The Deep State

Introduction

In recent years, the term “Deep State” has become one of the most central concepts in the literature of political science, political sociology, and power analysis—a concept used to explain the presence of networks of elites, institutions, and influential groups operating within the informal layers of governance. Despite its relatively old intellectual roots, it now appears difficult to fully understand the structure of modern states without it. From this perspective, the Deep State is not merely a media term but an analytical framework that enables the study of the “invisible rituals of power.” At a time when legitimacy, transparency, and accountability in many political systems around the world are under strain, examining the hidden mechanisms of power has become even more crucial, for these mechanisms typically form in the space between formal legal structures and informal elite networks.

A brief review of classical political sociology shows that the earliest theoretical seeds of the Deep State must be sought in elite-centric approaches—perspectives developed by thinkers such as Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca, and Robert Michels. Although these theorists did not use the term “Deep State,” by discussing concepts such as “circulation of elites,” the “iron law of oligarchy,” and the “domination of the organized minority,” they laid the analytical foundation necessary to understand this phenomenon. What they highlighted was that even in democratic structures, a small group of elites can maintain durable control over power; and over time, this may lead to the formation of networks that extend beyond the official and public sphere of governance.

Another important theme in the modern literature on the Deep State is that the legal and constitutional structure of a political system can itself provide fertile ground for the emergence of hidden power institutions. Any legal structure that grants monopolistic power to a limited group—whether grounded in ideology, religion, ethnicity, or security institutions—potentially creates the conditions for a “second layer of governance.” Some political scientists, especially in case studies of the Islamic Republic of Iran, have argued that the legal structure based on the doctrine of Velayat-e Faqih and the presence of appointed institutions can concentrate power in bodies more distant from the direct oversight of elected institutions. Naturally, such analyses require caution, sensitivity to social complexity, and avoidance of overgeneralization; nevertheless, they are recognized in academic literature as one of the important contributors to the formation of a Deep State.

Furthermore, most empirical studies of the Deep State highlight a key, nearly universal feature: the dense interconnectedness among various institutions that monopolize power behind the scenes. In many case examples, a close relationship is observed between security institutions, economic oligarchic groups, media networks, and even families with historical or mafia-like influence. These multilayered connections distribute power not at a single point but across multiple nodes of a network—one capable of steering or adjusting crucial decisions without being seen. This networked dimension makes identifying and analyzing the Deep State a complex, multidimensional task, as each link in the network may play different—and sometimes contradictory—roles.

Ultimately, the central questions of this article are: “How can the Deep State be understood within theoretical and empirical frameworks?” and “What historical, legal, and social conditions facilitate its formation?” To answer these questions, the article will first examine the theoretical approaches, then explain the practical and network mechanisms of the Deep State, and finally analyze its implications for modern governance.

1. Theoretical Approaches to the Deep State

Understanding the phenomenon of the Deep State is impossible without grounding it in reliable theoretical frameworks, as the concept is inherently linked to analyses of power relations, informal structures, and elite dynamics. Before examining empirical cases and practical mechanisms, it is therefore essential to evaluate this phenomenon through three primary theoretical approaches. These approaches not only help outline the main contours of analysis but also demonstrate how the Deep State may emerge across different political and historical contexts. The following sections review these three approaches in both historical and logical order.

1.1. The Elite Approach: The Theoretical Foundation of the Deep State

Undoubtedly, the first theoretical framework relevant to understanding the Deep State is found in the elite tradition of political sociology—a tradition shaped by the works of Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca, and Robert Michels. Although these thinkers did not employ the term “Deep State,” their theoretical logic represents one of the principal foundations for analyzing it.

1.1.1. Pareto and the Circulation of Elites

Pareto argued that in every society, an “elite minority” holds dominance over power, and these elites reproduce power among themselves through a continuous process—which he termed the circulation of elites. If this circulation becomes disrupted for any reason, the entrenched elites attempt to maintain their position by forming hidden networks. Thus, from Pareto’s perspective, the Deep State can be understood as a reflection of elite resistance to change.

1.1.2. Mosca and the Political Class

Mosca divided society into the “political class” and the “masses.” The political class is the minority capable of organizing, managing, and controlling the instruments of power. When the gap between the political class and the formal structure of the state grows, networks emerge that guide decision-making behind the scenes. In this view, the Deep State represents a historical crystallization of the political class operating at an informal level.

1.1.3. Michels and the Iron Law of Oligarchy

Michels, with his “iron law of oligarchy,” demonstrated that even democratic organizations inevitably tend toward concentrating power in the hands of a small minority. Thus, from his viewpoint, the formation of hidden networks is part of the inherent organizational logic of power. Therefore, the Deep State is not an anomaly but a structural consequence of complex bureaucratic organizations.

In sum, the elite tradition helps us view the Deep State not merely as a “conspiracy,” but as an outcome of the internal logic of power distribution in any society.

1.2. The Structural–Legal Approach: The Role of the Constitution and the Architecture of Governance

While the elite approach explains the Deep State through the lens of “actors,” the structural–legal approach analyzes it through the lens of “structures.” According to this approach, the legal architecture of a political system—including its constitution, appointed bodies, distribution of power, and type of legitimacy—can foster or reinforce the Deep State.

1.2.1. The Monopoly of Power and Its Legal Consequences

Any political structure that assigns monopolized power to a limited group—whether based on ideology, religion, or class—inevitably creates space for the expansion of informal networks. This is because monopolized power requires supplementary mechanisms of hidden supervision and control, which over time may become institutionalized.

1.2.2. Analytical Examples, Not Political Labeling

In academic analyses of ideological or religious states, it is often argued that power concentrated in ideological or appointed institutions leads to the emergence of a layer of governance that is removed from the official sphere. Regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran, some scholars argue that the legal structure grounded in Velayat-e Faqih, coupled with appointed bodies and the influential role of security and quasi-economic institutions, may foster networks that wield decisive influence in major policy decisions.

Although such analyses demand careful methodology and extensive empirical grounding, they nonetheless represent one of the most prominent illustrations of how legal structures can contribute to the formation of a Deep State.

1.2.3. The Gap Between Formal Law and Political Practice

In many political systems—especially in non-liberal countries—the discrepancy between constitutional text and political practice can generate a domain of power for which no institution is officially responsible, yet which exerts real influence over certain areas of decision-making. This structural gap is one of the primary sources of the Deep State.

Thus, the structural–legal approach illustrates that the Deep State is not always the result of elite behavior alone but can be the outcome of a political system’s legal design.

1.3. The Network–Security Approach: Interactions Between Oligarchic Groups, Security Institutions, and Influential Families

If the elite approach focuses on “actors,” and the legal approach focuses on “structures,” the third approach—the network–security perspective—focuses on the “links between them.” This approach is based on the assumption that the Deep State is fundamentally a multilayered network rather than a single institution.

1.3.1. The Role of Security Institutions in Hidden Power Structures

In many countries, security institutions—because of their operational sensitivity, access to classified information, and executive authority—become central pillars of the Deep State. Due to their inherent opacity, these institutions can form powerful informal connections with political and economic elites.

1.3.2. Economic Oligarchies and the Capital of Influence

Large economic groups, especially in countries with low financial transparency, often develop close relations with security institutions. This relationship is mutually reinforcing:
• Security institutions provide cover, information, and protection.
• Oligarchies supply financial resources, commercial networks, and tools of informal influence.

1.3.3. Familial, Ethnic, and Mafia-like Networks

In some structures, kinship and mafia-like relations blend with security and economic institutions, creating a network that is not only difficult to identify but also multi-centered, multilayered, and highly adaptable. According to political science research, such networks most often appear in states with weak formal governance, deep class divides, or rentier economies.

1.3.4. Implications of the Network Approach

Accordingly, the Deep State is viewed not merely as a collection of elites, nor solely as the product of a particular constitutional structure, but as a dynamic combination of structural, security, economic, and social factors. Thus, its analysis requires simultaneous attention to multiple levels of governance.

2. Operational and Organizational Mechanisms of the Deep State

If the earlier sections of this article showed how the Deep State emerges from theories and legal structures, we must now turn to a more crucial question: How does the Deep State actually operate?
The nature of this phenomenon requires its mechanisms to be informal, multilayered, network-based, and in many cases invisible. For this reason, analyzing the operational mechanisms of the Deep State demands, above all, a network-oriented and process-focused perspective. The following subsections examine these mechanisms across several key dimensions.

2.1. Concentration of Information and Control of the Knowledge Flow

One of the most fundamental tools of the Deep State is the monopolization of information. In any political structure, information functions as a strategic asset—but within the Deep State, this asset does not operate as a public resource; rather, it becomes the exclusive property of the hidden elite network.

2.1.1. Closed Information Cycles

The Deep State creates limited information cycles in such a way that official decision-makers gain access only to a selective portion of reality. These cycles can be formed through:
• Security intelligence systems
• Personal communication networks
• Controlled media channels
• Parallel reporting structures
The result of such monopolization is the growing dependence of the formal structure on the hidden layer of power.

2.1.2. Differential Information Access for Elites

The Deep State typically provides precise and classified information to a small core circle, while other levels of government receive only fragmented or manipulated data. This enables the inner power circle to steer major strategies without any need for formal approval.

2.2. Systems of Influence and Multilayered Networks

For long-term persistence and effectiveness, the Deep State requires networks that operate across several levels. These networks usually have three defining characteristics: polycentric, flexible, and resistant to exposure.

2.2.1. The Security–Intelligence Layer

This layer is often the central core of the Deep State. Security institutions, with their:
• Access to sensitive data
• Ability to intervene directly
• Surveillance and shadowing capabilities
• Connections with other elites
can play a decisive role in shaping the political agenda.

2.2.2. The Economic–Oligarchic Layer

Oligarchies—particularly within rentier or quasi-rentier economies—act as the “support arm” of the Deep State due to their access to extensive financial resources. As long as economic capital remains influential within the political structure, the informal power network retains its resilience.

2.2.3. The Social–Kinship Layer

In many countries, familial, ethnic, or mafia-like relations provide complementary support for stabilizing the Deep State. This layer:
• Creates stable loyalties
• Bypasses formal institutions
• Enables the transfer of messages and resources without media visibility
For this reason, many Deep States have a “network-based” rather than “hierarchical” structure.

2.3. Exercising Power Through Control of Bureaucracy and Policymaking

Even in the most democratic systems, bureaucracy possesses an inherent level of complexity and opacity. The Deep State exploits this complexity by penetrating critical points of the bureaucratic structure.

2.3.1. Strategic Appointments

A consistent mechanism of the Deep State is placing loyal individuals within:
• Key ministries
• Financial and oversight agencies
• The judiciary
• Security and military institutions
• State-affiliated media
These individuals are not necessarily the primary figures of the Deep State, but they act as its operative enforcers.

2.3.2. Intra-Institutional Rotation

A common observable pattern is frequent rotation among:
• Security organizations
• Government agencies
• Quasi-public private sectors
• Appointed institutions
Such rotation strengthens the bureaucratic roots of the hidden network and protects it from exposure.

2.4. Control of Public Opinion and Narrative Management

In the age of digital media, the Deep State depends more than ever on managing narratives. If hidden power cannot maintain a minimally acceptable level of public opinion control, its legitimacy quickly erodes.

2.4.1. Affiliated Media and Organized Messaging

Media outlets connected to centers of hidden power often aim to:
• Reinforce the official or preferred narrative
• Discredit critics
• Censor or marginalize unwanted news
• Psychologically manage political crises
Thus, media become tools of “hidden governance.”

2.4.2. Cognitive and Psychological Operations

In many countries, specialized units exist for:
• Content production
• Information fabrication
• Steering online campaigns
• Shaping public perception
These actions constitute part of the Deep State’s “cognitive governance.”

2.5. Use of Informal Tools for Political Engineering

The Deep State often intervenes in situations where formal legal pathways do not permit decision-making but where the desired political outcome must still be achieved.

2.5.1. Management of Political Competition

This management may include:
• Limiting political actors
• Engineering electoral competition
• Defining the boundaries of party activities
• Controlling political financing
Such actions can determine the trajectory of official politics without leaving any direct trace of the Deep State.

2.5.2. Use of Informal Pressure

Informal pressure—such as:
• Economic threats
• Security pressure
• Fabrication of charges
• Administrative restrictions
is a common tool used by the Deep State to shape the political arena.

2.6. Organizational Structure Without Formality

A key point is that the Deep State has organization, but it is not a formal organization. This apparent paradox is in fact one of the secrets of its durability.

2.6.1. Parallel Structures

In some cases, institutions emerge that:
• Perform duties similar to formal agencies
• Are not accountable to democratic mechanisms
• Possess independent budgets and personnel
These parallel institutions strengthen the hidden architecture and increase the Deep State’s capacity for intervention.

2.6.2. The “Distributed Power” Model

Contrary to conspiracy-driven assumptions, the Deep State often lacks a single central authority; instead, it consists of networks organized around security, economic, or ideological hubs. This distributed structure makes it highly resilient and capable of reproduction.

2.7. Guided Mass Mobilization and the Engineering of Social Pressure

One of the most complex—and least studied—mechanisms of the Deep State is its use of mass-oriented networks to exert influence in the public sphere and steer political decisions. Contrary to the popular assumption that the Deep State is merely an elite network limited to security–economic institutions, the reality is that a significant portion of its power stems from its ability to mobilize society. This mobilization does not emerge spontaneously; rather, it results from gradual penetration, hidden organization, and mechanisms of stimulation and guidance.

2.7.1. Building Subordinate Social Networks and “Instrumental Social Capital”

The Deep State often constructs networks of social loyalty through various intermediaries and institutions—cultural groups, quasi-civic associations, religious or ideological networks, youth organizations, and even service-oriented or charitable institutions.
Unlike genuine civil society organizations, these networks do not function as bodies of social representation but as instruments of informal political power. In the literature of political sociology, such connections can be understood as a form of instrumental social capital—capital designed not to promote participation or social development but to secure hidden political power.

2.7.2. Penetration of the Masses and Formation of a Subordinate Collective Identity

Through these seemingly popular networks, the Deep State gradually constructs a guided collective identity based on:
• A sense of threat
• Shared interests
• Ideological identity
• Belonging to a “we” versus “others”
• Loyalty to specific symbols and leaders
As a result, segments of society become a mobilizable social base—one that can be rapidly activated during political or security-sensitive moments.

2.7.3. Mechanisms of Stimulation and Social Mobilization

When the Deep State needs to exert pressure beyond formal mechanisms—during political crises, intra-elite conflicts, oligarchic rivalries, or confrontations with social movements—these social networks are activated. Activation may involve:
• Organized but unofficial mobilization calls
• Emotional or ideological stimulation
• Street-level or protest mobilization
• Intensive media and digital activity
• Psychological operations on social networks
The power of this mechanism lies in making social pressure appear natural and spontaneous, even though it is organized by hidden networks.

2.7.4. Instruments of Social Pressure and Their Role in Policymaking

Guided mass mobilization serves two primary functions for the Deep State:

1. Pressure on formal institutions:
   Through street presence or media waves, it can alter or halt formal decision-making processes. Even in democracies, controlled street pressure can influence policymaking—let alone in systems with weak accountability.
2. Balancing internal power blocs:
   In some systems, mobilized networks act as the “social arm” of certain Deep State factions, tipping the balance in intra-oligarchic power struggles.

2.7.5. Distinction from Genuine Social Mobilization

In political sociology, distinguishing between “guided mass mobilization” and “authentic social mobilization” is crucial.
Authentic mobilization typically:
• Emerges from independent social demands
• Has decentralized leadership
• Pursues diverse and pluralistic goals

But guided mobilization:
• Has hidden hierarchies
• Is supported by security–economic networks
• Aims to defend a specific power structure
Thus, this type of mobilization is more a political instrument than a social process.

3. Consequences of the Deep State for Governance, Development, Legitimacy, and Society

The phenomenon of the Deep State is not merely a hidden structure beneath the surface of politics; rather, it has broad consequences across various domains of governance and collective life that can fundamentally transform the foundations of political and social order. These consequences are typically gradual, cumulative, and multilayered—meaning their effects emerge over time and across multiple levels of power. The most important consequences can be categorized into five main areas.

3-1. The Weakening of Formal Governance and the Formation of a Dual Power Structure

One of the first and most significant consequences of the Deep State is the bifurcation of power. When informal and invisible networks operate parallel to legal structures, the result is a form of “dual governance.” In such a situation:

• Formal institutions—government, parliament, judiciary—appear to be responsible for decision-making,
• But hidden institutions—security groups, economic oligarchies, clerical–military networks, or closed technocratic circles—exercise the real power.

This situation leads to institutional fragility and severely reduces the effectiveness of the formal system, because legal institutions are unable to make independent decisions. In many cases, the formal government is reduced to a mere “showcase of governance.”

3-2. Disruption of the Policy-Making Process and the Production of Contradictory Decisions

When hidden institutions act alongside formal ones, policy-making becomes a complex, contradictory, and unpredictable process. Among the consequences of this situation are:

• Multiplicity of decision-making centers
• Contradictory signals in economic, cultural, and security policy
• Nontransparent signals to the market and society
• Paralysis of policy-making in major issues
• Overlap or neutralization of formal decisions by hidden networks

For this reason, in countries where the Deep State is powerful, policy-making is typically chaotic, slow, and lacking coherence. This chaos increases the cost of governance and reduces public trust.

3-3. Decline of Political Legitimacy and Erosion of Social Trust

The existence of the Deep State seriously threatens the foundations of political legitimacy. Society is aware—even intuitively—that real power lies somewhere outside the formal structure. This awareness leads to:

• Public distrust
• Discrediting of elected institutions
• A decline in genuine political participation
• Spread of conspiracy-oriented thinking in society
• Inability of the regime to persuade citizens

When people believe that “real decision-making happens behind the scenes,” democratic processes lose their meaning, and politics becomes deprived of the possibility of fair competition. Over the long term, this condition erodes the legitimacy of both the formal and the hidden spheres.

3-4. Structural Corruption and the Expansion of the Security–Economic Oligarchy

One of the most important consequences of the Deep State is the production and reproduction of structural corruption—corruption that is not accidental but systematic and tied to informal power. Hidden networks typically:

• Create economic monopolies,
• Distribute massive rents among themselves,
• Take over quasi-state and private enterprises,
• Use inside information for economic gains,
• And block fair competition and economic transparency.

Thus, a structure emerges that can be described as a “security–economic oligarchy”—a structure in which informal political power and economic wealth reinforce each other in a self-sustaining cycle. This condition severely disrupts development and drives away investment.

3-5. Expansion of Social Control and Engineering of Mass Behavior

As explained in the previous section, the Deep State, utilizing tools of guided mobilization, is also capable of shaping public opinion and collective behavior. The consequences of this process include:

• Reduced independence of civil society
• Hollowing out of genuine intermediary institutions
• Empowerment of seemingly popular but subordinate organizations
• Creation of a public sphere infused with threat, agitation, and propaganda
• Formation of a “massified society” instead of an organized one

In such conditions, citizens act not on the basis of independent awareness but within the frameworks of organized networks of hidden power. The result is nothing but the erosion of modern political culture, weakening of collective rationality, and restriction of public freedoms.

3-6. Harm to National Development and Elite Emigration

From a development perspective, the presence of the Deep State typically leads to the failure of long-term plans. Its most significant consequences include:

• Lack of stable planning
• Hidden interference in economic projects
• Instability in the business environment
• Replacement of meritocracy with political loyalty
• Emigration of elites and decline of human capital
• Reduced productivity in the economy and government

As a result, the country becomes trapped in a cycle of underdevelopment, corruption, and chronic inefficiency.

4. The Deep State in Iran – Structure, Roots, and Mechanisms

The phenomenon of the Deep State in Iran cannot be explained solely by the common models of Western political science; it is the product of a combination of legal, historical, ideological, security, and economic factors. The Deep State in Iran emerges from the interaction of multiple layers of power operating beneath the surface of the formal structure and playing a decisive role in key political, security, economic, and cultural processes.

4-1. Legal Roots: Dual Power Structure and the Possibility of Monopoly

Part of the formation of the Deep State in Iran originates from the legal structure of the political system—a structure that, according to the Constitution, places:

• Elected institutions (government, parliament, councils)
• Alongside appointed / unelected institutions (leadership, security institutions, supervisory bodies, and a set of councils)

This dual and hierarchical structure allows for the creation of power centers that are not accountable to electoral mechanisms and enjoy extensive institutional independence. Such a structure creates a space where:

• Key decisions can be monopolized
• The formal government can be bypassed
• Parallel institutions can emerge
• And interference in policy-making can occur without responsibility

In other words, the Constitution itself creates the conditions for the emergence of the Deep State, because it places certain institutions in a superior position and limits channels of democratic oversight and accountability.

4-2. Sociological Roots: The Tradition of Elitism and Its Connection to Elite Theory

To understand the Deep State in Iran, one must also consider the tradition of elitism in political sociology.
Theorists such as Pareto, Michels, and Mosca believed that in every society—regardless of its legal form—an organized minority (political, military, economic, or ideological elites) holds real power.

In Iran, historical conditions and cultural structures have gradually produced an implicit coalition of:

• Security elites
• Ideological–religious elites
• Economic elites
• And segments of the state technocracy

This coalition, even without formal coordination, is capable of distributing power among itself, monopolizing information, and resisting political change.

This feature forms one of the theoretical foundations of the Iranian Deep State:
A network of organized elites who accumulate power within the formal structure but outside democratic oversight.

4-3. Ideological Roots: Double Legitimacy and Escape from Accountability

One of the unique features of Iran’s political system is its religious–ideological legitimacy—legitimacy that:

• In theory, defines itself as beyond everyday politics,
• And in practice, can lead to the exceptionalization of ideological institutions.

This exceptionalization allows certain institutions to:

• Define themselves as “supra-political,”
• Remain beyond the reach of public or legal accountability,
• And stay unaffected by electoral change.

As a result, a network of ideological–security–cultural institutions emerges that resists any democratic transformation and, due to its mission of “protecting values,” extends its influence from security into society and culture.

4-4. Security Roots: Informational Power, Network-Building, and Field Control

One of the main pillars of the Deep State in Iran is the security and paramilitary institutions.
These institutions—with their extensive role in:

• Intelligence,
• Control of the public sphere,
• Political oversight,
• And security–regional policy-making—

possess the ability to organize networks that go beyond the elite level and penetrate wide areas of society, the economy, and state management.

The important characteristic of these networks is that they are:

• Neither fully formal,
• Nor fully informal;
• Rather, they operate “at the boundary between state and society.”

In this structure, security power systematically becomes a political–economic actor, and its influence within other governance institutions becomes entrenched. Over time, this leads to the formation of a “dominant security stratum,” which is one of the key pillars of the Deep State.

4-5. Economic Roots: Quasi-State Oligarchy and Accumulation of Wealth Without Competition

From the 1990s onward, a significant part of Iran’s economy gradually came under the control of:

• Quasi-state enterprises,
• Public non-governmental institutions,
• Foundations,
• Affiliated companies,
• And security–economic entities.

This system created a form of state–hidden capitalism that adheres neither to the rules of market competition nor the transparency of the private sector.

These groups—due to access to:

• Confidential information,
• Regulatory exemptions,
• State rents,
• Exclusive contracts,
• And cross-sectoral support—

gradually formed a powerful economic class that serves as one of the financial arms of the Deep State.

4-6. The Interconnection of Security Institutions, Economic Oligarchy, and Subordinate Social Networks

In Iran, the Deep State is not just a limited elite network; rather, three levels of power are interconnected within it:

1. Security power (the network of monitoring and control)
2. Economic power (the oligarchic network and quasi-state enterprises)
3. Social–cultural power (networks of mass mobilization, cultural institutions, and circles of loyalty)

These three levels are linked through personal, ideological, and organizational relationships.
For this reason, the Deep State in Iran is an “integrated network” present in macro-governance, social mobilization, and the economy.

These interconnections are what give the Deep State its strategic depth and systemic resilience.

5. Comparative Analysis of the Deep State in Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, Russia, and the United States

The phenomenon of the Deep State is not limited to a single country or a single type of political regime; rather, it has appeared in various forms and intensities in different countries. However, the structure, functions, and roots of this phenomenon can vary dramatically from one country to another. Comparative analysis shows that the Deep State should not be viewed as a fixed concept but rather as a “pattern of organizing informal power.”

In the following, four prominent examples are selected, each contributing to the understanding of the Deep State from a different perspective: Turkey, Pakistan, Russia, and the United States.

5-1. Turkey: A Military–Security Deep State Rooted in Kemalist Legacy

5-1-1. Historical and Ideological Roots

Turkey is one of the classic examples of a Deep State. Historical files such as “Ergenekon” and the activities of “JİTEM” demonstrate that for decades a network composed of:

• the military
• intelligence services
• Kemalist elites
• and segments of the judiciary

has operated as a powerful but informal order.

5-1-2. Function

The Turkish Deep State essentially served as the guardian of the secular republic and counter–Islamist orientation, and during times of crisis intervened in politics through coups or direct pressure. Here, similar to Iran, there is an ideological dimension—however, it points in the opposite direction:

The ideology is nationalist secularism.

5-1-3. Main Difference from Iran

• In Turkey, the central axis of the Deep State was the professional military;
• In Iran, the axis of the Deep State consists of a security–ideological + economic institution.

In other words, Turkey follows a “military-oriented” model, while Iran’s model is “security–ideological–economic.”

5-2. Pakistan: A Fully Military Deep State with Semi-Formal Power

5-2-1. Structure

In Pakistan, the Deep State is almost synonymous with the military and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). Unlike Turkey, where the military faced legal restrictions, in Pakistan, the army is considered:

• a representative of part of national identity,
• the main actor in foreign policy,
• and effectively the guardian of the political structure.

5-2-2. Function

Historically, the Pakistani military has exercised power through:

• supporting or opposing governments,
• managing political parties,
• direct intervention in politics,
• controlling security policy and Afghanistan strategy.

The Deep State structure in Pakistan is highly centralized and hierarchical.

5-2-3. Main Difference from Iran

• In Pakistan, the Deep State network is unified and almost limited to the military;
• In Iran, it is multi-centered and includes ideological, security, economic, and cultural institutions;
• In Pakistan, the economy is under military control, but not to the scale or complexity of Iran’s institutional–economic network.

5-3. Russia: The Intelligence–Oligarchic Model Centered on Security Elites

5-3-1. Roots in the KGB

In post-Soviet Russia, security elites (known as siloviki) gradually took control of major parts of the government, economy, and media. This is the security–bureaucratic oligarchy.

5-3-2. Link Between Security and Economy

In Russia, the Deep State is a network of:

• security services,
• oligarchs close to power,
• the energy and infrastructure sectors,
• and a circle of technocrats.

This structure does not have a “mass-mobilizing Deep State” (of the popular-mobilization type), but it uses state propaganda and media control.

5-3-3. Similarities and Differences with Iran

Similarities:

• concentration of power within a security network,
• structural linkage between security and economy,
• quasi-state oligarchy.

Differences:

• Russia lacks a religious–ideological foundation;
• Iran uses guided mass mobilization, which does not exist in Russia.

5-4. United States: Deep State or “Administrative–Technocratic State”?

The United States is often discussed publicly in relation to the term “deep state”; however, in academic literature, the Deep State in the U.S. has a fundamentally different nature.

5-4-1. Structure

Although security organizations such as:

• the CIA,
• NSA,
• and the Pentagon

possess extensive power and influence, the Deep State in the U.S. is better understood as:

• the permanent bureaucracy,
• autonomous technocratic institutions,
• and the concentration of power within military–industrial–economic networks.

It is not a hidden, unified network exercising independent political will.

5-4-2. Fundamental Difference from Other Countries

• The U.S. is not governed by military elites.
• Its Deep State is not ideological.
• It has a legal, transparent, and accountable structure—but with enduring technocratic power.

In other words, the “Deep State” in the United States is primarily an administrative–bureaucratic structure that is less affected by political changes, not a covert network designed to enforce independent political objectives.

5-5. Comparative Summary

Comparative analysis shows that:

• Turkey represents a military–secular model,
• Pakistan a military–centralized model,
• Russia a security–oligarchic model,
• the United States a bureaucratic–technocratic model,
• and Iran a security–ideological–economic model with mass-based networks

in shaping their respective Deep States.

The Iranian model—due to the fusion of three spheres of power (security, ideological, and economic), along with guided social mobilization—is one of the most complex Deep State structures in the world.

6. Conclusion and Future Outlook

Throughout this article, the aim was to analyze the phenomenon of the Deep State from theoretical, structural, and comparative perspectives, showing that it is not merely a “behind-the-scenes conspiracy” but a logical outcome of the interaction among elites, legal structures, and socio-security networks. The main findings can be summarized in several key points:

6-1. Deep State: A Product of Multi-Layered Power Interaction

Comparative and domestic analysis demonstrates that the Deep State in Iran and other countries is the result of complex interactions among three main power spheres:

1. Security and intelligence institutions: the primary agents of control and organization of informal power.
2. Economic and oligarchic elites: providers of financial resources and economic influence.
3. Social and cultural networks: guided mobilization of the masses, practical legitimacy building, and social pressure.

These three domains, together with legal and ideological structures, are so interlinked that limiting or removing one becomes difficult without affecting the others.

6-2. Major Implications for Governance and Development

Regardless of the political system, the Deep State brings clear and significant consequences:

• Duality of power: weakened efficiency of formal institutions and complex decision-making.
• Decline of political legitimacy: erosion of public trust and distrust toward electoral processes.
• Distorted economic development: increased structural corruption, monopolization, and reduced meritocracy.
• Public opinion engineering: shaping collective behavior and channeling social pressure, which is especially prominent in Iran.

These consequences demonstrate that the Deep State is not merely a political phenomenon but a structural variable affecting every dimension of governance and society.

6-3. The Importance of Rethinking Governance Structure

Comparative analysis with Turkey, Pakistan, Russia, and the U.S. shows that:

• Deep State patterns depend on the balance between elected, unelected, and bureaucratic institutions.
• Countries with concentrated power in unelected institutions and lacking economic and social transparency provide fertile ground for Deep State formation.
• Effective oversight, economic transparency, and strengthening civil society can limit the influence of informal networks.

Therefore, policymakers and researchers must always analyze the interaction among legal structures, elites, and social networks to manage the effects of the Deep State.

6-4. Future Research Prospects

For political science and sociology, studying the Deep State has become increasingly essential:

• Future analyses must consider the interconnection among security, economy, and culture.
• Attention to guided social networks and their role in political mobilization is crucial.
• Comparative studies can reveal which structural, institutional, and historical conditions strengthen or weaken the Deep State.

Thus, the Deep State is not merely a local political issue but a significant theoretical and practical challenge in global political science.

6-5. Final Summary

The Deep State, as a multi-level and organized network of informal power, shows that governance cannot be explained solely through formal structures. In Iran, unique structural, ideological, economic, and social features have enabled this phenomenon to emerge in a complex and adaptive form. Accurate understanding of the Deep State, increasing transparency in power relations, and strengthening accountable institutions are key to reducing its harmful effects and improving governance.