Iran will not become Pro-Western: the strategic misreading behind Western Expectations, Persian nationalism, historical memory and why external pressure often strengthens the Iranian regime

By Adelio Debenedetti, author of The Naacal Protocol – Code 211

An Iranian activist during a protest highlighting the internal tensions within Iran. While opposition movements exist, they remain fragmented and do not necessarily translate into a unified pro-Western political alternative.

The recurring Western illusion

Every time tensions rise in Iran, the same expectation returns in Western political debate.

The regime could collapse.And once it collapses, Iran might naturally move closer to the United States and the Western political system. This idea appears regularly in media commentary, policy discussions and strategic speculation. Yet it rests on a fundamental misunderstanding.

Iran is not simply a political regime that could be replaced with a more Western-friendly government. It is a historically rooted civilization with a strong geopolitical identity and a long memory of foreign interference. Because of that identity, Iran is unlikely to choose a Western alignment—even if its internal political system were to change.

Iran’s identity goes far beyond the current regime

Much of Western analysis reduces Iran to the Islamic Republic of Iran, established after the Iranian Revolution. But the Iranian political imagination extends far beyond the last four decades.

Iran sees itself as the heir of an ancient civilization that once dominated large parts of Eurasia, beginning with the Achaemenid Empire. This historical continuity has produced a strong sense of cultural autonomy and strategic independence. In practical terms, this means that Iranian society tends to interpret international politics through the lens of sovereignty and resistance to external domination. Even political opponents of the current regime often share this instinct.

Anti-American protests reflect the deep historical mistrust between Iran and the United States, rooted in decades of political conflict and competing geopolitical interests.

Persian nationalism and strategic autonomy

One of the most underestimated elements in Western geopolitical analysis is Persian nationalism. This nationalism is not necessarily ideological or religious. It is historical and civilizational. Iran has long perceived itself as a regional power surrounded by external actors attempting to shape its political choices. For this reason, many Iranians may oppose specific government policies, but they do not necessarily aspire to transform their country into a Western geopolitical ally. Analysts such as Dario Fabbri often stress a fundamental principle of geopolitics: states rarely act out of ideological sympathy. They act to preserve autonomy.

Iran’s strategic behavior follows that pattern. Its leadership and a large part of its political culture prioritize independence from foreign influence, even at significant economic cost.

Iran will not become Pro-Western

The memory of Western intervention

Iranian mistrust toward Western powers is also shaped by historical experience.

One of the most influential episodes remains the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, when the government of Mohammad Mosaddeq was overthrown after he nationalized Iran’s oil industry.

The coup restored the power of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and re-aligned the country with Western interests. But the event also left a lasting mark on Iranian political consciousness.

For many Iranians, it became the historical proof that foreign powers were willing to intervene directly in the country’s internal affairs whenever strategic interests were at stake.

This memory continues to influence how Iranian society perceives Western pressure today.

External pressure often strengthens the regime

Western policy toward Iran frequently relies on sanctions, diplomatic isolation and threats of military action. These measures are often presented as tools designed to weaken the regime and encourage internal opposition. However, geopolitical dynamics rarely work in such a straightforward way. External pressure can produce the opposite effect. When a country perceives itself under external threat, political divisions inside the society tend to narrow. Even critics of the government may temporarily rally around the state in the name of national sovereignty. In the case of Iran, foreign pressure often reinforces the narrative promoted by the regime: that the country is under siege from hostile external powers. Instead of weakening political authority, confrontation can therefore strengthen it.

Satellite view of the Iranian coastline along the Persian Gulf, a region central to Iran’s strategic identity and its role in global energy geopolitics.

Why Iranian society will not revolt to become Western

Western political discourse sometimes assumes that Iranian society secretly aspires to transform itself into a Western-aligned democracy. This assumption overlooks a crucial point. Discontent with domestic politics does not automatically translate into a desire for geopolitical alignment with Western powers. Iranian citizens may demand reforms, economic opportunities or greater personal freedoms. But this does not necessarily mean they want their country to become strategically subordinate to the West. National identity and geopolitical autonomy remain powerful forces in Iranian political culture. Because of this, it is unlikely that Iranian society would mobilize in order to transform the country into a pro-Western geopolitical actor.

A recurring pattern in history

This dynamic is not unique to Iran. History repeatedly shows that external attempts to reshape the political orientation of large regional powers often produce resistance rather than alignment.

From 19th-century imperial rivalries to modern geopolitical competition, outside pressure has frequently strengthened nationalist sentiment instead of weakening it. In the case of Iran, geography and history reinforce this pattern. Situated between the Middle East, Central Asia and the Caucasus, Iran has historically served as a strategic crossroads contested by larger powers.

The actors change, but the geopolitical logic remains remarkably consistent.

The assumption that Iran could eventually become a pro-Western geopolitical actor reflects a misunderstanding of the country’s historical identity and strategic culture.

Political systems may evolve, and internal debates within Iranian society will certainly continue.

But the deeper drivers of Iranian foreign policy—national sovereignty, civilizational identity and resistance to external domination—are unlikely to disappear. Because in geopolitics, states shaped by strong historical identities rarely choose voluntary strategic dependence.

Iran is one of those states.

This article is part of the Grey Zones Archive, a research project exploring the strategic spaces where geopolitics operates beyond official narratives. The narrative universe connected to these themes appears in the geopolitical thrillerThe Naacal Protocol – Code 211 by Adelio Debenedetti.

Next article in the series: Iran, Israel and the Shadow War of the Middle East