Mahmoud Rasouli argues that debates over the US-Iran confrontation focus overwhelmingly on governments, while overlooking the people most affected by their decisions. Although both Washington and Tehran frequently claim to act on behalf of ordinary Iranians, citizens rarely influence the policies pursued in their name
The confrontation between the United States and the Islamic Republic is usually presented as a struggle between two governments with competing strategic interests. Discussions focus on nuclear negotiations, sanctions, regional security, and military deterrence. Yet one crucial actor remains largely absent from these debates: the Iranian people.
This absence is striking because both sides regularly claim to represent the interests of ordinary Iranians. Iranian officials describe their policies as defending national sovereignty and protecting people from foreign pressure. American policymakers, too, often present their approach as supporting the Iranian people – though they also seek to change the behaviour of the Iranian government.
However, there is a significant difference between speaking in the name of a population and representing its preferences. The media frequently references 'the Iranian people' in political narratives. But ordinary Iranians rarely have a meaningful role in shaping the strategic decisions that determine the course of the conflict.
Iranian officials claim to be defending national sovereignty and protecting their citizens. Washington, too, insists it supports the Iranian people – but also seeks to change the behaviour of their government
This gap reveals a broader challenge in international politics. Scholars often analyse conflicts through the actions of states and governments, treating societies as secondary actors. Yet it's not just governments that experience international confrontations. Decisions over which they often have limited influence shape the daily lives of millions of individuals.
The US-Iran relationship illustrates this contradiction clearly. For more than four decades, confrontation, sanctions, diplomatic crises, and occasional negotiations have defined relations between Washington and Tehran. Throughout this period, the voices and experiences of ordinary Iranians have remained largely marginal in international discussions.
Understanding this conflict therefore requires looking beyond governments. The central question is not only which side claims to defend Iranian interests, but also whether Iranian citizens have meaningful opportunities to influence decisions made in their name.
Governments often seek legitimacy by presenting themselves as representatives of the people. In democratic systems, this claim is usually based on election results and institutional accountability. Governments may not always reflect public preferences, but citizens can still influence political decisions.
The relationship between representation and participation is more complicated in the context of Iran’s confrontation with the United States. Both Tehran and Washington invoke the interests of Iranian citizens, but neither allows those interests to directly determine the direction of the conflict.
Iranian leaders frame resistance to American pressure as a defence of independence and national dignity. US policymakers, meanwhile, frequently distinguish between the Iranian government and Iranian society, arguing that their policies are designed to support ordinary citizens. Despite these different narratives, both sides claim authority to define what is in the best interests of the Iranian people.
This does not mean Iranian public opinion is irrelevant. Iranian society is diverse, politically complex, and far from uniform. Citizens hold differing views about domestic reform, foreign relations, economic priorities, and the country’s future. However, the existence of public opinion does not automatically translate into political influence.
The Iranian people are central to the language used by both sides, yet remain peripheral in the decision-making processes that shape their future
This distinction is essential. You cannot create political legitimacy simply by claiming to represent a population. Citizens must also have meaningful opportunities to shape political choices. When governments limit participation, representation risks becoming symbolic rather than substantive.
Iran demonstrates a wider pattern in international politics. Governments frequently invoke national interests and public welfare to justify foreign policy decisions, particularly during periods of crisis. External threats and geopolitical competition often increase the power of states while reducing the space for public influence.
The result is a paradox: the Iranian people are central to the language used by both sides, yet remain peripheral in the decision-making processes that shape their future.
The consequences of the US-Iran confrontation are not limited to diplomatic negotiations. Ordinary Iranians experience geopolitical rivalry through economic uncertainty, inflation, and reduced opportunities.
Governments design sanctions as instruments of foreign policy, but their effects inevitably reach society. At the same time, domestic political decisions also influence citizens' everyday realities. Regardless of which government policies are responsible for specific outcomes, ordinary people often bear the greatest costs of prolonged confrontation, while having the least control over it.
This reality has important implications for policymakers and analysts. Understanding Iran only through state behaviour provides an incomplete picture. A society-centred approach is necessary, because governments do not operate in isolation from the populations they govern.
Yet even in democratic societies, governments do not simply implement citizens’ preferences and strategic interests. International pressures shape foreign policy strategy in democracies, as well as in authoritarian regimes such as Iran's. However, democratic accountability creates channels through which public views can influence political choices over time.
The Iranian people are neither invisible spectators nor the architects of the conflict, but the primary stakeholders in a confrontation largely shaped by others
In Iran, public opinion exists, but its ability to influence the direction of the US-Iran relationship remains limited. This creates a situation in which governments articulate policies while societies experience their consequences.
The Iranian people are therefore neither invisible spectators nor the main architects of the conflict. They occupy a more complex position: they are the primary stakeholders in a confrontation largely shaped by others.
If international debates continue to focus exclusively on governments, they will overlook one of the most important dimensions of the US-Iran conflict. Understanding Iran requires attention not only to state strategies but also to the society that lives with their consequences.
Governments may continue to speak in the name of the Iranian people, but lasting political understanding requires listening to the voices of those who carry the costs of decisions they rarely control.
