Listen: Simorgh | Economy, Justice, Hidden Collapse — a conversation between Mehdi Motaharnia and Dr. Hossein Raghfar on Abdi Media

Raghfar: In the first decade after the revolution, despite all the limitations faced by the government and the ruling authorities at that time, many of the constitutional obligations regarding the provision of public services such as education, health services, and even housing were implemented as much as possible. Schools and health services were public and free. The government distributed millions of housing units through housing cooperatives, using cheap land and subsidized materials, with over 90% of housing built for consumption purposes. The government was responsible for this. The main motivation was also to create equality and justice in society. Additionally, banks were state-owned, and the government planned resources required for various activities. Despite all limitations, in 1986 (1365), basic goods were distributed among the people, which is why the public had no concern over the currency, and many people did not even know the currency.

After the war, we witnessed an ideological shift in the Islamic Republic, moving completely away from its constitutional obligations towards the people. Many of the shortcomings from the war period, including economic stagnation, were then attributed solely to the government, while many factors were at play. In the early years of the revolution, the government faced extensive counter-revolutionary efforts across the country, including attempts at coups. Furthermore, the inexperience of the executive management, as no one had prior administrative experience, contributed to challenges. These transformations continued after the war, and the political and social stability seen during the war years did not repeat. Social capital began to erode.

After the war, it was stated that the government was responsible for crises, and the market was presented as the alternative solution. However, in economics, the market works on certain institutional prerequisites; if these do not exist, the institutions themselves do not function. The first prerequisite is an independent judiciary. When the judiciary becomes politicized, the market no longer works as intended but becomes a tool for exploitation.

Motaharnia: Building a palace on quicksand.

Raghfar: This is a key point. Immediately after the war, the issue of privatizations and the removal of subsidies emerged. The first subsidies removed were housing subsidies, with long-term consequences in society. Gradually, subsidies for health services were also removed, leading to the concept of hospital self-management, meaning that if a patient needed services, the hospital would determine and collect the cost.

In several cases, including the removal of the rationing system, by 1993 (1372), virtually all subsidies were eliminated. The subsidies previously available to the people were removed, causing instability in people's lives. From 1991 (1370) onward, parents began looking for work opportunities, as promises made at that time included employment growth and income improvements. People were supposed to work, earn, consume, and thus stimulate economic circulation.

In 1991, the currency price tripled overnight to around 80 tomans. Widespread protests occurred, and the central bank governor promised that the currency would soon drop to 20 tomans. The rationale was that a stimulus for the private sector would increase production and exports. Export revenues would flow into the country, increasing currency supply and lowering the exchange rate to 20 tomans.

None of these promises regarding currency stability, economic stability, social stability, productivity, and efficiency were realized; the opposite occurred. Social capital began eroding, which is the most important capital for any government: public trust in the government deteriorated.

Motaharnia: The trust that they have.

Raghfar: The trust between the people eroded, the power of livelihood weakened, and pressures led people to make wrong decisions. This had a strong impact on social ethics. The erosion of public morality witnessed today, compared to the final years of the war, is primarily due to the material poverty of the people and must be taken seriously.

Privatizations were intended to transfer assets to the private sector to increase efficiency, but they mostly benefited friends and allies within the ruling power. Institutions within power claimed shares, and gradually those in power received extensive benefits.

Because of the participation of individuals lacking necessary qualifications, the linkage between power and economy led to decisions that harmed the public. Public resources gradually flowed into the pockets of friends and allies. This phenomenon has been referred to for years as “crony capitalism,” the main feature being easy and cheap access to credits.

Motaharnia: A new oligarchy emerges that displaces traditional economic lineages.

Raghfar: One feature is easy and cheap access to bank facilities. The second is the distribution of monopoly or quasi-monopoly opportunities to friends and allies, e.g., a single “sugar king” or fruit importation by a few individuals. Gradually, monopolies grew. In 2005 (1384), a turning point occurred in diverting efficient economic allocations, with the amendment of Article 44 of the Constitution providing a golden opportunity for insiders. Today, many generals from the war are among the country’s wealthy. The granting and transfer of many mines and key industries, as well as the creation of eight new banks in 2008 (1387) in a single day, benefited insiders.

In 1999 (1378 H.Sh.), the law for establishing private banks was enacted with the aim of creating competition, but in practice, it undermined efficiency in the country. None of these private banks are truly private; they serve the interests of power institutions. For this reason, today banks have become a “cancerous tumor” in the country’s economy, depriving people of major opportunities. The small-scale resources of the public should be mobilized for production, but instead they have been funneled into speculative and trading activities.

Motaharnia: The concept of privatization in our society has been emptied of meaning. In political sociology, when we discuss the foundations of order, there is a polarization among analysts related to interests. Interests generally encompass economic motivations in social, political, and security domains. If economic incentives are created for individuals, groups, or classes, their compliance becomes much stronger. Our fundamental question in political sociology is: Can a government – meaning the authorities who hold power and govern people in a specific territory – satisfy the interests of social classes?

There are three main functions in the economy. The first is development and growth. All governments aim to generate economic growth to produce greater benefits for the people under their control. Prices should be designed with lower classes in mind, ensuring that pressure is not disproportionately placed on lower-income groups. Likewise, employment should be generated. As someone trained in political sociology, international relations, communications, and ultimately futures studies, I read these materials to understand them better.

During Khatami’s government, employment activation increased demand. During Hashemi’s administration, growth and development were emphasized. At that time, a new class was intended to be built – revolutionary individuals capable of investment to advance the economic goals of the revolution. This process has led to what can be described as a “mafia-like democracy.” Has real growth, progress, and development occurred? Has employment been successfully created? Even the upper class, the oligarchs, have failed. Within the upper oligarchic class, families are suspicious of one another. This aligns with Aristotle’s observation that revolutions arise from social dissatisfaction with justice, and everyone seeks justice according to their own interests. For example, the children of prominent families may feel inequality in the distribution of resources. How do we interpret these processes today? Does this constitute a “mafia democracy”? Instead of the Islamic democracy promised, are such conditions fueling secularization or alienation from religion among different social classes, especially the youth?

Raghfar: Justice is crucial. According to Aristotle, it has a specific meaning. Until 1971, the concept of justice had two fundamental weaknesses: it was relative to time and to the speaker’s position; people viewed it from their own perspective. In 1971, John Rawls proposed reforms, presenting justice as fairness. Throughout history, philosophers have critiqued Rawls and proposed various other theories. Yet, all modern theories agree on one point: justice represents some type of allocation of a variable. While there may be disagreement on which variable, there is no doubt about equality.

Motaharnia: Equality has a tangible implication.

Raghfar: Equality may refer to access to consumption or to opportunities and resources. If we accept this, what happened after the war is clear: national resources and opportunities were distributed very unequally. Over time, inequality intensified, and the gap between the people and the government widened. Today, many state officials, especially generals and other elites, control a significant portion of the country’s resources, particularly after the amendment of Article 44. Mines and other resources are monopolized by certain individuals and their family members. This very situation has greatly exacerbated inequality. These individuals lacked the competence to use these resources properly. The goals of privatization were completely distorted. The textile industry, one of the country’s main industries, was destroyed, though it had exports until very recently.

Motaharnia: Right now, Turkey should take precedence.

Raghfar: All of this happened because unqualified individuals were placed in positions of responsibility. They wasted and destroyed opportunities and resources, and gradually, due to a lack of technical and engineering expertise, they turned to selling natural resources. Over time, industry and industrialists left the country. In such an environment, those who received rents continually tried to expand their areas of influence.

The private banks that were established—until recently, there were 32 banks; now there should be 27 banks.

Motaharnia: They merged, they didn’t disappear.

Raghfar: Yes, their personnel are still present in other banks. Meanwhile, China, with a population larger than Iran, has only 20 state-owned banks.

Motaharnia: How many banks do the Americans have?

Raghfar: I haven’t studied that in detail. They have regional and local banks. The role of banks in an economy is to mobilize small-scale public resources and channel them into production. But in Iran, they have been mobilized for speculation in land, housing, gold, currency, etc. Currency inflation is one function of this oligarchy because they control the country’s foreign currency resources. They manage imports and exports, and naturally, rising exchange rates benefit them.

The public bears the cost so that the oligarchs can maintain their foundations of power. Some opportunities for appointing officials are delegated to security and military institutions. Through this filter, only certain individuals pass for parliamentary representation or for appointing managers, especially economic managers, who then distribute rents to these institutions.

Gradually, the population was divided into “insiders” and “outsiders.” Many outsiders were excluded from governmental decision-making. Today, the fundamental decision-making system in the country—governance—is primarily focused on the interests of these oligarchs. Parliament and government agendas serve their interests.

Under the guise of creating employment and opportunities through resource allocation, the environmental consequences and unequal distribution of opportunities have led to deforestation and unprecedented corruption. You mentioned that systemic corruption was not accepted by the Supreme Leader, but structural corruption definitely exists. These structures are inherently corrupt, and inequality is the root of all social evils.

Inequalities imposed on people contradict constitutional principles. The constitution guarantees equal access to education, but after the war, under the pretext that privatization would improve efficiency, a significant portion of the population lost access to schools. Education has become fee-based.

According to recent statistics from the Statistical Center, 26% of young people aged 15–24 are not attending school, have no skills, and are unemployed. The social consequences include extortion, highway blockages, deviant behavior, etc. A student at Tehran University was killed trying to protect her laptop; the perpetrator was 23 years old. Five individuals who blocked a highway were around 26. These are products of the post-war decision-making system.

When the education system has been destroyed this way, and the healthcare system is similarly undermined, who controls the resources? In just three years, people spent $10 billion purchasing homes in a neighboring country (Northern Cyprus). The main reason for the migration of capital and human resources is economic instability.

Capital and Brain Drain

Motaharnia: They say we didn’t give away Iran’s land. When the country’s elite leave, the country’s capital leaves too. Dr. Raghfar points out that we must acknowledge that structures are corrupt. What is a system composed of? A system is a set of interconnected components, each with its own function, ultimately complementing the functions of other components. When the structures are corrupt, the entire system becomes corrupted. We have to accept this. It’s painful and difficult to express.

What does our national society currently mean by education? Is it comprehension or just a diploma? Given the outputs of universities, schools, and technical-vocational centers, how much can even the scientific articles we boast about serve as references? How many major international theorists exist in economic, political, and strategic fields? If we have them, how much do we value and support them? These issues cannot be ignored.

Justice in the Digital Age

Does social justice in the digital age have meaning with traditional tools like subsidies and price controls, given our concept of justice? I believe that the economy ensures livelihoods. Without a functioning economy, sustainable livelihoods for people are impossible—like building a palace on quicksand. The middle class is collapsing, social decay is evident, warning signs are sounding—like turning a bell into an alarm. We have accepted many issues and are paying the price. I remember when a knife was held to your neck—doesn’t the collapse of the middle class trigger alarm? Doesn’t it bring society to a point of no return? We are obligated to sound the alarm; we are committed to the people, and this commitment compels us to speak now. Do you agree with me? If not, why?

Raghfar: The rise of robotics and artificial intelligence, and the role of machines and new technologies, have greatly affected human roles in production. Large populations will become unemployed. It is predicted that by 2030 in the United States, no one will drive manually; drivers must be licensed to operate their cars because all cars will be self-driving, essentially intelligent robots. This trend will spread to many fields, such as law, medicine, police, banking. When robots replace humans, people become unemployed.

Unemployment today does not just mean a lack of income—it means loss of identity, because people derive identity from their jobs.

Motaharnia: Interest is one pillar of the three pillars.

Raghfar: If people live in a society without jobs, they become a major threat to social and political stability. This concern is shared by many countries, which study how social security systems should be structured. This is a topic under discussion in many developed countries. In Iran, no one considers these issues. Suddenly, we find all pension funds bankrupt. Where should the resources come from? A structure capable of production, generating income and value, whose taxes go to the government—these opportunities have been lost. Our economy has become a rent-seeking, speculative, land-trading economy.

Although this year the Supreme Leader named it “investment in production,” the same day, state television promoted gold sales, which he protested because it benefits only a few. The oligarchs have expanded themselves—last year, $8 billion of gold was imported, sold to people in coins at a rate equivalent to 120,000 IRR per dollar. There is no oversight or control; ordinary middle-class people are plundered, and the poor even more so.

Until about 7–8 years ago, the main support base of the revolution rested on this middle class. Today, this class has become the main threat to social stability, because they have been forgotten and ignored. Their interests are not represented in policymaking or decision-making institutions.

Motaharnia: If this trend continues, and it seems it will, no one listens to us, and we face much pressure. What types of social unrest or fractures are likely? What will the silent “grey” class do in the economic structure? Will they be victims?

Raghfar: I believe this situation cannot continue. It will certainly lead to political collapse, and this time not the middle class like in 2022 but the lower classes will be the ones affected.

Motaharnia: Even 2009 [1388 Iranian calendar].

Raghfar: It is the lower classes whose lives today are practically unlivable and unbearable. Therefore, the solution must begin with reducing this inequality. Policies that can alleviate the suffering of the deprived classes must start from here. These classes have been removed from the country’s policy agenda, especially in the economy. A solution exists, but the current structure cannot resolve the issue. We are inevitably faced with a surgical procedure, one that will involve bleeding—meaning that the oligarchic classes must be sidelined. I firmly state that unless military, security, and ruling foundation institutions are restricted in the economy, or unless some sections are entirely removed, there is no hope for political survival. Therefore, we will face serious problems. From this perspective, I emphasize that the country’s officials must take this issue seriously; their own survival is tied to reducing inequality.

Motaharnia: The murmurs we hear are that the oligarchs say, “I will resist, I will stand, I will use this power and destroy,” which is exactly the flow of order and social disorder that we observe in sociology. Alongside this are the interests of coercive and violent organizations, using force based on what has accumulated in society’s veins. How do you see the situation in this context? Can we allow time? In future analysis, I can say that in November–December 2022 [Aban–Azar 1401] this happened. Can we now consider Fall 2025 [Autumn 1404] as a period to examine certain conditions? What is your opinion?

Raghfar: What is suspicious are the decisions we are at least aware of, such as the gasoline price increase, heavy taxation, inflation, rice prices—which the middle class may consume the most—suddenly nearly doubled, or cement prices tripled in one day. The consequence is that housing has become entirely inaccessible to the middle class.

Motaharnia: They should receive rental loans.

Raghfar: Many of the problems that exist today are due to the interests of the ruling oligarchic class. There is no solution for this “patient,” and just as doctors say a disease has only three months to live, don’t waste your energy on it. The problem is that our “patient” does have a solution. It is said that there are five keys to solving development issues. The first is political order, which can remove obstacles to development. Unfortunately, we do not witness the formation of such determination. For 12 years, every year we emphasize production. Production is the core of the economy; creating money, value-added, and economic growth generates opportunities for cultural transformation.

Motaharnia: It creates convergence, political stability, and security.

Raghfar: But every year it is worse than the previous. The reason is that we have never adhered to the requirements of production. One of the requirements is an independent and corruption-free judiciary. Attention to the interests of the general public is another. The people have been removed from the country’s main decision-making system. A solution fully exists, yet the banking system only serves the oligarchs’ interests; it has nothing to do with production. With current rates and a dealer-driven system, rational production is impossible, unless structural reforms occur in banking, taxation, and equal opportunities for people, including education, healthcare, and eradicating hunger. Unfortunately, a significant portion of our population suffers from hunger.

Motaharnia: “Resilient economy” has been spoken of repeatedly, but now there is no news of it. Isn’t this term just a cover for inefficiency? Can we actually have an economy called a “resilient economy”? What the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic proposed was an idea that needed to be translated into meaningful frameworks by academics. And even if it had been, would our academics have been listened to?

Raghfar: The core of the resilient economy is production. Production provides many opportunities for households, firms, and the macroeconomy against domestic and external risks and shocks. Yet production has not received attention. Production has requirements, and in these 12 years, named as “years of production,” production status has worsened each year, particularly industrial production that generates tangible goods. Instead, financial sector activities have expanded, including stock market and speculative activities, which are counted as part of gross production.

What is happening in the U.S. today is Trump’s attempt to return production to the American economy. The reason is that for 50 years they did not invest in industry, neither in human resources nor infrastructure and machinery, leaving it to countries like China. China has placed maximum capacity in this path. After the war, we followed the same path as Europe and the U.S., focusing on financialization, stock markets, and these activities. Thus, when shocks hit the economy, a significant portion of intangible assets collapses. Large firms’ stock values drop—on paper only—without real output, yet counted in gross production. China is said to produce goods for the world, and the total value of their real production exceeds that of the U.S., Japan, and Germany.

In recent years, East Asian economies, especially Japan, China, and Korea, have mechanized with robots. Their main goal is maximizing effort, and therefore, maximizing employment, not corporate profit. In 2024, among the world’s top 500 firms, 136 are Chinese; 82% of the shares of these 136 firms are state-owned, belonging to the Communist Party and Chinese government. Yet their stock value is lower than European and U.S. competitors. Their focus is not profit, but maximizing employment. Employment is what binds people to societal values. Unfortunately, today, unemployment among the youth has become a major social and political threat. Every year, large numbers enter the labor market, but the economy cannot create jobs for them. Industrial production is absent; instead, speculation and financialized activities controlled by oligarchs and the banking system have deprived young people of employment opportunities, turning them into social and political threats.

Motaharnia: Dr. Raghfar made a good point: the Chinese focus on employment. From a political sociology perspective, through the lens of social order and disorder, if employment is not created in a large country like China with this population, disorder and instability emerge, and the Chinese Communist Party is doomed. They focus on stability, not just employment. They stabilize prices for the lower class, development and progress for the upper class, and employment creation for the middle class. When the middle class is nurtured, social and political stability is achieved. When the middle class disappears, the upper class is limited, the lower class collapses, and instability inevitably follows.
 

Cryptocurrency: Opportunity or Threat

Motaharnia: In a previous section, you referred to the current financial system, which mainly focuses on financial markets and the stock exchange. Does the Iranian economy have the capacity to adopt digital structures like cryptocurrencies, blockchain, and artificial intelligence given the current situation? Undoubtedly, the world is moving in a direction where many current banking functions will become paralyzed, and even in an ideal situation, inefficiencies will be exposed. Although the economy has its essence and impacts politics as a primary variable, I believe that political tools and power can be used to restore economic balance in this century. But if our banks move toward cryptocurrencies, blockchain, and AI, will they truly succeed? What is your view on the future of governance considering the monetary and financial system?

Raghfar: Today, the banking system is one of the main problems of our economy. Almost all senior bank managers come from military, security, and police backgrounds, which indicates a lack of scientific expertise to manage these banks. Despite relatively significant expenditures on banking automation, we are still far from what has happened globally. Many banks today serve customers through robots; many activities are performed from home, reducing the need to visit branches, and thus the number of branches has decreased considerably. The gap between us and the current global state is vast, let alone future developments.

Cryptocurrencies are a very complex issue, and a significant part of the global financial system is moving in that direction. If Bitcoin, for example, is valued at $100,000, its value is based on the dollar. If the dollar declines, its role diminishes. Importantly, major countries that are becoming the next global economic powers, like China, do not engage in these activities without a controlled banking system showing clearly who backs the money. Much of the value of money depends on the issuer. For cryptocurrencies, it is unclear who issues Bitcoin globally.

Serious global consequences exist. Imagine someone generating cryptocurrency at home without working; they could have wealth and live comfortably. But how long can this continue before unproductive individuals accumulate wealth? In Iran, electricity shortages are partly due to this. Some embassies reportedly consume high electricity, likely mining cryptocurrency. A couple of weeks ago, police discovered 7,000 miners consuming a significant portion of national electricity. This leads to industrial shutdowns. Parts of the industry in Khorasan Razavi and other cities are closed two days per week. These issues are catastrophic for the economy. Over the past 30 years, little investment has gone into infrastructure. Sadly, the government delegates responsibility to the private sector, saying, “Build your own power plants.” So what is the role of the government? Globally, governments provide infrastructure costs, not private companies.

Infrastructure and Blackouts

Motaharnia: If alternative power is implemented and ignored due to noncompliance with economic policies, widespread protests arise. There are already strong murmurs of private sector resistance. Government intervention is high; we see it in every sector. Even powerful private actors resist. I saw a clip: in Tir month (July), production had to completely stop for a month. Additionally, fires at ports disrupted trade and production.

The main issue is that our economy, under sanctions and internal disorder, with destroyed infrastructure, cannot free itself from the oligarchy. The financial system cannot integrate with cryptocurrencies, AI, and new modern approaches. In terms of future governance, what types of economic institutions should replace banks and rent-seeking companies? For forward-looking economic planning, this is crucial. Given the current chaotic state, sanctions, inefficiencies, and wasted energy, can alternative institutions emerge in the future, independent of whoever governs?

Raghfar: The country’s problems are complex and extensive. When the governance system cannot respond under normal conditions, it surely cannot handle crises. We face a nested system of problems and crises; if we do not address them timely, they become more complex and unresolved, leading to missed opportunities. The only way now is to return to the people, focusing first on the damaged and oppressed lower classes.

In Tehran, which produces 25% of the country’s GDP, 50% of last year’s employment occurred here. Yet many households rely on charity from bakeries for free bread. On the other hand, some people drive 10–20 billion toman cars or live in penthouses, displaying elitism. This is an unequal and humiliating system. In India, culturally, lower castes are expected not to rise, but in our society, people have serious expectations from the government, which ignores them.

Solutions exist, but cannot operate under the current order or disorder. It is like a doctor telling you to live healthily, avoid sugar and fats, exercise, but you ignore all advice and develop cancer. Now, you cannot treat advanced cancer with a simple pill; serious surgery is needed. The Iranian economy is similar: the time to follow recommendations and prevent the current situation has passed. Serious decisions are needed now. Unfortunately, these are not in the hands of the government, parliament, or judiciary. Sole authority rests with the Supreme Leader, who currently holds the necessary power in the country.

Leadership System or Individual Leader

Motaharnia: By “leadership,” do you mean the individual leader?

Raghfar: Yes, the individual leader. He alone can correct the disorder or chaos that has emerged. Otherwise, the government we see has delegated everything.

Motaharnia: You mentioned the leader and leadership. Do you think a future leader is possible in the Islamic Republic given the current situation? The succession crisis will inevitably affect politics, society, values, regional programs, and international issues. How do you see this?

Raghfar: I think the post-current-leadership political system depends on what reforms are implemented now that the vulnerable and middle classes can tangibly feel.

Motaharnia: Are reforms possible?

Raghfar: They are possible, but it requires political will. This political will does not exist in the president, judiciary head, or parliament head; it resides only in the leader’s determination.

Motaharnia: If the leader wills it?

Raghfar: If he truly realizes the threatening conditions for social and political order, necessary reforms must be implemented. These start with limiting the presence of military, security forces, and foundations under government control.

Motaharnia: So this is a leadership system. In political literature, we use terms like “leader” and “leadership.” If the leader at the center wants to change things, will resistance arise?

Raghfar: Definitely.

Motaharnia: Can the leader overcome it?

Raghfar: I think he can; the leader has sufficient authority. After Mao’s death in China, similar issues arose. The economy was controlled by the Communist Party, and they debated how to steer it toward growth. Part of the economy had to be removed from military control, and strong resistance arose, including the “Gang of Four” (one was Mao’s wife), who were eventually arrested. Resistance lasted 2–3 years, after which reforms were implemented.

Motaharnia: Don’t you think it’s too late?

Raghfar: I believe the capacity still exists, even if signs are not visible. It’s like a doctor prescribing medication; if the patient lacks will, the solution exists but isn’t implemented.

Motaharnia: The existence of the system is clear; the people should know the difference between the leader and leadership system. Leadership refers to the system, structure, and organization. The leader refers to the specific person in the constitution with broad powers. Whether it’s too late is debatable; once reforms start but don’t finish, gaps form. This may be why the leader hesitates to show will. But eventually, it will happen; timing is the only variable.

Raghfar: I focus on issue-based justice. Sooner or later, the future governance crisis will involve algorithmic governance, with economics shifting to cryptocurrency, blockchain, and AI. I emphasize the “artificial spirit” that will emerge, according to my theory. How will justice be distributed in algorithmic governance?

Raghfar: Philosophers and socially-oriented economists, like Michael Sandel, focus on this. While definitions of justice differ, all agree that we can reach consensus on visible manifestations of injustice. Examples: people sleeping on streets, selling kidneys, or prostitution—these clear injustices must be eliminated. No country in history developed without an education system aligned with development. Iran’s education system, especially schools, is failing and cannot meet justice needs in the near future.

What is certain is that we are moving toward an economy where human capital plays a more prominent role than before. Emerging technologies depend on the contribution of skilled human capital. Our top universities produce graduates who immediately seek to emigrate because domestic demand is low. China, despite political constraints, mobilized 40,000 experts in two years when restricted from microchip imports, demonstrating that sanctions can sometimes spur domestic capacity—though in Iran, sanctions mainly harm ordinary people and enrich oligarchs. Political systems must leverage all capacity to solve problems and plan for the future; Iran’s system lacks foresight and deals only with daily crises.

Motaharnia: Often, we escape to the past, debating historical events like the 1953 coup, ignoring the present crisis. History is important, but focusing on it prevents us from acting for the future.

Raghfar: The Supreme Leader proposed the Islamic-Iranian Progress Model. They opposed development for various reasons. Development, progress, and growth are distinct concepts. In the economy, each has specific meaning. While we attempted to rebuild the production sector under the Resistant Economy, universities fail to train proper social, economic, and political human capital. Security and military dominate. Can the Islamic-Iranian Progress economic model be realized? Can a healthy economy be founded, even with the leader’s will?

Raghfar: Trump disrupted global norms to bring capital to the U.S., even pressuring companies like TSMC. Human capital is essential; long-term investment of 5–6 years is needed. Without infrastructure and investment, ambitious plans fail. In the 1950s, U.S. secondary education levels were unparalleled; now other countries match them. To align with future technology, decades of investment are required.

Motaharnia: An imbalance exists.

Raghfar: Funding is insufficient. Existing infrastructure is worn out—highways, hospitals, bridges—and require investment. Education infrastructure also needs investment for future engineers and technicians. Who funds this? Local initiatives, like building schools in Sistan-Baluchistan, occur, but the education ministry refuses responsibility. Social responsibility has largely shifted to citizens.

Motaharnia: People must even provide teachers.

Raghfar: Yes. This mindset toward development is insufficient. Government must provide infrastructure; otherwise, bureaucratic machinery fails. If private industrialists must generate their own electricity, buy fuel at market rates, and face arrest, why should they remain? Tax rates are lower than neighbors, yet capital flees.

Motaharnia: Uncertainty is the main problem for investors.

Raghfar: Private sector is the engine of production, but conditions for their real participation do not exist. True private sector requires government commitment to the country’s future, not just rhetoric. They must sense whether real economic space exists to invest and produce, which currently it does not.

Mathernia: Listening to these topics is difficult. Many friends, with different perspectives, sit around the table and discuss the same points using various expressions. We must reflect: each Iranian forms a molecule of Iran. Iran is not a lion, nor a cat, nor a butterfly's shadow. Iran consists of every single Iranian.

Full file of Abdi Media conversation with Dr. Hossein Raghfar