E-Paper
Iran’s defiance and the shifting global order
This article is authored by Sayed Rashad Ikmal, researcher, international affairs.
In an era where western military superiority has long shaped global politics, Iran is sending a different message--resistance is still possible. The ongoing confrontation between Iran and the US-Israel alliance is not merely another West Asian conflict; it is evolving into a defining geopolitical moment that challenges assumptions about western dominance and signals the emergence of a new balance of power. More importantly, Iran’s defiance has begun to shake the long-standing aura surrounding US hegemony and the perceived invincibility of Israeli intelligence, reshaping how power is understood in global politics.
Four weeks into the war, expectations of a swift Iranian collapse have not materialised. Despite heavy bombing, intelligence-led assassinations, and relentless military pressure, Iran’s political system remains intact. A conflict expected to weaken Iran appears instead to be strengthening its resilience and expanding its strategic leverage.
The early phase of the war saw dramatic escalation. Intelligence penetration inside Iran reportedly built over decades culminated in targeted strikes against its senior leadership. The role of Mossad, widely regarded as one of the world’s most sophisticated intelligence networks, became central to the narrative. Their long-term infiltration reportedly enabled high-profile assassinations, including the killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other dozen of senior leaders. The expectation was that leadership decapitation would destabilise Iran and trigger internal collapse.
Yet, Iran did not collapse. Instead, Iranian society displayed a different reality. Within days, cultural expressions of resistance emerged through songs, public gatherings, and symbolic acts that reinforced the revolutionary ethos of 1979. Through governance, mobilisation, and cultural expression, Iran projected resilience where the West expected weakness.
This resilience is rooted in history. Iran has repeatedly experienced foreign intervention, political upheaval, and leadership losses, prompting the development of a decentralised political system designed to survive shocks. Overlapping institutions including the presidency, parliament, military and Revolutionary Guards, ensure continuity during crises. This resembles what political theorists describe as a fortress State, where resilience lies in institutional depth and ideological cohesion.
Instead, it is the US and Israel that are struggling to achieve their core objectives. Iran’s regime remains intact. Its stockpile of enriched uranium remains intact. Its regional influence has, if anything, grown. Instead for the US and Israel, the war risks becoming a prolonged military stalemate. The US now appears to be searching for an exit from what increasingly resembles a strategic quagmire. In this sense, Iran’s endurance is not merely a tactical achievement but a strategic blow to the hitherto unchallenged perception of US dominance, a dominance that for decades relied on swift military victories and decisive outcomes.
Iran has also expanded the conflict beyond conventional warfare. One of its most significant moves has been blocking the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of global energy flows. This disruption has transformed a regional conflict into a global economic concern, shaking energy markets and affecting regions from South-East Asia to Australia. Iran has further warned Gulf Arab States, including Saudi Arabia, of potential strikes on energy infrastructure and desalination plants. Should that happened, these states will not only become poor but also unlivable. The strategic messaging behind these actions is clear.
The conflict also reflects a broader historical pattern. western-led regime change efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria produced chronic instability rather than decisive victories. Afghanistan ended with withdrawal after two decades. All the war on Iraq has achieved is to replace a Sunni militia government which is now siding solidly with Iran. Libya has descended into poverty and become the main recruitment ground for every fanatical Islamist group in the Arab world. Syria, once the most secular and westernised nation in the Arab world, is now in the hands of a dictator who belonged to Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Jabhat-Al Nusrah in Syria, which together accounted for most of the atrocities committed on civilians in these two countries after the US destroyed their modern regimes.
Iran appears to have drawn lessons from these conflicts. Its strategy is simple: survive military pressure, raise the cost of war, and wait for political fatigue among adversaries. This mirrors historical examples such as Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan, where weaker forces outlasted stronger powers.
The geopolitical implications extend beyond the battlefield. Gulf security has long depended on external powers, first the UK and later the US. The current conflict exposes the fragility of this arrangement. If Washington struggles to guarantee regional security, Gulf States may be forced to reassess their alliances.
Meanwhile, Iran’s diplomatic messaging reflects confidence. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has outlined three conditions for ending the war: recognition of Iran’s rights, reparations, and guarantees against future aggression. These demands suggest negotiations from a position of resilience. The conflict has also exposed divisions among western allies, with European countries avoiding direct involvement.
Perhaps the most significant outcome is symbolic. Iran has demonstrated that resistance to western dominance remains possible even for a sanctioned and isolated state. In doing so, it has challenged two enduring perceptions: unquestioned US dominance and Israel’s invincibility in West Asia.
In the end, the conflict may not produce a decisive military winner, but it has already reshaped perceptions of power. This may be the first war of a new kind in the coming decade, one defined less by manpower, weapons, or tanks, and more by endurance. Victory will depend on strategic resilience, existing stockpiles, and the ability to gather intelligence on an adversary’s vulnerabilities. Another defining factor will be the capacity to disrupt the global economy. As nations become increasingly interdependent, the cost of war will no longer be borne solely by combatants but by the global community. In this emerging order, countries pursuing war may find opposition not only abroad but also from within, in ways they never expected.
This article is authored by Sayed Rashad Ikmal, researcher, international affairs.
