Historical Background, Religious Authority, Political Repression and the Geopolitical Threat to Iran’s Future
An Historical and Political Analysis for Homo-Naturalis.gr
Introduction: Iran, a Great Civilization Under the Weight of Theocracy
There are countries whose history is so ancient that their present political ordeal represents only one chapter in a journey spanning thousands of years.
Iran is one of them.
Ancient Persia, the land of Cyrus, Darius and Xerxes, of the Sassanids, of poetry, philosophy and extraordinary cultural achievements, is not simply a geographical region of the Middle East. It is one of the great historical pillars of human civilization.
And herein lies the first major historical contradiction: a nation with such a profound cultural heritage finds itself governed by a political system in which religious authority claims supremacy over popular sovereignty, individual freedom and political self-determination.
We must, however, make an essential distinction from the outset: Iran and the Iranian people are not the same thing as the Islamic Republic and its ruling establishment. Confusing the two would be both a historical and a political mistake.
Nor should we forget that Iran’s history is not a simple confrontation between a good people and a bad government. It includes foreign interventions, authoritarian monarchies, revolutions, social inequalities, religious conflicts and successive political disappointments.
Let us examine how Iran reached its present condition.
1. Persia: A Civilization With Thousands of Years of History
The history of Iran reaches deep into antiquity.
Ancient Persia emerged as a major imperial power under the Achaemenids during the sixth century BC. Cyrus the Great established an empire extending across vast territories of Asia and the Near East.
His successor, Darius I, organized this enormous territory administratively, strengthened its infrastructure and communications, and developed the system of provincial satrapies.
Persian imperial civilization was not based solely on military power. It developed administrative institutions, commercial networks, architecture and extensive cultural exchanges.
The Hellenistic Seleucids, the Parthians and the Sassanids followed. The last of these dynasties created a remarkable civilization that profoundly influenced the wider Middle Eastern world.
In the seventh century AD, the Arab conquest introduced Islam to Persia. This did not, however, erase Persian cultural identity. The Persian language, literature, administrative traditions and cultural individuality survived and, in turn, influenced the Islamic world.
Later, in 1501, the Safavid dynasty established Twelver Shiism as the official religion of the state.
This development was of enormous historical importance: it shaped the religious identity of modern Iran and distinguished it from the predominantly Sunni societies surrounding it.
The present-day theocracy, therefore, did not emerge from a historical vacuum. It drew upon a long religious and political tradition, which it subsequently transformed into a specific system of state power.
2. From the Constitutional Revolution of 1906 to the Fall of the Monarchy
To understand contemporary Iran, we must return to the twentieth century.
The country entered that century facing a serious political problem: the inability to establish a stable constitutional state, independent of foreign influence and the arbitrary authority of the monarchy.
The Constitutional Revolution of 1905–1911 represented the first major attempt to restrict absolutist rule. Its supporters demanded a constitution, a parliament and political accountability for the monarchy.
It was a decisive moment in Iranian history.
In 1925, the Pahlavi dynasty came to power under Reza Shah. He sought to modernize the state, restrict the traditional power of the clergy and establish modern administrative and military institutions.
In 1941, during the Second World War, Britain and the Soviet Union invaded Iran and forced Reza Shah to abdicate. His son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, succeeded him.
Mossadegh and the Coup of 1953
In 1951, Mohammad Mossadegh became Prime Minister and sought to nationalize Iran’s oil industry.
Oil represented an enormous source of wealth, but its exploitation was largely controlled by British interests.
Mossadegh’s decision provoked a major confrontation with Britain. In 1953, with the participation of the CIA and British intelligence, a coup overthrew his government.
This event has enormous historical significance.
For many Iranians, 1953 demonstrated that Western powers were willing to overthrow a government whenever their strategic and economic interests were threatened.
This does not justify what followed after 1979. It does, however, help explain the deep distrust of the United States and Britain among sections of Iranian society.
The Shah and Authoritarian Modernization
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi introduced extensive reforms, including modernization of public administration, educational expansion, land redistribution, industrial development and greater participation of women in public life.
His so-called White Revolution, launched in 1963, significantly transformed Iran’s social and economic structure.
Yet modernization was not accompanied by corresponding political freedom.
The Shah concentrated power, restricted opposition and used the notorious secret police, SAVAK, to monitor, arrest and torture political opponents.
Economic growth coexisted with serious social inequalities, political repression and increasing public discontent.
Iran offers an important historical lesson: economic progress and technological modernization cannot guarantee political legitimacy when fundamental freedoms are absent.
3. The Islamic Revolution of 1979: How Theocracy Was Established
In 1978–1979, the Shah’s regime collapsed.
The uprising brought together different political and social forces: liberals, left-wing organizations, students, intellectuals, workers, religious groups and large sections of a population opposed to monarchical authoritarianism.
It was not initially an exclusively religious revolution. It was a broad social and political movement with different objectives.
At the center of the religious opposition stood Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
After years in exile, Khomeini returned to Tehran on February 1, 1979.
The monarchy collapsed, and in April of that year, following a referendum, the Islamic Republic was proclaimed.
But a major political reversal followed.
The forces that had cooperated in overthrowing the Shah did not share power. Organizations advocating a secular, democratic or socialist state were gradually marginalized, persecuted or eliminated from political life.
The religious leadership prevailed.
A revolution that had brought together demands for national independence, social justice and political freedom ultimately established a state in which religious authority enjoyed constitutionally entrenched supremacy.
This is the historical turning point that deserves particular attention.
The overthrow of an authoritarian regime does not automatically lead to the establishment of democracy.
The Iranian experience is one of the clearest examples of this historical truth.
4. What Exactly Is the Regime of the Ayatollahs?
The Iranian political system is not an ordinary parliamentary democracy. It is a complex structure combining elected institutions with unelected religious centers of power.
Its central ideological principle is known as Velayat-e Faqih, meaning the guardianship or rule of the Islamic jurist.
According to this doctrine, a senior Islamic jurist, possessing religious and political authority, must supervise the governance of the state.
Khomeini transformed this theory into the institutional foundation of the Islamic Republic.
The system operates through several institutions:
-
- Supreme Leader: The highest political, military and religious authority.
-
- Guardian Council: Reviews legislation and vets electoral candidates.
-
- Assembly of Experts: Selects and supervises the Supreme Leader.
-
- President: Heads the executive government.
-
- Parliament (Majlis): Exercises legislative functions.
-
- Judiciary: Administers justice within the framework of the Islamic Republic.
-
- Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps: Exercises substantial military, political and economic influence.
The fundamental problem is that elections do not take place under conditions of unrestricted political competition.
The Guardian Council can disqualify candidates it considers incompatible with the political and religious foundations of the system.
Citizens therefore vote, but they do not enjoy unlimited freedom to choose who may compete for power.
This creates a fundamental contradiction between electoral procedures and genuine popular sovereignty.
The system is not one in which all clerics possess equal authority. Real power is concentrated in specific institutions and networks, with the Revolutionary Guards playing a particularly important role.
5. The Revolutionary Guards: A State Within the State
To understand who actually exercises power in Iran, it is not enough to study the ayatollahs.
We must examine the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, commonly known as the IRGC.
Established in 1979, its original mission was to protect the revolution and the new political system.
Over the decades, it evolved into a powerful organization with influence across four major areas:
-
- Military: Ground forces, naval and aerospace capabilities, and missile forces.
-
- Political: Significant influence over the decisions of the country’s supreme leadership.
-
- Economic: Extensive involvement in construction, energy and other economic sectors.
-
- Internal security: Cooperation with mechanisms of surveillance and domestic repression.
The Basij militia also plays an important role. It is a paramilitary and social mobilization network that has been used to suppress demonstrations and monitor society.
Iran therefore presents a distinctive political reality: the religious leadership relies upon a military and economic apparatus whose interests and influence extend far beyond its original mission.
Power is not exclusively religious. It is also military, economic and administrative.
6. Women and Individual Freedoms
One of the most characteristic features of theocratic government is its approach to women’s rights.
The Islamic Republic has institutionalized a particular understanding of women’s position in society, based on its own interpretation of Islamic law.
Mandatory veiling, restrictions on personal appearance and discrimination in family law have become persistent sources of conflict between the authorities and significant sections of society.
Yet Iranian society should never be portrayed as passive.
Iranian women have achieved high levels of education and participate in science, education, economic activity and cultural life. They have repeatedly demanded their rights, often at considerable personal risk.
Mahsa Amini and the Woman, Life, Freedom Movement
In September 2022, Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Kurdish woman, died following her arrest by Iran’s morality police over alleged violations of dress regulations.
Her death triggered widespread demonstrations.
The slogan Woman, Life, Freedom became the symbol of a movement that went far beyond the narrow issue of women’s clothing.
Demonstrators challenged compulsory religious enforcement, police violence, political arbitrariness and the legitimacy of the political system itself.
The central demand was not simply a change in clothing regulations.
It was the right of every individual to make decisions about their own life.
The repression of dissent has continued, according to international human rights investigations, with serious allegations of unlawful killings, torture, imprisonment and other abuses.
These are not merely political accusations made by opponents of Tehran. They are matters examined by international investigative mechanisms.
7. Iran’s Economy: A Wealthy Country With a Struggling Society
Iran possesses enormous natural resources.
It has some of the world’s largest proven oil and natural gas reserves, a substantial industrial base, considerable agricultural resources and a highly educated population.
Yet living conditions have deteriorated for many Iranians.
International sanctions, economic mismanagement, corruption, limited competitiveness, state intervention and the militarization of important sectors of the economy have created a complex crisis.
It would be historically inaccurate to attribute every economic difficulty exclusively to sanctions or exclusively to domestic governance.
Sanctions have restricted access to capital, technology and international financial transactions. At the same time, the Iranian leadership’s political choices have contributed to the country’s isolation and economic dysfunction.
The result is a society whose enormous productive potential has not translated into corresponding prosperity for its population.
This is one of the major challenges to the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic.
8. Foreign Policy: Iran and Its Conflict With the West
Since its establishment, the Islamic Republic has pursued three major foreign policy objectives.
First: Opposition to American influence.
The seizure of the American Embassy in Tehran in 1979 and the 444-day hostage crisis shaped relations between the two countries for decades.
Second: Regional influence.
Tehran developed relationships with armed organizations and political allies throughout the region, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and various groups in Iraq and Yemen.
The Iranian leadership presents this policy as a strategy of deterrence and resistance to American and Israeli power. Its opponents describe it as destabilizing interference in the affairs of other countries.
Third: The nuclear program.
Iran maintains that its nuclear program serves peaceful purposes. The United States, Israel and other countries fear that Tehran is seeking, or attempting to preserve, the capability to manufacture nuclear weapons.
The distinction is important: enriched uranium does not, by itself, prove the existence of a nuclear bomb. Equally, a government’s declaration that its program is peaceful does not automatically eliminate international concerns.
The inability of international inspectors to verify the status of Iran’s nuclear material following military attacks has created a serious international problem.
It is important, however, not to confuse the existence of highly enriched uranium with proof that Iran already possesses nuclear weapons.
9. The American Threat and the War of 2026
The confrontation between Iran and the United States is no longer simply a diplomatic dispute or a conflict over economic sanctions.
It has become a military confrontation.
On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched new military attacks against Iran. According to international reporting, the strikes killed the then-Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, together with other senior officials.
His son, Mojtaba Khamenei, subsequently emerged as the new Supreme Leader.
This development raises important political questions about the relationship between religious legitimacy and hereditary succession in a system founded upon the authority of Islamic jurists.
The Current Situation
As of November 14, 2026, reports indicated that President Donald Trump was considering avoiding renewed military attacks, provided that Tehran and its allies did not undertake further provocative actions.
At the same time, the United States maintained a substantial military presence in the region, while the possibility of further military action remained under consideration.
Israel continued to press for a tougher approach, while Saudi Arabia and Turkey urged Washington to avoid another escalation.
The economic pressure on Iran and restrictions affecting its maritime trade continued to weigh heavily on Tehran.
These developments demonstrate that declarations of de-escalation should not be confused with a definitive end to the conflict.
Can a People Pay the Price for the Overthrow of Their Government?
Here we must distinguish between two fundamentally different questions.
The first concerns the Iranian leadership’s responsibility for domestic repression and its regional policies.
The second concerns the legality and consequences of American and Israeli military action.
The repression of the Iranian population does not automatically grant a foreign power unlimited authority to intervene militarily.
Nor can civilian deaths caused by foreign military action be justified by claiming to oppose an authoritarian regime.
International humanitarian law binds all parties to an armed conflict.
Regime change is not, in itself, an independent legal justification for war.
The Iranian people must not become the victims of a confrontation between their own government and foreign military powers.
10. What Is Iran’s Future? Is a Democratic Alternative Possible?
The central question is not merely whether the Islamic Republic will survive.
It is what might replace it if the present political system collapses or undergoes fundamental transformation.
Several possibilities exist:
A. Continuation of the theocratic system.
The religious leadership and the Revolutionary Guards may retain control despite military losses, economic difficulties and widespread social dissatisfaction.
B. Internal transformation.
A political reorganization might restrict the authority of religious institutions and strengthen elected bodies.
C. Democratic transition.
A broad social and political process could establish a secular democratic state, with free elections, an independent judiciary and constitutional protection of individual rights.
D. Political destabilization.
Military conflict, economic collapse and internal divisions could produce prolonged instability and potentially threaten the country’s territorial cohesion.
None of these outcomes can be regarded as certain.
Democracy cannot be established simply by removing or eliminating a political leader. It requires institutions, social consensus, political culture and the genuine possibility of peaceful transfers of power.
The Historical Trap of Foreign Intervention
Iran already has a traumatic experience of foreign intervention: the coup of 1953.
If Iranians come to believe that their future is being decided in Washington or Tel Aviv, forces opposed to political change may gain additional support.
National independence remains a powerful element of Iranian political identity.
Consequently, democratic transformation, if it is to acquire lasting foundations, must rest primarily upon the political will and participation of the Iranian people themselves.
11. Our Historical Assessment
Let us now bring together the principal conclusions of this historical journey.
Iran’s problem is not simply that it has a religious government.
It is the transformation of a particular religious interpretation into the supreme source of political legitimacy and state authority.
Religion, as an individual belief, is an inalienable human right. Spirituality, worship and religious tradition are not enemies of democracy.
The problem begins when religious authority demands control over legislation, education, personal conduct, political expression and ultimately the conscience of citizens.
This is not an issue exclusive to Iran. It represents a much broader historical conflict: the struggle between freedom of conscience and imposed dogmatic authority.
On the other hand, Western political and military power is not automatically a guarantee of freedom and democracy.
The history of interventions in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere demonstrates how frequently noble declarations coexist with strategic interests, destruction and long-term consequences for entire populations.
A consistent historical assessment must therefore defend several fundamental principles:
-
- No theocratic imposition.
-
- No political repression or executions.
-
- No abolition of individual freedoms.
-
- No foreign military intervention as a substitute for popular sovereignty.
-
- No collective punishment of a population for the decisions of its rulers.
These principles are not contradictory. They reflect the same fundamental conviction: human beings must come before political power.
12. Conclusion: Iran Belongs to the Iranian People
Persia was an empire, a civilization, an intellectual tradition and a source of extraordinary cultural achievements.
It gave humanity Cyrus the Great, Ferdowsi, Omar Khayyam, Hafez and Rumi.
It preserved its language and cultural identity through conquests, religious transformations and political upheavals.
No contemporary regime can claim exclusive ownership of this entire historical heritage.
Neither can the ayatollahs claim that they exclusively represent Iranian civilization, nor can the United States claim the right to decide which government is entitled to rule the Iranian people.
Iran’s destiny must not become an object of competition between two centers of power: the religious establishment in Tehran and the military establishment in Washington.
It belongs to the people of Iran.
To the women demanding freedom. To the students, workers, intellectuals and ethnic and religious minorities. To all those who wish to live without fear, arbitrary arrests or the imposition of a state ideology.
And this aspiration need be neither pro-American nor anti-Iranian.
It can simply be human.
Iran does not have to cease being Persia in order to become a democracy. It must liberate its civilization from the exclusive ownership of any political authority.
Perhaps this is its greatest historical challenge: to reconcile its millennia-old cultural identity with the modern demands of freedom, equality and democracy.
A Final Thought for Homo-Naturalis.gr
History is not merely the recording of the achievements of the powerful, nor the justification of the victors.
It is, above all, the study of humanity: the societies people create, the powers they tolerate and the freedoms they struggle to achieve.
This is why we should follow Iran’s tragedy not as spectators of a geopolitical confrontation, but as students of human history.
Peoples are not born to serve gods imposed upon them by their rulers, nor emperors imposed upon them by foreign powers.
Historical assessment: November 15, 2026.
Selected Historical and Research Sources
-
- Encyclopaedia Iranica – Persian and Iranian History.
-
- Cambridge History of Iran – Political and Social History.
-
- Congressional Research Service – Iran: Background and U.S. Policy.
-
- Council on Foreign Relations – Iran’s Political Institutions and Power Centers.
-
- United Nations Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Iran.
-
- Reuters – Developments in US-Iran Relations, November 2026.
-
- Associated Press – Iran’s Nuclear Programme and International Inspections.
HOMO-NATURALIS.GR
History, Humanism, Freedom and Critical Thought.