Welcome to the Iran 1400 Project podcast, where we explore the
past, present, and possible futures of Iran through informed
dialogue, independent thought, and diverse voices.
From historical insight to emerging narratives, we connect
ideas to action in the pursuit of a more just, inclusive, and
forward-looking society. Join us as we rethink Iran's
trajectory, one conversation at a time.
Today we're embarking on a really fascinating journey into
a concept that is anything but static independence.
Specifically, we'll be exploring estacal or independence in Iran
and looking at how its meaning has just profoundly shifted over
the last century or so. What I find truly fascinating
really is how this idea, which, you know, started so clearly
defined as resistance against foreign intervention, colonial
powers, Cold War powers, it just took such unexpected turns.
It's a remarkable transformation, isn't it?
Yeah, the core idea of independence in Iran has
actually moved from being, well, primarily measured by its
distance from the West to increasingly being defined by
its proximity to civic freedom within Iran itself.
It really shows how a powerful concept can be reinterpreted to
address entirely different challenges over time.
So our mission for this deep dive, then, is to truly unpack
how Estequal has functioned as this incredibly powerful, almost
almost a living narrative. Yeah, that's a good way to put
it. It's been wielded by different
political actors throughout history to, you know, affirm
legitimacy, consolidate power or sometimes even resist reform.
We're going to trace its path not just as an abstract idea,
but as something that has really shaped institutions.
Absolutely. And to understand this
evolution, I think we have to start with the ideational
shifts, particularly during the Pelavi era, OK, You saw a
significant foreign presence back then, British, Russians,
later Americans, manifesting through things like schools,
language institutes, media outlets, advisory missions.
Right, all sorts of things. Yeah, and many Iranians perceive
these not just as, you know, benign foreign influence, but as
cultural encroachment or even a kind of soft imperialism.
And this wasn't just a quiet observation, was it?
It sparked a pretty strong nationalist backlash, I imagine.
Oh, definitely. For instance, Reza Shah in his
early nationalist efforts started curtailing foreign
missionary schools in centralized education.
What was the driving force behind that?
Well, the goal was explicit nation building, trying to bring
a unified Iranian identity to the forefront, though you know,
sometimes this came at the expense of minority education.
It has to be said. This era also gave us Jalal Al
Ahmad's incredibly influential concept of garb sedegi.
West Toxication. Exactly W toxication.
It was a sharp critique of uncritical westernization,
highlighting Iran's growing dependency on foreign capital
and technocratic elites imported values.
It really captured this deep unease many felt, and
interestingly, the independence Development strategy, which is
something explored by the Iran 1400 project, emerged back then
as an early example of domestic planning.
It was framed explicitly to resist external dependency, but
still engaged with global modernity.
So Garb Zadagi really captured this deep unease.
Did that concept, did it directly influence policies or
public sentiment in a tangible way that then sort of pave the
path for the Islamic revival? It absolutely laid significant
groundwork, this intellectual ferment, this unease, it really
set the stage for the Islamic revival which brought a new anti
imperialist identity leading up to the 79 revolution.
And Ayatollah Khomeini fundamentally reframed
independence here. He presented it as a well a
spiritual imperial by denouncing the Shah's ties to the West,
portraying Western influence not just as political interference
but as an existential threat to Iran's Islamic identity.
I see, so if Islam became the ultimate bulwark, how did that
then manifest in the immediate post revolution period?
Precisely. For Khomeini, Islam itself was
presented as the ultimate bulwark against imperialism,
This elevated independence making it both a national and a
religious duty. A duty yes, and the iconic
revolutionary slogan, You know, neither E nor West, but the
Islamic Republic perfectly encapsulated this whole ethos.
It guided Iran's post revolutionary foreign policy,
definitely its initial alignment with the non aligned movement,
although as we know practical ties later on with powers like
Russia and China, well they complicated that ideal of pure
non alignment. Sure, reality bites, OK?
This historical context brings us more towards how ethical is
understood today, especially through Supreme Leader Ali
Khamenei's contemporary framing. He frequently invokes what he
calls a soft war. What?
What exactly does he mean by that?
He describes it as essentially A psychological and cultural
campaign allegedly waged by the West aimed at eroding Iran's
Islamic values. So this modern iteration of
independence has really shifted focus.
It's less about territorial sovereignty like in the old anti
colonial days and more about protecting ideological and
cultural frontiers. A different kind of
battleground. A very different battleground,
yes. Now, while comedy frames this
soft war externally looking outwards, what's really
compelling I think, is how younger generations within Iran
seem to be reinterpreting independence.
Oh, absolutely. You see Iran's Gen.
Z visible on platforms like TikTok in their art, music,
among the diaspora and especially during the recent
uprisings. They define independence very
differently, don't they? They really do.
For them, it seems to be much more about the freedom to
express their own identity, freedom to challenge imposed
boundaries, both cultural and political, and to shape their
own civic narratives. So it's flipped inwards.
In a way, yes. What started as a fight against
foreign powers has, for a significant part of this new
generation, become a fight for individual freedom within their
own country. That's a truly profound
redefinition, I think. That is a powerful internal
redefinition. Let's unpack the shift maybe
further by looking at the institutional evolution side of
things. Good idea.
Before 1979, state control was a key feature.
You mentioned Reza Shaw's government, for example,
nationalized many foreign run schools, centralized educational
content. What was the aim there, bringing
education so firmly under state narrative control?
It was a clear move, yeah, to align education with state
narratives, to foster a unified national identity as the state
defined it. OK.
Then later in the post World War Two period, the US launched its
own cultural diplomacy effort, things like the Peace Corps, the
Iran, America Society. Trying to build goodwill.
Exactly. Build goodwill.
Influence public opinion. But what's fascinating, though,
is how these efforts, by the time you get to the 1970s,
actually seemed to backfire. Well.
Amid this rising wave of cultural nationalism, the very
nationalism that Garbs and Iggy tapped into, these US efforts
were increasingly seen as cultural encroachment.
So they unintentionally laid some of the intellectual
groundwork for revolutionary resistance.
They kind of fed the sentiment they sought to counteract.
Wow, that's a that's an ironic twist.
OK, so after 1979, the Islamic Republic really
institutionalized its own vision of independence, creating what
you could call these revolutionary control
structures. Yes.
Can you give us some specific examples of how these parallel
systems were designed to protect the state from what it perceived
as ideological and political threats?
Certainly a prime example, maybe the most famous one, is the
Cultural Revolution. From about 1980 to 83
universities are closed, then reopened with completely
restructured curricula. The explicit aim was purging
Western influence from academic and cultural institutions.
A total overhaul. Pretty much.
Then you have the bonyats. These are semi state
foundations. Foundations is the literal
translation. They absorb huge amounts of
assets, particularly royal assets after the revolution, and
now they control significant chunks of the Iranian economy.
And, crucially, they report directly to the Supreme Leader
outside normal government channels.
So massive economic power centers, huge.
And beyond the economic and cultural, there's a strong
security element to this institutionalization too, isn't
there? Oh.
Absolutely central. The IRGC, the Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps, Iran's powerful military and
political force. It was established initially to
defend the revolution, but it's evolved into this multifaceted
entity. It has powerful military
branches, yes, but also vast economic interests, political
influence, responsibilities ranging from building
infrastructure to running media outlets.
A state within a state almost. Some observers definitely
describe it that way. We also see the MIAs, the
Ministry of Intelligence and Security, Neuron's main
intelligence agency, centralized domestic and international
surveillance, including, controversially,
extraterritorial operations against perceived dissidents
abroad. And maybe crucially for the
software idea, there's the National Information Network.
This is a long term project designed to reduce reliance on
the global Internet. The halal Internet idea.
Sometimes call that yes. The aim is securing ideological
and technological sovereignty through state controlled digital
infrastructure. More control over information
flow. So all these institutional
mechanisms were clearly designed to fortify independence as the
state defined it, but ironically they also seem to reveal the
inherent limits and contradictions of that kind of
state LED autonomy. Exactly where does this leave us
then? Well, this brings us right to
that surprising, almost ironic twist.
We touched on this central paradox, OK, where the pursuit
of independence, specifically resistance to foreign
ideological influence, inadvertently created new forms
of internal control. Well, the Islamic Republic built
these internal structures that in some ways, you could argue,
replicate the very hierarchical and exclusionary dynamics it
once opposed when fighting the Shah or foreign powers, You
know, the enforcement of a singular cultural identity, this
oppression of dissent, the monopolization of information.
These actions have led many Iranians, especially younger
ones, to view the regime itself as a form of internal
domination. Wow, that's that's a powerful
realization. So you're suggesting that in the
very act of resisting external influence, the regime
inadvertently built internal structures that mirrored the
kind of control they initially opposed?
That's certainly an argument many are making, yes, and it
connects to what we were saying about the younger generation.
Right for many young people and civic actors today true
independence S to call is no longer primarily about
resistance to state LED authority or external powers.
It seems to be defined by something much more fundamental.
Freedom of thought, pluralism, civic autonomy.
Is that fair? That's.
Exactly right. The concept is being actively
reinterpreted. It's becoming a demand for
institutional accountability, for transparency, for more
participatory governance. You see these themes reflected
in works coming out of Iran and the diaspora.
Like analysis focusing on truth and trust in Iran's civic future
or works title things like 2-3 words.
They frame independence not just as resisting external power, but
as a positive commitment, A commitment to civic virtue,
ethical responsibility, finding shared meaning within society.
So it reveals this deeper tension, yes.
Between external sovereignty being free from foreign control
and internal liberation being free within your own society.
Can independence truly reconcile cultural authenticity with civic
freedom? That seems to be the core
question now that. Is the $1,000,000 question
isn't? It when you look at these
institutional shifts, all these bun yards, the IRGC, the
information network, what, what's maybe the most surprising
unintended consequence you've observed?
Perhaps the most profound is how the very definition of the
threat has shifted for so many, the focus moving from the
external other to internal structures of power.
Right. It seems the future of estequal,
then, might depend less on resisting the foreign and much
more on reclaiming the domestic. I think that captures it well.
It's about potentially rebuilding trust, rethinking
institutions, nurturing a more pluralistic civic identity from
within. And again, some of the Iran 1400
Project articles really dig into this.
Things like the evolution of citizenship in Iran, or from
fragmentation to citizenship. They explore these ideas in
Iran's contemporary context. And what's the take away there?
They seem to affirm that true independence Oregon maybe the
next phase of S to call for Iran's future might not lie just
in rejecting the foreign, but in finding the courage, the
capacity to rebuild from within. What a journey this idea
Estequale has been on, from a definition really rooted in anti
imperialism resisting outside forces, to one that for many now
seems fundamentally linked to civic freedom and internal
liberation. It's a surprising and I think a
profound shift in focus isn't it?
From external threats to the internal dynamics of governance
and individual expression. It really is.
It forces us to consider the very nature of independence
itself, beyond just borders on a map.
Indeed, it challenges us all, perhaps, to look beyond
simplistic definitions. So we leave you with this
thought. What does it truly mean to be
independent, not just for a nation, but maybe even for an
individual or a community? And in your own context,
wherever you are, how might independence be defined?
Less by what you resist externally and more by the
freedom, the trust, and the pluralism you cultivate from
within. Thank you for listening to the
Iran 1400 Project podcast. The Iran 1400 Project invites
scholars, experts, and intellectuals to share their
assessment of the evolution of institutions and ideas during
the past 100 years to inspire a vision of Iran in the 1400s.
If you found today's episode thought provoking, be sure to
subscribe, share, and continue the conversation.
For more content and upcoming events, visit iran1400.org.
Until next time, stay engaged, stay informed, and stay hopeful.