۱۴۰۵ خرداد ۱۲, سهشنبه
۱۴۰۵ خرداد ۹, شنبه
“I Want Iran to Remain”: Hossein Lajvardi on Iran’s Identity Crisis, Social Fragmentation, and the Search for a New National Contract
“I Want Iran to Remain”: Hossein Lajvardi on Iran’s
Identity Crisis, Social Fragmentation, and the Search for a New National
Contract
A deep conversation on state-society collapse, environmental
insecurity, decentralization, generational transformation, and whether Iran can
survive as a unified nation in the 21st century.
May 28, 2026
In a wide-ranging and intellectually provocative interview,
Iranian sociologist and researcher Dr. Hossein Lajvardi argued that Iran is no
longer facing merely a political crisis or a crisis of governance, but a far
deeper structural rupture involving identity, trust, environment, institutions,
and the very survival of the Iranian nation-state.
Lajvardi — founder and president of the Association of
Iranian Researchers in Paris and author of the newly released book I
Want Iran to Remain — presented what may be one of the most
comprehensive sociological frameworks currently emerging from the Iranian
diaspora regarding the future of Iran after the Islamic Republic.
Rather than focusing on familiar regime-change rhetoric,
Lajvardi insists the central question is more fundamental:
“What kind of social contract can preserve Iran itself?”
Beyond Regime Change
One of the most striking aspects of the conversation was
Lajvardi’s insistence that replacing the current government, by itself, will
not solve Iran’s underlying crises.
According to him, Iranian society has undergone nearly five
decades of cumulative distrust, institutional decay, psychological exhaustion,
and social fragmentation. The rupture between state and society has reached a
level where political transition alone cannot restore national cohesion.
He describes modern Iran as suffering simultaneously from:
- a
crisis of trust,
- a
crisis of national identity,
- a
crisis of governance,
- an
environmental crisis,
- a
demographic transformation,
- and
a crisis of collective belonging.
In his view, the danger today is not simply authoritarianism
— but the possibility that Iran may gradually lose the internal foundations
necessary to remain a coherent nation-state.
“Smart Decentralization” Without Disintegration
Lajvardi repeatedly emphasized a concept he calls “smart
decentralization” — a model inspired not by separatism or ethnic fragmentation,
but by functional governance systems found in countries such as France.
He argues that many Iranian ethnic minorities — Kurds, بلوچ,
Arabs, Turkmen and others — are not primarily seeking secession, contrary to
alarmist narratives often repeated in both regime and opposition discourse.
Instead, he says, they seek dignity, participation, equal
development, and recognition within Iran.
The failure to address these demands, however, creates
fertile ground for instability.
Lajvardi believes Iran requires a new territorial and
administrative philosophy capable of balancing national unity with local
autonomy, equal access to resources, and cultural recognition.
Environmental Collapse as a National Security Threat
Perhaps the most original and consequential part of the
interview was Lajvardi’s argument linking environmental degradation directly to
national security.
He warned that Iran may face massive internal displacement,
economic breakdown, and irreversible social instability if water shortages,
land subsidence, desertification, and ecological collapse continue unchecked.
For Lajvardi, Lake Urmia was never merely an environmental
story — it was an early warning signal for the possible breakdown of Iran’s
internal stability.
“Iran may collapse environmentally before it collapses
politically.”
This framing places environmental policy at the center of
future Iranian statecraft rather than treating it as a secondary technical
issue.
The New Generation: Crisis or Historic Opportunity?
Lajvardi also devoted significant attention to Iran’s
younger generations.
He described them as fundamentally different from the
revolutionary generation of 1979 — more globally connected, more
technologically capable, less ideological, and far less willing to accept
simplistic political narratives.
At the same time, he warned that the continued emigration of
Iranian talent represents an immeasurable national loss.
According to him, Iran’s greatest untapped resource is not
oil, gas, or even geopolitics — but its human capital.
He pointed to the vast scientific and technical capabilities
developed inside Iran despite sanctions and repression, arguing that these
capacities will outlive any particular government.
The “Parliament of Ideas”
One of the interview’s most compelling concepts was
Lajvardi’s proposal for a long-term “Parliament of Ideas” — a permanent
intellectual institution designed to preserve collective national experience
beyond political cycles.
His argument is that Iranian political movements repeatedly
rise and collapse without preserving their accumulated knowledge.
Whether reformism, the Green Movement, or the Woman, Life,
Freedom uprising, each wave generates important social experience, yet little
institutional memory survives afterward.
A “Parliament of Ideas,” in his vision, would function as a
strategic intellectual infrastructure for the nation — independent from
temporary governments, factions, or personalities.
Its purpose would not be to seize power, but to create
continuity of national thinking.
“Woman, Life, Freedom” as a Foundational Principle
Lajvardi argued that the Woman, Life, Freedom movement
should eventually become more than a protest slogan.
In his view, it could evolve into a foundational
philosophical principle for a future Iranian constitutional order — much like
“Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” in post-revolutionary France.
But he criticized both the regime and parts of the
opposition for failing to seriously analyze the movement sociologically rather
than emotionally.
According to him, Iran urgently needs rigorous intellectual
work, data-driven analysis, and long-term institutional thinking instead of
purely reactive politics.
A Rare Conversation About Iran’s Long-Term Survival
At a time when much of Iranian political discourse revolves
around immediate crises, military escalation, sanctions, factional conflicts,
and regime change scenarios, this interview stood out for its attempt to think
several decades ahead.
Whether one agrees with Lajvardi’s conclusions or not, his
framework forces an uncomfortable but necessary question:
Can Iran survive the 21st century without fundamentally
redefining the relationship between identity, governance, territory, equality,
and trust?
For Lajvardi, the answer depends on whether Iranians can build a new social contract before fragmentation overtakes the state itself.
۱۴۰۵ خرداد ۸, جمعه
۱۴۰۵ خرداد ۶, چهارشنبه
۱۴۰۵ خرداد ۵, سهشنبه
“The Voice of the Iranian People Is Not Being Heard”
“The Voice of the Iranian People Is Not Being Heard”
Open Letter: On Ongoing Negotiations and the Exclusion of
the Iranian People from Decision-Making Processes
To: Governments, international institutions, and
parties engaged in ongoing negotiations and agreements with the Islamic
Republic of Iran
We write at a critical moment, as negotiations and
diplomatic discussions concerning potential agreements with the Islamic
Republic of Iran—including sanctions relief and the unfreezing of blocked
assets—once again gain momentum.
Yet once again, the Iranian people—who have borne the
highest costs over past decades, particularly in recent months and weeks—remain
excluded from decisions concerning their own future.
While regional and international actors pursue their
respective strategic interests and calculations, the Iranian people, and
particularly Iran’s fragile civil society, are under greater pressure than ever
before.
The intensification of the security environment, widespread
repression, executions, arrests, internet restrictions, and political closure
have further weakened society’s capacity for civic action and democratic
change.
Under such circumstances, any economic or political
agreement concluded without clear, binding, and verifiable human rights
conditions risks not alleviating the suffering of the population, but instead
reproducing cycles of repression and instability.
Past experience—particularly following the Iran–Iraq War and
previous periods of sanctions relief—has demonstrated that released financial
resources do not necessarily improve public welfare, but can instead strengthen
military-security structures and expand the influence of unaccountable
institutions within the economy and political system.
If governments and international institutions are genuinely
committed to sustainable stability, peace, and fundamental human rights
principles, any form of economic relief must be explicitly and verifiably
conditioned upon the following:
- An
immediate halt to executions, with a view toward the abolition of the
death penalty
- The
immediate and unconditional release of prisoners of conscience and
political and civil detainees
- An
end to arbitrary detentions and the repression of women and ethnic and
religious minorities
- Guaranteed
free and stable access to the global internet
- The
establishment of independent international oversight mechanisms regarding
the allocation and use of released financial resources
The Iranian people are not passive observers in these
processes. They are active agents who have articulated their demands for human
dignity, equality, and accountability at immense personal cost.
No agreement can be considered sustainable or legitimate if
it is built upon the exclusion of the very people who have paid the highest
price