ÇETİN AY, "THE BACKSTAGE OF THE WAR IN IRAN...!"
The mullah regime, in order to remain in power, produced harsh rhetoric against Israel and America, which it portrayed as enemies, and its rise was made possible within the context of the global power balances of the time. Ultimately, Iran became an economically and geopolitically fragile country, vulnerable to external pressure.
The emergence and rise to power of Ayatollah Khomeini coincided with the regional calculations of America and Britain. Khamenei, meanwhile, transformed into a figure functioning within Israel's security equation.
The line between the state and the regime is blurred when the government replaces the state; the rhetoric of independence does not generate strength, but fragility. Iran is one of the most concrete examples of this.
In 1979…
A plane lands in Tehran. Khomeini returns to Iran. The Shah leaves. A new order is established, the direction changes.
The real question is: Was it truly the country that gained strength, or merely the regime?
A government can emerge with anti-American rhetoric. It can fill the squares. It can rally crowds with the language of external enemies. However, major transformations are not independent of global power balances. The Khomeini revolution did not arise outside the international context.
The images of the first Friday prayer held after the revolution have been discussed for years. Behind the imam were not only members of the revolutionary cadres, but also the American ambassador and representatives of different religions. Harsh rhetoric is one thing, the balance of power is another.
Then came the purges. Executions followed. Thousands were hanged. Opponents were silenced, those who thought differently were punished.
Institutions and the law were restructured according to an ideological framework, and power was concentrated in a single center.
As the regime strengthened, the media became monolithic. The leader was glorified. Corruption and injustice were pushed into the background. Society was guided by a narrative of external enemies.
The people paid the price for years of sanctions. The economy contracted, poverty deepened, and young people lost hope. Social tensions grew.
The Iranian regime claimed, "We produce the world's most powerful weapons." This statement was repeated on television, but this claim was not reflected on the ground. The gap between propaganda and reality widened.
There was talk, but no economic power. Independence was mentioned; external embargoes and internal income inequality prevailed.
Police, soldiers, prosecutors, Revolutionary Guards… These are not the government's stick, but the nation's guarantee. State power weakens when used to protect the government; it strengthens when it protects the nation.
Legitimacy erodes when trust is lost. There was oil, but no prosperity. Because polarization and division were produced internally. People were deliberately divided. Rivals were neutralized through judicial processes. Criticism was considered a threat.
When the government puts itself in the place of the state, when the law operates with political reflexes, and when institutions become personalized, the appearance of power increases; the ground weakens.
This happened in Iraq. This happened in Libya. This happened in Syria.
First, harshness grew internally, then intervention followed. This doesn't happen overnight. The ground is prepared by the loss of justice and trust that occurs internally.
That ground is the weakening of institutions, social polarization and division, and the erosion of legitimacy.
If, in a country, one part of the population pins its hopes on external intervention while another part remains silent out of fear, then the disintegration has begun from within.
The institution is permanent; governments come and go.
The state belongs to the nation. The government exists to serve the nation.
True independence is not about shouting; it is about building trust. True leadership is not about crushing rivals, but about upholding the rules.
Hostility is achieved through slogans. Independence is not achieved through speeches.
The real question is: Is the state growing, or is it merely the preservation of power?
Countries with weak institutions but strong governments become vulnerable to external intervention. External occupation begins internally. A structure weakened internally cannot be protected externally.
The government should not be stronger than the state. It does not rule; it serves.
Çetin Ay
President of BWA
Note: This text is a general geopolitical assessment based on Iran's historical and political process; it does not contain any specific reference to any particular country.