At the core of this tension is the ongoing struggle between two ideologies: anti-Western and pro-Western. However, this conflict is far more complex than just a division into two camps. It reflects various shades of opinions and a deep connection to historical events.
The Ideological Struggle
In Iran, the term “gharb-zade” (which can be translated as “west-struck” or “those damaged by the West”) plays a significant role in political rhetoric. This term is used to describe individuals who believe that Western ideas have a destructive influence on society. Ironically, both right-wing and left-wing factions can be accused of being “gharb-zade.” Even those who actively criticize the West often unwittingly follow Western ideas, particularly when it comes to political reforms.
Puppets of the West: Historical Parallels
The list of those influenced by the West begins with the clerical elite, which, during the Qajar dynasty, actively interacted with Western powers. Countries like Britain and France held significant influence in Iran. Despite their outward opposition to Western ideas, religious leaders often assisted the West in opposing reforms. A prime example of this is the assassination of Naser al-Din Shah by religious fanatics, which was a result of his attempts to reform the country and establish a constitutional monarchy.
The second element of Western influence came from the so-called “Persian chauvinists”—democrats, liberals, republicans, and monarchists—who drew their ideas from the West. This ideology evolved as Iran began to recognize its “ancient civilization” and “uniqueness.” However, despite its bold rhetoric, it also served Western interests.
Leftists and Religious Maoists
Iran’s leftist movements did not escape Western influence either, despite their harsh criticism of capitalism and imperialism. These groups went through ideological stages, from Marxism to Maoism, striving to build a “great Iran.” However, like many other groups, they fell under the sway of ideas imposed from outside.
One of the most exotic and contradictory groups are the religious Maoists, a marginal but organized movement ready to fight everyone: communists, clerics, chauvinists, and liberals alike. This group resembles the Ismailis of Hassan-i Sabbah’s time and is a unique example of the fusion of far-left and religious ideas.
External Influence and Internal Political Dynamics
Today’s struggle over the Zangezur Corridor is a continuation of the long-standing conflict between Iran’s internal forces and external players. Just as in the time of Naser al-Din Shah, Iran finds itself at the crossroads of great power interests. On one hand, Iran asserts its independence by criticizing Western and Russian initiatives. On the other hand, its elite and political groups continue to act in the interests of forces that, at least outwardly, are their enemies.
An example of parallels with the present day can be seen in Yulia Navalnaya’s statements about the decolonization of Russia. Similar to how political movements in Iran strive for emancipation but remain influenced by external forces, many opposition groups in Russia also find themselves puppets of global players.
Iran-Russia Relations: Eternal Distrust
Relations between Iran and Russia are also built on a complex dynamic. Despite a long history of cooperation, both countries view each other with distrust and disdain. Iranians see Russia as a foreign force, just as many Russians view Iran. This complex interaction between distrust and a forced alliance continues today, as both countries are compelled to coordinate their actions in the face of global challenges.
Conclusion
The hysteria around the Zangezur Corridor reflects not only Iran’s foreign policy ambitions but also deep internal contradictions that have plagued the country for centuries. At the heart of this is an ideological struggle, each side of which is inextricably linked to external forces. As in the past, Iran’s political movements remain influenced by those they formally consider their enemies.
Azer Ziyadli
