Understanding Iran’s Current Turmoil

Understanding Iran’s Current Turmoil

Peter Lee

Iran has recently entered a period of acute domestic unrest, drawing widespread international attention. Far from being a sudden or isolated event, the current crisis reflects the cumulative effects of long-standing structural problems. Chronic neglect of domestic welfare, excessive external commitments, ill-timed foreign and domestic policy choices, and a stagnant leadership renewal mechanism together form the underlying causes of Iran’s instability.

Historically, Iran stands at the heart of one of the world’s great civilizations. Its population is relatively well educated, and the country possesses abundant natural resources, particularly in energy. From an objective standpoint, Iran has long had the capacity to achieve economic growth and social stability by mobilizing its own human and material resources. Yet for decades, national priorities have been diverted away from improving living standards and economic productivity toward sustained ideological confrontation abroad. Significant financial and political capital has been committed to supporting non-state actors in Yemen, Lebanon, Gaza, and Syria in pursuit of regional influence. These policies have not only strained Iran’s limited economic capacity but have also triggered severe international sanctions, leaving the country mired in prolonged economic stagnation and declining public welfare.

A second driver of the current crisis lies in Iran’s misalignment with global development trends. Today’s international environment is characterized by broader political participation, increasingly market-oriented economies, and rising transparency driven by information flows. Iran, however, has chosen persistent confrontation with the United States, Europe, and Japan—regions that remain central to technological innovation, capital accumulation, and global markets. Economic development and social improvement, in practical terms, require access to precisely these resources. Prolonged antagonism has sharply constrained Iran’s ability to integrate into the global economy, depriving it of investment, technology transfer, and export opportunities, and thereby intensifying domestic economic and social pressures.

Equally significant is the rigidity of Iran’s leadership structure. Comparative experience suggests that countries with highly stagnant top leadership often struggle with declining economic dynamism and limited policy adaptability. While any leader’s rise to power may reflect historical necessity at a given moment, no individual’s worldview can indefinitely remain aligned with changing social and economic realities. Institutionalized leadership renewal is therefore essential for policy correction and long-term national resilience. In Iran’s case, power remains concentrated in the hands of an aging supreme leader whose increasingly narrow decision-making framework constrains reform, suppresses societal vitality, and limits the country’s capacity to adjust to a rapidly changing world.

In sum, Iran’s current turmoil is the predictable outcome of entrenched policy choices rather than a transient disturbance. The broader lesson is clear. States that prioritize ideological confrontation over domestic welfare, exhaust national resources on external commitments, isolate themselves from major centers of global growth, and fail to renew their leadership structures risk accumulating pressures that ultimately erupt into systemic crises. Sustainable stability requires economic pragmatism, social inclusion, external engagement, and institutional adaptability—conditions that Iran has, for too long, neglected.