Soccer, Survival, and Iranian Society Postwar: What Lies Ahead?
Soccer, Survival, and Iranian Society Postwar:
What Lies Ahead?
On Monday night, the Iranian soccer team showed its mettle. Despite the destructive war launched against their country by Israel and the United States in February, the players held their own against New Zealand by tying the game at 2-2.
Iranian athletes, denied entry to the United States as World Cup participants, instead arrived in Tijuana, Mexico, to prepare for the games. They did not let tragedy or indignities derail them. Instead, each player alighted with purpose, wearing a pin with 168 on it, in honor of the young victims of the bombing of the girls’ school in Minab at the start of the war.
This match was played against the backdrop of breaking diplomatic news about the impending signing of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the United States and Iran. The MOU has piqued both curiosity and uncertainty. Will this agreement mark a genuine turning point or simply ease tensions temporarily? How might it affect the domestic climate in Iran?
The coupling of the soccer game with ongoing diplomacy amid war carries subtle implications. Soccer specifically has long been entwined with international politics and national liberation. In Iran, as elsewhere, soccer has national popularity. Along with other modern sports, it was inculcated as part of a culture of athleticism intended to revamp the country’s moribund military as well.
In other contexts, sports like soccer have similarly acquired immense political significance. For example, the Algerian players of the Équipe FLN (Front de Libération Nationale), transformed football into another means of their anti-colonial struggle during their long war of independence against France. Decades later, at the 2007 Asian Cup (four years after the US invasion), Iraq triumphed despite suicide bombings and civil war back home.
Iran’s recent history records another meaningful soccer match. In 1998, Iran’s 2-1 victory over the United States in a much-anticipated World Cup game carried hopes of a thaw in relations under President Mohammad Khatami. Iranian players famously exchanged flowers for pennants with American soccer players, as they took photos together. These gestures seemed to suggest that even the most intransigent conflicts might be softened in athletic arenas. Yet, as the Israeli-US war against Iran has shown, such cultural breakthroughs do not necessarily translate into lasting peace. The current war has severely damaged key industries in Iran, from metal factories to pharmaceuticals, and caused psychological trauma. Iranians feel a dire need for reconstruction on a daily basis as prices for basic necessities skyrocket.
The Memorandum of Understanding offers the possibility of bringing economic relief and limited diplomatic engagement. For some, this could allow access to goods and investment opportunities. For others, particularly those with no ties to the regime, their hardships will likely continue. Judging by the current FIFA host country’s treatment of Iran’s team, it’s unlikely the United States will suddenly embrace its longtime enemy. The MOU may alleviate tensions, but it is not the final outcome.
Undeterred and determined, Iran’s soccer players embody a society that refuses to be counted out by undue restrictions and outsized pressures. The Memorandum of Understanding, like Iran’s presence in the World Cup, demonstrates that powerful states cannot indefinitely exclude less powerful nations from basic rights and participation in the international community. By harnessing its strategic location to control the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has pushed against decades of economic isolation and resisted demands to surrender its sovereignty.
Back home, the Memorandum will not resolve Iran’s domestic problems. However, the state can reduce foreign manipulation of its disaffected citizens by freeing up the political stage, permitting open elections, and reforming the constitution to enable the emergence of a new generation of indigenous leaders. Democratic systems, however imperfect, have a capacity for self-correction that authoritarian ones lack. The upshot of this war could move Iran toward a steady, reconciled future.
At the same time, Iran will have to keep in mind that arrogance and overreach can be as perilous as weakness. Iranian statesmen need to demonstrate the same grace shown by Iranian soccer players on the world stage, if they similarly hope to elevate Iran’s standing in the international community. As it is being finalized in this polarized context, the Memorandum of Understanding points to what might be possible, but also to how quickly such openings can slip away.
