by Sohail Inayatullah, Eva Oloumi and Shadi Rouhshahbaz

 

As bombs rained down on Iran from Israel and the USA (and Iranian missiles onto Israel and American bases in Qatar) in late June, with an overall intent not just to arrest Iran’s nuclear energy (possibly weapons program) but to create regime change (Guzman, C., 2025) – to “Make Iran Great Again” (Graham, 2025) – we asked: what are the possible futures of Iran? While conventional analysis focuses on political transitions and geopolitical realignments, we argue that understanding Iran’s potential futures requires examining the cultural and mythic structures that have shaped its modern trajectory. Using Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) (Inayatullah, 1998), integrated with macrohistorical perspectives from Pitirim Sorokin and P.R. Sarkar (Galtung and Inayatullah, 1997), we create depth-based alternative futures, scenarios, beyond the current stalemate.

The central thesis is that Iran’s modern political culture has been structured around a foundational metaphor of the “Besieged Guardian State”—a narrative that emerged from the trauma of the 1953 CIA coup and has persisted through both the Shah’s sensate modernization and the Islamic Republic’s ideational religiousism. This metaphor has maintained authoritarian structures regardless of dramatic shifts in worldview and ideology. The metaphor is also linked to the narrative of victimhood, of the heroic story of martyrdom.

The martyrdom is both mythic, but it also emerges historically as Iran has been unique in its attempt to decouple from the US and UK led world capitalist military-industrial system. This resistance is rare and the costs for this post-colonial decoupling are high.

Midjourney (2025). Prompts by Rouhshahbaz.

Deconstructing the Present

CLA Layer one: Litany – The Surface Reality (2024-2025)

The litany layer focuses on Iran’s current crisis through observable events and quantitative indicators including inflation exceeding 40% to 60% (Iran International, 2023), widespread social unrest and escalating military confrontation with Israel and the US. Demographic data reveals a young population increasingly disillusioned and alienated from the regime: 50% of males aged 25-40 are unemployed, 57% of Iranians experience malnutrition, and between 27-50% live below the poverty line (Khani, 2024). These statistics reflect not merely economic mismanagement but a systemic breakdown across multiple domains.

Widespread social unrest is not just economic but focused on women’s rights such as the Women, Life, and Freedom movement. American and Israeli direct strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025 marked a shift from proxy warfare to direct confrontation. Critical uncertainties are numerous including if the USA in the short and medium term will continue bombing (and then bring in boots on the ground), in what ways will other superpowers such as Russia and China join, and how will the current Iranian regime respond to these dramatic changes.

 Layer Two: Systemic Causes – Structural Foundations

The systemic layer reveals how Iran’s current crisis emerges from institutional structures established over decades. The Islamic Republic’s political system concentrates ultimate authority in the Supreme Leader while maintaining a parallel power structure—an elected government, Revolutionary Guard, clerical establishment, and security apparatus—that compete and constrain each other. This creates systemic inefficiency and prevents coherent policy implementation.

Economically, Iran remains dependent on oil exports while facing comprehensive international sanctions. The Revolutionary Guard’s control of approximately 40% of the economy through front companies creates a parallel economic structure that benefits from sanctions evasion while ordinary citizens suffer. This system generates “sanctions rent” profits derived from scarcity and underground-economy activities rather than productive investment.

Socially, the mandatory hijab laws, restrictions on assembly, and surveillance apparatus maintain social control through coercion rather than consent. The execution of over four hundred people in the first half of 2024 alone demonstrates the regime’s reliance on violence to maintain authority (Human Rights Watch, 2025). Many argue that Iran has engaged in extreme direct and structural violence against females. However, this cannot be a pretext within today’s unregulated international system for external invasion. A functioning world government would not allow assassinations and imprisonments of females who speak out, but we are far from that future. The current “world government” – the UN Security Council is unable to arrest Iran’s proxy wars nor stop Israeli and American attacks and assassinations of its leadership.

Layer Three: Worldview/Discourse – The Sorokin Pendulum

At the worldview layer, Iran’s modern history exemplifies Pitirim Sorokin’s theory of cultural dynamics—the oscillation between sensate and ideational cultural orientations. Sorokin identified three fundamental cultural types: sensate (reality is material and empirically knowable), ideational (reality is spiritual and transcendent), and integrated (harmonious synthesis of both) (Sorokin, 1957).

The Shah’s Iran (1953-1979) embodied sensate culture: reality was defined through material progress, technological advancement, and Western-style modernization. Truth was derived from scientific rationalism and empirical observation. The White Revolution claimed to prioritize industrialization, education, and consumer culture as pathways to national development. The regime’s legitimacy rested on delivering material prosperity and positioning Iran as a modern, Western-aligned power. However, underneath these claims critical system factors include:

1. Authoritarian Rule

The Shah ran a brutal security state with SAVAK in charge of daily fearmongering, torture, disappearance, and the killing of dissidents. Fear was a daily reality for many. Political opposition was crushed. Parties were banned or absorbed into a single state party. Intellectuals, students, and clerics were censored or imprisoned.

2. Foreign Puppetry (Especially the U.S. and U.K.)

Despite oil being Iran’s greatest resource, much of the profit went to foreign companies for decades.

3. Westernization Without Consent

The Shah’s aggressive modernization ignored traditional Iranian values, especially in rural and religious areas. Many religious leaders saw his secular policies—like land reform, women’s suffrage, and Western dress codes—as a direct assault on Islam and Iranian identity.

4. Economic Inequality and Corruption

While cities modernized rapidly, rural areas remained poor and neglected. This widened inequality.

Wealth was concentrated among a small elite tied to the royal court. The Shah’s family and close allies were visibly rich while many struggled.

5. Legitimacy Crisis

Power was inherited, causing many to see the monarchy as outdated.

6. Suppressed Nationalism

National Pride vs. Imperial Nostalgia: While Iranians were proud of their heritage, they resented the Shah’s obsession with pre-Islamic imperial grandeur, often at the expense of Islamic and modern national identity. He was unable to retain legitimacy.

7. Arms Spending Over Welfare

The Shah spent billions on military tech and weapons (often from the U.S.) instead of investing in social infrastructure. The military was used as a tool of repression, not protection, furthering public resentment.

The Shah thus ruled by force, enriched the few, ignored the many, and sold the nation’s dignity to foreign powers. That mix was combustible—and it exploded in 1979.

The possible evolutionary development into a more social democratic future – using oil wealth for the wellbeing of all citizens – thus disappeared and with the Islamic Revolution of 1979 there was a swing of the pendulum to ideational culture: truth derived from religious revelation and clerical interpretation, with human goals redefined in otherworldly terms. The Islamic Republic’s worldview explicitly rejected Western materialism and embraced religious authenticity and martyrdom as a form of glory.

However, this dramatic worldview shift failed to alter the underlying authoritarian structure. Both regimes maintained concentrated power, extensive security apparatus, suppression of dissent, and cult of personality around the ultimate leader.

Layer four: Myth/Metaphor – The Besieged Guardian State

The deepest layer of analysis reveals the foundational metaphor that has structured Iranian political culture since 1953: the “Besieged Guardian State.” This metaphor emerged from the trauma of the CIA coup that overthrew democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, creating a narrative of Iran as perpetually threatened by external manipulation and therefore requiring a protective strong central authority.

The 1953 coup established several enduring mythic elements:

• Iran as the “Eternal Misunderstood Victim” of foreign interference requiring constant resistance to maintain national sovereignty.
• The West as fundamentally untrustworthy, selfish, and manipulative.
• Strong central authority as the only protection against internal and external threats.
• Democracy as a luxury that Iran cannot afford given a hostile environment.

This metaphor has proven remarkably durable, adapting to both sensate and ideational worldviews. Under the Shah, Iran was the guardian of modernization against communist threats. Under the Islamic Republic, Iran became the guardian of religious authenticity against Western cultural imperialism. The metaphor’s power lies in its ability to justify authoritarianism as necessary protection while positioning any opposition as serving foreign enemies.

The metaphor also explains Iran’s regional behavior—the development of proxy networks, nuclear program, and resistance axis all serve the narrative of a besieged nation requiring multiple layers of defense. Even Iran’s current economic crisis is interpreted through this lens as the price of maintaining independence against foreign pressure. Of course, Israel has a similar metaphor, as besieged and under threat (a beacon of Western democracy in a barbaric authoritarian region, “the vigilant citadel”).

Reconstructing Alternative Futures

Will the pendulum continue or are there other alternatives? And what are the scenarios if external nations are successful in regime change? We assume that the current trajectory is unlikely to continue. However, a stronger rule of Ayatollahs is the baseline future in the short run because of two factors. First, even dissidents have rallied around the regime given the existential threat from the US. Second, Iran’s surprising military success against Israel has bolstered the regime (Nuki et al., 2025). However, while this is likely in the short run, using Sorokin and Sarkar, we argue that in the medium and long-run fundamental change is inevitable. The issue is what will be the nature of this change? The scenarios explore four futures on the nature of this change (Motti, 2025).

Scenario One: The Unmanaged Transition – Regime Change

Midjourney (2025). Prompts by Perera, N

This scenario involves deliberate reform of the systemic layer—a new constitution, economic liberalization, reduced security apparatus—while leaving worldview and mythic structures intact. Headlines would read “New Iranian Leadership Seeks Regional Reconciliation” and “Tehran Announces Nuclear Program Suspension.”

However, without addressing the deeper “Besieged Guardian” metaphor, this transition remains vulnerable. The underlying narrative of external threats and required vigilance would eventually reassert authoritarian tendencies, as occurred in Russia’s brief democratic experiment in the 1990s. The metaphor’s power to justify emergency measures and concentrated authority would undermine systemic reforms over time.

Thus regime change would only serve to help Israel distract from the continued genocide and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons without addressing deeper issues.

Equally problematic is that external actors do not have a vision of Iran’s future even as they wish to destroy the present, they do so within their own self-referential narrative of Iran as part of the “axis of evil.” In this future, for many Iranians whether modernist or traditionalist, it does not matter since deep authoritarianism remains. For external powers – Israel, the US, and Saudi Arabia – a weaker Iran that focuses on selling oil and tourism would be ideal.

Scenario Two: The External and Internal Fragmentation – the Failed State

Midjourney (2025). Prompts by Rouhshahbaz.

Military intervention or economic collapse leads to two types of fragmentation, external and internal. Regional powers intervene—Türkiye securing Kurdish areas, Pakistan moving into Baluchistan, and Afghanistan influencing eastern provinces—leading to headlines like “Regional Powers Intervene in Iranian Chaos.”

This scenario represents the worst outcome because it validates the “Besieged Guardian” metaphor while removing the guardian. The resulting chaos would reinforce narratives about Iran’s need for strong central authority while making reconstruction around those same authoritarian patterns more likely. Iran would be carved up with massive refugee displacement. Would the USA and Europe allow millions of refugees in? Most likely they would not. Weapons would float all around the region, Iran would become a failed state.

As possible in the fragmentation scenario is internal fragmentation.

As external nations vie for land, the dominant worldview of Persian-centered unitary nationalism would come under threat. Kurds, Baluchis, Arabs, and Azerbaijanis would assert autonomous governance, creating headlines like “Baluchi Independence Movement Gains Territory.”

Thus, there would be competing “Besieged Guardian” metaphors, each ethnic group would develop its own narrative of external threats requiring strong tribal leadership. Without addressing the deeper metaphor, ethnic autonomy might simply reproduce authoritarianism at smaller scales. Violence within and between communities would likely increase.

Scenario Three: The Persian Napolean (Nader Shah)

Midjourney (2025). Prompts by Perera, N.

A military strongman could emerge from post-regime chaos, potentially swinging back toward sensate culture while maintaining authoritarian structures. Headlines would document “Military Strongman Consolidates Power in Tehran” and “New Iranian Leader Promises Order and Prosperity.”

This scenario represents the outcome given historical precedent. The “Besieged Guardian” metaphor would adapt to new circumstances—Iran as guardian of secular nationalism against religious extremism or guardian of regional stability against chaos. The underlying authoritarian pattern would persist despite surface changes in leadership and ideology. Iranians would support the new leader in this future to ensure the end of chaos i.e., ethnic battles and loss of territory to neighbors. And by 2040, we are back to 2025. No real change.

Scenario Four: The Neohumanist Transformation (Mythic Reconstruction)

Microsoft Copilot (2025). Prompts by Inayatullah.

This scenario represents the most fundamental transformation because it addresses the mythic layer directly. Rather than Iran as a “Besieged Guardian,” the guiding metaphor becomes the “Cooperative Commonwealth” (perhaps like the qanat, the ancient Persian underground water channel)—Iran as a model of how diverse communities can flourish through mutual support and shared resources while maintaining cultural distinctiveness. It would become the bridge maker of the region.

Headlines would read “Iran Establishes First Regional Cooperative Federation in Middle East” and “Iranian Tech Cooperatives Lead Regional Self-Sufficiency Movement.” This transformation would involve:

Economic Democracy: Worker-owned cooperatives replacing both state control and private capitalism, with guaranteed minimum requirements for all citizens and increasing purchasing capacity through local economic control.

Regional Governance: Self-sufficient socio-economic units based on cultural and geographical affinity, allowing Kurdish, Baluchi, Persian, and other communities autonomous development within cooperative and integrated frameworks.

Neohumanist Consciousness: Universal love and compassion for all beings replacing both religious sectarianism and secular materialism, creating space for Sunni, Shia, Zoroastrian, Christian, Jewish, and Baha’i communities to participate equally.

A transitional justice framework: truth and reconciliation commission of sorts is required instead of a punishment model.

Spiritual Integration: Recognition that human development requires physical, mental, and spiritual dimensions, transcending the sensate-ideational pendulum through integrated culture.

This scenario offers hope precisely because it addresses the root metaphor. Instead of requiring external guardianship against threats, the “Cooperative Commonwealth” metaphor suggests that security emerges through mutual aid and regional cooperation. Rather than concentrating power to resist external manipulation, it distributes power within cooperative networks. The key here is evolution must be endogenous, determined by those within Iran and not the US nor Israel nor other external parties. This future addresses the often-contradictory needs of science and spirituality.

Microsoft Copilot. (2025). Prompts by Inayatullah.

This last scenario is derived from Sarkar’s social cycle. The Shah created the capitalist era in Iran. However, as it did not evolve naturally, the era focused instead on capitalism for the few (oil and the resource curse) instead of grass roots innovation. In Sarkar’s worldview, the Ayatollahs have gone backwards to the “intellectual era” where the main issue is how religious, how pious one is, not how well the economy runs. Ideological purity instead of economic wealth creation became the norm. Their piety is supported by the warrior class, the Revolutionary Guard. For Sarkar, what is needed is a shift toward a new era, a cooperative era where exploitation by religious intellectuals and capitalists ceases. Iran uses its oil wealth to create cooperatives, integrated solar energy, and shifts the scientists who have focused on developing weapons to technologies that create well-being, a true revolution.

External nations need to follow similar paths, otherwise being cooperative in a sea of competition will be nearly impossible. Being neohumanistic in a sea of nationalism and religiousism is equally challenging.

The Power of Deep Transformation

The analysis argues that surface-level regime change has consistently failed to transform Iran’s political culture. Changes at the litany level (new leaders, policies) or even systemic level (new institutions, constitutions) cannot overcome deeper worldview and mythic structures. The persistence of authoritarianism through dramatic ideological shifts from sensate to ideational culture demonstrates the power of unconscious metaphors to shape political possibilities.

Sorokin’s cultural dynamics theory, when integrated with CLA, illuminates how Iran’s pendulum swings between sensate and ideational orientations have occurred within an unchanging authoritarian framework. The “Besieged Guardian” metaphor has proven capable of adapting to both cultural orientations, suggesting that genuine transformation requires intervention at the deepest causal layer.

The final neohumanistic scenario represents the most challenging but potentially most transformative possibility because it directly addresses mythic reconstruction. However, this transformation cannot be imposed externally—it must emerge through organic development of cooperative networks and spiritual communities that demonstrate alternative possibilities.

The macrohistorical perspective reveals that Iran’s current crisis may represent what Sorokin and Sarkar call a transitional period—a moment when existing cultural forms have exhausted their creative potential and new possibilities can emerge. The question is whether this transition will repeat historical patterns or enable genuine civilizational transformation.

Midjourney (2025). Prompts by Rouhshahbaz.

Conclusion

As military tensions escalate and regime change becomes increasingly possible, this analysis suggests that the most important question is not whether Iran’s government will change, but whether Iran’s civilization can evolve beyond the authoritarian patterns that have persisted for over seven decades. The answer depends partially on whether Iranians can imagine and implement new metaphors for their collective existence—moving from “Besieged Guardian” to “Cooperative Commonwealth” in ways that honor both their cultural heritage and universal human aspirations.

In this sense, Iran’s transformation could contribute to global evolution beyond the limitations of both capitalist and communist models toward more integrated forms of planetary civilization.

While the future is not certain, what is clear that attempts by other nations for regime change will only make the situation far worse. Wiser visions need to prevail.

References

Galtung, J., and Inayatullah, S. (1997). Macrohistory and Macrohistorians. Praeger.

Graham, D. A. (2025, June 23). Trump wants to ‘Make Iran Great Again’. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/latest

Guzman, C. (2025, June 23). Trump says Iran May Need ‘Regime Change,’ Time. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-says-iran-may-need-regime-change/.

Human Rights Watch. (2025). World report 2025: Iran. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2025/country-chapters/iran.

Inayatullah, S. (1998). Causal layered analysis: Poststructuralism as method. Futures, 30(8), 815–829.

Inayatullah, S. (2002). Understanding Sarkar. Brill.

Inayatullah, S. (2004). The Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) Reader. Tamkang University Press.

Khani, K. (2024, February 27). Poverty in Iran: The Clerical Regime’s Contribution to a Growing Crisis. National Council of Resistance of Iran Foreign Affairs Committee. https://www.ncr-iran.org/en/news/society/poverty-in-iran-the-clerical-regimes-contribution-to-a-growing-crisis.

Motti, V. (2025). https://altplanetaryfuturesinst.blogspot.com/2025/06/when-abstract-visions-of-futures.html.

Nuki, P., Butcher, B., & Madadi, A. (2025, July 5). Iran struck five Israeli military bases during 12-day war. The Telegraph. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/07/05/iran-struck-five-israeli-military-bases-12-day-war/

Sorokin, P. A. (1957). Social and Cultural Dynamics. Porter Sargent.

Iran International (2023, June 12). Inflation in Iran remains as high as 60%. https://www.iranintl.com/en/202306122767.