By Oksana Didyk

The horrific terrorist attack on civilians during the ceremony commemorating the death of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) General Qasem Soleimani in the Iranian city of Kerman on January 3, 2024, resulting in at least 84 deaths and over 280 wounded, has reignited discussion both in mass media and across various social media platforms. The deadly blasts – since claimed by the Islamic State (ISIS) group – have prompted a revisitation of Soleimani’s complex legacy, which remains subject to diverse opinions within Iran and abroad three years after he was assassinated on the orders of US President Donald Trump.

Within Iran’s intricate political and social landscape, characterised by various and shifting allegiances and perspectives influenced by political ideologies, religious beliefs, socioeconomic backgrounds, and individual experiences, Soleimani was notably favoured among specific population segments; those who support the Islamic Republic’s regional policies often regarded him as pivotal in countering perceived external threats. However, beyond just those loyal to the regime, many ordinary Iranians, including those with secular views, appreciated Soleimani for his role in confronting ISIS in Iraq and Syria, as well what they believed were efforts to protect Iran from becoming the next target for ISIS. 

Of course, many Iranians, notably more secular individuals critical of their government, did harbour reservations about his legacy despite his image of defending the country from terrorism. Concerns were raised about his involvement in supporting proxy groups, allegations of human rights abuses, and apprehensions regarding Iran’s regional influence and participation in conflicts.

In the aftermath of his death in January 2020, the public response was nuanced. Speculation about a potential “unification of Muslims” around the figure of Soleimani, both during his life and after his death, fuelled discussion about the extent of his popularity and the possible geopolitical changes which could result from it. However, subsequent expert assessments suggested that, despite his strategic vision, Soleimani might not have been seen as a significant political figure in the region after all.  While acknowledged for his role spreading Iranian ideological and strategic influence in the Islamic world through proxy militants, he was, first and foremost, a military general, not a political leader.

In fact, Soleimani’s heightened visibility within and outside Iran partly resulted from the attention he received from the United States, notably from then President of the United States, Donald Trump. Persistent rumours about US plans to assassinate him were widely reported, intensifying the focus on Soleimani’s activities. The official statement from the U.S. Department of Defense accused him of being “responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more”.

In essence, while Qasem Soleimani could have gone down in history as just one of many pro-revolutionary military figures in Iran’s modern history, his personal brand became the subject of extensive discourse, reflecting the multifaceted nature of opinions surrounding his life, actions, and the geopolitical implications of his legacy. The phenomenon of a personal brand is very complex. Here, we will understand it as “the combination of skills, experiences, values and qualities that an individual projects to distinguish themselves in their career”.

This article began by noting instances where Soleimani was positively perceived by secular citizens unbeholden to Iran’s military ideology influenced by resistance against perceived Western and Israeli influence. Through a thorough investigation of internal and international mass media and interviews with individuals from Iran and the Iranian diaspora in other countries, this article explores potential reasons for the popularity of Soleimani’s personal brand among unconventional audience segments.  In particular, these include non-religious citizens with no military background or connections to the IRGC,  (a military and paramilitary organisation responsible for protecting Iran’s Islamic system that plays a significant role in various aspects of Iran’s security, including internal affairs and regional influence), the Basij forces (a paramilitary volunteer organisation in Iran involved in various roles throughout society but often drawing controversy for its role in suppressing dissent), or the regular army, also known as the Artesh. 

1.  Soleimani as Iran’s saviour from ISIS

As the atrocities perpetrated by ISIS spread in their reach and brutality over the course of 2013 and 2014, a palpable sense of fear and corresponding scepticism surrounded Iran’s military operations abroad, including among secular citizens. When confronted with external threats, it is a typical societal response to seek reassurance and subconsciously search for a figure embodying the nation’s saviour. I first encountered this sentiment during a conversation with a non-religious female university teacher in her forties in Shiraz. She expressed that, for the first time since the establishment of the Islamic Republic, she felt a sense of security, attributing it to the assurance that someone (in this case, Soleimani) understood how to protect the country from the existential threat posed by ISIS. Subsequently, not only state media but also leading opposition TV channels outside of Iran further highlighted a widespread positive opinion about Soleimani as a military leader. Many individuals believed that he possessed the capability to safeguard Iran from the potential invasion by ISIS. This narrative underscores the nuanced interplay between external threats, public perception, and the emergence of figures such as Soleimani as perceived protectors of national security.

2. Soleimani as the Iranian everyman

This paragraph delves into the distinctiveness of Qasem Soleimani’s position within the Iranian political landscape, marking him as one of the few prominent figures in Iran coming from outside of the ranks of the clergy, possibly second only in importance and fame to former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Soleimani achieved a distinctive level of media attention and popularity among the people, positioning him as a unique political personality. Throughout numerous interviews and public speeches, he projected an air of unwavering confidence, asserting a definitive understanding of the strategic imperatives to render Iran impregnable against external threats. Noteworthy is Soleimani’s communication style, which is characterised by straightforward language and direct messaging. In contrast to religious figures who often rely on Quranic quotes and complex expressions, Soleimani’s simplicity in language contributed to his distinctiveness, resonating with a broader audience and potentially enhancing his relatability among the populace. This linguistic contrast further underscores the multifaceted nature of Soleimani’s appeal and the strategic communication choices that contributed to his unique public profile.

An interviewee, a male engineer in his fifties, encapsulated a common sentiment: “My negative opinion about the Iranian military presence in other parts of the region always shaded my attitude to Soleimani. I would always condemn these military policies. But at the same time, I would tend to believe that this guy (Soleimani) might be doing something good, something that we will understand later”. This perspective captures the nuanced nature of public sentiment, wherein scepticism coexists with a latent acknowledgement of potential strategic benefits.

The influence of Soleimani’s conduct on his popularity should not be overlooked. His readiness to engage with the public, willingly taking selfies with ordinary citizens, and engaging in conspicuous walks without an entourage, contributed significantly to his approachability. Numerous interviews where he or his associates described his affection for modest cuisine and simple pleasures further crafted an image of a relatable figure, akin to someone from the local community with whom one might have grown up playing football in the narrow streets of Kerman. This accessibility, reminiscent of Western political figures, became a potent tool in establishing a connection between Soleimani and his target audience. While many Iranian officials engage with the public through traditional means, like public speeches, town hall meetings or religious events, if we speak about clergy, Soleimani, in his case, projected a more approachable image. Encounters like a selfie on the street created a sense of personal connection, akin to how citizens in Western countries might feel closer to their leaders during casual encounters, such as waiting in a coffee shop queue. 

The deliberate choice of attire, notably the uniform sans medals or badges of honour, became Soleimani’s distinctive “calling card”. Pro-regime artists propagated the thesis that Soleimani embodied the natural son of the nation, eschewing the need for ostentatious displays to underscore his patriotism – actions, in his case, spoke louder than symbols. During this period, posters and caricatures emerged comparing the stark contrast between the seemingly modest and dignified Qasem Soleimani and the adorned figure of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the former Shah of Iran—the juxtaposition aimed to emphasise Soleimani’s authenticity and the perceived hollowness of thr decorated past regime.

3. Soleimani as the lone warrior

The genesis of the epithet “Qasem Rambo” remains elusive, but the term found prominent usage in the prolific posts and interviews by Manook Khodabakhshian, an Iranian journalist and political activist in exile. The ambiguity surrounding this nickname’s initial connotation underscores its complexity. A short survey among social media users revealed that Soleimani enthusiasts likely perceive the associated nickname as symbolising a tenacious and fearless warrior dedicated to the relentless pursuit of justice. Conversely, critics interpret the epithet as emblematic of an unrestrained and formidable military force—a relentless and ceaseless instrument of destruction akin to a powerful killing machine. This dual interpretation again underscores the multifaceted nature of perspectives surrounding Soleimani’s legacy.  However, in the last years of Qasem Soleimani’s life, official portraits began to draw comparisons with the iconic Hollywood character Rambo, suggesting a visual alignment that permeated public discourse. The characterisation of Soleimani as a resolute figure ready to confront the US army, which he believed would “make everywhere they come to make peace extremely unsafe” represented a distinct facet of his brand. This image gained prominence, in no small part, due to the policies and perspectives of Donald Trump. Trump’s stance on the nuclear deal and visa policies for Iranians positioned him as one of the least favoured American leaders among the Iranian populace.

Even among those dreaming of emigration from Iran to the US, an appreciation existed for Soleimani’s unyielding stance against what was considered external and destructive US interference in the region, particularly under Trump’s administration. A sentiment articulated by one of the interviewees, a female Iranian doctor who emigrated to the US in the early 1980s, encapsulates this viewpoint: “We would think that at least Soleimani is Iranian; he is not indifferent towards our nation and would not let American forces invade Iran. But Trump is up for anything.” This perspective highlights the complex interplay between national identity, resistance against perceived external threats, and the nuanced ways in which political figures like Soleimani were assessed in the broader geopolitical context. The image of a lone warrior would also be fuelled by the fact that the Iranian government of the time sought to continue negotiations on nuclear deals with the West, painting Soleimani as the sole figure ready to stand up for Iran. So, again, one against the whole world. 

This image was also strengthened through popular culture. In the cinematic landscape of 2016, Mohammad Hossein Mahdavian’s film “Standing in the Dust” made a resounding impact, resonating particularly with Iranians, especially the younger generation, as it rekindled an appreciation for the heroism of Iranian soldiers during the Iran-Iraq war. This cinematic endeavour not only commemorated the sacrifices of individuals like Ahmad Motevaselian, a prominent commander during the war who mysteriously disappeared in Lebanon in 1982, but also significantly contributed to the burgeoning popularity of Qasem Soleimani, especially among teenagers and young men. While the older generations were familiar with the historical figure Ahmad Motevaselian, the younger cohort, largely unacquainted with his legacy, automatically drew parallels between him and Qasem Soleimani. This generational bridge was aptly captured by an Iranian chemistry student residing in Norway, who recounted his experience: “I went to the cinema with my parents, and all through the terrible traffic jam in Tehran, my father was enlightening me about the film’s protagonist. After the film, I strongly felt this was about Soleimani. I was only 14 then, and for weeks and months later, Soleimani had become my personal hero.”

The film not only served as a poignant historical reflection but also catalysed a contemporary resonance, linking the sacrifices of the past with the present and elevating Qasem Soleimani to the status of a revered figure in the eyes of the younger generation. This anecdote underscores the transformative power of cinematic narratives in shaping perceptions and forging national heroes, particularly among the youth.

In summary, the analysis of Qasem Soleimani’s personal brand reveals a complex interplay of factors, including his military prowess, accessibility, cinematic portrayal, and alignment with prevailing sentiments. Through strategic communication choices, relatable imagery, and historical resonances, Soleimani’s brand evolved dynamically, influencing diverse segments of Iranian society. The intricate interweaving of these elements underscores the nuanced nature of political persona construction, demonstrating the fluidity and impact of personal brands in shaping public perceptions.