Iran Is Not Hungry; Iran Has Been Taken Hostage
S. Rouzbeh
۱۴۰۵/۰۴/۰۴

Iran’s people are not asking for food aid in place of freedom. They want their national wealth returned to them, an end to repression and the right to determine their own future. Any agreement that leaves the Islamic Republic in power must also answer for the bloodshed of past protests.

S. Rouzbeh – Three questions the world must answer:

If an agreement is signed tomorrow and the Islamic Republic remains in power, what becomes of those killed in Aban, the Mahsa movement and Dey?

When Iran’s assets are released on the condition that they be used to buy wheat, corn and soybeans, is this the Iranian people’s money, or an indirect reward for a government that has repressed those very people?

Does the world really not know what the people of Iran want, or does it prefer not to know?

In recent days, US officials have said that Iran’s released assets could be used to buy wheat, corn and soybeans from the United States; a transaction which, they say, would benefit American farmers while also putting food on Iranian tables.

To someone unfamiliar with Iran’s history, this might seem like an economic, or even a humanitarian, proposal. But to many Iranians, it reeked of humiliation.

Because Iran’s problem is not that a nation is hungry; it is that a country has been taken hostage.

Iran is one of the richest countries in the world: oil, gas, history, an educated workforce, an exceptional geographic position, and great economic and cultural potential. The people of Iran know better than anyone where their country’s wealth lies. Their problem is not a shortage of resources; it is a government that for forty-seven years has spent those very resources on its own survival, domestic repression and proxy networks in the region.

So when people abroad say, ‘We’ll release your money so you can buy wheat with it,’ what does an Iranian hear? They hear that they are still not seen as a people with agency, history and political aspirations, but as a hungry population that can be pacified with a few shiploads of food.

This is the great mistake in understanding Iran.

Iranians have seen many hard years. They remember the ration books of the war years; the long queues for rice, oil, butter and kerosene; the bombing of cities and the years in which Khomeini and the Islamic Republic sacrificed people’s lives to slogans that had nothing to do with Iran’s interests. The slogan ‘The road to Jerusalem passes through Karbala’ was one such example. The same generation endured hardship; the next had subsidies, and today there are commodity vouchers. The people today are not saying, ‘Increase my ration.’ They are saying, ‘Remove this system,’ and you do nothing—not even offer support and help.

From the Green Movement to Dey, from Aban to the Mahsa movement, the people’s central demand has been clear: freedom, the right to choose, an ordinary life, human dignity, the right to vote and the right to determine their own future.

In Aban 1398, hundreds of people were killed in the streets of Iran. During the Mahsa movement, several protesters were executed, thousands were arrested, and many faced harsh sentences, torture, security cases and threats. In Dey, too, the blood of citizens was spilled. They had not come out for a nuclear deal or to reopen the Strait of Hormuz; they stood up for the right to live freely.

Now, if an agreement is signed and the Islamic Republic carries on untroubled, with released funds and fresh legitimacy, what becomes of all this blood? Does the world once again want to pretend that the only issues are the nuclear file, oil, the Strait of Hormuz and market stability?

This is where Iranians feel humiliated. They do not want charity. They do not want their national assets turned into a deal in which one side is a repressive government and the other the economic interests of foreign powers. This money belongs to the Iranian people: it is the money from oil, gas, work, hardship and the future of people who have been denied access to it themselves.

Part of the world has a problem with the Islamic Republic, but it is also uneasy with a free and powerful Iran. If the people rebuild it, a free Iran could become an economic, cultural, tourism and regional power within a few years: a country with an educated workforce, natural resources, a historic position and enormous potential for cooperation with the world.

In this same region, countries such as Qatar, Oman and Turkey—and, today, Pakistan—have not been without benefit from the absence of a natural, free and powerful Iran. Qatar has grown in the energy sector, political hosting and media influence; Oman has benefited from its role as a mediator and from discreet diplomatic channels; and Turkey has filled the gap left by Iran in trade, transit, tourism, healthcare, migration and attracting Iranian investment. Pakistan is another example of this same regional game. When six Pakistani fighter jets take off to escort the aircraft of the President of the Islamic Republic, this is not merely a simple diplomatic courtesy; it is a display carrying a political message. A country itself facing economic crisis, debt, insecurity and military dependencies uses such a spectacle to assert its role as a mediator, protector and regional security player. But the central question remains unanswered: are these military displays for the security of the Iranian people, or to preserve a government that has repressed them?

This does not mean hostility towards the people of these countries; the issue is the interests of their governments. A free Iran will reclaim its natural share of the region’s economy, tourism, culture, energy and security—and that is not welcome to many regional players.

But a free Iran is not something to be bargained over. A free Iran will not be dependent, humiliated or weakened. Perhaps that is why some prefer Iran to remain not entirely free, but merely controlled, contained and predictable.

This is a mistaken calculation.

Iran’s liberation will come neither through foreign wheat nor through agreements that ignore the Iranian people. Iran will be liberated by its own people: people who have endured hardship for years, but have never wanted hardship simply in order to survive. They want life, but life with dignity. They want bread, but they regard bread without freedom as a prison with a fuller table.

The answers to the three opening questions are clear.

No agreement can erase those killed in Aban, Mahsa and Dey. As Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi said, ‘No agreement that keeps the Islamic Republic legitimate is an answer for that bloodshed.’

Released assets will reach the people only when they are overseen by a popular, accountable and national government—not by a government that has turned Iran’s wealth into a means of its own survival.

And the world? If it does not know, it is ignorant; and if it knows and turns a blind eye, it is an ethical accomplice in this humiliation.

The people of Iran do not want humiliating wheat. They do not want charity. They want their country—with all its wealth, history, dignity and future, which have been stolen from them.

Iran is not hungry; Iran has been taken hostage.

Source: https://srouzbeh.com/en/posts/archive-9b2bf86a-7d10-4d34-6604-70c39b0c9cfb
Please credit the author and link to this edition.