In classical history, the term Pyrrhic victory refers to a win so costly that it almost amounts to defeat. Its origin dates to the Greek King Pyrrhus of Epirus, who fought the then-rising Romans around the 3rd century BCE, defeating their forces but at the same time incurring irretrievable losses, including those of experienced soldiers and officers. Similarly, Israel's current course of military manoeuvre in the Middle East and beyond may very well be dubbed a Pyrrhic victory, as it comes at the cost of mass casualties, refugee exoduses, blatant violations of international law, destruction of essential state institutions, as well as prolonged socio-political instability in the region.

It is important to note that ever since the military confrontation with Iran, Israel has time and again resorted to targeting the core political, religious and defence establishment of Iran in outright violation of international law, and that too with the support of combined US-Israel intelligence. In essence, the US’s recent strikes on Iran constitute a targeted campaign to eliminate the political and religious leadership of Iran, destroy institutions and target Iran’s military infrastructure to ignite prospects of regime change, the likes of which were witnessed during the 1979 Revolution; the death of Khamenei marks the second leadership transition since the 1979 Revolution.

Adding to the Pyrrhic victory narrative is the fact that the success of the Western-led coalition comes at the cost of the brutal violation of international law. The use of force against a state is prohibited under the United Nations Charter, except for self-defence and Security Council authorisation. As for self-defence, there is no marker of any such threat to either the United States or Israel, nor is there any Security Council authorisation, thus making the strikes a violation of the UN Charter. Reminiscent of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, it would not be false to say that this is not the first time the US has partaken in unauthorised military intervention. With the attack on Iran, the second constituent of George W. Bush’s ‘Axis of Evil’ is now on the West’s military radar. Back in 2002, George W. Bush used the term in his State of the Union address in what was to become the de facto global narrative on the war in the Middle East. He blatantly called Iraq, Iran and North Korea the ‘Axis of Evil’ that needed to be radically countered, alleging that these nations harboured support for terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. The narrative of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ was then used to globally legitimise an otherwise unauthorised military invasion, which ultimately spelled doom for the state of Iraq. Videos of the US-led bombing of Baghdad’s government district, including Saddam Hussein’s presidential palaces, remain widely available on the internet. In this sense, it can be said that the current trajectory of US strikes on Khomeini’s place is history repeating itself, albeit with new political actors.

What further adds to the Pyrrhic victory narrative is the fact that US and Israeli strikes against Iran have triggered an international armed conflict. Now that Iran has lost much of its political, religious and defence leadership, there is a high probability of escalation with a ruinous spillover of the war to neighbouring regions — an epilogue of which can already be seen in retaliatory strikes on Israel as well as several Gulf states, including US bases in Kuwait, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. With this precedent set in motion, the 2023 agreement brokered by China to bridge the rivalry between the Saudi-led Gulf region and Iran now appears to be slipping away, what may be called a defeat of international diplomacy.

As for the future of Iran, an outright liberal transition to democracy appears unlikely, as also noted by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which has pointed to the deeply entrenched role of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Some speculate the emergence of what may be called “IRGC-istan” — a military-dominated state that could prop up a new religious and political head to serve the conservative masses, while real power remains vested in the hands of the Guard. Furthermore, what adds to the unlikelihood of a pro-democracy regime shift is the fact that ever since the 1979 Revolution, Iran’s opposition has remained disunited and fragmented. The monarchists tied to Reza Pahlavi’s legacy, his exiled son who presently resides in the US, as well as the secular factions that fled to the West after the Revolution, all remain deeply divided with limited credibility in Iran’s socio-political landscape.

Consequently, given that Iran's democratisation is unlikely, the country’s economy is likely to take a turn for the worse. A military-heavy political setup might cater to Iran’s security needs, especially with respect to the war with Israel; however, it heralds trouble for Iran’s already fragile economy, marked by soaring inflation and a depreciating currency. From an economic perspective, Iran is no longer in need of a religious hardliner leader who demonises the US and refuses to cooperate with the West.

Perhaps the most prominent aspect of the recent developments in the Iran-Israel war is the future of Iran’s proxy networks, which the late Khomeini funded and weaponised in several countries, including Syria, Gaza, Yemen and Iraq. With Khomeini’s death, the future of these proxy groups will now depend on the internal political transition of the country. If the anticipated IRGC-isation of Iran materialises, the chances of a fortified and renewed resurgence of proxy groups would be high, much to the disappointment of the West. Otherwise, Iran may face a strategic dilemma, losing its defence footing in the region and beyond, particularly in its confrontation with Israel.

Noor HumairThe writer is an under-graduate student at the Forman Christian Collage University in Lahore. She is majoring in Economics.

© The Nation