IS THE SHADOW OF WAR GROWING OVER IRAN?
Author: Hasse-Nima Golkar
In recent days, the United States has significantly reinforced its air and naval presence in the Middle East. According to U.S. officials, this move is aimed at increasing political pressure, strengthening deterrence, and keeping a military option available if diplomacy fails.
At the same time, Donald Trump has once again taken a hard line against the Iranian government and has described “regime change” as a desirable outcome.
Media outlets such as CNN report that military plans are in place and forces are in a state of readiness, but no final decision to launch an attack has been made.
Reuters has also reported preparations for a potential operation that, if carried out, could last several weeks.
However, there has been no official announcement of war, and the diplomatic track remains open.
Possible Scenarios:
1- Continued pressure without war
The military buildup serves mainly as leverage in negotiations and as a deterrent.
2- Limited, targeted strike
A short-term operation against specific targets (e.g., military or nuclear facilities) without a full-scale war.
3- Escalation into regional confrontation
Proxy clashes or retaliatory actions that could destabilize the wider region.
4- Return to diplomacy
Military pressure used as a tool to reach a political agreement.
Bottom line:
The tension is real, but war is not inevitable. The outcome will depend on political decisions, developments on the ground, and the course of negotiations.
War is the business of capitalist governments, because peace is not profitable for them!

What should be done in the face of tear gas?
When tear gas is fired, your golden time is only a few seconds.
1 – Stay calm!
Use a cloth soaked in lemon juice or vinegar to cover your mouth and nose.
2 – How to neutralize the canister
The canisters become extremely hot after being fired, so never touch them with bare hands:
Method 1: If you have access to a bucket of water, throw the canister into it to stop the chemical reaction.
Method 2: Cover the canister with a metal bucket to block the spread of the gas.
Method 3: Using a fire extinguisher is the fastest way to neutralize it.
3 – How to protect yourself and move
a) Do not sit on the ground, because the gas is heavy and stays low. Always move to higher ground and go against the wind so that fresh air reaches your face.
b) Do not rub your eyes, as this will cause severe burning.
4 – First aid
a) Use only cold water for washing, because warm water allows the toxins to be absorbed into the skin.
b) A solution of water and liquid antacid (aluminum-magnesium) is the best neutralizer for the skin and face.
c) At the first opportunity, change your clothes and take a cold shower.
Share this information with others and share this video clip as well.
LONG LIVE FREEDOM!
WOMAN-LIFE-FREEDOM!

A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE POLITICAL-HISTORICAL EXPERIENCES OF ANARCHO-SYNDICALISM, FASCISM AND ANTI-FASCISM
Research by Hasse-Nima Golkar
The anarchist movement is inherently anti-fascist, and therefore all anarchists are necessarily anti-fascists. However, the anti-fascist movement and all anti-fascists are not necessarily anarchists.
In order to avoid any simplification, this important proposition has been examined with the necessary and essential precision in its conceptual and theoretical-historical analysis from the anarcho-syndicalist point of view.
1 – Definition of Basic Concepts
a) What is anarchism?
Anarchism is a set of socio-political theories and movements that emphasize the following principles:
• The negation of all forms of hierarchy, including the repressive and authoritarian systems of the state, religion, patriarchy, capitalism, racism, etc.
• The unconditional defense of self-organization and self-management, mutual aid, solidarity, individual–collective freedom, and social equality.
• A fundamental opposition to nationalism, militarism, and the concentration of any form of power.
In anarchism, the state is not considered a neutral tool but an organized institution of domination.
b) What is fascism?
Fascism is a modern authoritarian ideology and the ultimate concentration of political, economic, and cultural power, whose central features are:
• A centralized, totalitarian, and charismatic state
• Extreme nationalism and the myth of the “one nation”
• Organized repression of opponents
• Hierarchy, obedience, militarism
• The negation of individuality in favor of the “organic whole of the nation”
2 – Why is anarchism inherently anti-fascist?
Opposition to fascism is not merely a tactical or purely ethical position, but the logical result of the theoretical foundations of anarchism.
a – Fundamental contradictions at the political–philosophical level:
• Anarchism is the negation of authority; fascism is the sanctification of authority.
• Anarchism is based on horizontal relations; fascism on absolute vertical hierarchy.
• In anarchism, the individual is free in a free society; in fascism, the individual is dissolved in nation–homeland–flag and leader.
• Anarchism is against every kind of state regardless of its nature; fascism is the worship of the state.
• Anarchism believes in international solidarity; fascism in extreme nationalism.
Therefore, anarchism without being anti-fascist falls into an internal contradiction, whereas being anti-fascist does not necessarily create such a contradiction, because it may defend and promote certain small and quasi-socialist states.
b – Historical experience
Anarchists have been among the first victims of fascism:
Italy; repression of anarchists by Mussolini.
Nazi Germany; the complete destruction of anarchist movements.
Spain; the civil war and the resistance of anarchists against Franco.
Chile, Argentina, Greece; the violent repression of anarchists by authoritarian regimes.
As a result, anti-fascism for anarchism is not merely theoretical, but a lived experience.
3 – Are all “anarchists” anti-fascists?
a – Apparent exceptions
Sometimes currents such as “national anarchism” are mentioned. For example, a party called “Iranarchism / Iran-Anarchism” is active under the leadership of an Iranian lumpen, opportunist, wave-rider, charlatan and political trickster poet residing in England named Ali Abdolrezaei, known as “Mouta.” However, such openly contradictory tendencies are not considered defined and accepted anarchism. Because based on the fundamental principles of anarchism, neither nationalism, nor partyism, nor misogyny, nor genderism in any form or content can be acceptable or exist.
b – The preservation of concepts such as “fixed ethnic identity,” “cultural borders,” or a “homogeneous society” is in contradiction with the negation of authority. Many of them are rebranding of fascism or the far right.
Therefore, in the main and معتبر tradition, anarchism and fascism are completely incompatible.
4 – Why are not all anti-fascists anarchists?

a – Anti-fascism (Antifa) can be a broad front of different tendencies without a single intellectual root (exactly the opposite of anarchism despite its various intellectual branches). What tactically places anarchists, Marxists, Leninists, left social democrats, etc., in a coalition front is only opposition to fascism, not agreement on the desired post-fascist society.
b – Critique of non-anarchist anti-fascism
From the anarchist perspective, some forms of anti-fascism are contradictory:
• Defending a strong or weak “democratic” state to confront fascism
• Justifying the police, the army, and prison as anti-fascist tools
• Sacrificing freedom in the name of security
While anarchists argue: fascism cannot be defeated by institutions that themselves cultivate the seeds of fascism and authoritarianism within themselves and society.
5 – The difference between anarchist anti-fascism and other forms
a) Anarchist anti-fascism:
• Against every kind of state and non-horizontal structure
• Emphasis on direct action, self-organization, self-management, solidarity, mutual aid, and social defense
• Simultaneous struggle against all forms of capitalism, racism, and authoritarianism
b) Authoritarian anti-fascism:
• Authoritarian is bad, but some types of states are defensible
• Focus on repression from above, which carries the risk of reproducing authority in another form
6 – The views of some classical anarchist thinkers
a) Mikhail Bakunin: the root of authority in the state and the emergence of the seed of fascism
Bakunin was perhaps the first thinker to explain the inner logic of modern authoritarianism before the historical emergence of fascism. His critique of the state is not merely functional but anthropological and structural.
State as an institution of domination:
In Statism and Anarchy he argues that every state, even if established with emancipatory intentions, inevitably produces a ruling class and an obedient mass. From Bakunin’s point of view, fascism is not a sudden deviation from the modern state, but a naked, unveiled, and crisis-ridden form of the same logic of state authority.
Critique of “authoritarian socialism”:
Bakunin points out that even a revolutionary state can become a monstrous repressive force. This prophetic analysis later played a fundamental role in the anarchist understanding of “pseudo-left” fascism or authoritarian anti-fascism. Therefore anarchist anti-fascism since Bakunin has always been dual: struggle against fascism + struggle against statism.
b) Peter Kropotkin: mutual aid versus organic nationalism
Although Kropotkin did not experience fascism, his theory of mutual aid provides an anti-fascist framework at the social level.
Critique of the Darwinian–fascist narrative:
Fascism relies on myths such as natural competition, survival through domination, and the nation as an organic body. Kropotkin shows that cooperation and mutual aid, not domination, have been the main factors of survival and social progress. This critique directly targets the biopolitical foundations of fascism.
Anti-fascism as the defense of everyday life:
In Kropotkin’s thought, freedom is not a state project but a way of collective living. Anarchist anti-fascism means defending the horizontal networks of life against authoritarian mass mobilization. This view forms the basis of today’s social and local anarchist anti-fascism.
c) Errico Malatesta: anti-fascism without the illusion of the state
Fascism as a bourgeois reaction:
Malatesta directly experienced and analyzed Italian fascism. He considered fascism a reaction to the crisis of capitalism and a tool for reconstructing order through violence. But unlike state socialists, he believed fascism cannot be defeated by a stronger state because that same state has provided its ground.
Critique of “legal anti-fascism”:
Malatesta strongly criticized the type of anti-fascism that resorts to law, police, or the army and postpones freedom until after “victory.” He emphasized that if we use fascist tools to defeat fascism, we have only changed the name of the enemy.

d) Emma Goldman: fascism, the psychology of obedience and the masses
Fascism as a culture of obedience:
Goldman presented one of the deepest analyses of the psychological dimension of fascism. She did not consider it merely a political regime, but the product of authority-centered education, the morality of obedience, and the fear of freedom. In this sense, fascism can exist without Mussolini or Hitler.
Anti-fascism as individual liberation:
From Goldman’s perspective, real anti-fascism is impossible without sexual, intellectual, and cultural liberation, because any anti-fascism that sacrifices the individual to the “whole” is itself potentially fascist. This analysis links anarchist anti-fascism to the critique of authoritarian culture and subject formation.
7 – Contemporary anti-fascism: the continuation of the anarchist tradition
a – Contemporary texts in the statements of self-organized groups (Antifa handbooks) are clearly influenced by the anarchist tradition: rejection of centralized leadership, direct action, collective defense of social spaces, distrust of the state and the police.
b – Analysis of fascism as a phenomenon rooted in capitalism, racism, and authority.
Antifa in this sense is neither a party nor a single ideology, but a horizontal method of struggle.
8 – Comparison between anarchist-centered anti-fascism and Marxist-centered anti-fascism
a) Common points:
• Analysis of fascism as a structural phenomenon
• Its connection to the crisis of the capitalist system
• The necessity of organized resistance
b) Fundamental differences:
• The state in anarchist anti-fascism is inherently problematic; in Marxist (authoritarian) anti-fascism it is a potential tool of liberation.
• Power in anarchist anti-fascism must be dissolved; in Marxist (authoritarian) anti-fascism it must be seized.
• Organization in anarchist anti-fascism is horizontal and self-managed; in Marxist (authoritarian) anti-fascism it is party-based and centralized (democratic centralism).
• Freedom in anarchist anti-fascism is achieved simultaneously with the struggle; in Marxist (authoritarian) anti-fascism it is postponed until after victory.
• The danger of new fascism in anarchist anti-fascism is reproduced in every form of authority; in Marxist (authoritarian) anti-fascism only in the bourgeoisie.
Therefore anarchists argue that many Marxist anti-fascist regimes, because they preserve the logic of authority, have led to other forms of structural repression.
9 - The experience of the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939)
a) The Spanish Civil War was not merely a war between “Republicans” and “fascists,” but at the same time a social revolution and an anti-fascist struggle. This simultaneity is precisely where the gap between anarchist anti-fascism and statist (Marxist-Stalinist) anti-fascism becomes clearly visible. This experience shows that anarchist anti-fascism is not merely “confronting the enemy,” but building a social alternative in the very moment of struggle. For this reason, the social revolution was not an obstacle to the anti-fascist war, but the condition for its real victory.
b) The split in the anti-fascist camp:
The entry of anarchists into the government, meaning a form of statism against autonomy (self-organization – self-management), is considered a tragedy and one of the most controversial moments in the history of anarcho-syndicalism (revolutionary syndicalism). Because the decision of some pioneers of the “CNT” to join the Republican government in 1936 was the result of the logic of “first victory, then freedom.” The same logic against which Bakunin and Malatesta had previously warned. Of course, later the anarchists acknowledged this dreadful decision and criticized themselves.
c) Repression by the “anti-fascists”
The events of May 1937 in Barcelona and the severe repression of the anarcho-syndicalist and anarchist collectives by the Stalinist communists were the peak of this split. An anti-fascism that suppresses the social revolution ultimately paves the way for the victory of fascism.

The defeat of the Spanish revolution was not only the result of Franco’s military power, but the product of the internal contradiction of the anti-fascist camp and the reproduction of the logic of authority within the struggle. This bitter experience in Spain objectively showed that:
• Bakunin was right; “the anti-fascist state tends to devour the revolution.”
• Kropotkin was right; “mutual aid can be the basis for organizing a complex society.”
• Malatesta was right; “fascism cannot be defeated with the logic of the state.”
• Emma Goldman was right; “without individual and cultural liberation, anti-fascism is empty… Spain was not the proof of anarchism’s ‘naïve idealism,’ but its historical test.”
10 - Final summary and conclusion from the anarcho-syndicalist perspective:
• Fascism is neither a deviation nor an exception, but the extreme of the logic of authority, statism in every form, nationalism, and hierarchy. Therefore, the struggle against fascism without the struggle against these roots will be incomplete and unstable.
• Real anti-fascism is not possible without the critique of the state, capitalism, and the culture of obedience.
• It considers anti-fascism not a tactic, but an existential necessity.
• Not every anti-fascist is necessarily an anarchist, but all real anarchists without exception are anti-fascists.
• For anarchism, anti-fascism is an existential position, but for many others it is a tactical or temporary position.
• The main difference from Marxist anti-fascism is that anarchist anti-fascism does not want to “replace” one state with another state or authority (as the seed of fascism), but wants to remove the conditions of their very possibility.
• Anarchist anti-fascism is simultaneously negative and positive; it both resists and builds, it does not postpone freedom to “after the victory.” These differences distinguish it from liberal-security anti-fascism and Marxist-statist anti-fascism.
• The Spanish Civil War showed that fascism can be stopped from below, but if the logic of authority is reproduced in the anti-fascist camp, its defeat is inevitable. Because the defeat in Spain was not the defeat of “too much freedom,” but the defeat of compromise with authority.
The final goal of anarchist anti-fascism is a society in which fascism no longer has the possibility of emergence. And this is precisely the point where it goes beyond anti-fascism and dissolves it into a more radical project for the abolition of all forms of domination and authority.

TALIBAN DESPOTISM OVER WORKERS AND THE NECESSITY OF LABOR UNIONS IN AFGHANISTAN Author: Rahyab
Five years have passed since the Taliban came to power. During this period, severe political, social, and civil restrictions on the people—especially women—have gradually but steadily increased. Yet alongside political despotism, another form of pressure has also been imposed on society: systematic economic pressure under the name of “order” and “law,” which has targeted workers and small business owners more than anyone else.
These pressures have in practice turned into a tool for extortion and the confiscation of the rights of the toiling classes. Not only do people not benefit from underground resources and national wealth, but through the imposition of strict laws and severe restrictions on work and free economic activity, their daily lives are becoming more difficult with each passing day.
For example, a taxi driver is forced to pay several kinds of taxes and fees. How much he works, or whether he makes any profit at all, is of no concern to the authorities. Even if his income does not cover his expenses, he must still pay the fixed amount; otherwise, no excuse is accepted. The same situation has been imposed on shopkeepers, small traders, butchers, street vendors, truck drivers, tailors, and farmers. Taxes and restrictions are imposed without regard for the people’s economic reality, and the result is nothing but greater pressure on the working classes.
A few days ago, I witnessed a scene that has not left my mind. Municipal officers were collecting the handcarts of street vendors from the roadside—stalls that were perhaps the only source of income for a family. An elderly man, with trembling hands and tearful eyes, was begging, saying that this cart was all he owned; these few items were what enabled him to bring home dry bread for his children at night. But the cold and merciless response was: “It is none of our concern. If you have it, eat; if you don’t, die.”
At that moment, not only a cart, but human dignity was trampled.
This narrative is not an exception; it is part of a recurring reality. The gap between the lives of the rulers and the lives of the citizens is growing deeper every day. The ruler becomes richer, and the subjects poorer.
Alongside all this suffering, there is another fundamental problem: the fragmentation and isolation of the people. The taxi driver is separate from the butcher, the butcher from the farmer, the farmer from the street vendor. Everyone is bent under pressure, but because each is alone, their voice reaches nowhere. This very loneliness is the greatest asset of the oppressors.
If workers and small business owners cannot come together in the form of professional and labor unions, these pressures will continue. The experience of many societies has shown that one of the most effective and civil ways to defend livelihood rights is the creation of independent professional organizations—organizations that can collectively, systematically, and purposefully present the legitimate demands of the people.
In Afghanistan, unfortunately, strong and independent labor and professional unions either do not exist or have not been allowed to operate freely. Under such circumstances, conscious and peaceful professional solidarity can be one of the most important ways to reduce pressure and defend the basic rights of the people. When hundreds of taxi drivers, thousands of street vendors, or dozens of farmers’ associations raise their demands with one voice and through civil methods, it will not be easy to ignore them.
Oppression continues as long as its victims remain scattered. But collective awareness and solidarity can change the balance. No one is capable of change alone, but people together can defend their dignity, their bread, and their right to live—with unity, with organization, and with a clear and humane demand.

Self-Care Guide for Individuals Who Have Experienced Abuse or Violence Due to Their Political Beliefs or Have Been Detained:

1. Your reactions are natural.
Nightmares, anxiety, anger, numbness, or distrust are not signs of weakness; they are your nervous system’s response to prolonged threat.

2. You are not responsible for the violence or harm.
Shame and guilt are common effects of trauma, but full responsibility lies with those who committed the abuse.

3. You do not have to tell your story to be valid.
Whether you choose to share your experience or not is up to you. Being forced to recount it can intensify the trauma.

4. Rebuilding a sense of control is a priority.
Small daily choices (sleep schedule, personal routines, setting boundaries in relationships) help restore a sense of autonomy.

5. An exercise to reconnect with your body.
Slow breathing, gentle movement, contact with nature, and regulating sleep help move the nervous system out of a constant state of alert.

6. If severe symptoms persist for more than a month, seek professional help.
Self-harming thoughts, complete isolation, severe emotional numbness, or uncontrollable aggression require trauma-informed professional intervention.

For family members, friends, and those close to the person:

1. Avoid heroizing or interrogating.
Pressuring someone to tell their story or turning them into a symbol can disrupt the healing process.

2. Do not take behavioral reactions personally.
Irritability, silence, or withdrawal are often nervous system responses to threat—not disrespect.

3. Create safety through consistency.
Keeping promises, avoiding sudden shocks, and respecting personal boundaries help rebuild a sense of safety.

4. Let the person make their own decisions.
Returning to social or political activity should be their informed and voluntary choice.

5. Take warning signs seriously.
Persistent feelings of worthlessness, severe hopelessness, or high-risk behaviors require referral to a specialist.

The Instagram account “Everyday Resistance was blocked due to numerous reports by fascists from the Pahlavi faction.

Even before the so-called “transition period,” before coming to power, they had already begun — by their own admission — eliminating their opponents. One example is this very Instagram account. In some cases, we have witnessed physical eliminations as well, and at their gatherings they promote executions and torture, openly speaking about removing opponents — a process that, in fact, has already begun.

Many accounts on Twitter and Instagram have so far been suspended due to false reporting by fascists from the Pahlavi faction.

This is fascism and one-party, individual authoritarianism.

Fascists have never fought for freedom; they only want to replace other fascists at the top of power in order to repress and exploit. They want another segment of society to be oppressed.

For this reason, they eliminate their opponents by any means possible, because they have neither argument nor logic, and all historical documents stand against them.

The media outlet “Everyday Resistance” worked with all its strength to expose documents about the crimes of the Pahlavis and to fight fascism. We have also witnessed members of this fascist faction, at their gatherings and in online spaces, threatening opponents with rape and death.

Many activists opposed to the Pahlavis have been threatened with rape and death through phone calls, messages sent to various online accounts, during gatherings, and in different videos circulated by this fascist faction.

Among them are Narges Mohammadi, Shadi Amin, and several other activists.

We will stand with all our strength against every form of fascism and against all enemies of the people until the very last moment.

Woman, Life, Freedom
Bread, Work, Freedom

The Instagram account Everyday Resistance was blocked — before the referendum and the transition. Salutations to all those who reported it and to the supporters of the “Lion and Sun” revolution.

This is one of the last messages published by the Everyday Resistance page.

It was an Instagram page whose activists wrote in criticism of and opposition to both the Islamic Republic and the Pahlavi monarchy.

Today, the Pahlavis hold what they possess: a concentration of economic and symbolic power and, consequently, media power.

With what they have — their media — they chant slogans such as “death to leftists,” and their supporters attack other political and cultural institutions, stealing their right to freedom of expression.

Tomorrow, if they were to control weapons and Iran’s economic system, they would take away the right to life of dissenters and the entirety of social and political freedoms.

This is the relationship between the monarchy, the supporters of the Pahlavis, and freedom.

We are not merely opposed to the enemies of freedom.
We are opposed to such a will.

For our lives, our freedom, and our home, we have fought, we are fighting, and we will continue to fight.

Woman, Life, Freedom

Anarchist Front

🔴 Continued Detention of a Student

“Diana Taherabadi,” a 16-year-old student from Karaj, has been detained since January 25 and is currently being held in the juvenile correctional facility section of Kachouei Prison.

Informed sources say that around 8 a.m., officers raided Diana’s family home and took her away.

During her last phone call with her family on February 19, she said she was going to be taken to the Forensic Medicine Organization to obtain a certificate of “mental maturity.”

Diana’s family has succeeded in appointing their lawyer to handle her case.

According to follow-ups by the lawyer, judicial authorities have stated that within the next 20 days, a summons regarding the establishment of a Juvenile Court to address the charges against Diana will be sent to her family.

Dozens of children and teenagers were arrested during the detentions that followed the large-scale killing of protesters in Iran on January 7 and 8, 2026, and are being held in unclear conditions.

Source: IranWire

A Comprehensive Analysis of the Current and Future Political–Social Situation of Iran from an Anarchist Perspective
Research by Hasse-Nima Golkar
Given the confusion and lack of planning among the various republican and socialist leftist forces inside and outside Iran, can the expansion and intensification of monarchist activities under the leadership of Reza Pahlavi — and the use of coercion and verbal abuse by most of his supporters against any criticism and opposition to the monarchical system — as well as their access to the propaganda machinery of various mainstream Persian-language media, with the assistance — especially — of the current United States government under the leadership of Donald Trump and the alignment of the current Israeli government under the leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu, make the rise to power of Reza Pahlavi possible?
In the hypothetical case of Reza Pahlavi coming to power, despite the opposition of anarchists and the majority of democratic political forces and ethnic communities opposed to monarchy, what possible scenarios could influence Iran’s future political–social situation?
1. Can media concentration, foreign support, and greater cohesion among monarchists increase the chances of Reza Pahlavi gaining power?
a) The role of the main actors, including Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu
If we look purely from the perspective of “discursive and organizational competition,” and consider the relative advantages of the monarchists in the context of the fragmentation of the republican left — whose theoretical and organizational weaknesses are evident — several factors may operate in favor of this authoritarian current:
• Concentrated leadership and a unified message in times of crisis: forces with a specific symbolic figure usually have a faster mobilization capacity than others.
• Access to high-audience media is a tool for producing an “image of power.” This does not necessarily mean a “real social base,” but it can create a “constructed atmosphere.”
• Support or alignment of foreign governments in international politics and “legitimacy” can provide financial resources, platforms, and diplomatic networks. However, in the case of Iran this is a double-edged sword, because the historical sensitivity toward “foreign intervention” is very high and can reduce “domestic legitimacy.”
Even if all of the above come together, real political power in Iran also depends on other factors. Major limitations exist within the transformation of the current power structure; without a split in the armed forces and the bureaucracy, a transfer of power becomes extremely difficult.
b) The social base, especially inside the country
Diaspora media, civil–social organizations, workers’ strikes and other subaltern groups, democratic councils, and local–regional networks are also decisive.
Acceptance among the diverse opposition forces in a transitional period is essential; no single-person current can create stability on its own. Therefore, media concentration and foreign support can increase “discursive weight,” but are not sufficient by themselves for coming to power.
If we assume the hypothetical rise of monarchists under the sole leadership chance of Reza Pahlavi and the opposition of a large part of political–social groups and ethnic communities, at least four possible scenarios can be outlined:
Scenario 1: Centralized transition with high tension
• A strong central government and popular opposition in peripheral ethnic regions
• Possibility of civil disobedience, demands for self-rule, and security instability
Scenario 2: Federal compromise / decentralization
• Redistribution of power to each region
• Recognition of political–social and linguistic–cultural rights
• Reduction of tension and reduction of central power concentration
Scenario 3: Cycle of authoritarianism
• Concentration of power in order to “preserve territorial integrity”
• Restriction of the political–social sphere
• Reproduction of the centralized state model (regardless of the form of government)