Foreword: A Position Outside the Sphere of Political Conflict

The Islamic Republic of Iran has a diverse spectrum of opponents among Iranians both inside and outside the country, encompassing various critics, from non-regime-change advocates to regime-change advocates. A number of regime-change advocates – from any small or large political group, whether inside or outside the country – have adopted positions that express approval of foreign aggression against Iran. This stance has aroused particular sensitivity among intellectuals, ordinary people, the ruling establishment, non-regime-change critics, and even the citizens of host countries for Iranian expatriates.

In this writing, without addressing the substantive rightness or wrongness of criticizing the government or the belief in the necessity of overthrowing it, and without issuing any general political verdict for any specific group, I will only discuss general moral precepts under the specific condition of "foreign aggression." As war casts its shadow over the country and the voice of patriotism is lost in the clamor of hostilities, the task of political ethics is to light a lamp beyond the struggles, so that the nature of "citizenship" and "shared humanity" may be illuminated.

First Guideline: A Fundamental Distinction – Love of Homeland and People versus Approval of the Government

1. The Right to Criticize, the Right to Survive

Every citizen anywhere in the world has the right to criticize the manner of governance in their country and to demand its change or changes within it. Such criticism can be a driving force for the evolution of societies.

2. The Red Line: Welcoming the Suffering of the People and the Destruction of the Homeland as a Betrayal of Humanity

This right to criticize never implies moral permission to "welcome harm to the people" or "the destruction of the homeland." Whenever the lives of civilians, homes, hospitals, schools, universities, and cultural heritage are at stake, the moral verdict must be unequivocal: No to the destruction of the homeland, no to the suffering of the innocent.

3. The State as an Instrument, the Homeland as the Permanent Home

Any government is, in itself, a political structure that may – and perhaps, through certain arguments, may seem necessary – be changed, reformed, or even collapsed in various ways. But the homeland is the shared land of past, present, and future generations, with all its diverse capacities for the life of its inhabitants. Love of the homeland is not necessarily love of the ruling government; unless that government, in all its functions, truly represents the interests of the homeland.

Second Guideline: The Distinction between Defending the Homeland and Approving the Government, and the Duty of Critical Support

Criticizing the government is not only legitimate but, in many cases, necessary. However, when a country faces an external threat, the right to defend the land and its people is a right independent of any assessment of the government's quality.

Key Principle: One can be both a staunch critic of the government and a defender of the country's integrity against a foreign enemy. These two positions are not only not contradictory but also demonstrate the moral maturity of a citizen who adopts a rational stance of criticizing the government.

Therefore:

A) Defending the homeland in times of threat does not mean endorsing the government's policies.

B) Opposing government policies should not turn into a denial of the people's right to survival and security.

C) The moral duty of a critical citizen in wartime is twofold: to resist the foreign enemy, and to safeguard the dignity of the people against any possible abuse by the government under the cover of war.

Third Guideline: The Nature and Extent of a Critical Patriot's Cooperation with the Government in Defending the Homeland

The difficult question is this: Should a citizen who, based on their reason and conscience, and on whatever correct or incorrect arguments, opposes the government, cooperate with that same government in the event of foreign aggression? The moral answer is affirmative, but it must insist on three important distinctions:

Distinction One: Cooperation in Defense, Not Cooperation in Policymaking
The citizen who criticizes the government can and must stand against the common enemy, without retracting any of their fundamental criticisms of the government. This cooperation is not political or structural but operational and situational. To put it plainly: "I stand with you in repelling aggression, but I still believe that your government is unjust or has structural flaws, etc."

Distinction Two: The Boundary between “Assisting Defense” and “Assisting the Survival of Oppression”

Cooperating in defense does not mean uncritically or obediently accepting every order from the government. The critical citizen has the right to criticize any flagrant violation of human rights by the government under the guise of defense just as severely, and does not necessarily have to obey orders unrelated to the defense of the homeland. They can say: "I defend the homeland and in this regard I am with you, but I do not accept that you use the tools of defense as a pretext for domestic repression or that you fail to observe the requirements of true defense of the homeland."

Distinction Three: The Priority of Civil Cooperation over Military Cooperation
The lowest level of cooperation in national defense is refraining from any action that aids the enemy – such as refraining from propaganda against the defense effort, disclosing positions, cutting off medicine, food, or ammunition supplies, and the like. A higher level is participation in civil defense – such as serving in hospitals, relief efforts, providing shelter, maintaining infrastructure, and so on. The highest level is joining the ranks of defense against the enemy – which is possible only while maintaining an explicit critical stance, provided that expressing that stance does not directly weaken the battle for national defense.

Fundamental Principle of this Guideline: During foreign aggression against the homeland, criticism of the government does not stop, but the defensive battle against the invading foreigner is also not suspendable. The critical patriot is one who, with a rifle in hand, is critical, and in the trenches, is questioning, in a manner that their criticism and questioning do not benefit the enemy.

Fourth Guideline: The Ethics of Defense – The Primacy of “the Human” over “Ideology”

1. The Universal Charter of Defense

International instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Conventions explicitly or implicitly emphasize that during hostilities, the protection of civilians and vital infrastructure is a moral and legal duty, transcending political borders.

2. The Blurring of the Distinction between “Us” and “Them” in the Face of Destruction
In times of aggression, the political boundaries between “us” and “them” become meaningless in the face of human suffering. Welcoming destruction and slaughter, even under the guise of “reforming the government” or “overthrowing the regime”, is a closing of one's eyes to human pain and an endorsement of forms of war crimes.

3. Welcoming Collective Harm: A Departure from Moral Solidarity

Any speech or action that knowingly seeks to justify aggression or welcome harm to the people of a land is a form of departure from human solidarity and a violation of the duty of common citizenship.

4. The Homeland Belongs to Everyone, Not the Government

The homeland belongs to all those who live, work, and create memories in it. Defending territorial integrity is defending the right to life of all the people of that land.

Fifth Guideline: A Call to “Critical Patriotism”

1. Reasonable Patriotism

True patriotism is critical patriotism. It is incumbent upon every informed citizen first to love their homeland and its people, and then to criticize any government whose structure and functions are not aligned with the interests of the homeland and its people.

2. Constructive Criticism, Not Blind Destruction

A “critical patriot” is someone who challenges the government in order to improve it, not someone who, to “reform” the government, calls for the destruction of everything.

3. Moral Action at the Juncture of War

In wartime conditions, moral action consists of calling for the preservation of human dignity and the protection of human lives, safeguarding the common heritage, and striving for a just end to the war. This duty transcends any political disagreement.

Sixth Guideline: The Nature and Extent of the Possible Moral-Political Justifiability of Seeking Help from a Foreign Aggressor

Here, the important question is: Is seeking help from a foreign invading force for domestic political change justified and acceptable from the perspective of political ethics?

A precise and responsible answer to this question rests on three principles:

First Principle: The End Cannot Justify the Means

If the proposed method of seeking help from a foreign force leads to the collapse of the country (from partition to partial or full occupation), the destruction of its infrastructure and cultural and civilizational heritage, harm to its people, or long-term instability, then even if the goal is “reform” or the possible attainment of a desirable government (by any definition), the means employed in this path are unjustified.

Second Principle: The Invading Force Most Likely Does Not Seek the Common Good of the Target Society

No valid moral theory legitimizes cooperation with a foreign force pursuing its own national interests or specific geopolitical interests without a thorough examination of all consequences. One can only speak of the possibility of positive consequences from such cooperation if the intervener is a multilateral peacekeeping body with the legal and moral authority to intervene – granted by competent global authorities within a framework of global ethics – and not a state with its own direct interests.

Third Principle: Four Simultaneous Conditions for the Legitimacy of Possible Cooperation with an Intervener

Cautious and measured cooperation with a foreign country or forces may only be considered if the following four conditions are met simultaneously:

A) The complete absence of any domestic solution to overcome a political deadlock harmful to the homeland and its people;

B) An extremely high probability of reducing the people's suffering and liberating the homeland from obstacles to independence, freedom, and comprehensive prosperity;

C) The intervention of the foreign country or force is limited to measurable and verifiable supportive action, not aggressive action;

D) Guarantees for the preservation of the country's integrity and the people's dignity in the assistance provided by the foreign country or force.

Conclusive Moral and Legal Result: In the real world, these four conditions are almost never met simultaneously. Therefore, practical cooperation with an aggressor country or force during an act of aggression constitutes, in the vast majority of cases, a moral and political betrayal of the homeland and its people – even if the initial intention of the cooperating individual is to overthrow a government they despise.

Seventh Guideline: The Final Bastion – Humanity

Every committed thinker within the framework of political ethics accepts that:

A) Opposing any government is the inalienable right of every citizen.

B) However, welcoming the destruction of the homeland and the suffering of the people lies outside the bounds of human morality.

C) The duty of every citizen in times of aggression against the homeland is to defend the “homeland” and the “people” – not to defend the “state” against the people, nor to defend “foreigners” against fellow citizens.

In the course of war, the first and final bastion is humanity, and humanity depends on preserving the lives and dignity of all human beings, even those who, in politics, oppose those striving on this path.

Concluding Remarks: From the Right and Duty of the People to Defend Against External Threats to the Right and Duty to Criticize the Government

How excellent it is that, from whatever position and with whatever beliefs, we listen to the voice of human conscience. Criticizing the government is legitimate, but the right and duty of the people to defend against external threats is a human right independent of the quality of the government.

The enduring message of political ethics is that anyone who, during aggression against their homeland, knowingly aids a foreign enemy in weakening their country – even in the name of freedom – is neither a reformist nor a revolutionary; rather, they are a tool of the enemy's strategy. History will record such an act not as courageous criticism, but as a betrayal of the “homeland” and “fellow citizens”.

May the light of rationality, compassion, and belief in human dignity guide everyone in the darkness of war, and may the homeland remain a safe land for all its children – with any criticism of the government – to live in. Always, everyone has the right to engage in activity aimed at reforming or changing the government, mindful of the consequences of such activity.