Since the 1920s, Iran has experienced two decisive political moments that reflect two distinct civilizational identities. They have shaped not only a country’s internal character but also its relationship with the wider world.
The Islamic Republic is currently under unprecedented stress, and a third Iranian moment may be on the horizon.
Modernity on Shah’s terms
Iran’s first moment was the reign of the Pahlavi monarchy, which began in 1925 with the accession of army officer Reza Khan Pahlavi to the throne and ended with the outbreak of the Iranian Revolution in 1979. It was built around a particular vision of Iran: secularization, modernization, and firmly entrenched in the domination of the Cold War-era Western-led bloc.
Tehran recognized Israel after its creation in 1948, supplied oil to Western markets and served as Washington’s chosen guardian of the Gulf. The Shah led a country that projected power across a region rife with ethnic and sectarian tensions and posed a challenge to its Arab neighbors, but also served as a model for state-led development.
At the heart of the Pahlavi project was a deliberate attempt to anchor the monarchy’s legitimacy in the Persian imperial past rather than in Islam. Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi consciously linked his rule to the ancient Achaemenids, the dynasty of Cyrus and Darius who founded the first great Persian civilization in the 5th century BC.
The grand celebrations commemorating 2,500 years of the Persian monarchy, held in the ruins of the ancient city of Persepolis in 1971, were the most theatrical expression of this assertion, a declaration that the Pahlavi throne was not a modern edifice but the heir to an unbroken imperial tradition. In doing so, the shah sought to position himself, rather than his religion, as a king of kings whose lineage was older than Islam itself.
But beneath the surface of modernity and imperial grandeur, the monarch was overtly authoritarian. A feared secret police force, SAVAK was synonymous with torture and repression. All the geopolitical partnerships the Shah had cultivated proved worthless when mass protests erupted in 1978 and 1979.
Not a single foreign ally made a move to save him. A monarch who had prioritized strategic utility over popular legitimacy found himself completely isolated. Iran’s first moment ended in revolution rather than war, but its lessons were not learned by those who followed.
islamic republic
From the ashes of the Shah’s reign, something truly novel has emerged. The Islamic Republic of Iran was founded on the teachings of Ruhollah Khomeini’s Velayat-e-Faqih (Guardianship of Islamic Jurists). It was the second Shiite state after the Safavid dynasty (1501-1736). The Safavids themselves made the 12 Shiites the defining identity of Iran.
The new republic was built on the premise that Islamic principles should apply not only to religious life, but also to political, economic, and even social life. The public sphere was to be controlled, morality was to be enforced, and Iran’s cultural identity was to be explicitly non-Westernized.
While the Pahlavi sect embraced the United States and Israel, the Islamic Republic constructed its identity in clear opposition to both. Its foreign policy became defined by resistance. It supports Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen, and Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria — a network of proxies that Tehran has dubbed the “Axis of Resistance.” This ultimately triggered an ongoing crisis in Iran’s neighboring countries.
In terms of economic governance, the regime looked eastward toward a model not dissimilar to China: authoritarian in politics, state-led in economics, and independent from Western institutions.
That independence came at a huge cost. More than 3,600 different sanctions have been imposed on the republic, and the cumulative siege has destroyed the lives of ordinary Iranians. Iran’s decline in regional influence became clear after two major traumatic events: the Arab Spring, which called into question the credibility of Iran’s claims to protect oppressed peoples, and the October 7 attacks, which made Iran a potential military target for Israel.
Three major armed conflicts have scarred its existence. One was the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War, which killed hundreds of thousands of people. A 12-day war involving Israel and the United States in June 2025. The conflict has continued since February 28th.
Each war deepened the siege mentality at the core of the regime’s identity, the conviction that today’s Iran is forever under siege and its very survival is under threat.
moment of crisis
Looking back, you can understand how the first moment ended. The Pahlavi monarchy lost domestic legitimacy and foreign patrons turned away. A revolution ensued. However, the trajectory of Iran’s second moment is far more uncertain, and that uncertainty is itself a source of regional and global anxiety.
Today’s Islamic Republic is neither the confident revolutionary power it was in the 1980s nor a stable religious state that can manage its contradictions indefinitely. Massive protests over the past two decades have raised social, economic, and political questions about the nature of the social contract provided by the Islamic Republic.
At the same time, its influence in the region is declining, its nuclear program has led to direct military conflict, and its economy is ravaged by sanctions and rampant corruption, unable to generate the prosperity needed to buy public acquiescence.
There are several scenarios for what happens next. The regime may continue in its current form. A reformed Islamic Republic might retain its Shiite theological identity while abandoning its most confrontational stances, but such a transition would require a political class willing to negotiate and an opposition capable of responsibly receiving and retaining power. Neither condition clearly exists.
There are also more chaotic scenarios, such as divisions, civil wars, and power vacuums. This cannot be ruled out in a country where Persians, Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Arabs and Baluchs are increasingly united by force alone.
Iran’s next chapter will not be written by foreign powers alone, the clergy alone, or protest movements alone. It arises from the conflict of all these forces, internal and external, historical and direct.
This new moment for Iran is above all a leap into the unknown, not only for the Iranian people, but also for the region and the world that will feel its effects. Iran is unstable, perplexed, and on the precipice. We still don’t know what lies ahead.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.
