A recent Foreign Affairs article about Iran’s future is a clear example of the deep gap between the real Iran and the imaginary Iran constructed in Western think-tanks.

For years, the dominant current in U.S. foreign policy has tried to present an analysis of Iran that relies less on data, history, society, and on-the-ground realities, and more on a preconceived mental framework: Iran must be portrayed as a crisis-ridden, collapsing, and permanently deadlocked country—because any analysis outside this framework would disrupt the mental order of U.S. foreign policy.

This recent article titled “the autumn of the Ayatollahs” follows the same mindset. It feels as though the narrative was written first, and only afterward were scattered events, claims, and selective comparisons forced into it. Its future forecasting is more of a geopolitical wish than a scientific analysis.

But Iran cannot be explained through a few simplistic analogies and clichés. It is a living, dynamic, complex, and historical society that external narrative-making cannot be reduced to pre-made templates.

In such an environment, it is essential to compare the real Iran with the imagined Iran to understand why analyses of this kind distort reality—and why their conclusions reflect political desires rather than an accurate understanding of the country.

From exaggeration to oversimplification

A large part of the picture presented in the Foreign Affairs article is based on magnifying Iran’s crises and minimizing its strengths. Social complexity, the depth of national experience, historical resilience, and structural capacities are ignored. Instead, a few selective examples are amplified and turned into general claims.

In this narrative, Iran is portrayed as a country with a deeply distrustful society, a government on the verge of disintegration, a ruined economy with no path to recovery, a political structure approaching its end, and a looming collapse or forced transformation

But none of these claims—even if they hold partial truth in some areas—reflects a comprehensive picture of Iran today. Iran is neither in an ideal state nor in the alleged condition of being “on the brink of collapse.”

The core issue is that the author intentionally closes off all analytical paths that might lead to a different, more balanced understanding.

The real Iran is in fact, a multilayered, diverse, resilient, and adaptable society. It is a state–nation with a continuous thousand-year history. It owns complex governance structures which are not simplistic or single-centered. And it also holds a geopolitical position rooted in history and reality, not slogans.

The American analyst chooses not to see these realities, because acknowledging them would dismantle the entire mental architecture constructed for “America’s preferred future in Iran.”

One of the most puzzling parts of the Foreign Affairs article is its attempt to force Iran’s future into completely contradictory models—from Russia to China, North Korea, Pakistan, and even Turkey. These comparisons unintentionally reveal the main weakness in the author’s perspective: Iran is not viewed as a historical and political reality, but as a mental project that must fit into some template.

Iran is not Russia. Russia is a country of oligarchs; Iran has no such economic class.
Russia is built on the remnants of the Soviet Union; Iran on millennia of statehood.
In Russia, a single party dominates; in Iran, elections and elite turnover are significant.

Iran is not China. China benefited from decades of U.S. support to counter the USSR; Iran has faced sanctions, pressure, and economic warfare for forty years. China’s economy is export-driven; Iran is financially and commercially restricted. China has a single-center communist structure; Iran is multi-layered and multi-centered.

Iran is not North Korea. Comparing Iran to an isolated, family-ruled, closed-off country shows unfamiliarity with reality more than analysis. Iran has a vast university network, an active civil society, complex urban life, media, digital culture, and global connectivity.
North Korea suffers from famine and isolation; Iran is the second-largest economy in the region.

Iran is not Pakistan. Pakistan faces numerous ethnic–sectarian divisions; Iran has a cohesive identity structure. Pakistan has a long history of coups; Iran does not.

Iran is not Turkey. Turkey’s political dynamics are shaped by an imposed secular Atatürkian legacy; Iran never had such an experience. Geopolitical and social histories of the two societies are also entirely different.

In short, all these comparisons show that the author tries to fit Iran into every available template—without realizing that Iran matches none of them.

Reality must be seen as it is, not as some wish it to be

The real Iran is a country of vast capacities, a dynamic society, a complex structure, serious challenges, and undeniable strengths. The imaginary Iran is the version needed by parts of U.S. foreign policy to justify pressure, sanctions, and confrontational strategies—a crisis-ridden, unstable, collapsing country.

These two images are worlds apart.

The real Iran is a country that: has not bent under external pressure but has adapted, has developed local pathways in a sanctions-hit economy, possesses a young, urban society that drives social, cultural, and technological activity, has a political structure far too complex to be explained through simplistic comparisons, and, most importantly, shapes its future based on internal dynamics—not think-tank articles.

A proper analysis of Iran requires historical, social, cultural, and political understanding—not the arrangement of scattered claims to confirm pre-existing assumptions.

Narratives like the Foreign Affairs article distance us from reality rather than bringing us closer to it.

The future of Iran will be built upon the real Iran—not on scenarios written from outside.

To understand Iran is to understand its history, its people, its social diversity, its political and cultural energy, and its geopolitical position— not the images drawn from behind the window of U.S. foreign policy.