Explaining the Resistance to Political Compromise and the Reproduction of Polarized and Anti-Peace Political Thought in Iran

Binary or dualistic thinking in Iran’s political sphere is a key factor shaping contemporary social and political developments. Rooted in rigid “us versus them” distinctions, this mindset intensifies political and social tensions and undermines dialogue and compromise. Historically, from the Constitutional era to the post–Islamic Revolution period, political differences in Iran have often taken exclusionary and fundamental forms rather than competitive ones, reinforcing political anti-peace. Culturally, absolutist and all-or-nothing discourses within Iran’s political culture have fostered polarization, transforming politics into an arena of conflict rather than negotiation. Institutionally, weak civil society, limited independent parties, and concentrated power have further reproduced dualistic thinking by preventing the healthy management of political competition. This process has contributed to declining social trust, erosion of social capital, and the marginalization of rational, dialogue-based political discourse. Additionally, economic crises, social inequalities, and external pressures such as sanctions have intensified political anti-peace by encouraging polarization over rational problem-solving. Given these conditions, the study emphasizes the necessity of a qualitative approach to examine the historical, cultural, and structural roots of dualistic thinking. Reducing political anti-peace and strengthening a culture of dialogue are presented as essential prerequisites for sustainable political, social, and economic development in Iran.
Methodology:
The research method of this study is qualitative, aiming to achieve an in-depth and interpretive understanding of dualistic thinking and political anti-peace in Iran. Qualitative research enables the examination of meanings, discourses, and cognitive patterns of political and social actors within their historical, cultural, and institutional contexts. Accordingly, the primary focus is on understanding how dualistic constructions are formed, reproduced, and stabilized in Iran’s political arena, rather than on the quantitative measurement of variables. Data will be collected through the analysis of documents, political and media texts, official statements, and, where possible, semi-structured interviews with experts and political actors. Data analysis will be conducted using approaches such as thematic analysis and discourse analysis in order to identify dominant meaning-making patterns, mechanisms of exclusion, and dualistic logics. To enhance the credibility of the study, strategies including data triangulation, continuous conceptual refinement, and attention to contextual embeddedness will be employed. This qualitative approach allows for a comprehensive and multidimensional portrayal of political anti-peace and provides a basis for deriving both theoretical and practical implications aimed at strengthening a culture of dialogue and reducing political tensions in Iran.
Result and discussion:
Political polarization in Iran generates deep social fractures that are difficult to repair, fostering an environment where groups perceive one another as enemies rather than competitors. This dynamic undermines social capital, erodes public trust, and threatens national cohesion, particularly during crises. Polarization fuels extremism and violence, reduces opportunities for dialogue and compromise, and traps society in cycles of conflict that disrupt public security and governance. Institutional consequences include decision-making driven by factional interests rather than expertise, delays in reforms, and systemic inefficiency. Economically, polarization discourages investment, promotes capital flight, and slows growth, while socially and culturally, it fosters disillusionment among the youth, weakens constructive dialogue, and transforms civil society organizations into arenas of conflict. The media contribute to the problem by amplifying factional narratives, and political disputes often spill over into private relationships, further weakening social bonds. Overall, persistent polarization and extremism constitute major obstacles to sustainable development and long-term national progress.
Conclusion:
Over the past century, Iran’s political and social developments have fostered conditions for dualistic thinking, shaped by rapid modernization, resistance from traditionalist forces, and the Islamic Revolution. Political and social identities have been reconstructed around confrontation and ideological division rather than coexistence, giving rise to a zero-sum public discourse. Post-revolutionary political structures reinforced these divisions, marginalizing moderate currents and extending dualistic patterns into cultural and social spheres, which weakened dialogue and rational deliberation. Structural factors such as economic inequality, institutionalized discrimination, and inefficiencies in resource distribution further intensified polarization, while social media and digital platforms amplified radical and extremist narratives. Psychological needs for belonging and certainty in unstable contexts drove individuals toward simplified, dualistic frameworks, facilitating the rise of charismatic leaders and polarizing discourses. The persistence of political polarization erodes social capital, undermines public trust, and obstructs sustainable political and social development. Strategies to address these divides include strengthening civil society, promoting inter-discursive dialogue, fostering critical civic education, reforming media practices, and equipping future generations with skills for cooperative, conflict-resolving engagement. Such measures can gradually transition Iranian society from polarization and extremism toward pluralism, dialogue, and resilient social cohesion.