The way to defeat Iran is through the Soviet Union

Last week, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the US Congress for the fourth time. In his speech, he points out the importance of Israel and the United States relationship, their shared values, the war in the Gaza Strip, and the fight against Iran and the Axis of Evil. Among the multitude of statements he made. Among those, he said, one statement of his was interesting: “Just like in the last century, when the rest of the United States fought to stop the spread of communism, so do in the Middle East to stop the Iranian spread.”

The reference to the Soviet Union did not come in a vacuum: the Cold War shaped the Western world in the last half-century, with an emphasis on the American public’s thoughts and perceptions. Continuing the Israeli Prime Minister’s attempt to reach the American public, I believe that the way to eradicate Iran goes through the Soviet Union.

First, both countries arose based on a revolution of the lower class. The Russian Empire began to decline under Tsar Nicholas II, peaking in World War I. The Zsar appointed himself as the head of the army, a fatal mistake that would bring his end. The heavy losses in the war, the deteriorating economic situation, and the frustration accumulated over unequal years led to a civil war in which the Bolsheviks came to power – the extreme movement led by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. Lenin and his group were imbued with most of the change and aspired to the character of the Russian Empire. From an oppressive monarchy, the Russian Empire became the Soviet Union – the home of the world’s workers. The revolutionary enthusiasm of the first generation for the revolution, which was expressed in the figures of Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Joseph Stalin, Grigori Zinoviev, and Lev Kamenev, did not change the fact that the Soviet Union was a dictatorship, but it did. Instead of a monarchy by the grace of God – an aspiration for an egalitarian society for the workers.

The enthusiasm and purpose changed in the change of leadership in the Soviet Empire. After Stalin’s death, Nikita Khrushchev took power. The latter was finally overthrown by a conspiracy led by Leonid Brezhnev – the most known symbol of the change in purpose and the revolutionary fervor that characterized the first generation of leadership. The Soviet Union, under the leadership of Brezhnev, froze in place, once known as “stagnation.” The Soviet leadership consisted of people like Andrei Gromyko, Viktor Grishin, and Dmitri Ustinov, who refused to make economic reforms and adjustments. The revolutionary fervor became a conservative addiction, with every attempt to promote reforms and change thwarted. In the end, the incompatibility and aggressive conservatism led to the disintegration of the Soviet Union.

The Islamic revolution in Iran grew on a soil quite similar to the Russian soil at the beginning of the 20th century. The ordinary Iranian citizen suffered under an oppressive monarchical rule – which made sure to widen the gaps between the upper class and the lower class. Among the many currents that demanded change, the class struggle led by Ali Shariati stood out in particular. Shariati developed the theory of “Red Islam” – the integration of socialism in Islam. Red Islam was the opposite of the Shah’s policy, which led to a policy of forced secularization and the exploitation of the lower class; this theory gained great popularity among the Iranian people, who aspired to change the society led by the Shah. After all, it was the religious extremists who seized power, led by Ayatollah Khomeini. The latter turned Iran from a monarchy into a theocracy, “Willayat al Faki” – The rule of the clerics.  When it was the center of gravity. But even though he seized power, the first generation of the Islamic revolution understood that with a profound change in the regime – the regime wouldn’t last. This can be seen in the Iranian political system: the establishment of the “Revolutionary Guard” combined with the traditional Iranian army, the Artesh. In addition, The Iranian electoral system is conducted in elections. The elections are managed by a special committee on behalf of the regime, which approves which candidate can run in the elections. According to this system, even the “reformists” are regime loyalists. Therefore, changes and reforms are challenging under all the restrictions and complications.

The dissonance between the remnants of the old guard and the second generation – who understand that the Iranian people are collapsing under the economic burden, can lead to the long-awaited change in Iran. The Iranian political system cannot allow political actors who are not supporters of the revolution, or at the very least criticize the conduct of the government, to take part in the management of the state apparatus. Like the Soviet Union, change cannot come when everyone thinks the same. The United States, led by the West, must continue to push Iran into a corner. The more Iran is pushed into a corner, the more significant the change it will be forced to make in the governing mechanisms – thus, the chance of success decreases. Take Gorbachev’s “perestroika” for example. The change that had to be made was so drastic that its chances of success were slim. The West must increase the pressure on Iran to cause its collapse – so that the fear of a dead nuclear state does not repeat itself.