An Examination of How the Notion of “Tolerance Variation” is Strategically Employed to Suppress the Basic Human Rights of Ahwazi Arab Minorities
By Mayasa Albawi
December 7, 2025
One of the most troubling and intellectually dishonest arguments used to justify the deprivation of basic human rights for minorities—particularly Ahwazi Arab minorities—is the distorted use of the term tolerance variation. During the Iranian Opposition Conference in Oslo on October 18, this argument surfaced as a way to oversimplify, rationalize, and obscure the systemic violations inflicted upon Ahwazi Arab communities. The narrative claims that members of the dominant group, such as Persian citizens, may experience equal or greater suffering than Ahwazi Arabs, implying that abuses against Ahwazi Arab minorities are therefore less significant or more tolerable due to alleged tolerance variation. This discourse not only misrepresents psychological concepts but also undermines fundamental human-rights principles. It is therefore essential to unpack the concept of tolerance variation and reveal the harmful consequences of deploying this rhetoric in political and social debates.
In psychology, tolerance variation refers to the differences—between individuals or within an individual over time—in the ability to endure stress, discomfort, or intense emotional experiences. It is linked to concepts like distress tolerance and the window of tolerance, which describes the zone where a person can function, think, and respond without becoming overwhelmed. Biological factors, trauma histories, and lived experiences all shape a person’s tolerance. These concepts were developed to understand healing and resilience—not to justify political neglect or human-rights violations.
To understand how deeply this rhetoric is being abused, we must return to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. The hierarchy begins with basic physiological needs: food, water, shelter, rest. Above that is safety: health, stability, protection from harm. These needs are universal and non-negotiable. They cannot be waved away by claiming that a particular community has a “higher tolerance” for deprivation. No population can “endure” the denial of food, safety, or dignity. These are human requirements—not luxuries.
Yet this is precisely how the concept of tolerance is being weaponized. A recurring narrative suggests that Ahwazi Arabs possess a supposedly higher tolerance for suffering, and thus can withstand deprivation, instability, or political exclusion. Meanwhile, minor frustrations experienced by the dominant group—Persians—are elevated as intolerable injustices. This framing implies that Ahwazi Arabs can survive what others cannot, turning their suffering into something expected, justified, or even natural. Such thinking is not only scientifically baseless; it is morally bankrupt.
Scientifically, the claim collapses immediately. Tolerance variation cannot be assigned to entire ethnic groups without evidence. No one has the authority to define a community’s supposed “threshold” for suffering. And the reality speaks louder than any manipulated argument: rising executions, growing suicide rates, and persistent protests across Ahwazi Arab regions demonstrate a community pushed far beyond any reasonable limit. These are not signs of a population with a high tolerance—they are signs of deep, systemic harm.
The political consequences of this narrative are severe. First, it abandons equal rights, treating the Ahwazi Arab community as dependent recipients of whatever dignity—or deprivation—the dominant group allows, reinforcing hierarchies and portraying minorities as obliged to accept rights that fall short of global standards. Second, it delegitimizes the demands of Ahwazi Arab communities for justice and equal treatment by reframing their claims as unreasonable or ungrateful, since tolerance—rather than equality—is positioned as the normative baseline. Third, it masks systemic discrimination by diverting attention from entrenched inequalities in education, employment, housing, cultural expression, and political representation. Finally, it narrows Ahwazi Arab identity by limiting the community’s ability to convey its perspectives and advocate for its rights publicly.
When a scientific concept is misappropriated to rationalize oppression, the capacity to endure ceases to be a strength and becomes a tool of control. Claims that Ahwazi Arab minorities—or any marginalized group—can withstand greater suffering are not neutral observations; they are rationalizations that distract from systemic injustice, legitimize unequal treatment, and recast basic human rights as conditional privileges. No group’s ability to endure pain or hardship can ever justify abuse. True justice and equality are not measured by who can suffer most—they are measured by dignity, full citizenship, and respect for every human life. Any framework that defends discrimination by citing supposed differences in endurance is not recognition—it is a sophisticated form of dehumanization. Rejecting this narrative is essential to building a society that honors the inherent rights and humanity of all its members.
