has not come cheap: while precise figures are elusive, Iran has provided credit lines of $4.6 billion to the Assad regime, a figure that does not include arms supplies or payments to the Iran-backed militias fighting in Syria. Consider that there are over 50,000 militia members serving in Syria, each of whom is paid around $300 a month, not including the cost of training and supply. And then there’s the support given to Hezbollah, the Houthis and a host of other groups across the Middle East.
In all, it adds up to a pretty penny indeed, and the Iranian people – long fed on a diet of resistance – are now questioning why the state’s resources are not being spent on their welfare. They have a point: while Iran’s GDP shot up after sanctions were lifted in 2016, living standards have declined and unemployment among young people remains a huge issue.
While the current protests are small and spread across towns, unlike the massive urban demonstrations of 2009, the Iranian state’s response has been textbook: protesters have been accused of being foreign agents and enemies of the state, though at the same time there have also been calls for dialogue and for the government to address genuine demands. Even now, with the Revolutionary Guard claiming to have quelled the “sedition”, it is clear that the root causes of the protest remain unaddressed.
Of course, what the Iranian establishment desperately needed in order to smear the protesters was for the US to openly support them. True to form, the White House obliged. US hawks fond of muttering “bomb Iran” suddenly became champions of the Iranian people, joining a president – who doesn’t want a single Iranian to enter the US. In typical fashion, Washington’s attempt to raise this issue in a special session of the UN Security Council quickly descended into farce, with Russia questioning why the Black Lives Matter protests in the US were not being discussed as well.
Getting an accurate picture of what is happening in Iran is not an easy task: allies of Tehran will see these protests as a CIA/ Mossad conspiracy while its enemies will portray them as the spark of revolution. The truth, elusive as it may be, appears to be somewhere in the middle. Ultimately, all politics is local and – to borrow some wisdom from Bill Clinton – in the end “it’s the economy, stupid”.
