The question is not simply whether Iran will endure, but whether its endurance might yet alter the trajectory of a world that appears increasingly determined to walk, eyes open, into the abyss. Join us on Telegram , Twitter , and VK . Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su The world, we are told, is balanced on a knife-edge. Or, if one prefers the language of spectacle, it resembles a tightrope walker swaying precariously above an abyss, acutely aware that there is no safety net below. On one side stand the dwindling voices of reason – those few leaders and international institutions still attempting to salvage what remains of common sense. On the other lies the void: the path towards a generalisation of terror, steadily pursued by what is habitually called the “collective West”, or, with a straight face, “our civilisation”, led by the fevered dogma of imperial Zionism.
Iran resists. More than that, it counter-attacks, still capable of demonstrating that bluster alone does not win wars, even as the principal actors in this unfolding tragedy continue to believe that their self-appointed status as the chosen of God suffices to exterminate barbarians and heretics.
Let it be said plainly: there is little to admire in the Iranian regime. Confessional politics, whether in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel or even the United States, remains a distortion of public life. Yet Western governments display a remarkable selectivity in their indignation. What is intolerable in one place becomes acceptable, even commendable, in another. The “Iran of the ayatollahs” is cast as the enemy; Zionist extremism and Saudi authoritarianism, meanwhile, are welcomed as allies – useful, profitable, and reassuringly aligned with Western interests. Josep Borrell, in his tenure as the European Union’s chief diplomat, saw no contradiction in defending such double standards as necessary instruments of policy.
Iran has not been defeated, despite the assassination of its spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He did not retreat into hiding; he continued to work openly, sharing in the risks borne by his people. There is an irony, scarcely acknowledged in Western commentary, that it was Khamenei who issued the fatwa rejecting nuclear weapons. The elimination of a leader opposed to weapons of mass destruction rather undermines the oft-repeated claim that nuclear proliferation was ever the central concern.
His death has, predictably, transformed him into a martyr. The reaction within Iran – mass demonstrations, expressions of unity – has been largely invisible to a global media more attuned to amplifying opposition voices than to recording inconvenient realities. The assassination has hardened positions within the regime, strengthened the influence of the Revolutionary Guard, and fostered cohesion rather than fragmentation. The succession of Mojtaba Khamenei signals, if anything, a shift towards less moderate ground. The Eurasian chessboard Thirty-five years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the international balance of power resembles a stalemate. The old Western dominance – enforced through the elastic notion of a “rules-based international order” – confronts the gradual emergence of a multipolar world. Eurasia is the decisive theatre in this contest, and within it Iran constitutes a crucial node.
Geography alone explains part of this. Iran is vast, populous, and strategically situated. But it is also something more enduring: a civilisational bridge linking East and West, Central Asia and the Middle East, a repository of cultures far older than the modern Western imagination can comfortably grasp. Such depth tends to provoke not curiosity but unease. The response has been predictable: a mixture of arrogance, propaganda, and the manufacture of pretexts designed to justify Iran’s subordination to a system it did not create and does not accept.
The professed concern for the Iranian people, frequently invoked by Western leaders, rings hollow. One need only glance at the condition of those regions already “liberated” by Western intervention – lands where democracy arrived in the form of missile warheads and proxy militias – to appreciate the limits of such humanitarian zeal. When, for instance, a school in Minab was struck, reportedly due to an artificial intelligence error in target selection, the deaths of 165 young girls were dismissed as an unfortunate miscalculation. It was, coincidentally, around the same time that Melania Trump addressed the United Nations on the plight of children in conflict.
Such episodes are not aberrations; they are the logical extension of a worldview in which entire populations are reduced to potential threats. As Benjamin Netanyahu has argued with chilling clarity, a Palestinian – or now, by extension, an Iranian – is considered suspect from birth.
Iran’s centrality to the “great game” was long ago articulated by Zbigniew Brzezinski: control Eurasia, and one controls the world. It follows, then, that controlling Iran becomes indispensable. Its resistance obstructs not only the extension of Western hegemony but also the broader ambitions of projects such as a “Greater Israel”.
This war, therefore, is not merely about Iran. It reveals the convergence of globalist and Zionist agendas as mutually reinforcing mechanisms of imperial expansion. Resistance and its meaning Iran has responded in kind. It has threatened the Strait of Hormuz, destabilised the Gulf monarchies that host American bases, and degraded strategic radar systems across the region, including those protecting the U.S. Fifth Fleet in Bahrain. These developments sit uneasily alongside confident assertions from Washington and its allies that Iran is on the brink of defeat.
War propaganda, as ever, obscures as much as it reveals. Israeli and American vulnerabilities have become increasingly apparent, particularly in the limitations of air defence systems and the strain placed upon military resources. Veteran U.S. officers have openly acknowledged that sustaining a prolonged war of attrition may exceed American capacities, especially after the depletion of arsenals in Ukraine. Whether Washington can outlast Tehran remains an open question.
Iran’s resistance matters – not because its regime is exemplary, but because it is independent. It makes its own decisions, refuses to submit to external diktat, and continues to provide support, however limited, to the Palestinian cause. More broadly, it represents a pillar of the emerging multipolar order.
Through its involvement in initiatives such as China’s Belt and Road, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, and the BRICS grouping, Iran contributes to the construction of alternative economic and political networks – ones that challenge the dominance of Western-controlled routes and institutions. Unsurprisingly, disrupting these alternatives has become a strategic priority for Western policymakers.
The consequences of an Iranian defeat would be profound. A government installed under Western auspices would not only weaken these emerging alliances but also remove a significant obstacle to regional reconfiguration. The path towards a “Greater Israel” would be considerably eased, while neighbouring states – Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt – lack either the capacity or the inclination to resist such a shift.
At the same time, the fusion of financial, media, and cultural influence underpinning Zionist power would accelerate the consolidation of a global order in which individuals are increasingly reduced to expendable units. China and Russia would face heightened vulnerability, particularly in light of India’s ambiguous positioning.
The stakes, then, are stark. The future of Iran is inseparable from the broader contest between a multipolar order grounded in international law and a system defined by unilateral power and selective rules. A Western victory would not merely reshape the Middle East; it would reinforce a model of governance marked by coercion, inequality, and the erosion of sovereignty.
If public opinion remains captive to war propaganda – if the steady drift from distortion to outright falsehood continues unchallenged – the consequences may prove catastrophic. The escalation of imperial violence, rooted in a toxic blend of colonial ambition and ideological zeal, risks culminating in a wider, potentially global conflict.
Such is what hangs in the balance. The question is not simply whether Iran will endure, but whether its endurance might yet alter the trajectory of a world that appears increasingly determined to walk, eyes open, into the abyss.