Hijab, Hypocrisy and Hard Truths: The Iran Question

The Wire

8 hours ago

Religion
Solidarity means listening, not weaponising. It means recognising that justice can't be dropped from the sky.
Old tweets by Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei are suddenly going viral. It's become a thing on Twitter – and to many, a surprise.
Some are almost poetic. He reflects on emotional sensitivity in men, the beauty of literature, the inner world of women – even Nehru's vision for India. Not exactly the kind of voice you'd expect from a man so often portrayed as the face of stern theocracy.
As one user quipped: 'Khamenei might be the only man who got uncancelled after being cancelled.' It's funny, but also revealing. Not because it changes who he is, but because it says something about how we view countries like Iran: often from a distance, and almost always through a lens crafted elsewhere.
And that lens is coming back into focus.
Israel's recent unprovoked strike on Iranian soil marked a serious escalation in a long-running conflict. And just like that, the familiar labels returned: democracy versus theocracy, freedom versus repression, good 'us' versus evil 'them'.
However, these labels blur more than they explain. Because the truth is more complicated.
Iran's repression is real
Mandatory hijab. Crackdowns on protestors. Jailed artists. Silenced students.
These aren't distant headlines, they are daily realities for many Iranians. And they can't be brushed aside.
But what we rarely ask is: Why has the Iranian state become so rigid? What exactly is it trying to defend?
To understand that, you have to rewind.
In 1953, Iran's elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, was overthrown in a coup orchestrated by the US and the UK. His crime? Nationalising Iran's oil.
The West reinstalled Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah (king) of Iran – a monarch who modernised the country on the surface but ruled with deep authoritarianism. His regime crushed dissent, banned opposition, and aligned Iran closely with Western powers.
In 1979, the Islamic Revolution overthrew him. But before the new republic could settle in, Iran was pulled into a bloody eight-year war with Iraq, with Saddam Hussein backed by the West.
Since then, Iran has faced everything from economic sanctions and cyber sabotage to the assassinations of scientists and threats of regime change. Most of these pressures have come from the United States and Israel.
This constant hostility hasn't just affected Iran's foreign policy, but has reshaped its internal politics too.
Culture
Iran is often criticised for its repression. And rightly so. Take the case of Mahsa Amini, the young Kurdish woman who died in 2022 after being detained by Iran's morality police. Her death sparked months of nationwide protests, many led by women.
Or, filmmakers like Jafar Panahi and Mohammad Rasoulof, arrested, banned from making films, or placed under house arrest for exposing uncomfortable truths.
Student protests, labour strikes, and everyday acts of defiance - like refusing the Hijab - are often met with surveillance, intimidation, or jail. These aren't rare stories. They're part of daily life in a state that treats dissent as a threat to its survival.
Having said that, it's also worth asking why Iran is the main target of Western outrage - while equally or more repressive U.S. allies in the region face no similar pressure.
The answer isn't just about values. It's about geopolitics.
Iran refuses to play by the rules of the US-Israel order in West Asia. It supports Palestinian resistance, challenges Israeli military dominance, and tries to stay outside American influence. That alone makes it a 'problem' in the global order.
In that environment, culture turns into a battlefield. Hijab becomes a symbol of sovereignty. Feminism, music, fashion - are recast as Western infiltration. Dissent isn't just opposition; it's framed as existential threat.
It may sound paranoid. But after decades of coups, war, sanctions, and sabotage, it's not entirely irrational.
Also read: Iranians Do Not Want a West-Led Change of Their Repressive Regime
Whose voices?
When we talk about Iranian women, whose voices are predominantly heard? Narratives are predominantly shaped by western media and think tanks, exiled elites and advocacy groups aligned with foreign policy interests. Rarely do we hear from women inside Iran. And many of them hold views that don't fit neatly into our expectations.
Some oppose the regime's repression strongly and at great personal cost. But many also reject foreign intervention, economic sanctions, and the idea that their liberation must come through Western pressure or war.
They want freedom but not the kind that arrives through airstrikes.
Women face oppression everywhere. In Iran, it's visible in enforced dress codes, morality police, and political arrests. In the so-called 'free world', it's quieter – hidden in pay gaps, femicide rates, and broken safety nets.
But here's the uncomfortable truth: Only one kind of oppression gets global airtime. Only one kind gets weaponised in news cycles, sanctions, and war justifications.
Let's look at a few contrasts, highlighted in this report by Workers World.
STEM graduates (women):
Iran: ~ 70%
USA: ~53%
Paid maternity leave:
Iran: Nine months guaranteed
USA: 0 days federally mandated
Femicide rate (per 100,000):
Iran: 0.59
USA: 2.1, nearly four times higher
Gender-affirming care:
Iran: Legal and subsidised since the 1980s
USA: Largely privatised, politicised, and unaffordable for many
Yes, Iran has serious problems and women are fighting them every day. But when Western powers highlight only those problems while ignoring their own, the goal isn't justice. It's control.
Two truths
Iran's repression is real. So is the threat it has lived under for decades, a threat that looms despite the ceasefire.
None of this excuses the silencing of women, artists, or students. But it helps explain why the state has grown so rigid. When a nation is under constant threat – politically, economically, and militarily – the government often sees tight control at home as a way to survive.
That doesn't make it right. But it does make it more complicated than the usual binaries: free vs unfree, secular vs religious, good vs evil. We don't need to excuse the regime. But we do need to stop treating its people's struggle as a prop in someone else's script.
Solidarity means listening, not weaponising. It means recognising that justice can't be dropped from the sky. And it means understanding that not every resistance looks the same.
Vijeth Balila is a consultant with a policy research and digital marketing firm based in Bengaluru.
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.