Resistance as Ideology: Iran’s Political Culture of Survival
May 8, 2026
With a history dating back well before the Christian era, the nation known to the West as Persia officially adopted its native name of Iran in 1935. Despite having survived centuries of historical challenges, the current aggressive and treacherous actions of the United States and Israel represent an unprecedented threat to its sovereignty.
In the 20th century, Iran defied America’s hegemonic ambitions in West Asia when, after millennia of authoritarian monarchical rule, the country underwent an historic popular revolution, deposed the Shah, felled a political apparatus thought unassailable, and birthed the Islamic Republic.
Since the 1979 Revolution, in which Iranians had the pluck to defy a superpower, Iran has been a torchbearer in the struggle against American and Israeli domination of the region. The West continues to be confounded by its revolutionary political experiment and by the Iranians who inspired it.
Iran’s ability, following the Revolution, to imagine an entirely new governmental system after 2,500 years of unbroken imperial rule was profound. In October of that year, the country transformed from an American-dependent monarchy to a sovereign Islamic republic with a written constitution and regularly held elections.
The structural consistency of the constitution was evidenced following the recent assassination of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei during the U.S.-Israeli air strike of 28 February 2026.
The framers designed a complex-layered system to maintain institutional stability during such shocks. The swift transition of power within days of his death revealed that the political system is designed for survival through structured succession, rather than reliance on a single individual.
The Iranian constitution, anchored in Islamic principles, rejects foreign domination. Its anti-imperialist foreign policy is affirmed throughout. Article 154, for example, states that the government “supports the just struggles of freedom fighters against the oppressors in every corner of the globe.”
Framed by this ideal, Iran’s first Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, made support for the just struggle of the Palestinians a central pillar of Iran’s foreign policy. He declared that the revolution would be incomplete until the Palestinians were free from “arrogant” Israeli control.
For Iran, it matters not that Palestine is not a geographical neighbor or that Palestinians are of Arab, not Persian, ethnicity. Unlike its Arab neighbors, for example, who have remained passive during Israel’s genocide against their fellow Arabs, the Islamic Republic has distinguished itself by being the only major power to maintain consistent support for the Palestinians during Israel’s ongoing terror in occupied Gaza and in the West Bank.
Iran stands out as a remarkably steadfast nation, willing to endure heavy economic and security burdens to uphold its unwavering commitment to Palestine; a testament to prioritizing principle over self-interest.
The cost for Iran’s principled stand now includes the unprovoked devastating air war launched jointly by Israel and the United States on 28 February 2026, that killed Ayatollah Khamenei, members of his family and many senior officials. The war is the latest chapter in their sustained 47-year campaign targeting the country for its resistance and refusal to align with their interests.
Iran’s refusal to abandon its allies was demonstrated recently when a major dispute erupted in April over whether a U.S.-Iran two-week ceasefire included Lebanon. Although immersed in war, it set aside its own national interests and demanded that the ceasefire encompass Lebanon and all fronts of the war. Tehran also stated that it would not engage in negotiations with Washington unless Israel entered into a ceasefire in Lebanon.
Iranians never suffer from memory fatigue. The nation’s cherished memory is deeply imbued in its history, literature, poetry and discourse. Hence, recent infamy will forever be etched in Iran’s national lore and memory: current wars; the assassination of the Supreme Leader; Minab school massacre; martyrdom of slaughtered Iranians; the bombing of beloved cultural heritage sites, such as the 14th century Golestan Palace in Tehran and 17th century Chehel Sotoun palace and garden in Isfahan.
Three historical events have shaped the collective memory of 93 million Iranians, each remembered as a U.S. betrayal and an attack on the country’s national sovereignty; traumas that continue to influence its foreign policy:
+ Overthrow of the democratically-elected government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh and restoration of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to the Peacock Throne in 1953;
+ Twenty-six years of American interventionism, Western cultural imperialism and repression under the rule of the Shah;
+ Iran-Iraq war, 1980-1988.
It should be noted that, underpinned by a policy of non-intervention, U.S.-Iran goodwill endured until the end of the Second World War. The confluence of Iran’s strategic location, growing geopolitical influence, Cold War tensions and growing competition over energy resources contributed to U.S. intrusion in the country’s affairs.
The turbulent history between the two began in 1951, when in March of that year, the Majlis (Iran’s parliament) elected Mossadegh prime minister, and voted to nationalize the British-controlled Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.
Between 1951 and 1953, Iranian nationalism reached its apogee, driven by Mossadegh’s widespread popular support, his landmark legislation to reclaim national control over the oil industry, and his strong opposition to foreign domination.
In a coup organized and financed by British and Americans, the democratic government of Iran was overthrown in August 1953. Restored to power, the Shah solidified Western interests. He reversed nationalization, awarding 40 percent shares of Iran’s oil industry to U.S. and British companies, essentially giving them control over exploration, production and refining. For the next 26 years, the Shah loyally fulfilled U.S. demands and interests.
Stripped of power, Mossadegh came to represent the independence and dignity of the nation. Hauled before a military tribunal in December 1953, he uttered the words that continue to resonate with Iranians:
I have had only one objective, and that was for the people of Iran to control their own destiny….my greatest sin is that I nationalized Iran’s oil industry and discarded the system of political and economic exploitation by the world’s greatest empire….I am well aware that my fate must serve as an example in the future throughout the Middle East in breaking the chains of slavery and servitude to colonial interests.
The Shah’s failure to preserve Iranian independence and national identity led to the impending 1979 Revolution. Perceived erosion of the nation’s cultural and religious identity coupled with a lack of support for intellectual autonomy generated intense opposition.
Iranian political philosopher and novelist, Jalal Al-e Ahmad (1923-1969), addressed the imposed dependency and passive adoption of Western culture in his 1962 essay “Gharbzadegi;” a Persian term translated as Westoxification (gharb meaning West and zadegi, afflicted).
The Iranian mind, Al-e Ahmad argued, had been colonized by the seductiveness of Western modernity. Cultural integrity was being undermined, as Iranians became mere consumers of Western goods and technology.
Many Iranians found inspiration for the Islamic Revolution in the ideas of Al-e Ahmad and in scholars like Dr. Ali Shari’ati (1933-1976).
Akin to Al-e Ahmad, Shari’ati highlighted Shi’ite Islam’s role in defining Iran’s cultural identity and in strengthening national unity against both Western cultural imperialism and the repressive Westernized Pahlavi ruling elite.
As I discussed in my book, Cultural Foundations of Iranian Politics, the Islamic Revolution was essentially an internal, anti colonial struggle, both political and social, in which all strata of Iranian society could unite.
It was Shi’ite Islam that gave expression to political and economic dissatisfaction, and it was religious leaders, generally kept out of government, who filled the political vacuum. The ideology of the Revolution was constructed on a faith in traditions of the past, not as ideas and practices to overcome, but as a source of inspiration for the present and future.
That Washington, Tel Aviv and their Arab allies were intent on sabotaging the Islamic Republic was reinforced by their support for Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein, during the Iran-Iraq War. By the late 1980s, the U.S. military had become directly involved in the war.
Having survived the eight-year onslaught, largely without allies, Iran’s leadership committed to a doctrine of defense and national self-reliance, which included strengthening its military capabilities and ties to regional partners.
Persistent existential threats have been costly both economically and socially, forcing Iran to invest heavily to fortify its defenses: underground “missile cities”—sprawling tunnel networks, located in nearly every province, to store a vast arsenal of ballistic and cruise missiles—drones, attack boats, and protected launch sites.
Under siege, the government has yet to fully implement the revolution’s social contract avowed in its constitution. Clearly, there have been social costs.
The primary responsibility of a nation state is to protect its borders and to maintain sovereign control over its territory, while ensuring the security and well being of its people. Although the Islamic Republic has succeeded in protecting its territory and preserving its national identity, it has curtailed basic rights.
There are numerous reports documenting the government’s abuse of political rights and civil liberties. The issue not addressed, however, is how to measure those abuses in a country that has had to be on guard since 1979. The true test for the Islamic Republic will be whether it relaxes its strict controls once foreign threats no longer exist.
For years, Israeli intelligence (Mossad) has been carrying out espionage, sabotage operations and assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists and military commanders, including the political leader of Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh, in Tehran in July 2024.
During the June 2025 war, for example, Mossad appeared to have infiltrated the highest levels of Iran’s armed forces and had agents on the ground. Following the assault, Mossad director, David Barnea, released a rare statement, foreshadowing the spy agency’s activities inside Iran during the January 2026 demonstrations/riots and the current February war; saying that Israel “will [continue to] be there, like we have been there.”
The United States has, for decades, been grooming Israel to take on its military role in West Asia, in order to focus on weakening the global influence of Russia and China. Through initiatives like the Abraham Accords, Washington has sought to integrate Israel into the region to counter Iran and increase U.S. influence over Arab states.
For example, during the Biden administration, in May 2022, American forces and the Israeli Air Force conducted a month-long practice (dubbed “Chariots of Fire“) simulating a wide-scale attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Reportedly, $1.5 billion was allocated for what was then a possible attack; that became reality in June 2025.
The February 2026 assault has unveiled the harsh realities of U.S.-Israel regional power dynamics; an alliance that has been disastrous for Iran, Palestine and for the entire region.
The war has also revealed that, for all its bravado, Israel is incapable of sustained warfare without direct American military aid and involvement.
Try as it might, the U.S. cannot force Israel onto and into a region it does not know, respect and where it does not belong. Wars, expansion, apartheid and genocide make it clear that Zionism has no future in West Asia.
Like occupied Gaza and the West Bank, Iran, too, has been imprisoned. For over a half century, Palestinians in Gaza have been incarcerated in an “open-air prison” under Israeli armed guard; while Iran has been shackled by multilateral sanctions, isolated politically, and surrounded by U.S. military bases.
The Islamic Republic cannot return to its pre-war status. It has every incentive now to finally end the 47-year sentence imposed on it by Washington and Tel Aviv in 1979.
The current American administration has displayed the same imperial hubris and insularity that led to the failed policies of the past. Far from deterring and weakening Iran, the war has strengthened internal unity. Crucially, it has reignited Tehran’s revolutionary fervor to counter U.S.-Israeli hegemony, defend Palestine and to secure a sovereign West Asia.
With a history defined by endurance, Iran has weathered centuries of internal strife and foreign intervention. A culture built on resistance does not forget its trials. Today, it is demonstrating that same perseverance, unyielding as it faces challenges to its sovereignty and forges a future free of external interference.
This first appeared on Thinking Palestine.
