The failure of negotiations between Iran and the United States on April 12 reveals a critical reality: For the Iranian regime, peace is not a solution – it is a threat.
Far from seeking de-escalation, Tehran remains deeply committed to a long-time strategy built on three pillars: its nuclear program, its ballistic missile development and its network of proxy forces.
As Maryam Rajavi, leader of the opposition National Council of Resistance of Iran, noted on March 26, this strategic framework is not negotiable for the regime. Recent moves, including the promotion of Khamenei’s son as a potential successor, further signal continuity rather than change.
Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, who wielded considerable charisma among his followers, famously described accepting the indispensable ceasefire in the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war as “drinking a chalice of poison.” To compensate for this retreat – in stark contrast to his earlier slogan, “We will fight to the last house in Tehran” – he issued a fatwa ordering the execution of some 30,000 political prisoners in 1988, individuals who had remained steadfast in their opposition to the regime.
Around 90% of them were members of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran, the principal force of the resistance.
Rooted in rigid, outdated dogma, this theocratic regime has proven unable to meet the demands of its people in the 21st century and has relied on repression since its inception. To mask this reality, it has consistently manufactured external enemies or fueled crises along its borders. In this context, peace is not an opportunity for the regime; it is a threat to its survival.
Iranian authorities warn of ‘internal unrest’
Today, peace – or even a temporary ceasefire – may pose a far greater danger to a regime lacking a charismatic leader like Khomeini than it did during the latter’s era. The authorities’ primary concern appears to be that the Iranian people could seize this moment to reignite a nationwide uprising, particularly at a time when the regime is significantly weakened.
Gholamreza Ghasemian, a cleric close to the leadership, warned explicitly on April 8 that any reduction in the security presence in the streets could lead to “sedition.”
He stated: “We are not optimistic about anything, not even these two weeks. … If the streets and public spaces become empty, the enemy will take advantage, and the sedition of the ‘Monafeghin’ will begin and gradually unfold.” The term “Monafeghin” (“hypocrites”) is a derogatory label used by the regime to refer to the People’s Mojahedin Organization (MEK).
Under the pretext of war, the regime has effectively turned urban spaces into military zones. According to the police spokesperson, more than 129,000 officers are deployed around the clock for patrol and control operations. Such an extensive security presence underscores that the regime’s primary concern lies in controlling the domestic situation.
Mohammadreza Tourani, a figure close to the regime, also warned in an interview with Fars News Agency – which is affiliated with the pro-regime Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or IRGC – that authorities should remain vigilant toward the People’s Mojahedin. He stated: “The position of the Monafeghin during the 40-day war – unlike that of the monarchists – was highly calculated and strategic. They remained silent during the war and now support the ceasefire; two actions exactly opposite to those of the monarchists.”
The fear of ’empty streets’
The current so-called “fear of empty streets” reflects the regime’s concern that it can no longer invoke the war as a pretext to keep its forces on constant alert in public spaces.
This comes at a time when Iran’s economy is in deep crisis and two-thirds of the population live in poverty. Meanwhile, the deep scars left by the killing of thousands within a short period in January – and the public display of their bodies in black bags across multiple cities – remain far from healed.
The fear of ‘Forough Javidan’
Mohammad Akbarzadeh, deputy political head of the Revolutionary Guards’ navy, referred to past threats, stating: “If Trump believed he could enter from the north, south or west, he should recall how enemies were dealt with during Operation Mersad (regime’s nickname for the MEK’s big 1988 military operation Forough Javidan) … Our military power is now far greater.”
Operation “Forough Javidan,” carried out in July 1988 by the National Liberation Army of Iran, affiliated with the MEK, aimed to advance toward Tehran, but ultimately failed.
Last week, on April 8, Roozbeh Alamdari, an analyst close to the regime, warned on X: “Let us not be carried away by the narrative of victory! There is no trust whatsoever in the enemy. We must not lose sight of the risk of a ‘Forough Javidan 2.’”
