Since June’s 12-day war with Israel and the United States, Iran has been navigating a period of both external pressure and internal challenges, a situation officials privately characterize as a convergence of threat and fragility. This moment echoes patterns seen in other authoritarian states, most notably the Soviet Union in 1956 following Nikita Khrushchev’s denunciation of Joseph Stalin.
A History of Relaxation and Retrenchment
Khrushchev’s speech, though initially delivered in a closed-door session, ultimately raised hopes for reform within the communist system. However, those hopes were quickly tempered as the speech exposed internal pressures and contributed to unrest, including rebellion in Hungary, and ultimately reinforced the boundaries of acceptable change. The current situation in Iran, analysts suggest, may follow a similar trajectory—a period of tactical relaxation followed by a reassertion of control.
Internationally, Tehran faces deepening isolation and a US administration that has demonstrated a willingness to use force. Domestically, the aftermath of the 2022 “Woman, Life, Freedom” uprising continues to influence public sentiment and create anxiety among the elite.
Dual Strategy: Nationalism and Softening Enforcement
In response, the state appears to be pursuing a dual strategy. One element involves attempts to ease tensions around issues like hijab enforcement, where police patrols have become less visible and enforcement more uneven. Officials are now emphasizing “cultural” approaches rather than coercion. Simultaneously, the leadership is bolstering state-sponsored nationalism, selectively drawing on Iran’s pre-Islamic past.
Last month, a statue was unveiled in Tehran depicting the Roman Emperor Valerian kneeling before the Sassanid king Shapur I, commemorating a third-century Persian victory. The accompanying slogan, “You will kneel before Iran again,” was echoed in imagery targeting Israel’s prime minister. Such displays, previously uncommon within the theocracy, represent a shift in symbolism.
Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei further signaled this shift in July by requesting a performance of “Ey Iran,” a nationalist song from the pre-revolutionary era, at his first public appearance following the recent conflict.
Echoes of the Past
History suggests caution when interpreting these moves. The “Hundred Flowers” campaign initiated by Mao Zedong in 1957, launched in part as a response to Khrushchev’s de-Stalinization, initially invited criticism but ultimately led to a crackdown when dissent exceeded expectations. Iran’s recent trajectory mirrors this pattern.
Despite rhetoric emphasizing unity and restraint, legislation has been advanced to tighten restrictions on speech, expand capital punishment for dissent, and increase the security services’ online reach. Arrests and executions have continued, and pressure on journalists, activists, and minority communities has intensified. Earlier this month, Khamenei dismissed criticism of hijab laws as a Western ideological campaign, and the judiciary chief announced a more coordinated enforcement effort.
This pattern—moments of apparent opening followed by reasserted control—is a recurring theme in the Islamic Republic’s history. The significance of the current situation, as with Khrushchev’s speech decades ago, may lie not in the promise of change, but in what the response reveals about the system’s anxieties and the limits it is prepared to enforce.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the significance of the statue depicting Valerian kneeling before Shapur I?
The statue and its accompanying slogan represent a shift towards state-sponsored nationalism, drawing on Iran’s pre-Islamic past to bolster national identity and project strength, particularly in relation to regional adversaries.
How has Iran responded to the 2022 “Woman, Life, Freedom” uprising?
While officials have sought to soften enforcement of certain restrictions, such as hijab laws, legislation has also been advanced to tighten restrictions on speech and expand the powers of security services, indicating a simultaneous effort to address unrest and reassert control.
What historical precedent is being used to understand the current situation in Iran?
The situation is being analyzed through the lens of the Soviet experience following Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin, specifically the pattern of tactical relaxation followed by retrenchment, and the Chinese “Hundred Flowers” campaign.
Given the historical precedents and the current dual strategy being employed, what will be the long-term impact of these shifts on the political landscape within Iran?
