It's a growing problem, Salar. I have been monitoring the job market for quite a long time. Many positions now require proficiency in English when even the owners of the company cannot properly speak English. It's just pure "oghdeh" and it's not out of necessity for integrating with the global economy.
For all its self-sufficiency, Iran is trading with international partners to the tune of around 150 billion USD. This means many companies will necessarily have to employ a few people with sufficient English skills.
As for "oghde", I know / can imagine this type of people, but am simply stating that if all protective barriers erected by the IR were to fall all of a sudden, use of English in the professional realm could be expected to increase substantially from current levels, boosted as it may now be by a token number of "oghdei's".
The Islamic Republic is also a strong supporter of its own version of globalism, but instead of globalism, the IR advocates Islamic ummah to the point that it is ready to sacrifice Iran's interests for the formation of the Islamic ummah. Read the theory of Umm-ul Qura (امالقری) by M.J. Larijani, the person responsible for some of the worst strategies of the IR in foreign policy.
I wouldn't call it globalism, but three layers of religion-based, language- / nation- / civilization-based, as well as anti-imperialistic solidarity, which are quite different from glovalism.
Iran is not practicing an open borders policy in the globalist sense. For one, Afghans are the only large immigrant group and no matter their differences, they're still closer to Iranians than the myriad immigrant communities from every corner of the world populating the west. And Afghans aren't here just because they're fellow Muslims, for by that logic it could be argued they're an Iranic people and hence this is a pan-Iranian policy. In truth, the main reason is simply the incessant series of conflicts imposed onto Afghanistan by imperial powers, and the fact that it's a neighbor. Afghan immigration into Iran was alive and well under the shah already, it's the wars which amplified it. Nonetheless, Iranian law has been strict in granting residence and work permits, let alone citizenship to immigrants, in comparison to actual globalist-ruled regimes of the west.
Foreign policy-wise, the three layers of solidarity are real, they connect Iran with friendly and allied movements or governments, however this doesn't translate into transcendence, into dissolution of national specificity and sovereignty into an overarching totality, as globalism would call for.
As for the Larijanis, I'm not particularly fond of them and neither is the Leader it would seem, since they're in the process of being and have largely been sidelined.
The problem is with the IR that is trying to replace Persian words with Arabic words. This is quite easily seen in the terminology of the Iranian law after the revolution, for example.
We were interested in concrete examples, Aryobarzan shared some quotes. To me these look like cases of religious talk, which is not an invention of the Islamic Republic. Prior to the Revolution, religious scholars would use the same kind of vocabulary in their sermons.
As for legal texts and practice, well since the IR instituted Sharia law, chances are that Arabic terms will be more frequent in this area. This again is related to the religious dimension and the theocratic nature of the state, it's not a deliberate policy aiming to reduce Persian words in every day, non-specific usage.
