Author’s note: This article develops the analytical framework first set out in my essay, ‘Defeat as Diagnosis: Why Iran’s Student Uprisings Stall, and How to Prepare for the Next Opening’ (29 July 1999), and later applied to Iran’s post-2017 protest cycle in ‘Once again, The Nation Rises and the Opposition Drifts: Building a National Opposition That Can Govern the Rupture and Transition to Democracy’ (19 September 2019). It adapts that framework to current conditions and extends the proposals with new evidence and an updated transitional charter.

Abstract

Iran’s present unrest is neither an episodic ‘cost-of-living’ disturbance nor a romanticised dawn of freedom. It is a collision between a collapsing currency order and a collapsing political order. The rial’s plunge has not merely reduced purchasing power; it has exposed the regime’s governing theology as a system of organised incompetence, where fiscal opacity, coercive patronage, and moral theatre substitute for economic stewardship (Suren-Pahlav, 2010a; The Guardian, 2025; Financial Times, 2025; Associated Press, 2025).

 

The regime’s response has followed a familiar script: intimidation in the streets, public gestures of ‘dialogue’, and administrative scapegoating, including a change at the central bank. These tactics may reduce pressure for a moment, but they cannot repair an economy whose crisis is structural, not managerial (Suren-Pahlav, 2010a; Financial Times, 2025; Associated Press, 2025). Criminalising the parallel market, raising wages by decree, and flooding markets with subsidised imports are palliatives, not stabilisation. Where credibility is absent, prohibition simply changes the price of fear.

 

This article argues that the decisive weakness of this uprising lies neither in any shortage of anger nor in the absence of symbolic dissent, but in the lack of operational leadership: an organisational mechanism capable, under conditions of repression, of advancing cross-sector coordination, credible representation, and a transitional charter centred on national sovereignty. Hannah Arendt’s account of atomisation and propaganda illuminates why a society disciplined into isolation struggles to produce durable political institutions at the moment it most needs them (Arendt, 1951; Arendt, 1963). Gene Sharp’s theory of civil resistance clarifies how regimes fall when their ‘pillars of support’ are systematically withdrawn, rather than merely denounced (Sharp, 1973; Sharp, 1993). Žižek’s critique of ideological spectacle helps diagnose the opposition’s drift towards performance, factional policing, and external scripting, where watching replaces organising and slogans replace strategy (Žižek, 1989; Žižek, 2008).

 

Against both the regime’s theocratic-totalism and the opposition’s proxy temptations, the article advances a practical roadmap: build a decentralised domestic coordinating spine, couple it to a minimal transitional charter that commits to territorial integrity and equal citizenship, and anchor legality in the revival of a constitutional monarchy, as the only way to secure the salvation of an ancient land and her nation, while refusing any externally preloaded geopolitical settlement. Iran can escape theocracy. It will not do so by surrendering sovereignty on the way out.

 

Introduction

A currency does not collapse in silence; it collapses loudly: in the arithmetic of bread and rent, in the price of medicine, in the speed with which a wage turns into a joke, and in the way a nation begins to speak as though it has nothing left to lose. Iran’s rial is not merely falling but indicting, exposing a regime that has spent forty-seven years reciting a theology of power while outsourcing competence to improvisation, patronage, and coercion. When the currency breaks, the lie that ‘regime’ is a sacred vocation becomes harder to perform. The bazaar protests, the spread of public gatherings, and pro-monarchy cries, including slogans that invoke the Pahlavi dynasty by name, are political judgements articulated in the language of survival. (The Guardian, 2025; Financial Times, 2025; Associated Press, 2025). The regime’s reflex is predictable: it alternates between repression and reassurance, tactical concessions and moral lectures. It reshuffles officials, promises reform, announces ‘dialogue’, and threatens ‘speculators’. This is administrative choreography, not learning. A central bank governor can be replaced; the regime’s political economy cannot be repaired without dismantling the mechanisms through which it rules, namely opacity in allocation, immunities for insiders, and the securitisation of everyday life (Financial Times, 2025; Associated Press, 2025). This is why familiar proposals, such as criminalising the parallel exchange market, forcing wages upward by decree, or flooding shops with subsidised imports, do not constitute stabilisation. They are temporary analgesics that postpone pain, not treat disease.

 

It is tempting, especially for those watching from exile or from a distance, to narrate the moment as an inevitable march towards liberation, yet that temptation is politically dangerous. Revolutions are not produced by moral certainty. They are produced by power, and power, as Hannah Arendt insisted, is not the same thing as violence. Violence can silence. It cannot, by itself, found legitimacy. A regime may possess instruments of coercion. It collapses when it loses the social and institutional cooperation that makes coercion governable, and when an alternative authority is able to occupy the space that the old order vacates (Arendt, 1951; Arendt, 1963). Iran’s uprising therefore confronts a hard truth: anger can fill streets, but it cannot automatically fill institutions. This analytical framework was first developed in Suren-Pahlav (1999) and later applied to subsequent protest cycles in Suren-Pahlav (2019). Iran does not lack opposition symbolism. It lacks operational leadership.

 

Iran does not lack opposition symbolism. It lacks operational leadership. By operational leadership, I do not mean the existence of a recognised figure who speaks for the nation. That person exists: His Imperial Highness (HIH) Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, and the nation has voiced their support. I mean an organisational architecture with experience, discipline, and procedural seriousness: the capacity to coordinate under repression, bridge constituencies, set strategic priorities, sustain non-cooperation, and articulate a minimal transitional settlement that does not fracture the country in the very act of liberating it. Without this architecture, the uprising risks becoming what so many modern revolts have become: courageous, expansive, and ultimately squandered, through exhaustion, capture by the best-organised faction, or a vacuum in which sovereignty bleeds into externalisation.

 

Gene Sharp’s work on civil resistance is useful here because it refuses romanticism. Dictatorships do not survive on fear alone; they survive on pillars: bureaucratic compliance, labour discipline, commercial cooperation, security loyalty, and the everyday routines that make command appear natural. A movement that cannot identify and systematically withdraw those pillars remains trapped in a cycle of spectacle and repression, legible to itself but not decisive against the state (Sharp, 1973; Sharp, 1993). The question is therefore not whether protests are justified, but whether the uprising is being organised into a form of power capable of forcing a political break without collapsing the country that it claims to save.

 

This is where the diaspora’s habits become a liability. Too much of the oppositional ecosystem substitutes narration for organisation, circulating footage, counting crowds, and performing outrage in front of the global media, while treating institution-building as a problem to be solved after victory. That is wishful thinking disguised as activism, and a gift to the regime, which has always depended on portraying its opponents as either foreign puppets or irresponsible fantasists, not to mention some of the oppositions are regime-manufactured oppositions, in particular the reformists faction (Suren-Pahlav, 2011). Slavoj Žižek’s critique of ideological spectacle, whatever one makes of his wider politics, offers a precise warning: the performance of dissent can become a refuge from the labour of political construction. Watching becomes participation. Posting becomes agency. Factional policing becomes a substitute for coalition-building. Meanwhile, the regime continues to govern through the crude advantage of having an apparatus, however rotten, while its opponents argue over optics (Žižek, 1989; Žižek, 2008).

 

The second dilemma, inseparable from leadership, is sovereignty. The Islamic regime has been damaged by external pressure, but it has also thrived on the mythology of external threat, using sanctions and regional confrontation as an alibi for predation at home. Yet the opposition commits its own strategic error when it allows Iran’s liberation to be framed as a subcontracted project of foreign powers. The ‘proxy’ narrative is not merely propaganda; it is a weapon that narrows the coalition, frightens fence-sitters, and makes civil conflict more likely by encouraging identity entrepreneurs to claim that the future will be written abroad (Suren-Pahlav, 2025a). A transition that begins by pre-committing Iran’s geopolitical alignment, or by treating constitutional design as an export commodity, is not a transition. It is a transfer of tutelage.

 

This is why the debate around the ‘ethnic card’ is not an academic diversion. It is a sovereignty question in constitutional form. Iran is an ethno-nation with lingual diversity, and that fact can, and should, be honoured through a substantive conception of equal citizenship (Suren-Pahlav, 1998). Yet there is a more dangerous project that recodes plurality into territorialised ethno-sovereignties, then sells ‘federalism’ as the ‘democratic’ solution. In a post-collapse vacuum, such frameworks can become accelerants for fragmentation, foreign interference, and local armed entrepreneurship. A serious opposition does not deny diversity. It refuses to weaponise it, and it refuses to let external actors weaponise it on Iran’s soil (Suren-Pahlav, 2013; 2021; 2025b).

 

This article proceeds from a constitutionalist premise: legality matters, not as nostalgia, but as continuity. A nation emerging from dictatorship requires a recognised grammar of authority to prevent the interregnum from becoming a free-for-all. That is why constitutional continuity, anchored in Iran’s 1906 settlement and purified of misogynist exclusions, is not an ornamental preference but a strategy against chaos, capture, and partition. It provides a national frame within which democratic choice can be exercised, rather than replaced by an improvised committee, a foreign blueprint, or a security ‘guardianship’.

 

The argument unfolds in nine steps:

• First, the collapse of the rial is analysed as an inherently political event, revealing the structurally self-destructive nature of the regime's economic strategies (Financial Times, 2025; Associated Press, 2025).

• Second, the moment of protest is conceptualised to foreground the distinction between mobilisation and power, underscoring the conditions under which dissent may or may not translate into political transformation (The Guardian, 2025).

• Third, drawing on Arendt, the analysis elucidates how atomisation and propaganda erode the capacity for civic action, and why revolutions that fail to engage in institution-building ultimately forfeit their futures (Arendt, 1951; Arendt, 1963).

• Fourth, Sharp's framework is employed to demonstrate how operational leadership can compel regime support structures to withdraw without precipitating state collapse (Sharp, 1973; Sharp, 1993).

• Fifth, with reference to Žižek, the inquiry examines the opposition's slide into performativity and diagnoses the peril of externally imposed blueprints (Žižek, 1989; Žižek, 2008).

• Sixth, the analysis is tested against contemporary case studies, not as prophecy, but as a means of identifying underlying mechanisms.

• Seventh, it challenges the instrumentalisation of ethnic identity and the federalist trap as threats to national sovereignty.

• Eighth, post-collapse scenarios are delineated, with particular attention to the risks inherent in a power vacuum.

• Ninth, a framework for operational leadership anchored in national sovereignty is proposed: a domestic coordination backbone, a minimal charter for the transitional period, and a conditional monarchist anchor aimed at maintaining national unity throughout the democratisation process.

The choice is stark. Iran can escape theocracy. It can also escape itself in the process, fractured by vacuums, captured by opportunists, or traded for foreign guarantees. The absence of steering does not guarantee liberation. It guarantees risk. If the nation is rising, it must also build, not only resist.

 

 

1. The Political Economy of Theological Rule

 

1.1 ‘The economy is for donkeys’: ideology as economic policy

The Islamic regime’s economic failure is not a technical accident correctable by swapping a minister, arresting a handful of currency traders, or announcing another ‘reform package’. It is the predictable output of a political system that treats competence as subordinate to ideological reliability, and treats economic institutions as instruments of control rather than guardians of stability. When the rial slides, what collapses is not merely purchasing power but the regime’s claim to stewardship.

 

Two structural features matter. First, the regime’s economic doctrine is neither liberal nor developmental, nor even coherently statist. It is securitised. Economic policy is framed as a theatre of resistance, where transparency is treated as vulnerability and rule-bound institutions as impediments to ‘revolutionary’ discretion. The language of self-reliance, resilience, and defiance can sound like a national project. In practice, it justifies closed networks, off-budget finance, and the normalisation of scarcity as a governing tool. The consequence is not sovereignty, but the corruption of sovereignty into patronage.

 

Second, Iran’s economy is not governed solely through the formal state. It is governed through a dense parastatal web merging clerical authority, security power, and commercial privilege. The parastatal foundations, the bonyads, have been analysed as evolving from charitable vehicles into major instruments of power for clerical and para-military elites, with limited transparency and accountability (Oxford Academic, 2025; Saeidi, 2004). RAND’s mapping of ‘mullahs, guards, and bonyads’ describes parallel centres of economic authority insulated from normal oversight (RAND, 2008). More recent analysis has described an ‘IRGC–bonyad complex’ as a primary set of economic agents binding ideology to economic control (Clingendael, 2025). These are not marginal actors. They are the regime’s political economy made tangible.

 

This matters because a regime that allocates resources through discretionary networks is structurally hostile to the requirements of macroeconomic stability: credibility, transparency, predictable rules, and the depoliticisation of monetary governance. It also means that ‘reform’ is not simply technical. Real stabilisation requires confronting the rent architecture on which the regime depends for loyalty.

 

That is why the regime’s favourite instruments are politically intelligible even when economically self-defeating. Price controls, moral denunciations of ‘speculators’, selective anti-corruption campaigns, and sporadic crackdowns on informal markets are not merely errors, but rituals of control. They convert economic dysfunction into a story of sabotage and sin, displacing blame from institutions whose business model is impunity.

 

The present protest cycle, catalysed by currency collapse and the cost-of-living shock, is therefore not simply an economic grievance. It is a legitimacy referendum. The slogans do not emerge from a textbook, but from lived experience of institutional contempt. When the regime cannot deliver bread, it must deliver fear. When fear falters, it reaches for theatre, scapegoats, and repression.

 

1.2 Currency crisis as a political event, not a market ‘malfunction’

The rial’s instability is often discussed as a technical problem of ‘speculation’ or ‘panic’. That framing serves the regime because it implies that stability can be restored by policing symptoms. In reality, persistent currency crises in sanctioned, inflationary settings are typically rooted in a credibility deficit that is institutional and political.

 

A key mechanism is the multiple-rate exchange system. The International Monetary Fund has repeatedly characterised Iran’s exchange regime as generating multiple currency practices and exchange restrictions (IMF, 2017a; IMF, 2017b). The World Bank’s reconstruction-era documentation shows how Iran has historically operated several rates simultaneously, with official and preferential rates for selected imports alongside floating or market-linked rates, producing predictable distortions and opportunities for arbitrage (World Bank, 1991). This is not a technical detail. A multiple-rate system is a distributional machine: it allocates rents to those with privileged access and imposes hidden taxes on everyone else through inflation and scarcity.

 

Once multiple rates exist, a ‘black market’ is not a moral aberration but an informational correction: the price at which people reveal what they believe the currency is worth when the official rate is politically staged. Criminalising the parallel market therefore rarely eliminates it. It tends to deepen it, raising its risk premium and strengthening networks that thrive under secrecy. It also encourages the regime’s preferred political economy: enforcement discretion, selective exemptions, and the conversion of ordinary survival into criminality.

 

The regime periodically announces ‘unification’, ‘reform’, and ‘stabilisation’. Iran has attempted exchange-rate simplification before. World Bank material from the early 1990s documents efforts to reduce the number of rates and to move towards unification, precisely to unwind war-era distortions (World Bank, 1991). The IMF has also published analytical work on Iran’s exchange-rate unification choices and the constraints shaping them (Sundararajan, 1997; IMF, 2016). The lesson is not that unification is impossible, but that it is politically expensive because it eliminates rents and forces the state to confront the true scarcity of foreign exchange.

 

Foreign exchange scarcity is the second mechanism. In a normal economy, export revenues and external finance can buffer shocks. In Iran, sanctions disrupt oil exports, financial channels, and reserve access, increasing exchange-rate sensitivity to political events and credibility signals. The IMF’s Article IV reporting has repeatedly linked Iran’s macro vulnerabilities to structural weaknesses and access-to-finance constraints even during periods of higher growth (IMF, 2017a). This is why a currency crisis in Iran is rarely just a market story. It is a sovereignty story in a world where sanctions and covert finance shape what the regime can do.

 

The third mechanism is domestic monetary-fiscal interaction. In high inflation settings, the exchange rate becomes a public scoreboard of policy credibility. Where deficits are financed through monetary expansion, banking discipline is weak, and quasi-fiscal operations occur off-budget, households and firms hedge by moving into dollars, gold, and durable goods. This behaviour is rational. The regime calls it ‘speculation’ because it cannot admit that people are reacting to policy.

 

So, when officials promise to ‘control’ the currency market through arrests and prohibitions, they are not stabilising, but performing power. Stability requires credible constraints on money creation, credible budgeting, and credible management of foreign exchange allocation. Those are institutional reforms that threaten incumbents. That is why they are so often promised and so rarely delivered.

 

1.3 Sanctions as constraint, and as alibi

Sanctions matter. They worsen macro conditions, restrict access to finance, and intensify import costs. It would be dishonest to pretend otherwise. Yet it is equally dishonest to treat sanctions as the master explanation that absolves domestic governance. Sanctions constrain the state, and provide it with a narrative shield.

 

The regime has learned to weaponise sanctions in two ways. First, sanctions permit systematic excuses. Every failure can be attributed to ‘foreign hostility’, even when the proximate cause is domestic predation. This is politically useful because it reframes internal accountability as treason, turning governance critique into ‘collaboration with the enemy’.

 

Second, sanctions facilitate systematic opportunity. When trade and finance must move through opaque channels, the actors best positioned to profit are those with coercive protection, privileged networks, and institutional impunity. Sanctions can unintentionally strengthen the securitised segments of the economy. Reuters reporting on the expansion of the IRGC’s control over oil exports, including shadow networks and front companies, illustrates the broader pattern: sanctioned environments concentrate economic power in the hands of those capable of operating in secrecy (Reuters, 2024). Sanctions do not merely shrink the pie. They can also change who controls the knife.

 

This dynamic tightens the regime’s internal coalition. A system distributing rents through clandestine channels becomes more dependent on the security apparatus to protect those channels, increasing the political cost of transparency and normalisation. Even when some officials recognise the need for stabilisation, they confront a regime structure that treats openness as existential threat.

 

This is why external ‘assistance’ from Russia or China, whether technical or commercial, cannot substitute for domestic institutional credibility. Partners can help with tactical workarounds, trade settlement, or selected investment projects. They cannot fix the foundational problem: the regime’s refusal to bind itself with rules that limit insider privilege and restore public trust. A society that expects its rulers to steal will continue to dollarise, hoard, and hedge, regardless of speeches about ‘resistance’ and ‘morality’.

 

1.4 The regime’s recurring repertoire, and why it keeps failing

Because the crisis is structural, the regime’s short-term measures tend to repeat.

 

Criminalisation and intimidation: banning parallel markets, threatening traders, and staging arrests. This may slow visible trading. It rarely changes expectations. It often increases the risk premium and pushes activity into more corruptible networks.

Administrative scapegoating: dismissing or replacing officials, especially at the central bank, to create the appearance of control. This can buy time, but it does not create credibility without policy change.

 

Subsidy spectacle: pushing cheap imports, temporary tariffs, or price controls. This can ease pressure briefly if foreign exchange is available. It becomes inflation deferred if financed through monetary expansion or if it collapses under distribution bottlenecks.

Wage decrees: nominal wage increases that attempt to match inflation. Without stabilisation, this risks feeding the wage-price spiral while still failing to restore living standards.

 

These instruments persist because they are compatible with the regime’s ideology. They allow the regime to appear paternal while remaining predatory, and keep decision-making discretionary, which is essential for patronage.

 

The question, then, is not whether the regime can produce temporary relief. It can. The deeper question is whether it can do so without loosening the grip of its own rent architecture. That is the point at which ideology ceases to be rhetoric and becomes an economic constraint. A theocracy can govern with coercion. It cannot govern a complex economy by sermon and surveillance.

 

In this sense, the rial’s collapse is not merely an economic crisis. It is a diagnostic. It reveals that the regime has converted sovereignty into a security economy, and citizenship into a managed dependency. When that dependency fails to feed people, it fails to command them. The nation rises because the regime has forced politics back into the public square by destroying the private sphere’s capacity to survive.

 

2. What Is Happening in the Streets, and What Is Not Happening in the Opposition

What is unfolding today on the streets of Iran does not conform to the familiar templates preferred by foreign analysts. Monarchist slogans, especially when voiced by the traditional merchant class, sit uneasily with prevailing expectations. This uprising did not emerge as a media-friendly student revolt, nor did it begin with pre-packaged rhetoric crafted for global networks. As recent reports suggest, its origins are to be found among traders and bazaaris, those directly confronted with the collapse of the rial and the disintegration of predictable commercial norms (Financial Times, 2025; The Guardian, 2025; Washington Post, 2025). This account is material and unflinchingly violent. A class whose profits depend on the rapid circulation of goods does not close shop for ideological ideals, but retreats when the economic ground beneath them becomes a floating floor, when price ceases to signify information and instead becomes a form of humiliation, and when tomorrow is no longer measurable. The slogans that followed, such as 'Long live the King' (Javid Shah), are not merely nostalgic gestures towards a period of economic prosperity, but articulate a political demand: the call for sentimental restorationism a lawful order, continuity, and national dignity, and a rejection of Iran’s reduction to a perpetual crisis laboratory (The Guardian, 2025; Washington Post, 2025).

 

There is an analytic reason why the bazaar matters even in an Iran that is no longer a bazaar-centred economy. It is an early warning of a wider rupture between the political establishment and the conventional circuits of livelihood, particularly among the conservative and traditional strata. When trade cannot be planned, the regime’s propaganda about ‘resistance’ stops sounding like honour and starts sounding like contempt. In such moments, the street becomes a ledger and people calculate risk differently: the cost of silence begins to exceed the cost of speech. Timur Kuran’s account of ‘preference falsification’ remains useful here, not because Iran is Eastern Europe in 1989, but because the mechanism is portable: public compliance can mask private dissent until a shock lowers the perceived marginal risk of joining in (Kuran, 1991). A collapsing currency is precisely such a shock because it is experienced as an immediate breach of the social contract. It is not an argument. It is an invoice.

 

Reporting suggests that what began among merchants widened quickly, drawing in students and spreading across multiple cities (Financial Times, 2025; The Guardian, 2025; Washington Post, 2025; Al Jazeera, 2025). The regime’s response has followed a recognisable repertoire: coercion and narrative management, reinforced by administrative manoeuvres that reduce the spaces in which crowds can gather. It has declared official closures and shifted sections of university teaching to virtual platforms, under the pretext of energy conservation and adverse weather conditions. That is a familiar authoritarian instinct: to present political containment as technocratic administration, a politics of plausible deniability. The regime does not merely police crowds. It tries to police the meaning of crowds.

 

The point is not that the regime, among the most repressive in modern history, has suddenly acquired a conscience or embraced humane governance. It is trying to calibrate repression without reigniting the moral fury that followed earlier crackdowns. The Guardian’s reporting emphasised that protests have faced teargas and arrests, yet have remained defiant and politically explicit, with chants that do not stop at prices but extend to corruption and systemic repression (The Guardian, 2025). Al Jazeera reported that protests had turned deadly in at least one instance, with state media reporting casualties among security forces as unrest continued (Al Jazeera, 2025). These details matter because they expose the regime’s dilemma: it must show force to deter contagion, yet each act of force becomes a recruitment advertisement when the currency has already convinced people that the regime is not merely oppressive but incompetent.

 

What should be stressed is that the street is rarely a single actor. ‘The people’ is a slogan, not an organisational fact. Revolts in modern states assemble coalitions heterogeneous in motive, appetite for risk, and political horizon. In Iran’s present case, the coalition is likely to include traders who want predictability, workers and salaried employees crushed by inflation, students seeking political freedoms, families exhausted by corruption and coercion, and citizens who have simply reached saturation point. This heterogeneity is not a weakness in itself. It is the raw material of a national movement. It becomes a weakness when no organisational structure exists to hold it together, to define thresholds for successs, and to prevent the regime from peeling away constituencies through selective concessions and targeted terror.

 

This is where the slogans require careful and discerning interpretation. A monarchist call can evolve into a political force, but if it is driven by sectarian fervour or premised on the fantasy of an unmediated return without democratic legitimacy, it risks undermining its own potential for coalition-building. Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi has repeatedly drawn attention to this very point. The more serious reading is that monarchy slogans function as a provocation to the regime’s foundational myth. The Islamic regime is not merely a political system. It is a self-justifying narrative: it claims to have rescued Iran from monarchy, from Western domination, and from moral decay. When crowds chant for the return of the Pahlavi name, they puncture that myth at its core. Yet puncturing a myth does not, by itself, build a replacement. It is possible to be right about the regime and wrong about the path out.

 

Hannah Arendt helps clarify why this matters. Arendt’s analysis of totalitarianism is structural: regimes of domination do not merely repress, they atomise, cultivating loneliness, mutual suspicion, and the substitution of public reality with manufactured narratives (Arendt, 1951). Under such conditions, collective action becomes difficult not because people lack courage but because they lack trust, channels, and durable structures through which courage can be coordinated. A protest can erupt. An institution cannot erupt. Institutions require repetition, procedures, and continuity. Authoritarian systems know this, and invest heavily in destroying independent associational life because they fear not the chant but the organisation that might make the chant consequential.

 

When protests are described as 'leaderless', this rarely implies the absence of a singular public figure. It refers to the lack of a coherent strategic apparatus capable of organising and coordinating the forces driving the uprising. While a movement may require leadership rather than a saviour, operational leadership is no less essential than the presence of an individual leader: an organisational architecture capable of functioning under repression, linking disparate groups, and advancing plans to secure the movement’s success, safeguard national sovereignty, preserve territorial integrity, and manage the transition from the current regime. From this perspective, the defining void in Iran today is not the absence of an opposition figurehead, but a deficit in organisational capacity. It has been claimed that the group known as NUFDI serves as the organisational vehicle required. However, from the very outset of the uprising, it has shown itself incapable of fulfilling such a role, with its primary activity limited to amplifying reports from the Manoto network (NUFDIran, 2025). This stems from the fact that its members have not only cooperated with the regime and remain devoid of meaningful experience in political or organisational struggle, but have also been positioned by Washington and Tel Aviv as a ready-made substitute for the post-regime order. Their objective is to seize control of a national movement forged through the blood and sacrifice of the Iranian people and to recast Iran as a proxy state serving external interests. (Suren-Pahlav, 2025b; 2025c; 2025d).

 

Therefore, the regime understands the asymmetry. It has an apparatus: chains of command, budgets, prisons, propaganda, and informants. Even when it is incompetent, it remains organised. The street, by contrast, often remains episodic. It surges, disperses, and surges again. This rhythm is an organisational reality, and it is precisely what allows the regime to survive: it can wait out waves, exhaust participants, target organisers when it identifies them, offer temporary economic relief to those most likely to peel away, and criminalise survival strategies, such as parallel market exchange, to intimidate commercial communities. The street’s courage is real, but courage that cannot be converted into sustained leverage becomes a renewable resource for the regime’s survival.

 

Gene Sharp’s work is relevant here because it refuses to treat resistance as catharsis. Dictatorships rely on ‘pillars of support’: compliance of bureaucrats, obedience of security forces, cooperation of economic actors, and the routine participation of citizens in the machinery of the state (Sharp, 1973; Sharp, 1993). The strategic question is how those pillars can be weakened, and eventually withdrawn, without collapsing the nation into a vacuum. That requires planning, sequencing, and discipline. It is the difference between a protest that expresses truth and a movement that produces change.

 

It is precisely at this point that the opposition’s current habits become a liability. Too much of what passes for opposition organisation, particularly in the diaspora, resembles a media ecology rather than a political architecture: it republishes footage, annotates events, competes for attention, and treats visibility as a substitute for capacity. The regime does not fear visibility. It fears coordination, cross-sector discipline, and an organised refusal that is difficult to punish without provoking wider refusal. A movement that confuses media circulation with political leadership becomes an audience, even while imagining itself as an actor.

 

Slavoj Žižek’s critique of ideology and spectacle is useful because it captures this pathology without sentimental excuses. The problem is not ignorance. People often know perfectly well that a system is rotten, yet continue to participate because the horizon of alternatives feels unreal, or because dissent becomes a ritual that never reaches the level of an ‘act’ that changes the coordinates of possibility (Žižek, 1989). In contemporary opposition cultures, spectacle can take a new form: constant commentary becomes a way of avoiding the labour of building, denunciation substitutes for organisation, and factional policing substitutes for coalition-building. The tragedy is that anger becomes a currency of belonging rather than a discipline of strategy.

 

This is also where the regime’s propaganda finds its easiest prey. The Islamic regime has long relied on a delegitimising frame: the opposition is either foreign, irresponsible, or both. When oppositional ecosystems behave like influence markets, competing for sponsorship, proximity to foreign capitals, or the prestige of being ‘recognised’, they narrow the coalition inside Iran by frightening fence-sitters who may despise the regime but fear foreign tutelage, civil conflict, or territorial fracture. They also create openings for identity entrepreneurs to argue that Iran is not a nation but an assemblage of mutually suspicious groups, priming the ground for fragmentation in any post-collapse vacuum.

 

This danger is embedded in the way modern regime-change talk is often packaged: pre-designed ‘transition plans’, compressed timelines, and early foreign-policy pre-commitments presented as technical necessities rather than political decisions requiring democratic mandate. My critique of externally scripted roadmaps is a critique of legitimacy (Suren-Pahlav, 2025b). A transitional body that begins by binding Iran to a predetermined geopolitical alignment, or by pre-empting the outcome of a future constitution, does not liberate the country. It shifts sovereignty from the clerics in Tehran to subordinates beholden to foreign patrons. In the language of democratic theory, it replaces one unaccountable authority with another. In the language of political struggle, it hands the regime a weapon.

 

The street understands sovereignty in a way diaspora salons often do not. Ordinary Iranians seek international support, but do not wish to see their future scripted in a foreign capital. The point is not to indulge the regime’s paranoid fantasies. The point is to recognise that sovereignty is not propaganda. It is a real political need in a region where externalisation of internal conflict has destroyed states. A transition that collapses into proxy competition does not produce democracy. It produces dependency, violence, and the permanent postponement of civic reconstruction.

 

This is why the ‘ethnic card’ is inseparable from the leadership problem. The Islamic regime has systematically repressed minority groups and weaponised linguistic and religious identity. Yet there is a distinction between honouring Iran’s multilingual reality through equal citizenship and cultural rights, and recoding plurality into territorialised ethnonational sovereignties that invite fragmentation. In a revolutionary moment, language can become an accelerant. An opposition that speaks in a civic national register, while guaranteeing linguistic and cultural rights, can widen the coalition and reduce centrifugal incentives. An opposition that flirts with ethnofederal projects, or tolerates foreign discourse treating minorities as instruments, invites disaster. The danger is not diversity. The danger is a vacuum in which diversity is weaponised by armed entrepreneurs and external patrons.

 

At this stage, it is necessary to speak plainly about what is absent. The protests may be national in sentiment, but remain vulnerable to coordination under repression, free-riding, messaging drift, and strategic inconsistency (Tilly and Tarrow, 2015). The regime thrives on these problems. It splits constituencies through selective concessions, inflames ideological divisions, and presents itself as the only barrier against chaos. If the opposition cannot present a credible alternative that preserves order while dismantling theocracy, risk-averse citizens will hesitate, even if they hate the regime. It is not because they are cowards. Not out of fear, but informed by the region’s experience, many understand how the collapse of even a despotic regime can ultimately lead to the unravelling of an entire nation.

 

A credible alternative does not require a final constitutional draft from the outset. What is essential is the revitalisation of the Constitutional Revolution's legal framework, excluding its theocratic provisions, and a minimal transitional charter that signals four things: territorial integrity, equal citizenship, a time-bound constituent process, and the rule-bound administration of justice, including a refusal of collective punishment. Such a charter is not an abstract manifesto. It is a coalition instrument. It tells minorities that their rights will not be traded for national unity. It tells the majority that unity will not be traded for foreign applause. It tells bureaucrats and professionals that continuity of services is valued. It tells security personnel who might defect that the future is governed by law, not vengeance. Without such signals, defections become irrational, and the regime’s coercive cohesion remains intact.

 

The reporting on current protests indicates a widening confrontation between society and state, with the regime attempting to absorb pressure through economic messaging and institutional reshuffles (Financial Times, 2025; Associated Press, 2025; The Guardian, 2025). Yet this widening does not automatically generate the organisational spine needed to steer events. It creates the possibility of a rupture. Whether that rupture becomes liberation or catastrophe depends on whether a domestically legitimate architecture emerges quickly enough to occupy the political space that the regime would vacate, and whether that architecture can prevent the uprising from being converted into a theatre of factional vanity, foreign influence games, and territorialised identity conflict.

 

In this sense, the most urgent task is not to ‘raise morale’. Morale is already high where people are risking their lives. The urgent task is to build operational leadership that does not confuse media amplification with political capacity. That leadership must be domestically anchored, sovereignty-first, and institutionally serious. It must be capable of converting the moral clarity of revolt into the procedural legitimacy of transition. Otherwise the rial will keep falling, the nation will keep rising, and the tragedy will be that the regime, organised in its corruption, will outlast the opposition, scattered in its truth.

 

 

3. Arendt: Atomisation, propaganda, and the politics of fear

If the Islamic regime has mastered anything over four decades, it is not governance but social disintegration. It has learned to make a nation endure itself as isolated individuals, privately furious and publicly cautious, each convinced that everyone else is compromised, frightened, or already recruited. Hannah Arendt’s account of totalitarianism is valuable because it is not a moral insult or a checklist, but an anatomy of durable domination built by dismantling the conditions under which citizens can act together. Her argument is precise: the regime does not simply repress dissent; it produces loneliness, distrust, and political unreality, so that even when people share the same judgement, they cannot recognise one another as partners in action (Arendt, 1951). In that sense, the political economy of theocracy described in Part I is inseparable from a social technology: impoverishment and fear do not merely punish; they atomise, making collective capacity harder to build.

 

Arendt’s concept of loneliness is often misread as psychological garnish. It is not. In The Origins of Totalitarianism, loneliness names the collapse of the social and political fabric through which individuals locate themselves in a shared world: the condition in which one no longer trusts one’s own perceptions enough to speak, and no longer trusts others enough to organise. It differs from solitude, which can be chosen. Loneliness is imposed (Arendt, 1951). The Islamic regime has engineered this with brutal consistency, turning the state into a moral tribunal that penetrates daily life so that ordinary association becomes a risk. It made the workplace, the university, the neighbourhood, and even the family susceptible to policing, denunciation, and moral surveillance. It converted public spaces into arenas of performative compliance. It did not merely criminalise opposition; it criminalised the preconditions of opposition, such as independent organisation, autonomous unions, and civic associations. Under such conditions, the illusion of unanimity is easier to sustain because the costs of dissent are not only physical, but relational.

 

This matters for the present uprising because leaderless eruptions often fail not for lack of courage, but because loneliness persists as a political structure. People can gather and chant; they struggle to remain gathered, to build procedure, to legislate. The regime counts on this. It knows the first weeks of mobilisation can look unstoppable, yet still dissipate once repression intensifies and social trust is sufficiently damaged. Arendt helps one see why. Collective action is not only shared grievance. It requires what she calls a ‘common world’, the realm in which citizens appear to one another as equals capable of making promises, forming commitments, and holding one another to them (Arendt, 1958). When the regime destroys the common world, it does not merely silence speech; it makes coordinated speech difficult to sustain.

 

Propaganda, in Arendt’s analysis, is not simply misinformation. It is the systematic construction of an alternative reality insulated from refutation because the regime controls the conditions under which refutation could be publicly validated. Totalitarian propaganda, as she describes it, is not chiefly designed to persuade sceptics with evidence. It is designed to organise supporters and disorient the undecided by making factuality unstable (Arendt, 1951). No society is innocent of propaganda. The question is whether propaganda is episodic, or embedded in the architecture of power. In Iran, propaganda is not an accessory but a governing method. The regime does not merely tell lies; it demands participation in the lie through rituals, compulsory moral codes, coerced confession, and the moralisation of dissent as treason or corruption. The goal is not to convince every citizen, but to make every citizen doubt the possibility of truth being collectively affirmed.

 

Arendt’s essay ‘Truth and Politics’ sharpens the point. The political danger is not that governments lie. They often do. The danger is that organised lying can destroy the shared space in which factual claims can be tested and stabilised, leaving society vulnerable to cynicism and opportunism (Arendt, 1967). In such an environment, people begin to behave as though truth is whatever the powerful can impose, producing compliance without conviction and political exhaustion, as citizens cease to believe that any public statement has stable meaning. The opposition becomes vulnerable to its own forms of unreality: conspiracy addiction, heroic myth-making, and dependence on spectacle because the disciplined labour of organising feels too slow for a moment that is emotionally urgent. When public truth is degraded, the political field becomes a contest of performances, not programmes.

 

Fear must be discussed without euphemism. The Islamic regime’s violence is not only punitive but exemplary: designed to be seen, narrated, and internalised. Arendt’s distinction between power and violence remains essential. Power arises when people act in concert. Violence can destroy power. It cannot create it (Arendt, 1970). The Islamic regime governs by coercive violence and manufactured consent, yet its long-term stability depends on preventing genuine power among citizens. When protests erupt, the regime responds with batons and arrests, and with targeted measures to stop people acting together: shutting down gathering spaces, intimidating professionals, pressuring families, and enforcing social isolation through fear. The aim is to break the connective tissue that turns crowds into a movement.

 

The regime’s response to the current economic unrest, including talk of ‘listening’ and ‘dialogue’ alongside coercive containment, is intelligible in Arendt’s terms as an attempt to prevent the emergence of public power. It seeks to reframe the uprising as a temporary disturbance to be managed administratively, so that citizens return to private life as isolated units of hardship rather than as a public capable of action (The Guardian, 2025; Financial Times, 2025). That is why the regime is obsessed with narrative: it must prevent the uprising from forming a coherent self-description, keeping revolt as noise rather than a recognised political subject. In Arendt’s register, the decisive question is whether citizens can create durable spaces of appearance, in which they recognise one another not merely as victims of the regime, but as co-authors of a new political order (Arendt, 1958; Arendt, 1963).

 

This leads to the most practically important element of Arendt for my argument: her reflections on councils and revolutionary legitimacy. In On Revolution, Arendt is not endorsing chaos. She diagnoses a recurrent phenomenon: revolutions can overthrow a regime, yet fail to institutionalise freedom because they cannot preserve the participatory organs that arose during the struggle (Arendt, 1963). The ‘lost treasure’ of revolution is the fleeting emergence of councils, committees, and local bodies through which citizens practise self-government. When these are dissolved, absorbed into party machinery, or replaced by bureaucratic authority, a revolution may deliver a new state yet lose the political freedom that animated it. Iran’s 1978–79 rupture is a harsh reminder, but the pattern is broader. Arendt’s warning is structural: if a transition lacks organs of legitimate participation, it becomes vulnerable to authoritarian capture or fragmentation because the public has no institutional means of owning the new order.

 

For the present moment, the council question translates into a leadership question. Operational leadership is not a central committee in exile issuing declarations, or a celebrity figurehead. It is the capacity to cultivate legitimate nodes inside the country that coordinate action, relay information, arbitrate disputes, and sustain the public realm under pressure. This is where Arendt meets Sharp, and where the opposition’s deficit becomes fatal. If the uprising remains an accumulation of courageous episodes without durable participatory organs, it faces two dangers: exhaustion under repression, and capture by the best-organised faction, whether domestic security elements or externalised networks with foreign sponsorship. In both cases, moral clarity becomes politically wasted.

 

Yet there is another Arendtian danger that demands confrontation: the temptation to replace a discredited regime with a mythology of purity and revenge. Arendt is unsentimental about how revolutions turn vindictive when they confuse liberation with punishment. Her insistence on legality, public reason, and durable institutions protects a revolution from becoming a cycle of retaliation (Arendt, 1963). This is not an appeal to softness but to seriousness. When an uprising collapses into ‘revolutionary justice’ without due process, it justifies counter-violence, tightens security cohesion among regime remnants, and opens the door to a ‘guardianship’ discourse in which coercive actors claim they alone can restore order. Arendt’s point is not to pardon tyranny. It is to insist that freedom is institutional, and that institutions cannot be built on collective punishment.

 

Arendt’s analysis also illuminates why foreign scripting is politically toxic. A revolution that cannot locate its authority in a domestically grounded public realm becomes vulnerable to external narratives that claim to define the nation’s interests. When the language of transition arrives pre-packaged, accompanied by constitutional templates and geopolitical commitments presented as ready-made ‘solutions’, such as the NUFDI whitepaper (Suren-Pahlav, 2025b) or the so-called ‘Cyrus Accord’ (Suren-Pahlav, 2021a), it undermines internally grounded legitimacy and validates the regime’s claim that the uprising is a foreign project. Arendt would treat this as the collapse of political freedom into administrative management. Freedom, in her sense, is not the absence of constraint but the presence of a public capable of beginning, founding, and authoring its institutions (Arendt, 1963). A transition authored abroad is not a beginning, but a handover, the kind of substitution that produces resentment, fractures coalitions, and invites counter-mobilisation.

 

One should, however, avoid a lazy reading of Arendt that treats all coercion as morally equivalent. Her distinction between power and violence does not deny that oppressed people may be driven to defend themselves. It insists that violence is not the source of political legitimacy. This is strategically relevant. The regime will attempt to provoke violence because violence helps it in three ways: it justifies escalation, narrows the coalition by frightening risk-averse citizens, and makes external actors more likely to treat Iran as a security problem rather than a political nation seeking self-rule. A movement serious about sovereignty and democratic legitimacy must therefore discipline itself against the regime’s provocations, not from piety but from strategy. Arendt provides conceptual clarity: do not confuse the destruction of the regime’s instruments with the construction of my own authority.

 

The political implication is stark. Iran’s uprising will not become fruitful merely because it is just. It will become fruitful if it defeats the regime’s atomising machinery by building relational and institutional trust under fire. That does not require ideological uniformity. It requires procedural commitment and credible structures through which people coordinate, deliberate, and sustain non-cooperation, while signalling to minorities, fence-sitters, bureaucrats, and potential defectors within the coercive apparatus that the future will be governed by law, equal citizenship, and national integrity. Arendt’s contribution is to show that without such structures, even a victorious revolt can fail to found freedom, leaving Iran either captured by a new coercive elite or broken by a vacuum.

 

The immediate task, then, is not merely to protest, but to rebuild the public realm the regime has spent decades destroying. The rial’s collapse has forced politics back into the open by making survival itself political. The question is whether Iranians can convert that exposure into the institutional practice of freedom. Arendt would not tell you to wait for a perfect moment. She would tell you that freedom appears when people act together, and that the only durable memorial of that appearance is an institutional form capable of carrying it forward (Arendt, 1958; Arendt, 1963). That is what ‘steering’ means in a revolution. It is not the voice on the microphone. It is the creation of a common world.

 

 

4. Sharp: civil resistance without romanticism

If Arendt explains why the Islamic regime’s most durable weapon is not the truncheon but the engineered loneliness that prevents citizens from trusting one another long enough to build institutions, Gene Sharp explains something more operational: regimes do not endure because they are feared, or even because they are believed, but because they are continuously assisted. They are upheld by a lattice of cooperation that is often involuntary, frequently habitual, and occasionally cynical, yet still indispensable. Sharp’s great insult to tyranny is analytic demystification. He strips the dictator of metaphysical aura and returns him to political physics: command is effective only when it is obeyed, resources flow only when people keep producing and paying, prisons fill only when institutions keep functioning, and propaganda becomes ‘truth’ only when society keeps repeating it (Sharp, 1973; Sharp, 1993). Read properly, this is not motivational literature. It is a theory of power that refuses both despair and fantasy, and it is precisely what Iran’s opposition ecosystem has lacked in its addiction to slogans, personalities, and cinematic notions of ‘the final push’.

 

Sharp is often reduced to a handbook writer, as if his argument were a list of protest ‘methods’. That caricature dodges what his work implies about organisational leadership. The centre of gravity in Sharp’s theory is political power as a relationship, sustained through multiple pillars of support. Pillars are institutions, networks, and habits of compliance that distribute resources, legitimate authority, and enforce obedience. Once this is understood, the question is not whether Iranians are brave, but whether an uprising can weaken pillars of support faster than the regime can replenish them, while preserving legitimacy and avoiding state-collapse dynamics that invite foreign predation and internal fragmentation. Sharp does not promise inevitability. He offers a grammar of strategy.

 

The first strategic correction is this: street protest is not decisive unless it is connected to a broader campaign of withdrawing cooperation. Authoritarian regimes, including theocratic ones, can survive large demonstrations if they isolate them as episodic turbulence and keep the administrative, economic, and coercive machinery running. Sharp’s framework shifts the focus from crowd size to functional disruption: what happens to the regime’s ability to govern, extract resources, and command obedience when cooperation is withdrawn in disciplined, sustained, and politically legible ways (Sharp, 1973). This is why the bazaar matters: commercial refusal signals that the everyday machinery of compliance is beginning to jam. Yet without a coordinating architecture, such jams remain local, temporary, and easily punished. The regime survives by turning revolt into rhythm: eruption and exhaustion.

 

The second correction is sharper still: civil resistance is not simply ‘non-violent’ in the sentimental sense, as though it were an ethic of politeness. It is non-violent because violence, in Sharp’s analysis, often performs the regime’s work for it. Violence narrows coalitions by frightening those who might otherwise join, helps the regime justify escalation, drives undecided officials to side with the regime as the lesser evil, and creates an opening for foreign aggressors to force their way into the conflict under the false pretext of defending human rights [1]. This dynamic, as witnessed in the case of Syria, represents not the defence but the erosion of national sovereignty. Sharp does not deny that regimes are violent. He insists that movements seeking democratic legitimacy must treat violence, especially gratuitous or retaliatory violence, as a strategic trap as well as a moral hazard (Sharp, 1973; Sharp, 1993). This is not an appeal to pacifism. It is an appeal to political intelligence. The regime wants a battlefield where it can claim monopoly on force. A movement seeking liberation needs a battlefield where the regime’s force becomes politically costly, socially isolating, and administratively exhausting.

 

That is why Sharp’s concept of ‘political jiu-jitsu’ matters for Iran. It describes the dynamic in which repression backfires, generating wider public sympathy, increasing participation, and weakening the regime’s legitimacy, particularly among fence-sitters and within state institutions (Sharp, 1973). This backfire is not automatic. It depends on a disciplined movement capable of maintaining moral clarity and informational coherence under repression. In a society where the regime has worked for decades to destroy trust, the capacity to document violence, communicate it credibly, and prevent it from being reframed as ‘terrorism’ is itself organisational power. When movements fail to build this capacity, repression remains frightening but not delegitimising, and the regime can continue to treat unrest as a policing problem rather than a crisis of authority.

 

Contemporary scholarship reinforces Sharp’s point. Chenoweth and Stephan’s cross-national analysis argues that non-violent campaigns have historically been more likely than violent ones to succeed against authoritarian regimes, partly because they mobilise broader participation and trigger defections within pillars of support (Chenoweth and Stephan, 2011). The empirical claim is not a moral sermon. It is a statistical pattern grounded in participation and coalition breadth. For Iran, this matters because the decisive constituency is not only the brave youth in the streets, the courageous women rejecting enforced veiling, or the merchants shutting their shops. It is also the cautious majority, the professional classes, the salaried bureaucracy, and the lower and middle ranks within coercive institutions who may despise the regime yet fear chaos. Non-violent discipline is one of the few strategies that can recruit these constituencies without forcing them into an existential gamble.

 

Sharp, however, is not naïve about discipline. He treats discipline as an organisational achievement, not a moral posture. A movement cannot declare itself disciplined. It needs structures capable of sustaining discipline under provocation, infiltration, exhaustion, and grief. The Islamic regime’s security apparatus is experienced in manufacturing provocations that fragment movements, encourage reckless escalation, and then present the resulting violence as proof that the regime is defending ‘order’. In this theatre, spontaneous rage is politically understandable yet strategically exploitable. Operational leadership is the capacity to protect the movement from its own predictability, anticipate how repression will be used, and maintain coherence when fear and anger threaten to dissolve it.

 

Sharp also insists on planning, and this is precisely where diaspora opposition cultures have performed their most damaging self-deception. Planning is treated as something to be done after victory. Sharp’s insistence is the opposite: planning is part of how victories are made. Planning is not only tactics, but sequence, cohesion, and legitimacy. If a regime concedes on one issue, what is the movement’s next demand, and why is it the next demand? If repression intensifies, what forms of action remain sustainable?

 

In Iran’s context, local committees that can coordinate civic non-cooperation, provide mutual aid to those targeted by repression, and communicate reliable information to wider networks are the difference between episodic protest and sustained resistance. The spine’s most important function is to connect the street to the workplace and to the administrative routines that keep the regime governable. Sharp’s emphasis on pillars of support should be treated as the movement’s operational map (Sharp, 1973). The pillars in Iran include security forces, the bureaucracy that administers services, commercial networks, transport nodes, the educational sector, and the semi-state economic complex that channels resources. A movement confined to demonstrations leaves these pillars intact. A movement that withdraws cooperation selectively and strategically imposes costs the regime cannot simply beat away. Here, non-cooperation must be understood soberly. Calls for strikes are burdens placed on families and require support systems, including legal defence, emergency funds, and practical solidarity. Otherwise, they become moral theatre where the poorest pay the price for the richest to feel radical. Research on civil resistance suggests that broad participation and disciplined non-violent tactics correlate with higher success rates, in part because they increase defections and reduce the regime’s capacity to isolate dissent (Chenoweth and Stephan, 2011). Participation is not a moral concept. It is a strategic variable.

 

If the regime offers ‘dialogue’, who has the authority to accept, refuse, or condition it? These are not technicalities. They are questions of political authority inside the movement. A revolt without answers becomes vulnerable to narrative capture, either by regime propaganda or by opportunists seeking to present themselves as the ‘voice’ of the street. The question of representation is crucial and often avoided in Sharp’s work. A movement seeking to withdraw pillars of support must also offer a credible image of what replaces the incumbent. This does not require a complete constitution in the midst of struggle. It requires a minimal charter that signals continuity of basic services, territorial integrity, equal citizenship, and the rule-bound administration of justice. Without these signals, the regime’s most effective coercive argument remains available: ‘Yes, we are corrupt, but the alternative is chaos’. Sharp’s framework makes clear why this argument is not merely propaganda. It is a genuine fear among risk-averse citizens, especially in a region where the collapse of central authority has repeatedly produced proxy war, militias, and territorial fracture. A sovereignty-first opposition must treat fear of disorder as a political reality to be answered, not a betrayal to be shamed. It is here that Sharp intersects with my insistence on constitutional continuity. Even if one does not share my constitutional-monarchist premise, the strategic logic is intelligible: a nation emerging from theocratic domination needs an authoritative grammar of continuity to prevent the interregnum from becoming a war of claims. In Sharp’s terms, continuity is not nostalgia. It is a legitimacy tool. It provides a recognised frame in which pillars of support can defect without imagining they are defecting into an abyss. Defection is rarely motivated by love of the opposition. It is motivated by the perception that the incumbent is losing and that the alternative will not annihilate the defector. A movement that cannot offer credible legality increases the cost of defection and inadvertently strengthens the regime’s cohesion.

 

Sharp’s discussion of ‘pillars’ is also directly relevant to labour and the strategic economy, a topic often handled irresponsibly by online activists who treat ‘general strike’ as a magical incantation. A strike is not a meme. It is a high-risk collective act requiring trust, coordination, and material support. Treating ‘general strike’ as a verbal shortcut avoids the only question that matters: leverage. Not every stoppage produces pressure, and not every ‘big’ sector is a choke point. The regime can absorb symbolic pauses, then punish workers in isolation, while continuing to collect rents elsewhere. Strike strategy therefore begins with discrimination, not maximalism. It asks which nodes sustain the regime’s liquidity, procurement, and coercive patronage, and which actions can interrupt those nodes without converting civilians into collateral damage. Otherwise, ‘strike’ becomes a slogan that flatters the diaspora and disciplines the poor. A movement serious about national liberation must speak about strikes as targeted withdrawal of cooperation from the machinery that reproduces state power, not as a romantic nationwide blackout that nobody has prepared to sustain (Suren-Pahlav, 2025e). Where the regime can fire workers, arrest organisers, or starve families into submission, calls for strikes without support structures are not heroic. They are negligent. A further discipline is ethical as well as strategic. Any strike programme that deepens household misery while regime elites remain insulated is not pressure on power. It is cruelty by proxy, and it will fracture the coalition you claim to build. The regime specialises in pushing costs downwards, into wage arrears, hunger, and fear, then advertising the resulting despair as proof that resistance is ‘foreign’ and ‘irresponsible’. Strike planning must therefore include an explicit commitment to protect essential provision and to refuse tactics that endanger life. The objective is not to punish society until it breaks. It is to deny the regime the revenue streams, logistical continuity, and administrative compliance through which it buys obedience and funds repression (Suren-Pahlav, 2025e). Nepstad’s work on non-violent revolutions emphasises the organisational infrastructures that make sustained resistance possible, including networks capable of protecting participants and maintaining morale under repression (Nepstad, 2011). The lesson for Iran is not simply ‘strike more’. It is that cross-sector mobilisation must be built deliberately, with attention to sequencing, coalition breadth, and welfare support, otherwise the regime will pick off isolated nodes and transform courage into deterrent spectacle.

 

This is where the opposition’s media fetish becomes destructive. Reposting videos is not organisation. Narrating events is not strategy. Schock’s analysis of unarmed insurrections underlines that success depends on strategic interaction, not only on moral fervour, and that movements must adapt as regimes adapt (Schock, 2005). The Islamic regime adapts constantly. It shifts from open brutality to calibrated pressure. It uses legal mechanisms, such as prosecutions for ‘economic disruption’, to intimidate commercial communities while presenting repression as law enforcement. It uses administrative measures, such as university closures, to reduce gathering spaces while presenting suppression as governance. It uses propaganda to frame protests as foreign-instigated, while simultaneously nurturing opposition actors who validate that framing by soliciting foreign sponsorship and treating foreign-policy commitments as preconditions for liberation. A movement that remains trapped in the spectacle economy will always be outmanoeuvred by a regime that understands that politics is organisation.

 

Sharp’s framework clarifies why the ‘proxy’ temptation is strategically poisonous. Civil resistance derives much of its power from legitimacy, a political resource authoritarians struggle to counterfeit once it is broadly withdrawn. If the opposition becomes publicly dependent on external patrons, or preloads Iran’s future with geopolitical commitments negotiated outside a democratic mandate, it depletes its own legitimacy. It transforms a struggle for self-rule into a dispute over foreign alignment, invites suspicion among constituencies the opposition needs, and encourages external actors to treat Iran as a strategic object rather than a political nation. Sharp’s insistence on domestic withdrawal of cooperation is, in this sense, sovereignty-first by design. It locates the decisive struggle within Iranian society, not in the fantasies of external interventionists or the vanity of diaspora networking.

 

There is another Sharpian insight that deserves emphasis in the Iranian context: the regime’s pillars are not equally stable, and some can be weakened without requiring an immediate collapse of the state’s administrative capacity. One of the most dangerous oppositional myths is that the fall of the regime must entail the collapse of the state. That is a recipe for chaos, and chaos is a gift to coercive actors and foreign predators. Civil resistance, when strategically conducted, can isolate the ruling clique while preserving, and eventually reclaiming, the administrative machinery needed for continuity of services. This is not collaboration. It is statecraft. It is also the only plausible pathway by which an uprising avoids becoming a vacuum.

 

The Iranian opposition’s greatest challenge is organisational rather than emotional: converting diffuse dissent into coordinated refusal, and converting coordinated refusal into a legitimate transitional authority. Sharp insists that this is possible, but only through strategy, discipline, and what he calls ‘non-violent sanctions’, sustained forms of non-cooperation that impose real costs on the regime while expanding participation (Sharp, 1973). The point is not to enumerate methods as if politics were a menu. It is to align methods with goals, and goals with the coalition’s capacity. A movement that cannot align means and ends becomes vulnerable to moral exhaustion and political capture. The Iranian case also exposes a further problem Sharp only gestures at: informational coherence in an age of digital noise. In Iran, propaganda travels through state television and algorithmic platforms, influencer economies, and the commodification of outrage. This environment rewards immediacy, purity tests, and performative radicalism. It punishes caution, complexity, and procedural work. The regime benefits because the opposition fractures itself into competing micro-publics, each convinced it is the ‘real’ resistance, each treating coalition-building as betrayal. A Sharpian movement must treat information as infrastructure, not entertainment. It must sustain a coherent public narrative that is not easily hijacked by regime provocations or diaspora factionalism, anchored in domestic legitimacy.

 

If one draws the argument to its sharpest point, it is this: Iran does not need more declarations. It needs an organisational architecture capable of widening participation through a sovereignty-first, equal-citizenship frame, sustaining pressure through coordinated withdrawal of cooperation beyond the street, and preparing legitimacy through a minimal transitional settlement that reduces fear of chaos, prevents revenge politics from consuming the future, and blocks the ‘ethnic card’ from becoming a weapon of fragmentation. These tasks are concurrent, and organisational. Sharp does not offer the comfort of inevitability. He offers the discipline of possibility. His work makes clear that tyrannies fall when their pillars are withdrawn, but also that pillars are not withdrawn by enthusiasm alone. They are withdrawn by political organisation capable of enduring repression, sustaining non-cooperation, and offering a credible replacement. This is exactly what has been missing in Iran’s opposition culture, which too often treats liberation as a broadcast rather than as construction. If the rial is falling and the nation is rising, the question is whether the opposition will learn to steer by building the institutions of refusal, or whether it will remain trapped in a cycle of heroism without architecture, leaving Iran exposed to the twin dangers of regime survival and post-collapse chaos.[2]

 

 

5. Žižek: ideology, spectacle, and the trap of performative politics

If Sharp gives the opposition a grammar of strategy, and Arendt exposes the regime’s cultivation of loneliness as political technology, Žižek supplies a harsher diagnosis of why oppositional energy, especially in the diaspora and on the platforms, evaporates into theatre. His value is not a recipe, but the demolition of a comforting illusion: that declaring dissent is already dissent, and that visibility is already power. At his best, he shows how ideology survives after belief has died, how cynicism stabilises domination, and how politics can be replaced by performance so thoroughly that performance is misrecognised as politics (Žižek, 1989). In Iran’s current moment, this is warning, not ornament.

 

Žižek’s provocation is simple: modern domination often does not require that people believe the official story. It is enough that they participate in it. The regime’s ideological success is measured less by conviction than by ritual compliance, and by the internalised assumption that alternatives are impossible or catastrophic. In The Sublime Object of Ideology, Žižek rejects the liberal comfort that ideology is merely false consciousness. It can persist when people 'know very well' what they are doing, yet continue because the social order is anchored in fantasies, habits, and symbolic structures that make participation feel inevitable (Žižek, 1989). In Iranian reality, many have long known that the regime lies, steals, and humiliates. It survives by making the costs of refusing participation unpredictable, and by presenting itself as the only barrier against chaos, foreign domination, and civil conflict. The official ideology does not need to persuade everyone. It needs to colonise the horizon of plausibility.

 

This is why the rial matters. Currency collapse introduces a daily refutation that cannot be absorbed into abstract slogans. When the price of food doubles, 'resistance economy' becomes confession. When wages dissolve, moral sermons become insults. The fantasy of competent guardianship is punctured, yet openings do not automatically become exits. A punctured ideological fantasy can be replaced by another fantasy that is equally disabling: that symbolic rupture is already political transformation. At precisely this point, performative politics becomes seductive, offering the pleasure of clarity without the labour of construction.

 

Žižek’s second contribution is his insistence that politics is not the circulation of correct statements. There is a difference between saying the truth about power and possessing the capacity to change power. Under digital saturation, the temptation is to equate the two. The opposition posts, broadcasts, denounces, and declares itself 'the voice of the people', as if voice were an institutional fact. The regime remains organised. The gulf between expression and organisation becomes vulnerability. Žižek would describe this as substituting the symbolic for the real act: endless commentary in which performing radicalism becomes a way of avoiding the risk and discipline of building forms that might actually win (Žižek, 2008a). The audience experiences intensity. The regime experiences little.

 

This is not an argument against speaking. It is an argument against treating speech as sufficient. The regime degrades speech by flooding the public realm with falsehood and controlled narrative. The opposition risks degrading speech by treating it as commodity. In the attention economy, outrage becomes content, content becomes status, and status becomes a substitute for strategy. A movement begins to behave like a media market rather than an organisation. Once that happens, the regime need not defeat a programme, because the opposition ceases to behave as though it has one.

 

The concept of spectacle clarifies what is happening. Long before Žižek, Guy Debord argued that modern social life can be reorganised around images, where representation replaces direct lived relation, and political life becomes the consumption of appearances rather than the practice of collective power (Debord, 1967). Iran’s uprising, because it is filmed and circulated in real time, produces a paradox. Footage is essential, and documentation is a weapon against denial. Yet circulation can become narcotic. People can feel politically engaged by watching what braver people do. A diaspora can feel powerful by narrating events, translating slogans, and curating clips, while doing little to build operational leadership. The spectacle produces a community of witnesses, not necessarily a community of organisers.

 

The danger intensifies when spectacle couples with purity. Algorithmic platforms reward indignation and punish complexity, encouraging factions to compete for moral primacy, police language, accuse rivals of betrayal, and replace coalition-building with excommunication. Žižek’s account of ideology as fantasy helps explain the mechanism: faced with uncertainty, movements cling to a fantasy of a pure subject, a pure people, a pure line, treating disagreement as contamination. Purity becomes defence against anxiety. Politically, purity is poison. It narrows the coalition, pushes fence-sitters back into silence, and hands the regime an opposition that eats itself in public.

 

Iran’s opposition is vulnerable because the regime has spent decades making trust expensive. Arendt showed how loneliness and suspicion weaken collective action. Žižek adds the caustic point: where trust is weak, communities substitute symbolic aggression for practical solidarity. During protest waves, some diaspora ecosystems produce endless 'exposés', 'traitor lists', and factional drama instead of strike funds, legal defence support, secure communications training, or disciplined strategic messaging. The regime need not invent these divisions. It benefits regardless of whether it caused them.

 

Žižek also diagnoses a specific pathology: the desire for an externally guaranteed shortcut. When a movement lacks operational leadership, it fantasises about decisive external intervention, whether sanctions that will supposedly 'break the regime', a foreign power that will 'support the people', or a pre-designed transition package that will 'ensure democracy'. These fantasies substitute for action. They defer the labour of building domestic capacity, and allow organisational deficit to be blamed on the absence of the right foreign trigger.

 

This is where the ‘proxy trap’ becomes lethal. If the opposition positions liberation as dependent on foreign sponsorship, it confirms the regime’s delegitimising narrative, narrows the domestic coalition, and relocates sovereignty away from the people in whose name the struggle is fought. A nation does not escape theocracy by outsourcing its founding. It exchanges one tutelage for another. Žižek would frame this as fetishistic disavowal: 'We know that relying on foreign patrons undermines legitimacy, but nonetheless we do it, because we cannot imagine another way' (Žižek, 1989).

 

The Israeli and American ‘ethnic card’ discourse I have critiqued belongs to the same ideological terrain. It is not merely policy argument, but narrative device: it treats Iran not as a political nation, but as divisible units to be manipulated against the centre, converting linguistic plurality into strategic vulnerability. Whatever its stated intention, it normalises the idea that Iran is a mosaic of rival sovereignties rather than a single nation with plural languages and cultures. In a transition moment, that normalisation primes fragmentation, invites foreign meddling, and encourages local actors to hedge by territorialising identity. Žižek’s contribution is to insist that ideology is not only what rulers say. It is also what supposedly ‘liberating’ narratives smuggle in as common sense. If the opposition internalises ‘multi-ethnic’ as partitionable sovereignties, it may fight the regime while reproducing the conditions under which sovereignty is lost.

 

Yet the trap is subtler than crude separatism. The trap is performativity. It is possible to posture as a defender of territorial integrity while circulating discourse that makes integrity negotiable, denounce foreign manipulation while courting foreign patrons, and proclaim 'the people' while treating them as spectators to an elite project. Performative politics thrives on such contradictions because coherence is not its goal. Affect is. The audience is asked to feel the argument, not test it against institutional realities. Žižek’s insistence on the real becomes relevant: the real of politics is the capacity to coordinate, govern, protect, and decide under uncertainty. No amount of performative certainty substitutes for that capacity.

 

The performative trap appears even in how 'leadership' is discussed. In crisis, publics crave a clear voice. Media then amplifies those who sound decisive, regardless of organisational capacity, producing a politics of microphones rather than institutions. Žižek would recognise the fetishisation of the leader-image: a screen for projected hope. Hope becomes paralysing when it replaces organisation. This is not an argument against leaders, but against the fantasy that leadership is primarily rhetorical. Operational leadership is not a voice. It is a structure capable of making promises and keeping them, coordinating action and sustaining discipline, negotiating without surrendering sovereignty, protecting participants, and preventing vengeance politics from consuming the transition. When leadership is reduced to performance, the regime retains the advantage of being organised.

 

The regime has mastered its own performativity. It stages 'dialogue' while arresting organisers, announces reforms while protecting rent networks, replaces officials to create the illusion of accountability while leaving the system intact, and performs piety while financing repression. The danger is that the opposition mirrors this theatricality rather than confronting it with institutional seriousness. When both sides perform, the side with prisons wins. The opposition cannot afford to compete on theatre. It must compete on legitimacy and capacity.

 

A further Žižekian insight concerns cynicism. Many Iranians know officials lie and reforms are staged. Yet cynicism does not automatically produce resistance. It can produce compliance, because the cynical subject assumes nothing truly changes, so participation becomes risk management rather than belief (Žižek, 1989). In such an environment, the opposition must do more than expose corruption. Exposure is not news. It must demonstrate that collective action can alter outcomes, even in small ways, and that participation is not merely sacrificial. This is why operational leadership matters: it makes visible wins possible, enables disciplined escalation, and erodes the regime’s aura of inevitability. Without such leadership, cynicism returns as resignation, and resignation is the regime’s most cost-effective governance.

 

The performative trap is not cultural annoyance. It is strategic. It affects coalition breadth, defection dynamics, and whether protests become more than eruptions. It also affects sovereignty. A movement trapped in performance seeks legitimacy through external recognition rather than domestic institution-building, treating foreign endorsement as proof of seriousness. Yet foreign endorsement is not legitimacy. It is geopolitical transaction. When legitimacy is sought abroad, the nation becomes a stage for others’ interests. Sovereignty dissolves not in one dramatic act, but in a thousand small dependencies justified as 'necessary'.

 

How, then, does one escape the trap? Žižek is not Sharp. He does not provide a programme. His critique implies discipline: refuse symbolic substitution. Treat organisational work as political work, not backstage administration. Build institutions that make speech consequential, mechanisms that convert outrage into coordinated non-cooperation, and the minimal transitional charter that reassures a fearful society that liberation will not mean disintegration. Refuse to let the struggle against theocratic domination become spectacle in which Iran’s future is decided by who speaks loudest, who trends fastest, or who gains foreign sponsorship first.

 

If the rial is falling, and the nation is rising, the decisive struggle is not only against the regime’s coercion. It is against the opposition’s temptation to confuse appearance with power. The regime can survive protests that remain performative. It cannot easily survive a movement that becomes organisational, strategically disciplined, and sovereignty-first. Žižek’s brutal gift is to remind us that the greatest danger in revolutionary moments is not only repression, but the replacement of politics by the theatre of politics, where everyone speaks, everyone watches, and nobody builds the authority capable of founding a new order.

 

 

6. Historical parallels without lazy analogy

Iran is not the USSR, not Poland, not Indonesia, not Eastern Europe in 1989, and not Iran in 1978. Anyone who begins by insisting otherwise is not analysing. They are auditioning for a theory. Yet it is equally unserious to treat Iran as incomparable, as though history offers only decoration and no discipline. The correct use of historical parallels is neither prophecy nor nostalgia. It is mechanism: identifying recurrent structural pressures when authoritarian orders are stressed, and the institutional moves that determine whether stress becomes transition, repression, or collapse. The question is not ‘Which country is Iran becoming?’ It is ‘Which failure modes and which success mechanisms are visible, and which are absent?’

 

The first mechanism that travels across cases is the distinction between mobilisation and power. In every episode that ended an entrenched authoritarian order, there was a moment when streets filled, slogans unified, and fear cracked. That moment matters, but it is not decisive. It signals an underlying reconfiguration: the regime’s pillars of support wobble because cooperation is withdrawn from below, cohesion fractures above, or both (Sharp, 1973; Arendt, 1970). Where mobilisation does not translate into power, it produces martyrdom and memory. Where it does, it produces a new political centre. The leadership question in Iran sits inside that translation problem.

 

As noted earlier, Poland is not Iran in a second sense: its transition unfolded within an external environment that broadly converged on Poland’s consolidation as a stable European state, underwritten by a credible institutional horizon and material incentives, later reinforced through Euro-Atlantic integration. Iran faces no comparable convergence. External actors engage Iran through security, energy, and regional competition, and are indifferent to democratic consolidation where strategic interests can be secured. Thus the Polish case is invoked here only for its internal organisational mechanism, not as a model of external sponsorship, nor as a forecast of outcome.

 

Within those limits, Solidarity remains a clear illustration of how opposition converts grievance into durable leverage without forfeiting legitimacy. Its achievements were not a function of national virtue, but of organisational form. The 1980 strikes generated a recognisable centre of decision making, the Inter-Enterprise Strike Committee (MKS), and a public programme in the ‘21 demands’, legible to workers, the state, and external observers (UNESCO, n.d.). This matters because ‘legibility is power’: disciplined articulation turns outrage into claims, and claims into a bargaining position. A regime can criminalise a riot; it is less able to dismiss a movement that can name demands and demonstrate the capacity to disrupt production.

 

The deeper point is that Solidarity built what Iran currently lacks: a representative counterpart. By the time of the 1989 Round Table talks, it was a social institution with internal structure, recognised leadership, and the capacity to deliver on commitments, which is the precondition of negotiation (US Office of the Historian, n.d.). Negotiation is not a moral reward but a political transaction between parties who can credibly bind constituencies. Much diaspora commentary assumes ‘transition talks’ will materialise once the regime weakens; that assumption is fragile. Negotiations tend to occur when credible disruption meets credible alternative authority. Without an organised counterpart, the regime has little incentive to negotiate and strong incentives to fragment, infiltrate, and exhaust. Solidarity also punctures the fetish of spontaneity: mobilisation may ignite spontaneously, but cross-sector discipline is usually manufactured through procedures, committees, and the slow production of trust. In Iran, the deficit is rarely passion; it is procedural seriousness. Organisation is not optional. It is the form courage must take if it is to become power.

 

Eastern Europe’s 1989 revolutions, and the broader collapse of communist legitimacy, are often misread as proof that regimes fall when crowds reach a critical mass. That reading mistakes the visible event for the underlying reconfiguration. A more serious interpretation focuses on preference cascades and the erosion of credible repression. Kuran’s model of ‘preference falsification’ explains why public acquiescence can persist until a shock reveals that acquiescence is not consent, and why public dissent can then cascade as individuals revise their perception of risk and social support (Kuran, 1991). Yet the mechanism is only half the story. Cascades succeed politically when the state’s coercive response becomes constrained by elite uncertainty, fear of uncontrollable escalation, or declining willingness within the coercive apparatus to enforce repression. In many Eastern European cases, the Soviet Union’s reduced willingness to impose military discipline across the bloc altered the repression calculus, making mass mobilisation more likely to succeed (Kramer, 2003). Iran’s situation differs, but the mechanism remains. What matters is not only whether people rise, but whether the regime can still rely on coercive certainty.

 

The USSR itself is instructive precisely because it complicates the simplistic desire for a revolutionary ‘leader’. The Soviet collapse was not a charismatic overthrow. It was an institutional disintegration accelerated by reforms that weakened the party’s monopoly, exposed contradictions, and permitted alternative centres of legitimacy to emerge, including nationalist movements in the republics (Beissinger, 2008). In Iran, the regime is not voluntarily liberalising in a comparable manner, and it remains willing to use force. Yet the Soviet case matters because it shows that a regime can die from internal institutional decay as much as from street pressure. It also shows that collapse can produce sovereignty fragmentation when the political unit contains sub-units with recognised constitutional identities and elite structures capable of asserting them. Iran’s provinces do not correspond to Soviet republics with constitutional secession clauses. That fact reduces, but does not eliminate, fragmentation risk. What increases fragmentation risk is not diversity per se, but a vacuum in which local armed entrepreneurs and external patrons convert diversity into territorial claims.

 

Indonesia in 1998 provides a different and arguably more relevant mechanism for Iran, because it illustrates how economic crisis interacts with coercive defection. Suharto’s fall followed the Asian financial crisis, mass mobilisation, and, crucially, the withdrawal of military support that made continued rule untenable. One should not overstate the purity of Indonesia’s transition, but the mechanism is clear: when coercive cohesion cracks, regimes fall quickly. This is why the Iranian regime invests so heavily in ensuring ideological discipline within its coercive bodies and cultivating parallel forces. It understands that its greatest danger is not a protest, but a defection. Indonesia also offers a second insight: an institutional ‘off-ramp’ can reduce collapse chaos. The vice-presidential succession to Habibie provided an immediate, if imperfect, continuity mechanism that limited the vacuum. Iran does not have an equivalent consensus continuity mechanism accepted across society, which is why constitutional continuity arguments, including my insistence on reviving a purified 1906 framework, should be understood as an attempt to manufacture an off-ramp that preserves sovereignty and avoids collapse into guardianship or factional anarchy.

 

Iran’s own 1978–79 rupture is unavoidable as a reference, yet it must be handled with discipline rather than myth. The tendency in some circles to narrate 1979 as a manufactured revolution by the West and Israel in accordance with the Bernard Lewis Plan (Suren-Pahlav, 2000; 2010b; 2018), the temptation in communist and Marxist-Islamists circles to treat it as a morality play, a heroic revolution hijacked by Mullahs, or the Islamists’ claim that it was an inevitable eruption of anti-imperial will, favoured and continuously repeated by Western media and political analysis, initially propagated by figures such as Michel Foucault and circles close to the key members of the revolution. To this date, all three narratives are being argued with no agreement, yet what matters for present purposes has no bearing on the current state. However, the central lesson is that mass mobilisation becomes decisive when it is coupled with strikes and non-cooperation that undermine the regime’s revenue and administrative capacity. In Iran’s case then, the oil sector was decisive because it was the state’s fiscal artery. One can debate the details, but the broader point is widely recognised in serious chronologies and analyses: when strikes intersect with street mobilisation, the former imperial government faced an existential crisis of governability (Kurzman, 2004; Brookings, 2019). The bazaar, likewise, mattered less as an economic engine than as a social and organisational node capable of linking commerce to protest. Its closures signalled that the government was losing not only authority but practical cooperation.

 

Although the former imperial government and the current Islamic regime in Iran cannot be compared, since one represented modernity and nationalism and the current represents regression and Islamic fundamentalism, the darker lesson of 1979 is Arendtian: revolutions can destroy a regime and still fail to found freedom if they cannot institutionalise an inclusive, plural public realm. The Islamic regime emerged not merely because Khomeini was charismatic, but because his networks were organised, embedded, and capable of claiming authority in the vacuum. Revolutions are not won by those who are most right. They are won by those who are most organised at the moment when legitimacy collapses. If the present uprising remains organisationally thin and a rupture comes, the post-collapse contest will not be between ‘the people’ and ‘the regime’. It will be between actors capable of organising coercion and administration. If the opposition has not built a domestically anchored operational spine, it risks watching its own victory become someone else’s state.

 

Another useful parallel, often ignored by those who prefer romantic imagery, is the general pattern observed in civil resistance research: non-violent campaigns tend to succeed more often than violent ones, partly because they mobilise broader participation and increase defection likelihood among pillars of support (Chenoweth and Stephan, 2011). This matters for Iran because the regime’s strategic advantage lies in its coercive capacity and its readiness to cast opponents as terrorists or foreign agents. In some cases, this framing is not baseless: certain groups function as the regime’s own false opposition, or as foreign-backed groups such as MEK and NUFDI. Thus, violence helps the regime because it narrows coalitions and justifies escalation. It also increases the probability of externalisation, which is precisely what a sovereignty-first movement must avoid. Where oppositions militarise early without institutional coherence, they often produce a long war rather than a transition. Iran cannot afford that, not because Iranians lack courage, but because the regional environment punishes state weakness with predation.

 

What, then, is the practical synthesis of these parallels? Poland shows that operational leadership is an organisational artefact, not a rhetorical one, and that workplace-linked coordination is decisive leverage. Eastern Europe and the USSR show that rapid cascades occur when repression loses credibility and institutional coherence fractures, and that state disintegration can produce fragmentation where sub-units possess organised elites and constitutional identities. Indonesia shows that coercive defection is often decisive, and that continuity mechanisms reduce vacuum risk. Iran 1978–79 shows that strikes and strategic disruption can break the government, but that the post-collapse settlement is seized by those who enter the vacuum organised, not by those who enter it morally satisfied.

 

The lesson for the present is clear, and uncomfortable precisely because it deprives everyone of comforting fantasies. Iran’s uprising cannot rely on anger alone, social media visibility, or foreign sponsorship without paying a sovereignty cost. It cannot rely on the hope that the regime will simply collapse and leave behind a clean slate. The regime’s collapse, if it comes, will create a dangerous interval in which the integrity of the state, the cohesion of the armed forces, and the legitimacy of any interim authority will be contested. If the opposition is not prepared with an operational architecture capable of coordination, representation, and a minimal transitional charter that is hard to weaponise, the uprising risks becoming another exhausted protest cycle, or a catastrophic rupture in which sovereignty bleeds away through fragmentation and foreign meddling.

 

History does not guarantee that Iran will fragment, nor does it guarantee that it will be liberated. History tells us something more brutal and more useful: political systems fall when cooperation is withdrawn and coercive certainty cracks, but a nation is preserved when a legitimate alternative authority is ready to govern, not merely to denounce. The rial’s fall is a political shock. It creates an opening for withdrawal of cooperation, cross-sector and national mobilisation, and erosion of regime legitimacy. Whether that opening becomes liberation depends on whether Iranian nation can build, in real time, what Solidarity built over years: an institutional spine capable of turning a rising nation into a steering nation.

 

 

7. The ‘ethnic card’: from ethno-nation and lingual-diversity to engineered multi-ethnicity and fragmentation

The regime’s most reliable trick is to present itself as the custodian of Iran’s territorial integrity while it corrodes the civic conditions that make integrity more than a coercive claim. Yet a second trick arrives draped in the language of ‘rights’ and ‘inclusion’: the deliberate recoding of Iran’s linguistic and religious plurality into a fabricated sociology of ‘minorities’, ‘nations’, and ‘ethnic blocs’, then mobilised to make federalisation appear inevitable, partition appear reasonable, and sovereignty appear suspicious. This is the ‘ethnic card’ as a strategic instrument, not a neutral descriptor: a lexicon engineered to convert a historically continuous nation into an administrative puzzle, solvable only through fragmentation.

 

History, as documented in the record, is sufficiently robust that it admits of little credible challenge. This discourse does not imply the existence of 'ethnic minorities' in Iran (Suren-Pahlav, 1998). Rather, it proceeds from the premise that there are Iranians, conceived as an ‘ethno nation’, living within a civilisational polity that has long accommodated multiple languages, religions and local traditions without recasting them as competing sovereignties. The term ‘ethnic minority’, as deployed by foreign policy entrepreneurs and their domestic echoes, is not an innocent category of demography. It is an imported analytic that carries, within its own grammar, an implied path: from linguistic difference to ethnic contradiction, from ethnic contradiction to territorial entitlement, and from territorial entitlement to the managed dismantling of the country. This is not how Iran has historically understood itself, and it is not how Iranians, including those who speak languages other than Persian, experience belonging. The ‘ethnic card’ is therefore best read as an epistemological intervention: a war over naming, because naming precedes institutional design.

 

This is the core argument of the ‘federalist trap’. Federalism, in its Iranian packaging, is not presented as an emergency administrative reform or as a principled constitutional option to be debated after liberation. It is presented as the only ‘democratic’ answer to a supposed ‘multi-ethnic’ condition that is itself manufactured. The manoeuvre is circular: Iran is declared ‘multi-ethnic’, therefore it must be federal; once federalism is conceded, the state is structurally partitionable; and once partition is structurally normalised, foreign patrons and domestic opportunists can treat dismemberment as transition rather than catastrophe. In that sense, the ‘federalist trap’ is not a constitutional debate. It is a geopolitical design translated into institutional form (Suren-Pahlav, 2013).

 

The more recent iterations of this design are more sophisticated precisely because they mimic the vocabulary of liberal pluralism. They do not announce their intent as balkanisation. They speak in the tone of ‘recognition’, ‘self-determination’, ‘non-Persian nations’, and ‘minority rights’, terms designed to place anyone who defends Iran’s national coherence on the defensive, cast as a ‘chauvinist’ by definition. This conceptual inversion is not accidental. It is the mechanism by which sovereignty is made morally illegible. My critique of FDD and Brenda Shaffer’s ‘Iran Is More Than Persia’ insists on this point with necessary clarity: the text’s function is not to understand Iran but to reframe it, translating internal unity into a crisis of legitimacy and cohesion, and offering fragmentation as remedy under cover of ethnographic description (Suren-Pahlav, 2021b). What matters here is not whether one agrees with every polemical flourish in that critique, but the structural claim: that certain think-tank and policy-adjacent writings deploy ethnographic language as a permissive alibi for interventionist strategy. ‘This is not a book, it is a briefing’ is not merely a rhetorical jab. It is an insistence on genre. The genre is policy conditioning, the creation of a narrative environment in which the idea of Iran as a coherent nation becomes disputable, and in which foreign actors can plausibly claim that they are ‘supporting rights’ when they are in fact cultivating leverage (Suren-Pahlav, 2021b).

 

At this point, the predictable objection appears: ‘But Iran has ethnic groups, and therefore minorities, and therefore minority rights.’ This is precisely where the argument must be handled without sentimental fog. The term ‘minority’ is not merely descriptive; it is performative. It does work. It organises perceptions and programmes. In much international reporting and advocacy, ‘minorities’ denotes communities that experience discrimination, uneven development, or targeted repression. That is a defensible usage within human rights frameworks. Yet the ‘ethnic card’ does something else. It takes the fact of uneven repression or marginalisation and treats it as proof of separate nationhood and therefore proof of territorial entitlement. The leap is not analytic. It is ideological.

 

One can acknowledge, without contradiction, that peripheral provinces and language communities often experience different patterns of state coercion, and that the Islamic regime has weaponised identity in its own policing. International human rights bodies and NGOs frequently frame this in the language of ‘minorities’, including in commentary on the disproportionate impact of crackdowns in certain communities. Yet it does not follow that Iran is a ‘multi-national’ state awaiting ethnofederal salvation, that linguistic plurality maps neatly onto rival political identities, or that the proper remedy is to build partitionable sovereignties. Indeed, it is exactly this false inference that foreign strategists cultivate. The point is not to deny injustice. The point is to deny the post-colonial remedy.

 

This is why insistence on the epistemological manoeuvre is not optional, but essential. In the ‘Irānestān’ (partitioned or fragmented Iran [3]) critique, the framing of Iran as a ‘multi-ethnic’ entity is described as a strategic imposition, a misnaming that overwrites Iran’s civilisational grammar with an imported analytic designed to normalise fragmentation (Suren-Pahlav, 2025f). It is not merely that the term ‘multi-ethnic’ is inaccurate. It is operational. It prepares the ground for institutional aggression by making the defence of unity appear as the suppression of ‘minorities’. In this script, pluralism is redefined as segmentation, and segmentation is sold as democracy.

 

If one wants a sober theoretical anchor for this argument, one does not need to rely on nationalist assertion alone. The sociology of ethnicity has long warned that ‘ethnic groups’ are not fixed natural units but categories of practice, activated and institutionalised through political and administrative processes. The danger is not difference, but the political work done by the naming of difference. In that sense, the ‘ethnic card’ is a particular instance of a broader mechanism: the production of groupness through classification, rhetoric, and institutional design. When classification becomes the basis for territorial sovereignty, the state becomes structurally vulnerable to centrifugal mobilisation once the centre weakens. Comparative work on ethnofederalism is instructive here, not because Iran resembles the Soviet Union mechanically, but because ethnofederal designs can supply ready-made platforms for separatist entrepreneurship during crisis (Hale, 2004). The lesson is not that decentralisation is impossible. It is that the territorialisation of identity can create ladders for disintegration in moments of rupture.

 

In my ‘federalist trap’ argument, this is not reducible to a reflexive hostility to reform (Suren-Pahlav, 2013). It is a warning about sequencing and design under conditions of geopolitical predation. Federalism is typically a prescription for uniting fragmented states, each with distinct national identities, into a single coherent unit for shared governance and common purposes, as in Switzerland or the former Yugoslavia. It is not, conversely, a device for fragmenting an already existing polity into competing territorial sovereignties, particularly one that has formed organically over millennia and whose nation shares a common history, culture, roots and civilisational memory. Yet, for the sake of argument, even if one were to set aside Iran’s thousands of years of history and civilisation and treat it as no older than Switzerland, federalism would still be ill suited to Iran because Switzerland’s arrangements rest on long-developed civic institutions, a specific historical settlement and, crucially, a geopolitical context that does not render its cantons proxy battlegrounds. Iran is a high-stakes regional actor in a neighbourhood where weak states are not left alone. Under such conditions, federalisation on an ethnic template is not a neutral governance choice. It is an invitation to foreign patronage and to the externalisation of internal politics.

 

The most cynical sophistication of the current ‘ethnic card’ operation is that it often presents itself as anti-regime realism. This is where ‘Know Thyself, Know Thy Enemy’ is revealing, because it does not merely denounce a far-right call to exploit ‘Iran’s ethnic minorities’. It dissects how even ostensibly more ‘moderate’ criticism can reproduce the same framing under a gentler tone, thereby keeping the ethnic premise alive while claiming to caution against its misuse (Suren-Pahlav, 2024). The point is not to litigate personalities, but to recognise a discursive trap: once Iran is framed as an ethnic mosaic of rival nations, the question becomes how best to manage fragmentation, not whether the premise is false. That is how sovereignty is lost in advance, by conceding the enemy’s vocabulary.

 

This is why it is not enough for opposition actors to say they oppose ‘separatism’. Many declare opposition to separatism while adopting the classificatory language that makes separatism intelligible as a political programme. To talk endlessly of ‘non-Persian nations’ inside Iran, or to treat Persian as an oppressive ‘ethnicity’ rather than as a historical lingua franca, is to manufacture the antagonistic dyad required for partitionist politics. I am explicit on this point: the fabrication of a ‘Persian ethnicity’ functions as a rhetorical device to produce an oppressor class that can then be blamed for the marginalisations the regime itself has engineered, thereby turning civic grievance into ethnonational hostility (Suren-Pahlav, 2024).

 

One must also confront the uncomfortable fact that the Islamic regime itself benefits from this discourse. It benefits in two ways. First, the regime can point to ethnofederal talk and foreign-sponsored ‘congresses’ as proof that the opposition is a conduit for foreign dismemberment. Second, the regime can justify securitisation of peripheral provinces by claiming it is defending unity against ‘separatists’. Thus, the external ‘ethnic card’ and the regime’s internal repression feed one another. Each side uses the other’s excesses as alibi. The nation pays the price.

 

This is where constitutional language becomes a useful, if ironic, reminder. The Islamic regime’s own constitution contains provisions that recognise Persian as the official language while permitting the use of ‘regional and tribal languages’ in media and for teaching their literature (Constitute Project, n.d.). It also contains formal egalitarian language, stating that all people, whatever ‘ethnic group or tribe’, enjoy equal rights, and that race and language do not confer privilege. The regime’s practice has often violated the spirit of its own formal commitments, and in many cases it has treated language activism as a security threat. Yet the point here is narrower: the legal vocabulary exists, and it can be used either as a civic equality framework or as raw material for ethnonational entrepreneurship. The sovereignty-first position insists that language and regional culture are matters of equal citizenship, not stepping-stones to rival sovereignties. Rights are not conditional on being a ‘minority’. They are unconditional, because they attach to citizenship.

 

The ‘Irānestān’ critique takes this further by naming the machinery through which the ethnic premise is circulated: think-tank briefs, pseudo-academic texts, diaspora organisations, and packaged ‘congresses’ that rehearse representation while advancing a partitionist lexicon. It is less important whether every institutional linkage is proven to a legal standard than whether the pattern is politically intelligible. A movement that claims to be building a post-theocratic Iran, yet frames that Iran as a federation of invented ethno-nations, is not building democracy. It is rehearsing colonial administration in modern vocabulary. My argument is that NUFDI functions, in effect, as a civilian node within this discursive perimeter, amplifying narratives that render fragmentation morally plausible and politically saleable (Suren-Pahlav, 2025f).

 

That critique contains a second, strategically sensitive claim: the appropriation of the Crown Prince’s name as symbolic cover for projects that, if realised, would dissolve the national coherence that a constitutional settlement, monarchical or republican, would require. The danger here is not only reputational. It is structural. If the figure most widely perceived as a continuity symbol is repeatedly linked, fairly or unfairly, to ethnofederal initiatives, then the opposition’s potential axis of unity is neutralised, and the regime’s propaganda is strengthened. I argue that silence in the face of such appropriation risks being interpreted as tacit endorsement, and therefore public clarification becomes a political duty (Suren-Pahlav, 2025f).

 

The argument should now be sharpened to its operational edge. The ‘ethnic card’ is not primarily a debate about identity. It is a transition weapon. Its function is to ensure that even if the Islamic regime falls, Iran does not re-emerge as a cohesive sovereign actor. A post-theocratic Iran, if unified and governed by constitutional legality, would re-enter the region as an independent civilisational power, not as a client. That possibility threatens multiple regional and extra-regional agendas. The safer outcome, from the perspective of those agendas, is a fragmented Iran, a permanently negotiable Iran, an Iran whose internal divisions are institutionalised so that foreign leverage is structurally baked into its governance. This is why the vocabulary is so carefully chosen. It is the language of ‘rights’ used to licence dependency.

 

None of this requires denying the reality of regional inequality, discrimination, or cultural suppression. A sovereignty-first framework must address these issues head-on, or it will simply recreate central domination under a new flag, thereby furnishing separatist entrepreneurs with genuine grievances to exploit. The correct remedy, however, is not ethnic sovereignty. It is equal citizenship, enforceable anti-discrimination law, serious regional development, and cultural rights protected as part of the national constitutional settlement, not as bargaining chips in a territorial auction. Persian should continue, as it has for millennia, to serve as the country’s national and literary language. This must be accompanied by effective guarantees for education and cultural production in other Iranian languages and dialects, not as a concession to what external actors attempt to frame as 'minority languages', but as an acknowledgement of Iran’s layered rich heritage and as an antidote to the very securitisation that has turned language into a contraband commodity. This matters because other Iranian languages and dialects, some of them of great historical depth, including Gorani (Hawrami), Tati (Talyshi), Sangsari, Sivandi and Vafsi, can strengthen Persian by expanding its internal resources and depolluting its lexicon of unnecessary foreign loanwords.

 

This also clarifies what must be rejected, without euphemism, in the name of democracy. Ethnofederalism marketed as liberation should be named for what it is in the Iranian context: a high-risk institutional design that invites proxy capture and multiplies the number of veto points through which foreign patrons can paralyse national decision-making. Federalism can be compatible with democracy in particular historical conditions. The question is not whether federalism is metaphysically evil. The question is whether Iran’s transition environment, geopolitical exposure, and the manufactured discourse of ‘multi-ethnicity’ make ethnofederalism a plausible route to freedom. The sovereignty-first answer is no, because the design is being sold through a vocabulary that already assumes national contradiction and therefore already anticipates dismemberment (Suren-Pahlav, 2013; Suren-Pahlav, 2025f).

 

The deeper objective, then, is epistemic resistance. If the nation concedes the enemy’s categories, it will end up living inside the enemy’s map. A sovereignty-first opposition must police its vocabulary with the same seriousness with which it polices funding, alliances, and institutional proposals. It must speak of Iran as a nation with linguistic plurality, not as a mosaic of ethnic-minorities. It must speak of citizenship rights, not ‘minority rights’ as an implied territorial claim. It must speak of decentralisation as administrative efficiency and local accountability, not as ethnonational self-rule. Most importantly, it must refuse the moral blackmail that treats national coherence as oppression. Coherence is not oppression. It is the precondition for equal law across territory. Fragmentation does not liberate the weak. It creates a market in which the weak must purchase protection from whoever holds coercion and foreign sponsorship.

 

To state this with the necessary severity: the ‘ethnic card’ is how Iran is prepared to lose sovereignty even as it imagines it is winning freedom. It is a discourse designed to outlive the regime, a script waiting for the interregnum. If that script is not disarmed now, through intellectual clarity and organisational refusal, then the day after collapse will not be a day of democratic founding. It will be the beginning of a bargaining war over territory, resources, and allegiance, fought in the name of identities that were first manufactured, then weaponised, then institutionalised. The antidote is not denial. It is a civic national programme that protects language and culture within a single sovereignty, and that refuses to let Iran be re-authored abroad.

 

 

8. Scenarios: what could happen if the regime collapses without an organisational successor

The Iranian opposition often speaks of ‘collapse’ as though it were synonymous with ‘liberation’, as if the fall of the clerical state would automatically deliver the birth of a democratic one. That is not analysis, but wish. The collapse of an authoritarian regime is merely the end of one coercive equilibrium. What follows is determined by whether an alternative equilibrium can be constituted quickly enough to monopolise legitimacy, organise coercion under law, preserve the state’s administrative continuity, and prevent the scramble for power from being externalised into proxy competition. If those conditions are absent, collapse becomes a vacuum. Vacuums do not remain empty. They attract the organised, the armed, the opportunistic, and the foreign. In Arendt’s terms, the decisive question is whether the public that rises can also found a common world through institutions, or whether the destruction of the old order leaves only violence, suspicion, and competing claims without a recognised grammar of authority (Arendt, 1963; Arendt, 1970). Put bluntly: if there is nobody steering, the ship does not sail towards democracy by default. It drifts towards whoever can seize the helm.

 

The first consequence of leaderless collapse is administrative rupture. In regimes such as the Islamic regime, the state is not merely a service provider, but a disciplinary machine. Ministries, municipalities, and public utilities are shot through with security oversight, patronage networks, and ideological vetting. Yet even a predatory state performs functions that keep society alive. When central authority fractures, the immediate crisis is not constitutional theory, but electricity, fuel distribution, banking liquidity, customs control, and wage payments for teachers, nurses, and municipal workers. A currency already collapsing would, under vacuum conditions, typically suffer a further credibility shock, pushing households and businesses into frantic hedging and accelerating the hoarding behaviours that transform shortage into panic.

 

In the literature on state failure, one recurrent indicator of collapse is the rapid growth of criminal violence and protection markets once ordinary policing becomes paralysed and the state can no longer enforce predictable rules (Rotberg, 2002). That dynamic is structural, not culturally specific. When law becomes uncertain and the currency becomes unusable, citizens search for protection, and protection is supplied by those who can credibly threaten violence. The passage from political upheaval to criminal anomie is not a melodramatic possibility. It is a well-documented transition risk.

 

This is why the opposition’s deficit cannot be reduced to slogans about ‘leadership’. A figure may be admired and still be operationally irrelevant inside the country at the moment the state fractures. Conversely, an apparatus may be unpopular and still be decisive if it can organise coercion and administration. Regime collapse becomes democratic transition only when a legitimate interim authority can do three things at once: stabilise a minimum level of public order without substituting theocracy with new arbitrary coercion, keep the administrative state functioning sufficiently to avoid humanitarian breakdown, and articulate a procedural path to democratic authorisation that is believable to the population and intelligible to the bureaucracy. These are not luxuries. They are the core of sovereignty, and they are precisely what collapses first when there is no organisational successor.

 

One can, however, distinguish plausible pathways rather than indulging apocalyptic generalities. The most favourable scenario, even in the absence of pre-existing operational leadership, is that an interim political centre is constituted rapidly enough to prevent the vacuum from consolidating. This can occur through a negotiated coalescence of opposition actors, senior technocrats, and elements of the existing administrative and military apparatus who judge the regime finished and seek a survivable off-ramp. The point is not moral purification, but continuity under law. The interim centre would seek to hold the coercive instruments of the state in a single chain of command while separating them from ideological policing, and to keep ministries functioning while purging the most compromised security nodes. This would be politically explosive, because parts of the public would demand immediate retribution. Yet transitional seriousness matters here: revenge politics tends to erode legitimacy and push fence-sitters back towards coercive ‘order’. The Syrian experience is instructive not only because it illustrates how external actors, including the United States, its allies and Israel, might channel Iran towards a comparable trajectory of internal warfare, but also because it demonstrates how retaliatory violence can erupt immediately after regime collapse, and how collective punishment corrodes the legitimacy of any emergent authority (The Guardian, 2025a; International Crisis Group, 2025). The lesson is not that justice is optional. It is that justice without due process becomes a contagion. An interim authority that cannot restrain vengeance risks losing the monopoly on force before it has even claimed it.

 

If such consolidation occurs, the probability of preserving territorial integrity increases substantially, not because pluralism disappears, but because local actors have fewer incentives to hedge through armed autonomy. A recognised centre that guarantees equal citizenship, language rights, and local governance within a unitary state, while maintaining continuity of basic services, can pull the peripheries into a civic bargain rather than pushing them towards separatist entrepreneurs. National unity becomes credible when it is experienced as protection rather than as domination. The absence of such credibility is precisely what makes the ‘ethnic card’ so dangerous. Yet even this best-case pathway is fragile. It requires quick institutional decisions about the security sector, and this is where most transitions stumble. Security sector reform scholarship repeatedly stresses that the central challenge is establishing an accountable, effective security apparatus subordinated to constitutional authority, while avoiding wholesale dissolution, which creates a vacuum, and cosmetic continuity, which reproduces authoritarian coercion (International IDEA, 2020). Iran’s particular danger is that the coercive apparatus is plural, with overlapping and competing forces whose loyalties and economic interests are not identical. In a best-case scenario, the interim authority must prevent those forces from becoming rival sovereigns.

 

The second pathway is a form of ‘guardianship’, in which the coercive apparatus, or a dominant segment of it, steps into the vacuum as the organiser of order. This is often presented as temporary stabilisation, and it often contains a kernel of truth: where society fears chaos, and where the opposition lacks an institutional centre, the demand for order becomes politically powerful. Yet guardianship is not neutrality. It is power. Security establishments that manage transitions frequently write the rules of the new order to preserve their privileges, immunities, and economic holdings. The transition becomes an authoritarian refit rather than a democratic founding, and the risk intensifies where security institutions have deep economic entanglements, because they will resist reforms that threaten their revenue streams. A movement that imagines that the fall of the clerics automatically dismantles the coercive economy is deceiving itself. If the coercive institutions consolidate as interim authority, they may suppress clerical rule while retaining the architecture of surveillance, selective prosecution, and unaccountable force. The population gains respite from theological policing yet remains trapped in a security state.

 

This is the scenario in which the opposition’s performative politics becomes most catastrophic. A fragmented, media-centric opposition is easily neutralised by a guardianship regime because the guardianship can offer a simple trade: stability in exchange for political demobilisation, accompanied by selective prosecutions of the most hated theocrats to placate public anger. Many citizens, exhausted by economic collapse, may accept the bargain if no credible democratic alternative exists. The guardianship then inherits the machinery of state, the diplomatic channels, and the capacity to manage foreign pressure, while the opposition remains reduced to commentary. If the aim is democratic reconstruction, this is a trap, yet it is one into which societies repeatedly fall when the alternative is imagined as disorder. This is why institutional continuity arguments matter. They are not nostalgic indulgences. They are attempts to prevent the coercive apparatus from claiming that only it can hold the nation together.

 

The third pathway is the one most people avoid naming because it is politically inconvenient: fragmentation of authority into multiple competing centres, producing chronic insecurity and opening the door to foreign manipulation. In this scenario, the collapse of the regime is not a single event, but a disintegration of command. Some security units remain cohesive locally, others defect, others become private protection rackets. Ministries function sporadically, wages go unpaid, and regional actors begin to govern through ad hoc arrangements. The state’s monopoly on violence becomes aspirational rather than real, and the economy shifts from productive activity to survival trading, smuggling, and protection markets. As authority weakens, criminal violence grows, and citizens turn to local strongmen and militias for protection, thereby further eroding central authority in a self-reinforcing loop (Rotberg, 2002). Political pluralism does not flourish in such conditions. It is crowded out by coercion and scarcity. Elections become meaningless theatre because ballots cannot compete with guns.

 

This is also the pathway that converts Iran into an arena for externalised conflict. Foreign actors do not need to invade to shape a fractured polity. They can fund clients, arm proxies, manipulate financial channels, and cultivate separatist narratives. The ‘ethnic card’ becomes operational because a weak centre cannot credibly guarantee rights and services, so local communities hedge by seeking patrons. Border provinces become particularly vulnerable because cross-border networks already exist, whether commercial or militant, and neighbouring states have immediate security incentives to shape outcomes. The aim of foreign patrons is rarely democratic health. It is leverage. Once the struggle is externalised, sovereignty becomes something negotiated by outsiders using Iranian factions as instruments. This is how a nation loses its future without a single formal annexation. It is replaced by a patchwork of dependencies.

 

It is here that one must treat the fear of fragmentation as a rational political concern rather than as paranoia. The regime has abused the unity argument to justify repression. Yet that abuse does not nullify the underlying geopolitical reality: Iran sits in a region where weak states are not left to heal. They are competed over. The Syrian case again offers a caution, not as a perfect analogue, but as a demonstration of how cycles of revenge, sectarian narratives, and fragmented coercion can persist even after a formal regime collapse, especially when transitional justice is slow and security forces are undisciplined or factionalised (The Guardian, 2025a; The Guardian, 2025b). One does not need to import Syria’s particulars into Iran to accept the general mechanism: where authority is fractured and justice is informal, violence becomes reciprocal, and reciprocal violence makes state-building harder.

 

A fourth, often overlooked scenario is what might be called the ‘managed collapse’ into a pseudo-transition, in which the regime sheds its most visible theological symbols, rebrands its institutions, and offers controlled pluralism while keeping the coercive core intact. This is not a full guardianship, because it preserves some civilian façade, and it is not a full collapse, because the coercive architecture survives. It is an authoritarian succession strategy. In societies exhausted by crisis, such managed transitions can be politically effective because they offer the psychological relief of ‘change’ without the institutional disruption that frightens the cautious. They also appeal to foreign states that prioritise stability and predictable security arrangements over genuine democratisation. The danger for the opposition is acute: if it has not built an organisational successor capable of contesting legitimacy, the regime’s rebrand can succeed, and the uprising becomes catharsis rather than transformation.

 

Across these scenarios, two variables repeatedly decide the direction of travel. The first is coercive cohesion, meaning whether armed and policing institutions remain unified, fragment, or defect in a structured way. The second is organisational succession, meaning whether there exists a domestically credible political architecture capable of translating revolt into governance. In the absence of organisational succession, coercive cohesion becomes decisive, and the outcome tends to drift towards guardianship or fragmentation. In the presence of organisational succession, even partial, the outcome can move towards democratic consolidation, because defections become feasible and the public can recognise an alternative authority that is more than a slogan.

 

This is why ‘leaderless collapse’ is such a dangerous phrase. It tempts observers to imagine a spontaneous moral purification. Politics is not purification. It is replacement of authority. The replacement can be better or worse. If it is unprepared, it will be captured by those who are prepared, and preparation in a collapsing regime is often a synonym for coercive capacity. Sharp’s insistence that regimes rely on pillars of support contains an implicit warning: if pillars fall and there is no alternative structure, the fall is not the end of power. It is the redistribution of power to whoever can build new pillars fastest (Sharp, 1973; Sharp, 1993). This is the moment when the organised minority often defeats the dispersed majority.

 

The implications of this logic for sovereignty and national cohesion are clear. The genuine threat to Iran’s unity is not linguistic plurality, but the vacuum within which plurality is converted into a strategy of survival: armed, territorial and dependent. A movement that claims democratic credentials, if it is genuinely committed to preserving unity, must offer a model of unity: not coercive unity, but civic unity, and not merely a slogan, but an institutionally grounded, operationally viable and credible framework for the transition period.

 

There is, finally, the question that many avoid because it is politically distasteful: what happens to the regime’s insiders, its functionaries, its lower-level enforcers, and the mass of people who collaborated not out of ideological conviction but out of survival? If the answer is indiscriminate retribution, the transition will likely fail. It will either be captured by coercive guardianship or fall into civil conflict. Transitional justice scholarship and practice repeatedly emphasise the necessity of balancing accountability with the prevention of revenge cycles and the restoration of rule-bound legitimacy (International IDEA, 2008). Again, this is not softness. It is statecraft. A transition that cannot distinguish between perpetrators and mere employees collapses into collective punishment, which then becomes the moral alibi for counter-violence. The Syrian post-collapse experience, as reported by credible outlets, illustrates how revenge can metastasise and how difficult it becomes to reconstitute a shared political community once collective blame takes root (The Guardian, 2025a; International Crisis Group, 2025). Iran’s opposition should not need Syria as a warning. It should have learnt from Iran’s own twentieth-century history. Yet warnings only matter when they are translated into institutional plans, not when they are performed as moral postures.

 

The conclusion is unavoidable: a regime collapse without an organisational successor does not guarantee liberation. It increases volatility, and volatility favours the organised coercive actor and the foreign patron. The best-case pathway requires rapid consolidation of an interim authority that can maintain public order under law, preserve administrative continuity, and articulate a credible democratic timetable while protecting territorial integrity through civic inclusion. The middle pathway produces a security-centred order that may end theocracy but preserve coercive authoritarianism. The worst pathway produces fragmentation, externalisation, and the slow death of sovereignty. If one is serious about escaping theocracy without surrendering sovereignty, then one must be serious about steering, and steering means institutional succession, not rhetorical insistence that history is on one’s side.

 

 

9. What must be done: a sovereignty-first architecture for operational leadership

The opposition’s most dangerous habit is to confuse moral truth with political capacity. Iran does not lack truth. The country is saturated with it: in the broken currency, in the coercive banality of everyday humiliations, in the obscene impunity of clerical-security privilege, and in the fact that the state now survives less by consent than by exhaustion. Yet truth does not topple regimes. Regimes fall when their ability to command cooperation is systematically degraded and when an alternative authority becomes conceivable, then credible, then real. Sharp supplies the analytic scaffolding for that reality, and Arendt explains why it is so difficult under conditions of engineered loneliness (Sharp, 1973; Arendt, 1951). The present moment demands what diaspora politics has largely refused to build: a sovereignty-first architecture for operational leadership.

 

The term 'sovereignty-first' must not be conflated with the regime’s counterfeit nationalism, one that invokes Cyrus the Great while prohibiting public gatherings at his mausoleum and incarcerating those in attendance; that erects a statue of Shapur I while excising pre-Islamic Iranian history from the national curriculum; and that instrumentalises the rhetoric of national ‘unity’ to justify the denial of equal citizenship. It means something less theatrical and more stringent: a refusal to trade Iran’s self-determination for foreign sponsorship, a refusal to let a democratic transition be pre-scripted abroad, and a refusal to territorialise identity in ways that invite fragmentation and proxy capture. Sovereignty-first also means recognising that the state, stripped of theocracy, must still exist. Those who speak of collapse as though it were cleansing do not understand the region, nor the mechanics of authority. A vacuum is not neutrality. It is a marketplace for coercion. The task is to dismantle the regime while preserving the nation’s capacity to govern itself.

 

Operational leadership, in this framing, is not a personality cult and not a media platform. It is a set of functions performed by an organisation that can coordinate action under repression, sustain non-cooperation, protect participants, articulate a minimal and inclusive transitional settlement, and generate a credible interlocutor for internal defections and external recognition. Without these functions, a revolt becomes a spectacle. With them, it becomes a contender for power. Arendt would call this the passage from episodic appearance to a common world sustained by institutions (Arendt, 1958; Arendt, 1963). Sharp would call it the systematic withdrawal of pillars of support coupled with the construction of a replacement authority capable of governing (Sharp, 1973; Sharp, 1993). Žižek, in his more caustic way, would call it the refusal of performative substitution, where declaration becomes a narcotic that replaces the act (Žižek, 1989).

 

What follows is not a fantasy of a perfect blueprint. It is a discipline of minimums, designed for a country under coercion, in which organisational work is punished and informational clarity is constantly attacked. The architecture has four components: a minimal charter that widens the coalition while immunising the movement against the regime’s most effective narratives, a domestic coordinating spine capable of turning protest into leverage, a diaspora support envelope that assists without commandeering, and a constitutional anchor that prevents the interregnum from becoming a scramble for invented authority.

 

The minimal charter must be short enough to be remembered, hard enough to matter, and modest enough to be credible. It should not be a diaspora manifesto of wishes. It should be a transitional commitment that binds the movement to a few principles that neutralise the regime’s propaganda and reduce the likelihood of fragmentation. Arendt’s insistence that freedom is founded through promises that can be kept is instructive here, because promises create political time, the ability to act beyond the impulse of the moment (Arendt, 1958). A charter worth anything must, at minimum, commit to Iran’s territorial integrity, equal citizenship regardless of language, religion, or gender, and the protection of linguistic rights as civic rights within a unitary sovereignty. It must commit to a time-bound constituent process and referendum through which the nation democratically authorises the future form of government, rather than having it imposed by committees, foreign patrons, or security guardians. It must commit to due process and the rejection of collective punishment, not to flatter liberal sensibilities but to prevent revenge cycles from consuming the transition and providing a pretext for counter-violence. It must also state, without ambiguity, that no binding geopolitical alignments will be pre-committed during the interregnum. Foreign policy is not a dowry to be paid for liberation. It is an expression of sovereign choice that requires democratic authorisation.

 

This last point is where sovereignty-first discipline becomes strategically decisive. The regime’s most reliable weapon is the allegation of foreign puppetry. The allegation is not always false, and it is persuasive precisely because Iran’s modern history contains genuine experiences of foreign manipulation. A movement that preloads the transition with foreign-policy commitments, or that accepts external sponsorship without transparency and without a mandate, invites coalition collapse. The point is not to shun diplomacy or international sympathy. It is to refuse tutelage. If the movement cannot make that refusal explicit, it will bleed legitimacy at home while acquiring nothing abroad that can substitute for domestic consent. The scholarship on democratic transitions is unromantic on this point: opposition success depends heavily on internal coalition management and on reassuring those who fear disorder, because uncertainty is the incubator of authoritarian restoration and security ‘guardianship’ (O’Donnell and Schmitter, 1986; Linz and Stepan, 1996). A sovereignty-first charter is therefore not rhetorical decoration. It is a stabiliser of expectations.

 

A charter, however, does not steer. An organisation steers. The domestic coordinating spine must be built on a logic of redundancy rather than hierarchy, because hierarchy is easy to decapitate. This is not a call for clandestine adventurism. It is an acknowledgement of the regime’s capacity for surveillance and targeted repression. A domestic spine would consist of all constituents of the Iranian nation, bound by shared commitments and connected through secure channels, capable of synchronising action without requiring a single visible headquarters. Arendt’s discussion of councils is relevant not because councils are sacred, but because they represent a mode of political participation that generates legitimacy from below, through repeated practice, not through proclamation (Arendt, 1963). In the Iranian context, local committees that can coordinate civic non-cooperation, provide mutual aid to those targeted by repression, and communicate reliable information to wider networks are the difference between episodic protest and sustained resistance.

 

The pillars in Iran include not only security forces but also the bureaucracy that administers services, the commercial networks that keep goods moving, the transport nodes that keep cities functioning, the educational sector that shapes legitimacy, and the semi-state economic complex that channels resources. A movement that confines itself to demonstrations leaves these pillars intact. A movement that learns to withdraw cooperation selectively and strategically begins to impose costs the regime cannot simply beat away. Here, non-cooperation must be understood in a sober register. Calls for strikes are not slogans. They are burdens placed on families. Precisely because they are burdens, they must be aimed at the regime’s reproduction, not at society’s exhaustion. A serious opposition treats strike leverage as political economy. Four terrains matter. First, foreign-exchange rents, where hard currency enters the system and is allocated through patronage. Second, domestic extraction, including the fiscal and quasi-fiscal channels that keep the regime solvent. Third, constraint systems, the logistical and administrative bottlenecks through which scarcity is manufactured and distributed. Fourth, the coercive–commercial complex, the para-state conglomerates and procurement networks that convert ideology into payroll and repression. Not all sectors carry equal leverage, and the aim is not indiscriminate shutdown. It is selective, escalating non-cooperation directed at revenue and control nodes, while ringfencing essential provision and sustaining solidarity through material support (Suren-Pahlav, 2025e). They require support systems, including legal defence, emergency funds, and practical solidarity. Otherwise, they become an exercise in moral theatre where the poorest pay the price for the richest to feel radical. Research on civil resistance suggests that broad participation and disciplined non-violent tactics are correlated with higher success rates, in part because they increase the likelihood of defections and reduce the regime’s capacity to isolate dissent (Chenoweth and Stephan, 2011). Participation is not a moral concept. It is a strategic variable, and the organisation must treat it as such.

 

This is where the diaspora must be demoted from conductor to support crew. Diaspora communities have resources, access to foreign media, and organisational freedoms that citizens inside Iran do not. Yet diaspora politics often suffers from a fatal narcissism: it imagines that visibility equals leadership, and that foreign recognition equals legitimacy. The result is a politics of microphones, conferences, and branding. A sovereignty-first architecture requires the diaspora to do less talking and more supporting, with support structured in a way that cannot easily be weaponised against the movement. That means building transparent, auditable channels for humanitarian assistance, strike support, and legal defence, and resisting the temptation to launder foreign policy agendas through ‘transition planning’. It also means refusing the diaspora’s favourite vice, which is to turn disagreement into excommunication. Internal pluralism is not a defect. It is the raw material of a democratic nation. What the organisation must enforce is not ideological uniformity but procedural discipline: a shared charter, a shared commitment to non-violent legitimacy, and a shared refusal of ethnic territorialisation and foreign tutelage. Everything else can be contested in the constituent process, which is precisely why that process must be protected from preloading. The opposition’s leadership deficit is often discussed as though it were mainly a communications problem. It is not. Communications are a dependency of organisational capacity, not a substitute for it. Still, information discipline matters, because propaganda and disinformation are instruments of atomisation. The regime will flood the field with false stories, fake factions, and manufactured scandals. It will also exploit real weaknesses, including opportunism and foreign entanglements. A sovereignty-first movement needs an informational infrastructure that privileges verification and cohesion over virality. It must be able to communicate what it stands for in language that is comprehensible to citizens inside the country, not tailored for foreign audiences. It must also be able to state what it refuses: it refuses vengeance without due process, it refuses fragmentation, it refuses proxy alignment, it refuses the conversion of Iran’s future into a geopolitical bargain. These refusals are not niceties. They are the conditions of coalition breadth.

 

At this point, the reinstatement of the Constitutional Revolution’s constitution becomes not a matter of preference, but rather a technology of legitimacy. Democratic transitions are moments of radical uncertainty in which authority must be both dismantled and reconstituted. If authority is dismantled without a recognised replacement grammar, the interregnum becomes a competition among factions to invent legitimacy, and invention is usually backed by coercion. This is why Linz and Stepan emphasise the importance of state capacity and the danger of ‘stateness problems’ in democratic transitions (Linz and Stepan, 1996). A country cannot democratise what it cannot govern. In Iran, the regime has attempted to fuse statehood with theocracy. A constitutionalist response seeks to separate them: keep the state, remove the theocracy, and anchor legitimacy in a constitutional order that predates the Islamist rupture and can be democratically renewed. The insistence on reviving the 1906 constitutional settlement, purged of misogynist exclusions and consistent with modern equal citizenship, should be understood in this register: it is an attempt not necessarily aimed at reverting to a monarchical order without a national referendum, but at providing an immediate framework that reduces the risk of a vacuum, without depriving the nation of its right to determine the final form of governance. It is precisely this combination that is the crucial point. Democratic renewal, if undertaken without a constitution, even a provisional one, often culminates in chaos.

 

A sovereignty-first architecture must therefore propose a transition sequence that is politically realistic. It should anticipate three simultaneous tasks, not one: stabilise public order under law, stabilise basic services and macro expectations, and stabilise legitimacy through a time-bound constituent process. Stabilising public order does not mean empowering a new arbitrary coercion. It means insisting that policing and security are subordinated to constitutional authority, that abuses are documented and prosecuted under due process, and that citizens are protected from predation, whether by regime remnants or by opportunistic militias. The comparative experience of transitions shows that security sector reform is one of the most dangerous bottlenecks, because coercive institutions do not dissolve politely, and because purges can backfire when they drive armed actors into sabotage (International IDEA, 2020). A serious opposition must therefore be capable of distinguishing between ideological enforcers and ordinary employees, between leadership culpability and administrative function, and between necessary accountability and self-destructive vengeance. There is no democratic future in a politics that cannot distinguish.

 

Stabilising services and macro expectations is equally necessary, not because the opposition must become a technocratic government overnight, but because societies can turn against revolutions that cannot keep lights on, wages paid, and food distributed. Here, the regime’s defenders will attempt to exploit hardship by offering a familiar bargain: accept coercive order, and we will restore a minimum of economic predictability. A sovereignty-first opposition must deny them that bargain by preparing an emergency stabilisation narrative that is credible even to sceptics. That narrative should be simple: end rent extraction through multiple exchange rates and insider access, restore transparency to the budget, prioritise basic imports and medicine, protect wages through targeted support rather than inflationary decrees, and seek rapid humanitarian channels without trading sovereignty. These are not detailed macro plans. They are credibility signals. People do not require a model to decide whether they can trust a transition. They require a sense that someone is thinking beyond slogans.

 

Stabilising legitimacy requires the constituent timetable to be explicit and short enough to deter power grabs, yet long enough to allow genuine participation and security. Transitional regimes often fail when they try to settle foundational questions through elite bargaining while the public remains a spectator. That is how coups acquire civilian faces. It is also how foreign tutelage is normalised. The constitution-making process must be inclusive of the peripheries and ensure that national unity is not supplanted by enforced homogenisation. Civil nationhood must be cultivated deliberately, given that the regime has, for decades, worked to dismantle it. A sovereignty-first architecture treats the equal rights of all citizens as a foundational principle rather than a privilege, precisely because they function as an antidote to secessionist narratives. A democratic movement that does not address that burden with explicit guarantees will fail to build the coalition required to defeat the regime and preserve the country.

 

At this stage, one must address the fear that an opposition organisation becomes a second regime in embryo, an unelected authority that substitutes itself for the people. That fear is legitimate, and the answer must be procedural. The movement’s operational leadership should be constrained by its own charter, required to publish decision rules where feasible, required to disclose funding sources in a form that protects participants while ensuring accountability, and required to treat its transitional role as temporary and bound to democratic authorisation. This is precisely why Arendt insisted that revolutions often lose freedom when participatory organs are replaced by party structures and bureaucratic authority (Arendt, 1963). Iran cannot afford a transition that simply replaces clerical arrogance with activist arrogance. The legitimacy of operational leadership rests on its willingness to constrain itself.

 

It is also necessary to state what operational leadership is not. It is not an invitation to militarise the uprising. Militarisation is the regime’s preferred terrain because it transforms a legitimacy crisis into a security problem, reduces mass participation, and increases the probability of externalisation. The evidence base in civil resistance scholarship suggests that non-violent movements, when disciplined and broad, can increase the probability of defections and success, while violent trajectories often invite brutal repression and long conflict (Chenoweth and Stephan, 2011). A sovereignty-first movement should therefore treat violence, especially retaliatory violence, as strategically ruinous. This does not mean preaching purity from a safe distance. It means recognising that the movement’s greatest advantage is legitimacy, and legitimacy is squandered when the struggle is converted into a battlefield where the regime’s monopoly on force becomes an asset rather than a liability.

 

The role of a constitutional-monarchist frame within this architecture should also be addressed without euphemism. A monarchy in a modern democratic context is not a claim to personal rule. It is a claim about continuity, restraint, and national symbolism under law. Whether Iranians ultimately choose monarchy or republic must be decided through a democratic process. Yet a constitutional-monarchist can argue, with strategic seriousness, that monarchy can function as a non-partisan anchor during transition, precisely because it can provide continuity without requiring the immediate concentration of executive power in an unelected partisan faction. Comparative transition literature is not a sermon in favour of monarchies, yet it repeatedly underlines that transitions are more stable when legitimacy is anchored in institutions perceived as above factional predation, and when the rules of competition are established before competition turns existential (O’Donnell and Schmitter, 1986; Linz and Stepan, 1996). If monarchy is proposed as such an anchor, it must be coupled to equal citizenship, including gender equality, and to democratic authorisation. Otherwise, it will be rejected as restorationism. My insistence on removing misogynist exclusions is therefore not a marginal moral correction. It is a legitimacy condition.

 

To build this architecture, the opposition must abandon three addictions. It must abandon the addiction to external shortcuts, because shortcuts convert sovereignty into collateral. It must abandon the addiction to factional purity, because purity destroys coalition breadth and hands the regime the gift of fragmentation. It must abandon the addiction to spectacle, because spectacle produces audiences, not institutions. The work that replaces these addictions is less glamorous: building committees, building support funds, building internal procedures, building disciplined messaging, building transitional commitments that protect minorities and reassure the cautious, building channels for defections that do not promise impunity yet do not threaten indiscriminate revenge. None of this fits into a viral clip. That is precisely why it matters.

 

The most difficult political labour in this architecture is coalition-building without euphemism. A sovereignty-first movement must speak in a civic national register that can include the religious conservative who opposes clerical rule but fears chaos, the minority language speaker who fears cultural suppression, the bureaucrat who fears collective punishment, the worker who fears unemployment, and the student who refuses humiliation. This does not require moral relativism. It requires strategic intelligence. A movement that speaks only to those who already agree with it will remain righteous and marginal. A movement that speaks to the nation as it is, plural, scarred, and exhausted, has a chance to become a national authority rather than a factional voice.

 

None of this guarantees success. It makes success possible. That distinction matters because the Islamic regime’s survival has depended, for decades, on the belief that resistance is either futile or suicidal. The rial’s collapse has already disrupted that belief by revealing that compliance is itself suicidal in slow motion. The question now is whether the opposition can convert disruption into direction. If it cannot, the regime may endure, or it may collapse into a vacuum that produces guardianship, fragmentation, and foreign capture. If it can, Iran can escape theocracy without surrendering sovereignty, not as a miracle but as a political construction.

 

This article has insisted, repeatedly, on steering because the alternative is not merely failure. It is the possibility that Iran’s liberation is weaponised against Iran itself. A post-theocratic Iran that emerges unified, constitutional, and sovereign will have the capacity to decide its own foreign policy, its own economic reconstruction, and its own social settlement. That is precisely what the regime fears, and it is precisely what certain foreign actors would prefer to prevent. The stakes are therefore higher than regime change. They are state preservation as the condition of democratic reconstruction.

 

The difference between an uprising that expresses truth and a movement that produces liberation is the difference between indignation and organisation. The rial’s collapse has already performed one function for the opposition: it has made the regime’s incompetence visible in every household ledger. The nation is rising because survival has become political. The question is whether the opposition will meet this moment with an architecture worthy of a sovereign people, or whether it will continue to behave as a chorus of commentators waiting for history to rescue it. A sovereignty-first movement does not wait. It builds. It binds itself with promises it can keep. It refuses to trade the country’s integrity for applause. It confronts the regime not only with denunciation but with an alternative authority that is procedural, inclusive, and capable of governing.

 

The final point should be stated without adornment. The Islamic regime will not fall because it is unjust. It may fall when its pillars of support crack under sustained withdrawal of cooperation and when coercive certainty breaks. If that break comes, the decisive struggle will shift immediately from protest to succession. In that interval, Iran will either be steered by an organisation that has prepared legitimacy, continuity, and civic unity, or it will be steered by those who already possess coercion and external patrons. Sovereignty-first operational leadership is therefore not an option for a successful uprising. It is the condition of one.

 

 

Conclusion

A collapsing currency is a political event because it exposes, with unforgiving clarity, the regime’s real contract with society. The Islamic regime has never offered governance as a civic duty performed under law. It has offered rule as entitlement, exercised through a fusion of clerical authority, security coercion, and rent distribution, with legitimacy outsourced to ritual, propaganda, and the permanent production of enemies. When the rial falls, that fusion becomes unworkable. The regime can threaten ‘speculators’, reshuffle officials, flood markets briefly with subsidised imports, and declare administrative holidays to fragment mobilisation. It can still arrest, still beat, still kill. What it cannot do is rebuild credibility while preserving the system that depends on disbelief. A society forced to live inside a managed scarcity economy is trained to expect deception. Yet there is a point at which even trained expectations collapse into refusal. The present unrest in Iran should be read as precisely that juncture: a legitimacy rupture accelerated by monetary rupture, a public no longer merely complaining but beginning to re-enter politics as a practice rather than as a private grief (Financial Times, 2025; The Guardian, 2025; Associated Press, 2025).

 

The question is not whether the revolt is justified. Justification is not power. The question is whether the uprising can become the author of its own outcome. Part I argued that the regime’s economic crisis is structural, not managerial, because it is the economic expression of ideological governance. Part II insisted that the street, while courageous and politically explicit, remains vulnerable to the regime’s organisational advantage and the opposition’s organisational deficit. Part III, through Arendt, framed that deficit as the consequence of deliberate atomisation, the destruction of the public realm, and the corrosion of factuality, which together make collective institutional life hard to build even when collective anger is abundant (Arendt, 1951; Arendt, 1958; Arendt, 1963). Part IV, through Sharp, stripped resistance of romance and restored it to strategy: regimes endure because they are assisted, and they fall when pillars of support are systematically withdrawn by an organised movement capable of sustaining non-cooperation and generating credible alternative authority (Sharp, 1973; Sharp, 1993). Part V, through Žižek, diagnosed the opposition’s additional danger: the substitution of politics with performance, in which visibility becomes a narcotic, denunciation becomes a substitute for organisation, and external recognition becomes a counterfeit of legitimacy (Žižek, 1989; Žižek, 2008). Part VI rejected lazy analogy while extracting mechanisms from comparable ruptures: mobilisation must become power; coercive certainty must crack; and the post-collapse settlement belongs to those who enter the vacuum organised, not to those who enter it morally satisfied (Kuran, 1991; Chenoweth and Stephan, 2011). Part VII named the ‘ethnic card’ as a transition weapon, a discursive engineering project that recodes Iran’s linguistic plurality into an invented ‘multi-ethnicity’ designed to normalise fragmentation and invite foreign leverage, and it insisted that this must be resisted as an epistemological attack on sovereignty as much as a political one (Suren-Pahlav, 2013; Suren-Pahlav, 2021b; Suren-Pahlav, 2024; Suren-Pahlav, 2025f). Part VIII confronted the most dangerous fantasy in the oppositional imagination: that collapse equals liberation. Collapse without an organisational successor is not freedom. It is volatility, and volatility favours the organised coercive actor and the foreign patron (Rotberg, 2002; International IDEA, 2020).

 

The conclusion is therefore severe but necessary. Iran’s uprising can produce liberation only if it becomes institutionally serious, sovereignty-first, and organisationally capable. Anything less risks reproducing one of the region’s familiar tragedies: a righteous revolt exhausted by repression, captured by a more disciplined minority, or externalised into a proxy arena where sovereignty is traded as collateral for promised stability. Those who treat such warnings as pessimism misunderstand their political function. In moments of rupture, hope is plentiful. Seriousness is rare. The work of seriousness is to refuse comforting myths, particularly myths that flatter the opposition while leaving it strategically naked.

 

The first myth is that a ‘leader’ in the singular will rescue the movement. The struggle is not a casting call. It is an institutional contest. A figurehead may inspire, unify, or provide continuity, yet no individual can substitute for operational leadership, an organisational architecture capable of coordinating action under repression, sustaining discipline, bridging constituencies, and articulating a minimal transitional settlement that is both inclusive and legible. Without such an architecture, the regime’s apparatus outlasts the street’s episodic courage, not because the regime is stronger morally, but because it is stronger organisationally. Arendt’s lesson remains decisive: freedom is not simply the moment of uprising. It is the founding of a common world through institutions that can carry political action beyond the instant of defiance (Arendt, 1963). Where that founding fails, revolutions often deliver new forms of domination, because the vacuum is filled by those most prepared to command, whether through coercion or patronage.

 

The second myth is that exposure is victory. The regime’s corruption is not secret, its repression is not hidden, and its incompetence is not in doubt. Exposure can mobilise anger, but anger is not a structure. Žižek’s warning is useful because it insults the opposition’s comfort: one can perform dissent without changing the coordinates of power, and one can drown in commentary while the regime continues to govern through its apparatus (Žižek, 1989). In Iran, this is visible in the way opposition ecosystems can become content engines rather than organising engines, treating the circulation of footage as though it were the same thing as building the capacity to coordinate strikes, sustain non-cooperation, protect participants, and negotiate a transition without surrendering sovereignty. A movement that confuses the camera with the institution will continue to lose to a regime that owns prisons.

 

The third myth is that foreign sponsorship is a shortcut. It is not. It is a trade, and the price is legitimacy at home and sovereignty after victory. The regime’s propaganda, however cynical, remains effective because Iran’s modern memory contains genuine experiences of foreign manipulation. Any oppositional project that appears to outsource decision-making, pre-commit foreign policy alignment, or accept opaque funding will narrow its domestic coalition and increase the likelihood that a transition becomes externalised. Foreign recognition can amplify visibility, yet it cannot manufacture domestic consent, and domestic consent determines whether the bureaucracy, the professional classes, and the risk-averse majority are willing to defect from the incumbent. Transition scholarship is unromantic: democratic outcomes depend on internal coalition management and on restraining those dynamics that produce chaos, because chaos is the midwife of authoritarian restoration (O’Donnell and Schmitter, 1986; Linz and Stepan, 1996). A sovereignty-first movement must therefore treat external patrons with strategic suspicion, not because the world is morally pure or impure, but because self-rule cannot be subcontracted.

 

The fourth myth is that fragmentation talk is a mere distraction. It is not. It is a script for the interregnum. The ‘ethnic card’ is not simply the recognition of diversity, nor even the naming of discrimination. It is the conversion of linguistic plurality into an ontology of partitionable ‘ethnic nations’, a conceptual operation that makes federalisation and balkanisation appear democratic by definition. It is designed to shift debate away from equal citizenship within a unitary sovereignty, and towards the territorialisation of identity as the primary political frame. That move is catastrophic in a region where weak states become arenas for proxies. My argument is not that cultural plurality is illegitimate. It is that the categorisation itself is weaponised, and once it is conceded, the nation begins to live inside a foreign-designed map of itself (Suren-Pahlav, 2013; Suren-Pahlav, 2025f). The opposition must therefore resist the enemy’s vocabulary as strategy, not merely pride. Language is not secondary. It is the precondition for constitutional design.

 

Once these myths are stripped away, the practical horizon becomes visible. The uprising must be steered by building a sovereignty-first operational architecture that does not require permission from foreign capitals, does not rely on performative unity, and does not postpone institutional thinking until ‘after victory’. The regime’s pillars must be mapped and systematically weakened through coordinated non-cooperation that is disciplined, inclusive, and sustained (Sharp, 1973; Sharp, 1993). This is not a call for reckless escalation. It is a call for intelligent sequencing. Strikes are not memes. They are burdens. If the movement calls for strikes, it must build solidarity funds, legal defence networks, and welfare supports, otherwise it is using the vulnerable as moral theatre. If it calls for boycotts and shutdowns, it must calibrate them so that they degrade the regime’s governability rather than merely punishing society. If it seeks defections, it must offer credible legality: assurance that the future is governed by law, not indiscriminate revenge. A movement that cannot offer that legality will strengthen coercive cohesion, because even those who despise the regime will fear the alternative.

 

The rial is falling. The nation is rising. The remaining question is whether the opposition will stop performing and start building. If there is to be a republic of citizens or a constitutional monarchy renewed under equal law, if there is to be a state that belongs to its people rather than to clerics and guards, if there is to be sovereignty rather than tutelage, then operational leadership cannot be postponed. It must be constructed, domestically anchored, procedurally constrained, and strategically disciplined. Otherwise Iran will discover, again, the cruel historical pattern Arendt warned against: the overthrow of an old order without the founding of freedom, leaving the nation with a new set of masters, and a new set of euphemisms to describe them (Arendt, 1963).

 

 

Footnotes:

1 – In previous writings, I have warned that as the regime approaches the end of its historical trajectory, with its collapse likely to come at the cost of bloodshed borne by the Iranian people, there exists a serious risk that foreign powers will seize the moment to intervene militarily under the guise of defending human rights. This could result in the occupation of Iran’s oil- and gas-rich regions, echoing the precedent set by the United States and its allies in Syria.

2 – It must be acknowledged, without recourse to euphemism, that a substantial portion of the opposition has not mastered the elementary grammar of political struggle through sustained, methodical study. In its place, one often encounters an impoverished organisational imagination in which the convening of fewer than ten individuals is treated as sufficient grounds for declaring the existence of a 'party' or 'movement'. Such entities frequently exhibit little of what political science would recognise as party organisation, including durable membership structures, programmatic development, internal procedures for collective decision making, and accountable leadership. They function as nominal formations whose principal activity is the mutual circulation of familiar claims within a closed milieu, a tendency reinforced by a communications ecology that rewards brevity and provocation over analytic labour. The repeated posting of short polemical fragments on social media is too readily misrecognised as political activism, despite its limited capacity to generate strategy, broaden constituencies, or impose costs upon the regime. It is also plausible that the regime has actively contributed to this degradation of oppositional practice by encouraging fragmentation, lowering the threshold for symbolic participation, and normalising forms of engagement that are readily contained. Under such conditions, the burden of purposeful organisation and operational leadership falls disproportionately upon a small minority who retain the requisite political literacy, strategic discipline, and organisational competence.

3 – The term 'Irānestān' is generally deployed as a pejorative, polemical shorthand for the prospect of a partitioned Iran, gesturing towards a country splintered into multiple smaller 'Irans' and often framed through an analogy with 'Balkanisation', namely the fragmentation of a state into smaller, typically weaker political entities. The expression is frequently linked to HIM Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, who used it in the late 1970s to warn that intensifying violence, alongside external machinations, could dismantle Iran’s territorial integrity and leave behind a fractured Iran. It continues to appear in contemporary Iranian political debate as a concise way of signalling fears of future territorial division by foreign powers and their mercenaries.

 

 

References

• Al Jazeera (2025) ‘Iran’s Pezeshkian urges unity as protests over economic woes turn deadly’. Available at: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/12/30/iran-pezeshkian-protests-discontent-over-economic-duress [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Arendt, H. (1951) The origins of totalitarianism. Available at: https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780156701532/the-origins-of-totalitarianism [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Arendt, H. (1958) The human condition. Available at: https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/H/bo3683827.html [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Arendt, H. (1963) On revolution. Available at: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/221401/on-revolution-by-hannah-arendt/ [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Arendt, H. (1967) ‘Truth and politics’, in Between past and future: Eight exercises in political thought. Available at: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/210418/between-past-and-future-by-hannah-arendt/ [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Arendt, H. (1970) ‘On violence’, in Crises of the republic. Available at: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/222789/crises-of-the-republic-by-hannah-arendt/ [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Associated Press (2025) ‘Iran appoints new central bank governor amid soaring inflation’. Available at: https://apnews.com/article/iran-central-bank-governor-inflation-currency-ccc43409cfceed3096db8cf63cc0ce53 [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Beissinger, M.R. (2008) Nationalism and the collapse of Soviet communism. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/nationalism-and-the-collapse-of-soviet-communism/0C3D92C11F64C3FDD567E0B90D77A6A3 [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Brookings (2019) ‘The Iranian Revolution: A timeline of events’. Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-iranian-revolution-a-timeline-of-events/ [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Chenoweth, E. and Stephan, M.J. (2011) Why civil resistance works: The strategic logic of nonviolent conflict. Available at: https://academic.oup.com/book/4058 [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Clingendael (2025) ‘Beyond the IRGC: The rise of Iran’s military bonyad complex’. Available at: https://www.clingendael.org/publication/beyond-irgc-rise-irans-military-bonyad-complex [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Constitute Project (n.d.) Iran (Islamic Republic of) 1979 (rev. 1989). Available at: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Iran_1989 [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Debord, G. (1967) The society of the spectacle. Available at: https://mitpress.mit.edu/9781935406904/the-society-of-the-spectacle/ [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Financial Times (2025) ‘Iran replaces central bank governor in bid to halt currency slide’. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/41a18beb-170d-4db0-8b3c-e368249b0c2f [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Hale, H.E. (2004) ‘Divided we stand: institutional sources of ethnofederal state survival and collapse’, World Politics, 56(2), pp. 165–193. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/downloads/2018/01/Hale_Federalism.pdf [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• IMF (2016) ‘Exchange rate unification, the equilibrium real exchange rate, and the choice of exchange rate regime: The case of Iran’. Available at: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2016/12/31/Exchange-Rate-Unification-the-Equilibrium-Real-Exchange-Rate-and-Choice-of-Exchange-Rate-2888 [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• IMF (2017a) Islamic Republic of Iran: 2016 Article IV Consultation (IMF Country Report No. 17/62). Available at: https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/CR/2017/cr1762.ashx [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• IMF (2017b) ‘IMF Executive Board concludes 2016 Article IV consultation with the Islamic Republic of Iran’. Available at: https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2017/02/24/pr1771-imf-exec-board-concludes-2016-article-iv-consultation-with-the-Islamic-Republic-of-Iran [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• International Crisis Group (2025) The New Syria: Halting a dangerous drift. Available at: https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/eastern-mediterranean/syria/new-syria-halting-dangerous-drift [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• International IDEA (2008) Traditional justice and reconciliation after violent conflict: Learning from African experiences. Available at: https://www.idea.int/sites/default/files/publications/traditional-justice-and-reconciliation-after-violent-conflict-learning-from-african-experiences_0.pdf [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• International IDEA (2020) Security sector reform in constitutional transitions. Available at: https://www.idea.int/sites/default/files/publications/security-sector-reform-in-constitutional-transitions.pdf [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Kramer, M. (2003) Ivory towers on sand: the failure of Middle Eastern studies in America. Available at: https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/ivory-towers-sand-failure-middle-eastern-studies-america [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Kuran, T. (1991) ‘Now out of never: the element of surprise in the East European revolution of 1989’, World Politics, 44(1), pp. 7–48. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2010422 [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Kurzman, C. (2004) The unthinkable revolution in Iran. Available at: https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674012468 [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Linz, J.J. and Stepan, A. (1996) Problems of democratic transition and consolidation. Available at: https://www.press.jhu.edu/books/title/2975/problems-democratic-transition-and-consolidation [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Nepstad, S.E. (2011) Nonviolent revolutions: Civil resistance in the late 20th century. Available at: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/nonviolent-revolutions-9780199751657 [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• O’Donnell, G. and Schmitter, P.C. (1986) Transitions from authoritarian rule: Tentative conclusions about uncertain democracies. Available at: https://www.press.jhu.edu/books/title/2223/transitions-authoritarian-rule [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Suren-Pahlav. S., (2019) ‘Once Again, the Nation Rises and the Opposition Drifts: Building a National Opposition That Can Govern the Rupture and the Transition to Democracy’, suren-pahlav.com (18 November). Available at: https://www.suren-pahlav.com/en/once-again-the-nation-rises-and-the-opposition-drifts.html [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Oxford Academic (2025) ‘The economic and political role of bonyads’. Available at: https://academic.oup.com/book/61457/chapter/534818790 [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• RAND (2008) After Saddam: prewar planning and the occupation of Iraq. Available at: https://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG642.html [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Reuters (2024) ‘Iran’s Revolutionary Guards extend control over oil exports, sources say’. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/irans-revolutionary-guards-extend-control-over-oil-exports-sources-say-2024-12-18/ [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Rotberg, R.I. (2002) ‘Failed states in a world of terror’, Foreign Affairs, 81(4), pp. 127–140. Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2002-07-01/failed-states-world-terror [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Saeidi, A. (2004) ‘The accountability of para-governmental organisations (bonyads): The case of Iranian foundations’, Iranian Studies, 37(3), pp. 479–498. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4311754 [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Schock, K. (2005) Unarmed insurrections: People power movements in nondemocracies. Available at: https://www.worldcat.org/title/57452590 [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Sharp, G. (1973) The politics of nonviolent action. Available at: https://www.worldcat.org/title/295510 [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Sharp, G. (1993) From dictatorship to democracy. Available at: https://www.aeinstein.org/nonviolentaction/from-dictatorship-to-democracy/ [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Sundararajan, V. (1997) ‘Reform of the exchange system in Iran’, IMF Working Paper. Available at: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2016/12/30/Reform-of-the-Exchange-System-in-Iran-2205 [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Suren-Pahlav, S. (1998) ‘From Ethno-Nation To Multi-Ethnicity: The Fabricated Myth And Illusion Of ‘Ethnic’ And ‘Ethnicity’ In Modern Iran’, suren-pahlav.com (20 November). Available at: https://www.suren-pahlav.com/en/from-ethno-nation-to-multi-ethnicity-the-fabricated-myth-and-illusion-of-ethnic-and-ethnicity.html [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Suren-Pahlav, S. (2000) ‘A Death in Exile, A Nation in Chains: Remembering HIM Imperial Majesty Shahanshah Aryamehr’. Available at: https://suren-pahlav.com/the-shah-and-the-limbo-of-crown-prince.html [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Suren-Pahlav, S. (2010a) ‘When Theology Hijacks Finance: ‘The Fall of the Iranian Rial’’. Available at: https://suren-pahlav.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-iranian-rial.html [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Suren-Pahlav, S. (2010b) ‘Mullahs, the West and Zionism: The Diabolical Triangular Project for the Balkanisation of Iran’, suren-pahlav.com (12 February). Available at: https://www.suren-pahlav.com/en/mullahs-west-zionism-diabolical-triangular-project-for-the-balkanisation-of-iran.html [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Suren-Pahlav, S. (2011) ‘Reformism and the Green Movement: False hope under a totalitarian-theocratic regime’. Available at: https://suren-pahlav.com/false-hope-under-a-totalitarian-theocratic-regime.html [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Suren-Pahlav, S. (2013) ‘The Federalist Trap: The Blueprint For Balkanisation Of Iran’, suren-pahlav.com (10 June). Available at: https://suren-pahlav.com/the-federalist-trap-for-balkanisation-of-iran.html [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Suren-Pahlav. S., (2021a) ‘The Cyrus Accord as Myth and Strategy: Fabricated Antiquity, Foreign Power, and Iran’s Sovereignty’, suren-pahlav.com (02 February). Available at: https://www.suren-pahlav.com/en/the-cyrus-accord-as-myth-and-strategy-fabricated-antiquity-foreign-power-and-iran-s-sovereignty.html [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Suren-Pahlav, S. (2021b) ‘Brenda Shaffer and FDD’s ‘Iran Is More Than Persia’ Project: Ethnofederalism disguised as linguistic diversity’. Available at: https://suren-pahlav.com/ethnofederalism-disguised-as-linguistic-diversity.html [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Suren-Pahlav, S. (2024) ‘Know Thyself, Know Thy Enemy: ‘Misinformation’ and the enemy of my enemy’. Available at: https://suren-pahlav.com/misinformation-and-the-enemy-of-my-enemy.html [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Suren-Pahlav, S. (2025a) ‘The Illusion of Change: Exposing A Totalitarian Regime’s Second Republic’. Available at: https://suren-pahlav.com/illusion-of-change-totalitarian-regime-s-second-republic.html [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Suren-Pahlav (2025b) Deconstructing Iran's Emergency Phase: A Strategic Analysis of the First 100-180 Days of Post-Regime Transition’, suren-pahlav.com (2 August). Available at: https://www.suren-pahlav.com/en/deconstructing-iran-s-emergency-phase.html [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Suren-Pahlav, S. (2025c) ‘Simulated Consensus: Digital Policing and the Crisis of Dissent in Iran’s Exilic Opposition,’ suren-pahlav.com (18 September). Available at: https://www.suren-pahlav.com/en/simulated-consensus-digital-policing-and-the-crisis.html [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Suren-Pahlav, S. (2025d) ‘Constructed Traitors: NUFDI and the Crisis of Trust,’ suren-pahlav.com (30 September). Available at: https://www.suren-pahlav.com/en/constructed-traitors-nufdi-and-the-crisis-of-trust.html [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Suren-Pahlav, S. (2025e) ‘Hit Where It Hurts: Strategic Strike Leverage and Regime Breakdown in Iran’, suren-pahlav.com (1 December). Available at: https://www.suren-pahlav.com/en/hit-where-it-hurts-strategic-strike-leverage-and-regime-breakdown-in-iran.html [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Suren-Pahlav, S. (2025f) ‘FDD’s ‘Iranestan’ Blueprint via NUFDI: Ethnofederalism and the Assault on Iranian Sovereignty’. Available at: https://suren-pahlav.com/assault_on_iranian_sovereignty.html [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• The Guardian (2025a) ‘“We want the mullahs gone”: economic crisis triggers biggest protests in Iran since 2022’. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/dec/30/we-want-the-mullahs-gone-economic-crisis-triggers-biggest-protests-in-iran-since-2022 [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• The Guardian (2025b) ‘They killed him in cold blood’: the cycle of revenge fuelling attacks on Alawites in Syria. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/12/they-killed-him-in-cold-blood-cycle-of-revenge-fuelling-attacks-alawite-arza-latakia-syria [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Tilly, C. and Tarrow, S. (2015) Contentious politics (2nd edn). Available at: https://academic.oup.com/book/27334 [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• UNESCO (n.d.) ‘Twenty-One Demands, Gdańsk, August 1980’. Memory of the World. Available at: https://www.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247585 [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• US Office of the Historian (n.d.) ‘Fall of communism in Eastern Europe, 1989’. Available at: https://history.state.gov/milestones/1989-1992/fall-of-communism [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Washington Post (2025) ‘Iranian protests sparked by economic woes challenge Pezeshkian government’. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/12/31/iran-protests-economy-pezeshkian/ [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• World Bank (1991) Iran: Reconstruction and economic growth (Report No. 10011-IRN). Available at: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/1468050958835/pdf/multi0page.pdf [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Žižek, S. (1989) The sublime object of ideology. Available at: https://www.versobooks.com/products/1756-the-sublime-object-of-ideology [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Žižek, S. (2008a) Violence: Six sideways reflections. Available at: https://profilebooks.com/work/violence/ [Accessed: 31 December 2025].

• Žižek, S. (2008b) In defence of lost causes. Available at: https://www.versobooks.com/products/1767-in-defense-of-lost-causes [Accessed: 31 December 2025].