As armed resistance emerged in Iran, the Khomeini-led system faced an accelerating legitimacy crisis. Rather than relying solely on repression, the regime adopted a broader strategy centered on narrative control and psychological warfare, aimed at neutralizing potential alternatives and managing public anger.
According to this analysis, the regime systematically worked to discredit organized opposition by promoting the idea that no credible alternative to the current system exists. This messaging was reinforced through slogans such as “the Mojahedin are worse than Khomeini,” which circulated widely and served to delegitimize structured resistance movements while deepening public cynicism.
Once genuine opposition forces were weakened in public perception, attention shifted toward promoting non-threatening symbolic alternatives. Narratives such as “the Shah is better than Khomeini” gained traction, effectively redirecting popular frustration away from organized regime change and into historical comparisons that posed no immediate political challenge.
Following the collapse of the reformist camp and the loss of its remaining credibility, and amid recurring nationwide protests, the regime increasingly relied on historical revisionism. The resurgence of slogans like “Reza Shah, may your soul rest in peace” reflected an attempt to reshape collective memory and divert protest movements away from present-day political organization.
At the same time, critics argue that the regime pursued a parallel strategy aimed at fragmenting opposition leadership. Through influence operations around Reza Pahlavi—allegedly facilitated by external actors—the system sought to encourage leadership rivalries, dilute organizational cohesion, and prevent the emergence of a unified and effective alternative.
The cumulative effect of these strategies, Geo-Acumen analysts say, has been to prolong the regime’s survival not only through coercion, but through information management, controlled polarization, and the deliberate distortion of political choices available to the public.
This approach underscores a broader reality: in Iran, power has been maintained not merely by force, but by shaping perceptions—limiting horizons of possibility and keeping mass mobilization fragmented and strategically contained.