Iran’s fierce reaction to the Zangezur Corridor issue is not merely a diplomatic displeasure. It reflects deeper processes that have been unfolding in Iranian society for over a century and a half. At the heart of these processes is the ongoing struggle between two ideologies: pro-Western and anti-Western. However, this dichotomy is far more complex than it might seem at first glance. Political and social currents within Iran are closely tied to external forces, resulting in paradoxes in the behavior of key players on the international stage.
Ideological Struggles in Iranian Society
For more than 150 years, Iran has witnessed a powerful clash between two main political ideologies: supporters of Western values and their opponents. This conflict permeates not only the political sphere but also cultural and social values. A prime example is the widely used term “gharbzadeh,” which translates as “tainted by Western ideology.” This label carries a strongly negative connotation and is used to describe those who are seen as being influenced by the West.
Interestingly, both left- and right-wing political groups employ this term, indicating that anti-Western sentiment runs deep across the ideological spectrum in Iran. Even liberal circles, whose views are seemingly closer to the West, are often accused of being “contaminated” by Western culture.
The origins of this struggle date back to the Qajar dynasty, when Iran began to experience increasing intervention by Western powers. In the 19th century, particularly after the Treaty of Turkmenchay in 1828, Iran came under significant economic and political pressure from Western countries, including Britain and Russia. During the reign of Naser al-Din Shah, the country was on the verge of major reforms. The Shah sought to establish a constitutional monarchy and implement democratic changes, which could have significantly weakened the influence of Western powers, who were actively securing oil concessions during this period.
The West, fearing a loss of its privileges, resisted these reforms, while Iran’s clerical elite, despite its outwardly anti-Western rhetoric, effectively supported Western interests. This interference ultimately led to the assassination of Naser al-Din Shah and the collapse of his reforms. This episode vividly illustrates the dual nature of Iranian society, where genuine interests are often masked by rhetoric opposing foreign influence, while the ruling elites, in practice, actively engage with external forces.
Persian Nationalism: A Product of Western Ideology
Persian chauvinism, which remains a crucial element of Iran’s political discourse to this day, also has roots in Western ideas. This ideology, introduced during the Qajar era, became the foundation for the formation of a new national identity. In Western countries, ideas about the “great civilization” of Persia were actively promoted, contributing to a rise in national pride among Persians. This ideology played a pivotal role in shaping modern Iranian society, where notions of ancient heritage and cultural superiority hold a central place.
Notably, this national identity, though presented as independent, was in many ways shaped and nurtured by Western countries. This highlights a paradox: an ideology directed against the West was originally created and fueled by it.
The Left and Religious Radicals: Resistance or Collaboration?
Another key aspect of Iran’s political scene is the leftist movements, which have gone through various ideological phases over time—from Marxism to Maoism. Despite their strongly anti-Western stance, these movements have often been influenced by Western ideas regarding societal reform. Their critique of capitalism and imperialism did not always translate into a rejection of Western political models, underscoring the complexity and multifaceted nature of the Iranian political spectrum.
The most radical elements, such as the religious Maoists, represent a unique phenomenon. They defy traditional political categories, blending religious and leftist ideologies. Unlike most other groups, they are highly organized and ready for direct action. Yet, like other factions, they are also tied to external forces, making them no less dependent on the broader international context.
Impact on Foreign Policy and the Zangezur Corridor
The current events surrounding the Zangezur Corridor should be viewed through the lens of this centuries-old struggle and the external influences on Iran’s domestic politics. As in the past, Iranian elites find themselves trapped between conflicting interests. On the one hand, they proclaim their independence and national interests; on the other, they act in line with the agendas of foreign powers. This explains why not only Iran, but also certain Western circles, oppose the opening of the corridor—a stance that might seem paradoxical at first glance.
Iran’s foreign policy towards Russia also illustrates the complexities of this relationship, involving both reluctant cooperation and deep mutual distrust. Both nations, being major regional players, are forced to coordinate their actions, but each views the other more as a strategic competitor than a genuine ally.
Iran’s Political Landscape in the Context of External Influence
Iran’s reaction to the Zangezur Corridor is just one episode in a long history of political and ideological struggle within the country, a struggle deeply intertwined with external influences. Iran’s internal conflicts mirror its complicated relations with Western powers and the elites’ ongoing attempts to maintain control in a shifting geopolitical landscape.
