The article “Iran in the Context of the Middle East – A Concise Analysis of the Situation” (published in Persian) by Mohammadreza Nikfar presents a sweeping historical and political analysis of the Middle East, tracing the region’s cultural layers, its historical aspirations, and its present-day struggles. The author argues that the Middle East has long been a hub of global interaction, with a deep history of cultural exchange, yet has remained trapped in a cycle of imperial dreams, nationalist rivalries, and external domination. Through this, Nikfar builds a critical perspective on how historical memory and ideological constructs have shaped contemporary regional politics.
One of the text’s main arguments is that the Middle East, despite its historical centrality, has been marginalized in modern global power structures. The author describes how empires once defined the region’s political and cultural landscape, yet in the modern era, the Middle East has become peripheral to the dominant global order. He asserts: “The Middle East has been the birthplace of empires… but in the modern era, this region and its countries have remained on the margins of the global power system.” The contrast between past power and present subjugation is a recurring theme. However, the analysis often remains broad, lacking a more in-depth exploration of specific political and economic mechanisms that have sustained this marginalization.
Mohammadreza Nikfar is an Iranian philosopher, writer, and political thinker known for his critical analysis of the Islamic regime, nationalism, and the intersections of power, ideology, and modernity in Iran. His work often examines the intellectual and political history of Iran, focusing on how authoritarian structures have shaped thought and governance.
Nikfar is particularly critical of both political Islam and the nationalist currents that have shaped Iran’s modern trajectory. He argues that political Islam, rather than being a break from nationalism, is a continuation of it in a different form, one that merges religious authority with state power. His writings emphasize how the Islamic regime instrumentalizes religion to maintain control while simultaneously adopting nationalist rhetoric when convenient.
He has also written extensively on the impact of oil wealth on Iran’s political economy, describing it as both a curse and a tool of repression that fuels state power while impoverishing the people. His critique of nuclear ambitions follows a similar logic—he views the nuclear program as a state-driven project that has served to enrich the ruling elite while burdening the public with economic hardship.
Nikfar’s perspective is shaped by his engagement with European philosophy, particularly critical theory. His work often draws from Marxist, post-Marxist, and existentialist thought to dissect Iranian political structures. Nikfar takes a structural approach, identifying how the regime, the opposition, and global powers interact in shaping Iran’s fate.
He has also been an advocate for intellectual freedom and has opposed the repression of dissenting voices in Iran. His analyses often highlight how the Islamic regime’s suppression of thought is not just an issue of state violence but a broader cultural and ideological project aimed at stifling alternative political imaginaries.
Through his philosophical and political writings, Nikfar has carved out a unique space in Iranian intellectual circles, offering a perspective that refuses to romanticize either the past or simplistic solutions for the future. His work remains influential among those who seek a radical critique of both the Islamic regime and the forces—internal and external—that have shaped contemporary Iran.
In this text that I review it here, Nikfar is especially critical of nationalist movements in the region, arguing that they frequently transform from anti-colonial resistance into expansionist or supremacist projects. He writes: “Nationalism in this region easily shifts from the idea of seeking independence to a pursuit of domination.” This assertion aligns with the broader critique that nationalist dreams, particularly those rooted in imperial nostalgia, have been a major factor in regional instability. He highlights how different ethnic and national groups—Persians, Turks, Arabs—engage in competition rather than cooperation against external dominance, exacerbating divisions rather than fostering solidarity. While this argument is persuasive, it would benefit from concrete examples of moments when national rivalries directly undermined regional unity.
A particularly striking passage characterizes Middle Eastern politics as driven by “Boastful and delusional statesmen—big mouths, small minds.” The author’s scathing critique of regional leadership underscores his view that the region’s political elite is detached from reality, engaging in grandiose rhetoric while failing to address structural crises. This polemic tone strengthens the text’s urgency but also risks oversimplifying the complexity of governance in the region. Some states—despite their authoritarian structures—have managed to navigate global economic and political pressures with a level of strategic pragmatism that is not fully acknowledged in the analysis.
The text’s discussion of oil as a “curse” is well-founded, describing how oil wealth has reinforced external interference, authoritarianism, and internal social stratification. Nikfar states: “Oil, as the saying goes, is the curse of the region.” The linkage between oil and authoritarian entrenchment is a well-documented phenomenon, yet the text could have engaged more deeply with how different oil-rich states have varied in their use of petroleum wealth. While some have squandered resources on military adventurism and repression, others have channeled it into economic diversification and social welfare programs. Ignoring these distinctions weakens the argument’s depth.
A significant portion of the text is devoted to Israel and its role as an extension of Western geopolitical interests. The author criticize that: “Israel is the West itself.” He expands on his critique and writes: The West turned a problem it created through Nazism into a regional issue. The apartheid regime reflects the global and regional order of apartheid—separating the dominant from the dominated, the center from the periphery. The confrontation with Israel has failed because divisions among countries have prevented a unified front. Arab nationalism and militant Islamism, the two main forces that have engaged with Israel, have both risen with the illusion of reviving an empire, attempting to lift a weight beyond their capacity. In the end, they have dropped it—not on Israel and its supporters, but on themselves and those around them.”
The analysis of global order, borrowing from Robert Cox’s concept of world order, attempts to broaden the discussion beyond state-centric perspectives. Nikfar highlights multiple actors shaping the Middle East, from Western powers and local states to political movements and public opinion. This approach is commendable, as it avoids the reductionist focus on great power politics. However, while the text lists various forces at play, it does not sufficiently explore the interactions between them or how they might evolve under shifting geopolitical conditions.
He writes: “The world order in the region is defined by instability and chaos. No balance is ever permanent. Alliances and hierarchies emerge, but their arrangements unravel after a short period. All global conflicts and tensions immediately find their reflection in the Middle East.”
The section on Iranian nationalism is one of the most compelling. Nikfar draws a distinction between nationalist currents in Iran—one rooted in anti-colonial struggles and another tied to the monarchy’s integration into imperialist structures. He writes: “In Iran, we have encountered two kinds of nationalism—one against colonialism and the other as royalist Iranianism.” This framing is useful in understanding how different ideological strands shaped Iran’s modern history. However, the discussion could have been extended to include contemporary nationalist currents beyond the state, particularly among opposition movements.
One of the text’s most controversial claims is that contemporary Islamic movements, particularly Iran’s clerical regime, are a form of transformed nationalism rather than purely religious ideologies. The author argues: “Political Islam is a transformation of nationalism.” This perspective challenges conventional narratives that separate Islamism from nationalism, suggesting that religious rhetoric often masks underlying nationalist and imperial ambitions. While this is an insightful observation, the text does not sufficiently analyze the contradictions within political Islam—how it simultaneously claims universalism while being deeply tied to specific national and sectarian identities.
Nikfar writes: “In Iran, we have encountered two kinds of nationalism—one against colonialism, most notably represented by the oil nationalization movement, and the other as royalist Iranianism, a self-glorifying identity integrated into the colonial order.”
Overall, Nikfar’s text offers a broad and provocative analysis of the Middle East’s historical trajectories, ideological struggles, and geopolitical constraints. Its strongest aspects lie in its critiques of nationalism, imperial nostalgia, and authoritarian governance. However, the text often presents sweeping statements without fully substantiating them with historical or contemporary case studies. Additionally, its polemical tone, while engaging, sometimes sacrifices analytical nuance. A deeper engagement with alternative perspectives and counterexamples would have strengthened the argument.
Building on his broad historical analysis, Nikfar moves into a critique of Iran’s contemporary political trajectory, with a particular focus on its nuclear ambitions. He argues that the Islamic regime’s nuclear program is neither a symbol of technological advancement nor a tool for national empowerment, but rather a misguided project that ultimately impoverishes the country while enriching the ruling elite. He states: “The urgent task today is to establish and announce a pact against uranium enrichment, which has resulted in the impoverishment of the people and the enrichment of dollars.” This framing aligns with his broader critique of nationalist and imperial ambitions in the region, suggesting that Iran’s nuclear program serves the interests of a corrupt elite rather than the well-being of its people.
One of the most compelling aspects of this argument is its rejection of both Western interventionism and the Islamic regime’s defiant posturing. Nikfar makes it clear that Iran’s nuclear project is not a challenge to imperialist dominance but rather a desperate attempt to negotiate its position within that very system. He critiques both the regime’s rhetoric of “resistance” and the opposition’s failure to articulate a coherent alternative, stating: “Critics and opponents of the clerical regime, as a whole, have not made the nuclear issue a clear focal point of their opposition.” This insight is significant, as it highlights how opposition forces, despite their critiques of the regime, often fail to engage critically with the implications of nuclear militarization. However, the text does not delve deeply into the geopolitical calculations that drive Iran’s pursuit of nuclear technology, such as regional deterrence strategies and historical security concerns.
The Pahlavi regime’s “Great Civilization” project, which sought to blend ancient imperial grandeur with integration into the colonial order, ultimately failed. It neither satisfied modernists—despite granting privileges to technocrats and the emerging middle class—nor appeased traditionalists, despite maintaining ties with Shi’a clerical institutions. Most critically, it failed to create an inclusive society. Large segments of the population, uprooted from the old social structure, found no place in the emerging peripheral capitalist system. Marginalized within the margins, they eventually rose up against the order.
The rise of Khomeini’s radical Shi’ism mirrored the earlier emergence of ISIS-style Islamism in the Arab world, which had gained strength from the failure of Arab nationalism. Khomeinism emerged from the collapse of royalist Iranianism and the weakness of democratic alternatives. It inherited elements from both Iranian nationalist traditions—its rhetoric of independence from anti-colonial nationalism and its imperial ambition from royalist Iranianism, manifesting in the idea of Iran as the “Um al-Qura” (mother of Islamic lands) and the push to “export the Islamic Revolution.”
Despite its anti-communist stance, the Islamic regime refused full integration into the imperial order. It clashed with Israel and the Gulf monarchies, which claimed leadership over Sunni Islam. Arab nationalism viewed it as a rival and enemy but was too fractured to mount a unified response. Iraq took on the confrontation, leading to war. The conflict convinced the regime that securing its survival required not just suppressing domestic opposition but also advancing an aggressive defense strategy. This led to a more serious effort to arm faith with military organization, laying the foundation for Iran’s regional military expansion.
Nikfar also addresses the broader implications of the nuclear program within Iran’s political landscape, arguing that it has further entrenched authoritarian rule. He points to the period following the suppression of the 2009 Green Movement, when the regime prioritized military expansion and uranium enrichment over social and economic development. He writes: “In Iran, the military and their servants take control of everything.” This analysis is sharp and persuasive, highlighting how the nuclear issue has become a pretext for militarization and the concentration of power. However, the text could have explored more deeply the internal factionalism within the Iranian state—how different power centers, including the Revolutionary Guards, the Supreme Leader’s office, and technocratic elites, navigate and exploit the nuclear issue for their own agendas.
The text also extends its critique to Western powers, arguing that sanctions and military threats primarily harm the Iranian people rather than weakening the regime. Nikfar warns against the belief that external pressure will lead to popular uprisings, stating: “Desperation may lead to revolt, but it will not bring a liberating revolution.” This is a crucial point, as it challenges the dominant narrative that sanctions are a tool for democratization. His critique of sanctions aligns with a broader leftist skepticism about economic warfare, yet the text does not fully explore how the regime itself weaponizes sanctions to consolidate power by blaming external enemies for its own failures.
The discussion of Iran’s integration into the global economy is another important dimension of the text. Nikfar argues that despite the regime’s rhetoric of defiance, Iran remains deeply entangled in the global capitalist order, particularly through its dependence on the dollar. He states: “Iran is effectively occupied—occupied by the dollar.” This claim is particularly provocative, as it reframes Iran’s economic crisis not as an external siege but as an internal structural dependency. The idea that the Islamic regime, despite its anti-Western rhetoric, is ultimately subordinate to the logic of global finance is a powerful argument.
Perhaps the most striking conclusion of the text is its call for an anti-nuclear, anti-regime, and anti-imperialist position that breaks free from the dominant binaries of regional politics. Nikfar writes: “The demand to abandon the nuclear program does not contradict the demand to dismantle the clerical regime.” This assertion is key, as it challenges both pro-regime narratives that frame the nuclear issue as a matter of national sovereignty and pro-Western narratives that view military intervention as a solution. His insistence on a third path—one that opposes both the Islamic regime’s authoritarianism and Western militarism—is a crucial intervention in the debate.
However, while this position is intellectually compelling, it raises practical questions. What kind of movement can effectively challenge both the Islamic regime and imperialist intervention? How can an anti-nuclear stance gain traction in a society where nuclear development has been framed as a nationalist achievement? The text does not provide concrete answers to these questions, which highlights a limitation in its approach. It presents a clear critique but lacks a detailed strategy for political action.
“The entire ideology of the regime is now summed up in ‘enrichment.’ Chauvinism, folly, religious terrorism, and charity for the ‘oppressed’ are all wrapped up in it. ‘Enrichment’ is framed as the solution to deprivation and the answer to arrogance. The regime seeks to enrich our faith, our pockets, and our arsenal. It must be countered with a program for freedom, justice, peace, and environmental preservation. Our ignorance and cultural backwardness fuel the populism of enrichment. The idea that nuclear technology signifies wealth has taken root in nationalist consciousness. The notion that political Islam is a transformation of nationalism explains many realities, including its temporary appeal to other forms of nationalism and imperial ambition.”
The final section of the text broadens its scope to discuss the shifting global order and its impact on Iran and the Middle East. Nikfar argues that Iran’s room for maneuver is shrinking as global rivalries take new forms. He notes: “Iran, as in recent eras, watches from the sidelines of global rivalries, calculating what it can gain by offering concessions.” This observation is crucial, as it underscores how Iran’s foreign policy has long been reactive rather than proactive. However, the text does not fully explore how recent global shifts—such as the rise of China, the crisis of American hegemony, and the war in Ukraine—might reshape Iran’s strategic calculations.
“Sanctions primarily pressure the Iranian people. Denying this reality by claiming that the pressure is actually targeting the regime and weakening it either ignores people’s daily struggles or assumes that hardship will push them to revolt, supposedly for their own benefit. Desperation may lead to rebellion, but it will not result in a liberating revolution. Rebellions are crushed, and what remains is often even greater despair.”
In conclusion, Nikfar’s text is a sharp, provocative critique of Middle Eastern history, Iranian politics, and global power dynamics. Its strengths lie in its rejection of both nationalist myths and imperialist interventions, offering a critical perspective that refuses to align with dominant ideological camps. However, the text often leans into broad generalizations and lacks engagement with alternative perspectives. Its critique of Iranian nationalism, the nuclear program, and Western intervention is compelling, but it would benefit from a more detailed analysis of the internal contradictions within the Islamic regime, the geopolitical logic of nuclear deterrence, and the economic alternatives available to Iran.
“Supporting sanctions and, ultimately, military action against Iran stems from a strategy of integration into the imperial power system, not from goodwill toward the country and its people, nor from a genuine desire for democracy. On the other hand, aligning with the cult of uranium and Khamenei’s so-called resistance means integration into the clerical regime. These two forces compete to dominate public opinion.”
Ultimately, the text is valuable not because it provides definitive answers, but because it forces the reader to question mainstream narratives and think beyond the simplistic binaries that dominate discussions about the Middle East. Its call for an anti-nuclear, anti-imperialist, and anti-regime position is a necessary intervention in a debate that is often reduced to false choices between authoritarianism and foreign intervention.
Understanding this review is particularly crucial for those seeking to grasp the position of the left in Iran, especially given the extreme censorship and oppression they face both inside and outside the country. The Iranian left exists in a uniquely constrained space—opposing both the Islamic regime and Western imperialism, yet often finding itself erased or misrepresented in global discourse. Inside Iran, state repression systematically silences leftist voices through imprisonment, exile, and execution. Outside Iran, dominant narratives—whether from Western media, right-wing opposition, or pro-regime apologists in leftist circles—often marginalize or distort their stance, reducing the conversation to a false dichotomy: either submission to the Islamic regime’s “resistance” rhetoric or alignment with foreign interventionist agendas.
This text’s anti-nuclear, anti-imperialist, and anti-regime stance disrupts that binary, offering a framework for resistance that rejects both the militarized nationalism of the Islamic regime and the imperial ambitions of global powers. In an era where political discourse on Iran is shaped by propaganda from all sides, this perspective is not just an intellectual exercise—it is a survival strategy. Iranian leftists, under relentless censorship, struggle to articulate their vision to the world. A review like this helps amplify their critique, ensuring that their analysis does not remain buried under the weight of state repression or global misrepresentation.
The key challenge remains: How can this analysis be turned into political action? The text itself does not provide a roadmap, but it forces readers—especially those outside Iran—to confront their own complicity in sustaining these false choices. Whether through uncritical support for sanctions, romanticization of the Islamic regime’s anti-Western rhetoric, or ignoring Iranian leftist voices entirely, many external actors contribute to this suffocating political landscape. By engaging with this review, readers are not just consuming an analysis—they are being invited to break the cycle of erasure and complicity that keeps the Iranian left on the margins of global discourse.
What you think?