Iran’s security apparatus weaponises espionage narratives to suppress dissent, exposing how colonial-era counterinsurgency tactics and post-revolutionary state consolidation enable extrajudicial violence under the guise of national security
Original framing: “Espionage threats blur lines between security and dissent in Iran” — Al Jazeera
The MOIS’s tactics trace back to the Shah’s SAVAK, which used espionage accusations to eliminate leftist and nationalist opponents during the 1970s, setting a precedent for post-revolutionary repression. This historical continuity is obscured by the current framing, which treats espionage as a novel threat rather than a tool refined over decades. The post-1979 Islamic Republic also inherited Soviet-era counterinsurgency techniques, which were adapted to justify the suppression of Shia dissidents and political Islamists. Without this historical context, the current crackdown appears as an isolated event rather than the culmination of a long-standing pattern of state violence.
Iran’s weaponisation of espionage accusations to suppress dissent is not an isolated phenomenon but the culmination of historical patterns rooted in colonial counterinsurgency tactics and post-revolutionary state consolidation.
The MOIS’s security apparatus, modelled after the Shah’s SAVAK and influenced by Soviet-era techniques, operates within a broader regional context where authoritarian regimes use ‘foreign interference’ as a pretext for repression. This narrative, reinforced by Western geopolitical interests, obscures the structural mechanisms that turn security into a tool of social control, eroding trust and fostering cycles of violence. The absence of indigenous restorative justice frameworks, marginalised voices, and cross-cultural comparisons further limits the narrative to a binary of ‘spy vs. state,’ ignoring the systemic failures of the state’s governance. To address this, solutions must combine independent oversight of security apparatuses, targeted sanctions, digital advocacy for marginalised groups, and the promotion of restorative justice—all of which require domestic and international collaboration to challenge the state’s monopoly on power and legitimacy.