Eurasia Press & News
The 12-day war between Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran shattered not only the regime’s military credibility but also exposed the structural weaknesses within the Iranian opposition. While the regime lost much of its deterrent power and legitimacy, the opposition failed to translate this moment into political gain. It lacked a shared vision of the future, a unifying historical narrative, and the institutional coherence needed to guide the nation forward. In the absence of these critical elements, the regime has grown more brutal, and a dangerous political vacuum has emerged. Drawing on theories of agency, narrative construction, and successful political transition, this article argues that the current environment in Iran closely resembles the early phases of civil war in other collapsed states. The only path away from fragmentation lies in the opposition developing a collective vision, ethical leadership, and institutional design rooted in Iran’s civilizational heritage.
- Introduction: A Moment of Collapse and Lost Opportunity
The recent 12-day war dramatically altered Iran’s strategic reality. For the first time in decades, the Islamic Republic was not only militarily exposed but geopolitically isolated. The war made it clear that the regime could no longer defend the country, project credible power, or rely on ideological slogans to maintain internal cohesion. However, what should have been a moment of transition became instead a moment of paralysis.
Rather than rising to fill the void, the Iranian opposition revealed its internal divisions. It failed to project moral clarity, it lacked an institutional plan, and above all, it failed to present a shared vision of Iran’s political future. In the face of war, the opposition lost its agency because a shared vision of the future had not been developed in advance. This failure allowed the regime to regain control through sheer brutality, even as it lost the support of large segments of the population.
- Theories of Opposition: Vision, Narrative, and Collective Agency
A successful opposition is not defined merely by its resistance to power. It must offer a coherent alternative that allows people to imagine a different and better future. Political theorists such as Charles Taylor and Paulo Freire have emphasized that social transformation requires both a shared social imaginary and a critical awareness of historical conditions. In other words, movements succeed when they connect the past to the present through a compelling moral narrative and articulate a realistic path forward.
This connection is what Taylor calls a “modern social imaginary.” It allows people to understand their role in a larger historical process. Freire refers to the development of this awareness as “conscientization.” It is the process by which individuals come to recognize their condition as historically produced and therefore subject to change. Agency, as defined by Emirbayer and Mische, is not merely the capacity to act, but the ability to act with intentionality toward a morally grounded goal.
In the Iranian case, the opposition failed to provide such a goal. There was no future-oriented plan that ordinary citizens could trust or rally behind. There was no meta-narrative that linked Iran’s ancient pluralist civilization to its modern democratic aspirations. And there was no visible institutional structure that could replace the decaying system of the Islamic Republic. This absence of vision and structure led to confusion, hesitation, and ultimately inaction.
- The Regime’s Brutality and the Vacuum of Leadership
The Islamic Republic responded to its military humiliation not by reforming or acknowledging defeat, but by intensifying repression. Thousands were arrested, dozens were executed, and the regime doubled down on its ideological propaganda. However, the legitimacy behind this brutality has eroded. The regime now rules by force alone, not by consent.
This situation is dangerous. History shows that when regimes lose legitimacy but retain their repressive capacity, they often trigger cycles of violence that spiral into civil war. This was the case in Libya, Syria, and parts of the former Yugoslavia. In all these cases, a weakened central government responded to its loss of power with force. But because no unified, legitimate opposition existed, the resulting vacuum led to armed conflict, foreign intervention, and state collapse.
Iran now faces a similar risk. In provinces such as Kurdistan, Sistan-Baluchestan, and Khuzestan, non-state actors and separatist groups are beginning to assert local control. Ethnic tensions are rising, and the regime’s brutality is feeding narratives of exclusion and resistance. Without a credible national alternative, these tensions may evolve into armed conflict.
- The Opposition’s Crisis of Agency and the Urgency of Vision
The opposition’s failure during and after the war can be understood as a collapse of collective agency. Agency requires not just intention, but moral clarity and strategic planning. The Iranian opposition, while rich in individual bravery, has not yet built the institutions and narratives necessary to channel that bravery into national transformation.
In the absence of a credible vision of the future, people remain fearful of chaos, revenge, and uncertainty. As Asef Bayat has argued in his analysis of the Arab Spring, revolutions without revolutionary organization often lead to fragmentation rather than reform. This is the danger now confronting Iran. Without a structured alternative, the country may drift toward civil disorder.
To avoid this, the opposition must develop a shared plan that defines what a post-Islamic Republic Iran would look like. It must connect the country’s historical identity to modern principles of pluralism, democracy, and justice. And it must do so through institutions that ordinary people can understand, trust, and participate in.
- Rebuilding Agency and Preventing Collapse: A Path Forward
Preventing civil war and rebuilding national cohesion will require more than protests and moral outrage. The opposition must engage in strategic reconstruction. The following principles are essential:
A. Define Core Ethical Principles
Opposition groups must agree on a foundation that includes democratic governance, human rights, religious freedom, and territorial integrity. These principles should form the ethical core of any future system.
B. Develop a Shared Institutional Model
A concrete vision of governance must be presented. The Axis of Hope model, proposed in Cosmology of Mehr, offers one such possibility. It includes a decentralized executive accountable to community governments, a bicameral legislature, an independent judiciary, and a national wealth fund to support ethical investment and entrepreneurship.
C. Create a National Opposition Council
A unified body must be established to represent the diverse voices of Iran. It should include domestic activists, diaspora leaders, legal scholars, and minority representatives. This council should coordinate public messaging, policy proposals, and international engagement.
D. Reclaim Iran’s Cultural Legacy
The regime has weaponized national symbols to support its ideology. The opposition must counter this by reclaiming Iran’s cultural identity as a source of pluralism, wisdom, and shared memory. Cultural production, education, and storytelling are vital tools in this process.
E. Design a Transitional Justice Framework
People fear that regime change will bring chaos or retribution. To build trust, the opposition must present a responsible plan for transitional justice. This should include truth commissions, legal accountability, and pathways for reconciliation.
- Conclusion: A Future That Must Be Built
The war with Israel revealed that the Islamic Republic is no longer a viable guardian of Iran’s sovereignty. But it also revealed that the opposition is not yet a viable alternative. The regime has lost legitimacy. The opposition has lost its agency. The people are left in limbo.
If nothing changes, the result will not be a peaceful transition. It will be fragmentation, violence, and perhaps civil war. But this outcome is not inevitable. The opposition still has time to reclaim its role, to build a vision rooted in ethics and history, and to provide a real path forward.
This task begins with imagination and ends with action. Iran does not need another ideology. It needs institutions, narrative clarity, and moral leadership. That is how agency is restored, how movements become governments, and how a nation rebuilds its future from the ruins of tyranny.
