Today, Tehran faces two dead ends: UN sanctions have been reinstated and its domestic legitimacy has been eroding. Instead of redefining its relationship with its citizens through genuine economic and political reform, the authorities have turned to symbolic gestures and discourse, digging deep into the distant past and invoking ancient figures and myths in an attempt to fuel nationalism as a substitute for modern citizenship founded on the enhancement of living conditions, justice, and inclusion.
Since last summer, when the statue of Arash the Archer was erected in central Tehran, the shift has been highly visible. The regime has turned to pre-Islamic history as it seeks to replace its theocratic revolutionary discourse with nationalist rhetoric and imagery that emphasizes the glory of ancient empires. In the media, an Achaemenid soldier is shown side by side with a soldier of the current army under the caption “For Iran.” The state once founded on the idea of an “Islamic nation” seemingly seeks to reinvent itself as an “Iranian nation.”
Yet this nationalist discourse conceals a deeper problem. Power and water cuts, currency collapse, and crumbling public services weigh on citizens as sanctions have gone from being a siege into a mirror reflecting domestic failures. The narrative of “victimhood” has fallen apart amid the inflation, jobs, and corruption crises.
While the regime raises the banner of nationalism to unify the domestic front, the slogans raised on the streets reflect growing divisions: “Not Gaza, not Lebanon, my soul is for Iran,” and “Water and life are our rights.” The focus on basic demands has been growing after decades of exploiting religious and national sentiments. Nationalism, which was supposed to serve as a unifying framework, has instead become a tool for monopolizing identity and excluding dissidents- the same function that revolutionary discourse had had in previous decades.
The old sanctions could be absorbed by boisterous rhetoric that redirected the anger. Today, however, these sanctions directly undermine the arteries of daily life. The battered economy, the falling currency, and crumbling infrastructure amplify every foreign step to pressure the regime. As the resources of the IRGC and its economic networks shrink, intra-elite tensions have been aggravating, and in anticipation of the post-Supreme Leader era, nationalism is used not as a unifying tool but as a weapon in the struggle for legitimacy.
Abroad, Iran’s position appears even more incoherent. Its attempt to sustain the nuclear program under the banner of “national dignity” now runs up against an international order that has reordered its priorities after the war in Ukraine. The resumption of sanctions is not merely a lever of economic pressure. It is an integrated framework for oversight capable of paralyzing any strategic pursuit. Delays in nuclear or missile projects drain the political capital of this regime, whose justifications for the country’s isolation are gradually becoming less convincing.
Iran is a model for the paradox of modern states that got everything they need to survive (wealth, geography, and human resources) but insist on defining its strength against what it opposes rather than through what it produces. It lives off the memory of ancient empires instead of pursuing a modern state project. While neighboring countries are using stability to reinforce their influence and develop productive economies, Tehran continues to recycle ancient symbols to conceal the failures of the present. As sanctions persist, this path will become a heavy burden on the regime itself; the siege narrative is failing to convince its population.
With this political landscape, Iran seems to stand at a historical crossroad: either it lays new foundations for legitimacy founded on citizenship and enhancing living conditions, or it continues to take refuge in myth until it fully drains its society. Nationalism may buy the regime some time, but it cannot build stability nor build the future. As living crises intensify, bigger questions will inevitably arise: whom is this state governed for? To what end is its present sacrificed every day?
On the opposite end of the Arab Gulf lies Iran’s greatest challenge: the rising Saudi model. While Tehran retreats into the past, Riyadh builds its national project on converting its rich heritage into fuel for the future. The Kingdom neither denies its roots nor remains hostage to them, investing in its deep history to power a modern developmental vision centered on human empowerment, education, and responsible openness to the world. It is a rational actor investing first in its people, and it is redefining power as the capacity to create opportunities, not enemies.
This model of blending identity, sovereignty, and development offers a lesson that the entire region can learn: legitimacy is built on the welfare of citizens, not mass mobilizations, and real heritage is not harnessed for nostalgia but as a foundation for the future. While Tehran digs through its ancient symbols to defend a crumbling discourse, Riyadh pushes forward with a balanced formula that weighs history and modernity. It demonstrates that in this century, strength is measured by a nation’s ability to transform its past into a developmental project, not by its capacity to flee its present.
