خیابان حامی به‌مثابۀ هم‌بستگی و هم‌جنبشی در جنگ آمریکایی- صهیونیستی علیه ایران (درآمدی بر نابسندگی ناجنبشی و سیاست خیابان)

The present study aims to explain a new pattern of collective action under conditions of external crises and existential threats by examining the street presence of the Iranian people during the American–Israeli war against Iran, referred to as the Ramadan War of 2026. Its primary objective is to conceptualize “collective mobilization” and to redefine the street as an infrastructure for producing solidarity, social support, and national cohesion. Within this framework, the street is understood not merely as a site of protest, demand-making, or confrontation with power, but as a space for collective self-preservation, the expression of
a shared fate, and the reproduction of social bonds. The study also proposes a five-level model that explains the process through which an external crisis is transformed into a shared perception of threat, the synchronization of dispersed actors, the formation of
a collective body, and ultimately the production of the “supportive street.” Prevailing theories of street politics and social nonmovements, particularly Asef Bayat’s theoretical framework, have largely focused on the everyday, gradual, dispersed, and demand-oriented actions of subaltern groups in response to internal social problems. Within these theories, the street is generally conceived as an arena of resistance, protest, slow encroachment, and the exertion of pressure on political power. However, the experience of the widespread and simultaneous presence of people in the streets of Iran during the Ramadan War of 2025 demonstrated that street action can, in response to an external threat, acquire a supportive, defensive, and solidarity-building function. Accordingly, this study seeks to answer the following question: What limitations do these street presences reveal in the theory of nonmovements and the concept of street politics? This study adopts a theoretical–analytical and interpretive approach, using a case-study research strategy. The case under examination consists of the street actions and public presence of the Iranian people during the Ramadan War of 2025, from the early morning of February 28, 2026 to August 1, 2026. The data were collected through three main avenues. First, the researchers conducted direct participant and field observation of gatherings and street presences, particularly in Tehran and Shiraz, over approximately 150 consecutive nights. Second, they reviewed the relevant theoretical literature in political sociology, social movements, street politics, and nonmovements. Third, they examined reports from domestic and international media, as well as accounts published on social media platforms. The data were analyzed through the coding of field notes, source comparison, and cumulative interpretive analysis. Finally, a five-level model was extracted and formulated, comprising the event, perceptual, field, processual, and consequential levels. The findings show that the formation of collective mobilization begins with a disruptive event. The military attack, the assassination of the leadership, the bombing of infrastructure, and the attack on an elementary school in Minab disrupted the normal routines of everyday life by generating structural shock and compressing social time. At the perceptual level, these events were interpreted through the historical memory of U.S. antagonism toward Iran, including the 28 Mordad coup (1953), the Iran–Iraq War, sanctions, and the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani. As a result, the military threat was transformed into an existential and identity-based threat to a shared “we,” thereby creating a symbolic boundary between the “self” and the “hostile other.” At the field level, this shared perception became tangible through people’s sustained nightly presence, the symbolic occupation of major streets and squares, collective walks, car and motorcycle convoys, and family gatherings. The street became a site where a collective body emerged—a body that, beyond the physical presence of the people, embodied a message of collective self-preservation, resistance, and social deterrence. The use of the national flag, headbands, and religious–national slogans enabled a temporary transcendence of partisan, class, and generational differences. Likewise, the affect of loss and passive mourning was transformed, through Ashura rituals, into action-oriented and epic energy. The media and social media networks also connected dispersed gatherings
into a national “we.” At the processual level, collective mobilization emerges through a cumulative chain: a disruptive event leads to perceptual reinterpretation; the shared perception activates a collective affect; this affect is consolidated through symbols and rituals; and the subsequent synchronization of actors in the public sphere gives rise to informal forms of organization. At the consequential level, this process results in the formation of a cohesive collective “we,” increased horizontal trust, strengthened bonds of collective self-preservation, and the continuation of self-reproducing participation in the public sphere. The findings of the study demonstrate that, under conditions of external threat, the street is not merely an arena of conflict, protest, or demand-making; it can also become an infrastructure for producing solidarity, shared identity, and social care. The concept of “collective mobilization,” proposed to explain this form of collective action,
is distinct from the concepts of social movement, nonmovement, protest, resilience,
and mutual aid because it emphasizes spontaneous, simultaneous, ritualized, and communitarian action in response to an external crisis. Accordingly, the “supportive street” is a space in which society reproduces its cohesion through embodied, symbolic, and affective presence. The study’s five-level model demonstrates that an external threat,
when connected to historical memory, collective affect, shared symbols, and the occupation of public space, can be transformed from a source of disruption into a source of
renewed solidarity. Thus, collective mobilization provides a conceptual framework for understanding protective and solidarity-oriented forms of collective action and may be applied to the study of other large-scale crises, including natural disasters, regional crises, and environmental threats.