Rasool Safarahang – Maybe you have felt these days that normal life is no longer going as it should. People are less able to buy medicine and food even for stockpiling, as they did during the 12-day war. Some thought of leaving the city to go to the countryside or cities, and many kept checking the news to see when the next round of conflict would arrive. This situation is not just a temporary concern, but an issue that has involved the Iranian society, and that is the issue of waiting for war and the feeling of suspense and erosion that has darkened the future horizon. Over time, this expectation has become a part of daily life and has changed our behavior patterns, decision-making and even our perception of tomorrow.
How is social suspension formed?
When the actual war does not occur but the threat of it is always present, the society enters a special state. People are neither engaged in full-scale combat nor can they lead their lives normally. This situation can be called social suspension. According to Anthony Giddens in the theory of ontological security, humans and societies need narrative continuity and predictability to maintain their identity. When this predictability is lost, collective anxiety grows and the unwritten contract between individuals and institutions weakens. Giddens emphasizes that ontological security is more important than physical security, because without it people feel that the world around them has become meaningless and untrustworthy.
In the concept of risk society, Ulrich Beck explains that modern societies are constantly faced with incalculable threats. In today’s Iran context, this threat has taken a military form and has turned into anticipatory anxiety. People are not only afraid of possible harm, but also tired of waiting. This fatigue leads to the gradual erosion of social capital and diminishes confidence in the future. Beck shows that in the risk society, people are constantly calculating uncertain risks, and this constant calculation makes life abnormal. As a result, instead of moving forward, society stagnates and spends its energy on managing anxiety.
This suspension is not just mental. In practice, we see that simple life decisions are complicated. Buying a house, starting a new business or even planning for children’s education is overshadowed by this expectation. People feel that everything can change at any moment, and this feeling makes their time horizon shorter. In this way, social suspension turns from a temporary state into a structural state and keeps the society in a permanent state of alertness.
But the theoretical roots of long-term waiting should be seen in classical deterrence theories, such as those proposed by Thomas Schelling, which emphasize the creation of mutual fear to prevent war. Schelling believed that successful deterrence occurs when the opposing side overestimates the cost of military action. But this logic has side effects in practice. The stability-instability paradox formulated by Glenn Snyder shows that this same equilibrium can tolerate limited conflicts while keeping society in a constant state of alertness. Snyder explains that when parties achieve nuclear or strategic deterrence, they may operate more freely at lower levels of violence. As a result, people always stay on the alert and postpone their long-term plans.
In this regard, Alexander Went argues that identities and antagonisms are constructed. Therefore, it can be analyzed that the long-lasting hostility between Iran and Israel is not only a matter of material power, but a narrative that has become normal over the decades and has now made the expectation of war a part of the collective identity. Went emphasizes that international anarchy is what governments make of it. When this narrative prevails, society can hardly imagine another horizon for itself. The hostile identity is gradually internalized and the expectation of threat becomes part of the collective self-definition.
Also, Karl Jaspers uses the concept of limit state to describe the moments when human cosmology is temporarily suspended. The short but fierce wars of recent years have created such a situation. After the conflict subsides, the expectation of its return keeps the ecosystem in a state of suspension and does not allow for full regeneration. Jaspers believed that in the limit state, man faces the limits of his existence and the meaning of life is questioned. At the collective level, this situation makes the society unable to easily return to normal routine and constantly remain in a state of alertness.
Together, these theories provide a clear picture of the current situation. Inhibition creates fear, constructs identity, and suspends the liminal state of the cosmos. The end result is that the expectation of war turns from a temporary reaction into a permanent structure and sets society on a certain path from which it is difficult to exit.
Are we on a path without a horizon?
Anticipation of war itself can become a major factor of attrition. I call this situation “horizonless path”. The society is placed on a path that neither full-scale war will bring it to full mobilization, nor stable peace will provide space for reconstruction. The result is the shortening of the time horizon. People are putting off big life decisions, long-term investment is declining, and the younger generation feels that their future is unplanable.
This concept is obtained from the combination of Gidden’s ontological security, Beck’s risk society and the phenomenological findings of recent wars. Contrary to popular literature that focuses more on post-war trauma or resilience during combat, Path Without Horizons suggests that waiting itself can create deeper layers of erosion. This erosion begins with everyday livelihoods, permeates family relationships, and eventually affects collective identity. In the path without a horizon, time goes out of the linear and progressive state and turns into a repetitive loop of alertness and anxiety.
Imagine a society that is constantly waiting. Every new news, every military signal and every political stance makes the horizon a little darker. People learn to prepare for the worst, but this constant preparation saps creative energy and hope. According to Giddens, when ontological security is compromised, people feel that their life narrative is disconnected. Beck also warns that the risk society constantly produces new threats and does not allow for complacency. The path without a horizon is exactly the point of intersection of these two views, that is, where expectation itself becomes a threat.
This concept helps us understand why even after short periods of conflict, complete peace is not achieved. The society remains in a state of suspension and cannot draw a clear horizon for itself. Different generations experience this situation in different ways. The younger generation feels more hopeless, while the middle-aged generations worry about losing previous achievements. In both cases, the common result is the gradual erosion of hope.
But the effects of this situation are multi-layered and reinforce each layer. On a psychological level, anticipatory anxiety disrupts sleep and decision-making. People are constantly calculating different scenarios and this continuous calculation creates mental fatigue. Families change their organizational patterns quickly, and women often shoulder the burden of managing the domestic crisis. This double burden can lead to the erosion of family relationships and increase the feeling of loneliness.
At the economic level, rising prices and subsistence pressure reinforce the feeling of structural vulnerability. People feel they have little control over their material lives, and this feeling of powerlessness increases anxiety. Long-term investments decrease and the household economy tends to maintain the status quo. At the level of identity, external threat sometimes creates temporary solidarity, but its stability depends on the performance of institutions after the crisis. If institutions fail to rebuild trust, the temporary solidarity will quickly collapse and the previous divisions will deepen.
At the institutional level, trust in official narratives weakens and the gap between society and the government deepens. People feel that complete information is not provided to them, and this lack of transparency fuels rumors and anxiety. These layers reinforce each other. When the future horizon is bleak, people think more about survival and social empathy decreases. According to Beck, the risk society constantly produces new threats and does not allow peace. As a result, people get stuck in a survival tunnel from which it is difficult to get out.
The important thing is that this cycle is self-reinforcing. Psychological anxiety makes economic decisions conservative, economic pressure puts pressure on family relationships, family erosion weakens collective identity, and the weakness of collective identity reduces institutional trust. The path without a horizon is exactly the product of this cycle and continues until a clear horizon is created.
But if we only look at military deterrence, we are missing an important part of reality. The anticipation of war can be more exhausting than the war itself, because it takes time from society and erodes hope for the future. The horizonless path is a concept that helps us see this silent erosion. Societies that remain in such a state for too long may lose their social capital even if full-scale war does not occur. Social capital is trust, cooperation networks, and a sense of common belonging that keeps societies afloat. When this capital wears out, it takes years to rebuild it.
Today, Iranian society stands at a point where it is both prepared for defense and tired of suspension. Understanding the theoretical roots of this situation helps us find ways to shorten the waiting horizon. Greater clarity in narratives, family and school-based psychosocial supports, and efforts to create predictable perspectives can reduce some of this erosion. Institutions must understand that security is not only a military issue; It is also an ontological and narrative issue. According to Giddens, without ontological security even the strongest deterrents cannot create lasting peace.
In general, if a clear horizon is not created, erosion will continue and its costs will be heavy on the shoulders of future generations.
213
