The laziest word in Western commentary on Iran is not “theocracy,” “proxy,” or even “threat.” It is “hardliner.” Its compulsory twin, of course, is “moderate.” Together they form one of the most intellectually threadbare binaries in contemporary foreign-policy discourse: a childish morality play masquerading as analysis, a vocabulary of caricature presented as expertise. The terms do not clarify Iranian politics; they flatten it. Worse, they do political work. They convert a complex debate inside the Islamic Republic into a fairy tale for foreign consumption, one in which “moderates” long nobly for Washington’s embrace while “hardliners” snarl irrationally at the gates of diplomacy. It is a taxonomy built less for understanding Iran than for absolving the United States of understanding it.

The first absurdity is conceptual. The factions lazily translated into “hardliner” and “moderate” are not divided over whether the 1979 Revolution was a historic rupture worth defending. They are not divided over whether the Islamic Republic, despite its failures, remains a singular achievement in Iranian political history. On these questions, the overlap is profound. Across the establishment, one finds argument about competence, corruption, distribution, institutional balance, cultural policy, and strategic prudence. One does not find some vast pro-Revolution camp opposed by an anti-Revolution governing faction secretly waiting to midwife a post-revolutionary order in concert with Washington. That fantasy survives only because it is useful to outsiders who cannot imagine that an indigenous political project might retain legitimacy even among those who criticize its implementation.

READ: Saudi prince said to push Trump to continue Iran war in recent........

© Middle East Monitor