The "project" label: the Islamic Republic's cheapest tool for silencing critics

In recent weeks, every time a citizen inside Iran has protested against the Islamic Republic in the language of criticism or satire, a wave of accusations has erupted on social media: "How does anyone inside the country dare do this, unless he is himself a project of the regime?" In the assessment of DIAR analysts, this label is not a spontaneous reaction but a calculated, low-cost way to silence protesters inside the country; a method that, instead of answering the critic's words, knocks the critic himself out of society's sight.

The Saeed Shakiba case: a clear example

A recent example of this pattern is the Tehran prosecutor's office building a case against Saeed Shakiba, a voice actor and satirist. The prosecutor's office built a case against him over a video imitating Ali Khamenei's voice and blocked his Instagram page. Even so, at the same time as the judicial action, a claim spread online that such satire is "not possible" from inside Iran and that its maker must be cooperating with the government.

The two narratives do not fit together. If someone were the regime's "project", the judiciary would not build a case against him and silence his voice. But the "project" label needs no logic to do its job; it is enough that it sows doubt.

Why the "project" label works

Direct repression is costly for the Islamic Republic: every arrest, every sentence and every execution brings a domestic and international reaction and, as the UN Secretary-General's latest report shows, weighs down the regime's record. Labelling, however, is almost free. The regime no longer needs to silence the critic; it is enough to make his audience suspicious of his intentions. The result is the critic's isolation: an audience that has come to distrust him does not defend him.

In the assessment of DIAR analysts, the message of this method is to society as a whole, not just to one individual: if you protest, if you laugh, if you cross the red lines, instead of an answer your identity and motives will be called into question. The cost of dissent rises so high that others choose silence before acting.

Why nationalists are the main targets

What deserves attention is how selective this label is. The greatest pressure, from the blocking of online pages to arrest, imprisonment, torture and execution, has fallen on nationalists and supporters of Prince Reza Pahlavi; the same current that brought national slogans and the Lion and Sun flag into the streets in the December–January uprising. In the assessment of DIAR analysts, some critical figures from other currents have been treated differently. This difference shows that the Islamic Republic regards the national current as its main threat and, to contain it, uses both tools, repression and defamation, at the same time.

When repression and executions have failed to silence the voice of protest and fear has lost its place among nationalists, a change of method is logical: label the opponent, discredit him and accuse him of being a "project".

The consequence for Iran's national revolution

The main danger of the "project" label is not only the destruction of one person's credibility; it is the destruction of trust among opponents. A movement whose members are suspicious of one another cannot arrive at a unified, powerful voice. That is exactly what makes this method valuable to the regime and dangerous to its opponents.

The answer to this trick is vigilance. An accusation is not evidence, and repetition does not make truth. Any claim about a critic's cooperation with the regime must be weighed against evidence, not suspicion. The measure for judging a critic is his words and record, not a rumour spread about his intentions.

Instead of answering the critic, the "project" label targets trust among opponents; an accusation is not evidence, and repetition does not make truth.