Beyond Regime Change: Why Iran Requires Structural Transformation, Not Cosmetic Reform
By Umud Duzgun
February 01, 2026
Iran’s political crisis is commonly framed as a struggle between dictatorship and democracy. This framing, while emotionally compelling, is analytically incomplete and ultimately misleading. The core problem confronting Iran is not merely the Islamic Republic as a regime, but the structural architecture of the Iranian state itself.
Decades of mass protest have demonstrated extraordinary courage, yet they have consistently failed to produce systemic change. Reformist politics have repeatedly collapsed under institutional veto power. Meanwhile, proposals advocating military strikes, regime decapitation, or externally imposed successor governments remain dangerously simplistic. The reality is stark: regime change alone will not resolve Iran’s crisis.
Why Reform Is Structurally Impossible
The Islamic Republic is not a reformable political system. Its survival depends on ideological conformity, centralized authority, and coercive enforcement. Any genuine democratization would dismantle the very foundations of its power. Reformist discourse, therefore, is not merely naïve—it is internally contradictory.
More importantly, even the removal of the Islamic Republic would not automatically produce democracy. The authoritarian logic of the Iranian state predates the current regime and has persisted for over a century.
The Myth of a Unified Democratic Iran
Iran is not a homogenous nation-state but a multinational political entity governed through a Persian-centric and Shiite-centric state structure. Turks, Kurds, Arabs, Baluchis, and other non-Persian peoples constitute a substantial demographic majority, yet have historically been excluded from equal political participation.
Attempts to democratize Iran without transforming this structure merely reproduce inequality under democratic rhetoric. Even federalism—often promoted by opposition groups—would likely preserve existing hierarchies rather than dismantle them. True democracy requires political equality among nations, not simply elections within an inherited imperial framework. A unified Iranian state has never provided such equality.
State Identity: Persianism and Shiism as Structural Foundations
The identity of the modern Iranian state has been built upon the dual pillars of Persianism and Shiism. This configuration did not begin with the Islamic Republic; it was institutionalized during the Pahlavi era and continues today. While the relative balance between Persian nationalism and religious ideology has shifted over time, the exclusionary logic has remained constant.
Language bans, cultural assimilation, discrimination against non-Persian peoples, and the suppression of alternative identities are not aberrations but systemic features. Even in exile, many Iranian elites reproduce authoritarian norms, having internalized them through decades of institutionalized tyranny. This legacy makes the emergence of a genuinely pluralistic democratic state within Iran’s existing framework highly unlikely.
Why Military Solutions Would Fail
Some policymakers advocate limited military intervention or “surgical strikes” as a means of weakening or collapsing the regime. This approach ignores Iran’s internal national fractures. Military decapitation would fragment power, empower armed militias, intensify ethnic tensions, and risk civil war. Attempts to restore the Pahlavi monarchy—or impose any Persian-centric successor regime—would almost certainly provoke prolonged instability.
The Iraq model of foreign occupation is neither realistic nor desirable. It would generate resistance rather than legitimacy and impose immense human and political costs.
The Soviet Precedent: A Viable Alternative
A more plausible and humane model is the negotiated dissolution of the Soviet Union. Applied to Iran, such a process would involve international mediation, recognition of Iran as a multinational space, and referenda on sovereignty conducted under international supervision. Political legitimacy would emerge from consent rather than coercion.
This process would likely result in several independent or confederal states, each better positioned to govern democratically within their own historical and cultural contexts. Fragmentation, contrary to common fears, does not inherently produce chaos. In many cases, smaller self-governing states are more accountable, less imperial, and more capable of peaceful coexistence.
Implications for U.S. and International Policymakers
For Washington, betting on the preservation of a centralized Iranian state may be as risky as betting on its disintegration. Non-Persian peoples do not seek a transition from a Shiite-centric dictatorship to a Persian-centric nationalist one. Any externally imposed or Persian-oriented successor government would almost certainly trigger long-term conflict.
A serious reassessment is required—one that acknowledges Iran’s demographic realities and consults all constituent nations equally. The Soviet precedent of 1989–1991 demonstrates that negotiated disintegration, referenda, and internationally supervised transitions can be both cost-effective and stabilizing.
Regional and Geopolitical Dimensions
Iran’s crisis cannot be separated from broader geopolitical rivalries involving the United States, Europe, Russia, China, Israel, Turkey, and Arab states. Competing interests have often converged around preserving Iran’s centralized structure for strategic convenience. Yet maintaining an artificial unity has repeatedly produced repression, revolt, and regional instability.
Conclusion
If the international community continues to prioritize Iran’s territorial integrity over the rights of its peoples, it will guarantee perpetual authoritarianism and recurring rebellion. A negotiated, Soviet-style structural transformation offers a more realistic, less violent, and more democratic path forward.
The future of Iran lies not in regime change alone, but in the reconfiguration of political authority itself. Only through the self-determination of its constituent nations can lasting peace, legitimacy, and democratic governance emerge.
