Iran’s post-war institutional cohesion masks deep fractures: US assassination policies fuel strategic unity amid internal dissent

Persian political thought historically values collective governance (*mardomsalari*) and resilience over individual leadership, a framework that persists despite militarization. The erasure of indigenous knowledge systems (e.g., pre-Islamic governance models) in Western analyses flattens Iran’s political complexity into a binary of 'moderates' vs. 'hardliners.' Indigenous feminist movements in Iran, such as the *One Million Signatures* campaign, critique both the regime and Western interventions, yet are rarely centered in geopolitical narratives.

The 1953 US-British coup against Mossadegh and the 1980s Iran-Iraq War (backed by the US) created a siege mentality that persists in Iranian governance today. Assassinations of leaders like Soleimani (2020) mirror US-backed coups in Latin America (e.g., Chile 1973), where eliminating pragmatic figures radicalized regimes. The current cohesion is a post-war phenomenon, not a historical constant—similar to how post-WWII Europe’s unity masked deep ideological divides.

In Vietnam, prolonged conflict with external powers (e.g., US, China) similarly fostered a militarized state that prioritized unity over pluralism, though internal dissent persisted. Latin American states like Venezuela and Cuba have also used external threats to centralize power, but indigenous and Afro-descendant communities often bear the brunt of repression. Comparing Iran to these cases reveals how external pressures reshape governance structures across cultures, often in unintended ways.

Studies on authoritarian resilience (e.g., Levitsky & Way, 2010) show that external threats can paradoxically stabilize regimes by suppressing internal dissent and justifying repression. Network analysis of Iranian elites post-Soleimani’s assassination reveals increased cohesion among hardliners due to the elimination of moderating nodes (source: *Journal of Conflict Resolution*, 2023). The 'moderate' label is often a Western construct, not an empirical reality—many 'moderates' in Iran’s parliament are still hardline on key issues like Israel or nuclear policy.

Persian poetry (e.g., Rumi, Hafez) often frames governance as a balance between order (*hokm*) and justice (*adl*), a tension mirrored in Iran’s current political struggles. The concept of *taqiyya* (dissimulation) in Shia Islam has been co-opted by Western media to imply deception, but it historically served as a survival tactic under persecution. Artistic movements like *Dabestan* (Iran’s underground music scene) critique both the regime and US imperialism, offering a third space for dissent.

If current US assassination policies continue, Iran’s hardline faction may consolidate power further, reducing the likelihood of future diplomatic breakthroughs. Scenario modeling suggests that prolonged sanctions could trigger internal fractures within the Revolutionary Guard, leading to a power struggle between pragmatic hardliners and ideological purists. A potential future involves Iran’s youth (60% under 30) rejecting both the regime and Western interventionism, creating a new political movement.

Iranian women’s rights activists (e.g., *White Wednesdays* movement) face repression from both hardliners and moderates, yet their demands for bodily autonomy are often sidelined in geopolitical analyses. Ethnic minorities like the Ahwazi Arabs and Baloch face dual oppression—from the regime and from nationalist narratives that exclude them. Labor strikes (e.g., 2022-23 protests) reveal class-based grievances that transcend the 'moderate vs. hardline' binary, but are ignored in favor of elite-focused narratives.