The Iran Freedom Map: How to Hijack a Nation and Have History Blame the People for It

Gazelle Sharmahd

3 hours ago

14 min read

By Gazelle Sharmahd

AI generated image of a heavy iron chain and padlock breaking open over a map of Iran featuring its national flag. — AI generated image of a map of Iran covered by its flag with a shattered iron chain and open padlock above it.

Make sure to sign up for MiddleEast24’s newsletter so you don’t miss our latest content, and subscribe to our Youtube to watch this episode of Iran: The Freedom Project with Gazelle Sharmahd.

Everyone Can See It. So Why Won't Anyone Say It?

Four weeks in, the public has reached its verdict on France. Whatever this is, it is not simply a student protest. No one needs a doctorate to work that out. Torching a bookshop has never produced a better teacher. No education grant in history was approved because someone looted a phone store.

Most people have already gone a step further. They have noticed other players in the crowd: unions, far-left groups, Islamist networks. Analysts have even started counting them. But knowing someone else is in the car is not the same as knowing where they are driving. Why do these groups need confrontation? What does each clash buy them? And if everyone can see what is happening, why do the headlines still say "student protests"?

On those questions, Western analysts and commentators have barely scratched the surface. The answer exists. It has existed for 47 years. Iranian dissidents have been describing this machinery: how organized ideological movements slip in beneath a domestic crowd, turn protest into confrontation and hide behind a borrowed name. They know it because they watched their own nation undergo a political takeover in 1979.

It is no surprise that the voices of the Iranian resistance have either been silenced in the West or reduced to those of victims. But they are something far more valuable: some of the world's most experienced eyewitnesses to how a nation can be taken over without foreign tanks crossing its borders. Dismissing Iranian voices also means overlooking the people who can explain the method, even as similar tactics appear elsewhere.

This article starts where the headlines stop.

The Name Is the Weapon

A label is never just a description. It quietly tells you who the main characters are.

Call the crisis in France a "student protest," and three things are settled before the reader asks a single question.

The students are in charge.
The students' demands are the point.
And everything that follows—the fires included—belongs to the students.

Notice who benefits. Not the students, who now risk carrying the blame for damage they did not choose. The beneficiaries are organized groups operating under the students' name. The label can hide them. As long as the headline says "student protests," too few people ask who else is driving and why.

This is not a new trick. In 1979, Islamist and Marxist networks helped bring down Iran's government. The world gave the result two labels that Iranian dissidents have challenged ever since. It called it a "revolution." And it said "the Iranian people" had chosen it. For 47 years, those labels have helped turn what many dissidents regard as the hijacking of a nation into the "will of the people" and made the victims the authors of their own oppression.

But not every uprising is a revolution. Some are riots. Some are coups. Some are national-security crises dressed up as public anger. A revolution should be a people changing its own destiny for the better. A coup is an organized group seizing power over a people. Pin the first name on the second, and the hijackers vanish from the story.

That is the danger of calling everything in France a "student protest." And it is what the word "revolution" has done for the Islamist rulers of Iran. The pattern is simple. A group of people with a real grievance lends a movement its name. Better-organized forces move in under that name with their own money, manpower and destination. The name stays. The driver changes. And when the damage is done, history blames the people whose name was on the door.

The 70 Percent Hiding in Plain Sight

The strange part is that evidence of this wider political mobilization has already been gathered—some of it by Western analysts.

An October 9 Fox News investigation identified 50 organizations in the French student protest movement and its wider network of supporters and international amplifiers. That would make a remarkably well-staffed parent–teacher meeting. Except only fifteen were student or youth groups. The other 70 percent included labor unions, communist and socialist groups, political parties and organizations pursuing causes unrelated to education—including a pro-Palestinian advocacy group.

The investigation did not establish that all these organizations directed the demonstrations or participated in violence. It did, however, reveal how far the mobilization extended beyond the students themselves.

Look beyond that list and you also find networks like Samidoun. In an October 12 statement, the organization framed the French and Belgian school campaigns within a struggle against Western imperialism and invoked the "student intifada."

Each of these players brings something the students never asked for. Unions can turn a school dispute into strikes that shut down transport and public services. Communist groups bring a struggle against capitalism and the state. Islamist political networks can bring a struggle over secularism and the role of religion in education.

Samidoun, for example, objects to school "neutrality" and "secularism," to rules governing religious dress in public classrooms and to proposals for police involvement in school-dropout cases.

A French student who drops out of school may become more vulnerable to radicalization than one taught to think critically. For ideological movements seeking control over education, the classroom is not merely a place to improve academic achievement. It is a battleground over how the next generation understands its society.

Their first lesson: "Student intifada."

The facts are on the table. Most of the organizations identified in the original investigation were not student groups, and an education dispute has become entangled with nationwide unrest, arson and looting. The question is what the experts do with those facts.

As MidEastJournal has examined in its reporting on France's October riots, the convergence of radical-left activism, political Islam and pro-Palestinian mobilization raises questions that go well beyond school funding. The challenge is to identify which movements are pursuing broader ideological objectives—and where responsibility for actual violence lies.

A Mood Is Not a Motive

Even among Western commentators who understand the severity of the moment, the explanations often stop short of asking why organized political groups join these movements and what they expect to achieve. "They hate the West." "They just want chaos." "They enjoy violence."

That may be true of some participants. But hate describes an attitude. It does not explain a strategy.

Calling the violence "hatred" or "chaos" makes it sound random—an explosion of feeling. There may be nothing random about the objectives of groups that deliberately escalate confrontation. Treating violence as a rage-driven emotional response lets the analysis stop exactly where it should start.

Violence and chaos can be deliberate objectives for forces attacking a society. The question is what those objectives serve. Who gains from the chaos? What does each fire, each clash, each arrest actually buy them?

The People Who Already Know the Answer

There is a group that has been answering these questions for 47 years, and the West has rarely listened: Iranian dissidents. Not because their evidence is weak, but because their testimony challenges the prevailing story. Listen to these Iranians, and 1979 stops being understood simply as a "revolution" and becomes a story of political hijacking. Listen to them, and the dangers of similar tactics in France come into view.

Their answer starts with a correction. Radical communist and Islamist networks do not simply hate the West. Their most extreme movements oppose the foundations of a free society: institutions that educate children independently, allow women to decide their own lives and answer to citizens rather than ideological authorities. The West is not their only target. Iran was an earlier one.

Before 1979, Iran was undergoing extensive modernization, drawing on a civilization with thousands of years of history. It was a strong partner of the United States in the Cold War against Soviet communism. During the White Revolution, the government pursued land and economic reforms, expanded education through initiatives such as the Literacy Corps, and gave women the vote in 1963—before women gained suffrage at the federal level in Switzerland. It also exiled Khomeini in 1964.

These reforms did not make the Shah's government democratic, nor did they eliminate political repression. Iranians had genuine reasons to demand greater freedom. But modernization and secular national development also threatened the ambitions of radical Islamist and Marxist opponents of the monarchy.

A confident, educated Iran developing along a national rather than revolutionary ideological path stood in the way of their competing projects for power.

Iranian dissidents hear the experts' explanation for France—"they hate the West"—and recognize the same blind spot that cost Iran its country. The hatred may be real. But when it is organized, aimed and deployed with purpose, it is not merely a harsh feeling. It becomes a lethal political weapon.

Why They Need You to Fight the Police

Here is the piece most analysis leaves out.

Citizens often have real complaints about their government. French students want more teachers and better buildings. Iranians in the 1970s wanted more political freedom and a greater say in their future. Such complaints can be addressed. Citizens push, governments negotiate, and disputes can end in changes that serve a better future for the entire nation.

Now look at it from the perspective of a group whose real goal is to bring down the state. For them, a solved grievance is a disaster. Every reform takes away a reason to stay in the street. A deal ends the movement they were riding. So they cannot allow citizens and their government to settle. They need the two to collide.

That is what escalation is for. Every clash produces footage. Every arrest produces a grievance. Every injury becomes a recruiting pitch aimed at capturing the youngest generation and casting their government and nation as the source of all evil: "See, students? The police are your enemy."

In Iran, it was: "Look, Iranians. Your government is your enemy."

Vilifying the state is not merely a side effect of chaos. For movements seeking to overthrow the entire political order, it can become the product. And once a young person believes the state is the enemy, the people who taught them can present themselves as their defenders.

This connection is visible in the political operators' own publications. An October 7 New Anticapitalist Party statement called for workers to join the student movement through strikes and for a wider struggle against Macron, Le Pen and their political world.

An accompanying article argued that outrage over policing should become a force for mobilization. It also rejected separating the legitimate movement from supposedly external excesses.

Here is the connection between the classroom and the larger political campaign: anger generated by confrontation becomes a resource for extending it. The students' original problem can remain unresolved while the political organizers gain recruits, reach and another reason to mobilize.

The Test

There is a simple way to distinguish a genuine protest from a political hijacking. Imagine the government says yes. Tomorrow, France agrees to hire more teachers, repair the schools and raise the education budget. Who goes home?

The student goes home happy. But the groups that came to fight capitalism, secularism or the state itself have won nothing. They have only lost their cover.

France would still be standing. Its students would have better schools. That is success—unless your project depends on keeping those students in confrontation with their government.

The student needs the problem solved. The operator needs it politically useful. That is why a settlement can threaten the hijacking more than another night of clashes does. You can negotiate a classroom. You cannot settle a project to bring down a state by ordering more desks.

1979: The Same Playbook

Now lay France beside Iran.

In the 1970s, ordinary Iranians had demands, as ordinary French students do today. But among those crowds stood organized political networks with a very different destination.

One was Islamist. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who had been exiled by the Shah's government in 1964, continued organizing from Turkey, Iraq and, later, France. His political project was not simply about reforming Iran's monarchy.

In his 1970 lectures on Islamic government, Khomeini laid out a system of Islamic law and clerical rule that placed religious authority above the sovereignty of ordinary citizens. His vision extended beyond Iran's national institutions toward a transnational Islamic political order.

In that plan, Iran would no longer be a nation governed by and for its citizens. It would be subordinated to the objectives of an Islamist ideological project. Khomeini's circle also developed powerful relationships with religious institutions and sections of Iran's bazaar merchant class, providing networks of organization, influence and financial support.

The other was Marxist. Alongside the Islamist project stood communist networks and armed revolutionary organizations. The Tudeh Communist Party maintained longstanding connections with Moscow. Soviet archival documents examined by the Wilson Center describe contacts involving party finances, broadcasting and Soviet officials.

Armed far-left guerrilla groups such as the Fadaiyan attacked Iranian security forces, including the gendarmerie post at Siahkal in 1971. The MEK combined Islamic revolutionary ideas with Marxist influences and armed struggle. According to Human Rights Watch's history of the organization, some of its members received military training in Palestine Liberation Organization camps in Jordan and Lebanon.

These were organized projects for power, with international connections, ideological programs and, in some cases, preparations for armed action. Reducing the entire confrontation to citizens asking for greater freedom makes those actors disappear.

A reform could satisfy a citizen's demand. It could not satisfy a revolutionary project whose objective was to destroy the existing political order and replace it with its own system of rule.

The same danger is visible in France. Start with citizens' grievances. Keep their name on the movement while better-organized political actors attempt to redirect it toward larger ideological objectives. Whether they succeed depends on how well a society distinguishes legitimate protest from those seeking to exploit it.

Nothing Says Human Rights Like Islamists Burning Civilians Alive

The world was told that the unrest in Iran's streets came from "the Iranian people," rather than recognizing the different political forces competing to control the country's future. Headlines also presented it as a struggle for greater freedom and rights.

But look at the attacks. Violence, terror and chaos could be used strategically to cast the state as the source of all evil.

Consider the Cinema Rex fire in Abadan in August 1978. Hundreds of Iranians burned to death in one of the most horrifying incidents preceding the Shah's fall. The Abdorrahman Boroumand Center's investigation documents the arson, the religious connections of the principal perpetrator, and how accusations against the Shah's government and SAVAK became central to the political controversy surrounding the massacre.

The full chain of responsibility remains contested, but the role of Islamist-linked perpetrators and the subsequent manipulation of blame are essential to understanding the event.

The fire killed Iranians. The account of the fire became another weapon in the battle over who would control Iran.

The People Have Spoken. Arrest Them.

Even after the Islamist takeover, when the gulf between many Iranians and the new rulers became impossible to hide, international accounts continued to describe 1979 as a "revolution by the people." If the uprising was meant to serve Iranians, why were Iranian identity, history, civilization and the nation itself targeted?

Look at what Iranians resisted—and what the new rulers attacked.

If this was about Iranian women's freedom, why did the new authorities attempt to impose Islamic dress requirements, and why did masses of Iranian women immediately march to reject compulsory hijab? Why did the regime later enforce those restrictions through intimidation, imprisonment and violence? The Iran Human Rights Documentation Center documents the dismantling of women's rights protections and suppression of the women's movement after 1979.
If this was about political prisoners, why did revolutionary clerics target Iran's ancient heritage? Sadegh Khalkhali sought to destroy pre-Islamic sites, including Persepolis, but encountered resistance. Iran's ancient civilization was not running SAVAK. Iranians defending their heritage stood against those seeking to destroy it.
If this was about grievances with the Shah and his government, why demolish the mausoleum of Reza Shah, a deceased king who symbolized Iran's national rebuilding? What political freedom required destroying his tomb?
If this was about Iranian self-determination, why remove the historic Lion and Sun emblem and impose a new Islamic Republic symbol on Iran's national flag? What improvement in human rights required replacing a longstanding symbol of Iranian national identity?
If this was about better education, why reshape school curricula around the ideological priorities of the Islamic Republic? A Freedom House study of Iranian textbooks examined the religious and ideological content of education under the new system.
If this was an Iranian national uprising, why build a separate ideological military institution—the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—to safeguard the new order alongside the national army, the Artesh? An army that claims to defend the people while protecting the rulers against them reveals a very different set of priorities.
And if all of this was the will of the Iranian people, why build the Basij—a nationwide paramilitary apparatus used to intimidate, attack and suppress Iranians who resist? Why did the people who were supposedly being liberated become a threat to the power claiming to liberate them?

The institutional roles of the IRGC and Basij reveal how the Islamic Republic developed its own machinery of domestic repression.

The targets tell the story: Iranian women's independence. Iranian institutions. Iranian national renewal. Iranian symbols, history and identity.

A government claiming to represent its people should not need an ideological army to protect itself from them. Yet that is precisely the system the Islamic Republic built.

None of this was simply a demand for more rights. The Islamist takeover became an attack on Iran itself. Iran's existing government was the obstacle; Iran's identity became a target. That is why many Iranian dissidents refuse the word "revolution." From their perspective, 1979 was an Islamo-Marxist hijacking: the seizure of a nation, sold to the world under its people's name.

The operators took the country. Its people were handed the blame.

How to Hijack a Nation

Put the two stories of Iran and France side by side, and the method appears.

Find a real grievance and the citizens who hold it.
Move organized ideological networks underneath, with their own money and their own destination.
Turn negotiation into confrontation, because a solved grievance ends the movement.
Use every clash to teach the next generation that the state is the enemy.
Keep the citizens' name on everything.

Step five is the one that lasts. It is why, 47 years later, Iranian dissidents still reject the claim that the Islamic Republic represents a revolution they freely chose. And it is why the words "student protests" can conceal important distinctions in France's headlines.

The French public has begun questioning the label. The question is whether Western leaders, analysts and commentators will go further—and start naming the political actors instead of treating everyone in the streets as part of the same movement.

Iranians learned this lesson by losing their country. The West could learn it at a far lower price, by finally listening to them.

Stop calling all of it a student protest. Name who is behind it. Ask what they gain. Because once the people's name is on the hijacking, history will make them pay for it.