Why Iran did not fall: A cultural explanation

The resolve of a unified people has helped the regime endure the relentless US-Israeli military onslaught

The double-blockaded Strait of Hormuz is going to open sooner or later– that is a certainty. However, the larger question is how the Iranian regime was able to withstand the military firepower and technological might of the United States and Israel combined, and still maintain its hold on power despite over 2,000 so-called precise and not-so-precise, relentless bombings.

Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu started the Iran war off with a bang – not just the bang of bombs and rockets, but the rhetorical bang of their intent to spur the Iranian people to overthrow the Islamic Republic. The new rationale provided was that a despotic culture cannot possess nuclear arms, but the underlying justification was old: Western ideas are morally better. Added to this is the belief that modern technology can easily overcome anything and everything in its way. Netanyahu and Trump believed that it would be a quick two-day affair, and they would have the Ayatollah caught in his bedroom in the middle of the night and brought to New York or Jerusalem blindfolded and handcuffed. That certainly did not happen, and now both the US and Israel, along with the world, find themselves in a mess.

Trump and Netanyahu believed that Iranians already despise the Islamic Republic because of its corruption, its stubborn insistence on a nuclear programme, and the sponsorship of unsavoury regional actors. Furthermore, both felt that Iranians would quickly rise and overthrow the unpopular government. Several theories offered by political and military pundits point out how flawed these assumptions were from the get-go. As the initial two-day swift action extended to a week, then two weeks, and ultimately dragged into a month, everyone is wondering how the world got into this tangled position.

As a social scientist engaged in scholarship and research on intercultural communication for the last 25 years, I can explain why the Iranian regime did not fall through the lens of culture and communication. At the outset, the roots of the present wars are intrinsically linked to the spread of European colonialism beginning in the 15th century. It affected every society it touched as it built new markets, reinvented cultures, and remade social, political, and economic hierarchies. As is well documented, it resulted in the death of millions of people, the enslavement of millions more, and the destruction of our fragile environment – this continues to the present day.

Notwithstanding the enormous research on the colossal problems it created, European colonialism continues to successfully disguise itself as inevitable modernity and cultural and moral progress. It hides behind the mask of modernity and characterises the tragedies it created as our destiny. The present attack on Iran is a continuation of that cultural and moral discourse that justifies the killing of innocent civilians.

Allies for invaders

Since the arrival of Christopher Columbus in the Americas, every colonising incident is attributed primarily, as famously analysed by Jared Diamond, to guns, steel, horses, and, consequently, to germs. One of the most pervasive myths of the Spanish conquest, according to historian Matthew Restall, is that a few hundred Spanish soldiers brought down one of the world’s most powerful empires. The conquistadors are remembered as wily underdogs who overcame impossible odds. The indigenous people are stereotyped as enemies and victims destined to be destroyed. The narrative that is told again and again is that when Hernán Cortés and his men arrived on horseback in their steel armour in the Aztec capital, Tenochtitlan, King Montezuma and his soldiers were mesmerised and welcomed them as Gods. Well, a handful of Spaniards were able to take over the millions of native soldiers hands down.

In reality, the main reason for the Spaniards’ victory was their ability to exploit the existing rivalries and divisions within local societies. It wasn’t European cunning, weapons, technology, religion, or even disease that made it possible to defeat the Aztec empire. It was the thousands of indigenous soldiers, including and especially the Tlaxcalteca, who allied with the Europeans and fought alongside them. The Spaniards could not have won the war against the Aztec empire without their indigenous allies, advising them on strategy, and providing them with shelter and reinforcements after defeats.

In the invasions that followed the Mesoamerican conquest, the local indigenous people – in South America, India, Africa, Indochina, or elsewhere – supported the invaders, whether they were the Spanish, the British, the Portuguese, the Dutch, the French, the Germans, or the Italians. The colonists won, not because of their disproportionate numbers or their superior technology.

Returning to the present conflict in Iran, we can conclude that, unlike
the indigenous groups of the past, Iranians did not support the invaders. They stood united and did not provide any tactical support to the Americans and Israelis, and that made the difference. The Americans and Israelis hoped for a fracture among the locals and tried hard to incite the Kurds and other groups, but to no avail. Their combined firepower failed to break the locals’ resolve.

Among other things, it needs to be acknowledged that the strategic geographical location of Iran itself, its vast oil reserves, and the role of small drones played a pivotal role in its resistance. The Americans have destroyed the Iranian navy, air force, and military facilities. However, the unity shown by Iran’s people and their cultural ability to endure enormous suffering is the best way to explain how and why the regime survived, and how it did not succumb.

(The writer is an academic and a former journalist)

(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.)