Fracture and Exposure (2020s)
When Fear Weakens and a Nation Speaks Differently
Every system built on control rests on a quiet assumption: that fear will continue to work. Not perfectly, not absolutely, but reliably enough to sustain order. For decades, the Islamic Republic governed within that assumption, refining it, reinforcing it, and embedding it into the fabric of daily life. Fear did not need to be constant; it needed only to be remembered, anticipated, and understood.
By the 2020s, however, something began to shift. Not suddenly, and not in a way that could be easily measured, but with a clarity that became increasingly difficult to ignore. Fear did not disappear. It remained present, shaping decisions and influencing behaviour. But it no longer guaranteed obedience in the way it once had. The relationship between fear and action—once stable, predictable—began to loosen.
A Spark Rooted in Experience
The protests that emerged in this decade did not begin with ideology or with abstract political theory. They began with something more immediate, more recognisable: personal experience, daily restriction, and the accumulation of frustration over time. What ignited them was not a single event in isolation, but a moment that resonated because it was widely understood.
The death of Mahsa Amini became such a moment. It was not the first injustice, nor the only one. But it was one that connected individual experience with collective recognition. People saw in it something familiar, something that reflected the conditions under which they themselves lived. And when that recognition occurs—when a moment reflects not only itself, but a broader reality—protest becomes personal.
It is no longer about a distant principle. It becomes about lived experience.
Women at the Center of Defiance
What distinguished this period further was the central role of women—not as symbols, but as active agents of change. For the first time at this scale, women stood not at the margins of protest, but at its core. The slogan “Woman, Life, Freedom” did not emerge from theoretical discourse. It arose from lived reality, from the experience of navigating a system in which control extended into the most intimate aspects of existence.
Control over the body, over presence, over identity—these had long been regulated. But in this moment, they were openly contested. The challenge was not limited to political authority. It reached into the everyday, into the structures that defined how individuals could exist within public space.
When control over such fundamental aspects of life is questioned, the system encounters something deeper than opposition. It confronts rejection—not only of policy, but of the conditions under which those policies are enforced.
A Generation Unbound by Memory
The generation that led these protests carried a different relationship to the past. They knew the system—its structures, its limits, its patterns. But they had not lived through the formative moments that had shaped earlier generations. They had not experienced the revolution, the war, or the initial years of consolidation in the same way.
This distinction matters. Systems that rely on memory as a form of control depend on that memory remaining active, shaping behaviour across time. But when memory becomes more distant—when it is inherited rather than lived—its influence changes. It informs, but it does not necessarily govern.
For this generation, fear was present, but it was not internalised in the same way. It did not define the boundaries of action with the same certainty. And when fear ceases to function as an unquestioned guide, the system built upon it begins to encounter a different kind of resistance.
A Familiar Response in a Changed Landscape
The response from the state followed patterns that had been established over decades. Arrests were carried out. Restrictions were imposed. Force was used where necessary. Communication channels were controlled, and at times interrupted, to limit the spread of information.
Yet the context in which this response occurred had changed. These actions were documented, shared, and observed in real time. What unfolded was not confined to immediate participants or local environments. It became visible—both within the country and beyond it.
Visibility does not dissolve control. It does not prevent enforcement. But it alters perception. It changes how actions are understood, how legitimacy is assessed, and how narratives are formed. And perception, over time, shapes the relationship between authority and society.
When the Two Realities Converge
For much of the post-revolutionary period, Iranian society had functioned through a division between public compliance and private reality. Outward behaviour conformed to expectation, while private spaces allowed for difference, reflection, and preservation of identity.
In the 2020s, that division began to erode. What had long remained private increasingly entered public space. Individuals expressed dissent openly, removed symbols of compliance, and refused to perform agreement in the ways that had previously sustained the system’s outward stability.
This convergence is one of the most significant transformations of the period. When the distinction between public and private collapses, the system loses one of its most effective mechanisms of control. It can no longer rely on performance to maintain the appearance of cohesion. It must confront the reality that lies beneath it.
A Language Beyond Reform
The language of protest also changed in tone and direction. Where earlier movements had been framed in terms of reform or adjustment, this period introduced a more direct form of expression—one that moved toward rejection, refusal, and redefinition.
This does not imply uniform agreement among those participating. It does not suggest a single, unified vision for what should replace what exists. Rather, it reflects an expansion of what can be said and done, even if that expansion is uneven and temporary.
The boundaries of expression, once clearly defined, began to shift—not entirely, but enough to alter the nature of engagement.
Control Maintained, But No Longer Predictable
Despite sustained protest, the system did not collapse. It maintained control, drawing upon the structures and mechanisms it had developed over decades. But the nature of that control changed. It required continuous response, repeated enforcement, and sustained vigilance.
What had once operated with a degree of predictability—where boundaries were understood and behaviour adjusted accordingly—now carried an element of uncertainty. This shift affects both those who resist and those who enforce. It alters the dynamics of interaction, introducing variables that cannot be fully anticipated.
A system that relies on control can endure under pressure. But when that pressure becomes less predictable, the effort required to maintain stability increases.
The Question Beneath the Surface
Perhaps the most significant transformation of this decade is not visible in the streets or in the immediate events themselves. It is conceptual. The question that begins to emerge is no longer limited to what the system does, but extends to why it governs.
When legitimacy becomes a question rather than an assumption, the relationship between state and society shifts. This shift does not produce immediate outcomes. It does not resolve tension or redefine structure overnight. But it alters the foundation upon which authority rests.
And once that foundation is questioned, it cannot return entirely to its previous state.
Exposure Without Resolution
The 2020s have not resolved the tensions that define Iran’s modern history. They have exposed them—more clearly, more completely than before. Control remains. Resistance persists. Adaptation continues.
But the balance has changed. What was once hidden has become visible. What was once internal has been expressed. The distance between the system and the society it governs is no longer concealed in the same way.
Exposure does not equal resolution. It reveals, but it does not resolve.
An Unfinished Moment
This is not a conclusion. It is an opening. Iran exists in a condition where the system endures and society continues to challenge it, without either fully resolving the other. This creates a state that is neither stable in the traditional sense nor in immediate collapse.
It is a condition of sustained tension.
And sustained tension carries its own unpredictability. It does not move in a straight line. It shifts, accumulates, and re-emerges in forms that cannot always be anticipated.
After Exile — Clarity Without Closure
The 2020s do not offer a clear ending. They offer something more difficult: clarity. Clarity that control has limits, that fear has conditions, and that society does not remain static, even under prolonged pressure.
For those in exile, this moment carries a different weight. It is no longer experienced only as memory—something preserved at a distance, shaped by what has been lost. It becomes recognition. Recognition that the story did not end when they left, nor when the system consolidated itself.
It continued—quietly, painfully, persistently—until it could no longer remain contained.
And once something reaches that point, it does not disappear again so easily.
Continue this series
View full series →Continue reading
Related essays
Part IV: Who Speaks For Iran?
The deeper question raised by this series is not whether Iran is misunderstood. The deeper question is who benefits from that misunderstanding. As ordinary Iranians struggle to make their voices heard above the noise of geopolitics, ideology and competing narratives, a simple question remains unanswered: who has the right to speak for a nation they do not have to live in?
Part III: The Narratives That Replace Iran
For decades, the Islamic Republic has mastered a remarkable political achievement: persuading much of the world to discuss its enemies more often than its victims. While international attention focuses on regional conflicts, ordinary Iranians continue to bear the costs of repression, economic decline and political exclusion. This chapter examines how Iran disappears behind the narratives constructed around it—and who benefits when that happens.
Part II: Was Iran Invited Only to Discuss Israel?
The event was called Understanding Iran, yet as the discussion unfolded, Iran increasingly became the backdrop rather than the subject. Israel was analysed. Palestine was analysed. Regional conflicts were analysed. Meanwhile, the voices of ordinary Iranians faded into the background. This chapter asks a simple question: was Iran invited to the conversation, or merely used as a stage for other narratives?