One of the most powerful political mobilization tools of the modern era is nationalism. Its emergence is linked to the rise of the idea of “national sovereignty” against feudal monarchies. However, in the course of history, this ideology has not only remained as a demand for popular sovereignty; it has evolved into a political form centered on borders, identity and supremacy.
This is where the problem started.
Because identity-centered politics, after a certain point, does not nurture the idea of a common life, but rather separation.
Nationalism is not initially a product of imperialism.
However, it has been systematically instrumentalized by imperial powers since the late 19th century. In the practice of colonialism, the strategy of “divide, divide and rule” became the main method. The ethnic, sectarian or tribal differences of indigenous communities were deepened; one group was positioned against the other; and then the colonial power assumed the role of mediator and order builder.
This mechanism has produced both military and economic gains.
For example, the United Kingdom transformed identity distinctions into administrative categories in India; Belgium transformed the Hutu-Tutsi distinction into a political hierarchy in Rwanda.
These examples show how nationalist and ethnic divisions are sharpened in line with imperial interests. Therefore, although modern nationalism was not produced by imperialism, it was sharpened by imperialism and transformed into a means of generating conflict.
The Middle East has experienced the most severe consequences of this historical process. The borders drawn after the First World War were determined according to geopolitical calculations rather than social reality. The peoples living within these borders have long been caught between identity-centered politics and foreign intervention.
Iran has a special place in this context. Iran is a geography where Persian, Persian, Azeri, Kurdish, Arab, Baluch, Turkmen and many other peoples have lived together throughout history. This diversity is not a fragility; it is a historical accumulation. However, this accumulation has been kept under constant tension due to both internal political pressure mechanisms and foreign intervention attempts.
The authoritarian practices of the Mullah regime can and should be criticized; a common struggle against them should also be developed. Freedom of expression, political representation and social rights are universal criteria. But internal criticism and calls for foreign intervention must be separated. The experiences of Iraq, Libya and Syria have shown that foreign military intervention has produced more instability than freedom.
At this point, the following sentence is not just a wish, but a historical observation:
The peoples of Iran have too much historical consciousness to fall prey to imperialism.
The 1953 overthrow of the democratically elected government of Mohammad MOSADDEGH in a CIA-backed coup over oil policy has left a deep imprint on the collective memory of Iranian society. This experience concretely demonstrated the cost of foreign intervention. Similarly, the Iran-Iraq War and the years of sanctions caused the society to develop a reflex against external pressure.
This historical memory makes it possible for the Iranian peoples to simultaneously carry both the demand for internal reform and resistance to foreign intervention.
A people can both demand freedom and oppose the sacrifice of their country to geopolitical calculations. This is not a contradiction; it is political maturity.
Nationalism is a dead end because it puts identity at the center and narrows the common ground. Imperialism uses this narrowed ground for its own benefit. The way out is neither in narrow nationalist, day-to-day policies and reflexes based on small gains, nor in articulation with global power blocs.
The alternative is a citizenship-based, pluralist political line, which prioritizes regional solidarity, pursues the common interests of regional peoples and is based on the principle of mutual sovereignty. The future of the Middle East lies not in claims of ethnic superiority, but in the cooperation of economic justice, the rule of law and regional equality.
Real transformation has never been, and cannot be, imported from outside. What is permanent is the change that societies produce through their own internal dynamics. Therefore, the main task before the peoples of the region is to develop a new line that will simultaneously create a consciousness and common ground against both internal oppression and external manipulation.
History is not only a record of the past; it is a living teacher in the memory of peoples.
Politics based on identities produce temporary euphoria; but what is permanent is the will of societies to live together.
Imperial interventions have appeared on the stage with different discourses in every period;
Sometimes ”security”,
Sometimes ”democracy”,
Sometimes ”human rights”,
It was tried to be legitimized on the grounds of justification.
However, although the method has changed, the essence has not: Power is centered on its own self-interest.
The clear definition of this is to create new dependency of new countries and new colonized countries, focused on the interests of the dominant imperial powers.
On the other hand, the historical resistance of the peoples has always produced a consciousness beyond the designs imposed from outside. This is because a society ceases to be a subject the moment it transfers its will to self-determination to someone else. A society that is not a subject is only ruled; it cannot give direction.
Therefore, it is not only a question of Iran. The issue is whether the Middle East, and more broadly the global South, can produce its own political reason. A third way is possible between narrow identity-based politics and foreign-centered intervention. This path is a political consciousness that sees pluralism as an asset rather than a threat, that does not confuse sovereignty with aggression, and that can think about justice not only within its own borders but also on a regional scale.
The memory of societies lasts longer than temporary powers. The balance of power changes, blocs dissolve, alliances fall apart; but historical consciousness remains. And one day that consciousness will surely make its own way.
History has shown that societies with a memory are not easy prey.
And it must never be forgotten that the peoples of Iran have a memory.
And this memory is still very much alive.
Bibliography:
Theories of Nationalism-Umut ÖZKIRIMLI
Imagined Communities-Benedict ANDERSON
Nations and Nationalism-Ernest GELLNER
Modern Middle East History-William L. CLEVELAND
Modern History of Iran-Ervand ABRAHAMIAN