Designing Future Systems: Key Archetypes of Iran Crises. Who are they, where do they come from

2026 April 01

Method

First, we selected three relatively stable criteria, drawing on insights from neo-institutional theory to link actors to their proximity to the core of power. Here, “power” refers to the current regime, including its core values, institutional infrastructures, and governing systems. Based on these criteria, we identified ten relatively stable archetypes within the present Iranian political system. Each archetype represents a distinct position of key actors in relation to power, legitimacy, and institutional arrangements. To further unpack the different dimensions of crisis tensions, we applied a strategic action field approach, drawing on the work of Hensmans (1). This enabled us to position proponents and opponents within a competitive field characterized by resource mobilization and ongoing struggles for legitimacy. To operationalize the analysis, we developed a set of structured prompts in collaboration with a team of four design experts with different political orientations (situated within a shared spectrum) (2). These prompts were designed to guide the contextual analysis of media based on recent political developments in Iran, with AI used as a supporting analytical tool. Specifically, we prompted the system to examine how current conflicts in the Middle East, recent Iranian uprisings, and episodes of internet shutdowns have shaped patterns of rivalry between opponents and proponents, and how different archetypes have responded to the rise and fall of these events. We also incorporated structural features—such as the security apparatus and the sanctions-based economy - through the analysis of observable discourse patterns in Persian-language media. The analysis was structured across six key dimensions: core narratives of each archetype, political views, cultural orientations, social visions, market orientations, and strategies for gaining legitimacy (1,2). Importantly, the results - namely, the ten archetypes - do not aim to measure or provide a one-size-fits-all representation of system components. Rather, they aim to offer a glimpse into the possible composition of key players within the system. In other words, the goal is to shed light on the complexities of the present system, rather than to provide mere quantification or ideological categorization.

Overview

To design systems and frame conflicts effectively, it is essential to examine the perspectives of different archetypes within the present crisis in Iran. This approach enables a more objective interpretation of the situation, particularly for external observers. In this table, each item represents a specific archetype and illustrates the position of a particular actor within the system. Along the vertical axis (read from left to right), the left side represents pro-regime archetypes, the middle indicates “grey” actors who shift between positions, and the right side represents those explicitly opposed to the current regime. Along the horizontal axis, the top indicates closer proximity to the core of power, while the bottom reflects weaker or more distant relations to it. Importantly, a higher number of dots within each cell indicates a greater degree of divergence from the present political regime.

Hardliners

Key Actors: Revolutionary Guard forces, ideological loyalists, clerical-political elites, and regime-aligned cultural actors (including media).
Core Narrative: Regime survival is the highest priority. Stability and control are valued over pluralism. External actors—particularly the US and Israel—are framed as existential threats.
Political View: Supports centralized authority under velayat-e faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist). Strongly opposes the separation of religion and state.
Cultural Orientation: Suspicious of diversity; emphasizes ideological conformity. Promotes a vision of a unified Shiite order and invests in the widespread production of Shiite narratives.
Economic Orientation: Security-driven economy with strong state control over key sectors. Emphasis on a “resistance economy” designed to withstand sanctions and external pressure. Resources are often directed toward regional proxies (vs Iranians).
Social Vision: Social norms are enforced through appeals to religious identity and community structures. Traditional gender roles are emphasized, including restrictions on women’s participation.
Strategies: Expansion of internal repression, increased internet controls, securitization during crises, and systematic censorship.

Ideological Defenders

Key actors: Pro-regime lobbyists, anti-imperialist activists, segments of diaspora academics with links to the regime, group of leftist intellectuals.
Core narrative: Imperialism is framed as the primary issue; internal repression in Iran is either denied or downplayed. The US is portrayed as being motivated by oil interests rather than concern for the Iranian people.
Political view: Military intervention is seen as illegitimate; the focus is shifted from state accountability to critiques of the West. The Islamic Republic is presented as an alternative to Western systems.
Cultural orientation: Use the language of decolonization, often invoking ideas of justice; critique Orientalism; and rely on complex, abstract vocabulary.
Economic orientation: Emphasize anti-sanctions discourse, often in abstract terms that are less connected to everyday life.
Social vision: Present themselves as critical voices - marginalized in the West - while being empowered in Iran. Criticism of Islam is frequently framed as Islamophobia.
Strategies: Engage in performative actions; shift attention away from violence toward “complexity”; use of events such as the situation in Gaza as opportunities to amplify their voices; invest in Western (leftist) intellectual circles, as well as exploit freedom of speech in the West.

Oligarchies (Aghazadeh)

Key Actors: Families of regime elites, capital holders, and those who benefit from the sanction's economy.
Core Narrative: Hostility with the West must be maintained, as it provides economic benefits, opportunities for hidden businesses, and investment in proxies.
Political View: Aligned with hardliners but relatively more pragmatic. The state should be ruled by military forces (e.g., IRGC), with power centralized.
Cultural Orientation: Attempts to present a modern image of Islam - emphasizing that “Islam is safe,” and non-radical - while portraying it as adaptable and open to coexistence. They frame themselves as victim (in west).
Economic Orientation: Control over critical resources and monopolies, particularly in oil and Gas industry. Engagement in money laundering in neighboring and Far Eastern countries, along with the use of capital flight.
Social Vision: Maintains links with (semi-) authoritarian or oligarchic systems. Actively uses Islamic and Shiite events such as Muharram and Ramadan as opportunities to leverage propaganda.
Strategies: Maintain covert mobility and knowledge of how to bypass sanctions; invest heavily in oil-related projects, media industry, and the beauty and fashion industries to bypass the sanctions systems.

Regime Pragmatist

Key Actors Diplomatic actors (e.g., UN and human rights representatives of the system), technocrats, moderate conservatives, and neo-reformist actors.
Narrative: Preserve a positive image of the system through participation in international events and media, while reducing hostilities with enemies (with the exception of Israel).
Political View: Support the centralized velayat-e faqih system, but open to advocate for limited reforms.
Cultural Orientation: Less ideological and more bureaucratic - managerial approaches. Maintains cultural ties with other Islamic movements, such as the Brotherhood.
Economic Orientation: Seeks sanctions relief, reintegration into the global economy, and macroeconomic stability, along with investment in science and technology, as well as small businesses.
Social Vision: Society should be stabilized and depoliticized rather than mobilized or radicalized.
Strategies: Support indirect and continual negotiations with the West; focus on narrative building; maintain a balance between pragmatism and Islamic principles; and promote multilateral dialogue.

Bazaaris (Market Division)

Key Actors: Merchants, traders, (SMEs), wholesalers, independent market players operating in both modern and traditional bazaars systems.
Narrative: Economic stability must take precedence over political ideology, securitization, and political mobilization are seen as obstacles.
Political View: Align with power structures insofar as they ensure market access. Preferring behind-the-scenes influence.
Cultural Orientation: Highly adaptive to socio-cultural shifts. Strong emphasis on trust networks, reputation, and interpersonal relations.
Economic Orientation: Access to international trade channels, stable banking, Reliable internet and digital infrastructure, currency stability and inflation.
Social Vision: Strong presence in local neighborhoods and informal networks, Preference for incremental, bottom-up economic growth, support for family businesses.
Strategies: Reactive to International sanctions, to Internet shutdowns (which damage modern commerce and logistics), Regional instability (which increases risk and transaction costs), Diversifying trade routes and partners, Operating through informal or semi-formal financial channels, maintaining flexible operations.

Gray Zone (Ordinary Citizens)

Key Actors: Working class; lower middle class; politically fatigued individuals; low-trust populations.
Core Narrative: “Life must go on.” Daily survival and stability outweigh ideological or political engagement.
Political View: Politically cautious rather than disengaged. Distrustful of both domestic authority and foreign intervention. Avoids high-risk participation. Positions may shift in response to the present conflict.
Cultural Orientation: Highly heterogeneous, spanning religious to secular identities. Strong emphasis on family and social networks, combining modern and traditional lifestyles.
Economic Orientation: Livelihood-focused, with sensitivity to inflation, currency fluctuations, employment, housing, and access to healthcare and services.
Social Vision: Dissatisfied with the current system but wary of destabilizing alternatives. Seeks incremental improvement, stability, and reduction of daily uncertainty.
Strategies: Selective withdrawal from high-risk political engagement. Reliance on informal and digital information networks. Adaptation to economic constraints and systemic limitations. Short-term decision-making (e.g., considering migration, side incomes).

Civil Society & Protest Networks

Key Actrs: Youth, women, students, civil society activists, labor groups, digitally networked citizens, and diaspora-linked actors.
Core Narrative: The current system is structurally incapable of meaningful reform; fundamental change is necessary.
Political View: Broadly pro-democracy, accountability, civil rights, and anti-repression, with internal variation (reformist to revolutionary).
Cultural Orientation: Pluralistic and freedom-oriented, emphasizing gender equality, personal autonomy, and evolving social norms. Sometime fragmented across class, ideology, and strategies.
Economic Orientation: Anti-corruption, transparency, and equal opportunity, with diverse views on redistribution and market reforms.
Social Vision: A participatory form of governance with equal rights to represent, respect to individual agency.
Strategies: Protests, digital mobilization, decentralized networks, amplification via diaspora, alternative media, VPNs usage, and everyday forms of resistance in art and cultures.

Nationalist & Monarchist Opposition

Key Actors: Monarchists, nationalist anti-regime figures, politically active expatriates; primarily based outside Iran with limited direct organizational presence inside
Core Narrative: Iran needs regime change and restoration of a strong, unified national state, often framed as national revival after systemic failure
Political View: Pro-transition; supports international pressure; advocates referendum or centralized transition, with openness toward dialogue over leadership models (monarchy vs republic)
Cultural Orientation: National identity-centered; ranges from liberal-secular to conservative nationalism, often emphasizing pre-revolutionary identity and historical continuity (Persia).
Economic Orientation: Market-oriented; pro-global reintegration; anti-corruption, with emphasis on foreign investment and private sector growth.
Social Vision: Strong central state, national unity, reconstruction of institutions, though with variation between prioritizing democratic pluralism and order/stability.
Strategies: Media influence through broadcasting and social media channels, combined with lobbying of foreign governments. This archetype reinforces Iranian sentiments, use of external visibility during periods of internet shutdown.

Centralized Oppositions

Key Actors: Centralized political groups (Mojahedin), hierarchical structures, and transnational networks; primarily exile-based.
Core Narrative: Political transition must be designed rather than (organically) emerge; power must be used to seize and reconstitute.
Political View: Top-down leadership through ideological dominance, preference is on control or guided regime change; strong skepticism toward other oppositions.
Cultural Orientation: Unity, ideological assimilation, and loyalty; tends to view pluralism and spontaneous mobilization as risks
Economic Orientation: Economic policy is instrumental and often deferred; priority is placed on control, security, and institutional restructuring rather than socioeconomic demands
Social Vision: Society is understood as internally divided system (class lines) and therefore requiring centralized authority to prevent fragmentation, and elite competition.
Strategies: Emphasizes on discipline, and preparedness, frames other oppositions as disorganized, engages in persistent efforts to gain international recognition, relies heavily on controlled media

Radical Ethno-Nationalist Opposition

Key Actors: Segments of Kurdish, Baluch, Arab, and Azerbaijani minorities advocating for autonomy, and federalism.
Core Narrative: The central conflict is not only about regime type, but about historical marginalization, and uneven state formation. The real struggle is against cultural homogenization.
Political Orientation: Federal restructuring and decentralization regional autonomy within the state, and sometime full separatism (minority position but present)
Cultural Orientation: Language preservation and recognition, territorial belonging, collective memory and historical grievance, community rights are seen as foundational vs national identity.
Economic Orientation: Regional inequality and uneven development, focus on unfair resource distribution, economic grievances are often territorialized - linked directly to geography and identity.
Social Vision: Formal recognition and institutionalization of ethnic and regional autonomy, Governance structures reflecting local identity and representation.
Strategies: Framing the struggle as one of anti-colonial or internal domination, Leveraging diaspora, regional, and cross-border media networks, Mobilizing discourses of self-determination and minority rights, Maintaining cross-border linkages with co-ethnic populations in neighboring states, in semi-militarized involvement.

Limitation & conclusion

This is a qualitative analysis of the present system. It does not aim to quantify how many actors support each archetype; rather, it seeks to illuminate the positions of key proponents and opponents within the current regime. The objective is to support understanding and decision-making by reducing the complexity of ongoing developments for a broader audience. To avoid overcomplication or conflicts of interpretation, the analysis relies on categorization across sectors, rather than exhaustive case-by-case examination. It is important to note that these archetypes do not represent the personal characteristics of individuals. Instead, they reflect distinct perspectives, interests, and strategic orientations within the system, each with its own aims and ambitions.

References

Hensmans, M. (2003). Social Movement Organizations: A Metaphor for Strategic Actors in Institutional Fields. Organization Studies, 24(3), 355-381.

Nedaei, M. (2024). Framing of Conflicts, Designing for Systems.