Although the country has, after a 40-day military tension, relatively moved away from a state of direct conflict, the broader environment, particularly the economic situation, remains under “sustained pressure.” In such a complex and critical condition, the main issue is not merely managing episodic crises, but rather establishing a sustainable model for national resilience. While designing precise economic solutions is certainly important in such governance, fostering a spirit of national solidarity and encouraging a culture of cooperation and mutual consideration among citizens can help ease the passage through this difficult juncture.
The reality is that Iran’s economy, in recent years and under the influence of a combination of external and internal factors—including ongoing sanctions, financial and banking restrictions, trade pressures, and the direct and indirect consequences of regional conflicts—has entered a phase of “instability of expectations.” In this phase, it is less the economic variables themselves and more the “sense of uncertainty” that shapes economic behavior.
In such circumstances, one of the most important challenges is controlling emotional cycles in consumption, pricing, and inflationary expectations. The experience of pressured economies has shown that in similar conditions, if consumption patterns and social behavior do not move toward collective rationality, even government reform policies will take longer to take effect. For this reason, issues such as energy consumption management—which has recently been emphasized by President Masoud Pezeshkian—are not merely operational recommendations, but part of a broader strategy to reduce pressure on infrastructure and manage chronic imbalances.
In fact, energy in Iran’s economy is not simply a consumer good; it is a strategic variable. Consumption patterns in this sector directly affect the public budget, investment capacity, trade balance, and even the quality of public services. In a situation where the country faces both resource constraints and rising infrastructural needs, reforming consumption patterns is not just an option but a structural necessity. This reform, however, cannot be achieved solely through pricing or administrative policies; it requires a cultural shift within society, from “unrestrained consumption” toward “responsible consumption.” Naturally, the scope of this reform should not be limited to energy alone but must extend to all sectors and areas.
Alongside this economic dimension, there is an even more important one: “social resilience.” In its precise meaning, the resistance economy is not merely about reducing external dependence; it is about increasing society’s capacity to absorb shocks and pass through crises at lower cost. This is where social solidarity and a sense of collective responsibility become essential. When economic pressures rise, if social divisions deepen, the cost of crisis multiplies. Conversely, if society can generate internal cohesion and mutual consideration, part of the economic pressure is mitigated through informal yet effective social mechanisms.
From this perspective, recent emphases by the Leader of the Islamic Revolution on concepts such as cohesion, social solidarity, and strengthening domestic economic foundations are aligned with this broader logic. In his messages, including his Nowruz address, he has repeatedly stressed that overcoming current complexities depends less on foreign policy and more on the “internal strength of the economy and society.” This strength, however, cannot be achieved without public participation in reforming consumption patterns and reinforcing a spirit of social cooperation.
On the other hand, the role of the external environment in shaping this situation cannot be ignored. External economic pressures, trade restrictions, and efforts to disrupt the country’s development trajectory are all part of the reality facing Iran’s economy. In this context, some analysts speak of a strategic shift by rivals from “direct military pressure” to “economic attrition”—a strategy aimed not necessarily at rapid collapse, but at creating a state of suspension and gradual erosion of economic and social capacity.
In this framework, the key point is that such pressures are not directed solely at the government or the economic structure, but at society as a whole. Generating widespread dissatisfaction, intensifying negative expectations, and destabilizing future outlooks are tools used within this strategy. Precisely for this reason, managing societal psychology, controlling expectations, and strengthening economic hope become as important as fiscal and monetary policies.
Within this framework, the resistance economy should not be seen as a slogan but as an architecture of economic governance—an architecture built on three main pillars: first, reducing vulnerability to external shocks; second, increasing efficiency in the use of domestic resources; and third, strengthening social capital and public trust. Without these three components, no sustainable economic policy can be achieved.
At the same time, the role of the state is not merely regulatory but also facilitative in driving behavioral change within society. Economic policymaking must simultaneously pursue structural reform and encourage public participation and responsible behavior. Otherwise, the gap between policy and social reality will widen. Another important point is the issue of fairness in the distribution of economic burdens. If society perceives that the costs of reform are distributed unequally, even the best economic policies will face social resistance. Therefore, social solidarity can only be sustained when it is accompanied by perceived justice.
The current state of Iran’s economy must be viewed within a broader picture: a country operating in a tense regional and global environment, attempting simultaneously to preserve internal stability and maintain its development trajectory. In such conditions, managing consumption, strengthening social resilience, and redefining national patterns of solidarity are not peripheral measures but core elements of survival and progress.
The conclusion is simple yet significant: in economies under pressure, real power lies not only in resources but in societal behavior. The more this behavior moves toward rationality, cooperation, and responsibility, the greater the country’s capacity to overcome crises becomes. And it is precisely at this point that the resistance economy transforms from a theoretical concept into a lived social reality.