The IRGC is a parallel security and political force in Iran, created to protect the revolution and operate alongside the regular armed forces. It has its own ground, naval, and air components and a large volunteer corps known as the Basij, giving it a separate military structure from the regular army. But its role extends well beyond security: it has grown into a powerful economic actor, controlling numerous enterprises and investments across sectors like energy, construction, and finance, which gives it substantial influence over the economy. It also plays a major role in domestic politics, with leadership tied closely to the ruling theocracy and security decision-making. On the international side, the Quds Force, a unit within the IRGC, conducts external operations and shapes Iran’s foreign policy by supporting allied groups and conducting covert activities abroad. So the IRGC functions as a powerful, multi-faceted force that blends military power, economic clout, and political influence with overseas operations.

Local councils in Iran are elected bodies that connect residents to municipal governance and oversee city life. Their core functions involve managing local services—things like urban planning, infrastructure, sanitation, and public spaces—and supervising the work of the mayor and municipal staff to ensure they carry out policies effectively. They also serve as a channel for citizen participation, allowing residents to voice concerns, propose local projects, and request accountability for how local resources are used. These councils operate within a centralized political system, so while they have real influence over local matters, their authority is constrained by central authorities and appointed officials at higher levels. They do not draft national budgets or shape national legislation, and they are more than ceremonial bodies because they play an active role in local governance and oversight. This combination—local service management, citizen representation, and participatory channels, with limited autonomy—best describes their function.

Fragmentation of the political opposition into separate camps—the reformists and the conservative establishment failing to unite behind a single challenger—was the decisive factor. In Iran, presidential votes hinge on whether a broad coalition can coalesce around one candidate. In 2005, the reformist camp did not rally behind one candidate, and conservatives were not fully unified against Ahmadinejad either. This division allowed him to attract a large share of votes from across factions, giving him a landslide victory in the first round. While his populist messages about helping the poor and critiquing elites resonated with many, the lack of a unified opposition best explains his win.

The idea being tested is how Iran’s post-revolution constitution created a mechanism to manage tension between the elected legislature and the religious-legal oversight, ensuring laws fit both secular and Islamic requirements. The expediency council was formed to act as the arbiter in disputes between the Majlis (the parliament) and the Guardian Council. When the Majlis passes a law that the Guardian Council vetoes or questions for compatibility with Islam and the constitution, the expediency council can review and, if needed, propose a course of action or legislation that moves things forward. It also serves as an advisory body to the Supreme Leader on important policy issues. This setup—an empowerment to resolve legislative deadlock under the Leader’s oversight—was incorporated into the constitution to keep the system functional and coherent. The Guardian Council and Assembly of Experts existed as other constitutional bodies, but the expediency council is the one specifically institutionalized to bridge and resolve conflicts between the dominant legislative and religious-legal authorities.

Crises and sanctions offer a powerful stage for the regime to shape how people view its authority. When pressure hits, leaders can frame their responses as necessary for national survival, sovereignty, or protecting citizens, so tough policy choices—like economic reforms or security measures—are cast as prudent, legitimate decisions rather than arbitrary acts. In Iran, for example, external sanctions are often depicted as unjust pressure from foreign powers, while the regime presents itself as steadfast in defending the nation, using that narrative to bolster legitimacy and maintain support. If the regime manages the crisis well and communicates effectively, this framing can strengthen perceptions of competence and resolve. If it handles things poorly, legitimacy can suffer, but the core idea is that crises and sanctions can be used to justify actions and shore up legitimacy through the narrative of necessity and national resilience.