Ayıq Ellər آییق ائللر

Confrontation of the Azerbaijan-Centered Turk Thinking System

with the Iran-Centered Persian Thinking System

Umud Duzgun

Introduction

The systems and methods of human thought profoundly influence the formation of individual and collective behavior. Extensive psychological research has been conducted on the diversity and mechanisms of human cognition, yielding numerous scientific perspectives on the methods and systems of individual and group thinking. Considering these various cognitive systems, this article investigates the ideological structure, political nature, methodologies, and characteristics of the Iran-centered thinking system over the past century. It critically examines the severe political repercussions of this system on non-Persian peoples—particularly the Azerbaijani Turks—and contrasts it with the Azerbaijan-centered thinking system. Finally, it underscores the necessity for the revival and consolidation of the Azerbaijan-centered thinking system (hereafter referred to as the Azerbaijan-Centered Turk Thought System) within the collective consciousness of the South Azerbaijani Turks.¹

The Azerbaijani Turk nation, with a millennium of statehood rooted in a shared collective memory, possesses a distinctive cognitive system of its own. Historically, the Azerbaijan-centered thinking system prevailed across various scales within Azerbaijani lands and territories inhabited by Azerbaijan Turks. However, following the English-backed coup of Seyyed Zia and Reza Mirpanj in 1920 (1299 Hijri Shamsi) and the consequent fall of the Turkic Qajar dynasty, the British government, through its mercenary agents—principally the Persian elite and the so-called mankurts (traitorous collaborators)—implemented a premeditated project aimed at restructuring sovereignty in Iran. This endeavor succeeded in supplanting the Azerbaijan-centered thinking system (Turkish majority) with the Iran-centered thinking system (Persian minority).

To entrench this system, the Persian minority government—hostile to the Turkic political elite—pursued a comprehensive policy of eradicating Turkish political influence, promoting the Iran-centered (Persian) cognitive framework, banning the Turkish language, imposing Persian, distorting history, destroying cultural and historical artifacts related to the Azerbaijani Turkic empire, and implementing other discriminatory measures. These actions inflicted profound damage on the Azerbaijan-centered (Turk) thinking system. Therefore, an understanding of the Iran-centered (Persian) thinking system’s nature is essential to grasp the depth and ramifications of this issue.

The Nature of the Iran-Centered (Persian) Thinking System

The Iran-centered thinking system is fundamentally racist and fascist in nature. It is founded on an extremist form of Persian nationalism intertwined with the Shiite Shu’ubiyya ideology. This system operates through racial hatred, ethnic cleansing, identity eradication, cultural and linguistic genocide, forced demographic changes, assimilation, and unification of non-Persian peoples. Its ultimate objective is the revival of a mythic ancient Persian empire and the establishment of an imagined global hegemony.

This ideology also draws from the discredited Nazi notion of Aryan racial superiority, territorial imperialism, and Persian cultural and linguistic chauvinism. Over the past century, backed by foreign colonial powers, this ideology has been systematically implemented by the Persian minority regime ruling Iran under the guise of national unity, encapsulated in slogans such as “one country, one nation, one identity, and one language.” This ideological framework goes by various names, including Pan-Iranism, Pan-Persianism, the Iran-Shahr school, and is propagated by factions across the political spectrum—right, left, and national-religious alike—all espousing the same fascist, racist Persian doctrines. These factions perpetuate their agenda through systematic lies, distortion, and falsification of history.²

Methods and Characteristics of the Iran-Centered (Persian) Thinking System

Imposition of Racist Theories:
The system fabricates artificial identities for the Azerbaijani Turks by falsifying historical and linguistic facts. It propagates the narrative that Azerbaijani Turks are not truly Turks but Aryans who originally spoke Persian, later “corrupted” by Mongol influence. It insists that their language was not Turkish but a derivative of ancient Persian or Azeri, denying their Turkish ethnic identity. This fabricated ideology is disseminated through educational institutions and mass media.
Institutionalized Second- and Third-Class Citizenship:
The system enforces systemic discrimination by monopolizing wealth, political power, and key governmental positions within the Persian minority elite, systematically excluding Turks from decision-making roles and portraying them as foreign migrants from Mongolia.
Denial of Persian Ethnicity:
Though a minority, Persians assert ethnic superiority by denying the existence of a distinct Persian ethnicity, instead coining the inclusive “Iranian” identity to subsume all ethnicities under Persian cultural hegemony.
Ethnic Hatred and Stereotyping:
Turks are derogatorily depicted as uncivilized invaders and servants of Persians, indebted to Persian rule for their civilization.
Denial of Turkish Identity:
The Azerbaijani Turks’ identity is denied, reduced to one among many minor tribes within Iran, positioned only as border guardians with no legitimate political status.
Imposition of Persian Identity:
The system enforces the Indian-Tajik (Dari-Persian) identity upon the population under the false umbrella of a shared “Iranian” identity.
Imposition of the Dari-Persian Language:
The sterile, heavily Arabicized Dari-Persian language—over 80% of its vocabulary is non-Persian—is imposed as the official language.
Systematic Imposition of Persian Culture:
Persian-specific customs, holidays, and rituals (e.g., Uncle Nowruz, Omar Killing Day, Sizdeh Bedar), as well as Persian music and dance forms falsely labeled “Iranian,” are imposed on non-Persians.
Institutionalized Humiliation of Turkish Culture:
The Turkish language and culture are demeaned in official Persian media through mockery, denigration in literature, poetry, films, cartoons, and television, and by attributing inferior roles to Turkic characters.
Destruction or Appropriation of Turkish Historical and Cultural Heritage:
Architectural, scientific, and artistic legacies of the Turkish peoples are either destroyed or appropriated under Persian authorship. Traditional Turkish melodies, dances, customs, proverbs, carpet art, and cuisine are plagiarized and falsely claimed as Persian or Iranian.
Historical Falsification:
A fabricated Persian ancient history is promulgated while the history and accomplishments of Azerbaijani Turks are denied or attributed to Persians.
Hostility toward the Name and Existence of Azerbaijan:
The territory historically known as Azerbaijan is divided into provinces with Persian names; Turkish place names are replaced with Persian ones. Notably, West Azerbaijan province is renamed “Urmia,” governed by non-native Kurdish officials, and supported by Kurdish immigrant populations and terrorist groups with territorial ambitions. The Iranian government’s cyber networks actively promote hostility against Azerbaijan’s name and heritage.³
Environmental and Demographic Engineering:
Deliberate environmental degradation (e.g., drying Lake Urmia, deforestation of Qaradagh) is used to undermine the local economy and force migration. Kurdish immigration is encouraged to sever land connectivity between South Azerbaijani Turks and their kin in Turkey and North Azerbaijan.
Economic Exploitation:
Azerbaijani resources such as gold and copper are extracted and transferred to Persian-speaking regions, while underinvestment impoverishes the Azerbaijani population, driving forced migration and depopulation to fulfill Persian-centric fascist goals.
Destruction of Azerbaijani Myths and National Spirit:
The regime attacks the fighters and national myths of Azerbaijan Turks, undermining their cultural foundations, collective courage, and spirit of resistance.⁴

The Iran-Centered (Persian) Thinking System’s Instrumentalization of Religion and Political Concepts

The Iran-centered Persian thinking system distorts universal concepts such as religion, ideology, democracy, and secularism to legitimize its discriminatory policies. It manipulates these concepts, presenting self-serving definitions to justify fascist actions—invoking threats to Islam, global communism, or the unity of the working class to dismiss minority cultural and linguistic demands. Despite empty promises of democracy, the regime refuses to acknowledge the rights of non-Persian nations, even on paper.

Consequently, all Persian political factions operating within the framework of the Iran-centered system—whether ruling parties (Principlists, Reformists) or opposition groups (National-Religious, Freedom Movement, Mojahedin Khalq, Monarchists, National Front, Tudeh Party, Fedayi, and communists)—instrumentalize religion, ideology, democracy, and secularism to advance Pan-Persianism and suppress non-Persian peoples, especially the Azerbaijani Turks.⁵

Part 2: The Azerbaijan-Centered Turkic Thought System

Foundations of the Thought System

The Azerbaijan-centered Turkic thought system is rooted in five key pillars:

Identity: Azerbaijani Turkic identity as a core pole of the Turkic world.
Language: Azerbaijani Turkic language as the cognitive and cultural vehicle shaping worldview, traditions, and collective wisdom.
History: A thousand-year historical continuity of rule and cultural development centered in the Azerbaijani homeland.
Geography: The historical territorial core of Azerbaijan, with Tabriz as the political and cultural center.
Political Power: Emergence of a political elite from the same cultural, linguistic, and geographic base, reinforcing the system’s legitimacy and strength.

Historical Evolution

The thought system can be traced back to ancient Atropatene during the Median and Alexander the Great period — the cradle of independent statehood in historical Azerbaijan.
Various states and empires exemplify this Azerbaijan-centered thinking:
- Babak Khorramdin’s resistance (9th century) was an early embodiment of Azerbaijani-centered political and cultural identity.
- Safavid Empire originated in Azerbaijan but declined due to Persian-shuubi infiltration.
- Afsharid Empire restored Azerbaijani-centered authority under Nader Shah.
- Zand Dynasty represented a Persian-shuubi Iran-centered interruption.
- Qajar Empire initially revived the Azerbaijan-centered system but ultimately succumbed to Persian influence, culminating in territorial losses and weakening of Azerbaijani dominance.
The Constitutional Revolution marked a direct confrontation between Azerbaijan-centered and Persian-centered thought.
The collapse of the Qajar Empire and rise of the Pahlavi regime further entrenched Persian centralism and undermined Azerbaijani autonomy.
On the northern side of the Aras River, Azerbaijan experienced independent national government periods under leaders like Rasulzadeh, Pishevari, and Elchibey, each reaffirming Azerbaijan-centered thought.

Post-Ottoman and Pahlavi Contexts

Unlike the Ottoman Turks, who transitioned to a democratic republic after imperial collapse, the Qajar Turks lost power to British colonial influence and Persian fascism under Reza Khan.
Despite some hopes among Azerbaijani elites for political influence within Iran, repressive policies and forced Persianization led to a growing national liberation movement focused on establishing a self-governed Azerbaijan.
The 1945 National Government of Azerbaijan was a democratic and decentralized experiment opposing Persian centralism, but was crushed.
The Pahlavi period intensified assimilation, repressions, and economic marginalization, causing intellectual and capital flight.

Contemporary Mental Structures: Dual Thought System and Other-Centeredness

Many Southern Azerbaijani Turks were historically trapped in a dual thought system, torn between Azerbaijan-centered identity and Persian-centered Iranist dominance.
This duality led to compromises and limited national demands, often restricted to minor cultural concessions such as limited Turkish language education.
Some factions still operate within Persian-centered frameworks or act as regime proxies to dilute the national movement.
The national movement now rejects this duality, emphasizing an independent, systemic Azerbaijan-centered worldview that unites identity, culture, language, and political aspiration.

Features of the Azerbaijan-Centered Turkic Thought System

Identity: Turk of Azerbaijan
Language: Azerbaijani Turkic
History: Millennia-old Azerbaijani Turkic heritage
National Myths and Symbols: Figures like Babak, Sattar Khan, Khiyabani, Pishevari, and contemporary martyrs
Homeland: United Azerbaijan, centered in Tabriz
Geography: Historical Azerbaijani lands
Theory: Political strategy and goals grounded in Azerbaijan-centered thought
Political Power: Struggle for sovereignty linked to historical and modern Azerbaijani statehood

Part 3: The Phenomenon of Other-Centeredness Among South Azerbaijani Turks

In multiethnic states, other-centeredness arises from sociological and psychological dynamics.
Despite being a majority and having a rich ruling history, Azerbaijani Turks in Iran exhibit a high degree of other-centeredness, unlike minority groups with autonomous states (e.g., Quebecois, Catalans).
This is primarily due to:
- Prohibition of education in the mother tongue, replaced by Persian, causing cognitive and cultural dislocation.
- Linguistic determinism: Persian language education shifts thinking patterns away from Azerbaijani self-centeredness toward Persian-centered frameworks.
The national movement counters this by promoting Azerbaijan-centered thought through free media, satellite TV, internet, and social networks, penetrating even heavily Persianized populations in Tehran, Karaj, and isolated Azerbaijani communities.
The national movement frames Azerbaijan as the “qibla” (spiritual direction) for Turkish thought and identity.

Part Three:

The Phenomenon of Other-Centeredness among the Turks of South Azerbaijan

In multi-ethnic societies, the formation of mental “other-centeredness” among individuals and groups can be examined from both sociological and psychological perspectives. However, the tendency toward “other-centeredness” differs significantly between various minority and majority groups depending on their socio-political and cultural conditions. For instance, among the Quebecois in Canada and the Catalans in Spain—both minorities with strong national institutions and education in their mother tongue at all levels—this tendency is close to zero. In contrast, despite being a demographic majority with a thousand-year ruling history, the Azerbaijanis in Iran exhibit a very high level of “other-centeredness.” This is largely due to the lack of a national state and the prohibition of education in their mother language.

Moreover, the suppression and non-use of the Turkish mother tongue, replaced forcibly by Persian, have not only slowed the transmission of language and cultural identity among Azerbaijanis but also impaired their cognitive abilities related to independent thought. Since each language provides a unique framework for interpreting the world, Azerbaijanis educated primarily in Persian have developed a dual and unstable mode of thinking. The cognitive center of gravity for many Persian-educated Azerbaijani Turks has shifted away from self-identity towards a non-self, Persian-centric worldview. This phenomenon aligns with the concept of linguistic determinism, where language shapes cognition and worldview. Consequently, the imposed Persian language has unconsciously aligned many Azerbaijani Turks’ thought patterns with the Tehran-centered, Persian national ideology.

In response to this alienation and “non-self” mentality, which frames Azerbaijani Turks as rootless, landless, or as a peripheral “Fazeri” group or a mere Turk tribe of Iran, the national movement of Azerbaijan has, over the last three decades, proposed a return to a self-centered, Azerbaijan-focused cognitive framework—the “Azerbaijan-centered Turk thought system.” Despite strict prohibitions, repression, and censorship, national activists have utilized free media—satellite channels, internet, and social networks—to break the Persian regime’s information blockade. Through cultural, educational, and political efforts, they have established the “Turkish” Azerbaijan-centered thought as a clear alternative to the Persian Iran-centered paradigm.

Interestingly, the first and second generations of Azerbaijani Turks living under the dominant Persian cultural umbrella in Tehran and Karaj, despite severe assimilation pressures, demonstrate an increasing tendency toward the Azerbaijan-centered Turk thought. Even Azerbaijani Turks residing in isolated enclaves beyond the contiguous Azerbaijani territory, such as in Isfahan province, northern Khorasan, and Qashqai regions—where Persian thought dominates fully—embrace the national movement’s discourse and regard Azerbaijan as the spiritual “qibla” (direction) of their thought. This is because they perceive the destructive effects of Persian-centric fascism more acutely than those in majority-Turkish cities.

Revealing and Rejecting the Old Distorted Thought About the Azerbaijan Issue

A significant deception propagated by Persian fascism, often via Azerbaijani collaborators in Persian communist parties such as the Tudeh Party and Fadaiyan, was the narrative of “national oppression” and “elimination of national discrimination.” This narrative, prevalent until the late 1980s, aimed not to resolve the Azerbaijan issue fundamentally but to reduce it to a mere question of minority rights or social discrimination—akin to addressing the needs of physically disabled people—thus trivializing it.

Following the defeat of the National Government in 1946, the forced merger of the Azerbaijan Democratic Party into the Tudeh Party, the assassination of martyr Pishavari by the KGB, and the suppression of the national salvation movement abroad, the Persian Iran-centered communists adopted a seemingly softer stance. They portrayed themselves as defenders of Azerbaijani Turks’ rights, while simultaneously covering up mass killings—estimated at 25,000 to 30,000 victims—and collaborating with the Pahlavi regime. Their declarations about fighting discrimination and “national oppression” served to shrink the national struggle and control its activists. This manipulation diverted the nation’s fight from reclaiming sovereignty and justice to a limited struggle for cultural accommodations under the existing regime.

At the behest of their Moscow and Tehran masters, the Persian Iran-centered communists consigned Azerbaijani activists to the basements of the Tudeh and Fadaiyan parties, urging them to fight for minor reforms under slogans of Lenin and Stalin’s legacy. This deception resulted in a generation of Azerbaijani Stalinist-trained, brainwashed pan-Iranists who, during the 1979 revolution, largely abandoned the national cause, instead supporting Khomeini’s regime and Article 110 of the Velayat-e-Faqih. By opposing indigenous Muslim people’s movements in Azerbaijan, they actively collaborated in suppressing their own nation under the guise of anti-imperialism.

In contrast, the Azerbaijan-centered Turk thought and its independent national movement in the last three decades have exposed these frauds, demonstrating that the Azerbaijan national issue transcends mere demands for literacy classes in Turkish or the elimination of “minor national oppression.” The Azerbaijan issue is existential—“a struggle for survival or extinction”—and fundamentally political. Its only resolution lies in a comprehensive political struggle to expel the fascist Persian minority regime from the historical Azerbaijani lands. Given that the destruction of South Azerbaijan’s identity, language, and economy is a century-old deliberate project, the sole way to halt it is through the establishment of an independent South Azerbaijani national state.*10

Intensification of Regime Attacks and Change of Theoretical Warfare Tactics

Over the past decade, the Persian minority regime has intensified discrimination and repression against Azerbaijanis, while simultaneously escalating its theoretical warfare against the Azerbaijan-centered thought. Persian media, universities, and Aryan fascist ideologues have been empowered with multi-billion-dollar budgets to advance campaigns promoting the “Persian language,” expanding the “Persian-Shiite Shuubiya Crescent,” and embedding the “Iranian civilization domain.” These efforts give rise to fascist-Aryan currents operating under the softened label of the “Iran-shahri thought current.”*11

Facing growing national consciousness among Azerbaijani Turks and the ineffectiveness of the Persian Iran-centered thought system, the regime shifted tactics. It exploited heavily assimilated, self-defeated Azerbaijanis and mercenary collaborators to form parallel networks intended to derail the Azerbaijan-centered Turk thought system from within. This “Azeri network”—composed of half-Azerbaijanis, mankurtized individuals, Armenians, Persian-speaking Turks, and regime-paid mercenaries—worked alongside deceptive reformist currents and IRGC cyber networks. Despite substantial resources, these efforts failed to derail the national discourse and, in some instances, were forced into tactical retreats, softening their fascist rhetoric.*11

Final Word

The two thought systems—Azerbaijan-centered Turk thought and Persian Iran-centered thought—are fundamentally opposed and locked in an ongoing, full-scale ideological conflict across political, cultural, and economic spheres. The Persian Iran-centered thought system is fascist, anti-Turk, and non-independent, operating in coordination with global powers to preserve the status quo. It employs both aggressive and deceptive soft methods to maintain control.

Conversely, the Azerbaijan-centered Turk thought system is civil, democratic, and employs diverse thinking methods—including creative, critical, and abstract approaches—to address issues systematically and comprehensively. Rooted in national cohesion and alignment with the broader Turkic world, it resists Persian fascism and has institutionalized a national discourse based on its principles. The movement continues its struggle toward independence and self-determination.*12

Footnotes
10 Historical context on the century-long policy of cultural and political suppression of South Azerbaijan.
11 Details on the regime’s budget allocations and ideological campaigns to promote Persian cultural dominance.
12 Analysis of the ideological foundations and strategic vision of the Azerbaijan-centered Turk thought system.

The End.

Appendix: Additional and Updated Reflections

To avoid lengthening the main text, this appendix presents supplementary discussions relevant to the themes explored.

Class and Sectoral Struggles and the Azerbaijan Central Thought

Historically, political struggles have generally centered around three primary axes: first, defense against external enemies; second, the pursuit of political power; and third, the fight to reclaim lost rights and national demands. Alongside these, there have been persistent sectoral and class struggles — peasants versus landlords, workers versus employers, guilds against municipal and state institutions. In contemporary times, movements for equality among religious and ethnic groups, anti-apartheid women’s movements, student and employee labor movements, environmental activism, and advocacy for children’s rights, persons with disabilities, refugees, migrants, and animal rights have emerged and continue to develop.

The national movement of Azerbaijan is fundamentally a political and civil movement, encompassing all these class and sectoral struggles, unified under the core objective of securing national rights and achieving political sovereignty through the establishment of an independent national state. It proceeds through pluralism and broad participation across all societal groups.

Opponents of the Azerbaijani national movement, relying on the centralized Persian-Iranian ideological framework, covertly attempt to fragment this movement by reducing it to mere class or sectoral grievances, and by linking it artificially to broader Persian or Iranian currents. In other words, through deception, they seek to isolate workers’, women’s, and other sectoral protests from the main national movement, aiming to divide and weaken popular solidarity.

Fortunately, the Azerbaijani Turkic intellectual and political framework has thoroughly exposed this stratagem. It emphasizes the equal and essential role of women in all arenas, underscores pluralism and inclusivity, and regards all sectoral and justice-seeking struggles as integral parts of the national movement—each acting as vital limbs and driving forces within the broader body of national resistance.

Examples of sectoral movements within Azerbaijan’s national framework include but are not limited to:

The Azerbaijani Workers’ Movement
The Azerbaijani Women’s Movement
The Azerbaijani Student Movement
The Azerbaijani Environmental Movement

…and others.

The Misuse of Academic Discourse to Manipulate Public Opinion

The Persian-centric Iranian intellectual establishment, rooted in institutions such as SAVAK, SAVAMA, governmental research centers, and universities, often designs anti-Turkic and anti-Azerbaijani ideological narratives. These narratives are disseminated through official media channels, compromised individuals, parallel groups, and some Azerbaijani figures superficially aligned with national demands but ultimately affiliated with the Iranian regime or Pan-Iranian nationalist factions.

Mischaracterizing the Social Base of the National Movement

While academic, political, psychological, and sociological analyses are essential for understanding and diagnosing the national movement, their misuse to belittle or delegitimize its achievements and potential is a form of deliberate bias. For instance, some sociologists claim that the national movement is primarily a phenomenon of the urban poor and migrants from rural Qaradagh, who allegedly lack education and have failed to extend the movement into the middle class.

Such assertions, based on speculation rather than empirical data—particularly in a closed, securitized society—are scientifically unfounded. In reality, the movement includes university students, educated industrial workers, private entrepreneurs, healthcare professionals, media personnel, journalists, and a significant portion of merchants and guild members who belong to the middle and even upper social classes. Each participates in the movement in accordance with their social and professional status.

Thus, the national movement advances through pluralism and broad societal engagement. Dividing it artificially into urban vs. rural, lower vs. middle or upper classes, absent concrete evidence, serves only ideological agendas and lacks scientific validity.

Reinterpreting Historical National Movements: Refuting Pessimism

A pessimistic interpretation by some historians, claiming that Azerbaijani national movements over the past century were merely superficial reflections of individual leaders’ personal ambitions, misrepresents the movement’s reality. Contrary to such defeatism, the modern Azerbaijani national movement is dynamic, self-reliant, and rooted firmly in its people.

Unlike past movements, the current national movement is neither a party that can be dissolved, nor dependent on foreign governments or singular personalities. It originated organically through the efforts of Azerbaijani Turkic intellectuals and students, growing into a broad-based, pluralistic civil movement, which will continue until ultimate victory and the establishment of a national government.

Language and Identity: Addressing Myths and Misconceptions

Some proponents have inflated claims about the antiquity and transregional influence of the Azerbaijani Turkic language, arguing for millennia-old usage and pervasive influence even on Persian and Arabic. While such claims may intend to elevate the language’s status, they often paradoxically argue against the necessity of education and official recognition in the Azerbaijani language, reflecting inconsistency in nationalist discourse.

Fear-Mongering and Manufactured Doubts

The Persian-centric ideological system spreads fear and suspicion by projecting its own insecurities onto Azerbaijani society, sometimes manipulating the words of naïve Azerbaijani individuals to further sow discord. For example, claims about an imminent post-oil economic collapse are juxtaposed against the fact that South Azerbaijan itself possesses rich natural resources such as oil, gas, gold, and copper.

Political Alignments and Internal Divisions

Since the 1979 revolution, some Azerbaijani groups, fearing more extreme nationalist factions, have aligned with reformist elements within the Iranian political system—sometimes inadvertently obstructing the national movement. For instance, certain Azerbaijani supporters of a federal Iran have advocated relinquishing core national demands to maintain Iranian territorial integrity and avoid conflict with various ideological and militant groups hostile to Azerbaijani self-determination.

However, the people’s recent protest slogans—rejecting all forms of authoritarianism—underscore a clear commitment to “Freedom, Justice, and National Government,” independent of factional affiliations.

Fragmenting the Azerbaijani Nation: Misguided Divisions

Attempts to divide the Azerbaijani nation into regional or political subgroups—such as separating Azerbaijani Turks of West Azerbaijan, East Azerbaijan, Ardabil, and Zanjan from those living outside these provinces—have been employed to weaken national unity. Similar efforts fragment the national movement by imposing distinctions between the Azerbaijani national movement and the broader Turkish Iranian movement, or by downplaying strategic slogans of Azerbaijani-Turkish solidarity with Northern Azerbaijan and Turkey.

Such divisions, often propagated with distortion of slogans and terms, lack historical and political foundation and serve to confuse and dilute the movement.

The “Ruling Nation” vs. the “Subjugated Nation”

A particularly pernicious narrative posits the Azerbaijani Turks as a “subjugated nation” within Iran, permanently subordinate to the “ruling Persian nation,” and urges the Azerbaijani people to abandon most of their legitimate demands to preserve Iran’s territorial integrity and Persian hegemony. This discourse perpetuates inequality and undermines the prospects for peaceful coexistence based on mutual respect and justice.

The Baseless Labeling of Fascism Within the National Movement

The Bozqurd (Gray Wolf) symbol, widely embraced by Azerbaijani nationalists and sports fans, has been targeted by communist and leftist factions rooted in Persian political groups. These factions falsely accuse the movement of fascism, despite the absence of any violent extremism, even after 15 years of peaceful civic activism.

Such accusations reflect political opportunism rather than reality, as evidenced by the movement’s continued strength and civility.

Misappropriation of Political Labels by “Researchers”

Some self-styled sociologists and political scientists, affiliated with the Persian-Iranian ideological framework, attempt to categorize the national movement into contradictory factions such as “right-wing,” “left-wing,” and “fascist.” This oversimplification ignores historical realities, including the violent repression by Leninist and Stalinist regimes against Azerbaijan’s early democratic republic and intellectuals.

The Futility of Dismissing Ethnic and National Issues

Certain Persian intellectuals, overwhelmed by globalization rhetoric, dismiss ethnic and national issues as “obsolete.” This stance disregards the concrete realities and grievances of non-Persian peoples within Iran. Azerbaijani intellectuals remain vigilant against such denialism and continue to advocate for recognition and justice.

Feminism and Women’s Rights in Azerbaijan

Women have been central and leading participants in the Azerbaijani national movement. Gender discrimination in Azerbaijan largely stems from religious and political repression rather than cultural tradition. Historically, Azerbaijani culture has celebrated and respected women, as reflected in folklore such as the “Dede Korkut” epic, where women hold honored and sacred positions.

will continue....

final Edit need...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes:

In Problem solving do not adopt or use the opponent method of thinking or thoughts

When facing an opponent or adversary, particularly in situations like negotiations or conflict resolution, whose actions seem to consistently result in outcomes favoring them and potentially disadvantaging you, it's crucial to understand their system of thinking and develop strategies to counteract it. This involves a combination of understanding their motivations, anticipating their moves, employing counter-tactics, and maintaining a strong focus on your own objectives

Counteracting adversarial thinking that leads to unfavorable outcomes

1. Understanding the Adversary

Motivation: Delve deep into why your adversary is acting the way they are. Are they driven by personal gain, ideological beliefs, or organizational pressures? Understanding their core interests allows for more effective bargaining and counter-strategy formulation.
Behavioral Analysis: Study their past actions and decision-making patterns. Identify consistent behaviors, psychological traits, and cultural influences that inform their approach.
Intelligence Gathering: Utilize all available information sources – from direct observation (human intelligence or HUMINT) to analyzing communications (signals intelligence or SIGINT) and publicly available data (open source intelligence or OSINT) to build a comprehensive picture of their methods and objectives.
Recognizing Manipulation: Be vigilant for manipulative tactics such as gaslighting, blame-shifting, playing the victim, using guilt trips, or resorting to ultimatums. Being aware of these tactics makes you less susceptible to their influence.
2. Strategic counter-maneuvers

Anticipation and Preparedness: Predict likely moves based on your understanding of their motivations and previous behavior. Don't be caught off guard.
Exploiting Weaknesses: Identify and capitalize on vulnerabilities, whether psychological, operational, or logistical, which can be uncovered by knowing what drives the adversary.
Counter-Tactics: Familiarize yourself with common negotiation and adversarial tactics, like deadlines, competition creation, or good cop/bad cop, and learn to neutralize them.
Maintain Focus and Calmness: Don't let their tactics or intimidating style distract you from your objectives. Remain calm and rational, particularly during tense moments.
Assertion and Respect: While maintaining assertiveness and holding your ground, always strive for constructive dialogue and respectful communication.
3. Communication and diplomacy

Active Listening: Pay close attention to their verbal and nonverbal cues to understand their underlying concerns and potential areas for common ground.
Framing and Reframing: Present issues and solutions from a fresh perspective to potentially shift the focus towards mutually beneficial outcomes.
Putting Your Needs in Their Words: Express your needs and goals in a way that aligns with their motivations or perceived benefits.
Seeking Common Ground: Look for shared interests or objectives that could form the basis for a collaborative solution.
Empathy and Understanding: Try to see the situation from their point of view. Acknowledging their feelings, even if you disagree with them, can help de-escalate tension and open pathways for resolution.
4. Building leverage and support

Building Allies: Nurture relationships with individuals or groups who can support your position or provide alternative perspectives.
Leverage Identification: Highlight your strengths, resources, and unique contributions that address the adversary's needs.
BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement): Develop alternative options and strategies in case an agreement with the adversary proves impossible or unfavorable.

5. Setting boundaries and seeking help

Establishing Clear Boundaries: Be firm about your non-negotiables and communicate these limits clearly.
Knowing When to Walk Away: Recognize when a situation or negotiation is unproductive or potentially harmful and disengage if necessary.
Seeking Mediation or Third-Party Involvement: If direct communication and negotiation fail, consider bringing in a neutral mediator to facilitate the discussion and assist in finding a resolution.
In conclusion, addressing an adversary's thinking that leads to unfavorable outcomes requires a comprehensive approach. This involves understanding their motivations, anticipating their actions, employing strategic counter-maneuvers, and potentially involving third-party assistance to navigate the situation and achieve a positive outcome