By Mushtaq Ul Haq Ahmad Sikander

The situation with Iran opens a clear window into the crisis we face in world order today. 

Many people in the Muslim world view the Islamic Republic as the main state that pushes back against American hegemony tied closely to Israel. They note the contradictions and internal tensions, and they still hold this view strongly. 

Any assault on Iran through surgical strikes, covert destabilisation, or overt regime change sends waves far beyond Tehran or Washington. 

The assault tests the moral agency of the Muslim world, exposes the condition of international institutions, and reveals the deep entanglement of geopolitical ambition with militarised capitalism.

People on the Muslim street share a clear vision. And that vision crosses Shia and Sunni divides. Many regard foreign aggression against Iran as illegitimate and dangerous. 

People maintain their theological and political differences with Iran’s Shia establishment. But at the same time, they view external intervention as part of a longer pattern of domination that stretches from Iraq and Afghanistan to Libya and Palestine.

Public outrage has always stirred powerful emotion. Still, geopolitical direction often rests in the hands of elite interests, security structures, and corporate-military networks. 

But then, strong resistance did surface during the Iraq war of 2003, the devastation of Libya, and the prolonged war in Afghanistan.

The architecture of global decision-making stays separate from public conscience. Elite interests guide the process along with security establishments and corporate-military networks.

The disconnect between public sentiment and state policy appears especially sharp across the Muslim world. 

Muslim-majority states remain fragmented and wary of one another. They divide along ethnic, ideological, and sectarian lines, deepening mistrust and limiting cooperation.

Regional and global powers exploit the Shia-Sunni divide as a strategic tool, aware that internal fractures weaken collective agency and reduce the scope for unified action.

Since 2003, the emergence of a Shia-led political order in Iraq, Hezbollah’s strengthened role in Lebanon, and Iran’s extensive network of allied militias and political forces are perceived by several Sunni-led regimes as an existential strategic threat to their influence and security in the Middle East.

Several governments align closely with Western and Israeli agendas to contain Iran. The alignment matches policies that affect Palestinians and create instability in Arab societies.

There was a time when the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation claimed to speak for 1.8 billion Muslims. Today, it holds little influence and even less authority.

Its statements condemn aggression, but it lacks enforcement power, collective security guarantees, and the political will to prevent members from aligning with external powers. 

From Palestine to Yemen and beyond, the OIC has struggled to deter conflict or protect vulnerable societies, leaving many Muslims disillusioned with formal pan-Islamic institutions.

Some supporters of Iran point to the consistent shortcomings of externally imposed regime change in the region. They cite Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, and believe Tehran would prove even stronger. 

This optimism may overlook shifts in global politics and leadership temperament. 

An American administration inclined toward spectacle, escalation, or unilateral action pursues regime change through military strikes, economic strangulation, cyber operations, and covert destabilisation. 

Influential actors support the appetite for regime change. And these actors frame Iran as the central regional threat.

Among them, Israel views Iran’s nuclear program, missile arsenal, and support for groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas as existential threats. 

Israeli strategists call for sustained pressure, and influential pro-Israel lobbying networks drive debate in Washington. U.S. regional policy often aligns with Israeli priorities on sanctions and containment. 

Antisemitic narratives and conspiracy theories warrant firm rejection.

At the same time, the Epstein files exposed elite corruption and moral compromise, further eroding trust in global leadership. 

Direct links to specific war decisions remain unproven, but the perception of a power-driven ruling class has deepened skepticism toward official justifications for conflict.

Some people in Iran believe Supreme Leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei stays effectively protected by religious authority and security structures. Israeli intelligence operations show deep penetration inside Iran. People attribute many operations to Mossad. 

Assassinations of top military commanders and nuclear scientists take place. Mysterious explosions occur at sensitive facilities. 

These operations illustrate significant intelligence reach. 

Targeted killings fracture institutional continuity, spread fear, and disrupt long-term planning. Senior leadership remains exposed, and any large-scale conflict would strain coordination across air defence, cyber operations, and nuclear oversight. 

The resulting psychological pressure could either harden resolve or intensify internal distrust.

At the same time, Iran expects little decisive external rescue. China approaches global crises through a pragmatic, economic lens and avoids direct military confrontation with Washington beyond its immediate sphere. Russia works with Iran in Syria but remains absorbed in Ukraine, constrained by sanctions and battlefield strain. 

Moscow may provide diplomatic cover and limited assistance, but full-scale intervention in a U.S.-led assault appears unlikely. 

In the calculus of great power bargaining, Iran risks becoming secondary to larger geopolitical trade-offs.

Tehran relies on its own capabilities and network of non-state allies known as the Axis of Resistance. The network includes Hezbollah and allied militias. 

These actors open multiple fronts, target U.S. bases, Israeli territory, shipping lanes, and energy infrastructure. 

These actions raise the cost of aggression. Nation-states limit themselves to condemnations and humanitarian gestures, and stay wary of direct confrontation.

People who assume an attack on Iran resembles the swift initial phase of the Iraq war hold a naive view. 

Iran stands geographically larger, more mountainous, and ideologically mobilised. 

The country holds a missile arsenal and asymmetric warfare doctrine far more advanced than Iraq held in 2003. 

The Islamic Republic institutionalises a narrative of resistance. An external attack unifies segments of society under a defensive frame of national and religious survival.

An occupation generates prolonged insurgency inside Iran and regionally. U.S. experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrate the limits of conventional superiority against entrenched guerrilla warfare. Iran holds regional networks and geographic depth. The scale and duration of conflict grows significantly greater.

Efforts to weaken Iran appear to enhance security for Israel. The broader outcome leads to regional destabilisation. 

As deterrence weakens, arms races intensify. Missile and drone proliferation spreads, and states anxious about vulnerability accelerate advanced weapons programs, with some exploring nuclear capabilities. 

China and Russia widen their influence through arms sales and strategic partnerships, further complicating Western planning.

An attack on Iran would revive narratives of martyrdom and resistance in Shia communities influenced by Hezbollah’s model. External aggression would strengthen the clerical establishment and sideline reformist voices. 

Even if the Supreme Leader were assassinated, Iran’s institutional framework, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Basij, and clerical networks, would likely regenerate leadership. Martyrdom symbolism would further reinforce that authority.

War Fears Mount: US Tells Embassy Staff to Leave Israel

US-Iran Indirect Nuclear Talks Wrap Up in Geneva Amid Mideast Tensions

Escalation fuels the military industry, where every strike means profit. War sustains itself, and ordinary people bear the cost through violence, taxes, instability, and rising prices.

Iran has internal problems, but those flaws do not justify external attack. The choice is simple: continue cycles of war or choose diplomacy.

A strike on Iran would shake the wider world. The decision now will determine whether the future brings prolonged conflict or peace.

The author is an activist based in Srinagar.

© Kashmir Observer