Opposing the Islamic Republic is not a blank check; the measure is conduct

We usually know the Islamic Republic by its institutions: the leader's office, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the Revolutionary Court and the prison. But an ideological government is not merely a collection of buildings and commanders; it is a way of thinking and behaving. In the assessment of DIAR's analysts, this way can also be seen in places that present themselves as outside the government and even opposed to it: wherever lies take the place of truth, elimination the place of dialogue, and hatred the place of national solidarity.

The central question of this analysis is simple: does declaring opposition to the Islamic Republic, by itself, place someone in the ranks of Iran's freedom? The answer is no. The title of "critic", "intellectual", "artist" or "political activist" is not the measure; the measure is conduct, and in the end whom its outcome serves.

Selective mourning: when blood takes sides

The clearest sign of this logic is weighing the worth of victims by their political identity. The Islamic Republic has done exactly this for years: it has held official ceremonies for those killed from its own forces, while denying the immortalised victims of the protests even the right to simple mourning.

In the assessment of DIAR's analysts, some figures and currents who call themselves opponents of the government repeat this same selectivity. They rightly speak about the children of Minab who died in the war, but stay silent about the massacre during the January uprising, as though the blood of protesters who shouted the name of Prince Reza Pahlavi in the streets were worth less. The reports DIAR has published in recent weeks, including the death of Peyman Ghadiri after nine months in a coma and the killing of 18-year-old Amirmohammad Hatami in Shahinshahr, show that these victims were ordinary citizens, and no silence can be justified by political disagreement. Blood has no political faction.

Silence on executions and justifying repression

The second sign is conduct in the face of executions and repression. Someone who stays silent about the execution of protesters, justifies repression with the "complexity of the situation", or each time invents a fresh excuse for not joining the mainstream of the opposition, whatever title they have chosen for themselves, is in practice doing exactly what the government expects of them: keeping the opposition fragmented.

Meanwhile, legitimate political competition differs from enmity. Dialogue and disagreement are part of every democratic movement; but when opposition to the choice of a large part of the people, namely support for Prince Reza Pahlavi, becomes fiercer than opposition to the government itself, one must ask whom this behaviour serves.

From the Mojahedin organisation to separatist groups

In the assessment of DIAR's analysts, the same pattern is seen in currents whose record is clear. The People's Mojahedin Organization (MEK), which stood beside Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war and has a cult-like structure, speaks of democracy today but spends its main energy attacking the national current. Separatist groups, whose aim is to detach part of Iran's territory, have likewise become a tool for attacking a national current that defends Iran's territorial integrity and the rights of all compatriots.

Critics have also pointed for years to lobbies in the West that, relying on the language of human rights, have advanced a policy of engagement with the Islamic Republic. In the assessment of DIAR's analysts, every body that speaks in the name of Iranians must be accountable for its funding, its spending and its decisions; a subject DIAR addressed earlier in its analysis transparency, the condition for keeping Iranians' trust.

The culture of elimination online

The fourth sign is networks of online accounts that attack opponents of the government through mass reporting, the silencing of voices, the distortion of statements, and the defamation of the name and memory of the immortalised. This is the very culture of elimination that the Islamic Republic has applied for four decades in its official media and its courts. It makes no difference whether these accounts are run directly by security bodies or out of political spite; the result is the same: silencing the voices the government fears.

The measure for Iran after liberation

This debate is not only about today. Iran after liberation will face weighty files: returning the people's property and assets, seeking justice for the victims, and rebuilding institutions. Any current that works today with lies, selectivity about the truth and the elimination of rivals could tomorrow obstruct these same files.

For this reason, in the assessment of DIAR's analysts, we must look past appearances. Cleric, former military officer, former member of parliament, artist, blogger or political activist: no title alone is the measure of judgement. The measure is what the person does about executions, how they speak about the victims, and whether, at the moment of decision, they stand beside the nation's choice or against it.

Opposing the Islamic Republic is not a blank check; wherever victims are weighed by their political identity, the logic of the same government is reproduced.