Research Problem
The Iranian agent, before encountering the civilizational order of Western modernity in their historical context, possessed this historical awareness that they had to shape their destiny on two levels: First: How to create a connector or intermediary among the diverse and various Iranian ethnic groups and religions within the shared geographic bedrock of the Iranian plateau. This connector would serve as a foundation for achieving the technology of "Iranian Peace" within the geographic territory of the Iranian plateau. Second: How to create an intermediary and modality between rulers and the governed, through which they could access the technology of the "Iranian State" in their history. Accessing the technology of "Iranian Peace" and the technology of the "Iranian State" represents two formations of the Iranian governance order. This governance order and its technologies are referred to in this article using the theories of Hegel and some other contemporary theorists of "civilization."
The fundamental question of this article is the conceptualization of governance and its nature in Iranian politics and its relation to the nature of governance in the West. The historical nature of governance in the foundational history of Iran, before encountering the civilizational order of Western modernity in the 16th century, cannot be articulated within the dual models of governance in the West, namely "empire" and "nation-state." Instead, this foundational history, based on the geographical and historical components of Iran, possesses a distinct historical structure from the dual Western models of governance. In this article, we have conceptualized this governance model as a "civilizational nation." The idea of a civilizational nation is conceptualized based on James Rosenau's concept of governance and the Hegelian concept of " Avfheben". Based on the concept of the "civilizational nation," the research findings show that the idea of Iran in its history has had the following three levels:

"Iran": The object of Iran's geographical territory as an independent and non-constructed ontological object with an eternal and everlasting nature.
"Iranian": The pluralism of various and opposing ethnic groups and religions as social agents that have been constructed and are constantly undergoing historical transformation.
"Governance Technologies of the Iranian Civilizational Nation": Mechanisms of governance or ruling without the relationship of dominance and subjugation between rulers and the ruled, and between the various and diverse Iranian ethnic groups and religions with the shared geographical bedrock of the Iranian plateau, which mediate between the concept of "Iran" and the concept of "Iranian."

Research Objective
Narrating the foundational history of pre-modern Iran based on the governance order of the "Iranian Civilizational Nation" and the governance technologies of "Iranian Peace" and the "Iranian State" that will be presented in this article, represents a reversal of the official and dominant interpretations in discourses on "underdevelopment," such as Mohammad Ali Homayoun Katouzian's reading of "Iranian Despotism," Aramesh Dustdar's "The Impossibility of Thinking in the Religious Culture," Mahmoud Sariolghalam's "Tribal Characteristics of Iranians," Ahmad Ashraf's "Patriarchal Tribal Despotism," and others, which conceptualize the pre-modern historical past of Iranians as the "cause of underdevelopment" in modern times. Contrary to the narratives of "underdevelopment," the concept of the "Iranian Civilizational Nation" conceptualizes the historical past of Iranians before their encounter with the civilizational order of Western modernity not as a "decadent past" but as a "developed past." In this view, the Iranian agent, considering their geographical and historical singularities, was able to articulate their unique governance order in their history. This order or governance technology allowed them to achieve "peace" within their territorial geography and access the "art of connecting" rulers and the ruled in their history.
Methodology
In this article, the idea of Iran as a civilizational nation is discussed by borrowing from James Rosenau's discussions on governance and Hegel's concept of the concrete universal, with modifications and adjustments made by the authors. The research method in this article is the "history of thought" or "history of ideas." The following foundational principles can be outlined for the conceptualization of this scientific method. The combination of the "descriptive-explanatory" method with the "prescriptive-normative" method is one of the features of the scientific method of the "history of ideas."
Research Findings
In narrating the history of the Iranian nation within the theoretical framework of the "civilizational nation," we observe a fundamental distinction between the concept of "Iran" as an ontological object, independent of the Iranian subject, eternal and everlasting within the natural boundaries of the geographical territory of the Iranian plateau, and the concept of "Iranian" as a constructed, historical, temporary, and variable subject in history, corresponding to the diverse and non-reducible ethnicities and religions. In the reading of the "Iranian Civilizational Nation," coordination and connection are established between the source of continuity and stability of the Iranian nation, which is the concept of "Iran," and the source of change and transformation in the Iranian nation, which is the concept of "Iranian," through a third level that acts as an intermediary and modality between the two levels of "Iran" and "Iranian." This third level in the "Iranian Civilizational Nation" is the Iranian governance order, which historically acted as an intermediary between the source of continuity and historical stability of "Iran" and the source of change and historical transformation of "Iranian" in the foundational history of Iran before the encounter with the civilizational order of Western modernity. This governance order, through its modality between the geographical territory of the Iranian plateau and the various and diverse Iranian ethnic groups and religions, formed the technology of "Iranian Peace," and through the intermediary between rulers and the ruled, created the technology of the "Iranian State."
Conclusion
Before encountering the West, Iranians were able to develop governance technologies as intermediaries between points of unity and diversity in their foundational history. These technologies, independent of individuals and personal power, led to the formation of the "art of connecting," nation-building, integration, historical continuity, stability, and long-term historical perspective.
In the governance order of Iranian peace, we observed the technology of unity in diversity through the triad (Nowruz / King of Kings / Royal Road), linking the geographic unity of the Iranian plateau with the diversity of various Iranian ethnic groups and religions in ancient Iran's foundational history. Similarly, in the governance order of the Iranian state, we saw the technology of governance through the triad (Iranian etiquette / Iranian ministry / Dehgân), uniting Arab, Turkmen, and Mongol rulers and conquerors with the diversity of Iranian City in foundational Iranian history.
This process began to decline from the mid-reign of Shah Abbas of the Safavid dynasty with Iran's encounter with the West and its efforts to Europeanize, although it had continued well during ancient Iran, the Islamic period, and even the Mongol era. The attempt to Europeanize and eliminate these intermediaries has been the main obstacle to revisiting them and combining Iranian peace and the Iranian state over the past four centuries. The repetition of these orders depends on returning to them with an interpretation that aligns with contemporary needs.