When feelings make politics: Iran between domestic crisis and world politics

"Mixed feelings" - this is how Prof. Dr. Simon Koschut, holder of the Chair of International Security Policy at ZU, describes the mood that evening, especially in the Iranian diaspora: joy and relief at Khamenei's death, but at the same time sadness and anger at the many victims.

Manouchehr Shamsrizi, ZU alumnus and Associate Fellow of the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP), joins us via video. As part of the German-Iranian diaspora, he complements Koschut's analytical perspective with a view that is tangibly close to the experience of the Iranian people - and is presented in a correspondingly emotional, pointed and direct manner.

For Shamsrizi, the Islamic Republic is not a nation state, but a political project that wants to secure its religiously based order and export it to the world. Negotiations with the regime are also always a legitimization of the existing order. This is why the regime "ticks" differently than Western foreign policy often assumes.

To make this tangible, he explains the security structures: alongside the regular army, which is responsible for national defense, there is the IRGC Revolutionary Guard. It was set up after the revolution to protect the system - and, according to Shamsrizi, to carry this revolution to the outside world.

A key term used by both experts is "cognitive warfare". This refers to the attempt to influence debates, reinterpret terms and steer public opinion. Shamsrizi explains that the regime is very good at immersing itself in discourse and turning it in its favor. He cites the description of criticism of the regime as "Islamophobia" as an example: when criticism is framed in this way, it is easier to delegitimize it. This is not just about arguments, but also about how emotions are addressed and channeled in the discourse.

Koschut adds to this point from a security policy perspective: Iran is trying to achieve a big impact with as little effort as possible - not only militarily, but also psychologically and economically. Images of drone attacks or ships under attack spread quickly, stick and are intended to create uncertainty. The idea behind this: If you create fear and uncertainty, you can influence decisions - among governments, companies, the public and people.

The question of international law comes up in the audience discussion. A ZU student asks both Shamsrizi and Koschut for their assessment of the actions of the USA and Israel - after all, it was an "illegal war of aggression".

Shamsrizi responded with strong criticism: the West had not taken its obligation to protect seriously for far too long. The norm had been adopted internationally - not just by the West. He then goes into more detail and asks: What has international law achieved for the people of Iran if the regime is simultaneously gaining influence in the UN system? In his opinion, there were all the signs of a humanitarian intervention in Iran.

Koschut puts the brakes on - and focuses on the rules according to which action is taken: Even if many may think the overthrow of a regime is a good thing - if you break the rules to do so, it has consequences beyond this one case. Once it becomes clear that rules only apply when they fit, they are easy to break again the next time.

That is why an action without a UN mandate, "without even trying" to get one, is a problem. If breaking international law becomes "okay" because the result is pleasing, a precedent is set - and the next time the result may no longer be pleasing. Then there is a threat of lawlessness.