I am not a political analyst, and if I sometimes write something that seems to be entering this realm, it is merely the personal opinion of a citizen who lives in society and, for this reason, cannot and does not want to remain ignorant or indifferent to the forces that influence the fate of humanity.

In recent days, the news of the removal of Ali Khamenei’s user accounts from some social networks (Meta) was welcomed by a large group of critics of the structure of the Iranian government and, on the other hand, supporters of the current structure assessed it as a sign of the West’s hypocrisy regarding the concept of freedom of speech.
Regarding the promotional and instrumental use of any event by its supporters, there is neither doubt nor much room for discussion. Those who, before accusing the West and its freedom of speech and then exploiting it, forget how the leadership of a country has an official identity and activity in networks and structures, which are closed to the people (who, as it was often repeated during the anniversary of the revolution, were supposed to be the benefactors of the rulers) and being present there is potentially considered a crime.
But we need to reflect a little on the other side of the argument. Because the other side of the story (which in reality is not a single side but more of a spectrum with hundreds of faces, only united in opposition to the current structure perhaps) claims to be fighting the current structure in the name of freedom and recognizing realities.

At first glance, the argument of many who demand the banning of Iranian officials from social media, their presence in international forums, cutting diplomatic ties, and the like seems reasonable. Why should a country and government that does not play by global rules be allowed to have platforms to either lie or justify its actions? Why should other countries give them credibility by sending ambassadors to Tehran, accepting Iranian officials, making phone calls, speaking, or inviting Iranian officials to international meetings?
Why should international satellites allow the broadcast of Iranian television programs?

I understand that this viewpoint is both ineffective and, on the other hand, dangerous for the entirety of society and even the fight against the structure.
First, the notion that hostile countries that impose such bans against each other will talk and make deals behind closed doors in times when their essential interests are at stake, prioritizing the interests of rulers over the people’s benefit in a dark space, ready for corruption to emerge like any other event that happens through opportunistic intermediaries.

But another important issue is that such thinking has become a fundamental political principle both in the West and the East.
Familiar phrases like “We do not negotiate with terrorists,” “Talking to dictators gives them legitimacy,” and “Talking to the enemy reduces the people’s will and spirit to fight them” are so often repeated that they seem obvious.
But the critical question is, if we do not talk to our enemy, our opponent, the external destructive force, the terrorist, etc., who should we talk to?
Negotiation is not about agreeing and surrendering. Negotiation is about keeping a path open that may eventually lead to a desirable agreement.
It’s a path that prevents us from turning our worst enemy into an absolute monster where the only way forward is either his death or nothing.
Years ago, when Julia Butterfly Hill lived atop an ancient tree threatened with cutting for two years and did not come down, some radical environmentalist groups seriously criticized her. One of the reasons for the criticism was that she occasionally came down to the tree’s lower branches and talked to the workers who intended to cut the tree and even the head of the company responsible for cutting the trees in that forest.
She writes how these conversations allowed her to understand the mindset of workers who were worried about their families and income and were not necessarily the enemy of nature, and on the other hand, allowed them to see Julia as a human being, not an agent of a demonic force set to destroy their hard life.
Her negotiations with the company’s head eventually led to a temporary agreement to preserve the tree.
Of course, there are thousands and thousands of cases where such relationships fail. Negotiations that do not yield results and battles that, despite ongoing talks, lead to no outcome. But, as one character in the Netflix political series “The Diplomat” says, politics is never efficient. Politics is about not listening and constantly hearing nonsense, failing, and starting over, hoping it may work one day.
But the story of talking to the enemy and preventing them from becoming an alien monster is a more significant danger than the encouragement of removing sources, media, and tools and even banning media from talking to opposing figures.
For example, look at the current situation in the United States. A significant portion of observers concerned about the extreme behaviours of the movement known as MAGA or the influential branch of Republican politics close to Trump, talk about the necessity of saving the country and the American dream and how this person’s and movement’s views are problematic for democracy and incompatible with American teachings. However

, nearly half of the voting population in the United States today would vote for this person and this thinking if they were at the ballot box.
How can we ignore half of the voting population or prove with a thousand and one justifications that these people do not represent real America?
The reason such a perception of this thinking exists is the long-term denial of this different group in the intellectual, political, and media space, and that’s why when Trump’s victory over Clinton was announced on election night 2016, a large part of the population, political activists, and media expressed surprise. This surprise and astonishment result from the fact that for a long time, we have denied a group of people because of their different thinking, which we call wrong and mistaken, and ignored them. We do not invite their representatives to forums and create a social bubble that sees the world through our eager and desirable eyes. But silencing the opposing voice does not mean the elimination of their thought. It remains, goes underground, does not face free and open criticism with logical arguments, considers itself proper and oppressed, and ultimately pops up at the first opportunity and surprises us.
The same is true in Iran. No matter how much we try to label others as enemies, aliens, unreal, the result of propaganda and cyber activities, no matter how much we try to close and block their media, a percentage of society exists for a thousand and one reasons – which are by no means simple and uniform reasons – have the same behaviour and thinking that we oppose.
If we silence everyone who disagrees with us, if we restrict their access to social media and platforms, if we do not allow free media to reflect their opinions and talk to them, we fall into the disaster of living in an illusion—an illusion that ultimately makes us smaller, further from reality, and more vulnerable to defeat.
Some argue that individuals like the ruling authorities can access their media and should not use other media. Regardless of the severe flaws in this viewpoint from a media perspective, we must define our red lines. When we defend freedom of speech and media, do we only want the press of like-minded people – which is restricted today – to be free or the enemy’s media?
Sometimes, it is argued that these individuals deceive public opinion using their media, and we must stop this deception and their use of these platforms to protect real democracy.
This is an argument that suffers from an internal contradiction. How can we talk about democracy, the right of sovereignty, and the opinion of the people (citizens with the right to vote) and act against the authoritarian system that considers itself the guardian and competent to determine the welfare and good of others and essentially regards people as intellectually minor or immature? At the same time, we also believe that the voter is necessarily ignorant and needs protection and guardianship against deceptions.
Is this use of the same method only for a different purpose and means? In fighting our enemy with this method, do we not become like him?
Undoubtedly, The possibility of deceiving public opinion exists, but perhaps combating it instead of imposing censorship helps form an informed voter or citizen. Assistance that, instead of telling its citizens how to think, what to say, and how to behave, helps them access the correct information and make decisions based on it.

There is no doubt that groups are trying to infiltrate social media and public media in an organized manner and, in their words, create a battle of narratives. But the way to combat the instrumental use of narrative reality is only to state the fact and bring it to light.
I am against closing any avenue of conversation, be it Kayhan, the Leader’s account, or the accounts of opponents, critics, and ordinary citizens. I think these closures give us an illusion of solving the problem while parts of the discourse that, when expressed in public and under light, would receive different, logical, and even emotional responses continue to live and act in the dark, creating a sectarian space around it instead of an open space. I think we should also interview dictators. We should talk to Putin about the war between Russia and Ukraine and allow his words to be heard, and then, in a precise discussion, test the claims and confront them with logical criticism.
We should trust people to find the right path in a diverse dialogue space. We cannot counter the authority with authority over the people.
Demystifying negotiation and dialogue with the enemy (which by no means means yielding to the other side’s demands or compromising on principles) and bringing all discussions, words, and claims to light might be a complicated, long, but sure way to reach a society that truly respects the logical opinion of its informed citizen. Logical respect means accepting that opinion legally without having to consider that claim or opinion correct because it comes from the majority or not acting against it with criticism and even fighting.
Naturally, a high number of political activists these days on all sides of the story will again dismiss such talks as sentimentalism and emotional, laughing at it and the naive and simple mind of the writer.
It’s natural that if I believe in what I’ve written above, I would also welcome such a reaction because I see it as part of expressing the reality of society. If I want to live in it, I need to understand the thoughts and actions of its actors accurately.