Politics and Counter Politics in Contemporary Iran: Iran in Context Part II
Featuring scholars from Brandeis, Boston College, and the University of Bern, the discussion focuses on how domestic political shifts and social tensions have been systematically misrepresented in international discourse.
Deconstructing the Narrative of Iranian Political Change
For decades, external observers have struggled to interpret the volatile shifts within the Iranian state. The MERIP roundtable, co-moderated by executive director James Ryan and Rosanna Tufaro, argues that much of the prevailing analysis fails to account for the nuanced interplay between state repression and grassroots societal resistance. The panelists—Naghmeh Sohrabi, Mohammad Ali Kadivar, and Paniz Musawi Natanzi—emphasize that Iran is not a static monolith.
Instead, it is a country undergoing a profound, often violent, restructuring of its social contract. Kadivar’s recent analysis in MERIP, Rethinking Political Change in Iran: From Protest to War, suggests that the traditional binary of “protest versus regime” is insufficient to describe a reality where economic precarity and institutional exclusion drive the most significant political ruptures. The conversation highlights that these dynamics are frequently ignored in favor of geopolitical narratives that prioritize external sanctions over internal social realities.
The Intersection of Labor, Masculinity, and Migration
A critical component of the discussion involves the role of marginalized populations within Iran’s political economy. Paniz Musawi Natanzi’s work, specifically her 2025 research on working-class masculinity and anti-Afghan racism, serves as a prism for understanding how the state maintains control.
Quantifying Regime Support and the Problem of Preference Falsification
One of the most persistent hurdles for analysts is the phenomenon of “preference falsification”—the act of hiding one’s true political beliefs due to fear of state reprisal. Recent research by Daniel Tavana, Kevin Harris, Gary Fong, and Amir Farmanesh provides a quantitative look at this issue, highlighting that official reporting on regime support in Iran is often fundamentally decoupled from public sentiment.
The Institutional Framework: BRISMES and SeSaMO
The “Iran in Context” series represents a collaborative effort between the British Society for Middle East Studies (BRISMES) and the Italian Society for Middle East Studies (SeSaMO). This institutional partnership aims to bridge the gap between academic research and public understanding. By utilizing digital platforms like Zoom, the project reaches a global audience, attempting to counteract what the panelists describe as the “misrepresentation” of Iran in Western media.
The scholars argue that the current trajectory of the Iranian state is being defined by a continuous cycle of protest and state-led counter-politics. Whether this leads to long-term stability or further fragmentation remains the central question for the region.
Looking Ahead: The Persistence of Precarity
As the “Iran in Context” series continues, the underlying message is clear: the political landscape of Iran is not merely a product of its leadership, but a reflection of a society struggling with profound internal contradictions. The transition from protest to broader conflict, as outlined by Kadivar, suggests that the state’s reliance on exclusionary politics may be reaching a point of diminishing returns.