In the aftermath of the Iran-Iraq War, a discussion ensued in Washington, D.C., organized by the United States Institute of Peace. Panelists extensively debated ways to foster peace in the Middle East. Contrarily, neoconservative Michael Ledeen expressed an unconventional viewpoint. Instead of advocating for peace, he argued passionately on behalf of war.
Ledeen contended that the Iran-Iraq conflict, which lasted from 1980 to 1988 and resulted in roughly a million deaths, was a “good war.” He emphasized that any peace treaty with a regime as malevolent as Iran’s would only serve as a superficial resolution, likely leading to further conflict. According to Ledeen, peace does not equate to merely halting hostilities; one side must decisively lose.
Following those discussions, conflict indeed arose once more. On June 13, Israel took aggressive action, assassinating key Iranian officials and neutralizing Iranian air defenses. This initiated a series of missile strikes over the next twelve days, culminating in the deaths of approximately 1,000 Iranians and dozens of Israelis. The conflict saw Iran’s “Axis of Resistance,” a coalition of allied militias, remain conspicuously absent from the clashes.
On June 22, the United States bombed three Iranian nuclear sites, claiming the Iranian nuclear program was effectively “obliterated.” However, no public evidence supports this assertion. Had Ledeen been alive, he would likely have observed that Iran did not accept any cease-fire conditions post-conflict. In fact, Iran continues to assert that it never accepted a cease-fire at all.
As discussions surrounding the post-war landscape rise again, some analysts express a sense of déjà vu. The Middle East risks reverting to its historical pattern—a form of peace that embodies the characteristics of war. Michael Doran, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, underscored that while the Iranian regime is in a precarious position, it could remain resilient for another two decades.
Iran has historically demonstrated a tenacity for recovery following tumultuous periods by adapting its strategies and discovering new methods to undermine U.S. interests and those of its allies. A brief examination reveals that before the Axis of Resistance faltered significantly, the Islamic Republic faced a multitude of humiliating setbacks, including attacks on its own soil.
In December, Iran’s ailing supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, reflected on his country’s dismal situation, likening it to its lowest point during the Iran-Iraq War. During a speech, he recounted personal memories of Iraqi aircraft bombing Tehran. He expressed with a sense of irony that moments of adversity are often misperceived as failures. His rhetoric portrayed an air of optimism regarding Iran’s allies, asserting that the Resistance Front could not simply be dismantled. Rather, it strengthened in the face of adversity.
Despite such optimistic portrayals, Khamenei’s speech contained a layer of bluster. Acknowledging Iran’s struggles would equate to recognizing a victory for both the United States and Israel. His historical recounting of the Axis of Resistance’s journey—from its inception to its recent challenges—remains mostly accurate.
Throughout the region, Iran has adeptly utilized limited resources to extend its influence, damaging its allies in the process. The Axis of Resistance previously afforded Iran two decades of survival and a semblance of peace, albeit at immense costs to various localities. Iran systematically cultivates weaker allies, ensuring its own influence remains paramount, undermining any potential for robust governance amongst those allies.
Iran’s primary agenda revolves around maintaining a Shiite theocracy and countering secular, democratic, Sunni-led governments allied with the United States. Khamenei posits that attacks strengthen the Islamic Republic, advocating patience and resilience amidst turmoil, focusing on merely surviving to learn from failures. Simultaneously, to its enemies, his declarations signify that a sustained offensive against Iran is vital to ensure long-term peace.
The Axis of Resistance represents Iran’s intricate network of loyal armed entities, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and Shiite militias in Iraq. As of mid-2024, this network acted as Iran’s defensive periphery, deterring foes by keeping them engaged far beyond Iran’s actual borders. The presence of these groups was a testament to Iran’s efforts to construct a protective shield from antagonistic forces.
Over years, these proxies received training and resources to fight Israel and U.S. forces effectively. Tehran’s strategy survived scrutiny and criticism until the abrupt unfolding of events led to rapidly changing dynamics.
Despite initial setbacks, the Axis of Resistance dictated geopolitical terms across the Middle East for two decades, successfully keeping powerful adversaries preoccupied. The geopolitical landscape shifted irreversibly following the United States’ focus on Iraq, intensifying Iranian ambitions.
As Iran spent years engaged in internal power struggles post-revolution, it redirected its focus towards external foes when Iraq invaded in 1980. Mirroring a historical playbook, Iran expanded its military engagements and refused to yield its territory, ultimately fighting to a stalemate. Ledeen’s sentiments regarding insights gained from the harrowing war resonate with the current Iranian leadership, whose officials learned to deter large-scale international conflicts.
The dynamics evolved in the late 1980s as Iran transitioned from isolation to innovation, often utilizing proxies, especially in Lebanon. The 1982 Israeli invasion and subsequent resistance action crafted a model Iran replicated across regional conflicts. Hezbollah emerged as an outstanding actor, unrestrained by warfare norms, cementing a pattern of asymmetric warfare as exemplified by suicide bombings against U.S. personnel.
Hezbollah’s evolution fostered resilience and imposed a framework for Iranian operations throughout the region. Following Israel’s withdrawal in 2000, Hezbollah fortified its capabilities, effectively using combat experiences to accumulate arsenal and develop strategic avenues against its adversaries.
In the wake of diminished threats to its stronghold, Iran extended its influence to support military actions in Syria and procure allies like the Houthis. The model of creating and supporting proxies expanded as collective unrest across the region proliferated.
Much of Iran’s success stems from exploiting geopolitical vacuums, asserting that in times of chaos, the Islamic Republic proved an astute manipulator of unrest across neighboring states. Iran’s surrogate forces, though varied in sects and ethnic identities, operated under the shared banner of resistance against their respective foes, reinforcing Tehran’s geopolitical aspirations.
Iran’s direct hand within the Iraqi landscape served to exacerbate its regional influence, often leading to consequences contrary to its immediate goals. Notably, the Sunni-Shiite conflict further deepened sectarian divides and contributed to instability, transcending its applicability as a mere proxy army, instead morphing into a complex web of critique and grievances.
Precedents indicate that as Iranian proxies enjoyed growth, internal divisions plagued them. The Iranian strategy succeeded not merely in retaining allies but in perpetuating division among them. Iraq, for instance, became a vexing battleground where Iranian-backed factions continuously vied for supremacy rather than consolidating political power.
With Soleimani’s death in 2020, the struggle amongst Shiite factions turned beyond mere external confrontation to deeper issues of internal governance and consistency. The dysfunction and bickering among the Popular Mobilization Forces highlighted broader themes of competing interests contradicting Iran’s intentions in its mission to facilitate cooperative governance.
Meanwhile, the broader geopolitical landscape underwent shifting dynamics, with Iraq emerging from the oppressive haze of violence—yet many indicators suggested that the underlying corruption and militia dominance could easily lead to a resurgence of conflict. The presence of armed factions battling for power necessitated an overhaul of the governance structure within Iraq itself to ensure lasting stability.
Signs suggesting effective governance, however, stand juxtaposed against the persistent influence of foreign-backed groups, undermining necessary progress. Bringing disparate factions together remains a challenging puzzle, one exacerbated by the historical patterns of outside intervention and sectarian exploitation.
A more profound analysis reveals that in a landscape where destructive cycles persist, continuity proves fragile. Amid burgeoning optimism about long-term stability rests the acknowledgment that the root causes of discontent remain insidious, as evidenced by ongoing protection rackets consuming civil society.
In Lebanon, Hezbollah’s unsustainable model showcased a broader existential crisis in relations with local communities. Sacrifices made in pursuit of external ambitions left local governance compromised, revealing an unbalanced power dynamic undermining regional stability altogether.
In an alarming parallel with recent events, the regional network—once considered a formidable deterrent—now falters under the strain of expanded hostilities, revealing vulnerabilities that weaken their collective resistance. The December 2024 escalation, punctuated by Israel’s unexpected military actions against Hezbollah, demonstrates a critical shift that involves heightened scrutiny and aggressive military strategizing while Iran struggles to support its once-mighty constructs.
Eliot Cohen’s assessment of recent events illuminates that as these proxies face unforeseen assaults, their governance models, too, will face reckonings—forcing an introspection on their futures amid the grim backdrop of rampant violence.
Hezbollah’s recent defeats expose a precarious reality for Iran’s strategic interests, relying on local actors in settings fraught with dynamics beyond mere military engagement. The historical reliance on proxies limited Tehran’s ability to project authority and consistently assign responsibilities to these armed groups, raising concerns of a wider destabilization in Iraq and Lebanon going forward.
In a brief period, the uncertain outcomes prompt inquiries into how long Iran will take to reassess its approach to enmity and develop new pathways in response to evolving circumstances. The observed cycles in the Middle East suggest an intricate tapestry of repercussions markedly influenced by external and internal parameters.
Future considerations could involve Iran’s ongoing evolution, perhaps transitioning its governance in favor of a military junta that emphasizes nationalism over its prevailing ideological framework. Yet, this transition would not guarantee a dissolution of hostilities toward adversaries. In reality, the constant reiteration of anti-Western sentiment persists as a hallmark of Iranian resilience.
Even with the backdrop of superpower negotiations, the specter of heightened tensions lingers in the air. Previous attempts at peace negotiated under Obama illustrate a reality where Iran simultaneously pursued ambitions and counter-strategies, proving largely immune to conciliatory measures aimed at altering its core agenda.
The complex interplay among various factions unveils a stark reality: the current dynamics of peace remain transitory as the historical backdrop suggests a cyclical nature of conflict and contention, necessitating comprehensive frameworks to address enduring grievances.
At stake remains a balancing act within Iranian society, as widespread discontent grows over the government’s priorities, further complicating the narrative surrounding regional conflict. Despite international encouragement for reform, Tehran’s historic inclination toward hostility complicates constructive dialogues, diminishing prospects for an enduring resolution.
Peace as a concept warrants reevaluation, as dynamics shift in favor of cyclical cycles where disengagement remains paramount. The evolution of Iranian strategies is nascent and situationally driven, revealing complexities that extend beyond simplistic interpretations of failure or success.
Ultimately, Iran’s determinations shape not just its narrative but ripple across the broader geopolitical landscape—affecting both friends and foes alike, illuminating a confounding paradox wherein regional actors must continuously navigate the fragmented remnants of peace.
image source from：theatlantic
