Iran's Ascendancy: Why Arab Strategy Should Align with Tehran to Challenge Israeli and U.S. Hegemony

In this article, we will explore the remarkable transformation of Iran from a relatively marginalized state during the Cold War, heavily influenced by Western powers, to a formidable regional powerhouse known for its staunch anti-Zionist and anti-American stance. This evolution will be examined through the lens of key American administrations and significant historical events that have shaped Iran's rise and its role in the Middle East.

Starting with the era of Cold War influence, we will trace Iran’s strategic shifts as it navigated the geopolitical landscape, including pivotal incidents and policy changes from U.S. administrations. Each period, from the pre-Revolutionary era to the present day, reveals how Iran has skillfully leveraged its position to challenge Western dominance and expand its regional influence.

By the end of this analysis, we will outline why, in the current geopolitical climate, aligning Arab interests with Iran is not only a strategic necessity but also a vital move to counterbalance the enduring and evolving threats posed by Israel and the United States. This alignment, we will argue, represents a critical step in the broader struggle against a formidable and far-reaching adversary that continues to impact regional stability and security.

A Fight Against Western Manipulation and Exploitation:

During the Cold War, Iran was ruthlessly manipulated by Western powers, particularly the U.S., which sought to turn the nation into nothing more than a pawn in their global chess game against the Soviet Union. The West did not care for the Iranian people, their sovereignty, or their future; instead, they saw Iran as a buffer to protect their own interests. Under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Iran was reduced to a mere outpost for Western imperialism, propping up the very regime that repressed its people and pillaged its wealth.

The West's true intentions in Iran became crystal clear in 1953 when they orchestrated a coup to overthrow the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. Why? Because Mossadegh dared to stand up for his country by nationalizing Iran’s oil industry, taking control of its natural resources away from British and American hands. In response, the CIA, alongside Britain’s MI6, engineered Operation Ajax, a covert coup that reinstated the Shah—a puppet willing to sell out his country’s wealth and people to maintain his throne. This marked the beginning of the West’s relentless exploitation of Iran.

Iran’s vast oil reserves made it indispensable to the U.S. and its allies. The imperialist powers ensured that Iran remained under their control by propping up the Shah’s brutal regime. Iran was not seen as a sovereign nation but as a crucial resource for securing oil shipments to the West, keeping the engines of their capitalist economies running. With Iran’s geographic proximity to the Soviet Union, the Shah’s Iran was also a perfect military outpost, effectively a frontline in the Cold War, where the lives of ordinary Iranians mattered little in the grand scheme of Western geopolitical ambitions.

Iran was a forced participant in the Cold War, particularly through its role in the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO), a military alliance that served Western interests more than those of Iran. Iran’s armed forces, funded and trained by the U.S., were essentially the muscle enforcing Western dominance in the region, helping to stifle any local movements or uprisings that might threaten Western control over the region's vital oil resources.

Moreover, Iran's control of the Strait of Hormuz made it strategically indispensable to the West, as this narrow waterway was—and remains—the chokepoint for a significant portion of the world’s oil. The U.S. and its allies were determined to keep this passage open, not for the benefit of regional stability, but to safeguard the flow of oil for their own profit, without regard for Iran’s sovereignty or the well-being of its people.

The Shah, with Western backing, created a police state, where dissent was crushed under the weight of SAVAK, his feared secret police, which was trained and equipped by the CIA. Thousands of Iranians were imprisoned, tortured, or killed under the Shah’s regime, all while the U.S. turned a blind eye, happy to let the oppression continue as long as it served their interests. The Iranian people were left to suffer under the tyranny of a dictator who cared more about appeasing his Western backers than addressing the needs of his own country.

But the Iranian people eventually had enough. The 1979 Islamic Revolution was a direct response to the decades of Western exploitation, interference, and repression. The revolution overthrew the Shah and sent a clear message: Iran would no longer be a pawn in the West’s imperialist games. Ayatollah Khomeini’s rise to power and the creation of the Islamic Republic represented not just a rejection of the Shah, but a rejection of the West’s domination over the country. The hostage crisis that followed was a symbolic act of defiance, a declaration that Iran was free from the shackles of Western control.

In conclusion, the West’s manipulation of Iran during the Cold War was a classic example of imperialist exploitation. The U.S. and its allies cared little for Iran’s sovereignty or the well-being of its people, focusing solely on securing their strategic and economic interests. The Iranian revolution was an inevitable backlash against decades of repression and foreign domination, and it stands as a reminder that nations cannot be enslaved by imperialist powers without consequence.

Balancing Resistance and Unity: How Iran’s Revolution Challenged Western Hegemony but Threatened Arab Solidarity

The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran was a defining moment in the Middle East, striking a powerful blow to Western interests, particularly the United States. As an Arab, I recognize the significance of Iran’s rejection of Western dominance, especially its firm stance against American imperialism and Israeli expansionism. By overthrowing the Shah’s regime, which had long been a puppet of the West, Iran set an example of defiance that many in the Arab world could admire. However, while the revolution was a victory against Western influence, it also sowed the seeds of deeper divisions within the region, threatening the unity of the Arab nation through sectarian conflict.

For the United States, the revolution was a severe blow to its strategic interests in the region. Iran had been a cornerstone of U.S. policy in the Middle East, serving as a guardian of American influence in the Persian Gulf and a bulwark against Soviet expansion. The revolution not only severed these ties but also directly challenged U.S. hegemony, especially with the Iran Hostage Crisis. From an Arab perspective, while it was satisfying to see the U.S. lose a key ally, the revolution also signaled the beginning of Iran’s broader ambitions to reshape the region in its own image, with the potential to disrupt the delicate balance of power.

The rise of a Shia theocratic regime in Iran created a new regional dynamic that quickly escalated into a sectarian divide. Iran’s strategy to export its revolutionary ideology, particularly to Shia communities across the Arab world, directly threatened the cohesion of the Arab nation. Countries like Iraq, Bahrain, Lebanon, and Yemen became battlegrounds for this sectarian struggle, pitting Shia groups aligned with Iran against Sunni-led governments. While Iran’s defiance of the West was a unifying call, its sectarian ambitions undermined Arab unity, fracturing the region along religious lines and intensifying internal conflicts.

As an Arab, I see Iran’s revolution as a double-edged sword. On one hand, it dealt a significant blow to Western influence in the region, especially against the U.S. and Israel, which continue to dominate and exploit the Middle East. On the other hand, Iran’s sectarian policies have created deep divisions within the Arab world, threatening our unity and stability. While we must recognize the revolution's importance in resisting Western hegemony, we must also remain vigilant about the dangers posed by Iran’s ambitions, ensuring that our focus remains on building a unified Arab front rather than succumbing to internal divisions.

The Strategic Miscalculation of Saddam Hussein’s War Against Iran:

From an Arab perspective, Saddam Hussein's decision to invade Iran in 1980 was a profound strategic error, shaped significantly by external manipulation. The U.S. and other Western powers saw the Iran-Iraq War as an opportunity to weaken both nations simultaneously. By supporting Iraq covertly while maintaining a policy of strategic ambiguity, the U.S. aimed to exhaust Iran's revolutionary fervor and diminish its influence, while also ensuring that Iraq did not become a dominant regional power. This external intervention, combined with Saddam’s miscalculations, led to a prolonged and devastating conflict that drained Iraq’s resources and left it vulnerable.

Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran, fueled by a desire to assert regional dominance and counteract the post-revolutionary Iranian threat, ultimately proved to be a flawed strategy. The conflict, marked by brutal trench warfare and substantial casualties, weakened Iraq’s economy and military while causing immense suffering. The U.S. manipulated this situation to its advantage by ensuring that neither side achieved a decisive victory, which led to a protracted stalemate. This strategy effectively drained both nations but left Iraq in a particularly precarious position, setting the stage for further instability in the region.

Iran, despite facing significant international isolation and internal challenges, managed to survive the war and emerge with renewed strength. The conflict galvanized Iranian society and consolidated the regime's power, allowing Iran to adapt and grow more resilient. The war also pushed Iran to develop its own military capabilities and foster proxy networks across the region. This resilience and adaptation contrasted sharply with Iraq's post-war vulnerability, exacerbated by the subsequent Gulf War and international sanctions.

In summary, Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran, driven by misjudged strategic ambitions and external manipulation by the U.S., resulted in significant regional fallout. The prolonged conflict exhausted both nations but left Iraq economically weakened and politically unstable, while Iran emerged with increased resilience and regional influence. The war exemplifies how external powers can exploit regional conflicts to achieve broader strategic goals, often leading to unintended and long-lasting consequences for the nations involved

Iran’s Expansion of Influence Post-1991 Gulf War:

In the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War, Iran skillfully expanded its regional influence as Iraq, its principal rival, was left weakened and isolated. The power vacuum created by Iraq’s diminished state allowed Iran to build strong relationships with Shia militias and political groups across the Middle East. In Lebanon, Iran deepened its ties with Hezbollah, turning it into a significant force in Lebanese politics. In Iraq, Iran strategically aligned with Shia factions and militias, positioning itself as a dominant player in the country’s post-Saddam landscape. This maneuvering allowed Iran to exert considerable influence over regional affairs, capitalizing on Iraq’s downfall.

For the Arab world, the loss of Iraq as a strong counterbalance to Iranian influence represented a significant strategic setback. Iraq’s diminished capacity and influence created a power vacuum that shifted the regional balance, enabling Iran to assert itself more aggressively. The ideal scenario for the Arab states would have been to maintain a strong Iraq as a bulwark against Iranian expansion. However, with this initial ideal no longer achievable, the focus must shift to supporting the next best option: leveraging Iran’s growing power and its role in supporting the axis of resistance.

The U.S. strategy of “dual containment” aimed at neutralizing both Iraq and Iran inadvertently facilitated the rise of Iranian influence. While intended to limit the power of both nations, this approach allowed Iran to exploit the situation and build an extensive network of regional proxies. This network, known as the axis of resistance, became a significant counterbalance to Western and Israeli interests in the region, posing a formidable challenge to their dominance.

In light of these developments, it is crucial for Arab states to adapt to the new reality. While the ideal of a strong Iraq is no longer feasible, supporting a robust Iran that backs the axis of resistance presents a strategic alternative. By aligning with Iran’s resistance axis, the Arab world can still play a role in counterbalancing Israeli influence and advancing regional interests. This pragmatic approach recognizes the shifting dynamics and leverages Iran’s regional power to address the strategic challenges facing the Arab states.

Missed Opportunities: How Arabs Could Have Leveraged Diplomacy with Iran to Counter U.S. and Israeli Influence During the Bush Era?

From 2003 to 2009, during George W. Bush’s administration, Iran successfully expanded its geopolitical influence across the Middle East, capitalizing on the power vacuum created by the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. For Iran, the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime, a long-time regional rival, opened the door for greater influence over Iraq’s Shia majority. Iran's ability to leverage its religious, political, and military networks allowed it to assert control over key parts of Iraq, particularly through its support for Shia militias and political groups. This period marked a significant strengthening of Iran’s position in the region, as it became a dominant player in Iraq, extending its influence into Lebanon, Syria, and even Yemen.

The Bush administration, while initially focusing on eliminating Saddam Hussein and installing a democratic government in Iraq, quickly found itself in a quagmire. The chaos and instability that followed the invasion gave Iran the opportunity to step in and play a central role in shaping post-Saddam Iraq. Washington, in response, adopted a dual approach toward Iran. On one hand, it sought to contain Iran’s growing influence by backing Sunni powers like Saudi Arabia and supporting Israel’s military actions, such as in the 2006 Lebanon War. On the other hand, Bush labeled Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil," intensifying sanctions and diplomatic isolation, particularly in response to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

From an Arab perspective, the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the rise of Iranian influence should have been seen as an opportunity to reshape regional alliances. Instead of passively watching the U.S. empower Iran by dismantling its Iraqi rival, Arab states could have adopted a more strategic approach. By fostering diplomatic ties and cooperation with Iran, Arab leaders could have balanced Iran’s ambitions while leveraging a unified regional stance against Western and Israeli interests. Such cooperation, if carefully managed, could have aligned Arab and Iranian goals in resisting U.S. imperialism and Israeli expansion, while preventing sectarian conflict from destabilizing the region further.

Arab states, instead of deepening sectarian divisions, should have worked towards a regional framework that prioritized Arab-Iranian cooperation. This could have included joint efforts to stabilize Iraq, contain Israeli aggression, and push back against U.S. economic and military dominance. By engaging Iran diplomatically and acknowledging its influence, Arab leaders could have turned the tables on the U.S. and Israel, crafting a unified Middle Eastern front that could better defend the region's sovereignty and resist foreign exploitation. While such a strategy would have required careful diplomacy and balancing of interests, it could have created a more stable and less divided Middle East.

The Obama Era and the Rise of Iran: How the JCPOA Recrafted Regional Power Dynamics and Empowered the Axis of Resistance

Under the Obama administration, the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) allowed Iran to access billions of dollars previously restricted by international sanctions. This economic relief enabled Iran to significantly enhance its military capabilities. With the influx of funds, Iran focused on advancing its ballistic missile program, upgrading conventional military assets, and expanding support for its regional proxies, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and various Shia militias in Iraq and Yemen. These developments allowed Iran to assert itself more aggressively in the Middle East.

The financial resources gained through the JCPOA were instrumental in strengthening Iran’s position and its ability to project power in the region. The increased military capabilities included advanced weaponry and technology that bolstered Iran’s proxies, enhancing their operational effectiveness and enabling them to challenge Israeli and Western interests more effectively. This support extended Iran’s influence and consolidated its strategic position in the Middle East.

For the axis of resistance, Iran’s strengthened military capabilities translate into greater support for allied groups and movements. This enhanced strength allows the axis of resistance to operate more effectively against Israeli and Western adversaries, maintaining a strategic balance in the region. The improved capabilities of Iran and its proxies provide a more robust and coordinated front in conflicts, contributing to a shift in regional power dynamics.

In summary, while the ideal scenario of a strong Iraq as a counterbalance to Iranian influence was lost, the support for Iran’s growing strength and its role in the axis of resistance presents a viable alternative. A stronger Iran, empowered by the JCPOA, reinforces the resistance axis and challenges Israeli dominance and Western hegemony, creating a more balanced and resilient regional power structure.

Impact of the Trump Era on Iran: A Summary for Arab Supporters of the Axis of Resistance

During the Trump presidency, U.S. policy toward Iran took a confrontational turn that significantly impacted the region’s balance of power. Trump’s decision to withdraw from the JCPOA and reimpose harsh economic sanctions on Iran was a major blow. These sanctions not only crippled Iran’s economy but also strained its ability to support its allies and proxies across the Middle East. The resulting economic hardship and increased regional tensions undermined Iran's capacity to act as a counterbalance to Israeli dominance and support the axis of resistance.

The Trump administration's policies also intensified regional conflicts, including the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani, which heightened hostility between the U.S. and Iran. This escalation affected Iran's regional influence and its effectiveness in supporting resistance movements against Israeli and Western interests. Additionally, the U.S. strengthened ties with Iran’s adversaries and facilitated normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab states. These moves further isolated Iran, weakening a crucial supporter of the axis of resistance and diminishing its role in countering Israeli hegemony.

For those who view normalization as a threat to the Palestinian cause, the Trump era highlighted the dangers of weakening Iran’s position. The strategic isolation of Iran and the shifting alliances in the region directly impact the strength and resilience of the axis of resistance, which is vital for challenging Israeli policies and supporting Palestinian aspirations. The normalization process not only undermines Iran but also risks weakening a key pillar in the fight against Israeli dominance, potentially compromising the broader resistance efforts.

In summary, the Trump administration’s aggressive stance towards Iran and its support for normalization with Israel have weakened a crucial player in the resistance against Israeli hegemony. This shift has significant implications for the Palestinian cause, as a weakened Iran impacts the strength and unity of the axis of resistance, further complicating efforts to counterbalance Israeli influence and support regional resistance movements.

conclusion:

In light of the overwhelming challenges the Arab world faces today—ranging from internal instability, economic fragility, and political fragmentation—there is no viable alternative but to realign our strategic interests with Iran. Our nations, plagued by internal divisions, lack the unity or the strength to confront the external forces that have continuously dominated and manipulated the region. The reality is stark: we must acknowledge that, without a cohesive Arab front and with many of our countries embroiled in chaos, our ability to independently resist Western hegemony is severely compromised. Thus, we must turn to alliances with those who share a common goal: the dismantling of the liberal order that has perpetuated our exploitation.

A grand strategy must be formalized that recognizes how the global power dynamics have fundamentally shifted. We are no longer in a unipolar world dominated by the United States and its Western allies. The war in Ukraine and the events of October 7th, coupled with the rise of China as a global power, have demonstrated that the West is no longer unchallenged. We now exist in a multipolar world where nations like Russia, China, Iran, and others in the Global South are forging new paths, resisting the grip of liberal hegemony. The Arab world has a unique opportunity to align with these powers and forge a new future. It is in our interest to be part of this global movement that seeks to end Western dominance, reclaim sovereignty, and redefine the balance of power in the Middle East.

By coordinating with Iran, China, Russia, and others who oppose the same Western forces that have oppressed and divided us, we can drive the United States into a war of attrition. U.S. military and political dominance has been stretched thin for years, and its troops are overextended. The constant engagement in conflicts across the world has exhausted the American war machine. If we, as Arabs, join forces with these emerging powers, we can amplify this overextension, causing the U.S. to suffer from the weight of its own imperial ambitions. The global coalition we envision—one that includes Iran, China, Russia, and the Global South—could deliver a crippling blow to Western hegemony by coordinating efforts to resist economically, politically, and militarily.

This moment in history offers a real and unprecedented chance for the Arab world to shift from a position of weakness to one of influence. The decline of U.S. power, accelerated by its missteps in places like Ukraine and the broader Middle East, and the rise of new global powers present us with an opportunity to act. By aligning ourselves with those who share our desire to be free from the shackles of liberal hegemony, we can break the cycle of exploitation and chart a new course. The time has come for a bold and unapologetic strategy that recognizes the importance of these alliances, especially with Iran, as we move toward a future where the Arab world can once again assert its sovereignty and destiny.