Iran has repeatedly overthrown regimes throughout history, yet it has never solved the root problem. To save Iran, federal governance is the only way out.
We always use “non-interference in a country’s internal affairs” as an excuse to refrain from involvement. But what if a state does not serve its people, but resorts to violence instead? We need to first clarify the original purpose of a nation’s existence.
A country, and even its entire system, should essentially be a set of norms serving the majority. These are rules jointly established by our ancestors, ensuring that everyone, regardless of their social position, is not subjected to excessive discrimination—a veil of ignorance. A country is just the name of an institution, while the government is its executor. They should originally abide by legal regulations and impose agreed-upon governance on society. However, this is clearly not the case in Iran today.
After learning about Iran’s problems, I reviewed videos from various sources to try to understand how Iran is structured. It is governed by multiple counterbalancing authorities, which historically has made it an extremely unstable regime. Whenever those in power bring about negative consequences, they are quickly overthrown and a new regime is established—and this cycle of history repeats itself endlessly.
As a result, people now believe that overthrowing Khamenei will put an end to everything. But is this really true? Historically, due to Iran’s unfavorable conditions for agriculture and its location at a crucial transportation hub, it has often had to defend itself against inroads from various countries. Domestically, it is also caught between a religious regime, an elected government, and powerful sponsors, forcing Iran to further divide its already limited interests.
In such a high-pressure environment, Iran’s leaders have always had to be strongmen. Even without foreign interference, Iran has no choice but to expand outward; otherwise, there would be no outlet for its internal problems. This seems to imply that Iran must expand its territory—at least to reach the Tigris-Euphrates river basin as it did in the past—to solve its food security issues caused by agricultural shortages. But I disagree with this view.
If we divide every country into smaller parts, each hypothetically controlled by different authorities, wouldn’t many regions end up facing the same predicament as Iran? Therefore, Iran’s situation is not an inevitable outcome of its inherent conditions, but rather a result of us treating it as an overly isolated entity.
This does not mean that Iran should be annexed by any other country. Instead, what we need is to establish large-scale communication mechanisms for cooperation. However, stable cooperation cannot be achieved merely through bilateral contacts. It requires coordination by a large-scale governing body.
Yet I also understand that people dislike the idea of two countries’ cooperation being coerced by an irrelevant third-party regime. So, what if the top governing body includes representatives from both involved countries? This is federalism—the salvation I envision. It is not only Iran’s only way out, but also the only path forward for the entire world.
