By Jila Andalib, IT Specialist and Iran Political and Human Rights Analyst
A reminder of a bitter experience for those who hold Iran’s freedom close to their hearts.
In 1953, democracy in Iran did not fail because there were no options. It failed because, at the decisive moment, hesitation replaced resolve.
The issue was not unclear. Mohammad Mosaddegh stood for a simple principle: the rule of law versus imposed power. He was a lawful prime minister. He had popular support. He symbolized national independence. But when foreign interests moved to restore the Shah, society fractured instead of standing together.
The return of Mohammad Reza Shah was not the will of the people. It was a coup. It was manufactured. With money. With rumors. With bought loyalties. With street violence. American and British intelligence services created an atmosphere in which it seemed there was no alternative. Thugs took over the streets. Club-wielding gangs played the role of “the people.” Propaganda, intimidation, and manufactured noise replaced legitimacy.
This project succeeded not because the Shah was strong, but because society retreated.
The Tudeh Party played an important role in this failure. This cannot be denied. It was not a marginal force. It influenced large segments of organized labor. It held a serious position among intellectuals. It even had networks inside the military. Yet at the decisive moment, this capacity was not used. For whatever reason. Excessive caution. External calculations. Or fear of independent action. The result was the same. The streets were left empty, and thugs filled them. This is why, in Iran’s political memory, the name of the Tudeh Party became synonymous with betrayal.
But the failure did not belong to Tudeh alone.
Across society, hesitation spread. Professors. Students. Clerics. Politicians. Ordinary people. Many stepped back or chose to wait. Some had problems with Mosaddegh. Many feared instability. Many convinced themselves that silence was wiser. The outcome was predictable. A vacuum formed, and force filled it.
Today, Iran once again stands in a familiar place.
Once again, a “Shah” is being manufactured. Not with tanks, but with media. With repetition. With psychological pressure. Reza Pahlavi is presented not as one option among others, but as destiny. The message is blunt. The decision has already been made.
This narrative advances through intimidation. Critics are attacked. Dissent is labeled treason. Coordinated digital groups behave like street gangs. Only the tools have changed.
More troubling than anything else is the spread of manipulated videos and audio recordings presented as voices from inside Iran. Chants are edited. Sounds are layered. Context is erased. A fabricated image of widespread support is produced for external consumption. This is not reporting. It is the engineering of public perception.
At the same time, real opposition is alive in the streets of Iran. Across all segments of society. Workers strike. Women stand firm. Students pay the price. Ordinary citizens shout for the end of the system. The problem is not the absence of protest. The problem is the hijacking of that protest.
The coup of 1953 showed that when a society does not stand by its principles, others will decide its fate.
Then, society failed to stand on a minimum line: popular rule versus imposed power.
Today, that minimum is even clearer: total regime change and its replacement with a democratic, secular republic. Nothing more. Nothing less. Simple and clear principles for a movement of unity proposed by the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran and the National Council of Resistance of Iran.
This is not a debate about future leaders or detailed political programs. This is a boundary. When society fails to stand on this boundary, slogans and image-making replace healthy politics, and fabricated narratives present themselves as reality.
History does not repeat itself because conditions are identical. It repeats because mistakes are repeated.