World's greatest democracy created world's greatest theocracy

K N Pandita

knp627@gmail.com

The United States entered the war with Iran lacking a clearly defined endgame, causing its stated objectives to shift almost daily. Throughout the raging conflict, the Trump administration continuously pivoted its focus, espousing fluid themes that ranged from neutralizing nuclear capabilities and dismantling regional proxy networks to controlling the Strait of Hormuz, crippling strategic infrastructure, and advocating for regime change.

A close review of the Memorandum of Understanding indicates that none of the agreement's core objectives have been met. Iran's primary grievance is that the U.S. administration repeatedly fails to honour its commitments and alters its political approach mid-term.

A primary reason for the fickleness of U.S. Iran policy is its inadequate grasp of Iranian history and civilization. This is glaringly evident in President Donald Trump's April 2026 threats to annihilate Iran's civilization if it failed to comply with U.S. ultimatums. Such extreme rhetoric highlights Washington's failure to understand the psyche of the Iranian nation. The Iranian people gave expression to their defiance first in the 2022 uprising by women against the theocratic regime, and again in the 2026 mass uprising, which was brutally suppressed by state security forces and the IRGC. Washington's failure to objectively analyze the Iranian psyche and the realities on the ground prevented a more nuanced approach.

Iranian authorities swiftly channelled the public's fury over the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei into an orchestrated, anti-American frenzy. At his multi-day funeral ceremonies in Tehran, a massive throng of mourners adapted historical Shi'ite traditions to echo resounding chants of "Death to America" and "Revenge".

Analysts have observed that the regime routinely hijacks major public events, such as mass funerals or state-sponsored mourning ceremonies, to project an image of national unity and validate its mandate, effectively subduing anti-theocratic protests. Observers of Middle Eastern geopolitics argue that American foreign policy has often kept Tehran at arm's length rather than pushing for total regime change. This "long leash" has allowed the state to pivot outward, building a powerful network of regional proxies to project strength abroad while managing domestic unrest at home.

The event was heavily orchestrated and hyped by Iranian state machinery to project domestic unity, demonstrate geopolitical strength, and signal to the public and the international community that the regime remained un-isolated. By orchestrating a massive public mobilization and highlighting representatives from over 70 nations, the state aimed to solidify the legitimacy of the government. The unusual media spotlight on foreign attendees --- who spanned from regional allies to cross-partisan delegates --- served as a global scoreboard to reinforce national resolve and project strength amid regional conflicts.

Why did the event receive unusual media hype? The answer is simple. The theocratic regime, widely condemned by the global community for its repressive measures against Iranian citizens --- especially the harsh curbs imposed on women --- suffered a severe blow to its international credibility. State-choreographed funeral events provided the regime with a strategic platform to project domestic unity and robustly attempt to restore its legitimacy.

For the foreseeable future, hardliners have cemented their institutional dominance in Iran, heavily curtailing the influence of liberals and reformers within the state apparatus. However, this has not entirely extinguished the ideological conflict; it has merely driven the struggle underground, as evidenced by persistent internal pushback.

While the US and Israel remain firmly committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear capabilities, Iran's decision to accept Pakistan's mediation for de-nuclearization contains inherent contradictions. Pakistan itself developed its atomic arsenal through illicit technology transfers orchestrated by its scientists and clandestine foreign assistance. Consequently, Pakistan's diplomatic manoeuvring is often driven by a desire to protect its regional nuclear status rather than a genuine commitment to regional disarmament.

Within hours of signing a US memorandum of understanding, Iranian officials announced plans to develop a nuclear weapon under the guise of an existential threat. In reality, Iran and its proxies are the ones continually vowing to annihilate Israel, claiming their hostility is a religious duty. Responding to Iranian nuclear threat with similar force risks a global disaster. The international community cannot allow this to happen.

As the multitudes move past their initial grief, they will confront an unresolved question: is the existing theocracy truly leading them toward a democratic dispensation? Eventually, the public will question whether to settle for the regime's stated gains, or the pursuit of true democracy, freedom, and egalitarianism must begin anew.

In conclusion, I would like to highlight a notable tradition in Iranian history. While rural communities have long served as the stronghold of the religious establishment, and the clergy have historically played significant roles in national affairs, they traditionally returned to their village seminaries once their immediate objectives were met. Even under the staunchly Shiite Safavid kings, the clergy never sought ultimate political power. However, the trajectory of Ayatollah Ruhullah Khomeini and his followers represents a stark departure from this historical precedent. Ultimately, it remains for the people of Iran to decide their own future.