Pakistan’s Approach and National Interests in the Iran Conflict and the Balance Between Iran and Saudi Arabia

The balance between relations with Saudi Arabia and Iran remains a key element of Pakistan’s foreign policy, as the country seeks both to strengthen strategic partnerships and to preserve its role as a mediator in the tense geopolitical environment of the Middle East.

Samyar Rostami

The position of Saudi Arabia and Iran

Pakistan has had close relations with Saudi Arabia since its independence in 1947. Relationships are rooted in religious, cultural, and commercial links and common Islamic ideals, “strategic partnership.” During the last year, meetings and cooperation between leaders and officials have boosted their relations. The two countries have similar views on many regional and international issues, such as the situation in Gaza, security of the region, the necessity of respecting international law and the charter of the United Nations, dialogue, and peaceful settlement of disputes.

In recent years, the collaborations, consultations, and discussions between the two countries regarding ways and opportunities for joint and new cooperation have been accelerated. Pakistan’s economy is facing extensive economic bottlenecks such as the unemployment rate, lack of water and energy, and foreign debts. Pakistan’s leaders are aware of the importance of Riyadh’s investment. The population of skilled and unskilled Pakistani immigrants (nearly two million people) and their annual remittances of billions of dollars play an important role in relation. In the meantime, the recent protocol to accelerate the deployment of Pakistani skilled workers could have a role in Pakistan becoming closer to a $3 trillion economy.

Although the Pakistan Air Force has been stationed in Saudi Arabia as part of the previous defense agreement, even in the case of Iran’s direct reaction to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan definitely does not want to be drawn into a conflict with Iran

Iran provided a lot of help in the Indo-Pakistan War (1965) and the crisis of 1971 AD. In 2025, Iran and Pakistan have adopted common positions on regional and international issues, from defending Palestine and promoting regional peace and sustainable development, etc. In the last year, Pakistan, along with Russia, China, and Algeria, has firmly supported and backed Tehran in the UN Security Council, and condemned the Israeli attack on Iran.

Pakistan’s national interests

In June 2025, Pakistan’s Defense Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif described Israel as a state with “hegemonic intent” whose recent actions against Iran are “very dangerous for the region.” Even now Pakistan’s position towards Israel against Iran is sharp and critical.

Pakistan’s foreign policy is in transition from “defensive diplomacy” to “active diplomacy” in regional and extra-regional environments. Pakistan wants to take advantage of the strategic gaps between China and the United States, the Persian Gulf powers, and Iran with a multifaceted diplomacy without absolute dependence on one power. As a result, by taking advantage of its geostrategic position, it has sought to play a transnational and mediating role in geopolitical, security, transit, and energy equations.

By pursuing the role of a “mediator,” Pakistan is thinking of shifting its geopolitical weight, reducing its internal crises, and managing pressures by gaining foreign aid. From this point of view, Islamabad’s diplomacy chooses the cheapest path: maximization of flexibility and minimization of commitments searching for a set of risks. Pakistan also tends to the policy of non-commitments. Pakistan sees itself in a position to reduce the gaps and play a mediating role and reduce tensions between Iran and the United States. This role could enhance Islamabad’s international standing and have a positive impact on efforts to reduce regional tension.

It also seeks to establish superior security against China, establish networks of economic relations with the Persian Gulf, Iran, China, and the West for liquidity and investment, and become an “important geopolitical location” in the connecting routes of South Asia, Central Asia, Asia, and the Indian Ocean.

Important variables

Pakistan has paid more attention to strengthening military security and security, defense training and equipment supplies, ongoing training, and commitment to further strengthen defense cooperation with Saudi.

Pakistan’s economy entered a critical phase in 2026. Heavy foreign debts, decline in foreign exchange reserves, and heavy dependence on international aid have put its economy in a fragile position.  But despite its structural dependence on foreign financial resources, Pakistan does not want to be completely aligned with Saudi Arabia or the West.

For reasons such as receiving financial aid from the International Monetary Fund, Pakistan is forced to maintain these relations with the United States, but this relation will not be at the cost of weakening relations with China and Iran.

90% of Pakistan’s energy is supplied from the Persian Gulf. Pakistan is facing a structural shortage of energy, and both Iran and Saudi Arabia have supply advantages. The growing conflict in the region can affect Pakistan’s energy security.

In Pakistan, there are more than 250 million people, mostly Sunni, with a significant Shia minority. The negative effects of any regional conflict in Pakistan are significant.

Pakistan plans to create 800,000 job opportunities abroad. Any conflict and rising tension could send millions of Pakistani laborers to their home.

In 2025, one of the bloodiest years in Pakistan, the number of terrorist attacks reached almost 700; that means a 34% increase compared to the previous year. More than 95% of attacks took place in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Baluchistan.

Any escalation of the war in the region can have a negative impact on the issue of drug trafficking, border security, and the presence of domestic radical groups.

In Pakistan, there are concerns about changing dynamics along the Pakistan-Iran border, the weakening of border control by Iran, the entry of new state and non-state actors, and Israel’s negative role in separatism.

The role of anti-American and anti-Israel sentiments in Pakistani society, confronting the “India-Israel axis,” and Iran’s popularity in Pakistan have led to wider domestic support for the prospect of mediation and diplomacy and government efforts.

Vision

The mutual strategic defense agreement between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, which was signed in 2025, in practice is not anti-Iranian.

But Islamabad does not want to be exposed to the risk of being dragged into a regional conflict and started mediating in the American war with Iran.

Sitting JD Vance (Vice President of the United States) and Baqher Qalibaf (Speaker of the Iranian Parliament) around the same table after decades of cutting off direct relations is the biggest diplomatic achievement of Islamabad.

Any escalation of relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia has negative effects on Pakistan and is not in the interests of Pakistan’s regional interests.

Pakistan tries to be in a somewhat neutral position in relations with Iran and Saudi Arabia. Pakistan avoids being seen as pro-Saudi and anti-Iranian. Therefore, pursuing stable stability in the Persian Gulf is helping its interests.

​Pakistan is still relatively trusted by America, Iran, and the countries of the Persian Gulf. Therefore, with the support of many, Islamabad is consulting with dozens of world leaders and senior officials of key capitals to achieve stability and peace in the Persian Gulf.

Therefore, it seems that Pakistan peruses Riyadh’s “self-restraint,” the necessity of “unity in the Islamic world,” maintaining sovereignty, territorial integrity, national independence, and security of Iran and the countries of the Persian Gulf, and ending the Iran-US war.

Although the Pakistan Air Force has been stationed in Saudi Arabia as part of the previous defense agreement, even in the case of Iran’s direct reaction to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan definitely does not want to be drawn into a conflict with Iran.

It seems that even if the regional tension escalates, Pakistan will try to take on defensive roles against Yemeni attacks.

Samyar Rostami, а political observer and senior researcher in international relations

LEGO – Style Revolution: How Iran Broke Out of an Information Blockade

Despite US efforts to suppress Iranian perspectives since 2021, Iran has challenged Washington’s information blockade by using innovative communication tactics to present its narrative worldwide during the ongoing conflict.

Simon Chege Ndiritu

Washington’s Policy: Bombing, Insulting, and Threatening

The ongoing war between the US and Israel on one side and Iran on the other, which has turned into a US naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, has catalyzed a communication innovation by Iranians. Some creative Iranians have ventured into creating highly engaging LEGO-style animated videos that communicate the country’s stance across social media. Some of these videos have gained millions of views and generated media engagements globally. Oppositely, the US president, Donald Trump, and his Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, have used social media to insult Iranians, threatening to wipe out Iranian civilization, and to return the country to the Stone Age, or making other claims that expose their limited understanding of history. This paper looks into how Iran’s innovative use of media has enabled the country to present its position to global audiences, while the US’s use of the same has exposed Washington’s arrogance that is driving its current belligerent policies.

On Traditionally Biased Western Media

The LEGO-styled videos have succeeded not necessarily in winning minds in the West but in appealing to some to pause and question whether this war is necessary

Parties in Iran, including Explosive Media, foreign affairs minister Abass Aragchi, Professor Mohammad Marandi, and foreign missions, have articulated the country’s position in a style that has attracted the Western audience’s attention, breaking the information blockade imposed on Iran. In the past, nations facing Washington’s pressure encountered an insurmountable hurdle of presenting their point of view to the world or pushing back against US accusations. However, this reality may change henceforth. This problem was not only faced by small countries but also powerful ones, as recognized by Russian President Vladimir Putin in his interview with Tucker Carlson in February 2024. The Russian president noted how some countries have had to respond to absurd positions held by some Western leaders, since they lacked avenues of presenting alternatives, as they were smothered by the massive US media. While Russia or China had the wherewithal to respond, smaller countries could only endure being strangled by the West after being falsely accused of harming their own citizens, supporting terrorists, or possessing weapons of mass destruction. For instance, when President George W. Bush declared that Iraq, Iran, and North Korea were the new ‘axis of evil,’ the Western media and its pundits rapidly disseminated this position without investigating its bases. Meanwhile, the targeted countries lacked the ability to question these assertions or to clarify their position to audiences beyond their borders. The US and its Western allies have rushed to bomb some of these countries and others, such as Libya, using questionable media narratives as justifications. The same media have conveniently retracted these justifications after their governments have meted out destruction. Iran will likely escape this loop by pushing back against accusations presented by the US and Israel.

Iranians’ New Media Machine

Explosive Media has been posting short videos on social media platforms, including Telegram, X, Instagram, and YouTube (before its account was suspended). It shares videos full of satire and memes, showing strong familiarity with Western culture, especially through rap diss tracks. Rap is seen as resistance, while diss tracks lyrically expose an opponent’s weaknesses. Many of Explosive Media’s diss tracks criticize US leaders, especially Trump and Hegseth, and attract millions of global views, with some used in TikTok challenges. The song “L.O.S.E.R.” claims the US-Israel war on Iran stems from Trump’s ambitions. Another song targets Hegseth’s personality, alcoholism, and family issues and urges viewers to consider his sobriety to lead a department of war. Hegseth’s actions demonstrate a lack of sobriety, as he has advocated for the US military to disregard humanitarian law and bomb Iran back to the Stone Age.

Another song from Iranians is titled “Your Government is Run by Pedophiles” and suggests that powerful forces have been holding the US government hostage. It makes reference to the Epstein scandal, in which the late convicted sex offender with links to Israel is thought to have lured powerful men into pedophilia, through which he obtained compromising materials that he used to blackmail them. The song shows how Trump got elected by promising voters that he would put America first, only to put Israel first instead, through policies including a war on Iran. It shows that while Americans have been unable to push back against the fear imposed by the Epstein Class, Iran has been locked in a struggle against this class for years.

Another video titled “Vengeance for All” frames the current war as the final retribution for the US Empire for its crimes, including a genocide against Native Americans and Gazans, enslaving Africans, dropping nuclear bombs on Japanese civilians, and waging illegal wars on Vietnam, among others. This message may resonate with the audience, as the US has never faced retribution for its murderous adventures, which inspires recklessness in its ruling class. Past actions of the US empire, despite being legally and morally indefensible, earned Washington unquestioned support from Western European countries, and all these parties have conducted aggression against other countries. Iran is among the very few that have stood and fought against the US and its proxies. The LEGO-styled videos have succeeded not necessarily in winning minds in the West but in appealing to some to pause and question whether this war is necessary.

Innovation in communication is also seen in the entirety of the Iranian government. Aragchi has presented his country’s position with calmness and sobriety even amidst provocations and gaslighting. Also, Iran’s foreign missions have illuminated the distorted intellect and temperament of some US leaders. For instance, in response to threats to bomb Iran back to the Stone Age, these missions educated the US leaders that the 7000-year-old Iranian civilization thrived when the West was in the Stone Age. Some informed the American side about King Cyrus of Ancient Persia, who wrote the earliest bill of rights in 538 BC, showing that the Iranian state pioneered human rights development. The Iranian Embassy in India informed the US leadership that it was bringing stone-age practices to the modern world by killing children. One Iranian mission mocked Hegseth’s poor understanding of distance. Through innovative use of new media and a deep understanding of Western societies, Iran has successfully broken out of the information blockade imposed by Washington.

The West’s Violent Nature Exposed

The use of social media by Trump and Hegseth exposes their arrogant and neurotic natures, which are reflective of Washington. Both have made threats that appear as if originating from European medieval chiefs. Trump even made a post of the US bombing a civilian bridge and hinted at using nuclear weapons on a non-nuclear state. Surprisingly, Trump faced no backlash from Western media or Western leaders, which exposes hypocrisy. As the information space is leveled, giving opponents of the West a voice, the West has been left exposed and is compensating for this reality by threatening to mete out barbarity that was previously laundered by the media.

Simon Chege Ndiritu is a political observer and research analyst from Africa

How to tell the rebels have won: the structural defeat of the US empire

Iran’s defiance marks a turning point in global power, signalling a structural shift away from US dominance and exposing the limits of empire.

By PROFESSOR JUNAID S. AHMAD

The writer argues that Iran’s victory did not signal the ‘end of American power’. In fact, he adds, it was ‘far more consequential: [it was] the moment [the US] lost the ability to write the rules by which the world must live.’ Alongside this, he adds, the myth of Israeli invincibility was shattered.

Eqbal Ahmad, one of Pakistan’s finest public intellectuals of the 20th century, offered a ruthless litmus test for imperial decay in ‘How To Tell The Rebels Have Won’: ignore what power says — watch what its enemies dare to do. When those once expected to kneel begin to set terms, the empire’s fate is no longer a question. It is a conclusion. Empires are not undone by declarations but by disobedience — by the moment their threats stop working. What we have just witnessed is precisely that moment: not drift, not error, but rupture — the most concentrated defeat of American power in the post-war era, compressed into weeks.

For years, decline was discussed in abstractions: deficits, deindustrialisation, multipolarity, China’s rise. These were polite euphemisms for something more destabilising — that the West’s five-century monopoly on global authority, born in 1492, was weakening. But abstraction comforts. It delays recognition. What has now occurred is something harsher: decline rendered visible, undeniable, and irreversible.

The United States did not recalibrate; it retreated. It began with ultimatums and ended inside the strategic framework of its adversary. That is not diplomacy. That is capitulation, bureaucratically arranged.

Empire, when functioning, disguises violence as virtue — ‘order’, ‘stability’, ‘deterrence’. This time, the disguise collapsed. The language was raw: annihilation, erasure, civilisational death. It was empire without grammar. And yet, stripped of euphemism, it revealed its own weakness: its words no longer compelled behaviour. Iran did not panic, plead, or perform submission. It absorbed the threat — and imposed terms.

The significance of the ‘ten-point plan’ lies not in its clauses, but in its existence: the United States operating within a framework it neither authored nor controls.

Call this what it is: reversal. Power was not merely resisted; it was turned. Washington negotiated under constraint — responding rather than dictating. The significance of the ‘ten-point plan’ lies not in its clauses, but in its existence: the United States operating within a framework it neither authored nor controls.

Alongside this collapse stands another: the myth of Israeli invincibility. For decades, Israel functioned as the enforcement arm of Western supremacy — a state that could strike anywhere and impose outcomes through force. That illusion is now fractured. In Gaza, resistance endures. In Lebanon, it persists. Against Iran, it failed decisively. What remains is not dominance but repetition: bombing without victory, escalation without resolution, violence without authority.

Even ceasefire has lost credibility. The expectation that Israel may resume bombardment at will is not strength; it is an indictment. A system unable to translate force into finality becomes trapped in perpetual violence. It can destroy endlessly, but it cannot conclude anything. That is not power. That is strategic exhaustion.

Together, these failures — American coercion and Israeli enforcement — mark a historic break. US dominance rested not only on force, but on the credibility of its threats. War worked because it was feared. That fear has now collapsed. When threats of total destruction produce neither submission nor compliance, but negotiation on the adversary’s terms, they cease to discipline. They become spectacle.

The comparison with Pakistan in 2001 is revealing. Then, faced with the blunt threat to be ‘bombed back to the Stone Age’, a nuclear-armed state collapsed almost instantly. That moment entrenched the myth of absolute American dominance. Today, that myth is shattered. Iran faced the same threat — ‘bomb you to the Stone Age’ — and refused it outright. The difference is not capability but consciousness. One elite internalised empire’s authority. The other rejected it — and proved it could be rejected.

None of this means American or Israeli power has vanished. They retain immense destructive capacity. They can devastate, punish, and destroy. But that is no longer sufficient. The equation has changed. Destruction no longer produces submission. Violence no longer guarantees obedience. The machinery of empire still operates — but it no longer determines outcomes.

This is why this moment exceeds a single conflict. It is not merely a policy failure; it is a structural breach in Western hegemony itself. For five centuries, the global order rested on a simple premise: that Western power ultimately prevails. That premise has now been broken — materially, not rhetorically.

The consequences are already visible. States are recalibrating. Alliances are loosening. Even traditional intermediaries act with new awareness: the enforcer is no longer omnipotent. In the background stands China — not as ideology, but as reality — ensuring that unilateral domination is no longer possible.

Return, then, to Ahmad’s insight — no longer theoretical, but proven. The measure of empire is not its weapons or its rhetoric, but whether those it seeks to dominate still obey.

What makes this rupture so devastating is its speed. Empires usually decay slowly, protected by illusion. Here, illusion collapsed instantly. In weeks, the United States moved from threatening annihilation to accepting terms it could neither dictate nor refuse. A war meant to demonstrate supremacy exposed limitation. A campaign meant to enforce submission legitimised defiance.

Return, then, to Ahmad’s insight — no longer theoretical, but proven. The measure of empire is not its weapons or its rhetoric, but whether those it seeks to dominate still obey.

They do not.

This is not the end of American power. It is something far more consequential: the moment it lost the ability to write the rules by which the world must live.

Prof. Junaid S. Ahmad teaches Law, Religion, and Global Politics and is the Director of the Center for the Study of Islam and Decolonization (CSID), Islamabad, Pakistan. He is a member of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST – https://just-international.org/), Movement for Liberation from Nakba (MLN – https://nakbaliberation.com/), and Saving Humanity and Planet Earth (SHAPE – https://www.theshapeproject.com/).

Flushing the ‘terrorist’ script: Why South Africans recognise the 1980s propaganda in the 2026 war on Iran

South Africans are drawing striking parallels between Apartheid-era propaganda and today’s war on Iran narrative, rejecting the recycled ‘terrorist’ label.

BY SAYED RIDHWAAN MOHAMED

The briefing in session: A historic day for Cape Town. His Excellency, Ambassador Mansour Shakib Mehr, provides an essential update on the regional situation in Iran. Witnessing the Cape Town Ulama Board provide a platform for such critical geopolitical engagement makes us proud of our young, courageous leadership. (Photo: Ahlus Sunnah Media Network)

For those who lived through the 1980s in South Africa, the recent media frenzy surrounding the 2026 conflict with Iran feels hauntingly familiar.

During the height of the anti-Apartheid struggle, the term ‘terrorist’ was the default label used by the state and its Western allies to delegitimise the African National Congress (ANC) and any movement challenging the status quo. Fast forward to 2026, and that same script is being dusted off to frame the Islamic Republic of Iran not as a sovereign state acting under international law, but as a ‘state sponsor of terror’. However, as a recent historic briefing in Cape Town demonstrated, South Africans are not so easily fooled by recycled propaganda.

A public briefing in the face of ‘secret’ narratives

On Wednesday, March 18, 2026, the Cape Town Ulama Board hosted a diplomatic briefing featuring Ambassador Mansour Shakib Mehr, Iran’s envoy to South Africa. Held at the Cape Heritage Museum at the Castle of Good Hope, the event was a transparent platform for media, religious leaders and community activists.

The gathering brought together representatives from 56 organisations, serving as a direct counter-narrative to the Western media’s ‘state sponsor of terror’ script. The session provided firsthand insight into Iran’s perspective on resisting what was termed ‘international aggression’ and ‘complex regional dynamics’.

The legality of resistance vs the label of terror

Ambassador Shakib Mehr framed Iran’s military actions as a legal necessity under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. He emphasised that exercising this right to self-defence is intended to protect national security and sovereignty, not to seek revenge.

‘The aggressive and illegal war… happened while Iran was for the second time actively and in good faith engaging in diplomatic talks to prevent escalation and strengthen regional peace. Iran seriously followed the diplomatic path and did everything necessary to prevent war. A military attack in the middle of diplomacy is a betrayal of dialogue.’

The Ambassador further noted that Iran’s response is directed at ‘US military bases and assets’ rather than the land of its neighbours.

Providing the moral and spiritual grounding for the session, Mufti Sayed Haroon Al-Azhari, President of the Cape Town Ulama Board, challenged the very foundation of the modern media narrative. He focused on the moral obligation of all people to resist global oppression, asserting that ‘no nation stands above another nation and no voice is too small to be heard’.

The Mufti was explicit in his rejection of Western portrayals of the conflict. ‘We stand against the unjust attack of USA and Israel against Iran and all that oppression all over the world, and we stand for justice,’ he declared, framing the current struggle as a battle for the truth itself. He noted that while imperial powers previously controlled the media through propaganda, today ‘the truth is out there’ and ‘people know the reality’. He further linked this spirit of resistance to the local struggle, noting that even Nelson Mandela took strength from historical figures of resistance, such as Imam Hussain, in the fight against the zalim (oppressors).

His Excellency, Ambassador Mansour Shakib Mehr, with Mufti Sayed Haroon Al-Azhari. The President of the Cape Town Ulama Board provided a platform for such critical geopolitical engagement. (Photo: Ahlus Sunnah Media Network)

Echoes of 1980s propaganda

Other local leaders identified clear parallels between current events and South Africa’s own history. Muhammad Khalid Sayed, the Leader of the Opposition in the Western Cape Provincial Legislature, reminded the audience that the ANC has a relationship with the people of Iran dating back to the struggle against the Apartheid regime. He characterised the targeting of civilian infrastructure as war crimes that must be investigated by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Similarly, anti-Apartheid activist the Reverend Dr Allan Boesak linked the current aggression to the days of the UDF, when Muslims, Christians and people of no faith stood together against a common enemy. He described the aggression against Iran as ‘nothing short of a genocide being carried out in the name of security’. These leaders see the strikes on Iran as an echo of the tactics used to suppress South Africa’s freedom: collective punishment, assassinations and the criminalisation of resistance.

Hegemony and the expendable life

The briefing addressed the underlying systemic motives for these conflicts. Shaykh Ihsaan Taliep emphasised how human lives – particularly ‘brown human lives’ – are treated as expendable in the pursuit of ‘economic hegemony and economic oppression’. He called for a unified ‘axis of resistance’ against colonisation and white supremacy.

This sentiment was echoed by Imraan Moosa, a Member of Parliament for Al Jama-ah. He argued that the continuous bombardment of cities is a ‘humanitarian issue’ driven by power and enrichment of land. He noted that the US and Israel ‘ignore total international law’ while the world stands by and does nothing.

While some media outlets continue to push the ‘terrorist’ script to manufacture consent for illegal wars, South African activists and community members are using their historical perspective to flush that script away. By recognising the ‘Apartheid tactics’ of the 1980s in today’s headlines, they are refusing to let the smokescreens of hegemony hide the truth of global resistance. As Mufti Sayed Haroon Al-Azhari concluded, the days of total media control are over; in 2026, the global community stands ready to defend the truth with integrity.

Tears among the rubble: Foreign diplomats witness aftermath of strikes on Tehran civilians

TEHRAN – On April 20, a solemn tour brought foreign ambassadors, chargés d’affaires, along with domestic and international journalists, face to face with the human cost of recent strikes on Tehran, as they visited civilian, educational, and historical sites damaged during the latest round of conflict.

The visit began at Gandhi Hospital, which was hit on the second day of the war. Once a place of hope and healing, the hospital now stands silent—its operations suspended, its wards emptied, and its future uncertain. Corridors that once echoed with the urgency of doctors and patients are now scarred by destruction, their stillness heavy with loss.

Witnesses described shattered windows, damaged medical equipment, and rooms abandoned in haste. For many present, the devastation extended far beyond physical damage—it reflected disrupted lives, halted treatment, and a community left grappling with the consequences.

As the delegation moved on to other affected areas—including residential neighborhoods, schools, and cultural landmarks—the scale of the destruction became even more evident. Each stop revealed another layer of civilian suffering and disruption.

Throughout the visit, a lingering question cast a shadow over the tour: will the voices of those affected be heard beyond these streets?

For the visiting diplomats, the scenes were difficult to ignore. For Tehran’s residents, they are impossible to forget.

Tags

• foreign diplomats
 
• Tehran civilians
 
• war
 
• U.S.

Iran and the demonstration of power

 By Xavier Villar

MADRID - When observers in Manchuria relayed news of Russia's defeat at the hands of Japan in 1904, the event was registered not merely as a regional upset but as a systemic transformation. Japan had entered the ranks of the great powers not through proclamation but through performance. This remains the only reliable criterion. Great powers are not declared; they are demonstrated.

Iran's recent confrontation with the United States and its regional auxiliaries must be understood in precisely these terms. The question is not whether Tehran has achieved a decisive battlefield victory in the conventional sense. The central strategic datum is different: Iran has demonstrated the capacity to prevent the preponderant military power from translating its material superiority into effective defeat of Iranian territory and its architecture of power. In this sense, Iran has not merely avoided defeat but has actively blocked the conversion of American military superiority into operational strategic outcomes. This capacity for neutralization constitutes the qualitative threshold of the conflict.

Control over the Strait of Hormuz has become the most visible indicator of this transformation, though it does not exhaust its meaning. The deeper reality is that Iran has configured an environment of active deterrence, sustained interdiction capabilities, and articulated a form of distributed strategic resistance across multiple institutional, military, and non-state vectors. It has absorbed sustained pressure without systemic collapse and has responded through calibrated force operating via a complex network of allied actors, technological capabilities, and regional projection devices. In classical terms, Iran has shown it can sustain strategic positions against actors of greater material weight without ceding internal coherence or capacity for initiative.

Recognition tends to follow such demonstrations, even when it occurs reluctantly or indirectly. The language emerging from Western strategic circles—phrases like "stalemate," "unacceptable costs," or "need for negotiation"—expresses not analytical neutrality but adaptation to a new distribution of effective capabilities. What cannot be resolved through military superiority must be rearticulated in diplomatic terms. This is the grammar of accommodation between powers.

Structural power and system reconfiguration

Recognition, however, does not constitute an abstract or symbolic status. It reorganizes political space. It modifies the expectations of regional actors, recalibrates alliances, and transforms the structure of risk calculation. We find ourselves at a moment when categories inherited from the twentieth century—rigid blocs, fixed spheres of influence, or linear models of containment—lose explanatory capacity in the face of denser, overlapping, and more dynamic configurations of power.

Iran's rise does not conform to the classical model of territorial expansion nor to the pattern of indirect influence characteristic of the Cold War. It operates through a form of structural power: the capacity to configure the conditions within which other actors must make strategic decisions. This is not about occupying physical or institutional spaces but about becoming inescapable in others' calculations.

The liberal Western order depended substantially on the naturalization of its own institutional architecture as if it constituted the neutral environment of international politics. Its norms, sanctioning mechanisms, and languages of legitimacy were presented as technical and universal, not as situated political decisions. The Iranian project—in partial convergence with other non-Western actors—consists precisely in denaturalizing this architecture, exposing it as contingent political construction and demonstrating that functional alternatives to that order exist.

For Western policymakers, this displacement generates a structural dilemma. Isolation attempts have not produced Iran's weakening but the consolidation of alternative dynamics in which Tehran plays a central and structuring role. Sanctions, conceived as instruments of coercion, have incentivized the development of parallel economic, technological, and financial circuits. Exclusion has generated not collapse but adaptation, diversification, and strategic reorganization.

Systemic resilience and asymmetric power

The real measure of Iran's great power status resides not solely in its military capacity, though this has proven considerably more sophisticated than many external analyses anticipated. It lies above all in its systemic resilience. The Islamic Republic has developed since its early decades a political architecture based on functional redundancy, operational decentralization, and relative autonomy of its subsystems.

This structure makes system paralysis through selective pressure or pinpoint intervention extremely difficult. The Islamic Revolution Guard Corps, for instance, operates not solely as a conventional military force but as an integrated constellation of economic, technological, ideological, and military capabilities that traverse Iran's political system. Its network logic permits operational continuity without depending on vulnerable single command centers. The elimination of individual figures produces not system disarticulation but impact absorption and internal reorganization. This is not simply personnel substitution but institutional design oriented toward continuity under conditions of extreme pressure.

This logic extends to the economic sphere. Iran has operated for decades under progressively intensified sanctions regimes. Though these have generated significant costs in terms of efficiency and market access, they have not produced structural collapse. The economy has reconfigured itself through development of internal capabilities, creation of alternative commercial networks, and consolidation of ties with actors willing to operate outside Western frameworks.

The question is not whether this model meets conventional standards of economic efficiency. The question is whether it permits sustained projection of state power under conditions of prolonged hostility. On this plane, the answer is affirmative. Iran has demonstrated capacity to absorb pressure without political disintegration, to innovate under material constraints, and to maintain strategic margins of man oeuvre in an adverse environment.

The ideational dimension

Reducing Iranian power to its material capabilities means ignoring its ideational dimension. Political agency in the contemporary world cannot be understood exclusively through materialist or institutionalism categories. It also articulates through normative, identity-based, and historical frameworks that structure perception of international order.

Iranian political discourse does not function as mere instrumental rhetoric. It operates as a device for organizing meaning, mobilizing loyalties, and legitimating political action. The notion of resistance against an order perceived as hierarchical and asymmetric is not an accessory element but a structuring principle that finds resonance in different contexts across the Muslim world.

This dimension confers on Iran a form of influence that does not depend exclusively on hierarchical or transactional relations. Actors associated with this axis do not function as subordinate extensions but as nodes with operational autonomy that share frameworks of strategic interpretation. What Iran provides is not direct control but narrative coherence, articulation capacity, and conceptual density for fragmented political experiences.

Iran has ceased to be a marginal actor susceptible to external containment. Its current position depends not on formal recognition but on its structural incorporation into other actors' strategic calculations. This recognition is not expressed in explicit declarations but in practices: opening of communication channels, adaptation of regional policies, and reformulation of containment strategies.

The question is no longer whether Iran has achieved great power status but how its ascent redefines the order within which this status acquires meaning. This is, ultimately, the grammar of recognition: the moment when an actor ceases to be externally managed and becomes a structural element of the international system. The change resides not in the cartography of power but in the hierarchy that organizes it. And in that emergent hierarchy, Iran has ceased to be dispensable.

Tags

• Iran
 
• Strait of Hormuz
 
• war
 
• U.S.