Ruling in the Shadows

This essay argues that the Iranian government's strategies towards its people, particularly at the time of protests, are hugely influenced by Machiavellian principles as written in "The Prince." By examining recent events and the responses from the Islamic Republic regime, this essay demonstrates how Machiavelli's ideas on holding power are reflected in the Islamic Republic's politics.

"There is a certain king today who never stops preaching peace and trust and is actually sworn enemy to both; and if he had ever practiced either he would have lost his authority of his kingdom more than once."

— Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

Introduction

The situation in Southwest Asia remains dynamic. In the Middle East, a considerable number of events have been taking place: the war in Gaza (considered by many international organizations a genocide taking place), the first-time direct attack on Israel from Iranian soil, the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia, protests in Georgia against the new law related to Russian influence on national media, and so on. In Iran, everything is even more problematic: the upraising protests targeting the existence of Iranian regime—not just against right-wing parties or the elections—more exactly the supreme leader and religious dictatorship.

Interpreting Machiavelli's ideas from "The Prince" in the context of Iran's political system presents various challenges due to the unique historical and cultural factors at play. Machiavelli's principles were formulated in the context of Renaissance Italy, and his advice and suggestions were aimed at solving the problems of that time which the Medici Family had been struggling with. On the other hand, Iran has its unique history and culture, most importantly the fact that religion significantly influences it.

Four Main Strategies

In my essay, I highlight four main strategies that are used by the Iranian government to solidify its grip on power. I show how each strategy can be related to the theoretical work of Machiavelli:

1. Omnipresence of the regime in the public and media sphere
2. Elimination of political rivals while maintaining the standard of living of the population
3. Violent oppression of protest movements
4. Distraction from failures through external conflicts

When evaluating the actions and decisions of the Iranian regime, it is crucial to avoid viewing them through the lens of Western democratic logic and instead apply Machiavelli's perspective on power retention. We should analyze the brutal actions of the Iranian regime through that lens.

Iranian History: A Century of Struggle

It is difficult to talk about contemporary Iranian history since, in the last century, it experienced a wide range of crucial events such as the invasion of Iran by the British Empire and the Soviet Union in 1941, leading to the abdication of Reza Shah and the ascension of his son, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. This period marked the beginning of significant foreign influence in Iran's internal affairs, which led even the next regime, the Islamic Republic, to always look at its behind while making any decision.

The 1953 coup, orchestrated by the CIA and MI6, ousted Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh after he nationalized the oil industry, restoring the Shah's absolute rule. This event solidified U.S. and British influence in Iran but also sowed seeds of discontent that would later grow into revolution.

By the 1970s, widespread dissatisfaction with the Shah's autocratic rule, his close ties with the West, and the socio-economic inequalities in Iranian society culminated in the Islamic Revolution of 1979. The revolution, led by Ayatollah Khomeini, transformed Iran into an Islamic Republic, replacing the monarchy with a theocracy.

Machiavelli's Political Context

During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Italy was suffering from a complicated political crisis between the five states that were in power. Italy was divided into five different states: the kingdom of Naples, the Papal States, Florence, Venice, and Milan. All these five powers in the peninsula constantly competed for new territories they could conquer.

"These reflections prompt the question: is it better to be loved rather than feared, or vice versa? The answer is that one would prefer to be both but, since they don't go together easily, if you have to choose, it's much safer to be feared than loved. Fear means fear of punishment, and that's something people never forget."

— Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

Machiavelli believed that political life was a power struggle. If the ruler did not want to lose his kingdom, he had no other choice than to act unforgivingly towards his adversaries. All dictatorships in history considered themselves "The Prince" who has the right to govern their people. They always considered their reactions "legitimate" and in favor of their people and their country.

History of Protests in Iran: 2009-2024

During the last fifteen years, Iranians have been experiencing and participating in a wide range of protests, ranging from those against the turnout of the 2009 presidential election to the most recent uprising against the regime. Close analysis of these protests reveals a significant increase in participants and a spread to nearly every part of the country.

The 2009 Green Movement

The most significant protest was the 2009 Green Movement, sparked by election fraud and corruption. It led to at least 100 deaths and over 4,000 detentions. In at least ten major cities, up to 3 million peaceful demonstrators came onto the streets. Their slogan, "Where is my vote," symbolized Iran's long-standing quest for democracy.

Over the next six months, the Green Movement evolved from a mass group of angry voters to a nationwide force demanding the democratic rights originally sought in the 1979 revolution—rights that radical clerics hijacked. But by early 2010, the regime had quashed public displays of opposition.

2017-2023 Waves of Protest

On December 28, 2017, protests erupted in Mashhad because of economic policies and the prices of essential materials. These protests spread to over 140 cities through social media. The protests expanded by criticizing the involvement of the country in the Middle East and calling for regime change with slogans such as "leave Syria, think about us," "Khamenei, shame on you, leave the country alone!" and "death to the dictator."

In 2019, on November 15, overnight the price of gas hiked by up to 300 percent. By December 2, at least 304 people were killed, and over 7,000 were detained as protests spread to 100 cities. The regime responded with tear gas, water cannons, and live ammunition, shutting down the internet for five days.

The Mahsa Amini Uprising

Finally, the biggest protest in Iran, and also the longest one, was about the killing of a girl named Mahsa Amini by the morality police on September 16, 2022. In this protest, more than 500 young protesters were killed by the special guards of the Basij and even the Quds military on the streets of Iran. The regime executed seven as of May 2023, and nearly 20,000 boys and girls were detained.

Protesters chanted "Woman, Life, Freedom" and "Death to the Dictator"—a reference to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei—during nationwide demonstrations that lasted into early 2023. Many women and schoolgirls removed their mandatory headscarves in public in a symbolic show of protest against the government.

Applying Machiavelli to Modern Iran

"We must remember that the general public's mood will swing. It's easy to convince people of something, but hard to keep them convinced. So when they stop believing in you, you must be in a position to force them to believe."

— Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

The word "prince," which Machiavelli refers to, denotes anyone who has power over his people. Tim Parks, in his introduction to the translation of "The Prince," mentions that Machiavelli's "Principe" refers generically to men of power, men who rule a state. The concept of the prince therefore refers to any political authority which exerts influence over its citizens.

Regarding our case, Khamenei could be considered as the prince from Machiavelli's point of view. He is the ultimate decision-maker in Iran, with his image omnipresent across the country—in parliament, schools, gyms, bars, and more. Khamenei's strategic use of media and public appearances ensures that his presence is constantly felt by the people.

Elimination of Rivals

When Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic revolution in Iran, took power, he immediately started eliminating elites from the previous regime. He knew that alone he could not make the revolution happen. So he talked with the other parties such as secular liberals, Communists, members of reformist Islamic groups, and other minor parties, which were dissatisfied with the Shah's policies and dictatorship. He promised to divide power and allow free elections.

However, soon after the revolution, he began to eliminate his allies as he was scared to experience the same fate as the Shah. He started by executing many individuals associated with the Shah's regime to not have any fear of a military coup.

"In that case, all you have to do is eliminate the family of the previous ruler, and your hold on power is guaranteed. Everything else in the territory can then be left as it was and, given that there are no profound differences in customs, people will accept the situation quietly enough."

— Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

The Strategy of Deflection

Looking at the reaction of the Islamic regime in domestic matters, especially during the protests of the last two decades, gives us an interesting use case to analyze Machiavelli's famous quote. The Islamic regime's reaction to domestic protests illustrates Machiavelli's advice on maintaining power.

Machiavelli wrote that a prince must be loved by his people, but if necessary, he should act outside moral codes to retain power. Accordingly, the Islamic regime decided to attack its people on the streets, curb the protests, and silence any dissatisfaction expressed by the Iranian people.

Khamenei has noticed that he is not popular anymore and his words aren't worth to the majority of the people anymore. Machiavelli narrates Borgia's decision at the time that he realized he had a big problem with his people, and Borgia decided to deflect people's hatred away from himself by putting the blame for all atrocities on his minister and then executing him publicly.

"He had de Orco beheaded and his corpse put on display one morning in the piazza in Cesena with a wooden block and a bloody knife beside. The ferocity of the spectacle left people both gratified and shocked."

— Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

Khamenei acted in the same way on several occasions. On November 14, 2018, the government executed Vahid Mazlomi, referring to him in the public news as "the king of gold coins." The execution came after a hike in gold and dollar prices in Iran. The regime wasn't able to control the prices, so they decided to use Borgia's strategy—blame someone to calm down the public's dissatisfaction.

Declining Legitimacy

Participation in recent elections has significantly decreased, reflecting the public's disillusionment with the regime. In the 2009 election, official reports claimed 85% participation, but by the 2021 election, this had dropped to 48.8%. The newest presidential election turnout was only 40%.

In the parliament election, based on official reports, only 40 percent participated—the lowest participation in the whole life of the Islamic Republic. More interestingly, the capital, Tehran, had the lowest participation of the eligible voters among all the provinces in Iran with a turnout of only 26.24 percent.

Conclusion

As mentioned in the first part of this essay, it is necessary to analyze any political action from different angles and through different lenses. The Islamic regime uses cruelty to maintain its power to maintain national security and order. A dictatorship as an Islamic state believes that they have the right to have power over the people living in Iran; it never accepted any dissatisfaction among the people, any requests by Iranian people to have a free election and a referendum.