This is a guest essay by Social Welfare Policy Professor Ali Tarokh, a refugee rights advocate and former political prisoner from Iran.
This is a guest essay by Social Welfare Policy Professor Ali Tarokh, a refugee rights advocate and former political prisoner from Iran.
I spent nearly two years in prison for my political activism in Iran. I fled to Turkey and arrived in Chicago as a refugee. I started rebuilding my life from scratch. I was young, and I risked everything for freedom.
I also know what war does to countries like mine since I was born in the middle of the Iran-Iraq war; the war destroyed the Iranian civil society, which makes democracy possible.
Tensions between the United States and Iran escalate once again, and I’m witnessing a group of the Iranian diaspora, mainly monarchists, who live comfortably in Western democracies, are lobbying for regime change policy and calling for U.S. and Israeli intervention in Iran.
While they claim representation for all Iranians, they don’t represent me, the Iranian diaspora, and millions of Iranians who’re still living under the Islamic regime and fighting for changes and reform.
Frankly, as an Iranian dissident who’s paid the price for my political activities to bring a permanent democracy in Iran, I believe an anti-war position is the best support to Iranians.
A war with Iran will demolish the fragile networks of activists and the naive civil society who can fight for changes.
It’s important to understand why some diaspora voices push for regime change from inside democracies. I would explain it with the concept of “Exit Capital.”
When a regime declines, people face two choices: either to protest and call for reform — Voice — or to leave the country or their political field — Exit.
The tragedy of Iranian society is the warmonger diaspora comes from the class which possesses exclusive “exit capital.” Their socioeconomic status, sometimes their dual citizenship, and international connections give them the ability to leave whenever fighting for changes gets difficult.
They don’t risk their life for incremental changes; they simply exit whenever tensions heat up with the regime.
This ability shields them completely from the consequences of the hostile policies they call for. While they lobby for “maximum pressure” and military strikes, they know their families are safe in democracies if the conflict gets darker.
They won’t stand in Tehranian food lines or look for bomb shelters.
Their life is amphibious and “transnational” or dual life. In their online and real-lives in democracies, they apply the most radical rhetoric, calling for striking Iran.
However, they still conscientiously maintain their Iranian passports, travel back and forth to take advantage of their open-door commute to their home country. They even get an Iranian passport for their foreign-born babies.
They are revolutionaries online and in favor of the status quo with the regime.
Iran’s regime uses “globalized” citizens to its advantage. The regime drains Iran of people who have the resources and social capital to organize effective movements by allowing them to exit. The streets of Iran are cleared of influential critics.
In an unwritten collaboration with the regime, this diaspora provides a powerful propaganda tool.
The regime media always show footage of diaspora meeting with hawkish Western politicians, and it helps to label all internal dissent as they are “foreign agents” who want regime change by bombing Iran.
The diaspora also tries to outsource Iran’s domestic struggle for democracy to the U.S. military.
They draw a distorted picture, yelling Iranians are “begging” for international intervention. I can tell you from my experience that they aren’t. Iranians want to build their own democracy and be free from both domestic dictatorship and foreign “freedom operations.”
This being said, true support for Iranians is a call for diplomacy and strengthening their civil society, not war.
Studies consistently show economic sanctions empower the regime leaders while depleting the middle class, which is the main engine of leading for democratic transitions.
A war with Iran would be far worse.
I’m an Iranian dissident. I’m not seeking rapid change through violence or foreign invasion. I’m seeking the patient, difficult work of building democracy, wisdom and bringing politics from the streets to the table.
It might take years, even generations, but it actually lasts. Many of us who have lived through the dictatorship and carry the scars of resistance understand real change is slow and costly.
Saying no to war isn’t appeasement. It’s the only way to return agency and power to the real protesters inside Iran, the students, workers, women and activists who are building Iran’s future with their bravery.
Get the Loyola Phoenix newsletter straight to your inbox!
