By Shakeel Hussain
For decades, Western powers have sought to shape the political direction of other countries through military alliances, intelligence networks, economic pressure and local partners. Colonial history offers many examples of attempts to weaken societies that resisted outside control. Derek Walcott’s A Far Cry from Africa, written against the backdrop of the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya, captures the violence and contradictions of colonial rule.
Iran’s modern experience reflects a different but related struggle. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the country has faced sustained pressure from the United States and its allies. Washington froze Iranian assets soon after the revolution and later imposed increasingly broad sanctions on trade, investment, banking and the energy sector. Restrictions were subsequently expanded over Iran’s nuclear program and other regional activities.
The stated purpose of sanctions has often been to change Iranian behavior. Yet decades of economic pressure have not produced the political transformation their architects hoped for. Instead, Iran has increasingly pursued domestic production, developed its own industries and sought greater economic self-reliance. Sanctions have undoubtedly imposed a heavy cost on ordinary Iranians, contributing to inflation, financial isolation and restrictions on trade. But they have also encouraged Tehran to reduce its dependence on Western markets and technologies.
The limits of external pressure became clearer as Iran entered a period of growing internal and regional tension. Economic grievances, including the sharp decline of the Iranian currency, contributed to protests in Tehran and other cities. The government responded through negotiations, economic measures and security actions. At the same time, Iranian authorities accused foreign powers of exploiting domestic discontent, while international observers continued to debate the causes and character of the unrest.
The conflict then moved decisively from economic and political confrontation to open warfare. Israel launched major attacks on Iranian nuclear and military facilities, while Iran responded with missiles and drones. The direct entry of the United States into the fighting, including strikes on nuclear sites, demonstrated the extraordinary risks of turning a long-running confrontation into a full-scale regional conflict.
A ceasefire reduced the immediate violence but did not settle the underlying dispute. The subsequent escalation in February 2026, when the United States and Israel launched another major campaign against Iran and Iranian state media reported the killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, showed how little had been resolved. Iran again responded with missile and drone attacks against Israel and US positions across the region.
The most important lesson from these confrontations is that military superiority does not automatically translate into political control. Iran has developed an asymmetric strategy based on missiles, drones, fast naval craft and regional partnerships. These capabilities allow it to impose costs on stronger adversaries and threaten military positions far beyond its borders.
The Strait of Hormuz illustrates the wider danger. Any serious attempt to disrupt this vital maritime route could affect energy supplies, shipping and global markets. The presence of major US naval forces in the Gulf may provide conventional military superiority, but it cannot remove the vulnerability created by Iran’s ability to use relatively inexpensive missiles, drones and small naval units. A conflict centered on Iran could therefore rapidly become an international economic crisis.
Iran’s regional partners have added another dimension to the confrontation. Hezbollah’s involvement from Lebanon and attacks by Yemen’s Houthi movement have demonstrated how quickly a conflict involving Iran can spread across several theatres. For Gulf states hosting American forces, this raises an uncomfortable question: can their territories remain insulated from a confrontation in which Iran sees US bases as legitimate targets?
Iran’s political resilience is equally significant. Despite assassinations, military strikes, sanctions and internal unrest, the state has continued to function. The system has repeatedly sought to replace senior officials and commanders killed in attacks and to maintain institutional continuity. This does not mean that Iran is immune to internal pressure or economic hardship. It means that outside force has so far failed to produce the collapse many of its opponents may have anticipated.
Iran’s leaders also draw heavily on the historical memory of resistance, particularly the symbolism of Karbala, which represents sacrifice and perseverance in the face of overwhelming power. Whatever one’s view of the Iranian political system, this historical narrative has proved an effective instrument of national mobilization during periods of crisis. None of this should romanticize Iran’s resilience or dismiss the suffering caused by sanctions and war. Ordinary Iranians have paid a substantial price for prolonged confrontation.
(The writer is a university student and puts his views on various topics, can be reached at editorial@metro-morning.com)
