Political Cultures in Ahwaz: A Part of Ahwazi Resistance to Iranian Occupation

On October 7, 2023, a study revealed the most prominent political cultures in the Arab state of Ahwaz, noting that national culture in Ahwaz is at the forefront of general cultural transformations in the region. This culture is the first active manifestation of self-awareness among the community.

The study, titled “Cultural Changes in Ahwaz: Ahwazi Political Culture,” by researcher Adnan Al-Timini, published by the Institute of Dialogue for Research and Studies, highlighted that the Ahwazi national political culture, with its civilizational development and overwhelming influence on both individual and collective behavior, is a reality that must be critically examined. This critical engagement should identify its characteristics, define its boundaries, and understand its effectiveness in order to align societal and political movements with its demands.

The most prominent behaviors exhibited by those who embrace this political culture include, first, the refusal to engage with the Iranian occupation; second, the rejection of half-measures or temporary solutions, classifying the current situation as one of occupation; third, acting within the scope of initiative; and fourth, a binary perspective that distinguishes between “self” and “the other.”

The study clarified that the refusal to engage with the Iranian occupation is a key trait of the Ahwazi Arab people, forming the foundation of the political cultures in the Arab state of Ahwaz. The Ahwazi people reject any interaction with the Iranian regime and refuse to recognize it as a legitimate state representing them or other nationalities and peoples under its citizenship. Instead, they explicitly state that the Ahwazi people are living under an occupation, where one nation dominates another. Based on this reality, they present historical arguments and legal evidence to support this assertion.

The study further emphasized that this deeply rooted political culture revolves around the principle of Ahwaz being occupied by the Iranian regime. Therefore, those who hold this belief live every day under the reality of occupation. It can even be said that the world they inhabit is entirely different from those with other political cultures, as no event or occurrence in Ahwaz escapes their interpretation through this lens. This perspective has led them to entirely disconnect from the outputs of the Iranian occupation regime and to seek political actions that undermine the occupation and prevent its continuation.

Based on its foundational knowledge, this political culture offers an objective reading of both Ahwazi and Iranian history, proving the occurrence of occupation and narrating the moment in history when this downfall happened. It marks the transition of Ahwazi history into a period of subjugation and the loss of its historical Arab national identity.

The rejection of half-measures is another feature of the political cultures in the Arab state of Ahwaz. Based on the principle that the Persian-led occupation, supported by dangerous factions, exists, this political culture refuses temporary or provisional solutions. Instead, it insists that the occupation status remains unchanged, leaving the Ahwazi people subjected to Iranian authority, albeit under different names at best.

Thus, the proponents of this culture are committed to rejecting all forms of political cooperation with the occupation and exposing the futility of political engagement with it. They argue that doing so leads to a loss of the full rights that should be granted to the Ahwazi people to build their national state. Morally, any engagement with the regime is seen as a departure from political ethics and a complicit silence in the long-standing crimes against the Ahwazi people.

Regarding the binary worldview, the study noted that any Ahwazi party or movement that does not adhere to this understanding or does not adopt this political culture is categorized as being outside the Arab Ahwazi self, which resists the Persian/Iranian occupation, and is seen as part of the “other,” either collaborating with the occupation or failing to bear its national responsibility.

It becomes evident that this political culture is shaped by a binary perspective, distinguishing clearly between resisting the occupation and yielding to or collaborating with it. Any cooperation with the regime is viewed as a betrayal and a departure from the cause, as per the explicit language used by the culture’s adherents.

Given this context, it is not expected that this political culture would engage in party work within the Iranian system or accept political movements that operate within the current framework, as doing so would be seen as endorsing the status quo. Consequently, all internal political proposals that accept the legitimacy of the Iranian state are viewed as having a limited vision and as deviating from internationally recognized standards regarding occupation and the rights of the occupied and the occupier.

As such, this political culture dismisses any changes in Iran’s ruling elite—whether reformist, fundamentalist, or any future political system that might replace the current regime. It does not consider such changes to alter the legal or civilizational status, as they maintain the state’s borders, which violate international law governing the creation of states.

When it comes to taking action, the study pointed out that the clarity of the Ahwazi national political culture allows it to take the initiative without hesitation. Whether it is through cultural movements aimed at preserving the Arabic language among the Ahwazi people against efforts to Persianize the region, boycotting parliamentary and presidential elections by labeling Arab candidates as “opportunistic traitors,” or engaging in armed resistance against security forces and the looting of natural resources, the culture’s advocates actively pursue their goals.

In summary, the political behavior that arises from this worldview leaves no doubt that the strength of this political culture lies in its proactive nature, taking the lead in implementing policies and actions rather than merely reacting to external changes. Unlike other political cultures that base their actions on shifts within the Iranian regime, this culture operates independently, driven by its internal convictions, making it immune to the logic of transformations within Iran’s political structure.