In recent days, following the death of Ali Khamenei and some senior commanders of the IRGC at the beginning of the attacks by the United States and Israel on the Islamic Republic, the media space close to the Iranian government has been engaged in a new definition of 'mercenary' and 'betrayal in wartime'. This movement seeks to define any joy or satisfaction from a segment of society regarding the weakening of the power structure in Iran as collaboration with a foreign enemy. However, the issue is more complex than can fit into this simple binary.
War of States or War of Nations?
Carl von Clausewitz, the theorist of war, considers war as 'the continuation of politics by other means'. However, historical experiences have shown that not all wars are necessarily wars of nations; many of them are, in fact, wars of states. In such conditions, if a deep rift has developed between the state and society, not all people necessarily see themselves aligned with that state. What is observed today in Iran is more a reflection of the deep divide between the government and a part of society than a reaction to a foreign enemy.
Defining the Enemy in Crises
Carl Schmitt's theory of politics as the realm of distinction between 'friend and enemy' also becomes significant. In normal conditions, it is the state that defines the enemy, and society usually accepts that definition. However, in crisis situations, when public trust in the government collapses, this definition comes into crisis. In such a situation, part of society may seek the main enemy not outside the borders, but within the power structure.
This is the point at which we arrive at the theory of legitimacy in the thought of Max Weber. Weber believed that political power is only stable when it possesses some form of social legitimacy. When this legitimacy is eroded or lost, the state is no longer seen as the true representative of society. In such conditions, even external crises cannot simply repair the rift between the government and society.
From this perspective, the different reactions of parts of Iranian society to recent developments must be understood within the framework of a deeper crisis: the crisis of state legitimacy, the crisis of defining the enemy, and the divide between the wars of states and the sentiments of nations. The main issue in such a situation is not merely an attack by a foreign power, but a more fundamental question: For a society that has lost its trust in the government, who exactly is the 'real enemy'?
