Sadly, for many who were enthused by Iran's spectacular resilience before the combined US-Israeli assault, Iran's future options do not include or rest on how it arrogates control of the Strait of Hormuz, or gets Israel to stop attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon. Both matter, but neither is existential. Hezbollah serves Iran's convenience to deflect Israeli attention away from itself. A strategic argument can be made of Iran's support of Hezbollah, but can the survival of a 'Lebanese' militia truly constitute Iran's vital national interest? Should it not be for Lebanon to deal with a residual non-state force from the civil war of the 1980s? It beats all principles of sovereign existence that Iran itself is fighting for. Israel can be mutilated on the altar of non-adherence to international laws and disrespect for sovereignty from its genocidal excesses, but one wrong does not make another right. Hezbollah may be a useful foil against Israel, and thus the criticality. But would Iran save Hezbollah from Israeli wrath at the cost of Iran? I doubt.

Hormuz, and its control that Iran vies for, is a different strategic proposition. Iran leveraged geography to irk and pique the world as a tool of coercive diplomacy. That it bottled up Iran with attendant consequences is something Iran considered worth the pain the others will feel. The world, however, did not come to Iran's aid, as Tehran had hoped, except for Pakistan, itself grappling with significant internal and regional challenges. That it stepped up to the plate when all others chose to watch on says a lot about the national character and leadership of the country. Globally, there was enough oil in reserve........

© The Express Tribune