The escalating confrontation between Iran on one side and the United States and Israel on the other is often framed in familiar strategic language: deterrence, nuclear threats and regional security. Israel argues that preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear capability is an existential necessity, while Washington portrays its involvement as part of a broader effort to stabilise the Middle East and contain a revisionist power.

Yet these explanations capture only the immediate logic of the conflict. Beneath the battlefield calculations lies a deeper historical problem: the assumption that Iran can be strategically weakened or neutralised through external pressure. If history offers any serious guidance, this assumption may be fundamentally flawed.

The latest escalation—marked by Israeli and American strikes on Iranian military infrastructure and Tehran’s missile retaliation—has rapidly transformed into a regional crisis. Maritime routes in the Gulf have become vulnerable, allied militias across the region have mobilised, and the spectre of wider war looms over energy markets and global stability. What began as a limited confrontation now threatens to reshape the entire geopolitical landscape of the Middle East.

But the significance of this conflict cannot be understood solely through military developments. It reflects a deeper contest over legitimacy, power and the future political order of the region.

For Washington and Tel Aviv, Iran represents the most persistent challenger to the security architecture that has defined the Middle East since the late twentieth century—an order built around Israeli military superiority and alliances with pro-Western Arab governments.

For Washington and Tel Aviv, Iran represents the most persistent challenger to the security architecture that has defined the Middle East since the late twentieth century—an order built around Israeli military superiority and alliances with pro-Western Arab governments.

Since the Iranian Revolution of 1979, Tehran has openly rejected this arrangement, presenting itself as a force of resistance against Western dominance and Israeli strategic primacy.

READ: Trump says he is not ready to strike deal with Iran

Over the decades, Iran has constructed a network of political and military relationships stretching from Lebanon and Syria to Iraq and Yemen. Through these alliances, Tehran has developed an influence that far exceeds its conventional military capabilities. Critics describe this structure as destabilizing proxy warfare; Iranian strategists, however, view it as necessary strategic depth in a hostile geopolitical environment.

From the perspective of American and Israeli policymakers, weakening Iran is therefore a prerequisite for restoring regional stability. Yet this reasoning overlooks a crucial historical reality: Iran is not simply another state within the Middle East. It is one of the few surviving civilizations whose political identity predates the modern international system by millennia.

Civilizations, unlike states, rarely collapse in straightforward ways.

The historical miscalculation

Iran’s historical experience illustrates a pattern that has repeatedly confounded external powers. Known historically as Persia, Iran has existed as a recognisable cultural and political entity for more than two and a half thousand years. During that time, it has endured repeated invasions, imperial collapses and political transformations. Yet its civilisational core has remained remarkably resilient.

Alexander the Great destroyed the Achaemenid Empire in the fourth century BCE, seemingly ending Persian dominance in the ancient Near East. Yet Persian political traditions reemerged within a few centuries through the Parthian and later the Sasanian empires, both of which became formidable rivals to Roman power.

The Arab-Muslim conquest of the seventh century appeared to mark another definitive break. The Sasanian Empire collapsed, and Persia was absorbed into the expanding Islamic world. But rather than disappearing, Persian culture became one of the intellectual engines of Islamic civilization. Persian scholars, administrators and poets helped shape the intellectual landscape of the medieval Muslim world.

Even the Mongol invasions of the thirteenth century—among the most destructive military campaigns in history—failed to erase Persia’s cultural influence. Within decades, Mongol rulers themselves were governing through Persian bureaucratic traditions and patronizing Persian literature and scholarship.

In each of these historical moments, Persia lost militarily yet survived civilisationally.

This pattern matters when assessing contemporary geopolitical strategies. External actors often assume that sufficient military pressure can force Iran into submission or strategic collapse. Yet Iranian political culture is deeply shaped by historical narratives of survival against overwhelming odds.

From ancient invasions to modern interventions, these memories form part of a national identity that emphasises endurance rather than immediate victory.

For many Iranians, confrontation with foreign powers is not merely a geopolitical contest. It is interpreted as another episode in a long historical struggle to preserve sovereignty and cultural continuity.

For many Iranians, confrontation with foreign powers is not merely a geopolitical contest. It is interpreted as another episode in a long historical struggle to preserve sovereignty and cultural continuity.

War, therefore, often reinforces the very narratives that sustain the Iranian state.

The paradox of the current war

The current conflict may therefore generate outcomes very different from those anticipated in Washington or Tel Aviv.

Israel and the United States possess overwhelming conventional military superiority. Their technological capabilities, intelligence networks and precision-strike capacities far exceed those of Iran. In a direct confrontation, Iran cannot match this level of military power.

Yet Iran has never based its strategic doctrine on symmetrical warfare.

Instead, Iranian strategy relies on asymmetric capabilities, regional alliances and long-term endurance. By cultivating networks of allied actors across the Middle East, Tehran has effectively extended its strategic geography. Conflict involving Iran rarely remains confined within Iranian borders; it spreads across multiple interconnected theatres.

Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen form part of a wider strategic environment in which Iranian influence can be mobilised. This system transforms a bilateral confrontation into a dispersed regional conflict that is far more difficult for external powers to control.

Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen form part of a wider strategic environment in which Iranian influence can be mobilised. This system transforms a bilateral confrontation into a dispersed regional conflict that is far more difficult for external powers to control.

The result is a form of distributed warfare in which decisive victories become elusive.

Time becomes a strategic weapon. The longer the conflict continues, the more costly it becomes for outside powers to sustain political consensus and military engagement. Domestic political pressures, economic concerns and shifting global priorities gradually erode the willingness of distant powers to remain deeply involved in regional wars.

Iran’s strategy appears designed precisely for such circumstances.

The economic dimension of the conflict further complicates the picture. Nearly twenty percent of the world’s oil supply passes through the Strait of Hormuz, placing Iran in a uniquely influential geographic position. Even limited disruptions to shipping in this corridor can produce dramatic consequences for global energy markets.

As tensions rise, oil prices surge, financial markets react and governments across the world confront the ripple effects of instability in the Gulf.

READ: Israel warns US it is running low on missile interceptors: Report

In other words, a war intended to stabilize the Middle East may end up destabilizing the global economy.

Ultimately, the confrontation between Iran, Israel and the United States is about more than nuclear programs or missile capabilities. It represents a struggle over the future political architecture of the Middle East.

For decades, Washington and its regional allies attempted to construct a strategic order centered on Israeli security and cooperative Arab governments. Iran has consistently challenged this structure, presenting itself as the nucleus of an alternative regional vision built around resistance to Western influence.

The outcome of this struggle will not be determined solely by battlefield results.

History suggests that Iran does not need rapid military victory to remain a decisive actor in the region. It only needs to survive long enough for geopolitical conditions to evolve. Great powers often win wars yet lose the broader contest for regional legitimacy.

Iran’s historical experience points to a different strategic principle: endure the pressure, absorb the shocks and allow time to reshape the balance of power.

If this pattern continues, the present war will not mark the end of Iran’s influence in the Middle East. Instead, it may become another chapter in the long story of a civilization that has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to adapt, survive and reassert itself in changing historical circumstances.

OPINION: Power, justice, and the struggle for order in the Middle East

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

© Middle East Monitor