History Repeats Itself: From Kerman in 1794 to Iran Today, When Blinding Becomes the Language of Politics S. Rouzbeh ۱۴۰۴/۱۰/۲۷ S. Rouzbeh reflects on reports of eye injuries in Iran, drawing a comparison with the mass blinding after the fall of Kerman in 1794 and asking what patterns of repression, silence and official narrative these reports may reveal. S. Rouzbeh – Kerman in 1794 AD is not merely a historical event; it is a stark pattern of governance through fear. Historical accounts recall the widespread blinding that followed the fall of Kerman to Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar. The figures vary between sources, from 7,000 to more; but the political message remains the same: when power has no answer and no legitimacy, it turns people’s bodies into a political arena and makes wounds into commands. Today, too, there are signs that belong to the same logic. Amin Mobarez, a nurse and head of the Munich Ophthalmology Centre, told Iran International: “According to information received over the past few days, more than six thousand people with eye injuries have attended Noor Clinic in Tehran.” According to him, these figures show the extensive scale of eye injuries in recent days. The wave of eye injuries emerging from Tehran, even if it still requires complete national data, is a warning indicator. When large numbers are heard from only one or a few places, the main question is not how exact the figure is; the question is what pattern it reveals and what it conceals. First question: If this is the figure for Tehran, what about other cities? If several treatment centres in Tehran are seeing a wave of eye injuries, what has happened in cities such as Mashhad, Ahvaz, Kermanshah, Isfahan, Tabriz, Shiraz, Zahedan and dozens of other cities that have experienced clashes and repression? Tehran is simply where the news is coming from. In many provincial towns, official reporting is weaker, access to specialist doctors is more limited, and, most importantly, fear of prosecution and arrest makes it harder to seek treatment. The conclusion is clear: what is visible may be only the tip of the iceberg. Second question: Why are the injured and disabled always seen later? In wars, major accidents and street crises, there is a clear rule: the number of injured is several times higher than the number of dead. But street repression adds another layer: the injured and their families are afraid, some treatment takes place in silence, and some injuries are never recorded in any statistics. This means that figures for the injured, amputations, nerve damage, severe fractures, internal injuries and permanent disabilities emerge later and less completely. Eye injuries are a focal point in this, because the eye is not an incidental target. The eye means independence, work, reading, getting around and ordinary life. If the pattern of wounds is concentrated around the head and eyes, it means the aim is not merely to disperse the crowd; the aim may be to inflict long-term punishment and lasting fear. Third question: Has a real state of martial law taken shape in Iran? No official may declare the words “martial law”, but when streets are locked down, movement declines, cities fall into partial or complete shutdown, communications are disrupted and the internet approaches blackout, what happens takes on the social function of martial law. People today are, in practice, prisoners in their own cities. So the more precise question is: If the situation is under control, why does controlling communications become so vital? Why is a news blackout imposed at the same time as street repression? The realistic answer is that the government needs time: time to reduce the images, reduce the witnesses, control treatment centres and, above all, construct an official narrative. Fourth question: What do they want this time for? Buying time serves more than one purpose: it is for both containing the streets and reshuffling things behind the scenes. The more tightly communications are shut down, the easier it becomes to manufacture scenarios. At this point, the government’s propaganda machine usually reaches for ready-made explanations: foreign enemies, saboteurs, infiltrators, terrorists, and a collection of videos and narratives that shift responsibility off the government’s shoulders and onto someone else. But the problem is this: people’s bodies are not for editing. Wounds are not films. Medical records cannot be erased with a single narrative. Blindness, amputation and disability cannot be removed from the collective memory by any statement. Fifth question: Why does the government still take refuge in the narrative of a foreign enemy? When a government faces widespread protest, it must either offer a political response and genuine reform, or securitise the crisis and invent an enemy. The Islamic Republic has chosen the second path for years, because the first would mean genuinely relinquishing its monopoly on power and repression. But this time, another shadow has fallen over the situation: fear of the near future. When public participation in calls to action exceeds the government’s expectations, the government fears more than just the streets; it also fears divisions within its own ranks and the day after. This is where buying time becomes a vital necessity. Sixth question: Is the transfer of money and preparation for escape part of this same effort to buy time? Reports have emerged that some within the power structure are seeking to transfer assets and find a safe haven abroad. Even if the details of these claims require closer scrutiny, one point is clear from the perspective of political analysis: when the power core feels existentially threatened, it usually does two things at once: it buys time at home through repression and silence, while seeking ways to secure its assets and find refuge abroad. Silence is not only intended to quiet the streets; it is also meant to cover tracks and create opportunities behind the scenes. From Kerman to today: the tools change, the logic endures The historical link to Kerman matters because it takes us beyond the emotions of the moment and connects us to the logic of power. In Kerman in 1794, blinding was a tool for instilling terror and enforcing submission. Today, if the pattern of injuries is directed towards the eyes and head, the logic is the same, but the tools are more modern: pellets, gunfire, beatings, arrests, internet shutdowns, and then the construction of a narrative. Meanwhile, the deaths must also be mentioned plainly. The issue is not only injuries: there are deaths, a great many wounded, and a wave of lasting disabilities that usually comes to light later. The discrepancies in the figures in situations like these are themselves a sign: when communications are cut and fear prevails, the numbers take longer to emerge, but the scale of the disaster does not change. Moving to the legal and documentation dimension: from disaster to evidence To continue this analysis, we must move from the historical and political narrative to the legal and documentation dimension. When a government uses a recurring pattern of severe injuries, such as shooting people in the eyes and head, it crosses the line from ordinary repression and enters an area that, under international law, may be examined in terms such as torture, severe bodily harm and, if widespread and systematic, crimes against humanity. The first step is to change the language: these events should not be described as accidents, individual mistakes by officers or isolated acts of violence. If the injuries are repeated, similar and occur in different places, the legal reasoning points towards a widespread and systematic attack against civilians. At this stage, the aim is to establish the pattern and show the connection between repetition, method, means and timing. The second pillar is medical reporting: a medical file is a silent testimony—the type of injury, the point of impact, the characteristics of the wound and the course of treatment. This data may later help establish the type of weapon, the approximate distance and the aim, and can serve as raw material for reports by truth-seeking bodies and for legal cases. Third, documentation in the age of internet shutdowns: communications are usually cut to create a time gap so that traces of the crime can fade. But the truth does not exist only on the internet. What remains are medical records, diagnostic images, doctors’ reports and accounts recorded as soon as possible. If these are kept systematically, they can later form a documented case file in place of conflicting narratives. Fourth, international avenues for redress: in today’s world, the principle of universal jurisdiction enables some countries to pursue certain serious crimes. This means that if cases are documented and reliable, the prospect of accountability can cross borders. The principle of command responsibility is also important: responsibility does not rest solely on the person who carried out the attack. If commanders knew of a pattern of systematic injuries and failed to prevent it, or encouraged it, they may be held responsible under legal reasoning. Some questions that remain unanswered: 1) If things are normal, why is the internet shut down and communications locked? 2) If the aim is merely to control gatherings, why does the pattern of injuries tend towards the eyes and head? 3) If the official account is true, why is the version about a foreign enemy and saboteurs repeated every time? 4) If the government is sure it will remain in power, why are rumours of money being moved and searches for refuge abroad growing louder at the same time? 5) If this level of violence was the right response, why should society be governed amid mass disability, amputations, blindness and mourning? Conclusion The government may be able to shape a narrative, make films, invent an enemy and buy time by closing the doors—for a while. But it cannot imprison the truth for ever, nor can it erase this crime from people’s hearts and minds. Because the truth is not only in the news; it is in the body. In the lost eye, the severed hand, the broken leg, the pellet-ravaged lung, the grieving family, and the city still trembling with fear and anger. And if there is to be a historical bridge holding this text together, that is the bridge: from Kerman in 1794 to today, wherever power has attacked the body instead of answering for itself, it may have bought a brief spell of silence, but in the end it has made the disgrace everlasting. This time, too, even if they are searching in the darkness for a way to escape and get their money out, the truth will seep through their fingers like water. Because a society whose eyes have been targeted will sooner or later learn how to reclaim its sight, and record this case in history by its true name: rule through blinding, through maiming, through imprisonment, through lies and through fear. Source: https://srouzbeh.com/en/posts/archive-54224949-99eb-68b6-67dc-4fb640547b9f Please credit the author and link to this edition.