The twelve-day war has ended, but the war conditions have not ended. The shadow of war still looms over Iranian society. The threat of war, missile attacks, explosions, assassinations, and Israeli security operations in Iran are still serious. The continuation of the war situation, the inability of the government to take action to address this threat, and the exacerbation of previous political and economic crises have created a situation where the image of Iran after the war is shrouded in uncertainty. The question of what the outcome of this situation will be in various areas is being raised, and one of these areas is what will happen to Iranian civil society?

The importance of the issue lies in the belief of many researchers that the absence of a strong and effective civil society minimizes opportunities for democratization, economic development, and resolution of various crises. These organized collaborations within society, in the form of grassroots organizations, trade unions, political parties, etc., give society the ability to solve its problems. Even some Iranian thinkers attribute the weakness of Iranian society in pursuing its demands to the weakness of its civil society. This raises concerns about whether Israeli missiles, in addition to taking the lives of Iranian citizens and destroying buildings, will also destroy Iranian civil society. What will be the impact of the continuation of this hostile environment?

Throughout the history of the modern world, wars have generally changed the dynamics of societies and the relationship between government and society. These changes have often created a domino effect, meaning that, like a wheel that turns and throws a lever into the next room, it is difficult to return to the previous state. Wars may come to an end, but their effects and the conditions they create do not return to their previous state.

War conditions can create phenomena that have serious effects on the destruction of civil society. Usually, war conditions cause the social space for action to become more closed and opportunities for activism to be limited. This closed space and limitations resulting from the war environment often continue even after the end of the war. In addition, it provides governments, especially authoritarian governments, with an excuse to destroy civil society. Various studies also emphasize that societies with higher economic and educational levels have a greater tendency towards civil activism, and as a result, the economic crisis caused by war can lead to a decrease in voluntary activism and further destruction of civil society.

In today’s conditions in Iran, all of these cases have evidence. The arrest of a large number of citizens during the twelve-day war, restrictions and disconnection of the internet during and after the war, the transfer of political prisoners to Evin with violations of their rights and inhumanity towards them, and others, all confirm the creation of serious threats to Iranian civil society.

On the other hand, war can also have effects on strengthening civil society. One of the reasons for the creation of the half-full glass is that, as prominent American sociologist Charles Tilly points out, governments need more support from society during times of war. This need is diverse. They require more legitimacy, more financial support, more volunteer forces, etc. from society, and this fulfillment of needs leads to giving various privileges to society. Just as the expansion of women’s suffrage in Europe was greatly influenced by world wars. The Civil War in the United States began for other reasons, but the issue of slavery became prominent during it, leading to the emancipation of African Americans and even the success of civil rights movements after a century in the midst of the Vietnam War.

This phenomenon of governments seeking legitimacy in the midst of revolutionary war is also present in our country’s political landscape. The idea of national unity, pursued by some moderate figures within the ruling establishment, can be understood within this framework. Although more hardline figures are opposed to the government’s efforts to gain minimal legitimacy in times of war, the President and the head of the judiciary are insistent on implementing this plan. Figures like former President Hassan Rouhani have also emphasized specific plans in this regard. What strengthens this possibility is the collapse of the traditional social base of the government. The government has so far justified all crises by claiming to be anti-West and striving to eliminate Israel, but with the acceptance of a ceasefire with Israel, all of those slogans have become meaningless. As a result, the government has lost a significant source of previous legitimacy and now needs to seek legitimacy from more serious sources than similar cases.

Another phenomenon that leads to strengthening civil society in post-war societies is the widespread mobilization of society. War conditions usually lead to the mobilization of society in various forms, from the mobilization of volunteer or conscript military forces to the mobilization of industrialists in military production, to local and national mobilization to address social crises resulting from war. What is highlighted and important here is the impact of the third type of mobilization, which has also been experienced in our society. Efforts to address the problems and issues resulting from war, bombings, and damages have fostered a significant level of cooperation among people.

Rieko Kage, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Tokyo, shows in her research that in the experience of World War II, societies that have experienced a higher level of mobilization, strengthen civil society at a faster pace in post-war conditions. She illustrates this issue with an example of a deviated path taken by a people’s organization in Japan. Although suppression during war has led to a decrease in its members, the experience of people working together during war has shaped a culture that, without any organizational policy for expansion and beyond their predictions, has increased its members after the war.

In fact, he suggests that the experience of community mobilization and extensive cooperation among individuals leads to a change in the habits of citizens and a greater inclination towards collaboration. This phenomenon is more evident among the younger generation who are more receptive to society. Therefore, such bitter and bloody experiences may make a part of our society more prepared to participate in civic activities.

Ultimately, whether the positive elements outweigh the negative ones or vice versa, whether our civil society can seize the opportunity for growth in these critical conditions or suffer further destruction, depends on the actions of all political and civil actors and future events. Whatever the case may be, even if it has positive effects on the political landscape, war and the lives lost in it are a great and painful damage, and it is hoped that its shadow will be removed from the skies of Iran as soon as possible.