Modern society, old regime: What's the way out of the puzzle?

What is the future that awaits Iran? Even when, for now, the country seems stable and its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini and President Ahmadinejad seem to have a strong grip on the country, in the medium term there might be important changes.


Iran choses president in 2009 and, at the same time, the society may increase its demand for reforms. The regime, therefore, may face serious challenges driven by four powerful factors. First, a strong economic slowdown, accelerated by the sharp decrease in the oil price and the sanctions taken by the US against the country. Second, an increasing sense of urgency in modernizing the country, in particular regarding women's rights and the strong surveillance of private behavior by the state. Third, the unstoppable influx of ideas, information, and products from abroad, which everyday increases the citizens' knowledge of the outside world.

Fourth, on the foreign policy front, the strong US opposition to Iran's nuclear program is probably the issue that has united the country the most. As with other countries before, Iran is demonstrating that no country wants others meddling on what they consider an internal policy issue. However, the new US administration has already opened the door for negotiations, creating a huge dilemma for the government and the future of its nuclear policy.

The current Islamic regime seems to be for hard times. The future depends, however, not only on Iran but also on the role played by the US, the EU, and Israel. In any case, the modernization process seems unstoppable. Under the superficial stability of the country, lies a strong discontent with the limits to freedom in the country, accentuated by a large share of the population under 30 and a strong diaspora bringing the outside perception.

With this in mind, three scenarios are considered. First, it can be imagined a regime that shifts backwards in order to sustain its control over the country and society. There could be stricter observation of the Islamic law and several of the freedoms gained since the late 1990s could be taken back. In order to satisfy citizens' demands, the state could increase its role in the economy, and carry out populist policies to ensure citizens' support and stability. With regards to foreign policy, the regime could seek to maintain or straining even more the relationship with Europe and the US. This would push Iran towards China even more and Russia may become its other powerful ally. The nuclear program, both civil and military would become the key element of confrontation with the US and the EU. Under this scenario, it could not be discarded a war between Israel and Iran and a destabilizing process in the Middle East in a way not seen in decades.

However, it could also be envisioned a process by which the country chooses engagement and openness towards the EU and US. This could be better done by a reformist cleric with sufficient legitimacy to lead a reform from within with both the support of the citizens avoiding open confrontation with the ruling clergy. A process by which the rights of women would be expanded and discrimination will be started. With regards to foreign policy, all sanctions against the country will be phased out and there will be willingness to discuss and accept a civil nuclear program supervised and controlled by the IAEA. At the same time, the US would ensure that Israel and Iran avoid frictions. In the end, Iran could become a strategic partner of the US and the EU in the region.

There could be, however, another way of achieving reform that implies higher risks. Another valid scenario is one by which the country implodes due to the lack of a reformist figure in government capable of leading the modernization process that a large part of the society requests. Under this scenario, a reformist group, supported by part of the army, raises against the Islamic rule. They would be able to install a secular system that would prepare the country for the modernization process. The obvious risk is the potential armed conflict that this process could entail and the destabilizing consequences for the region.

The two last scenarios ask for a quiet role of the EU and the US. The reform should come from within. An open and public foreign intervention could prove detrimental to the reform efforts and the development of a new government structure in the country. This does not mean, however, that they should not take an active role in seeking to mitigate any risk of confrontation between Iran and Israel, in particular accommodating the interests and security aspirations of the latter to the reform process in the former. This is particularly important because the development of the nuclear program seems to be part of any of the scenarios described above.

As these reform begins, Iranians will continue enjoying their parks. In Shiraz, there are two of them particularly beautiful that are crowded on Fridays. These are probably the most important pilgrimage sites on weekends and each of them is home to a tomb of two of the most admired Iranian figures, Hafez and Saadi. These are not clerics nor soldiers, but wonderful poets.